|Lucid| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Can someone explain this concept of "sliding revenues" and supposed [i]future[/i] fiscal hardship, when the profits doled out to players is a fixed % of profits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 I wish the military would just take over the damn league already and force the owners and players to an agreement at the end of the barrel of an Abrams tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Tigers Johnson' timestamp='1305747564' post='993428'] 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. [/quote] I agree with what you're saying completely. They need to try and make the dollar while they can, hit while the iron is hot so to speak. No doubt about that. My only point was this isn't a partnership. Until the players are financially invested in the good of the organization for which they work (which at that point, you're talking about part owners, etc.) then it wouldn't be a partnership at that point. It is still some sort of pseudo-union / contract labor scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305824055' post='993598'] I agree with what you're saying completely. They need to try and make the dollar while they can, hit while the iron is hot so to speak. No doubt about that. [b]My only point was this isn't a partnership. [/b] Until the players are financially invested in the good of the organization for which they work (which at that point, you're talking about part owners, etc.) then it wouldn't be a partnership at that point. It is still some sort of pseudo-union / contract labor scenario. [/quote] But it [i]IS[/i] a partnership... If it isn't a "partnership", then it is in violation of anti-trust laws, and not only should be broken up by congress, but serious financial retribution is in order for price and wage fixing, as well as collusion to control the market against would be competition. The only reason the NFL is legal is due to [b]collective[/b] (notice the word collective) bargaining agreements. Which in affect makes the players union a partner with the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305824055' post='993598'] I agree with what you're saying completely. They need to try and make the dollar while they can, hit while the iron is hot so to speak. No doubt about that. My only point was this isn't a partnership. Until the players are financially invested in the good of the organization for which they work (which at that point, you're talking about part owners, etc.) then it wouldn't be a partnership at that point. It is still some sort of pseudo-union / contract labor scenario. [/quote] It's an exclusive supplier-vendor arrangement. Would you consider that a partnership? It's IMO like the Apple/ATT partnership to sell iPhones. Apple makes the product (Players are the product), ATT sells, markets, distributes the phones (NFL does the same thing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305824315' post='993601'] It's an exclusive supplier-vendor arrangement. Would you consider that a partnership? It's IMO like the Apple/ATT partnership to sell iPhones. Apple makes the product (Players are the product), ATT sells, markets, distributes the phones (NFL does the same thing). [/quote] I'd agree with this analogy. When I think of partnership I think of it in terms of an LLC / sole-proprietorship / corporation. In the business sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305824720' post='993602'] I'd agree with this analogy. When I think of partnership I think of it in terms of an LLC / sole-proprietorship / corporation. In the business sense. [/quote] Hmmm. Well the taxation wrapper really doesn't have anything to do with the argument. It sounds like you're talking semantics about general partnerships. General partnerships are kinda going away anyway, there is no reason to do them with some of the other vehicles, like LLCs avaliable. I guess to get at your point: lots of entities aren't in it for the best of the company, they're in it for profits. The NFLPA shouldn't be held to some high standard that is contrary to standard operating procedures of others in a similar position. Back to my analogy, I don't think Apple gives a shit about the health of ATT. They just want them to buy iPhones and pay a heavy fee to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|westside bengal| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 Even if the players said yes, they will go ahead and give the owners another $billion it is only a short term fix for the owners. Until the owners fix their shared/unshared revenue issues it will only be a matter of time before they want more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1181 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1305821618' post='993589'] Can someone explain this concept of "sliding revenues" and supposed [i]future[/i] fiscal hardship, when the profits doled out to players is a fixed % of profits? [/quote] its not so much revenue that's slipping as operating profit that's slipping. Going back to the packers as an example, over the last 4 years (2006-2010) player costs have risen 45%. Revenue has only risen 18% over that time. So where in 2006 the organization made a profit of roughly $35 million, in 2010 it only made a profit of $9.8 million even though their revenue has continued to rise. There has to be a better balance between revenue rise and player cost rise, and right now there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange 'n Black Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 If my business is valued at $1 billion and I'm profiting less than $10 million a year, I have serious problems. Fixing it through revenue sharing is horse shit and unsustainable. For all the trumpeting about how lucrative the NFL is, it's an extremely risky business. Most of the owners have their fortunes and income invested in things other than football. Why do you think our own Mike Brown is so notoriously frugal? The owners' move is a necessity from a business perspective. How are the Packers supposed to pull their weight and grow the business and game if they operate in the red and have to be bailed out every year? Forget stadium renovations, premium free agents, or halfway affordable seats. Costs are growing much faster than revenue, so you do something drastic to fix it. I wish Congress had the resolve of NFL owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305830870' post='993627'] its not so much revenue that's slipping as operating profit that's slipping. Going back to the packers as an example, over the last 4 years (2006-2010) player costs have risen 45%. Revenue has only risen 18% over that time. So where in 2006 the organization made a profit of roughly $35 million, in 2010 it only made a profit of $9.8 million even though their revenue has continued to rise. There has to be a better balance between revenue rise and player cost rise, and right now there isn't. [/quote] I always wondered why they wouldn't pay players % of cap instead of hard dollar figures. That way instead of paying Carson Palmer 10 years $100million, it could be announced 10 years 20% cap. Or something like that. You could still do rising cap figures like they do now. For example a 3 year contract with year one 2%, year two 2.5%, year three 3%. All roster %'s have to add up to between 90% and 100% of salary cap. That way the league isn't stuck paying huge contracts if revenues aren't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305832123' post='993632'] I always wondered why they wouldn't pay players % of cap instead of hard dollar figures. That way instead of paying Carson Palmer 10 years $100million, it could be announced 10 years 20% cap. Or something like that. You could still do rising cap figures like they do now. For example a 3 year contract with year one 2%, year two 2.5%, year three 3%. All roster %'s have to add up to between 90% and 100% of salary cap. That way the league isn't stuck paying huge contracts if revenues aren't there. [/quote] Would NEVER get players to agree to that. They want hard and fast numbers. Not percentages. That'd get you back to them truly being invested financially in the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305834499' post='993641'] Would NEVER get players to agree to that. They want hard and fast numbers. Not percentages. That'd get you back to them truly being invested financially in the organization. [/quote] I don't know how you can definitely say this. Do you like the idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='sois' timestamp='1305834588' post='993642'] I don't know how you can definitely say this. Do you like the idea? [/quote] Certainly. But you say percentage of cap and then mention if no revenue then players get less, etc.... the cap is set each year regardless of what revenue is, correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Lucid| Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Vol_Bengal' timestamp='1305835043' post='993647'] Certainly. But you say percentage of cap and then mention if no revenue then players get less, etc.... the cap is set each year regardless of what revenue is, correct? [/quote] I always thought revenue determined the cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol_Bengal Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1305835114' post='993648'] I always thought revenue determined the cap. [/quote] That may be and have been the intent. But, based on Green Bay's figure, at least over the last 4-5 years that hasn't been the case. Because the cap percentage increase has vastly outpaced revenue increase percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Lucid' timestamp='1305835114' post='993648'] I always thought revenue determined the cap. [/quote] It does. So that is why I like my idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mullichicken25 Posted May 19, 2011 Report Share Posted May 19, 2011 [quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1305823161' post='993592'] I wish the military would just take over the damn league already and force the owners and players to an agreement at the end of the barrel of an [b]Abrams tank[/b]. [/quote] fuck yeah, nothing says "we mean buisness" quite like an Abrams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.