Doc Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Evidence to that affect? What evidence is there that prices will even just stay the same if players get more money?
aristocrat Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 What evidence is there that prices will even just stay the same if players get more money? prices will go up either way...you can't just argue that the player's salaries cause the prices to go up. the players salaries go up because of the amount of money the league is bringing in. prices will go up as long as tv revenue keeps increasing, stadiums sell boxes, seats and ads. simple
Doc Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) prices will go up either way...you can't just argue that the player's salaries cause the prices to go up. the players salaries go up because of the amount of money the league is bringing in. prices will go up as long as tv revenue keeps increasing, stadiums sell boxes, seats and ads. simple Not quite. The biggest expense the owners have is the players. You pay them more, you need to make up the lost revenue elsewhere. Where does it come from? Ultimately, us. Edited April 26, 2011 by Doc
aristocrat Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Not quite. The biggest expense the owners have is the players. You pay them more, you need to make up the lost revenue elsewhere. Where does it come from? Ultimately, us. if league revenue goes down...the salary cap goes down and thus the players salaries go down.
Doc Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 if league revenue goes down...the salary cap goes down and thus the players salaries go down. As long as there is demand, revenues won't go down. At some point prices may be too high, but where that is unknown/remains to be seen.
aristocrat Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 As long as there is demand, revenues won't go down. At some point prices may be too high, but where that is unknown/remains to be seen. exactly, which means players salaries go up because the cap keeps going up and teams can therefore pay more for top players.
Buftex Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) No offense, but there are a awful lot of amateur labor experts here, and most have been wrong about everything involved with this situation...we don't know how this will affect anything. How it will affect the Bills, and Bills fans, specifically,is as unknown as anything. I know there is an overwhelming business sentiment on TSW, but having more money doesn't always put one on the right side of an issue...the owners have maintained an arrogant stance for decades, and were protected in their stance. That may no longer be the case. IMO, the owners were very foolish to let this go as far as it did. Edited April 26, 2011 by Buftex
karl malones other son Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 No offense, but there are a awful lot of amateur labor experts here, and most have been wrong about everything involved with this situation...we don't know how this will affect anything. How it will affect the Bills, and Bills fans, specifically,is as unknown as anything. I know there is an overwhelming business sentiment on TSW, but having more money doesn't always put one on the right side of an issue...the owners have maintained an arrogant stance for decades, and were protected in their stance. That may no longer be the case. IMO, the owners were very foolish to let this go as far as it did. Buftex, thread assassin
aristocrat Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 i don't think anyone here is a gm either but we still talk about who to draft.
jumbalaya Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 prices will keep going up as demand keeps going up I have a couple of question that maybe somebody can answer. These numbers are my estimates, I did not research them.... Baseball has 81 home games, Hockey and Basketball 41 each. Football has 8. Baseball has about 25 to 30 players on a team, hockey about 20 and basketball about 12. Football has about 65 or more when counting practice squad and injured players. Baseball has about 8 coaches, managers, trainers or instructors, hockey maybe 6, basketball has 4 or 5 and football has more than 15. The most common injury in baseball is jock itch, hockey has upper and lower body injuries whatever that means, basketball's biggest risk is tattoo-ink poisoning. Football players have dementia, broken necks, ruined legs....long term crippling and life debilitating injuries. A good player can last 20 years in baseball and hockey, about 15 in basketball and very few last 10 years in football. Any player in football can be out for good in a nano second. The average ticket price for baseball, hockey and basketball has risen to where it is close to the same cost as a single football game. Hockey and basketball in many places surpass the cost of a football game. But baseball is not far behind football any longer. Nothing is better than an NHL playoff game, i hate pro basketball so my opinion of their playoff product is jaded, baseball has had some unbelievable playoffs but usually only the WS gets my interest. Football is one and done and the hype around the Super Bowl is rarely fulfilled. Baseball, hockey and basketball are not ruined by TV timeouts. Football has lost its game continuity and no player should be tired in the fourth quarter as it takes forever to get to the fourth quarter and on average about 30 minutes to play the last two minutes of any game. Even having the K-Gun offense in this league could not tire anyone out. Baseball does need to shake up its game and complete games in 2 hours as not many can stomach watching more than two hours of 18 players and 4 base coaches crotch scratching. Why own a football team - TV revenue. Back to my question: 1. If you have a child that is athletic why would you ever let him play football?
Rubes Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Dammit, would somebody just tell me once and for all what I'm supposed to think?
Hplarrm Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Not quite. The biggest expense the owners have is the players. You pay them more, you need to make up the lost revenue elsewhere. Where does it come from? Ultimately, us. Actually I think you have it reversed. The owners are actually the biggest expense that the players have. Take the NFL and their 39.5% share of the total receipts out of the loop and the NFLPA could keep the owners share and we could still reduce ticket prices by 20%. (I know I know actually some of those total receipts go to maintain the game so it would not be a flat calculation in this fantasy). The point however is this. If I gave you a chance to watch NFLPA members strap on the gear and have at it or you could chose to have Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Mr. Ralph strap on the gear and play ball who would you buy season tickets to see. The team owners were an essential part of the game back in its founding days when folks like George Halas actually understood the game and even HC'ed his team to championships. Their guts were even essential elements when folks like Mr. Ralph risked a few tens of thousands (real money back in the day) and forced the NFL to let them into the game (and if you want to blame rising salaries for the costs of the game look no further than Mr. Ralph and his partners paying Joe Willie $400K a year). Do not feel bad for the NFL owners however, good sportsmen like the Rooneys and the Maras got paid back with the championships. Even folks like Mr. Ralph who were far more businessmen than sportsmen though they never won the SB they have made their original investments back hand over fist over jowl. However as yet another SB win for the Packers demonstrated, the owners are pretty far from essential today. There are tons of sources of capital out there from other individuals, to coporations to the public on shareholder deals like the Packers. The team owners are really an unnecessary today and though Dan Snyder does have some comedic value they really could be done without. Why do you and some others have such a woody for the owners?
Guest three3 Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Actually I think you have it reversed. The owners are actually the biggest expense that the players have. Take the NFL and their 39.5% share of the total receipts out of the loop and the NFLPA could keep the owners share and we could still reduce ticket prices by 20%. (I know I know actually some of those total receipts go to maintain the game so it would not be a flat calculation in this fantasy). The point however is this. If I gave you a chance to watch NFLPA members strap on the gear and have at it or you could chose to have Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Mr. Ralph strap on the gear and play ball who would you buy season tickets to see. The team owners were an essential part of the game back in its founding days when folks like George Halas actually understood the game and even HC'ed his team to championships. Their guts were even essential elements when folks like Mr. Ralph risked a few tens of thousands (real money back in the day) and forced the NFL to let them into the game (and if you want to blame rising salaries for the costs of the game look no further than Mr. Ralph and his partners paying Joe Willie $400K a year). Do not feel bad for the NFL owners however, good sportsmen like the Rooneys and the Maras got paid back with the championships. Even folks like Mr. Ralph who were far more businessmen than sportsmen though they never won the SB they have made their original investments back hand over fist over jowl. However as yet another SB win for the Packers demonstrated, the owners are pretty far from essential today. There are tons of sources of capital out there from other individuals, to coporations to the public on shareholder deals like the Packers. The team owners are really an unnecessary today and though Dan Snyder does have some comedic value they really could be done without. Why do you and some others have such a woody for the owners? good work.
CosmicBills Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 It may be good for the fans in the short term, but it is not good for the long term health of the game. Hopefully, a stay on the injuction will be issued until an appeal is filed. The owners have the upper hand at the next level. The best hope for the league is for the appeal to be upheld and the lockout to be upheld. This may be the only way to force the players back to the negotiating table. They started it by decertifying and walking away from the table. they need to be smacked back in line and forced back to the table. I respectfully disagree. What's best for the long term health of the league is to avoid missing any games in 12 period. The NBA and the MLB all suffered dips in ratings, attendance and relevance due to their prolonged labor issues. Contrary to what some here believe thud NFL is not immune to a similar drop that could take years to recover from and would, in the short term, hurt the Bills chances of staying in Buffalo more because it might scare away some of the deep pockets who are allegedly circling. And regardless of what you think, this CBA will have little impact on the Bills future in Buffalo. The majority of the owners don't care about small market issues and won't try hard to protect their interests. It's the big money clubs leading the charge here. The Bills future depends entirely on who buys the team when it's finally for sale. As stated above, the loss of games in 12 will have a negative impact on the league's bottom line and could well do more damage than even continuing to operate under the old CBA. There is little chance that the new CBA will be as one sided as the last so again it's more important for a deal to get done quickly than it is for the owners to "win" ... At least when it comes to whether or not the Bills stay in WNY. And finally you keep saying the players started this. They didn't. If it were up to them they'd still be playing under the old CBA which had some years left to it. But that's besides the point ... Let's say you're right and the players need to get "smacked back to the table" ... What makes you think a deal will get done quicker with the owner having more leverage?! It won't. Never in a million years because if te owners get leverage now they will trybtobdrag out negotiations INTO the season because the players will be that much weaker once game checks are missed. So, the quickest way to get football back without threatening the long term viability of the Bills in Buffalo is to get an agreement made before games are lost. The only way that happens is if the owners are forced to negotiate. The only way that happens is if the lockout is lifted and the appeal is upheld. Neither side is in a hurry to truly negotiate here. But the players need a deal to happen sooner than the owners do. I know you have a thing against Smith but look through that to the other side ... It's about not missing games. Fans? Giving more power to the players means higher salaries, more prices for everything, and it will be harder to keep the team in Buffalo/not move more game across the border. Just because more games might be played, it doesn't mean the fans win, when the long-term viability of the Bills/league is at stake. The league posted record profits and ratings under the last CBA ... Make no mistake, this isn't about the long term viability of the league for either side. It's about the money. The owners want more. The players don't want to give back the gains they've fought for. End of story. This has nothing to do with the long term health of the league.
MattM Posted April 26, 2011 Author Posted April 26, 2011 The best hope for the Bills out of all of this is that the players demand a salary floor. I thought I'd read that the last CBA terms they owners and players were discussing contained a 90% salary floor. Can anyone confirm this? It would make sense from a union perspective to protect the guys lower down on the totem pole (who are the vast majority of the League, numbers-wise, and those are the folks who need to vote on a deal to get it approved, not just Manning, Brees, Brady, etc.).
Mr. WEO Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 The best hope for the Bills out of all of this is that the players demand a salary floor. I thought I'd read that the last CBA terms they owners and players were discussing contained a 90% salary floor. Can anyone confirm this? It would make sense from a union perspective to protect the guys lower down on the totem pole (who are the vast majority of the League, numbers-wise, and those are the folks who need to vote on a deal to get it approved, not just Manning, Brees, Brady, etc.). Every capped year has had a "salary floor". I don't see how lifting the lockout gets them closer to a deal. There is now zero incentive for the playrs to listen to any more of the several offers made by the owners. If the league is going to continue under the conditions of the expired CBA (which had one more year anyway, not "several more years"),the players will be content to ride out the legal process of their frivolous lawsuit.
CodeMonkey Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 (edited) Back to my question: 1. If you have a child that is athletic why would you ever let him play football? I have 2 sons and both are fairly athletic, one is sports minded the other not. The sports minded one wanted to play football when he was very young and he did play flag football and enjoyed it. He asked about playing tackle football when he was older and he was not allowed to. My wife and I know too many people in the medical profession, including one who specializes in head trauma, and we decided that the risk did not just outweigh the reward, but by so much there was not even a question about our son playing. There are a great many other sports available that he can: 1) Play without one of the main goals being to damage another player. 2) Get good exercise while playing, not be off of the field half of the time (at least). 3) Have a reasonable expectation of not having multiple concussions before being even out of high school. 4) Have a reasonable expectation of not blowing out a knee or some other lifetime handicap before being even out of high school. 5) Can play his entire life, even when he is a old fart like me They play soccer, basketball, hockey, and have played baseball (thank God they lost interest in that marathon snooze fest). But never football. They both understand the reasons why, and they are both Bills fans. Bottom line, just not worth the risk. We have the rest of their lives to think about. Edited April 26, 2011 by CodeMonkey
MattM Posted April 26, 2011 Author Posted April 26, 2011 Every capped year has had a "salary floor". I don't see how lifting the lockout gets them closer to a deal. There is now zero incentive for the playrs to listen to any more of the several offers made by the owners. If the league is going to continue under the conditions of the expired CBA (which had one more year anyway, not "several more years"),the players will be content to ride out the legal process of their frivolous lawsuit. Could be wrong, but I believe that the prior floor was in the 85% range, so a move to 90% would help teams like the Bills. I care about how the final deal is structured in terms of its impact on league balance and parity for the sake of small market teams teams like the Bills and absolutely do not trust the big market "brain trust" of Snyder, Jones, Kraft, et al. to do right by teams like ours; those same owners were the ones who negotiated the last CBA and are the ones leading the charge to pull out of the last deal as I understand it. The owners picked this path when they pulled out of the last CBA and, like other posters here, I think it was a foolish move of theirs to let it get this far. That, plus things like the "lockout fund" they negotiated in their last TV contracts despite having a duty to players to maximize shared revenue (as found by a Reagan-appointed judge) and the fact that they're crying poverty as the reason to scuttle the last deal, but won't open their books to prove said poverty, leads me to cast an even more jaundiced eye their way, but that may just be me.....
plenzmd1 Posted April 26, 2011 Posted April 26, 2011 Dammit, would somebody just tell me once and for all what I'm supposed to think? Heres what to think Rubes 1) Go Sabres 2) This helps the players cause 3) Not good for the Bills, in the case of if they play under last years rule, they might be tempted to bring back Lil Donte as we will be an RFA, and not a UFA..I don't want him at any price 4) Not good for Bills as with no cap, no floor..we all know where that is going 5) Go Sabres
Recommended Posts