This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Mainly because most (if not all) of those taxpayer approved stadiums were:A) Voted on by the peopleB) Structured in such a way that as long as the owners make good on their interest and principal payments, there is no recourse into how the owners conduct their business.
This and the 1billion vs 2 billion off the top is all that matters.
IMO the whole problem lies between the haves and have-nots in the owner group. The rift in the ownership group was there when the last CBA was negotiated and nothing has been done to resolve that problem. Now the rich owners are trying to shift the blame and responsibility for the plight of the poor owners on to the players. We keep hearing about the current business model that won't work for the owners, but I haven't seen any evidence presented to the public to confirm or explain what the problem is. By all appearances, the league has done just fine with the current CBA in place.
Well, their profits could also have dropped because of increased capital expenses as well. Hasn't Green Bay done some renovations to the stadium and done some other building in the area? Those expenses would decrease the net profit in the short run, even though it would increase them long run and increase the value of the franchise.That's precisely why the players want to actually see the books of the owners so that they can verify if the claims made by the owners are legit or not. The fact that the owners keep telling them that expenses are so high and profits low, but won't let the union look at the books to verify that claim is EXTREMELY suspicious I think. The union seems to think so as well.
There's plenty of info on player costs. Tons of it, in fact. We know the amount of the salary cap each year, and the amount of the salary floor each year. USAToday has an online database that lists salary information for each team and each player. Even in this past year, profootballtalk ran a list of every team's salary totals.Owner complaints about rampant player costs are disengenuous. Player costs are capped each year as a percentage of revenue. Every year that player salaries go up is because league revenue has gone up, meaning the owners just got more money than they had the year before, too.
It's now two weeks to "X Date" and less than one week to the 23rd, which marks the franchise tag deadline and the supposed on-set of the combine.Bargaining has ceased and the lock out of the players by the Owners (Part #7) is, at least from where I sit, a virtual certainty.
Or just gives them another scapegoat. Now when an agreement doesn't get reached, they can blame the mediator.NFL and NFLPA have agreed to mediation.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6132690
That's a huge step forward IMHO. I think this dramatically raises the chances of a settlement sooner rather than later.
The operative from the Mediator is "silence" for all parties, as in a media gag order; don't expect a lot of news for the duration of this process.The good news is that the mediator has a history of being real good at what he does. If there's any light at the end of the tunnel for this to be settled by March 4th, the Mediator brings that hope.....which is not much.
Alternatively, if you think of how much money owners invest in the franchise, they think about what else they could do with the money. There are a lot of other things that compete for their dollars (lending to governments, funding new businesses, et al.). If I'm getting squeezed in one industry, I'll leave it for a better deal. It's pretty simple. A 30 million return on 600 million dollars (a 5 percent return, for example) isn't exactly that high, I'm guessing. I wouldn't doubt their return is actually a lot lower than that, on average. The notion that owners may profit a lot in nominal terms misses out on the larger picture: If owners don't make enough money in an industry there's no reason for them to stay in it.I think what some of the owners are most angry about is that they are making, on average, say $33M in profit at the end of the year (according to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html" target="_blank">Forbes</a>, per team. Most owners are only majority owners instead of owning the team outright, so they only get a portion of that. Then they look at a couple players on their team who are making as much as them, and that rankles. They aren't used to that. They players, after all, are their employees. It's a blow to their ego.
But getting out requires a sucker who will take the lower return - or sell at a loss (or lower than your book value on which you calculate your return on capital deployed) so his return is higherAlternatively, if you think of how much money owners invest in the franchise, they think about what else they could do with the money. There are a lot of other things that compete for their dollars (lending to governments, funding new businesses, et al.). If I'm getting squeezed in one industry, I'll leave it for a better deal. It's pretty simple. A 30 million return on 600 million dollars (a 5 percent return, for example) isn't exactly that high, I'm guessing. I wouldn't doubt their return is actually a lot lower than that, on average. The notion that owners may profit a lot in nominal terms misses out on the larger picture: If owners don't make enough money in an industry there's no reason for them to stay in it.I think what some of the owners are most angry about is that they are making, on average, say $33M in profit at the end of the year (according to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html" target="_blank">Forbes</a>
Different people have different opportunities for profit, whether due to differing amounts of wealth, knowledge, entrepreneurial savy, physical proximity, barriers to enter that market, etc. So just because I have better opportunities to invest my $500 million than you do, doesn't mean you're a sucker to take my offer to sell the team. In fact, it may be the absolute best thing you can do under the circumstances.Of course, in equilibrium -- where everyone has all the same opportunities, has the skills to take advantage of them equally, and so forth -- then yes, there is no profit to be made.But getting out requires a sucker who will take the lower return - or sell at a loss (or lower than your book value on which you calculate your return on capital deployed) so his return is higherAlternatively, if you think of how much money owners invest in the franchise, they think about what else they could do with the money. There are a lot of other things that compete for their dollars (lending to governments, funding new businesses, et al.). If I'm getting squeezed in one industry, I'll leave it for a better deal. It's pretty simple. A 30 million return on 600 million dollars (a 5 percent return, for example) isn't exactly that high, I'm guessing. I wouldn't doubt their return is actually a lot lower than that, on average. The notion that owners may profit a lot in nominal terms misses out on the larger picture: If owners don't make enough money in an industry there's no reason for them to stay in it.I think what some of the owners are most angry about is that they are making, on average, say $33M in profit at the end of the year (according to <a href="http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html" target="_blank">Forbes</a>
