Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Commentary on the lockout from a Browns (ex) season ticket holder


Lloyd Dobler
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry, can't stomach that article.

 

The guy is a whiney little prick.

 

Though I will say one thing, I am proud of him for deciding to do the responsible thing and forego the expensive tickets in order to better support his family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where he places blame isn't relevant to his opinion?

Maybe relevant is a poor choice of words. Moot, maybe? It doesn't really make a difference where his blame lies, it wouldn't change his situation or his feelings, nor would it change the rest of ours who share his sentiment.On that subject, do you consider the players salaries the cause for the higher cost to the consumer and do you think that the players have any say over what the fans are charged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, can't stomach that article.

 

The guy is a whiney little prick.

 

Though I will say one thing, I am proud of him for deciding to do the responsible thing and forego the expensive tickets in order to better support his family.

If he was really smart he'd do like everyone else & sell half his tickets on Stub Hub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wacko: says the guy who spent 2 pages biatching about his VW Toureg.

 

I figured you'd sympathize with having buyers' remorse on a declining investment of one's hard earned cash...

 

In all fairness It was about 1/5 of the words that this guy wrote and I was giving facts, not making crazy statements like this:

If you should be doing anything this year, it's figuring how to make do with less, reducing costs to fans, giving them greater value in exchange for the increased pain they bear in supporting your expensive product. What you should not be doing is squabbling over what is, to many of us, already an obscene amount of treasure.

 

directed at one side of the operation.

 

In regard to the above quote, it is my understanding that the players want more, a bigger cut of the pie that is the team's revenue. How are the owners, the NFL, going to reduce the cost to fans while shrinking their profit by giving a larger % of revenue to the players? They're not, the owners are going to increase fees as much as possible, passing the costs on to the public, to generate more revenue in order to make up for the money they lose by giving more to the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

directed at one side of the operation.

 

In regard to the above quote, it is my understanding that the players want more, a bigger cut of the pie that is the team's revenue. How are the owners, the NFL, going to reduce the cost to fans while shrinking their profit by giving a larger % of revenue to the players? They're not, the owners are going to increase fees as much as possible, passing the costs on to the public, to generate more revenue in order to make up for the money they lose by giving more to the players.

Please don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that if the players took the pay cut that the owners would like them to take that we would ever see any financial relief from it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all fairness It was about 1/5 of the words that this guy wrote and I was giving facts, not making crazy statements like this:

 

 

directed at one side of the operation.

In all fairness, I was just messing with you...

 

Please don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that if the players took the pay cut that the owners would like them to take that we would ever see any financial relief from it.

Thank you. That saves me alot of time and typing... Both sides are trying as hard as they can to get a deal that works out in their favor, but the one in question here is the one that sets the ever-increasing prices (regardless of whether it's justified or not) and continues to make rules designed purely to protect their investments, even at the expense of watering down the game into touch football... And yet in an economic downturn and indefinite lockout, there is no consumer relief in sight.

 

So where in there am I supposed to side with the owners on this? They're ALL being greedy, and the longer they continue, the more of a big consumer backlash they'll see. That's the one fact I can say for certain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On that subject, do you consider the players salaries the cause for the higher cost to the consumer and do you think that the players have any say over what the fans are charged?

 

The latter first: The players obviously have no say in what fans are charged. It doesn't mean their salaries aren't part of the equation of what the cost of tickets are.

 

The former part: The owners charge what the market will bear. As long as there are enough fans to fill the stadium at the prices that are being charged, that will dictate the price of tickets. As soon as teams overprice their tickets, or enough fans decide that they will not pay for the tickets at the price given, that's when ticket prices will come down (since revenues are tied heavily to the television market, which in turn relies on getting its product out to a maximum number of fans so that it can optimize what it charges advertisers, meaning that there will be little tolerance for blackouts by the television people).

 

Honestly, I think we are getting close to the point where teams may have maximized prices. We're already seeing some markets not selling out and the economics in the country would seem to dictate that there is less disposible income per family, given the rise in cost of living elements. That would also indicate that advertisers may be reaching their maximum price point, since their costs are rising and theoretically they can not sell an incrementally larger share of goods with the consumer market becoming tighter.

 

That would indicate that television revenues for the NFL can not reliably continue to incrementally increase at past rates, not even close - which is where the owners are seeing their revenues capped (optimized tickets prices, less expendable revenue for merchandise purchases, and television revenues slowing to a capped number). And that's exactly why I think the owners are taking the stand they are. They are not saying they they haven't been making money or in the next year or two that they won't make money, but rather that the model is increasingly unsustainable.

 

The players are concerned only about their immediate ability to get a maximum cut of th revenue, and the union stays in power only at the fiat of the players, so they are also looking for short term optimization. That's understandable - they don't own any share of the company and have no stake in its long term existence like the owners do. It's extraordinarily short sighted, but it's what is in their own benefit.

 

That's why we are currently at loggerheads - the owners see the money printing press slowing significantly in the next few years and are choosing right now to make their stand rather than waiting for the problem to snowball into an unresolvable monster; and the players refuse to back down one inch because they don't want to give back one dime of everything they've had handed to them by previous generations of players. That a lot of the players are not business savvy and are being mislead by union leaders like DeMaurice Smith doesn't help matters, but that's how Smith makes his living. He can't be seen as the guy who undid everything Upshaw gained or his career is over - and I think he has his sights on politics after this.

 

This isn't anything new. We've seen this situation before. GM & Chrysler come immediately to mind. Labor and operational costs increased as revenue streams slackened or declined. It's a pretty simplistic model, but it can't function for any significant period and in the end it is sure to fail. And only one side is invested in the long term health of the NFL - so if you wonder why I lean to the owners' side while still recognizing some of their really bad mistakes, that's why. Because I want to see this game as it is continue for the long term.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that if the players took the pay cut that the owners would like them to take that we would ever see any financial relief from it.

 

I highly doubt that prices would go down under the current terms of the agreement that the owners are looking for.

 

Let me ask this, have ticket prices gone up as salaries for players increased? Do players salaries and benefits currently eat up close to 60% of the team's entire annual revenue?

 

Look at it this way, the owners want to offer a good product. To offer this product they must spend more money. They are not going to absorb the cost, they are going to pass it on to the consumers. The consumers see a good product and reward the owners by paying for it. The owner wants to produce an even better product, he goes out and spends more money so he can get more consumers with the improved product. He passes on this increased cost to the consumer by increasing prices. The owner is rewarded as the consumer still pays more and because his product has again improved he attracts more consumers.

 

Whether you like it or not, there is a sort of (for lack of a better word) exploitation going on. The players are exploiting you just as much as the owners are exploiting you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if players are compensated by a % of revenue sharing and the owners aren't currently in a bad situation, why would they be concerned about the sustainability of the current split. If they've maxed out what they can get from the public, so be it. Revenues don't go up. Which, by definition, would mean that player's salaries don't go up either. The argument that teams are concerned about the sustainability of the situation because they're afraid they can't increase revenues much more is sort of a silly argument provided they're not locked into significant increases in operating expenses. And if the single biggest expense they have, the players, is tied to the same revenue number that they're afraid won't go up...

 

Again, as per my other thread, if increases in the cap tied are to projected increases in revenues aren't those projections, like so many escrow-based situations, trumped by actual numbers?

 

On more than one occasion, you've brought up unrealistic expectations on the part of the players as to what revenues, and therefor their salaries, ought to be and that the owners are offering increases based on more realistic projections. Once again, why are either of these projections worth diddly when the contract is apparently about actual profit sharing? Not virtual profit sharing, but actual profit sharing. And if 9 billion is where the number ends up because that's all they can milk the public for, then all parties would need to be prepared to not make any more than what they're currently making. If it goes up, then both parties make more. If it goes down, both parties make less. If it goes down low enough, like maybe the NBA, then the owners come back and say that they're losing their asses.

 

But, if the owners are simply concerned about the current deal because they expect only 5% rather than 8% increases annually (those are your numbers if I'm not mistaken), then, provided all their operating expenses outside of the players doesn't increase by 5% (which it shouldn't), then have nothing to worry about.

 

Hell, if I was the owners and I was beginning to wonder how much more I could milk TV and the gate for, I would be all about revenue sharing and not want any part of a fixed increase in player salaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hell, if I was the owners and I was beginning to wonder how much more I could milk TV and the gate for, I would be all about revenue sharing and not want any part of a fixed increase in player salaries.

 

And this is why I'm so very glad that you are no part of the owners' team.

 

The owners make money, sure. But they also walk a tight rope in predicting the long term equation, which the players have no allegiance to. Great, make the NFL a revenue sharing venture. And then if revenues go down and you have players on 3 to 5 year contracts, how exactly do you resolve the fixed costs of the long term contracts vs the decrease in revenue? Not pay rookies or FAs anything?

 

So I would guess your solution would be to shorten or eliminate the 3 to 5 year contracts. Okay, but teams rely on fans identifying with their players as well as the team, and if the roster is a revolving door, it's going to turn off a large number of fans, meaning revenues go down and then player salaries go down also.

 

The long term contracts also allow teams to budget their money for 5 year windows, and there is a benefit to players in that they get signing bonuses for accepting the long term contracts. Getting rid of long term contracts and their stability in wage costs to teams means that signing bonuses go away, since players could just sign with another team next year - there's no security for the teams. How do you resolve that one?

 

And is this what we want in the NFL? Top players selling their talents to teams each year, playing for a year, and then doing it the next year again? How do you think that shakes out for the players? The top players prices increase as they go into annual bidding wars, but revenues are dropping. So what happens to all the other players? You guessed it - they get paid a lot less.

 

You think the majority of players will take lesser wages under revenue sharing if revenues drop; or consequently if long term salaries are eliminated? Hell no, they'll strike. They are on a very limited time window and they need to make as much as they can while they can. They can't afford to get paid paltry money for the first 5 to 6 years of thir careers.

 

The way the NFL balances itself right now is amazing. It benefits both the short termers (the players) and the owners, and provides an incredibly competitive product that the fans love. But make no mistake, that balance is extremely precarious and owners need to react to future market forces that the players have no interest in being beholden to, and they have to maintain the competitiveness of the product while doing so, or they risk losing a significant portion of a gigantic fan base. That's pretty difficult #### and even the most benign moves can have severe future unintended consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in other words, the owners have agreed to a revenue sharing situation even though they're certain that they can't ever expect the players to take a cut that is lower (or even the same) from one year to the next if revenues dip or fail to increase? How stupid are these men?

 

For someone who is always arguing that thee league is what it is because of the genius visionaries that own the teams, you sure like to protect these guys as if they're idiots.

 

Either you're sharing revenue or you're not. Is the CBA a revenue sharing device or is it not?

 

At any rate, I'll answer your question about adjusting for lower revenues, despite how condescendingly it was asked.

 

For starters, there's both a cap and a floor, so there's already some wiggle room. Responsible teams should spend as much as they're required to but not max themselves out so much that they have no wiggle room. Be it to go after coveted FAs (even their own) or be able to still manage in the event of a market correction.

 

As for market corrections. It's not like it's going to be massive and without warning. They have TV contracts, PSLs, and season tickets that lock in a nice chunk of their revenues for the year (or more). So, anyone stupid enough to be completely blind-sided by a loss in revenue that they can't afford to field a team given the new, now lower cap and floor (considering that we're likely talking about, what? $5 million per team or something?) has only himself to blame.

 

Hell, if revenues drop and they're bound to even a modest contractually obligated increase as you seem to say is what they should be getting, what then? Sure, they're allowed to sign FAs and rookies, but with what money? Are you saying that's a better situation for the owners? That they have to increase the cap and floor by 5% even though revenues drop and the money isn't there? That's better?

 

I mean, if revenues dropping illustrates the flaws in "my" proposal (even though I'm just sort of going with the whole definition of revenue sharing), why is that also not a massive problem with scheduled salary increases?

 

You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Sigh*

 

It's just not worth it. If I were you det, I'd start my own league, screw all the current stupid owners, and make a fortune for both me and the players.

 

:wacko:

 

Thank God I'm just not as smart as you.

It's a simple question. How does locking into even a modest increase of total player compensation each year protect the owners from losing their asses in a downturn any more than sharing revenue?

 

I mean, that was your deal right? That the players would refuse to take a lower total cut in the case of decreased revenues even though that's what they negotiated, a specific cut of revenues? Well, perhaps. But there's one way that you can be absolutely sure they won't take a pay cut. If you promise them a 5% increase each year. Which is what it sounds like you think is the better angle to take.

Edited by detlef
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic, another thread to devolve into a det/BB pissing match... Seriously, for once it'd be nice to read about things we actually have a vested interest in. The way you guys go on, you'd think it was you 2 splitting revenues...

 

You know what's going to be a fair agreement? The one they can get both stubborn parties and their lawyers to compromise and agree to.

 

There's 2 more threads that just got started, so please leave the labor comments in there, so those of us who don't care to argue about a dispute between millionaires and billionaires can have other discussions. TIA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic, another thread to devolve into a det/BB pissing match... Seriously, for once it'd be nice to read about things we actually have a vested interest in. The way you guys go on, you'd think it was you 2 splitting revenues...

 

You know what's going to be a fair agreement? The one they can get both stubborn parties and their lawyers to compromise and agree to.

 

There's 2 more threads that just got started, so please leave the labor comments in there, so those of us who don't care to argue about a dispute between millionaires and billionaires can have other discussions. TIA.

:wacko:

 

Back on topic... it was a great article and I would like to think that a lot of season ticket holders are already following suit, but only keeping up with the Saints & seeing as they've just sold out the season again this week I tend to doubt that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fantastic, another thread to devolve into a det/BB pissing match... Seriously, for once it'd be nice to read about things we actually have a vested interest in. The way you guys go on, you'd think it was you 2 splitting revenues...

 

You know what's going to be a fair agreement? The one they can get both stubborn parties and their lawyers to compromise and agree to.

 

There's 2 more threads that just got started, so please leave the labor comments in there, so those of us who don't care to argue about a dispute between millionaires and billionaires can have other discussions. TIA.

I apologize for continuing, but, I'm actually not trying to argue either for or against the owners, especially in this thread. I'm just trying to gain clarity on what is actually on the table.

 

At no point in any thread have I said that either party is asking for too much relative to the other (though I do think they're pushing it in terms of what they're asking for from from the consumer), I'm just, again, trying to define what it is.

 

It is, frankly, why I started the topic about what is truly at stake? Are we talking revenue sharing? Or are we talking set % increases per year? I mean, they're not the same thing.

 

And, provided the owners are simply concerned about their ability to maintain salaries at future levels and still turn a profit, I don't see why offering the players a set % increase in total revenues takes care of this any better than offering them a set % of total revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for continuing, but, I'm actually not trying to argue either for or against the owners, especially in this thread. I'm just trying to gain clarity on what is actually on the table.

Admittedly, it's actually been pretty refreshing to hear you both in this thread considering both sides, but when you can't go to any sports outlet without hearing ad-nauseum about about a labor dispute over 9 billion of our dollars, it gets pretty old fast.... I'm so far past caring about speculation on what's fair/unfair, right/wrong for a bunch of rich folks, it's not even funny... I'm sure it's fun for you to debate and everything, but does it really matter what's on the table and who's rejecting what? It doesn't put football in my hometown stadium or on my TV...

 

Further, isn't it even more irrelevant when both sides have opted to use their leverage to their full advantage instead? Fair and reasonable doesn't appear to be on either side's mind until they're forced to make concessions.

 

Back on topic... it was a great article and I would like to think that a lot of season ticket holders are already following suit, but only keeping up with the Saints & seeing as they've just sold out the season again this week I tend to doubt that.

True, this is where it's hard to blame them for gouging us, when we're lining up in droves demanding it.... I wish more consumers realized how much power we do have by not handing our money so readily to those who aren't willing to make concessions or work to put out the best possible product for the ones who actually pay their salaries... But it's tough when I want to watch and support my Falcons and their new toy Julio, just as much as you want to do the same for your Saints and new toy Ingram...

 

Anyways, I'm just ready for football so we can get back to hating eachother :wacko:

Edited by delusions of granduer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are now in the third month of an NFL lockout, where team owners are trying to extract concessions from players, after regretting their previous labor deal and, perhaps, self-inflicted wounds created by all those concrete monuments to themselves. They will never admit this, of course, happy to cry poor

 

The NFL lockout in a nutshell folks.

 

The owners saw Goldmach Sachs and the auto industry and the States get bail outs. And now they have spent too much(if that's the case) and want the players to bail them out since the fans can't afford to after paying for the Cowboys' new stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, can't stomach that article.

 

The guy is a whiney little prick.

 

Though I will say one thing, I am proud of him for deciding to do the responsible thing and forego the expensive tickets in order to better support his family.

 

Exactly my point in my post ... are we the only people who think the obvious solution is to quit going to games and watch the games on TV? The Super Bowl is a great example, the NFL and owners do not want us there b/c we do not spend money like it grows on trees. Not to mention this is about BROWNS season tickets, a far cry from what you will see in the Super Bowl :wacko: LoL

Edited by Scooby's Hubby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information