patsfaninpittsburgh
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,054
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes, actually I kind of am.
That is exactly what I have said.
Yes, of course they would depending on where the line is drawn.
In this case THEY DID.
Nice job insulting me at the outset and then showing you don't even know what you are talking about. This is not a proposal, it is what the current system is.
You are not even on topic.
The topic is that the $1billion exclusion that is ALREADY IN PLACE came about as an adjustment to the method of calulating the players share, years ago.
It is what they did, and it had nothing to do with financing.
Ahh Andrew
It appears you missed the fact that my "$1 billion" reference was like AN EXAMPLE.
Since a hypothetical example to make a point isn't in Andy Johnson's world, let's try again.
Per Florio, the owners initially wanted to increase their $1 billion "off the top" to $2 billion with the players maintaining 59. whatever percent after that.
The players offered 50/50 with no initial operating credit.
Based on these stats the proposals are "revenue neutral" around $11.2 billion with the "50/50" favorable beyond.
The reality is if the NFL is a $9 billion business, it only needs a lil over 2 years to reach $11.2 billion with 10% yoy growth.
from an owner stance, why feel the need to be insulated?
Micheal Silver's September 08,2010 article on yahoo sports ( I don't know how to link) states the Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft were the drivers in opting out of the current CBA because they felt it didn't reflect their high risk investments in new facilites. (that's back to the capital expenditures thing for finance types)
Do the owners feel their top line growth rates will start to slow? In my example, two years are needed to be on the plus side, why wouldn't sign on? You wouldn't if revenue growth isn't expected.
Apparently the consensus among the owners is that the 2006 CBA was a bad deal. Why do franchises with minimal capital investments also feel that way? Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft have stadiums, why would the Panther's owner feel that way if he has minimal cost associated with his stadium?
In the end, a combination of higher costs, investment, slower revenue growth can drive the owners to feel the need to be insulated.
If it's simply a "we got screwed" thing, their case is much weaker. Likewise, "profit" is a number, "profitable" is more of an opinion.