Seahawks21 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Wow, Det, I had given up on this thread days ago. You really ran with the torch there. I tip my cap to ya. Look, I'm not dumb enough to believe this is going to happen anytime soon, but it will come up eventually. Okay, so the owners want to decrease the players' take a little bit, ok fine. They're all makin' a high percentage. What if they want to do it again in five years? Then they drop it 8 more percent five years after that? What do the players do then? Suck it up and play for 25% of the pie while the owners make money hand over fist off of the talents of the players? Or do they eventually say "F this, I am Peyton Manning, why do I need to be owned by somebody?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 Wow, Det, I had given up on this thread days ago. You really ran with the torch there. I tip my cap to ya. Had anyone on the other side either made an argument or refuted any of mine, I might have come looking for you to get my back. As it was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I know, that is why I gave up. I have yet to hear any tangible reasons why this wouldn't work. If presented with any, it might sway my opinion, but it appears people like to oppose change for the sake of opposing change, which is fine, just not my kind of debate. Still, well done sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jrick35 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 The NFL cap is often called a hard cap. It was introduced in 1994 and It limits franchises from spending more than 63% of the League-determined Defined Gross Revenues which I think was in the ball park of $133 million for 2009. Again the cap is not intended to cap what a player makes, what’s so friggin hard to understand. A linebacker can make as much as a QB or you could pay a single player $120 million a year and pay the remaining squad the base minimum salary of ($900k for 11 year vet and $285k for rookies) if you so chose to do. Granted, your team will suck. The salary cap was meant to restructure the league to allow for more competitiveness in the league offering smaller market teams to have the same dollars as the higher revenue markets. One effect, however, of the salary cap is that it does mitigate salaries getting exorbitant to which other teams could never afford star players. Again, that is market effect! Every company has a budget that they must adhere to (or at least the ones who survive) which set basic guidelines to how much labor dollars can be allocated to produce the end result. Someone with more talent may come in asking for more money. You can either chose to have them walk or restructure your budget by either reallocating dollars or reduce staffing to accommodate the higher salary. That's how the market works. You guys are arguing around each other, while the Salary Cap does not define a MAXIMUM player salary, it does by definition, limit what a player can make, here's how. Each team has to have X number of players on their roster. Each team has a limit as to what the Combined Salary of those players can be. Each player has a league defined minimum salary that they must be paid. Let's say you paid the minimum to every player but 1. That would mean that the MAXIMUM salary that any 1 player could be paid would be the difference between the combined minimum salary of all of the other players subtracted from the Salary Cap for that year. So yes the Salary Cap does limit what a player can make even if it is not stipulated as the purpose of the Salary Cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 You guys are arguing around each other, while the Salary Cap does not define a MAXIMUM player salary, it does by definition, limit what a player can make, here's how. Each team has to have X number of players on their roster. Each team has a limit as to what the Combined Salary of those players can be. Each player has a league defined minimum salary that they must be paid. Let's say you paid the minimum to every player but 1. That would mean that the MAXIMUM salary that any 1 player could be paid would be the difference between the combined minimum salary of all of the other players subtracted from the Salary Cap for that year. So yes the Salary Cap does limit what a player can make even if it is not stipulated as the purpose of the Salary Cap. Assuming I'm part of "you guys", how is what you said any different than what I said in this exact regard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 How much better off would Wolfgang Puck have been if he had just stuck with his previous employer and never broke free and opened Spago? The rest of us never would have gotten to taste those tasty, tasty dishes. I'm betting he isn't regretting his decision all that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Most cowardly post of 2010. You just gonna sit there on your pedestal and call people out while offering no thought or reasoning whatsoever? Go ahead big man, tell me, why is this the dumbest post of 2010? Do you have any original thoughts on the subject or are you just content to be a lemming piling on? Typical. You have to understand that some people posting here are owners and bosses. So they feel they are in a special club where no one does wrong and their employees owe their lives to the task of the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 You have to understand that some people posting here are owners and bosses. So they feel they are in a special club where no one does wrong and their employees owe their lives to the task of the day. I'm a business owner and a boss. That hasn't stopped me from understanding that this could actually work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 You have to understand that some people posting here are owners and bosses. So they feel they are in a special club where no one does wrong and their employees owe their lives to the task of the day. I give most of the folks here much more credit than that. Most are able to step outside of their worlds and view most things from other prospectives and don't take themselves too seriously. His post was nothing more than a personal attack. He's been trying to nip at my ankles for a few years now. Usually I just let it slide and don't go down to his level, but geez, that is all you're going to bring to the table?! Gimme a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I'm a business owner and a boss. That hasn't stopped me from understanding that this could actually work. Oh GAWD would you please not feed it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Wow, Det, I had given up on this thread days ago. You really ran with the torch there. I tip my cap to ya. Look, I'm not dumb enough to believe this is going to happen anytime soon, but it will come up eventually. Okay, so the owners want to decrease the players' take a little bit, ok fine. They're all makin' a high percentage. What if they want to do it again in five years? Then they drop it 8 more percent five years after that? What do the players do then? Suck it up and play for 25% of the pie while the owners make money hand over fist off of the talents of the players? Or do they eventually say "F this, I am Peyton Manning, why do I need to be owned by somebody?" If I considered this a rational possibility, I'd start to agree with you. Because I can find no rational basis for thinking a scenario like this is remotely possible, I am prone to discarding your position as the ramblings of a quasi-communist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 Wow, Det, I had given up on this thread days ago. You really ran with the torch there. I tip my cap to ya. Look, I'm not dumb enough to believe this is going to happen anytime soon, but it will come up eventually. Okay, so the owners want to decrease the players' take a little bit, ok fine. They're all makin' a high percentage. What if they want to do it again in five years? Then they drop it 8 more percent five years after that? What do the players do then? Suck it up and play for 25% of the pie while the owners make money hand over fist off of the talents of the players? Or do they eventually say "F this, I am Peyton Manning, why do I need to be owned by somebody?" I am not sure if I will be able to convey exactly what I am going to try to but I think it should be evident enough... With regards to the bold... It is views like this about running a business that leads to many failed businesses....There are completely different skill sets needed to move from being "great employee" to "great, good or even adequate owner"....Statements like the Manning statement trivialize what it takes to own and run a business....I leave you with the following examples.... A stores top sales person doesn't mean that they would be a good or mediocre manager. If a restaurant has a great chef it doesn't mean that that Chef has what it takes to open up a successful restaurant on his own. Why don't car salesmen cut out their dealership owner to open their own dealership (maybe some have but just because they are good at selling cars doesn't mean that they will be able to run a business). As like with most things there are outliers and yes Manning probably could do it but to think that just because these guys are at the top of their game and are the ones that draw the money that they could run their teams like current NFL teams is a bit naive, imo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I am not sure if I will be able to convey exactly what I am going to try to but I think it should be evident enough... With regards to the bold... It is views like this about running a business that leads to many failed businesses....There are completely different skill sets needed to move from being "great employee" to "great, good or even adequate owner"....Statements like the Manning statement trivialize what it takes to own and run a business....I leave you with the following examples.... A stores top sales person doesn't mean that they would be a good or mediocre manager. If a restaurant has a great chef it doesn't mean that that Chef has what it takes to open up a successful restaurant on his own. Why don't car salesmen cut out their dealership owner to open their own dealership (maybe some have but just because they are good at selling cars doesn't mean that they will be able to run a business). As like with most things there are outliers and yes Manning probably could do it but to think that just because these guys are at the top of their game and are the ones that draw the money that they could run their teams like current NFL teams is a bit naive, imo I was actually waiting for someone to bring this up because it's an outstanding argument for why most businesses rely on an owner/employee relationship. There's a reason, for example, why my employees can't just cut me out of the picture. First off, there are specific hard costs associated with opening a restaurant. Secondly, you need to be able to afford to ride out periods of time without income. However, and I addressed this earlier. Who knows what drives the price of owning an NFL franchise. If you are actually buying concrete assets like a stadium and facilities, that's one thing, and something that could torpedo the entire deal. However, if the price of owning a franchise is more based on the rights to the ROI that these things generate, that's another thing entirely. After all, many of the factors that prohibit my employees from rising up and taking me out may not be there for the players. For instance, they can't secure a long term source of revenue like the league can. See, nobody is saying that Payton Manning's business acumen will ever be put to the test. He could be nothing more than a shareholder in the business, the same as all the people in Green Bay I keep bringing up and nobody addresses. Right now, there are player reps who partake in decisions that shape the league. Well, regardless, I've spelled it out a bunch of times already. If the league still employs a commish and teams still employ GMs and other Execs, and a finite number of players, elected by their peers can be assembled to meet periodically to discuss league issues (all of which already happen), then the only thing that's missing is the guys who own these things. And if the value of these things is simply a reflection of the valuation and ROI, rather than hard costs, then that is subject to the players continuing to play along. In some cases, these guys may own the stadiums, but that's another entity. People make a big deal about how the players are all replaceable. However, so are the franchises. Ultimately, it's all about the league. The Colts belonged to Baltimore until they belonged to Indy and now Baltimore roots for the Ravens. That means that the individual owners are just as replaceable as the players and that a jointly held league could succeed just like one with single owner franchises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 (edited) See, nobody is saying that Payton Manning's business acumen will ever be put to the test. He could be nothing more than a shareholder in the business, the same as all the people in Green Bay I keep bringing up and nobody addresses. No one addresses it because it is such a ridiculous point, to be honest. I'm a shareholder in the Packers, like thousands of other people in Wisconsin. The shares in the Packers were sold decades ago to fund the team when the league wasn't quite as successful as it is now (a massive understatement). Even though I own a piece of the Packers, I have recieved no financial benefit whatsoever from that - it pays nothing and only acquires value when sold to another idiot like me. It also entitles me to attend stockholder meetings if I so choose, where I have absolutely no say or vote in running the organization. There are well over 100,000 shareholders, and they all are in the same boat as me. The only times more shares are sold are when the Packers want to acquire capital to make large purchases - such as the renovation of Lambeau Field in '97. It should be noted that the Packers are the only publicly owned franchise in all the major pro sports. It is not a business model that would work in a league other than one like the NFL, where the owners have shown a proclivity to the good of the league over their own enrichment repeatedly. This is long standing tradition in the NFL dating back to Lambeau, Halas, and others like them, and followed through on by people like the Rooneys and the Adams. Are there exceptions? Sure. But for the most part the owners have always put the league's interests before their own, and consequently the league became wildly succesful, allowing th owners to profit handsomely (and in the process the players also). Many American business owners should take note - but don't. So when you bring up the Packers, you bring up exactly why NFL owners have made the league what it is. The Packers exist as a public entity because of the owners' fiat, their love and respect for the league, their past sacrifices for the league, and nothing else. It's a great story, but it doesn't exist anywhere else in pro sports because it couldn't exist anywhere else. Edited March 23, 2010 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 So when you bring up the Packers, you bring up exactly why NFL owners have made the league what it is. The Packers exist as a public entity because of the owners' fiat, their love and respect for the league, their past sacrifices for the league, and nothing else. It's a great story, but it doesn't exist anywhere else in pro sports because it couldn't exist anywhere else. And that the other NFL owners have since barred other teams from doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 And that the other NFL owners have since barred other teams from doing that. Well, there is that... Regardless, it is a superb creation that is unique and thriving among the pro sports leagues of any consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Like I said - break the union. Seriously hope it happens. The players are not the league. The teams are the league. Players come and go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 Is it that far beyond the grounds of realithy to envision the owners giving the players smaller and smaller pieces of the pie? Is it then that far beyond the grounds of reality for the players to get pissed off about it? Musicians leave their labels all the time, are you telling me that the artists just come and go, but you stay on and support the label anyways? Does Dr. Dre regret leaving Death Row Records to start Aftermath? Cunning, are you really telling me that if the Colts were playing the Patriots, and the best player in the game was David Klingler....and 100 miles away Adrian Peterson was playing against Patrick Willis, you would rather go watch David Klingler? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 24, 2010 Share Posted March 24, 2010 (edited) Is it that far beyond the grounds of realithy to envision the owners giving the players smaller and smaller pieces of the pie? Is it then that far beyond the grounds of reality for the players to get pissed off about it? Musicians leave their labels all the time, are you telling me that the artists just come and go, but you stay on and support the label anyways? Does Dr. Dre regret leaving Death Row Records to start Aftermath? Cunning, are you really telling me that if the Colts were playing the Patriots, and the best player in the game was David Klingler....and 100 miles away Adrian Peterson was playing against Patrick Willis, you would rather go watch David Klingler? I'm saying that the teams are what I measure the standard of the NFL by - not who happens to be playing on a team at a particluar moment in time. I think we're talking two slightly different scenarios which is where the gap is between our two thought processes. I think you're thinking of a situation where the then-current players broke away, formed a league, and it was immediate competition to the NFL. What I'm saying is that if the NFL simply got rid of all the then-current players entirely, that the teams would endure because whoever was "next", would then be regarded as the best in the world currently playing the game. I also think that people already regard players as spolied, rich athletes who get paid to play a game and if they broke away due to their own greed, that the public backlash would bury them before they even got a chance to get anything off the ground. The owners are in the driver's seat on this one all the way - in the public's mind and in reality. Edited March 24, 2010 by Cunning Runt 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.