Which brings me back to what I said before: Any contractual agreement can be amended if both sides agree.
that doesn’t change that we know With 100% certainty what the cba will dictate.
The GB Packers had $477.2 million in revenue last year. Losing 16.7% of that would be a sh*t sandwich, no doubt, but it would not be debilitating nor would it be devastating. They would be able to maintain themselves as a functioning business.
They had 469 million in expenses.
Are you that dense?
If your family income is 25,000 and your expenses are 24,000 how’s that 6,000 pay cut going to affect you?
But wait. You are saying that after going 72,000,000 in the hole, they are fine with that and will call the NFLPA and say, we know since we had 80,000,000 less in revenue that the cap goes down. We want to make sure ownership bears your share of the loss as well. So we are going to forget the we only owe you 160,000,000 mill in salary but we are going to, out of the goodness of our hearts pay you half of the revenue we didn’t get too.
You guys don’t lose a buck and we were so happy with a 72,000,000 loss we don’t care about getting back.
Because, everyone knows of we cut the cap by 1.3 billion dollars that’s how you get control over us, so we will be happy to follow the logic that says when we lose money we give you more.
This isn’t even debatable. Anyone who ever worked in any type of financial setting or did well in high school economics would be rolling in the floor laughing at you saying that’s the best move for the owners.
Yup businesses with a 2% ROI aren’t hurt by a 20% loss of revenue. Companies love losing 70,000,000. The packers would probably have to file bankruptcy if you negotiated for them.
But I’m curious.
You laid out the numbers.
They operate with approx 470 or revenue and 460 of expense.
When they have 390 of revenue what funds are you expecting them to use to pay 460 of expense? How does that work?