**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!**

[PhinBeck]

My own example was saying that if you let costs determine your price point, you are being stupid... and the owners aren't stupid.

costs only yes, then at best all you do is break even. but you start with costs, figure at what is the lowest price you can charge and not lose money, this is base pricing. Then you add your profit margin based on the market. If you simply look at market and in the cigar example, based on your competitors determine that you can only sell your cigars for ten bucks, but you costs are 10 bucks, do you do it? What if based on the markeet you could only get $8 per cigar but cost is 10, do you do it then? Do you do it if you make 1 dollar profit on each? Depends on the likelihood of increasing our market or cutting yyour costs down.

 

[nick1]

Really?? How are my kids?? :D

none yet, Jessica wants to wait a few years

 

[newlownorder]

Figured it was time to start a new thread.

Is that cool??

That's coo' like a swimmin' pool.

If and that a big IF they get the CBA extension done, expect the dolphins to go after Drew Brees right away.

 

[ZolarZ_GoPhins]

All of this comparison to baseball and not having a salary cap is crap. The players would not be in a better situation. The problem comparing MLB and NBA to football is that football has alot more players. This large number combined with the faster decline in play from age and injuries than other sports lends to less huge contracts then MLB or NBA.

The league would be better off to raise the Vet. Min. contract numbers up if they really had the best intrest of all it's players. The players are just as greedy as the owners they top players want to get paid. When the Vet. Min goes up the top paid players money goes down.

Just a quick comparison to MLB
Teams - MLB 30 - NFL 32
Roster - MLB 40 - NFL 53

Another note as well to thinking that no salary cap means all the players make more money. Look at the numbers for Payroll in MLB.

2005 MLB Team Payrolls​

Based Upon 2005 Season as of April 7, 2005
RankTeamTotal Payroll
1New York Yankees$208,306,817 <> 2Boston Red Sox$123,505,125
3New York Mets$101,305,821 <> 4Los Angeles Angels$97,725,322
5Philadelphia Phillies$95,522,000 <> 6St. Louis Cardinals$92,106,833
7San Francisco Giants$90,199,500 <> 8Seattle Mariners$87,754,334
9Chicago Cubs$87,032,933 <> 10Atlanta Braves$86,457,302
11Los Angeles Dodgers$83,039,000 <> 12Houston Astros$76,779,000
13Chicago White Sox$75,178,000 <> 14Baltimore Orioles$73,914,333
15Detroit Tigers$69,092,000 <> 16San Diego Padres$63,290,833
17Arizona Diamondbacks$62,329,166 <> 18Cincinnati Reds$61,892,583
19Florida Marlins$60,408,834 <> 20Minnesota Twins$56,186,000
21Texas Rangers$55,849,000 <> 22Oakland Athletics$55,425,762
23Washington Nationals$48,581,500 <> 24Colorado Rockies$48,155,000
25Toronto Blue Jays$45,719,500 <> 26Cleveland Indians$41,502,500
27Milwaukee Brewers$39,934,833 <> 28Pittsburgh Pirates$38,133,000
29Kansas City Royals$36,881,000 <> 30Tampa Bay Devil Rays$29,363,067
This is from last year, but you can clearly see that if baseball had a similar cap number from NFL that only 7 teams would be in that range. The nature of the sport of football will always keep top players from getting the money MLB and NBA players get. The overall money though is more, and I think that making sure all players are taken care of with salary and benefits is the best plan. I will not lose sleep over any top player in the NFL not getting his 50mil contract. The real hypocracy is when that guy gets his ACL tore in his 2nd year and is out of the NFL, he gets no compensation.

No Salary cap is a bad thing. I see alot of people laughed about the idea that not having a salary cap would acutally lower the NFL payroll. I would bet overall that it would lower. You will have 7-10 teams overpay, and the rest underpay and try to just stay competive and make a better profit. Also I haven't read is if the Vet Min. contracts would remain where they are in an uncapped year. If that isn't maintained in the 2007 uncapped year then there would be even greater loss of money for alot of players.

 

[Finland]

My fat kid comment was right.

I think the fat kid is kicking it on purpose. Saying, "oh look how scared I am you told me to pick up the ball...see how concerned I am", in a Jerry Jones voice. Personally, I don't think the poor teams or player should get any more of Jerry's money. A team like the Dallas Cowboys owes these people nothing, conversely they helped build the NFL.

 

[Mindwarp]

ok i just got a instant message from someone watching TV saying the following

Breaking news on ESPN.....NFL agrees to players latest proposal on CBA....Not on website yet...Saw it on TV.

can anyone else confrim this?

 

[nick1]

ok i just got a instant message from someone watching TV saying the following



can anyone else confrim this?

I doubt it, the owners are going to vote on the latest offer tommorrow or at least thats what I've read

 

[greatwade]

Yes but there are also 162 games from which revenue is generated to pay these salaries vs 16 in the NFL. look at it from a per game perspeective.

or per # of players in said leagues

 

[LarryFinFan]

ok i just got a instant message from someone watching TV saying the following



can anyone else confrim this?

What ESPN is saying is that Tags will take the latest NFLPA proposal (which is supposedly the last from the union) for a vote amongst the owners on Tuesday...Mort also went on to say that it could take more than one day.

That is the latest any of us have heard that I am aware of...

 

[greatwade]

All of this comparison to baseball and not having a salary cap is crap. The players would not be in a better situation. The problem comparing MLB and NBA to football is that football has alot more players. This large number combined with the faster decline in play from age and injuries than other sports lends to less huge contracts then MLB or NBA.

The league would be better off to raise the Vet. Min. contract numbers up if they really had the best intrest of all it's players. The players are just as greedy as the owners they top players want to get paid. When the Vet. Min goes up the top paid players money goes down.

Just a quick comparison to MLB
Teams - MLB 30 - NFL 32
Roster - MLB 40 - NFL 53

Another note as well to thinking that no salary cap means all the players make more money. Look at the numbers for Payroll in MLB.

2005 MLB Team Payrolls​

Based Upon 2005 Season as of April 7, 2005
RankTeamTotal Payroll
1New York Yankees$208,306,817 <> 2Boston Red Sox$123,505,125
3New York Mets$101,305,821 <> 4Los Angeles Angels$97,725,322
5Philadelphia Phillies$95,522,000 <> 6St. Louis Cardinals$92,106,833
7San Francisco Giants$90,199,500 <> 8Seattle Mariners$87,754,334
9Chicago Cubs$87,032,933 <> 10Atlanta Braves$86,457,302
11Los Angeles Dodgers$83,039,000 <> 12Houston Astros$76,779,000
13Chicago White Sox$75,178,000 <> 14Baltimore Orioles$73,914,333
15Detroit Tigers$69,092,000 <> 16San Diego Padres$63,290,833
17Arizona Diamondbacks$62,329,166 <> 18Cincinnati Reds$61,892,583
19Florida Marlins$60,408,834 <> 20Minnesota Twins$56,186,000
21Texas Rangers$55,849,000 <> 22Oakland Athletics$55,425,762
23Washington Nationals$48,581,500 <> 24Colorado Rockies$48,155,000
25Toronto Blue Jays$45,719,500 <> 26Cleveland Indians$41,502,500
27Milwaukee Brewers$39,934,833 <> 28Pittsburgh Pirates$38,133,000
29Kansas City Royals$36,881,000 <> 30Tampa Bay Devil Rays$29,363,067
This is from last year, but you can clearly see that if baseball had a similar cap number from NFL that only 7 teams would be in that range. The nature of the sport of football will always keep top players from getting the money MLB and NBA players get. The overall money though is more, and I think that making sure all players are taken care of with salary and benefits is the best plan. I will not lose sleep over any top player in the NFL not getting his 50mil contract. The real hypocracy is when that guy gets his ACL tore in his 2nd year and is out of the NFL, he gets no compensation.

No Salary cap is a bad thing. I see alot of people laughed about the idea that not having a salary cap would acutally lower the NFL payroll. I would bet overall that it would lower. You will have 7-10 teams overpay, and the rest underpay and try to just stay competive and make a better profit. Also I haven't read is if the Vet Min. contracts would remain where they are in an uncapped year. If that isn't maintained in the 2007 uncapped year then there would be even greater loss of money for alot of players.

shrewd comments. +1

 

[BigDogsHunt]

What ESPN is saying is that Tags will take the latest NFLPA proposal (which is supposedly the last from the union) for a vote amongst the owners on Tuesday...Mort also went on to say that it could take more than one day.

That is the latest any of us have heard that I am aware of...

ESPN scroll says Tag has agreed in principal to NFLPA latest offer (which means verbally) and will take that offer to the NFL owners Tuesday. No comments on exactly what the latest offer is by NFLPA but atleast it interested Tag enough to agree to it and say he will try to get it fully approved by the owners.

Fingers crossed.

 

[MiamiMan147]

My prediction: all 32 NFL owners wake up Tuesday mornings with severed horse heads in their bed. Labor agreement passes unanimously.

 

[Finland]

My prediction: all 32 NFL owners wake up Tuesday mornings with severed horse heads in their bed. Labor agreement passes unanimously.

I think not. No way the rich teams do what the poor ones say, nor should they. The poor teams are the devil. If you don't want the team sell it.

 

[nopony]

costs only yes, then at best all you do is break even. but you start with costs, figure at what is the lowest price you can charge and not lose money, this is base pricing. Then you add your profit margin based on the market. If you simply look at market and in the cigar example, based on your competitors determine that you can only sell your cigars for ten bucks, but you costs are 10 bucks, do you do it? What if based on the markeet you could only get $8 per cigar but cost is 10, do you do it then? Do you do it if you make 1 dollar profit on each? Depends on the likelihood of increasing our market or cutting yyour costs down.

Once more, every example you have given is about costs being greater than or equal to price... that is NOT costs defining price, that is costs determining a business is unviable.

You sell your product for what makes you the most money. Period.

If that price is less than your cost, you just don't have a business, has nothing to do with cost setting price.

Let me explain this to you:

If you will make the most profit by selling product X for one hunderd dollars per widgit... if that is your maximum profitable price point... then it DOES NOT MATTER what your cost is TO THE PRICE POINT. It matters to your business, sure... but not to the price.

Because if your cost per widget is 110, raising the price won't help because your maximum profit was at 100.... any more or less and you are losing money! What your cost is is completely irrelevant to the price point.

 

[HysterikiLL]

Once more, every example you have given is about costs being greater than or equal to price... that is NOT costs defining price, that is costs determining a business is unviable.

You sell your product for what makes you the most money. Period.

If that price is less than your cost, you just don't have a business, has nothing to do with cost setting price.

Let me explain this to you:

If you will make the most profit by selling product X for one hunderd dollars per widgit... if that is your maximum profitable price point... then it DOES NOT MATTER what your cost is TO THE PRICE POINT. It matters to your business, sure... but not to the price.

Because if your cost per widget is 110, raising the price won't help because your maximum profit was at 100.... any more or less and you are losing money! What your cost is is completely irrelevant to the price point.

I dare you to make a post that isn't a stark argument picking someone's post apart completely :wink: