NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[townes]

The owners as a group, of course, must set up a system where the weakest of their franchises does well enough.

.................................

 

[townes]

I
Not sure if that is completely clear, but another way to put it is that the owners will only accept a system where everyone is profitable, so the pertinent financials are the team in the worst shape not the one in the best shape, or the average. Anything else would be a suicidal business move for a league of owners.


To make it easier I will call includable revenue 'football revenue' and local revenue excluded from the cap calculation 'other income'
The owners need a system where every team is profitable on football revenue,and the other revenue in excess of that is profit that the NFLPA* really has no claim to.

I don't know how many times i will have to reprint your own words to demonstrate what you have said but once again here they are. According to you the deal must be structured to guarantee the financial success of the worst run franchises, guaranteeing they will never sell to good ownership because they are guaranteed riches no matter what they do. it simply doesn't get worse as far as negotiating stances go and the players should never agree to any deal structured with this goal in mind

 

[Ring 6]

According to you the owners had to opt out of the 2006 CBA because Jon kraft had created such a horrible deal that the owners couldn't make enough under it,

Please link where I said that or anything like it. When you accept that you cannot because it doesnt exist, the (Please be quiet - edited) or say something meaningful.

although you have also steadfastly refused to provide any support for that claim

Why would I steadfastly provide support of a statement I never made?

and record attendance, merchandise sales, TV deals, and new revenue streams all fly directly in the face of that claim.

Which claim? The one you made up and atributed to me?
My claim is that the owners opted out because they felt the deal wasn't profitable enough for them. I kind of thought we were discussing this at an intellectual level where that was easily understood.

Under that horrible deal Jon kraft wrote the Green Bay Packers, a NON PROFIT team in a market that has absolutely no business having an NFL franchise both made money and won the world championship.

What does non profit have to do with it? Do you understand what non profit means? It doesnt mean lose money it means reivnest profit into the company rather than paying dividends. Do you really think the directors of the Packers are not trying to make money that they can reinvest?
They sell out every game, what do you want from their market?
What does winning a SB have to do with profitablility? Someone would win the SB even if every team lost its shirt financially.

So unless the owners agree to a deal worse than the Kraft Deal then every team has the ability to profit and the only ones who would go under are those so poorly run they shouldn't remain in business anyways and should be sold to ownership who can make a can't miss deal work.

I have already asked for examples of how these teams are poorly run. You choose to make up an opinion and credit it to me instead.

If guaranteed profits for all are the goal then they already had that under the 2006 deal as not one franchise has demonstrated they are losing money and even a team that had no business succeeding won the Lombardi and made money.

You are arguing with yourself again, as you were the one who created this idea of guaranteed profits, which frankly, I don't even understand.
If no teams show their financials, then not one has demonstrated they are making money either. The absence of any verificaiton of a fact is not proof that your guess at the fact is correct.
Why would you expect that a franchise would demonstrate they lost money?

If you want to revisit your claims that bad franchises should be guaranteed profits by all means do so but don't try to claim you didn't say it when you are quoted as doing just that.

They weren't my claims. They were concocted by you, and then portrayed as my opinion. Basically, you are lying, and you know it.
You are welcome to show the quote where I said profits should be guaranteed.
The one that says the owners will want a deal where each team would be profitable isn't even in the same hemisphere.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know how many times i will have to reprint your own words to demonstrate what you have said but once again here they are.

Probably as many times as it takes to post something that comes close to what you are saying it says.

According to you the deal must be structured to guarantee the financial success of the worst run franchises,

No. According to me the owners wont agree to a deal that projects to teams losing money.

guaranteeing they will never sell to good ownership because they are guaranteed riches no matter what they do.

Where have I said anything like that? How is keeping the lesser teams from losing money by operating guaranteeing riches and guaranteeing they never sell? You really are losing it.

it simply doesn't get worse as far as negotiating stances go and the players should never agree to any deal structured with this goal in mind

Seriously are you that dense or are you playing?
What I said and what you rephrased it as are not even close.

But let me ask you.
Do you think the owners will agree to a deal where the cap is set at a number that projects some of the teams will lose money?

 

[townes]

Wow, it's Newt Gingrich, quoting you exactly is "lying."



I have quoted you exactly repeatedly and haven't misrepresented you in any way, that your position is indefensible is your problem, n ot mine.



You apparently believe the deal must be made to guarantee the profitability of poorly run franchises and that is flat out stupid.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't know how many times i will have to reprint your own words to demonstrate what you have said but once again here they are. According to you the deal must be structured to guarantee the financial success of the worst run franchises, guaranteeing they will never sell to good ownership because they are guaranteed riches no matter what they do. it simply doesn't get worse as far as negotiating stances go and the players should never agree to any deal structured with this goal in mind

Townes, you are simply proving your ignorance by trying to say that their is anything surprising in the expectation that the owners will want a deal where each of their members can make a profit.
Are you really telling me they will agree to a deal where 10%, 20% 30% of the teams will lose money?

 

[BlueThunder]

Grabs Popcorn :singing:

 

[townes]

Townes, you are simply proving your ignorance by trying to say that their is anything surprising in the expectation that the owners will want a deal where each of their members can make a profit.
Are you really telling me they will agree to a deal where 10%, 20% 30% of the teams will lose money?

Which is it, you never said it or it's what you believe?



What i am telling you is that guaranteeing profitability for badly run franchises like the Bills and Bengals is a terrible idea, the deal should be structured on an average of how franchises fare not upon the profit margins of the worst run franchises, and the players should refuse to sign any deal structured as you suggest because it is in the worst interests of the league. badly run franchises need to fail so good ownership takes over and they can invest in them and become successful. propping up Ralph Wilson, and Mike Brown so they are guaranteed big money is a horrible idea for the league long term and should be rejected completely.

 

[townes]

Townes, you are simply proving your ignorance by trying to say that their is anything surprising in the expectation that the owners will want a deal where each of their members can make a profit.
Are you really telling me they will agree to a deal where 10%, 20% 30% of the teams will lose money?

We are right back to you claiming the deal must guarantee profitability for every franchise regardless of the effort they make.

 

[lamafist]

Do you read?
Of course I cannot show what they are or are not making because it is not public information. In this case however, he is stating a fact that is easily verifiable.

And was easily enough verified.

It's also expressed equally succinctly in Sports Business Daily, if you can't download + open the PDF I linked to prior:

The reason for the percentage increase for NFL players is the 2006 CBA, which gave players 59 percent of all revenue instead of 60 percent of designated gross revenue, which didn’t include a lot of local revenue that clubs generated. Sixty percent of designated gross revenue sounded good, but what it amounted to was 54 percent of total revenue, Upshaw said.

If you want a really good, less wonkish breakdown and history of the issues surrounding the growth in revenue disparity, including the Jerry Jones' suing the NFL for rights to local licensing revenues, the reformulation of Total Revenue in the 2006 CBA, etc., I really recommend this excellent trilogy of articles posted on a Cowboys website called "NFL Lockout 2011: Revenue Sharing Is The Elephant In The Room Nobody Wants To Talk About."

 

[Ring 6]

Which is it, you never said it or it's what you believe?

I dont even know what you are talking about anymore because you are arguing with yourself by making something up, attributing it to me then arguing against it.

What i am telling you is that guaranteeing profitability for badly run franchises like the Bills and Bengals is a terrible idea,

Then you should abandon the guaranteed profit plan that you created in this thread.

the deal should be structured on an average of how franchises fare not upon the profit margins of the worst run franchises,

First, it is simply unrealistic to expect the owners to agree to a deal where some of their teams will lose money.
Secondly, least profitable and worst run are not necessarily the same thing. Market has a lot to do with it.

and the players should refuse to sign any deal structured as you suggest because it is in the worst interests of the league. badly run franchises need to fail so good ownership takes over and they can invest in them and become successful. propping up Ralph Wilson, and Mike Brown so they are guaranteed big money is a horrible idea for the league long term and should be rejected completely.

Well, it was your idea, so if its a bad one continue to argue with yourself.
I will ask again, what you feel those owners are doing that ruins the finances of the NFL.
I will also ask again how shifting the money to the players bank accounts will improve the league.

 

[Ring 6]

We are right back to you claiming the deal must guarantee profitability for every franchise regardless of the effort they make.

No, we are back to you failing to understand the English language.

 

[Fencer]

Here's a chart of Forbes estimates of franchises' value and operating income.

I'm not sure what the context is, or where the valuation estimates come from, or where the operating income estimates come from, or what kind of funny accounting (e.g. any bogus depreciation) is in those operating income figures, or what a tax rate might be.

But as written, those are not the kinds of returns that gladden business owners' hearts.

 

[Ring 6]

Wow, it's Newt Gingrich, quoting you exactly is "lying."

Quoting me, then pretending it says something it doesnt is lying.
Please show anywhere I have ever even approached the concept of guaranteeing profit. That word was not even in the thread until you misrepresented my comments with it.

I have quoted you exactly repeatedly and haven't misrepresented you in any way, that your position is indefensible is your problem, n ot mine.

OK so I am will quote this statement, and say that you have repeatedly said the moon is made of cheese. Then when you deny it I will say I quoted you directly
ITs the same thing. Exactly.

You apparently believe the deal must be made to guarantee the profitability of poorly run franchises and that is flat out stupid.

Once again, show anywhere that I say anything about guaranteeing. Show anywhere that I say it has to be done any way.
Oe more time.
I HAVE SAID THE OWNERS WILL NOT AGREE TO A CBA THAT WOULD CAUSE SOME OF THE TEAMS TO LOSE MONEY.
That does not mean I think that is the best deal. That does not mean that it is the one I would chose. It does not mean that there is any type of guarantee. It means that the owners will project the cash flow and expense over the term of the CBA and will not accept a deal that projects one of their members to lose money.
Please read that about 14 times, and if you repsond, respond to MY STATEMENTS not some ****eyed translation that you make up and pretend is my argument.
Every word you have posted in this thread today is strawman arguing.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's a chart of Forbes estimates of franchises' value and operating income.

I'm not sure what the context is, or where the valuation estimates come from, or where the operating income estimates come from, or what kind of funny accounting (e.g. any bogus depreciation) is in those operating income figures, or what a tax rate might be.

But as written, those are not the kinds of returns that gladden business owners' hearts.

Apparently we need a system that strips Mike Brown of his team, because it was so poorly managed it only made the 5th greatest profit.

 

[Ring 6]

I quoted you directly, and the rst of your post was a bizarre analogy about what one company needs to survive, not a system of franchises where bad management leads to weak profits or losses.



Quoting you exactly is not misrepresenting you in any way.

Yes it is when you quote me then argue that it says something different than it does.
For example you have quote many of posts, and NONE of them even mention any type of guaranteed profit, but each time you quote something that does not say that, you argue thats what it says.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here's a chart of Forbes estimates of franchises' value and operating income.

I'm not sure what the context is, or where the valuation estimates come from, or where the operating income estimates come from, or what kind of funny accounting (e.g. any bogus depreciation) is in those operating income figures, or what a tax rate might be.

But as written, those are not the kinds of returns that gladden business owners' hearts.

No teams have lost money, so the Forbes numbers aren't perfect. How close they are is the question.

 

[Ring 6]

No teams have lost money, so the Forbes numbers aren't perfect. How close they are is the question.

And you base this on??????????????

 

[Ring 6]

And was easily enough verified.

It's also expressed equally succinctly in Sports Business Daily, if you can't download + open the PDF I linked to prior:



If you want a really good, less wonkish breakdown and history of the issues surrounding the growth in revenue disparity, including the Jerry Jones' suing the NFL for rights to local licensing revenues, the reformulation of Total Revenue in the 2006 CBA, etc., I really recommend this excellent trilogy of articles posted on a Cowboys website called "NFL Lockout 2011: Revenue Sharing Is The Elephant In The Room Nobody Wants To Talk About."

You are really using a blog by "one Cool Customer" as your factual basis?
Wow. Like I said your views on this differ from what I have read. Like I said I have no time or interest in going back and finding where I read it to show you. Like I said if it makes you feel better, then go ahead and say you won this one.

 

[Ring 6]

And was easily enough verified.

It's also expressed equally succinctly in Sports Business Daily, if you can't download + open the PDF I linked to prior:



If you want a really good, less wonkish breakdown and history of the issues surrounding the growth in revenue disparity, including the Jerry Jones' suing the NFL for rights to local licensing revenues, the reformulation of Total Revenue in the 2006 CBA, etc., I really recommend this excellent trilogy of articles posted on a Cowboys website called "NFL Lockout 2011: Revenue Sharing Is The Elephant In The Room Nobody Wants To Talk About."

Where is the part you quoted from? I serioulsy question the source if it is trying to imply the shift was from 60% of desingated revenue to 59% of all revenue, because that simply didnt happen. Please provide a link, or was that written by the esteemed "One Cool Customer"?