Eagles a member of "The Gang of Nine"---

Started by bobbyinlondon, February 20, 2006, 10:39:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

PoopyfaceMcGee


Rome

Quote from: FFatPatt on February 28, 2006, 07:56:55 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 28, 2006, 07:46:33 PM
Labor talks break down again - impasse over revenue sharing, etc.

The greed and stupidity of millionaires and billionaires never ceases to amaze me.

Please ban me, I have nothing to contribute.

This thread was started first, you farghead, so I posted the update in the correct forum. 

:)

PS: Feel free to cram your internet jibberish up your surgically repaired nose, bish.


PoopyfaceMcGee

No.  Does your update specifically mention the Eagles or the "gang of nine"?  The update is decidedly an NFL-wide issue, not an Eagles issue, so had you simply checked that board, you would have seen we'd known what you now know for the better part of the afternoon already.

Nice try, though, old timer.  Thanks for the update.

PoopyfaceMcGee

From PG's favorite site:

QuoteGANG OF NINE DRIVEN BY FIVE



An industry source has explained to us that, despite reports of nine teams who are adamantly opposed to expanded revenue sharing, five guys are driving the bus.



They are, we're told, Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, Dan Snyder of the taterskins, Malcolm Glazer of the Buccaneers, Joe Banner of the Eagles, and Jonathan Kraft of the Patriots.



The Bucs previously had not been pegged as one of the teams fighting against expanded revenue sharing.



With five of 32 teams pushing hard against a move to divide local revenues that currently aren't shared, it means that 27 teams could vote for it on Thursday.  With only 24 votes necessary to impose the will of the most on the all, it's still possible that Commisioner Paul Tagliabue can work out a plan on Thursday morning for the ultra-rich to share some of their booty with the mere super-rich.

Banner, Jones, and Snyder all working together to keep the rich rich and the poor poor.  Ha.

SunMo

Quote from: FFatPatt on March 02, 2006, 03:23:13 PM
the poor poor.

that's all relative of course, because what the "poor" make in one year in the NFL could keep my family comfortable for 30 years.
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

General_Failure


The man. The myth. The legend.

PoopyfaceMcGee

Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 02, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 02, 2006, 03:23:13 PM
the poor poor.

that's all relative of course, because what the "poor" make in one year in the NFL could keep my family comfortable for 30 years.

I was talking about a "poor" NFL franchise, so it's probably more like 300 years.

SunMo

actually, we're used to quite a comfortable lifestyle
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

General_Failure

You'll have to scale back to a medium sized hot tub.

The man. The myth. The legend.

rjs246

Don't you live in NEPA? You could earn $3 an hour and live comfortably there.
Is rjs gonna have to choke a bitch?

Let them eat bootstraps.

SunMo

#55
Quote from: rjs246 on March 02, 2006, 03:31:56 PM
Don't you live in NEPA? You could earn $3 an hour and live comfortably there.

SEPA
I'm the Anti-Christ. You got me in a vendetta kind of mood.

PoopyfaceMcGee


sallad selgae

"Official Sponsor of the first, fourth round draft pick"

Eaglez

The whole CBA centers around what percentage of the designated revenue gets allocated to the players for salary cap purposes. Union wants 60, owners want 56.

If the player's union gets its way you'll see the cap increase substantially from year to year, considering that the designated revenue now takes into account addition streams (such as merchandise), and not just simply shared ticket sales and TV contracts. So you factor in that the revenue pool will be bigger, and that the players want a bigger share, and you can just imagine that the salary cap will skyrocket.

A lot of small market teams don't like this because it is cutting into their revenues. If the cap increases substantially every year and more gets siphoned off to the players, their team revenue stream dramatically decreases. They will see a much smaller revenue stream when player salaries are factored in.

Its no big deal for the larger franchises because there revenues high enough that subsquent spikes in the salary cap from year to year won't have a great impact on their bottom line. So, in essence, the size and percentage of the revenue stream that is allocated to the cap and player salaries are the crux of what these negotiations are hung up on.

I think they will settle by the start of the draft. Although it seems like Upshaw is pretty adament about staying at the 60% level, which is a huge increase from the 52% number from the last CBA.

Eaglez

You can't think of professional sports in terms of competitive markets, either. They are glorified monopolies for the most part, and their ticket prices are simply predicated on your demand to purchase the tickets.

When a team signs a free agent and subsequently raises ticket prices, its not to go pay for the new player, but instead they raise the prices because they know there is a greater demand for watching the team than before.

Monopolies aren't efficent either, and leave a lot of dead weight loss behind. That is why many sports teams are instituting a 2 part pricing scheme, like PSL's. They try and extract the consumer surplus and squeeze out every last penny which you are willing to give them.

The only way you can hurt their monopoly power is to stop buying their tickets or other products, or introduce competition.