BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted Wednesday at 10:37 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 10:37 AM I'd bet that's actually a current reality in some contracts, and I certainly don't want to let anyone who's set to make 46.25 million per interception slip through our fingers - Should we sign him? It's only your ticket costs, and rule changes to cram more commercials in for our home viewers who are already subscribing to see the games. I love the game of football, but this league is making it tough to give a crap. Get your damn purple suits out of my face. 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted Wednesday at 10:43 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 10:43 AM (edited) 6 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: I'd bet that's actually a current reality in some contracts, and I certainly don't want to let anyone who's set to make 46.25 million per interception slip through our fingers - Should we sign him? It's only your ticket costs, and rule changes to cram more commercials in for our home viewers who are already subscribing to see the games. I love the game of football, but this league is making it tough to give a crap. Get your damn purple suits out of my face. The league will maximize revenues regardless of the percentage of that revenue that goes to the players. So the cost to fans would be the same even if, for example, players’ salaries were cut in half. The multi-billionaire owners would just pocket a lot more. Edited Wednesday at 10:44 AM by BarleyNY 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted Wednesday at 10:48 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 10:48 AM Should we sign who? 5 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: The league will maximize revenues regardless of the percentage of that revenue that goes to the players. So the cost to fans would be the same even if, for example, players’ salaries were cut in half. The multi-billionaire owners would just pocket a lot more. Yea the NFL doesn't say "How much do we need to fairly remunerate the players? Right let's charge double that and then split the profits." They say "How much can we get away with charging before demand dips? Right let's charge that and then we will have to give half the revenue to the players." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted Wednesday at 10:58 AM Author Share Posted Wednesday at 10:58 AM 6 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Should we sign who? Yea the NFL doesn't say "How much do we need to fairly remunerate the players? Right let's charge double that and then split the profits." They say "How much can we get away with charging before demand dips? Right let's charge that and then we will have to give half the revenue to the players." Well I used to watch all the games, or most of them, but now I watch the Bills and some scattered games. Does that qualify as a demand dip? I bet I'm not the first. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted Wednesday at 11:04 AM Author Share Posted Wednesday at 11:04 AM (edited) 21 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: The league will maximize revenues regardless of the percentage of that revenue that goes to the players. So the cost to fans would be the same even if, for example, players’ salaries were cut in half. The multi-billionaire owners would just pocket a lot more. Maybe, and sports has been doing a pretty impressive hoover job on worldwide monies recently, but at some point it all gets ridiculous. Doesn't it? Edited Wednesday at 11:05 AM by BringMetheHeadofLeonLett 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longtimebillsfan Posted Wednesday at 11:04 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 11:04 AM 5 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Well I used to watch all the games, or most of them, but now I watch the Bills and some scattered games. Does that qualify as a demand dip? I bet I'm not the first. I'm right there with you. 3 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted Wednesday at 11:08 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 11:08 AM 19 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: Should we sign who? Yea the NFL doesn't say "How much do we need to fairly remunerate the players? Right let's charge double that and then split the profits." They say "How much can we get away with charging before demand dips? Right let's charge that and then we will have to give half the revenue to the players." Exactly, sign who? The rest is just ah...business. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted Wednesday at 11:30 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 11:30 AM Can I get back these last 2 minutes? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted Wednesday at 11:37 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 11:37 AM 30 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Maybe, and sports has been doing a pretty impressive hoover job on worldwide monies recently, but at some point it all gets ridiculous. Doesn't it? It does. But it’s very odd to complain about the multi-millionaire players and omit the multi-billionaire owners from the conversation. Especially when it’s those owners are the ones making the decisions on what to charge the public. Isn’t it? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted Wednesday at 11:38 AM Author Share Posted Wednesday at 11:38 AM 6 minutes ago, BillnutinHouston said: Can I get back these last 2 minutes? I'm guessing if you live in Houston you've made worse life decisions. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted Wednesday at 11:47 AM Author Share Posted Wednesday at 11:47 AM 2 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: It does. But it’s very odd to complain about the multi-millionaire players and omit the multi-billionaire owners from the conversation. Especially when it’s those owners are the ones making the decisions on what to charge the public. Isn’t it? Disagree. It's us fans who allow the owners of the sports franchises to charge what they can get away with. They will test us for every penny, endlessly, until we decide it't too much. At what point is it too much for you- $1,000.00 per nosebleed seat for week 6 vs the Chargers? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarleyNY Posted Wednesday at 11:49 AM Share Posted Wednesday at 11:49 AM (edited) 52 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Well I used to watch all the games, or most of them, but now I watch the Bills and some scattered games. Does that qualify as a demand dip? I bet I'm not the first. What is that dip driven by? Is it the compensation to players? Or some financial cost you aren’t willing to bear? Personally, my sports consumption has dropped considerably since my younger years. Now it’s a very large consumption of pro and college football with a smattering of smaller sports mixed in. My number two option is legitimately the X Games. The attitude of the contestants is a huge factor in that. Just kids having fun mostly (though money is creeping in there too). No other major sport has more than a passing interest for me. Partially it is the money. For what I have to pay to see a major sporting event I rarely see the value and enjoyment meet that cost. I’ll check out the Olympics, World Cup, etc., but I’m. it invested in any other major sport. I did enjoy the Bandits run though. I will check them out again. That was fun. The other part is my time. As I’ve gotten older I find I’d rather do other things. Football, which I absolutely love as a sport, is my last hold out. 3 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Disagree. It's us fans who allow the owners of the sports franchises to charge what they can get away with. They will test us for every penny, endlessly, until we decide it't too much. At what point is it too much for you- $1,000.00 per nosebleed seat for week 6 vs the Chargers? I think we are in agreement. My point was the same. Your point is what I was inferring. Edited Wednesday at 11:52 AM by BarleyNY 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strive_for_five_guy Posted Wednesday at 12:12 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:12 PM 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP51 Posted Wednesday at 12:14 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:14 PM Our relationship with the NFL is clearly a toxic one lol... we hate what they do but yet here we are... because we love the product. He is where I go off the hook.... the NFL has every right to extract as much money as they can from everyone that they can as often as they can.... but that doesn't mean its right or responsible... in fact pushed too far they ultimately risk losing fans. Quite honestly, I hate that they pretend to be for all things good, champions of those that haven't been given a fair shake, or a vehicle for change... when fundamentally they are pricing an entire segment of the population out of viewership In stadium or on TV... Do your thing NFL run your business your way. But please don't think that any of us are fooled with your Branding of the league as one that is fair and interested in inclusion and social justice... because you are only for what makes you money... 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringMetheHeadofLeonLett Posted Wednesday at 12:16 PM Author Share Posted Wednesday at 12:16 PM 3 minutes ago, BarleyNY said: What is that dip driven by? Is it the compensation to players? Or some financial cost you aren’t willing to bear? Personally, my sports consumption has dropped considerably since my younger years. Now it’s a very large consumption of pro and college football with a smattering of smaller sports mixed in. My number two option is legitimately the X Games. The attitude of the contestants is a huge factor in that. Just kids having fun mostly (though money is creeping in there too). No other major sport has more than a passing interest for me. Partially it is the money. For what I have to pay to see a major sporting event I rarely see the value and enjoyment meet that cost. I’ll check out the Olympics, World Cup, etc., but I’m. it invested in any other major sport. I did enjoy the Bandits run though. I will check them out again. That was fun. I think we are in agreement. My point was the same. Your point is what I was inferring. I can't relate to the players anymore- they make exponentially too much money for what they do, and the team owners aee even more gluttonous. I'm not even sure half of the players like the game. These are my Bills, and always will be, but trying to watch Cowboys - WFT (Redskins), GB - Bears, Raiders - Chiefs... any long-standing rivalry is just so average nowadays. Gooddell is a ***** and needs to go. Who re 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted Wednesday at 12:22 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:22 PM 44 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: I'm guessing if you live in Houston you've made worse life decisions. OK that was funny, but how is Portland these days? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted Wednesday at 12:27 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:27 PM Anyone know what this thread is even about? 1 1 5 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted Wednesday at 12:28 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:28 PM Just turn it off and don’t attend if you don’t like the money being made. I’m guessing that’s exactly what you’ll do with EVERYTHING else you won’t buy today. The billionaire Owner comments always make me chuckle though. You guys realize that the vast majority of Owners made their money in OTHER industries, right? Shouldn’t that make you question what you’re being charged for OTHER things you buy? Hmmm? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted Wednesday at 12:29 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:29 PM 1 hour ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Well I used to watch all the games, or most of them, but now I watch the Bills and some scattered games. Does that qualify as a demand dip? I bet I'm not the first. But there are plenty replacing you.... overall viewing figures just in the USA up 7% last season and that is without the international growth. 2 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: Anyone know what this thread is even about? No idea. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted Wednesday at 12:35 PM Share Posted Wednesday at 12:35 PM 47 minutes ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Disagree. It's us fans who allow the owners of the sports franchises to charge what they can get away with. They will test us for every penny, endlessly, until we decide it't too much. At what point is it too much for you- $1,000.00 per nosebleed seat for week 6 vs the Chargers? Well then why blame the owners to charge what they want when the fans are allowing it? You should be mad at the fans then. 1 hour ago, BringMetheHeadofLeonLett said: Well I used to watch all the games, or most of them, but now I watch the Bills and some scattered games. Does that qualify as a demand dip? I bet I'm not the first. No because the demand is higher. More people are watching more games overall. 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.