eva4ben-gal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305739464' post='993345'] Logic fail. In your example, the players should be represented by the t-shirts, not the register monkey. Demand of t-shirts goes up, so should the price. You forget that the owners were the ones who were driving the price of the players up with stupid contract offers. Players can't offer themselves stupid deals. The owners have themselves to blame. You just got your ass SERVED. [/quote] The t-shirts are the game of football. Players can come and go and the game still goes on. If all of the current players retired out of protest then the league would fill with lesser players, the product would suffer, but the same teams would still play the game by the same rules and fans would still watch because in the long run it's football they love, not the individual players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305740525' post='993356'] The t-shirts are the game of football. Players can come and go and the game still goes on. If all of the current players retired out of protest then the league would fill with lesser players, the product would suffer, but the same teams would still play the game by the same rules and fans would still watch because in the long run it's football they love, not the individual players. [/quote] That didnt happen when the last strike included replacement players and games were played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305740638' post='993357'] That didnt happen when the last strike included the scabs and games were played. [/quote] Because people knew the "real" players would be back. If the "real" players all turned in their retirement papers I doubt fans would be waiting for them to come back and would just move on, eventually. At least I know I would. I don't root for the name on the jersey, I root for the orange and black no matter who is suiting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeBengal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Owners. The owners have a HUGE financial investment at stake. They ARE allowed to make money. It's just like any other business. The players are playing a fucking game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305740305' post='993354'] Im curious, what do you view as the risks of the owners? [/quote] well lets go back to the Bengals example from the other thread. The Bengals are currently worth around $900 million. That's less than what they've been worth in previous years. They've lost "money" in that sense. Of course, as stated previously, that's not real money. It's just a valuation. How much money do you think Mike Brown actually has to his name? Most of his "worth" is tied into the team. It's not money he actually has at his disposal. In that vein, his margin of error from a financial side is pretty low. Why do you pretend they have no risks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Dey Time Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305740069' post='993350'] Further I dont think the owners have to win for this to not be baseball, please clarify why you do. [/quote] Very simple. The current model allows for sharing of all revenue streams minus premium seating, some merchandising, and sponsorships. As we have seen this allows the Bengals, Stealers*, Titans, etc. of the world to remain financially competetive with the Jets, Giants, Cowboys, and so on. The one drawback to the current CBA was that the players were getting a disproportionate percentage of all revenues and the salary cap increases were tied directly to those percentages. The reason why so many teams were against the CBA was that the salary cap (and floor) was rising faster than the revenue streams. If that continues to happen you will see a separation in teams that can generate more revenues through sponsorships, advertising, premium seating costs, etc. and can use that "extra" revenue to spend to that cap while smaller market teams, like Cincinnati, will not be able to generate enough revenues to spend like their competitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305740525' post='993356'] The t-shirts are the game of football. Players can come and go and the game still goes on. If all of the current players retired out of protest then the league would fill with lesser players, the product would suffer, but the same teams would still play the game by the same rules and fans would still watch because in the long run it's football they love, not the individual players. [/quote] No way, people watch the NFL cause it's the best of the best. If that wasn't the case, the UFL and CFL would be jam packed with fans. Minor league baseball stadiums would be just as full as MLB stadiums. People don't love football just because it's football. Watching dudes do think you could never dream of is why people love football. Watching a bunch of fork lift operators line up at DT for the Bengals is not inspiring and doesn't draw tickets. Well, they might sell one ticket if one of them was real fat and could do a backflip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305740774' post='993358'] Because people knew the "real" players would be back. If the "real" players all turned in their retirement papers I doubt fans would be waiting for them to come back and would just move on, eventually. [/quote] Sure but its not as if both sides didnt suffer as a result of the strike either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote]The Packers earn much less than they did four years ago. Their operating profit fell 71 percent from $34.2 million in the year ended March 31, 2007 (which coincides with the start of the current collective-bargaining agreement), to $9.8 million in the year ended last March 31. Revenue rose 18 percent in that period to $257.9 million. The primary reason for the sharply reduced profit was player costs (salaries and benefits), which swelled in those years to $160.8 million from $110.7 million.[/quote] [quote]“The average team has debt service of about $20 million a year,” Murphy said.[/quote] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/sports/football/28packers.html So (for the packers) under the most recent CBA deal revenue rose 18%, but player salaries and benefits rose 45%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305740852' post='993362'] No way, people watch the NFL cause it's the best of the best. If that wasn't the case, the UFL and CFL would be jam packed with fans. Minor league baseball stadiums would be just as full as MLB stadiums. People don't love football just because it's football. Watching dudes do think you could never dream of is why people love football. Watching a bunch of fork lift operators line up at DT for the Bengals is not inspiring and doesn't draw tickets. Well, they might sell one ticket if one of them was real fat and could do a backflip [/quote] People watch the NFL because it has been around the longest and has the brand recognition. If the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys and Bears suddenly switched to the CFL their fans would follow. And I would argue that percentage-wise minor league parks are just as full as major league parks. Go to a minor league game, they are fun as hell and the games are good and the prices are cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 I don't have a problem with the players wanting to keep their share of the "pie". It is because of them the NFL makes money to begin with. And I agree that an 18 game season isn't a good idea. But.... I disagree with a lot of the other things they want. I like having some restrictions on free agency. I absolutely think their should be a rookie salary structure and there absolutely needs to be a draft and salary cap. With no draft and no cap the NFL would quickly become very uncompetitive. And the Bengals would be even more irrelevant than they were in the 1990s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305740819' post='993360'] well lets go back to the Bengals example from the other thread. The Bengals are currently worth around $900 million. That's less than what they've been worth in previous years. They've lost "money" in that sense. Of course, as stated previously, that's not real money. It's just a valuation. How much money do you think Mike Brown actually has to his name? Most of his "worth" is tied into the team. It's not money he actually has at his disposal. In that vein, his margin of error from a financial side is pretty low. Why do you pretend they have no risks? [/quote] Because on a whole the league is not losing money and the way the league is run with revenue sharing makes looking at it on a team by team basis useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305741192' post='993366'] People watch the NFL because it has been around the longest and has the brand recognition. If the Packers, Steelers, Cowboys and Bears suddenly switched to the CFL their fans would follow. [/quote] Wait, so when the Oilers changed their name to the Titans, the fans lost interested because the brand changed? I don't remember that. It seems fans loved McNair, Eddie George, Thigpen.... etc. If the entire Patriots roster joined the Las Vegas Locos, you don't think they would immediately sell out every seat? How would Bengals fan react if the entire Saskatchewan Roughriders roster was traded for the Bengals roster? Roughriders fans would be happy, Bengals fans would be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Who Dey Time' timestamp='1305740823' post='993361'] Very simple. The current model allows for sharing of all revenue streams minus premium seating, some merchandising, and sponsorships. As we have seen this allows the Bengals, Stealers*, Titans, etc. of the world to remain financially competetive with the Jets, Giants, Cowboys, and so on. The one drawback to the current CBA was that the players were getting a disproportionate percentage of all revenues and the salary cap increases were tied directly to those percentages. The reason why so many teams were against the CBA was that the salary cap (and floor) was rising faster than the revenue streams. If that continues to happen you will see a separation in teams that can generate more revenues through sponsorships, advertising, premium seating costs, etc. and can use that "extra" revenue to spend to that cap while smaller market teams, like Cincinnati, will not be able to generate enough revenues to spend like their competitors. [/quote] But isnt that an argument for [b]completely[/b] sharing revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741289' post='993368'] Because on a whole the league is not losing money and the way the league is run with revenue sharing makes looking at it on a team by team basis useless. [/quote] But the system the players want would basically run the Bengals out of business because it would eliminate profit sharing among owners and would eliminate the salary cap so maybe you should be careful what you wish for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741289' post='993368'] Because on a whole the league is not losing money and the way the league is run with revenue sharing makes looking at it on a team by team basis useless. [/quote] its about stopping a trend. Again, go back to the packers as an example. Their operating profit has dropped 71% since the 2006 CBA deal was put in place. That's a trend that has to stop, which is why there's a lockout. Player salaries and benefits continue to rise at a far greater pace than the rise in revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305740852' post='993362'] No way, people watch the NFL cause it's the best of the best. If that wasn't the case, the UFL and CFL would be jam packed with fans. Minor league baseball stadiums would be just as full as MLB stadiums. People don't love football just because it's football. Watching dudes do think you could never dream of is why people love football. Watching a bunch of fork lift operators line up at DT for the Bengals is not inspiring and doesn't draw tickets. [color="#FF0000"] Well, they might sell one ticket if one of them was real fat and could do a backflip [/color] [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305741190' post='993365'] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/sports/football/28packers.html So (for the packers) under the most recent CBA deal revenue rose 18%, but player salaries and benefits rose 45%. [/quote] And if the league on a whole isnt losing money isnt that a argument for better revenue sharing amongst teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305741433' post='993371'] But the system the players want would basically run the Bengals out of business because it would eliminate profit sharing among owners and would eliminate the salary cap so maybe you should be careful what you wish for. [/quote] I dont think anyone really believes thats what they want, I think thats an extreme stance for the purpose of pulling the owners to a better "middle number". Said it before in the other thread, I think you could get a deal done tomorrow if the owners completely opened their books today (even if they only opened them to an arbiter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eva4ben-gal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305741426' post='993369'] Wait, so when the Oilers changed their name to the Titans, the fans lost interested because the brand changed? I don't remember that. It seems fans loved McNair, Eddie George, Thigpen.... etc. If the entire Patriots roster joined the Las Vegas Locos, you don't think they would immediately sell out every seat? How would Bengals fan react if the entire Saskatchewan Roughriders roster was traded for the Bengals roster? Roughriders fans would be happy, Bengals fans would be pissed. [/quote] Oilers fans did lose interest yes. And the people of Tennessee were happy to have their "own" team and not just be the new Oilers. The Locos would sell out if they got all of the Patriots but not to Patriots fans. It would be Locos fans that wanted to jump on the bandwagon before the team won the title. Only rappers buy jerseys of teams they don't root for just to get a big name on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741644' post='993374'] And if the league on a whole isnt losing money isnt that a argument for better revenue sharing amongst teams? [/quote] the issue is as much about "are they losing money now" as "are they going to be losing money in 3 years". Over the last 4 years player salaries have continued to rise exponentially, and profits have continued to slide (if the Packers are to be used as a model). That's a BIG problem for the sport as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Dey Time Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741428' post='993370'] But isnt that an argument for [b]completely[/b] sharing revenue? [/quote] You can argue that and I might agree with you to a point but it still doesn't address the issue of labor costs (players) rising at a far faster rate than revenues which is the big issue in this negotiation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Neither/Both would be my choice if the poll had it. Since it doesn't, I didn't vote. At the moment, I give a slight tip of the hat to ownership for at least putting back to back proposals together for the players to consider. I'd feel a lot better if the players would make a counter offer. Until they do, it's hard to for me to see them as being a part of the solution. Yes, I'm sure the players don't see the proposals as being nearly as fair as the owners, but that's step one of the bargaining process. Make a counter offer and get to work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741644' post='993374'] And if the league on a whole isnt losing money isnt that a argument for better revenue sharing amongst teams? [/quote] plus, revenue sharing makes sense to a point. You seem to want to use it as a crutch. Revenue sharing should exist to keep a competitive balance in the league. It should NOT exist to compensate for out of control player salaries and benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted May 18, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305741890' post='993377'] the issue is as much about "are they losing money now" as "are they going to be losing money in 3 years". Over the last 4 years player salaries have continued to rise exponentially, and profits have continued to slide (if the Packers are to be used as a model). That's a BIG problem for the sport as a whole. [/quote] Which is why you look at it from a percentage level and not a dollar amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.