Billy Claude Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 2 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said: haha. $12 per year worth of savings?! Ouch. Some other poster said that the NBA lost a lawsuit that required NBA to offer a single team option but did not specify how much they could charge for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einstein Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 In Sunday Ticket case, some owners might have a hard time coming up with $440 million If/when the NFL has to come up with $14.088 billion (plus interest and fees) in the Sunday Ticket litigation, each team will have to come up with more than $440 million. For many of the ultra-rich, there aren’t that many coins in the piggy bank. There’s a difference between paper value and liquid cash. And if 345 Park Avenue has to put out the bat signal for $440 million per team, some owners will have a hard time coming up with that amount. For one team, we know. The Packers, as a publicly-held corporation, must produce an annual report. Last year, the team had $583 million in “cash and investments.” It might be hard to otherwise do business if more than 75 percent of the cash and investments on hand have to be handed over to the league. Other owners might not be nearly as liquid as the Packers. That could make it even more important for owners lacking half a billion in gold bullion to accept private-equity investments. Which, if enough teams are looking for private equity, could depress the value. https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/in-sunday-ticket-case-some-owners-might-have-a-hard-time-coming-up-with-440-million Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bravo Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 On 6/28/2024 at 10:11 PM, Chaos said: The corollary among those peope is that they think anyone who makes less them almost certainly deserves to be making less than. Deserve is an interesting word. Who “deserves” what and who decides? in the vast majority of cases, in a free country, people earn based on the value other people think they provide-not based on some abstract idea like what is “deserved”. Jeff Bezos gets money from me because I like the convenience his company offers me. Terry Pegula gets money from me because I love the team he owns. Etc, etc. Nobody is tricking me or forcing me to make those choices and I do have alternatives. And so doors everyone here. When I was younger, the company I worked for thought my labor was worth $4 per hour. Now my employer thinks the value I bring to the table is worth more than that. What I think I (or anyone other than my employer or I) think I “deserve” is irrelevant. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bravo Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 On 6/29/2024 at 7:09 AM, Pine Barrens Mafia said: They all commit extortion in stadium negotiations. Extortion? That is a word that has a specific meaning and involves the threat of the use of force. That has never happened. At worst, owners have threatened to move the teams they own to a place where they think they can make more money. That isn’t extortion. i get it. You don’t like the wealthy for whatever reason. That doesn’t excuse you of throwing around accusations without any evidence or redefining words so you can accuse those bad people you don’t like of something sinister sounding. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 On 6/27/2024 at 7:31 PM, Mr. WEO said: yeah I don’t understand this suit. People willingly paid the going price for MORE NFL viewing. As the sole provider of this specific entertainment, who did the NFL “price fix” with? And who was damaged amongst the people who decided the price was perfectly fine with them (or they would have chosen not to purchase it). the theory of this case is bizarre. Don't really know, but wonder if it has anything to do with how they've just been ***** around with how they distribute games which has been annoying as hell. On 6/28/2024 at 8:41 PM, MJS said: Unfortunately, this is the attitude of many people. Anyone who makes more money than them must have done so by corrupt means. Punish them because they are rich and corrupt. It's just nonsense. Either they broke the law or they didn't. How much money they make is irrelevant. Can't disagree that people tend to view things this way, also can't really disagree how ridiculous the massive disparity there has been the last half century or so in income increases. Sure companies make more money that's great but maybe spread some of those gains to your employees so the gap doesn't become so insane. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 20 hours ago, Johnny Bravo said: Extortion? That is a word that has a specific meaning and involves the threat of the use of force. That has never happened. At worst, owners have threatened to move the teams they own to a place where they think they can make more money. That isn’t extortion. i get it. You don’t like the wealthy for whatever reason. That doesn’t excuse you of throwing around accusations without any evidence or redefining words so you can accuse those bad people you don’t like of something sinister sounding. what's it like to simp for billionaires? i can't make sense of it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bravo Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 50 minutes ago, Pine Barrens Mafia said: what's it like to simp for billionaires? i can't make sense of it You are the one who seems hung up on how much money other people have...not me. I judge things by whether the facts as I see them and not based on whether or not someone’s demographic category. You seem to have rejected the idea of blind justice (at least in this instance) which, unfortunately, a lot of other people seem to have done. I accused you of either not know what the word extortion means or (worse) knowing what it means and using it anyway to describe a situation that you know isn't extortion. Instead of defending your reasoning you chose to attack my motives...which is remarkable being that you don't know anything about me or my life. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac2001 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 So assuming each team gets hit with this cost the salary cap likely gets crushed would you rather get let’s say 2-300 bucks or have the salary cap to help with Josh’s new deal ? (Field a better team) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 On 6/30/2024 at 1:06 PM, Warcodered said: Don't really know, but wonder if it has anything to do with how they've just been ***** around with how they distribute games which has been annoying as hell. Can't disagree that people tend to view things this way, also can't really disagree how ridiculous the massive disparity there has been the last half century or so in income increases. Sure companies make more money that's great but maybe spread some of those gains to your employees so the gap doesn't become so insane. The suit claims they didnt simply sell the package to the highest bidder and the market determined what the company could charge the consumer. NFL made sure it was sold as a premium product and not affordable for some. Thats why there are no single team options or single games. Have to pay for the full thing no matter your purpose. The NFL has some anti trust exemptions they used that protection to manipulate the price. Espn proposal was going to be offered a third the price with single game options but the NFL wanted it to cost more for the consumer. The cost being charged to the consumer was as much or more the determining factor of what provider got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 On 7/1/2024 at 8:54 AM, mikemac2001 said: So assuming each team gets hit with this cost the salary cap likely gets crushed would you rather get let’s say 2-300 bucks or have the salary cap to help with Josh’s new deal ? (Field a better team) There's a lot of ways for the NFL to come up with this money, and I wouldn't be surprised if trying to reduce the cap isn't one of those ideas. In the current agreement, there's a revenue sharing split between the owners and players. Whatever that percentage is, it would be fair to me to have it apply to who pays the lawsuit bill. Both the owners and players made out on the TV deals. Look at the NBA. The players negotiate their deals almost exclusively around when the new TV deals are set to land. I'm not going to argue what the players have to physically go through and the toll playing takes on their bodies, but they can definitely afford to make less if needed. To me, I do think the owners should take the brunt of paying the fees as they were the ones who negotiated the deal. As for the owners who don't have that type of cash laying around, there are plenty of legitimate ways for them to get it. As for the comments about fans being willing to pay the Sunday Ticket price. What other choice did they have as a football fan? I think it begs the question, just because they can charge that much, should they? This is where the governments gets involved with monopolies and anti-trust. The prices for Sunday ticket and where it's available are crazy. I'd argue this is almost like gambling addictions. You can always say that people don't need to gamble, but let's be real. Most fans aren't going to stop watching their team because the price of Sunday Ticket is too high. Sunday Ticket almost single handedly kept DirecTv in business because of it. There's a lot of rambling in there. End result, I think this loss by the NFL is a good thing. They have been running unchecked for a while now and the fans are paying for it. From Roger saying Super Bowl isn't for the fans to attend anymore, what we are seeing with the Bills new stadium and PSL's, and a bunch of other moves, the NFL is feeding off the addictive nature of it's product and needs to be regulated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mat68 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 2 minutes ago, Virgil said: There's a lot of ways for the NFL to come up with this money, and I wouldn't be surprised if trying to reduce the cap isn't one of those ideas. In the current agreement, there's a revenue sharing split between the owners and players. Whatever that percentage is, it would be fair to me to have it apply to who pays the lawsuit bill. Both the owners and players made out on the TV deals. Look at the NBA. The players negotiate their deals almost exclusively around when the new TV deals are set to land. I'm not going to argue what the players have to physically go through and the toll playing takes on their bodies, but they can definitely afford to make less if needed. To me, I do think the owners should take the brunt of paying the fees as they were the ones who negotiated the deal. As for the owners who don't have that type of cash laying around, there are plenty of legitimate ways for them to get it. As for the comments about fans being willing to pay the Sunday Ticket price. What other choice did they have as a football fan? I think it begs the question, just because they can charge that much, should they? This is where the governments gets involved with monopolies and anti-trust. The prices for Sunday ticket and where it's available are crazy. I'd argue this is almost like gambling addictions. You can always say that people don't need to gamble, but let's be real. Most fans aren't going to stop watching their team because the price of Sunday Ticket is too high. Sunday Ticket almost single handedly kept DirecTv in business because of it. There's a lot of rambling in there. End result, I think this loss by the NFL is a good thing. They have been running unchecked for a while now and the fans are paying for it. From Roger saying Super Bowl isn't for the fans to attend anymore, what we are seeing with the Bills new stadium and PSL's, and a bunch of other moves, the NFL is feeding off the addictive nature of it's product and needs to be regulated. The league will continue to fight this to the death. Adding an additional game to 18 will cover a-lot of the cost of suit imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
co_springs_billsfan Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 On 7/1/2024 at 6:54 AM, mikemac2001 said: So assuming each team gets hit with this cost the salary cap likely gets crushed would you rather get let’s say 2-300 bucks or have the salary cap to help with Josh’s new deal ? (Field a better team) If the salary cap goes down it affects all teams/players equally, and QB salaries will just have to come down some (as will all players' salaries). The owners will make less money also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 On 7/1/2024 at 8:54 AM, mikemac2001 said: So assuming each team gets hit with this cost the salary cap likely gets crushed would you rather get let’s say 2-300 bucks or have the salary cap to help with Josh’s new deal ? (Field a better team) The salary cap is a percentage of revenue negotiated in the CBA with the NFLPA. I can’t see the players being willing to make any concessions for the sake of the owners. This sounds like an outside expense for the owners, or at least that’s the way it looks to me. Some owners can handle this more easily than others, and the league might need to be the safety net for some of the “poor teams”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Otreply Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 (edited) The NFL (amongst The greediest business models in America) would never take part in a price fixing scheme, lol😆😁😂🤣👍🍸🚬 and no pearl clutching damn it, it’s comedy and Sarcasm 🤣🍸🚬 Edited August 1 by Don Otreply 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 (edited) 1 hour ago, Augie said: The salary cap is a percentage of revenue negotiated in the CBA with the NFLPA. I can’t see the players being willing to make any concessions for the sake of the owners. This sounds like an outside expense for the owners, or at least that’s the way it looks to me. Some owners can handle this more easily than others, and the league might need to be the safety net for some of the “poor teams”. If the players got larger contracts as a result of this deal, and they are paid based upon a percentage in revenue sharing, would the players not be affected for future deals? I’m not saying the players should help pay for this, but they are directly affected. Edited July 8 by Virgil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac2001 Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Augie said: The salary cap is a percentage of revenue negotiated in the CBA with the NFLPA. I can’t see the players being willing to make any concessions for the sake of the owners. This sounds like an outside expense for the owners, or at least that’s the way it looks to me. Some owners can handle this more easily than others, and the league might need to be the safety net for some of the “poor teams”. Well isn’t the salary cap based on revenue and I would think the revenue (tv money) would take a hit. The players were benefiting from Sunday ticket with a cap increase so I could see that being an issue but I have no idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 1 hour ago, Virgil said: If the players got larger contracts as a result of this deal, and they are paid based upon a percentage in revenue sharing, would the players not be affected for future deals? I’m not saying the players should help pay for this, but they are directly affected I don’t know the answer to this, but I have to think the NFLPA protected the players from suffering if the owners have extraordinary expenses, like this lawsuit or the CTE settlement. It’s a percentage of gross revenue, I thought. But I wouldn’t be shocked if there is something that complicates this further. 2 minutes ago, mikemac2001 said: Well isn’t the salary cap based on revenue and I would think the revenue (tv money) would take a hit. The players were benefiting from Sunday ticket with a cap increase so I could see that being an issue but I have no idea. Again, I’m guessing that the players only get hurt if future revenue declines. This lawsuit does not come directly out of their pockets. The “old format” that got them in trouble is kind of going away (like it or not) in favor of multiple revenue sources from multiple streaming services to maximize revenue. It’s morphing into a different creature, and I’m sure the NFL has an army of attorneys ready to go to battle. One thing we know, some lawyers are going to get a bigger boat before this is all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PetermansRedemption Posted July 8 Share Posted July 8 On 6/29/2024 at 6:15 AM, Billy Claude said: Don't get your hopes up on the cheaper price part. The NBA has a single team access for League Pass. $14.99 per month for the entire league, $13.99 per month if you just want one team. This is what I was thinking would happen. You’ll be offered a single team at a reduced price, the reduced price will just happen to be single percentage points cheaper than the entire league price. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
major Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 https://apnews.com/article/nfl-sunday-ticket-trial-b17edfd575619d028c7e1581c8700a62 Now the judge says the jury didn’t follow his instructions. We have some options here: 1. Did the jurors indeed not follow instructions? 2. the pressure from the nfl on this judge made him look for a loophole to get the case overturned? 3. The nfl paid the judge *you be the judge (no pun intended) Might help us to look at the status of the Jon Gruden case and it’s current state for clues: https://www.nbcsports.com/nfl/profootballtalk/rumor-mill/news/jon-gruden-tries-one-last-time-to-get-nevada-supreme-court-to-keep-his-case-in-court 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fleezoid Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) It's an old movie, but in case you haven't seen it.....Spoiler alert! Edited August 1 by Fleezoid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.