K Gun Special
-
Posts
1,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by K Gun Special
-
-
i sure hope you are right, obviously, it is what i want to believe and hope beyond hope , it is true. the headline in PROFOOTBALLTALK.COM makes me nervous though.
Well it doesnt guarantee the Bills stay here but it puts all the pieces in place. Those saying the team has to be sold to the highest bidder are incorrect. Its simply not the case. Ralph may be old cheap and generally a less than stellar owner, BUT he is very concerned about his legacy (part of the reason they never re-sold stadium naming rights), he will not go down as an owner who screwed his beloved Bills.
-
The key word is "known."
When has Ralph said this is his plan publicly? I thought he didn't have a known succession plan. Did Jerry even speak with him for this article?
Wawrow commented in October after actually meeting with Ralph this:
Wawrow is on the money here. From my dealings there has been a plan in place for a number of years. Thats why Jerry in using all of his journalistic intregrity says "KNOWN" succession plan. Yea its not publicly known jerry because of guys like you. The corp Ralph owns, which owns the Bills, came up with the plan in the late 80's, and it has mechanisms in place to keep the Bills in WNY.
-
Not sure why you are having a tough time understanding that when Brady and Manning are gone, there will still be tons of fans rooting for those 2 teams. They'll just buy the jersey of "the next big name guy." There will always be another player to step up and take the place of the previous "star." Its the same thing in the movies.
Take a look at favre. He WAS the franchise in GB. And i'll bet that of all the Packers fans with #4 jerseys, roughly 99.99% of them went out and bought an Aaron Rogers jersey when Favre left, and did NOT buy a #4 jets jersey.
Fans root for teams, not individual players.
Right. This analysis is terribly flawed. Who was the next Jim Kelly? Who replaced thurman thomas? Oh yea.......... Star players arent so replaceable unless you cherry pick the only example you could come up with. GB
If what you and others posit was remotely true, why on any given sunday are there still just as many, actually more, Kelly and TT jerseys than Fitz and Freddy??? arent they just the next line of players on the Bills? shouldnt fans just go out and buy them bc they blindly support the Bills? No it doesnt work that way now does it.
Fans do root for teams, but the part that is lost on you is that star players get MORE people to root for teams. You see if teams were all that fans cared about, there would be no real reason to invest in star players because there would be no payoff. Except that there is in real life outside of the narrow ideological view some are taking on this issue.
Thats the reason networks market player showdowns...... Brady v Manning is the lead not colts pats.
The movie example someone used is probably the most similar. Star Power is king in Hollywood and with the paying public.
I
-
You might be right. But Brown's team is such a mess, maybe he wants to get going with football. It may be better that it is Ralph.
Perhaps, as I have said in other threads, the real issue with the viability of teams liek the Bills is revenue sharing among owners, not necessarily, or only, players salaries.
The more there is unshared revenue the more it kills the Bills. Ralph knows this and I think he is out for less player sharing and more team sharing. Its a position he needs to take.
-
Well, these are two most obvious to me.
I would think the two guys who voted no the last time would be the most obvious. wilson and brown.
-
That may be true in it's simplest terms, but alot of Bills fans don't fall into those terms. Alot of them after drinking 10-12 beers in the parking lot, then a handful of big beers at the stadium act like asses and ruin the whole gameday experience for everyone sitting around them. So to rebute your statement, drunken idiots sitting next to you can bother/affect you, maybe even more. Look, I like to drink beer in moderation, I am an ex-smoker who doesn't like being around smokers anymore, but to say that drinking a beer, or several beers can't bother/affect the person sitting next to you as much as some smoker up out of the stands in a corner somewhere is ridiculous. But you will never see beer taken out of the stadium because it brings in too much money. If you weren't allowed to bring in your own cigarettes but had to buy them in the stadium at some outragious price, those would never be disallowed either.
No. The fact remains that drinking a beer does not affect those around you. Drunken people may, just as stupid sober idiots may. It does not, however, have the same impact as smoking.
Its easy to ban smoking because of the direct health effects it has on the user and the indirect effects on those around. I agree with some that perhaps there should be an area where it is still permitted.
You don't have a right to smoke at a game and the team is well within its discretion to ban it.
You are right that alcohol does not have the same direct effects and is a huge moneymaker.
-
Interesting article on fan code of conduct.
-
Almost all the players in the NFL were born (or at least raised) in the USA. But America only has about 5% or less of the world's population. Suppose there was an easy way to identify NFL-level talent among the world's other 95%. This hypothetical talent evaluation method would allow the NFL to potentially increase its talent level by a factor of twenty.
What effect, if any, would that dramatic increase in player talent have on the NFL's revenues? Of the people you know who don't currently watch football games, how many would start watching them as a result of this dramatic increase in player talent? I suspect that this increase in talent wouldn't cause any increase in Americans' football viewing, and might actually cause a decrease. Part of the appeal of the NFL is when some local talent does well for himself. Most of that local talent would be driven out of the league by players from other countries.
At least to me, expanding the league's available talent by a factor of 20 would be a lot like printing more money. Doing so makes the talent/money you already have seem a lot less valuable than it once did. If dramatically increasing the league's level of talent would fail to make it much better, would a noticeable decrease in its level of talent make it significantly worse?
On another matter, one or two people have said that professional sports is "different" from other business endeavors. What aspect, specifically, about professional sports makes it necessary for individual athletes to earn over eight times as much (on a percentage of profits basis) as the most highly paid CEO?
This has been talked about ad nauseum. You dont know the profits of all the NFL teams so how can you make that comparison? Apparently its being made by using a $10 million dollar player against the not for profit Packers, who are not out to make a profit, unlike the CEOs mentioned in this thread. The top paid CEO btw had a pretty low base salary, and nearly all of his compensation was bonus related, which is not allowed in the NFL generally. Again, please stop using this comparison it doesnt hold any water.
Further, as I've said several times, professional sports are afforded special protections under the law. Law schools teach years worth of classes designed specifically on professional sports. Here is an article by ross tucker explaining how the NFL isnt like your beloved fortune 500 companies. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ross_tucker/05/05/business/index.html
The NFL also isnt like other businesses in that they arent capitalist, they share revenues, expenses profits etc. Indeed, in what other business do the owners ask for guaranteed profits? esp where their employees are the product?
Most of the team owners are independently wealthy - their sole purpose of owning a franchise isnt to earn mega profits like in the private sector. They want to win. See Mark Cuban, Pegula. Yea no one wants to lose money, no one is either, but its still not like a mega corporation in that regard.
The whole out of the country talent thing you discuss is off point. Adding more talent would have no positive effect but actually a negative effect?
You are actually trying to say that if there was more talent, less people would watch football? Lets see in soccer they have something called the champions league, full of the best teams, and it does pretty well.
The playoffs, arguably have the most talented teams, charge higher ticket prices and have better TV ratings.
So no, more talent would not be a bad thing.
-
But Sisyphean's point is, that when Peyton and Brady leave the game, the game won't lose millions of fans, even if millions of fans buy Manning jerseys. They'll simply buy Jim Bob Martin jerseys when he's drafted #1 overall, and continue to root for the Colts.
NFL fans are fans of both the game and the players, but its the game that keeps them coming back year in and year out, not the players.
Thats a pretty tough sell. Because popular players are usually the best and help teams win and Winning gets people in the seats.
There is a reason the NFL markets players the most.
-
Why not?
I mean it's also a "fact" that corporate America, after they file bankruptcy papers, will be chomping at the bit to sign up for another doubling of advertising rates. Some things are just obvious.You claimed to be someone involved in player contracts. If that is true, you are obviously not impartial on the issue and there is no ambiguity as to your personal motives.
I am not and never claimed to be an NFL owner, your attempts to draw parallel on that issue notwithstanding.
To be very direct, I was stating a personal opinion of my own person. I am a football fan, mac. I have never bought a Manning or Brady jersey. I wouldn't shed a single tear if they never play another down of football. I won't even cry if there is no NFL season this year. There is other football and I have other interests as well. Put that in your "it's nothing more than players" pipe and smoke it.
i didn't say on what side i was involved in contracts, so draw any inference you may like. The point is that I do have some basis for my statements other than just how I feel about the issue although you imply the same.
You may have never bought one of those jerseys but millions of people have. There is a reason attendance increases when certain teams play on the road. People love the game, but they love the players too.
-
It's an entertainment business. The players are not the product. They are employees that are a part of producing the entertainment.
Right that's why TV markets Brady v Manning etc etc, and teams make a killing on jersey sales and whatnot.
Its not just about the game, the players are a huge part.
Tell the fans at the Ralph or in Green Bay its just entertainment. Sports are far more than entertainment, especially the NFL.
Geez, even the owners arent taking that drastic of a position.
-
I think you misunderstand the financial issues involved and why the league is seeking the changes it wants.
If Joe wants to sell you his Hot Dog Cart for $800 and he tells you that it makes a profit after paying all the costs (Employees, hot dogs, taxes, etc) of $3o a year, does that seem like a good business deal to you?
It's making a profit! You don't have to do anything, but put up the initial $800 and collect $30/year! In only, 27 years you would make your money back!
Now, let's say you don't have the $800 and need to get the loan from a bank. You tell the bank that you would like a loan of $800 and will pay it back in 30 years (10% interest on the $800 makes for $880 which would be 29 1/3rd years). The bank is going to ask if that is feasible and how do you guarantee profit for 30 years? *keep in mind, all profit would be paying back the loan*
So you say, well, the value will go up. I'll operate it for five years and then sell it for $1000!
Great Plan. Well, you think so. The Bank...not so much. They're gonna ask you, who can afford your stand without needing a loan and given that your profits don't hold up as having a great chance of paying back the loan, why would someone take a loan to buy it? They are the only bank, so they'd be lending the money to this new buyer and while they would make some short term profit from the interest, they'd be resetting the 30 year clock to pay off the loan.
Of course, that money could keep being 'lent' and accruing interest for the bank, but they're not going to be able to indefinitely loan out money for that hot dog stand. Banks actually did/do this. We see how that worked out for the economy.
In short, NFL teams are over-valued. They need to bolster the profit to make it easier to pretend that a team could 'pay for itself' without being sold again. They need to sure up this bottom line to maintain the values of their teams.
Again, it should never have come to this point, but the owners AND players BOTH jumped merrily on the tracks for a few short term dollars without looking at the train coming down the tracks. They're joined at the hip and neither one wants to jump off before the train hits them.
The players were greedy and now it's bit them in the arse. They could have made the CBA about 'issues', but they went for the dollar bills so pacman could make it rain in a club and RELIED on the owners to take care of everything. Now the dues demand payment.
I fully understand the issues and the financials. Ive actually helped draft player contracts in professional sports. I know what im talking about. You and others are basing your arguments in part based on the only not for profit teams 2009 operating income number. The packers goal is not to generate the most profit, unlike some CEO. i mean cmon?
The fundamental problem is that people keep comparing professional sports to other industries. Professional sports is not the same. The financials interactions arent the same, the court and legal system do not treat them the same.
It really doesn't matter how much a CEO at publicly traded company makes, who is beholden to shareholders, in comparison to the 1st round draft pick of the Raiders. Its beyond silly to compare the same.
-
I agree that unshared revenues are increasing at a much faster pace than shared revenues, and that this creates problems for the league and for parity. On the other hand, if you owned (and had paid for) a 12 unit apartment complex, and someone else had spent 1/3 as much to purchase a 4 unit rental property, you might not be all that eager to engage in 100% revenue sharing with that other person. There are limits to the amount of revenue sharing the owners of large market teams are willing to accept.
Thanks for the link to the article about the Packers. It was a good article, and reinforced the idea that more NFL teams should be run on the Packers' model. They almost certainly receive less concessions revenues than most other small market teams. However, those concessions people work on a volunteer basis, as do their snow removal people. More importantly, if some hypothetical group borrowed $800 million to buy the Bills, then even at %5 interest they'd be paying $40 million a year on interest. The Packers don't have that expense. Also, their waiting list for season tickets is a mile long, which isn't something a lot of other small market teams can say.
The most highly compensated CEO of 2009 was Lawrence Culp. His total compensation for the year was $141 million, almost all of which came from stock options and vested stock awards. The company he ran--Danaher--made $1.1 billion in 2009, which means Culp's compensation was about 13% of profits.
As I'd mentioned previously, Jamarcus Russell was paid $32 million in guaranteed money during his three years with the Raiders, or over $10 million a year in guaranteed money alone. If the Packers were to extend a Jamarcus Russell-type contract to some hypothetical player, that player's compensation would be over 100% of team profits, in guaranteed money alone! On a percentage of profits basis, that player would be receiving nearly eight times as much compensation as the most highly paid CEO of 2009! If the owners aren't bothered by this, they very well should be!!
I see where you are going. But its not analogous. in the NFL the players are the product and nearly all of the employment costs, so the costs are going to be higher because of that. So take all of Danaher's costs for those items and then maybe you can begin to compare.
Start comparing it fairly, find a business where the employees are the product.
-
The problem is that players' percentage of revenues has gone up, especially as a percentage of shared revenues. That's made it progressively more difficult for small market teams to spend up to the salary cap. The Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers made a profit of just $10 million this past season. Jamarcus Russell also received an average of $10 million per year in guaranteed money alone during his three years with the Raiders. There's clearly something wrong with this picture!
Players' share of revenues needs to be reduced to help increase parity. Even more importantly, the definition of "revenue" needs to be modified to mean "shared revenue only" and not "revenue that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder manage to milk from their fans which is unavailable to the Ralph Wilsons of the league."
The Packers are a NPO, the goal isnt to make as much $$ as possible. For example, """ Volunteers work concessions, with sixty per cent of the proceeds going to local charities. Even the beer is cheaper than at a typical N.F.L. stadium."""
The packers are not a good example but i realize they are the only team for which we have google-able info.
While you say the players should get less to increase parity, isnt it just as easy to say the owners should share more? make the league more equitable between the haves and have nots.
I mean you are arguing that the players should get less of a smaller pie.
The players share of revenues has not gone up. The problem for small market teams isnt the players its the unshared revenue that continues to grow.
-
The league doesn't have to be losing money to want to lower the players percentages. If they feel that costs will rise faster than revenues in the future, then they have every right to want to negotiate a lower % for the players.
Thats different from what the other poster said and from what the owners' position has been. They said they are currently suffering from lower revenues. They certainly have the right to negotiate whatever they want.
Several TV contracts are up in a few years, and rating haven't been suffering. I think its safe to say they will be getting a serious influx of revenue when those deals go through, kinda like they did when the current deals were signed in 2006.
-
I completely agree that the owners shouldn't have caved into the NFLPA back in 2006!
The owners' failure to stand up to the union back then sowed the seeds for the negative things which have happened since. A reduction in players' share of the revenues is in the best long-term interests of the league and of the sport, and it's important for the owners to take a stand now to ensure the players' share is reduced.The league isnt in danger, reducing the players share isnt going to change the viability of the league all that much.
Your statement has to be premised on the supposed fact that teams are losing money. There is nothing to support that notion.
If you just dont like unions thats fine.
-
It's hard to imagine anyone can get this far into this topic and still argue that the owners are asking the players to take a "pay cut".
No its not.
According to Forbes, their dat ""shows (that) instead of asking the players to take a pay cut, what is really needed is increased revenue-sharing."""
-
Losing money? No. Experiencing decreased profit due to rising expenditures? Very possible. Stadium costs, player salaries, coaches salaries, health care costs, administrative costs, etc. all continue to rise. According to Forbes, while aggregate revenue rose 5.8% in 2010, the actual value of NFL teams fell 2%.
Operating income may have reached an all-time high, but if it isn't rising as quickly as the above-mentioned costs (or the inflation rate for that matter), then the NFL is losing ground. Check out the link, it's a pretty good article.
Its a good article. It also states " But thanks to long-term television contracts negotiated before the recession, the NFL's profitability has never been stronger""
The league is very very profitable. The only example they can cite, because they dont the financials of any other team, is the not for profit Packers.
-
Of course he is going to have a meeting with his editors over this. They are probably going to want to know his source and see if he could get another source before the rest of the media crucify them a 2nd time around. With all of the "sources" people in the media have, this guy has the only source that has leaked this info out? Sounds fishy. Not impossible, but the editors are defenently going to want to know more about this source.
Usuaully, one source is pretty naughty in journalism. 2 is the bare minimum, and 3 is a whole lot more pretty.
Imo, if the lockout were ending soon (next couple weeks) then there would be a lot more leaks out there.
you say that because you are assuming they didnt know about this story before it printed.
Do you really think there was a rogue writer at a daily who snuck this story past everyone?
-
I disagree with that. They fared well enough. They got free agency. They got the owners backpedaling to maintain "labor peace" in the last negotiation, which is now sticking in the owners' throat badly enough to result in a lockout.
The simple fact is that unions do not drive down labor costs. That is Economics 101. People that think they do are simply looking up the wrong side of the street.
Also, just because revenue went up quickly since the last CBA does not guarantee that it will continue to climb. Ownership is claiming exactly that in fact, revenue is falling back and it is getting harder to maintain what they have. Which only makes a certain degree of sense, given the economic condition of our country, it seems plausible that it is harder and will become even more so to find corporations and other deep pockets that can buy luxury suites, naming rights, etc. Are the broadcasting companies just going to double the last contract automatically or are they finding it harder to sell advertising time?
The NFL isnt losing money. There is absolutely nothing anywhere to support the notion that revenues are down.
And take a look around, many corporations are making record profits even in these so called hard economic times. In fact they had the highest reported profits ever in 2010 as a whole. Yes some are struggling and the little people are for a number of reasons.
But corporations have the $$ to support the NFL.
-
They did offer 5 years of financial statements, to be reviewed by an independent 3rd party firm. That doesn't sound like total unwillingness to open their books. The union responded by demanding 10 years of statements...it does make one wonder if they were simply using the need for such information as a form of posturing, or whether they truly feel like they need to see financials.
Its a multi billion dollar deal and they disclosed 5 years of limited financials. So no, its not just posturing.
-
If you trying to be a legit reporter sticking your neck out like this and being wrong is not a good thing for your rep. The Eagle-Trib is not some weekly shopping rag, its a daily with a sizable circulation. I'll bet Burt has a "meeting" with his editors today.
PTR
Ill bet he doesnt. He likely has a source. He only siad they have reached a tentative agreement but clearly states the deal isnt final and the lockout isnt over.
-
They could have extended it or not, they chose not to so as to get a new deal. With no CBA, the clock goes right back to the White and Mcneil cases circa 1993.
I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players.
What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?
Stated succinctly and correctly.
-
Kurt Warner is dead on. The players got beyond a fair deal last time around, with many owners saying they reluctantly agreed to the last CBA, in order to avoid a work stoppage (Ralph Wilson was against the deal). The bottom line is the players don't have much leverage, and have even less to complain about...Even the lowest paid players get salaries most Americans can't even dream of, while working half a year. Like it or not, the owners are the OWNERS. The multi-million dollar salaries players receive are not "slave labor" as some confused players have said.
To continue refusing their employers offers will hurt the players FAR more than it will hurt the owners. With relatively short careers, these players will lose more in game checks lost then they could hope to recover in bigger (or the same size) future contracts.
The issue isnt about what the average American receives as a salary. The average American is not an integral part of a product generating billions of dollars in revenue. This is not a typical employer employee relationship.
THe owners cannot simply replace their employees easily or they would have by now. Hence the standoff.
You see part of the reason the sides don't agree is because they to gain more benefits BECAUSE their careers are short.
And to say they work half the year is absurd. I mean we have threads on here talking about unofficial OTAs.
And you know, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to suggest the league is losing money.
Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by K Gun Special
http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/1/4/1913932/buffalo-bills-attendance-drops-dramatically-in-2010
Bills had 2nd lowest attendence in AFC in 2009
http://www.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2007/01/01/daily45.html
Bills drop 5% while rest of league has record year.
Last year they played to 86% capacity. Sounds just like the glory years!!
Next time use facts.