SEC=UGA Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 The teams making the money are the teams with new stadiums. The teams on the lower end are the teams requesting new stadiums, mostly with government assistance. After the stadiums are built and designed to make more money with luxury suites, than the owners are better off. If I'm looking at the numbers correctly, the Vikihgs rank #32 in team revenue. When and if they build a new stadium, which is in the works and they very much desire, they will climb up the ranking in total revenue. If they achieve their goal of a new stadium, then new teams will be on the bottom for team revenue. Those new low revenue teams will then (if not already) be looking to upgrade their situation. The number in the front is their ranking in value, not profit. So the Vikings are 32nd in total value. Teams that have built new stadiums have a mixture of NOI. For instance, the Lions had a -3.1 million NOI in 2008 due to them having to shoulder the debt of the new stadium and they were only 24th in total revenue. Granted, Detroit is a sh!t hole with huge unemployment issues and a horrible team. Pittsburgh, 18th in total revenue, but only 14.4 million in NOI, partially due to debt service, would be my guess, their NOI is lower than the Falcons, doesn't sound right, does it? In many cases if the team is fronting most of the money for the new stadium they will have a few tough years due to the heavy debt loads. This is something that is causing some of these negotiations. Atl, Min, among others are in need of a new stadium, if they can't fund it entirely through bonds the ownership will have to pony up MILLIONS to get the thing built and that hurts the bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I don't necessarily side with the Players on principle, but I feel the most anger towards the Owners because they will be the ones to close the doors on the show in order to get their way. So they are ticking me off the most because they are threatening to take away something I love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) The number in the front is their ranking in value, not profit. So the Vikings are 32nd in total value. Teams that have built new stadiums have a mixture of NOI. For instance, the Lions had a -3.1 million NOI in 2008 due to them having to shoulder the debt of the new stadium and they were only 24th in total revenue. Granted, Detroit is a sh!t hole with huge unemployment issues and a horrible team. Pittsburgh, 18th in total revenue, but only 14.4 million in NOI, partially due to debt service, would be my guess, their NOI is lower than the Falcons, doesn't sound right, does it? In many cases if the team is fronting most of the money for the new stadium they will have a few tough years due to the heavy debt loads. This is something that is causing some of these negotiations. Atl, Min, among others are in need of a new stadium, if they can't fund it entirely through bonds the ownership will have to pony up MILLIONS to get the thing built and that hurts the bottom line. Thanks SEC. I know that the VIkings love to mention that they rank #32 in total value. Obviously they want a stadium even though it would "hurt" their bottom dollar if they paid for it without much government assistance. But they have requested that assistance for most of a decade now or so it seems. No doubt that the snapshot figures presented shows teams at different stages of the stadium chase in proportion to where they rank on the list. The debt service is a good example that you indicated. There's not a single NFL owner that regrets building a stadium although I wish that upon Mr. Jerry Jones. Edited March 10, 2011 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Based on Smith's logic, I should march into Paramount, MGM, Fox,Universal and al the other studios and demand they open there books. Yeah...sounds logical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Based on Smith's logic, I should march into Paramount, MGM, Fox,Universal and al the other studios and demand they open there books. Yeah...sounds logical No offense brotha . .. but you aint exactly skilled labor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Based on Smith's logic, I should march into Paramount, MGM, Fox,Universal and al the other studios and demand they open there books. Yeah...sounds logical Have any of these studios threatened to lock out all employees if they don't take a rather significant cut in pay? Are they claiming that they're not making any money but have already undermined your faith in their honesty by negotiating a contract for money that they were supposed to share with you but did so in bad faith by securing a side deal behind your back? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Have any of these studios threatened to lock out all employees if they don't take a rather significant cut in pay? Are they claiming that they're not making any money but have already undermined your faith in their honesty by negotiating a contract for money that they were supposed to share with you but did so in bad faith by securing a side deal behind your back? Just curious. I'm playing devils advocate here. Stop replying with logic damnit . I'm on set doing a vitamin infomercial right now. That's how I get back at al you logical people out there. Eta: I don't wanna get into how sleazy studios are Edited March 10, 2011 by tazinib1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Forgot to add the owners lost a lot of credibility in my mind with the lockout insurance issue. They failed to operate in good faith with the CBA there. Does it make business sense to try protect yourself? Sure, but that's not the point. agree with you on that. it was disingenuous of them, and now it seems has come back to bite them in the ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 F the players. That is genuinely how I feel. You're the same guy who revels in players being injured so forgive me if I think your opinion in this isn't worth jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 You're the same guy who revels in players being injured so forgive me if I think your opinion in this isn't worth jack. Oooohhh..... you got me. Good one. Got any fresh material? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 No offense brotha . .. but you aint exactly skilled labor. You better run bitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 A 3-2 split in favor of owners thus far on this poll. The more I listen to Sirius NFL and what their business reporters are saying (namely Alex Marvez), the more I hope the union is just literally broken throughout this process. I am not a fan at all of DeMaurice Smith and the direction he's going and the way he's going about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 A 3-2 split in favor of owners thus far on this poll. The more I listen to Sirius NFL and what their business reporters are saying (namely Alex Marvez), the more I hope the union is just literally broken throughout this process. I am not a fan at all of DeMaurice Smith and the direction he's going and the way he's going about it. So, just so we're all clear on this. You're saying that you're not on the players side in this whole deal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 11, 2011 Author Share Posted March 11, 2011 So, just so we're all clear on this. You're saying that you're not on the players side in this whole deal? Ummm..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) agree with you on that. it was disingenuous of them, and now it seems has come back to bite them in the ass. But the union decertifying in order to utilize anti-trust legislation is great strategy that is okay with you & other pro-unionists, even though it is the exemption from anti-trust status that allows all these guys, owners and players, to make the outrageous money they do. And let's not forget that while the owners tried their little underhanded trick for the first time in this session, the players have played the decertification card before, then reformed the union shortly afterwards to again reap those benefits. Both sides have aimed the gun, only one side has fired it. The best part - the plaintiffs the players intend to use in an anti-trust suit are the players who are making absolutely astronomical salaries at the expense of all the other players. Edited March 11, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I side with the players. I'm not interested in watching Jerry Jones play football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 I'm also for whichever side will end the monopoly of DirectTV for the Sunday Ticket so I can get it through my cable company. WADR, I could not disagree more. How is this different than the NFL putting MNF on ESPN (does everybody have cable)? Don't get me wrong, I understand your point, and I think it's some lost revenue for the league, however I see this as any other business deal/decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 But the union decertifying in order to utilize anti-trust legislation is great strategy that is okay with you & other pro-unionists, even though it is the exemption from anti-trust status that allows all these guys, owners and players, to make the outrageous money they do. And let's not forget that while the owners tried their little underhanded trick for the first time in this session, the players have played the decertification card before, then reformed the union shortly afterwards to again reap those benefits. Both sides have aimed the gun, only one side has fired it. The best part - the plaintiffs the players intend to use in an anti-trust suit are the players who are making absolutely astronomical salaries at the expense of all the other players. pop quiz: How long was "shortly afterward" when the players did this before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) pop quiz: How long was "shortly afterward" when the players did this before? 2 years Now are you going to answer my question? Do you find the players' tactics just as deceitful and unethical as the owners'? Edited March 11, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 decertifying in order to utilize anti-trust legislation is great strategy that is okay with you & other pro-unionists Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 What part don't you understand? I can type slower if it will help you to comprehend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 What part don't you understand? I can type slower if it will help you to comprehend. You should hear that big hippie az in the tailgate going on and on about how he loves him some unions. I mean seriously, I think he has an Obama tattoo or something. Darn crazy hippies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 What part don't you understand? I can type slower if it will help you to comprehend. what I don't understand is how you jump to the assumption 1) that I am "pro-unionist" and 2) that I think "decertifying in order to utilize anti-trust legislation is great strategy that is okay". I don't understand this, particularly when the only thing I've really said in this thread is that "I lean toward the owners side". and if you've ventured at all outside this thread, you would probably know that calling me "pro-unionist" is, well, kinda funny. I don't see how slowing your typing speed will improve your reading comprehension, so I won't request any changes there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 2 years Now are you going to answer my question? Do you find the players' tactics just as deceitful and unethical as the owners'? Actually, it appears they decertified in 89 and reformed in 93, so that would be 4 years. link You mean answer it again? Because I have once before. The first time you asked it. I agree that it's sleazy, but honestly, it seems more above board than going behind the back of someone with whom you've agreed upon a specific split of revenues and negotiating a side deal only for yourself. That actually seems criminal to me. Like I've said before, the first time this happened, it didn't really seem like merely a money grab or some move out of convenience: The Court of Appeals ultimately rejected that suit on the ground that the labor exemption from antitrust liability protected the employers, even though the union was no longer party to a collective bargaining agreement that would have permitted the practices that the union was challenging. In response, the union formally disclaimed any interest in representing NFL players in collective bargaining and reformed itself as a professional organization in 1989. Having done that, the following year union members, led by Freeman McNeil of the New York Jets, brought a new antitrust action against the NFL challenging its free agency rules as an unlawful restraint of trade. The players ultimately prevailed, after a jury trial on their claims, in that action. That verdict, the pendency of other antitrust cases and the threat of a class action filed by Reggie White, then with the Philadelphia Eagles, on behalf of all NFL players brought the parties back to the negotiating table. They finally agreed on a formula that permitted free agency. In return, the owners demanded and received a salary cap, albeit one tied to a formula based on players' share of total league revenues. The agreement also established a salary floor - minimum payrolls all teams were obliged to pay. It appeared that free agency was a major part of that conflict and you can hardly blame players for expecting that they should have the rights to negotiate with whomever they wanted once they had fulfilled their contract with their current team. After all, teams cut cut them as soon as they felt they were no longer of value. So, at least back then, this was not about guys getting fat and happy on a system and then suing that same system for anti-trust laws once it seemed to make sense. The players were absolutely getting the short end of the stick and this was really their only way out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 2 years Now are you going to answer my question? Do you find the players' tactics just as deceitful and unethical as the owners'? 4 years 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.