OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Even if we ignore anything to do with on field production and marketing that are difficult to quantify, he averages about $2M per year in jersey sale revenue. And I'd imagine that alone is enough for my earlier statement to be true. ...can't go into much detail, but I was shocked when close friends were in the company of NFL big, BIG dawgs whose primary interest was merchandise sales from a prime matchup.....makes sense to me....ticket sales are a given...TV revenues are a given....so the ancillary cash cow is merchandise for that game day matchup....who wins or not is immaterial.....it's the $$$........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 it's 5k. i've found cheaper ones, actually. never thought to google'm. but they can be had for $2,500 Check the animal adoption places, private and state run, you never know you might get one cheap cheap cheap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I think you have to acknowledge here that the difference between $50K and $75K is an order of magnitude different than $14M and $21M in terms of impact on quality of life, though. At some point there exist diminishing returns, and I'd say it occurs well before $14 million a year. Not untrue but I would likewise guess someone in poverty might feel the same about the tiers of middle class. Stuff like this is all perspective... except for the feed my kid comment- that was dumb to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 It's a good question, probably better for PPP where we could hash it out. I'll just leave it at when excess (define it how you will) capital could be better allocated to the benefit of a greater portion of society. thank you for your clarity of mind and soul. seriously When does one have too much money? When should one stop wanting more? Who decides that? Every job has a different "ceiling." My job, like many, doesn't have a cap. I can make as much as I can based on what I am able to produce. When should I stop wanting that number to grow? Why should I stop wanting that number to grow? Obviously, $14M is different than $50k or even $250K. Why should the guy at $250k not want $500k? Why should the guy at $500k not want a million? When are these people supposed to stop wanting more? Individual decisions. How much does one need? Enough to eat and clothe a family with a simple roof that does not leak. Not untrue but I would likewise guess someone in poverty might feel the same about the tiers of middle class. Stuff like this is all perspective... except for the feed my kid comment- that was dumb to anyone. perspective. everyone should choke a glass down on a regular basis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 It's a good question, probably better for PPP where we could hash it out. I'll just leave it at when excess (define it how you will) capital could be better allocated to the benefit of a greater portion of society. Not really to get into this too much but the wealthy people already do allocate money to society. A lot of money. The top 20% of the wealthiest people pay nearly 90% of tax money. That money pays for a lot of things that you use every day. Are you saying they should give more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 It's a good question, probably better for PPP where we could hash it out. I'll just leave it at when excess (define it how you will) capital could be better allocated to the benefit of a greater portion of society. well, new guy topics here can broach ppp type conversations as long as they remain civil. since no one pointed it out and everyone wants to take a topic seriously it suddenly has to be ppp - it benefits no one. sooo, try talking about the thing here. avoid those who are !@#$s to your reply or go too crazy with it. and you'll be surprised to find lively debate here. Not really to get into this too much but the wealthy people already do allocate money to society. A lot of money. The top 20% of the wealthiest people pay nearly 90% of tax money. That money pays for a lot of things that you use every day. Are you saying they should give more? i think my question drawing this back to football is wondering what the owners should be allowed to keep? they own cash cows right now but very quickly they could be the nba of 5 years ago or nascar today. there is risk in their investment - especially with the faux cte nonsense. if an nfl owner is told he can't make a lot of money owning an nfl team why would he want to own an nfl team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Not really to get into this too much but the wealthy people already do allocate money to society. A lot of money. The top 20% of the wealthiest people pay nearly 90% of tax money. That money pays for a lot of things that you use every day. Are you saying they should give more? maybe the avenue of giving via taxes is an issue. get in there and make a difference well, new guy topics here can broach ppp type conversations as long as they remain civil. since no one pointed it out and everyone wants to take a topic seriously it suddenly has to be ppp - it benefits no one. sooo, try talking about the thing here. avoid those who are !@#$s to your reply or go too crazy with it. and you'll be surprised to find lively debate here. i think my question drawing this back to football is wondering what the owners should be allowed to keep? they own cash cows right now but very quickly they could be the nba of 5 years ago or nascar today. there is risk in their investment - especially with the faux cte nonsense. if an nfl owner is told he can't make a lot of money owning an nfl team why would he want to own an nfl team? It's fairly true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I guess to take it a step further should Pegula be fine with regulations on fracking because he has PLENTY of money? Humans will always want more. It's our nature and there's nothing wrong with that. Sammy probably should understand that he is going to offend people with those comments. It's nowhere near as bad as Mickelson complaining about California taxes (and he has WAY more money than Sammy). Wanting more money isn't the issue. We still haven't seen a logical argument that he shouldn't want more money. We all want more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 (edited) I'm not sure if I missed it after skimming this whole thread ... but no mention of his SB guarantee tweet? Seems much more noteworthy! Edited July 3, 2017 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I guess to take it a step further should Pegula be fine with regulations on fracking because he has PLENTY of money? Humans will always want more. It's our nature and there's nothing wrong with that. Sammy probably should understand that he is going to offend people with those comments. It's nowhere near as bad as Mickelson complaining about California taxes (and he has WAY more money than Sammy). Wanting more money isn't the issue. We still haven't seen a logical argument that he shouldn't want more money. We all want more money. And adding to that, it stimulates innovation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I guess to take it a step further should Pegula be fine with regulations on fracking because he has PLENTY of money? Humans will always want more. It's our nature and there's nothing wrong with that. Sammy probably should understand that he is going to offend people with those comments. It's nowhere near as bad as Mickelson complaining about California taxes (and he has WAY more money than Sammy). Wanting more money isn't the issue. We still haven't seen a logical argument that he shouldn't want more money. We all want more money. not making this a lamp, but using this to explain my thought: i can't speak to being a billionaire, only a millionaire. and as position in my field where the dependency upon the environment in which we work consumes resources of all of those around and affect the world i must be vigilant to defend my own world and those of the world around me. as a steward for agricultural world in the community which i live i must be willing to reinvest both time and money in to education and advancement but at the same time fight to protect what is ethically justifiable because education alone cannot convince a politician that taxing my cattle farts is ridiculous. pegula's money is to do with it as he please, if he cannot and chooses not to reinvest his money in to his livelihood than he has no stake in the game of business and life which he plays. it should not be a monetary figure that says "ok, you've had enoguh, not give it back." that's not a free market republican of capitalism - which is what this country is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I'm not sure if I missed it after skimming this whole thread ... but no mention of his SB guarantee tweet? Seems much more noteworthy! Maybe I'm experiencing BBFS, but I took that tweet as a guarantee he'll play 16 games rather than the SB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Couple of observations after reading this thread: 26CB and Kirby are doing the lord's work here, and my god are people suscepitible to misinterpreting a Watkins comment (which was totally right, btw) because they're invested in sports as some sort of morality play, with Joe Sixpack making $45k a year invoked as a foil to all the overpaid athletes out there. Do people get this worked up about Led Zeppelin's or Leonardo Di Caprio's earnings? It's all entertainment in the end, and in entertaimment, the stars get paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 not making this a lamp, but using this to explain my thought: i can't speak to being a billionaire, only a millionaire. and as position in my field where the dependency upon the environment in which we work consumes resources of all of those around and affect the world i must be vigilant to defend my own world and those of the world around me. as a steward for agricultural world in the community which i live i must be willing to reinvest both time and money in to education and advancement but at the same time fight to protect what is ethically justifiable because education alone cannot convince a politician that taxing my cattle farts is ridiculous. pegula's money is to do with it as he please, if he cannot and chooses not to reinvest his money in to his livelihood than he has no stake in the game of business and life which he plays. it should not be a monetary figure that says "ok, you've had enoguh, not give it back." that's not a free market republican of capitalism - which is what this country is. hard as i try, i do not understand what u are trying to say in this post...I'm so stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 Couple of observations after reading this thread: 26CB and Kirby are doing the lord's work here, and my god are people suscepitible to misinterpreting a Watkins comment (which was totally right, btw) because they're invested in sports as some sort of morality play, with Joe Sixpack making $45k a year invoked as a foil to all the overpaid athletes out there. Do people get this worked up about Led Zeppelin's or Leonardo Di Caprio's earnings? It's all entertainment in the end, and in entertaimment, the stars get paid. So you don't see the irony in claiming that Watkins is 'right' about wanting a larger share when capitalism dictates his salary is determined by the free market and is thus appropriately priced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 You should be able to feed your kids and many many many others for $14M /year. ....Mickey D's I presume......IF you hold the "biggie stuff"......poor Latrell........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 So you don't see the irony in claiming that Watkins is 'right' about wanting a larger share when capitalism dictates his salary is determined by the free market and is thus appropriately priced?It's not really a free market with a hard cap. The argument could be made in baseball I suppose. There's talk of Harper at $400-$500M. not making this a lamp, but using this to explain my thought: i can't speak to being a billionaire, only a millionaire. and as position in my field where the dependency upon the environment in which we work consumes resources of all of those around and affect the world i must be vigilant to defend my own world and those of the world around me. as a steward for agricultural world in the community which i live i must be willing to reinvest both time and money in to education and advancement but at the same time fight to protect what is ethically justifiable because education alone cannot convince a politician that taxing my cattle farts is ridiculous. pegula's money is to do with it as he please, if he cannot and chooses not to reinvest his money in to his livelihood than he has no stake in the game of business and life which he plays. it should not be a monetary figure that says "ok, you've had enoguh, not give it back." that's not a free market republican of capitalism - which is what this country is. That's a good take Boyst and can be related to football fairy easily. The concussion stuff and money for older players is the player's association trying to keep the game healthy. I'm not sure it benefits them in the future the same way it does in your case but there is a correlation. Additionally, you see guys taking better care of their bodies and extending their careers and, in turn, their earning window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 It's not really a free market with a hard cap. The argument could be made in baseball I suppose. There's talk of Harper at $400-$500M. I'm talking overall. He could always take up baseball or basketball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 It's not really a free market with a hard cap. The argument could be made in baseball I suppose. There's talk of Harper at $400-$500M. That's a good take Boyst and can be related to football fairy easily. The concussion stuff and money for older players is the player's association trying to keep the game healthy. I'm not sure it benefits them in the future the same way it does in your case but there is a correlation. Additionally, you see guys taking better care of their bodies and extending their careers and, in turn, their earning window. this is why, if the nflpa, has any smarts they will handle the healthcare of the players. of course, it will backfire, because that is what unions do... but they should wrestle away the treatment of former players by telling the nfl they will handle all former nfl players lawsuits, healthcare, etc. they'd get more money they can divvy up themselves which is what unions want. if demaurice smith oversees the facilitation of the money given out to former players it will be a godsend for the nfl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted July 3, 2017 Share Posted July 3, 2017 I'm talking overall. He could always take up baseball or basketball.That's fair. He's in a position though where his pay is capped. He's not the best example but Brady might be. In a totally free market his worth far exceeds his salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts