owners voted unanimously to break off talks...

[rafael]

That, I believe, is a widely held false assumption.

For the most part ticket prices and all other prices are set by what people will pay. Nothing to do with costs. You think anyone is going to charge less if they can fill up their stadiums charging more?

Sports prices are set by demand, not costs.

But if prices are capped and costs aren't, at some point the billionaires put their money somewhere else. The players are easily replaced. It's much harder to find billionaire owners.

 

[nopony]

But if prices are capped and costs aren't, at some point the billionaires put their money somewhere else. The players are easily replaced. It's much harder to find billionaire owners.

Oh, the opposite is true.

Exceptional football players... and near every single player in the NFL IS exceptional, are exceedingly rare.

Owners you can find anywhere, baseball has to fight them off with sticks.

 

[rafael]

Exactly.

I can't believe how many people here complain about arguments between millionaires and billionaires... and then take the side of the billionaires.

The owners have the cushiest ride in sports. If their greed blows that, well, good luck to them, they'll need it.

Just look at baseball if you want to see what will happen.


And I am still unconvinced that this is all about the 56-60%. I think the owners still haven't worked out their internal deal and are throwing it back on the players so as not to look like the idiots they're acting like.

Don't forget the players wanted to start these talks months ago, but the owners refused to start talks until, what, last week?

I can't believe how many people pretend to know how much it costs to run a franchise. Can anybody here tell me why 60% is fair and 56% isn't? If people don't know that answer how can they claim that one side or the other is being greedy?

 

[rafael]

Oh, the opposite is true.

Exceptional football players... and near every single player in the NFL IS exceptional, are exceedingly rare.

Owners you can find anywhere, baseball has to fight them off with sticks.

That's not even close to true. There are thousands of potential players produced every year more than willing to replace the 1500 in the NFL. There aren't that many billionaires who can foot the bill for a franchise.

 

[nopony]

I can't believe how many people pretend to know how much it costs to run a franchise. Can anybody here tell me why 60% is fair and 56% isn't? If people don't know that answer how can they claim that one side or the other is being greedy?

Very simple. The players, unique to professional sports, have agreed to a CBA that limits how much they can make. AND doesn't guarantee their contracts.

The NFL franchises are rolling in money, the profit margins skyrocket as the cap barely creeps forward.

No franchise is losing money, none are decreasing in value. They are rolling in money.

Besides, it's a %. If the NFL makes less, the players make less. It's not like the owners have to pay a set amount even if they are losing money.

Look at any other sport and you will see how reasonable the NFLPA is being.

 

[greatwade]

Oh, the opposite is true.

Exceptional football players... and near every single player in the NFL IS exceptional, are exceedingly rare.

Owners you can find anywhere, baseball has to fight them off with sticks.

Just b/c 5 groups want to buy the Washington Nationals, and undercapitalized groups are always making a push for the Marlins, etc, doesn't mean that baseball is fighting off billionaires with a stick.

Saying that pro quality football players are less plentiful than individuals (groups rarely if ever work as owners of NFL franchises) is silly. But lets lets not do our routine again, nopony. Lets just agree I'm a shill for the HWH, and you for Rosenhaus. :sidelol:

 

[nopony]

Just b/c 5 groups want to buy the Washington Nationals, and undercapitalized groups are always making a push for the Marlins, etc, doesn't mean that baseball is fighting off billionaires with a stick.

Saying that pro quality football players are less plentiful than individuals (groups rarely if ever work as owners of NFL franchises) is silly. But lets lets not do our routine again, nopony. Lets just agree I'm a shill for the HWH, and you for Rosenhaus. :sidelol:

Rosenhaus? Where did he come from?

Oh, can I have Wayne and Tagliabue's email addresses? :D

 

[greatwade]

The NFL franchises are rolling in money, the profit margins skyrocket as the cap barely creeps forward.

false, 10-15% is barely to you?

No franchise is losing money, none are decreasing in value. They are rolling in money.

Besides, it's a %. If the NFL makes less, the players make less. It's not like the owners have to pay a set amount even if they are losing money. [/quote]
you know it is % of revenues, not net, dontcha? Accountant in the house :tongue:

 

[greatwade]

Rosenhaus? Where did he come from?

Oh, can I have Wayne and Tagliabue's email addresses? :D

I can give you Wayne's phone # if you'd like. And my contacts at Covington & Burling email addresses. You promise not to get me in trouble??:wink:

 

[rafael]

Very simple. The players, unique to professional sports, have agreed to a CBA that limits how much they can make. AND doesn't guarantee their contracts.

The NFL franchises are rolling in money, the profit margins skyrocket as the cap barely creeps forward.

No franchise is losing money, none are decreasing in value. They are rolling in money.

Besides, it's a %. If the NFL makes less, the players make less. It's not like the owners have to pay a set amount even if they are losing money.

Look at any other sport and you will see how reasonable the NFLPA is being.

If a player signs a contract and the team doesn't make as much money that year the team is stuck. The player doesn't take less that year b/c the team made less.

And as far as looking at any other sport, I wouldn't want the NFL to emulate any of them. The NFL has been more successful b/c it is better run. Why would they want to model their plans by the guidance of less successful organizations?

 

[nopony]

false, 10-15% is barely to you?

No franchise is losing money, none are decreasing in value. They are rolling in money.

Besides, it's a %. If the NFL makes less, the players make less. It's not like the owners have to pay a set amount even if they are losing money.

you know it is % of revenues, not net, dontcha? Accountant in the house :tongue:[/quote]

10-15% is from what year?

Of course it's from revenues. What difference does that make. If revenue goes down, players salaries will go down.

But here's the thing... it never goes down. The franchis value of teams skyrockets and the money from merchandising and tv, etc. just balloons.

 

[nopony]

And as far as looking at any other sport, I wouldn't want the NFL to emulate any of them. The NFL has been more successful b/c it is better run. Why would they want to model their plans by the guidance of less successful organizations?

Exactly!

Don't let their greed turn the NFL into the MLB. The owners have it MADE, now. Don't blow it.

 

[rafael]

you know it is % of revenues, not net, dontcha? Accountant in the house :tongue:

10-15% is from what year?

Of course it's from revenues. What difference does that make. If revenue goes down, players salaries will go down.

But here's the thing... it never goes down. The franchis value of teams skyrockets and the money from merchandising and tv, etc. just balloons.[/QUOTE]

If you don't understand the difference between revenue and net then you shouldn't even be in this discussion. And franchise value going up doesn't actually produce any revenue until you sell.

 

[greatwade]

you know it is % of revenues, not net, dontcha? Accountant in the house :tongue:
10-15% is from what year?

Of course it's from revenues. What difference does that make. If revenue goes down, players salaries will go down.

But here's the thing... it never goes down. The franchis value of teams skyrockets and the money from merchandising and tv, etc. just balloons.

Every year, on average the cap his risen near 10%

The difference that makes is, revenues can rise, but costs can rise by more. The players cap, and thus salaries would rise, but the teams net would fall. If we are gonna start getting all technical, I might as well GBTW on these tax returns. :refuse:

 

[Geauxfins]

Exactly.

I can't believe how many people here complain about arguments between millionaires and billionaires... and then take the side of the billionaires.

The owners have the cushiest ride in sports. If their greed blows that, well, good luck to them, they'll need it.

Just look at baseball if you want to see what will happen.


And I am still unconvinced that this is all about the 56-60%. I think the owners still haven't worked out their internal deal and are throwing it back on the players so as not to look like the idiots they're acting like.

Don't forget the players wanted to start these talks months ago, but the owners refused to start talks until, what, last week?

they have those jobs because they have the money....that is why the have the cushiest ride in sports, is because they made money. Because they are smart. Because the work hard, because they don't play games for a living.....the union is screwing the players (see Sam Madison, Drew Bree's, etc, etc, etc). That is the problem.