Tigris Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305743482' post='993402'] [b]Nobody loves an inferior product, if they did we wouldnt have been so angry about the 90s Bengals and demanded better from Mike Brown.[/b] I dont disagree with that, but that's why you need the impartial party. [/quote] Of course they don't. Everyone wants to win. Whether they win with Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf, who gives a shit? As long as they win. You don't run around and shout out James Brooks or Ickey Woods' names anymore, right? Those players are out and gone. It's about what the team has now. 10 years from now Chad, Carson, and most the guys currently on the squad will be an afterthought. We'll be rooting for new players because they play for our team. The team will more than likely always exist (or change locations). The players are a variable in the grand scheme of things, but they're always a variable that can be replaced. I would still watch every Bengal game next year if we had all college free agents starting. 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='Tigris' timestamp='1305746217' post='993422'] Of course they don't. Everyone wants to win. Whether they win with Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf, who gives a shit? As long as they win. You don't run around and shout out James Brooks or Ickey Woods' names anymore, right? Those players are out and gone. It's about what the team has now. 10 years from now Chad, Carson, and most the guys currently on the squad will be an afterthought. We'll be rooting for new players because they play for our team. The team will more than likely always exist (or change locations). The players are a variable in the grand scheme of things, but they're always a variable that can be replaced. I would still watch every Bengal game next year if we had all college free agents starting. [/quote] But if the every player in this entire league left and every city that currently has an NFL team got to have a team from another league with the same players on it, which team would you follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted May 18, 2011 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] How do you know these as facts without seeing the owners books? ...or do you just take their word(a business man's word whose sole desire is to make money) for it? yeah.... people never lie to make more money. What are the owners hiding? You really have to be a complete idiot not to make money in the current NFL. [b]Revenue sharing[/b]...if your team sucks and you can't sell out our stadium you still get paid. [b]Stadiums[/b].. when you want a new one... threaten to leave and most times the tax payers will build one...pay for it... then pay for the upkeep. Sounds like double dipping and we as taxpayers gladly do it. If you don't build the stadium another city will gladly take your team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Who put their own money up and potentially stands to lose it? In the beginning, someone had to actually lay money down to start something. Who is the entrepreneur? It isn't a partnership in that the players have no out of pocket financial interest that they'd stand to lose. I also agree that saying you need more off the top and then not supporting the argument is a bit sketchy. I'm not siding with either party because I just want whatever deal gets it done, keeps a salary cap in place, keeps revenue sharing in place so all teams are competing in an athletic event on an even playing field. Whatever needs to get that done, I'm in favor of. 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='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305747304' post='993426'] Who put their own money up and potentially stands to lose it? In the beginning, someone had to actually lay money down to start something. Who is the entrepreneur? It isn't a partnership in that the players have no out of pocket financial interest that they'd stand to lose. [color="#FF0000"]I also agree that saying you need more off the top and then not supporting the argument is a bit sketchy.[/color] I'm not siding with either party because I just want whatever deal gets it done, keeps a salary cap in place, keeps revenue sharing in place so all teams are competing in an athletic event on an even playing field. Whatever needs to get that done, I'm in favor of. [/quote] That's my biggest problem in all this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305747304' post='993426'] Who put their own money up and potentially stand to lose it? It isn't a partnership in that the players have no out of pocket financial interest that they'd stand to lose. I also agree that saying you need more off the top and then not supporting the argument is a bit sketchy. I'm not siding with either party because I just want whatever deal gets it done, keeps a salary cap in place, keeps revenue sharing in place so all teams are competing in an athletic event on an even playing field. Whatever needs to get that done, I'm in favor of. [/quote] Those players also put their bodies at great risk to permanent injury. Their careers most times span short windows for making money and most times their quality of life is compromised after they are done. They have to maximize their income in the short window they have to work while sacrificing the length and quality of their lives. Are they playing a game? Yes....but they are playing a game that is a business and makes a lot of people a lot of money. Since when did it become a crime to love your job? When did it become a crime to use your god given talent to make money? This is not an attack on you Vol.. you saying the owners put up risk sparked me to make sure people realize the players have a lot of risk as well.... Get hurt and not be able to perform to a certain level and you are cast aside like a dirty rag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigris Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305743969' post='993406'] And that's exactly why the players cant just up and leave. The other leagues dont bring in the same revenue. Thus if they left they might get more control over their contracts in a different league because they have the superior talent but they would lose money. The question would then be would you follow the superior product thus taking money away from the NFL and putting it into the other league which would over time increase the revenue of the other league to the level of the NFL today. The question comes to this. If there was another league with 32 teams in the same cities but the other league now had all the current NFL players, which league would you follow? I dont follow the Cincinnati Bengals. I follow the Bengals because they are in Cincinnati. [/quote] I'd follow the Bengals, regardless of who they have. Send all the Bengals to Pittsburgh - I know you aren't rooting for them... or at least I hope. If they migrated to Columbus, I would definitely still follow them. I'm not from Cincinnati and I really have no connection to the city. I just like the team for some reason. Anyway, that little tidbit about my fanhood means nothing... [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305744133' post='993408'] Which happens all the time in FA. Were talking about the league on a whole though. [/quote] The only thing that differs from team to team is the city, the facilities, and the overall amount compensated for your services. Your health benefits are all the same - it's by the league as a whole. Again, if you don't feel like you're being paid fairly or treated fairly, go take less money and play in a different league and lose everything else that comes with playing in the NFL. If you want your 250,000+ salary, stay with the football powerhouse and deal with it. As much as it would hurt my personal entertainment, seeing a stop in football would be interesting to see what some of these dudes would do instead of play a game. [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305746163' post='993421'] Right but again there is no other T-Shirt shop here and the government is essentially saying that your shop gets an exemption to the rules of capitalism because of it, so why shouldn't you have to give up something like the right of your employees to see your books because of it? [/quote] Because the business was personally started. Now, if the government (IRS) came in and asked for the books, well, I don't really have a choice. If I owned this t-shirt company, I would never show a dime to anyone, ever, because it's not their business. It's something I started and worked my tail off for and I should be able to do with it what I want. I would NEVER open my books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkywestside Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Owners. And for me it's not even remotely close. 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='Tigris' timestamp='1305748249' post='993429'] I'd follow the Bengals, regardless of who they have. Send all the Bengals to Pittsburgh - I know you aren't rooting for them... or at least I hope. If they migrated to Columbus, I would definitely still follow them. I'm not from Cincinnati and I really have no connection to the city. I just like the team for some reason. Anyway, that little tidbit about my fanhood means nothing... [/quote] So your saying if every player left for lets say the UFL and the UFL had a team in every city with the same players from those teams in the same city, you'd follow the NFL's inferior product? I'm going to go ahead and call bullshit on that. [quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305748249' post='993429'] The only thing that differs from team to team is the city, the facilities, and the overall amount compensated for your services. Your health benefits are all the same - it's by the league as a whole. Again, if you don't feel like you're being paid fairly or treated fairly, go take less money and play in a different league and lose everything else that comes with playing in the NFL. If you want your 250,000+ salary, stay with the football powerhouse and deal with it. As much as it would hurt my personal entertainment, seeing a stop in football would be interesting to see what some of these dudes would do instead of play a game. [/quote] Except there is no other league, not a viable one anyway, it's why the NFL gets an anti-trust exemption, if there was a viable league to compete with it they wouldnt. [quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305748249' post='993429'] Because the business was personally started. Now, if the government (IRS) came in and asked for the books, well, I don't really have a choice. If I owned this t-shirt company, I would never show a dime to anyone, ever, because it's not their business. It's something I started and worked my tail off for and I should be able to do with it what I want. I would NEVER open my books. [/quote] And if the actual shop you sell your T-Shirts in is subsidized by the taxpayer? How much are you really fronting then? Would that then mean that the taxpayers have a right to that info as they payed for your actual shop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Neither side/Both In a situation like this, there is never an "innocent" party. They're both guilty. They both want more than they deserve if everything is to be considered. It's idiotic to say you side with either players or owners as we don't know what the full offers are/were and there's a great chance we never will. But keep arguing away.... It's quite entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1305750621' post='993434'] Neither side/Both In a situation like this, there is never an "innocent" party. They're both guilty. They both want more than they deserve if everything is to be considered. It's idiotic to say you side with either players or owners as we don't know what the full offers are/were and there's a great chance we never will. But keep arguing away.... It's quite entertaining. [/quote] I gave you a +1, but I disagree with the last part. I've grown tired of the argument. I only came back to the thread to see your take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='mongo' timestamp='1305751504' post='993436'] I gave you a +1, but I disagree with the last part. I've grown tired of the argument. I only came back to the thread to see your take. [/quote] To be honest, I too am tired of the arguing. What's the point really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='IKOTA' timestamp='1305751797' post='993439'] To be honest, I too am tired of the arguing. [b]What's the point really?[/b] [/quote] Increase e-peen size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldcat Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='mongo' timestamp='1305751504' post='993436'] I gave you a +1, but I disagree with the last part. I've grown tired of the argument. I only came back to the thread to see your take. [/quote] I don't back either side strongly - both are short sighted and messing with the fans. The owners did some stupid things before and need to walk some things back now that revenues really are dropping. The players have some right to want change, but for some reason they support the absurd rookie contracts that take money and playing time away from these long term players they are supposed to care about. Also they shaft the retired vets on the back end. Both sides need to realize they have a common interest in keeping the game alive rather than trying to score debating points. Baseball lost a lot of clout by screwing around like this. It could happen to the NFL too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkywestside Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305742501' post='993389'] I completely disagree with this. In a collective bargaining situation ownership and unions should have the right to completely see all the finical information. [/quote] Not when that said enterprise is a privately ran intstitution. While I realize that collective bargaining exists within the private sector, I don't believe it gives them "rights" to see anything financial. The market will dictate what they will be paid and nothing more or less. The players are going to lose this one. The association has the wrong man in charge. DeMaurice Smith is milking this shit bigtime. Won't be long though, players won't play this game of shenanigans much longer.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mongo Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Oldcat' timestamp='1305751967' post='993441'] I don't back either side strongly - both are short sighted and messing with the fans. The owners did some stupid things before and need to walk some things back now that revenues really are dropping. The players have some right to want change, but for some reason they support the absurd rookie contracts that take money and playing time away from these long term players they are supposed to care about. Also they shaft the retired vets on the back end. Both sides need to realize they have a common interest in keeping the game alive rather than trying to score debating points. [b]Baseball lost a lot of clout by screwing around like this. It could happen to the NFL too[/b]. [/quote] And with the Reds winning, I'm actually learning a lot more about baseball these days. No joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|kennethmw| Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305746217' post='993422'] Of course they don't. Everyone wants to win. Whether they win with Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf, who gives a shit? As long as they win. You don't run around and shout out James Brooks or Ickey Woods' names anymore, right? Those players are out and gone. It's about what the team has now. 10 years from now Chad, Carson, and most the guys currently on the squad will be an afterthought. We'll be rooting for new players because they play for our team. The team will more than likely always exist (or change locations). The players are a variable in the grand scheme of things, but they're always a variable that can be replaced. [b]I would still watch every Bengal game next year if we had all college free agents starting.[/b] [/quote] Really? Then why were the last couple home games blacked out? I mean, hell, people don't give a shit about the product on the field, they just love the Bengals franchise. They go to all the UC football games too, don't they? 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='nkywestside' timestamp='1305752240' post='993445'] Not when that said enterprise is a privately ran intstitution. While I realize that collective bargaining exists within the private sector, I don't believe it gives them "rights" to see anything financial. The market will dictate what they will be paid and nothing more or less. The players are going to lose this one. The association has the wrong man in charge. DeMaurice Smith is milking this shit bigtime. Won't be long though, players won't play this game of shenanigans much longer.. [/quote] When said institution is given taxpayer subsidies it no longer is privately ran. Further there is no "market" if there were the NFL would not receive an anti-trust exemption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 [quote name='kennethmw' timestamp='1305752354' post='993447'] Really? Then why were the last couple home games blacked out? I mean, hell, people don't give a shit about the product on the field, they just love the Bengals franchise. They go to all the UC football games too, don't they? [/quote] [quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305752669' post='993449'] When said institution is given taxpayer subsidies it no longer is privately ran. Further there is no "market" if there were the NFL would not receive an anti-trust exemption. [/quote] Geniuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who Dey Time Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1305746903' post='993425'] How do you know these as facts without seeing the owners books? ...or do you just take their word(a business man's word whose sole desire is to make money) for it? yeah.... people never lie to make more money. What are the owners hiding? You really have to be a complete idiot not to make money in the current NFL. [b]Revenue sharing[/b]...if your team sucks and you can't sell out our stadium you still get paid. [b]Stadiums[/b].. when you want a new one... threaten to leave and most times the tax payers will build one...pay for it... then pay for the upkeep. Sounds like double dipping and we as taxpayers gladly do it. If you don't build the stadium another city will gladly take your team. [/quote] The fact that every single owner voted out of this systems tells me that they are spending more than what they projected to bring in. If that wasn't the case, you would see the smaller market teams crying foul with the major markets stating that the status quo is working. Every owner, individually, has to look out for their specific business. If you want specific numbers, look at the salary cap number since 2006. It shows a significant increase each year. If revenue increases were falling in line with that number do you really think that every last owner would be bitching???? The fact is that the owners are seeing profits decrease largely because of their labor costs. So, like any other business, they try to work out a system that allows for a fair payment structure to the labor while still maintaining their expected profit margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claptonrocks Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Im not on either side..... Its like republicans and democrats..... Everyone swings towards the mean green but they wont kill it off completely...milk it another day you know.. For the love of money....OJays....listen to it sometime...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Man, this is very similar to the music business. The players are the talent, the owners are the agents. Do you think the record label deserves more money than the band? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Tigers Johnson| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Who Dey Time' timestamp='1305773119' post='993486'] The fact that every single owner voted out of this systems tells me that they are spending more than what they projected to bring in. If that wasn't the case, you would see the smaller market teams crying foul with the major markets stating that the status quo is working. Every owner, individually, has to look out for their specific business. If you want specific numbers, look at the salary cap number since 2006. It shows a significant increase each year. If revenue increases were falling in line with that number do you really think that every last owner would be bitching???? The fact is that the owners are seeing profits decrease largely because of their labor costs. So, like any other business, they try to work out a system that allows for a fair payment structure to the labor while still maintaining their expected profit margins. [/quote] No... all that tells you is they are spending more than they WANT to be spending. If every player would play for just one dollar the owners would LOVE that... The owners only want to pay what they HAVE to pay.... The owners WANT a better deal and that mere fact by itself tells you nothing about their profit margins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|OneHeartBeat| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Liberals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1305777294' post='993500'] Liberals [/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.