part-timer
On the Game Day Roster
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 402
- Reaction score
- 62
Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l
FINALY! A few of the posters are starting to understand the bottom line of this dispute. It all comes down to REVENUE SHAREING between the owners. If not for revenue shareing between the owners a few NFL franchises would go under and cease to exist. The owners have put themselves on the line with the players being the benificiaries in chipping in revenues to the franchises that are looseing money and keeping them operationg. If two franchises went under the remaining franchises would get a larger share of the NFL pie, Wages for players would go down because of there being fewer job ( aprox. 130 less players needed) and more players seeking them, and the quality of play would inrease with more quality players on fewer teams. If the players don't see that the owner have an increase in revenues you will see a division of the owners over revenue shareing possibly ending in a reduction of teams, letting the nonprofitable teams go under with the players being the only loosers. If you don't believe this follow the link to FORBS assesment of profitability of the NFL teams in 09. In that report 2 team are opperating at a loss(Oakland -5.7 mill.,Seatle -2.4 mill.) and Half the team have operating costs of less then 30 mill. At an investment of 1 Bill. haveing operating costs of 30 mill. is only 3%. That is operating cost not profit.Inside the 2009 Forbes NFL Franchise Valuations
That operating cost is what is left after expences and to be divied up under revenue shareing and used twards reinvestment in the game. If you study the chart you will realize that some players are out earning entire franchises. Do the players expect that owners run franchises for the charity of the players. Is a return on an investment of a Billion dollars of below 3% a fair payment of their efforts. The answer for the proffitable franchises is to put an end to the charity given in revenue shareing which will hurt a couple owners and a lot of players.
If the players wish the status quo of 32 teams to continue being there to employ them they must relize the owners need more revenue to keep it so.
If you were a major player in a corporarion, how long would wait to close down a nonprofitable franchise. Would you keep it open just to give a job to the employees (players). Shoure there are some very profitable franchises and if they did not have to partialy support other franchises negociations might be different.
FINALY! A few of the posters are starting to understand the bottom line of this dispute. It all comes down to REVENUE SHAREING between the owners. If not for revenue shareing between the owners a few NFL franchises would go under and cease to exist. The owners have put themselves on the line with the players being the benificiaries in chipping in revenues to the franchises that are looseing money and keeping them operationg. If two franchises went under the remaining franchises would get a larger share of the NFL pie, Wages for players would go down because of there being fewer job ( aprox. 130 less players needed) and more players seeking them, and the quality of play would inrease with more quality players on fewer teams. If the players don't see that the owner have an increase in revenues you will see a division of the owners over revenue shareing possibly ending in a reduction of teams, letting the nonprofitable teams go under with the players being the only loosers. If you don't believe this follow the link to FORBS assesment of profitability of the NFL teams in 09. In that report 2 team are opperating at a loss(Oakland -5.7 mill.,Seatle -2.4 mill.) and Half the team have operating costs of less then 30 mill. At an investment of 1 Bill. haveing operating costs of 30 mill. is only 3%. That is operating cost not profit.Inside the 2009 Forbes NFL Franchise Valuations
That operating cost is what is left after expences and to be divied up under revenue shareing and used twards reinvestment in the game. If you study the chart you will realize that some players are out earning entire franchises. Do the players expect that owners run franchises for the charity of the players. Is a return on an investment of a Billion dollars of below 3% a fair payment of their efforts. The answer for the proffitable franchises is to put an end to the charity given in revenue shareing which will hurt a couple owners and a lot of players.
If the players wish the status quo of 32 teams to continue being there to employ them they must relize the owners need more revenue to keep it so.
If you were a major player in a corporarion, how long would wait to close down a nonprofitable franchise. Would you keep it open just to give a job to the employees (players). Shoure there are some very profitable franchises and if they did not have to partialy support other franchises negociations might be different.