NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[lamafist]

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.

No. I recommended the blog series because it's a great read, and well-researched.

I cited the Penn State Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research and Sports Business Daily for factual basis.

And, honestly, I don't care about "winning" or "losing" a forum thread. What I do care about is that it seems to me that most of the arguments I get from people regarding the lockout and CBA negotiations are based on gross misconceptions about the basic facts.

 

[lamafist]

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"?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...70AiOuf7Q&sig2=Xz-rUHUenzm4f5u1UXQoaw&cad=rja

Prime cut goes to NFL players - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

 

[Ring 6]

No. I recommended the blog series because it's a great read, and well-researched.

I cited the Penn State Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research and Sports Business Daily for factual basis.

And, honestly, I don't care about "winning" or "losing" a forum thread. What I do care about is that it seems to me that most of the arguments I get from people regarding the lockout and CBA negotiations are based on gross misconceptions about the basic facts.

Well then you should communicate a little differently.

 

[Ring 6]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...70AiOuf7Q&sig2=Xz-rUHUenzm4f5u1UXQoaw&cad=rja

Prime cut goes to NFL players - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

The first is excellent. I was not so impressed with the second.

 

[Ring 6]

Your comments indicate that you believe the players should have to agree to a deal that guarantees financial success for those owners who steadfastly refuse to invest in their franchises and don't succeed as a result. Rather than agree to a fair deal the players need to agree to a deal that guarantees profits for every franchise regardless of their efforts on their own behalf. So Ralph Wilson and Mike brown must be guaranteed profitability rather than allowing the market to let them fail and have new ownership buy them, invest in them, and move them when needed.

You do realize that the Bengals made the 5th highest profit in the NFL don't you?
You do realize that the Bengals ROI was higher than the Patriots, right?
Please explain how they are poorly managed financially.

As far as the Bills, in a tiny market (not much bigger than the one you said has no right being in the league) they were 17th in operating income despite being 26th in revenue due to the small market size. Please explain how they are poorly managed financially.

 

[lamafist]

No, getting one back did. You seriously cannot see the logic that merchandise sales for a new franchise would be strong? You can't understand that a market that lost a franchise it supported reasonably well appreciates the return of a franchise to the market and meets it with excitement? Really?


Houston is the 4th largest city in America. I consider that enormous.
Dallas is 9
Detriot is 18
Atlanta is 40

List of United States cities by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

City population and market size aren't the same thing. A city like Houston is a lot bigger than Boston proper, but Boston's media market is bigger. Nielsen has Houston ranked 10th in terms of market size, just behind SF/Oak, Atlanta and DC, and just ahead of Detroit, Phoenix and Seattle-Tacoma.

Now, regarding the theory that Houston would enjoy strong merchandise sales, as a new team for a pre-existing football fanbase... while it doesn't look like the NFL ever publicizes the full sales numbers, they do list the top 5 and more recently top 10 teams in jersey sales, and Houston has never cracked the list. What I found interesting were some of the teams that did.

In 2004, the Raiders were coming off their third straight season as the NFL's merchandise sales champs... and the best they ever did in that period was 21st in revenue. Their merchandise sales didn't fall off as fast as you'd think, either -- they were #2 in 2005 and #3 in 2006, before falling off as the losses piled up. The Packers and Steelers are perennial top-five merchandise sales contenders, despite being middle of the pack in revenue. Same think with the Giants, Jets and Bears. So clearly, merchandising sales doesn't really equate to franchise revenue.

Nor, it turns out, does home game attendance. The Patriots, consistently the third highest earner in the NFL these past five years, have ranked either 14th, 15th or 16th in attendance. The Giants and Jets have ranked from 2-4 in that time, despite remaining in the middle in revenues -- though that figures to change with the new stadium. Interestingly, in the 5-10 range, you find teams like Carolina, KC, Denver, Cleveland and Buffalo, which has cracked the top 10 in stadium attendance pretty much every year. So clearly, just getting fans out to the stadium doesn't guarantee high revenues if your stadium doesn't have the premium seating and sales options that Gillette and Reliant do.

So, getting back to Houston -- an expansion team that's had one winning season, never made a splash in merchandise sales, and has decent (usually 11th) stadium attendance, yet has still been one of the top four teams in revenue since its inception. What's Bob McNair's secret? According to Forbes:

A lot of people scoffed at Forbes 400 member Robert McNair when he paid a record $700 million expansion fee to the other NFL owners in 1999. And they laughed even louder when the billionaire had to pour another $100 million into his franchise before his team ever played its first game. But McNair didn't make his billions by being stupid. Among other things, Houston has the second most Fortune 500 headquarters in the U.S., which has enabled the Texans to rake in a fortune from corporate sponsors. The team's $300 million, 30-year stadium naming rights deal with Reliant Energy is just one example.

 

[townes]

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.




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


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.



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.

I quoted you exactly and repeatedly. This dispute is about shifting money back to the owners, not vice versa and if you can't even understand that or stand by your own words then there is no point responding.

 

[Ring 6]

I quoted you exactly and repeatedly. This dispute is about shifting money back to the owners, not vice versa and if you can't even understand that or stand by your own words then there is no point responding.

If you are right then you should be able to show one single example of me stating that I think there should be guarantee of profits.
You know you can't so you play this game.
You quote my comment, say is says something different then say I said what you butchered it into.
At first I thought it was a problem with comprehension, but clearly you are playing stupid now.
There was no discussion about shifting money from players.
I said that for the owners to agree to a deal, it is going to need to be one that projects to each of them being profitable. You then said that I said I believe there should be a plan to guarantee profits to all owners. Total bulshlt. And you know it.

During the conversation you suggested the % to the players should go up so that some owners would fail, and that would be best for the NFL.
I pointed out that money in the players pockets can do nothing to grow the NFL, while money in owners pockets can.

So, lets start with you showing ONE time where I said profits should be guaranteed, since you have told me about 50 times that it is what I said.
When you reread the entire thread and see that I never said that, and you simply don't understand what you read, and apology would be in order.

 

[Ring 6]

I quoted you exactly and repeatedly. This dispute is about shifting money back to the owners, not vice versa and if you can't even understand that or stand by your own words then there is no point responding.

You also refused AGAIN to respond to what you feel those owners are doing to ruin the league.

 

[townes]

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.

Not sure how many more times i have to repost you saying this. You are clearly saying the deal must be based upon the profitability of the worst franchises and according to you anything less would be "suicidal."

 

[townes]

You also refused AGAIN to respond to what you feel those owners are doing to ruin the league.

What i actually said was a deal that guarantees financial success for the worst run franchises is a horrible idea for any league as bad ownership should result in a sale of the team not guaranteed millions.

 

[Ring 6]

Not sure how many more times i have to repost you saying this. You are clearly saying the deal must be based upon the profitability of the worst franchises and according to you anything less would be "suicidal."

Where does that say anything about guaranteeing.
I want you to find where I said anythign about guaranteeing profits, not cases where I said something else. You could post where I said its Wednesday and that would be as valid ot your argument that I said profits should be guaranteed. I never said it, and you keep quoting examples of where I never said it, and you know that. Please just admit you created that out of thin air so we can move on.

As to THIS point. Are you saying that you believe owners will agree to a cap that will cause some teams to project losing money?
I'm not talking about what you think is fair, or what you would do as an owner.

Point blank question.
Do you expect that the owners as a whole will agree to a CBA that would result in some of the team losing money based upon what they project?

 

[Ring 6]

What i actually said was a deal that guarantees financial success for the worst run franchises is a horrible idea for any league as bad ownership should result in a sale of the team not guaranteed millions.

Well you have specifically singled out Cincinnati and Buffalo. What is it that you feel they have done so poorly that the other owners should force a deal on them that will force them out of business and make them sell their teams?
Additionally, how do you expect to find a buyer who would join a league where that can happen?

 

[BlueThunder]

Latest news as of today:

Sides Know Now is the Time for a New CBA to Get Done --
Wed Jun 8, 2011 --from FFMastermind.com

"NFL.com reports the NFL and players met for a clandestine three-day summit in suburban Chicago last week, they are meeting now in the New York area, and the talks are expected to continue beyond this week's discussions, as the sides look to resolve the differences that led to the union's decertification and the subsequent lockout. According to sources on each side of the talks, the NFL and players have come to an understanding that the time to bargain seriously is now. And as much as the ongoing litigation has set the calendar thus far, the calendar itself -- and the looming mid-summer start of training camps -- is starting to overtake the litigation as a motivator to move the talks along. One league source estimated that it would take 4-6 weeks to go from serious negotiations to the drafting process, and a trade association source said the feeling is there is a 30-day window that's just now opening to get a deal done. League sources indicate that the cancellation of the preseason would cost the NFL approximately $1 billion, while a lack of resolution by August 1 would come at a price of $350 million. While those numbers are inexact, there's no question that the loss of revenue -- which will begin once the preseason games come off the schedule -- will make negotiations exponentially more difficult. The pie will shrink, resulting in less money to go around in a situation that, for both sides, is about making the finances right. "That's by necessity," said one league source. "They get a percentage of the revenues, so if the revenues shrink, their share is less. It's automatic." For a normal preseason to happen, most estimate an agreement must be reached by about July 15."


Just End This S***T ...

 

[spacecrime]

I quoted you

All this would stop if you would simply use the quote feature of this forum when you want to quote someone, and stop paraphrasing them. Don't say someone said something if they didn't say it. How hard is that?

(In this case, you change the entire meaning of Andy's position by ascribing the word "guarantee" to him, which I cannot find that Andy said at all.

There is a huge difference, even if you can't see it, between planning for the profitability for all clubs, and guaranteeing that all clubs are profitable.)