finknottle

I think you are missing the larger point. It's all about winning the Super Bowl, not landing the greatest possible quarterback. There are those who believe that to contend you have to land a Manning when you draft a quarterback, and you have to keep plugging away year after year until you get lucky - fine. Parcells arguably believed that the best way for a franchise to win Superbowls was to build a strong team and draft good quarterbacks conservatively - get a strong player with minimal risk of setting the team back by being a flop. One can argue whether his strategy is relevant in today's NFL or not, but he had a pretty good run with his boring but above-average quarterbacks.

There is a reciprocity agreement between MD, VA, and DC, but... I work for and own a MD-based S-corp, but live in VA. My company pays taxes in MD, while through reciprocity my earnings are taxed by VA (just like you would expect). However, the Peoples Republic of Maryland has found another way to tax me. The way an S-corp works is that any company profits flow to the shareholders and are taxed as personal income. So I pay federal and VA taxes on salary+profits. But what Maryland does is have a special tax on non-resident profits... so in effect, my company profits are taxed twice! My accountant says this situation is common, and all you can do is aim for zero company profit each year, or restart the company in Virginia. (Yet another example of how dumb tax policy can hurt a state.)

My non-expert understanding is that this is correct. Courts will generally allow entities to continue after an expired CBA with labor policies that were agreed to under it. But if the NFL implements dramatically new policies - such as a rookie wage cap - a challenge is more likely to be upheld.

If you replace military complex with police services, isn't the heart-wrenching statement still true? Or the arts or education for that matter? Let's face it: every burger made could have been 50 day's of algea food for starving vegetarians. Shouldn't we start by outlawing the foods at the top of the pyramid?

I would love to see replacement players again. That said, if you relly want replacement owners then what the players should do is this: Form their own player-owned league, with the playeers playing where they are now, and go up agains NFL replacement teams. They would instantly have a credible product, far more so than the replacement teams, and would get media-love unheard of in sports. The players could pool their personal money and use it for administration and insurance, and play for equity in the league. They will be playing in second-rate facilities, but since when has stadium attendence ever paid salaries? I have no doubt they would get a national television coverage from somebody for minimal money - and if they last a year or two, it would become big money and they would start to cash in If the quality of the players is truely as important to the business of football as they believe, and having their quality versus the guys who get cut in August really makes a difference to fans (as most here would have us believe), the players will succeed with their new league. But if after a year there is no discernable on-field difference between the NFLPA league and a relacement-filled NFL team, they will fail.

IMO, the problem with that scenario is that it doesn't happen in the real world *unless* the partner has an equity stake, in which case it may be appropriate to share the books. And even then, they typically don't unless there are serious questions. For example, an S-Corp returns all the profits to the shareholders in proportion to their shares, and you leave it to the accountant to figure it what that is. So yes, in your example you might as well take your partner at their word. A company that lies about its books is committing accounting fraud, not just to you but to the IRS as well. Most 'profit sharing' arrangements with employees (in particular, non-shareholders) are not for a percentage of the profits. Rather, the company decides to give everybody a fixed percentage of their salary. (More precisely, they decide how much profit they want to reinvest and how much they want to give back. They divide the latter by total payroll to compute the percentage.)

Once again, you confuse revenue with profit. If you were paid a cut of the revenue, then it would be simple and non-controversial to show you the revenue. This is done in the business world. Getting paid a cut of the profit is almost never done. (If nothing else, takes away your incentive to cut costs and increase the profit margin.)

Opening the books is not the same thing as showing the television revenue. The TV revenue is straight-forward. Opening the books means showing the individual finances of each team, from how much the ball boys make to how much they spend on catering. Suppose a bunch of teams are in the red, and a large part of the reason is because they have bloated non-player payrolls and high overhead. Will the union say "that's ok then," or will the next step see them telling those franchises how they should run their businesses so that the players can get what they think they deserve?

I think you are confusing obtained with created, and focusing unduly on the source of individual wealth. It is certainly true that a great deal of wealth is inherited - the percentage of those whose assets qualify them as 'rich' are disporportionately inherited. But if you actually track it, you see that most inherited fortunes dissipate over time. On the other hand, consider the wealth of the nation. It increases over time. Not because another founding father kicked the bucket and left the nation an extra trillion dollars, but because of the creation of a net trillion dollars worth of goods, new companies, IP, etc. Nor is that new wealth generally created through sales - sales gets you a paycheck, but usually at the expense of a competitor. After you account for the zero-sum stuff, new wealth is created by intrepeneurs and inventors, and innovation within existing businesses. So if you really mean to ask 'how do I obtain wealth,' the best answer is to be born rich. (I'm a little skeptical about ones overall chances in sales.) But if you mean 'how do I create new wealth,' you should invent something or start a business. And in my personal experience, the richest people (factoring in differences in initial wealth) have been those who have spent time doing the latter, whether as entrepenuers or simply working for startups.

It's called income-based alimony.

Put another way, you find it outrageous that 57% of US companies had at least one unprofitible year between 1998 and 2005? Shocking! You'd have thought there was a tech slowdown or a national calamity or something. I thought companies were money making machines... Seriously, do you know what the tax bill is supposed to be when you don't make money? Or do you believe companies always make a profit every year?

Make that two. I always take the Acela when I travel between DC and NYC. Which is not to say I think government-driven expansion of rail is a good idea. I am fully sympathetic to the localities who find they cannot maintain the public transportation (whether rail or metro) that others decided it would be a good idea to saddle them with.

I don't get it.

One problem. Is anybody in the league 100% sure how a player will pan out? I mean, other than internet posters?

With all the talk of the importance of having a franchise quarterback, how you can't pass up the opportunity to draft one when you have the chance, and where you are most likely to get one: I'd like to see a precise definition of "franchise quarterback," so that we know what to look for in the draft, and the difference between it and "starting caliber quarterback." I'd also like to see a list of the FQ's in the league so that we can sort out just how rare they are and how their teams performance compares to non-FQ's going forward. Debating the neccessity of getting one seems an unproductive discussion if we actually give the title in hindsight. Sort of like arguing the importance of drafting hall-of-famers. So humor me. Define franchise quarterback, and tell me who is and is not one.

Really? Why exactly do they want to renegotiate the deal, if they are not interested in making a yearly profit? If there were any doubt that this was a pro-union piece, it is dispelled by this straight-faced answer: So the NFLPA's solution to spiraling rookie contracts is to reduce the length of time you can sign a rookie for, AND take the money you would have paid them in the fourth and fifth years and add it to money going to other players and the retirement fund. Oh yes, and kick in some extra matching money for the retirement fund too. Swell.

I think it would be unusual if they didn't. Sure, one school of thought say's the head coach reports to the GM, and the GM talks regularly to the owner. But how many head coaches in the NFL see it that way? How many are content to say they work for the GM, and have their fate decided by the GM rather than the owner? I think most teams view the GM and the head coach as semi-equals. They work together, but both report to and are judged by ownership.

Tell that to the investors in the USFL, WFL, etc and see what they say. I suggest you take your money and invest it in lottery tickets. Where else can you make millions off of $1?

Meanwhile, in the real-world world, here's a piece from the Japan Times contrasting the development of China and India. There is an interesting passage relevent to this discussion, on Chinese Premier Wen's visit to India two weeks ago. http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110104a1.html

+1. Stupidest thread ever. But I do find it revealing that the idea that diplomats are trying to get export business for US compaines provokes a response that it is about giving more money to the rich rather than about jobs.

Don't forget the extra cap space. Spiller signed a 5 year $25 million dollar contract with incentives bringing it up to $37.5 million. What would that get you on the free agent market?

Interesting - not much comment about what I see is the crucial point. With a 16 game season, you still have many teams alive for the playoffs going into the final two weeks. Expand the season to 18 games, and you have added two more weeks for the separation to occur. Statistically, you are more likely to have more berths locked up in the final weeks.

And to be clear: benefit of the doubt means the team will stick with him as a starter for the next two seasons no matter if he improves or regresses. They are committed because of his draft position.

As an historical aside, the situation around the world used to be the opposite. Prior to the rising sports salaries of the past few decades, soccer was generally considered a blue collar game while rugby was considered elitist. Why? Because the last thing that the working class wanted after a hard week of work were the demands of a contact sport. But if you were a professional or part of the leisure class, a weekend spent knocking heads while playing rugby scratched that physical itch. They could *afford* some heavy lifting, bruising and an occasional broken bone. Even today, if you look at club-level rugby in the US you will find them disproportionately populated by doctors, lawyers, and other professionals. Partly because club players are usually college graduates to begin with, but also because a genuine 'weekend warrior' lifestyle is a luxury better afforded by professionals who have the week to rest up.

Probably the same way they know I'm not good enough to sign and start, even though they haven't seen me in an NFL game. They might be wrong of course, but it is their job to separate those worth trying from those who are a waste of time.