detlef Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Thanks for making exactly the argument for owners projecting diminishing inceases in revenues and thus wanting to reduce the size of the annual raises in revenues that players get every year. I knew you'd come around, even though it was kicking and screaming (and unintentionally, I believe) because it meant you'd have to concede economic realities and thus some points to the owners' side of the argument. Now you can proceed with your half page diatribe that you didn't really mean what you said above. "Because we've pissed a bunch of fans, and therefor possibly diminished our revenue base, we now really need to reduce the salaries that we wanted to reduce all along and caused us to set in motion actions that pissed off fans, potentially damaged our brand, and therefor, requires us to lower salaries." Is that the point you're making on my behalf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 "Because we've pissed a bunch of fans, and therefor possibly diminished our revenue base, we now really need to reduce the salaries that we wanted to reduce all along and caused us to set in motion actions that pissed off fans, potentially damaged our brand, and therefor, requires us to lower salaries." Is that the point you're making on my behalf? This is why I added the unintentionally part in my response. I probably should have used unknowingly or unwittingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 This is why I added the unintentionally part in my response. I probably should have used unknowingly or unwittingly. Oh dear. Unless your theory is that the owners are intentionally trying to damage their brand with an ugly labor dispute, Thereby lowering profits and, thus, necessitating and validating a decrease in salaries, then I really don't see how my statement did anything to confirm or move towards your point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turf Smurf Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 AIS.....nothing more, nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REZ Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm not sure that 75 mile radius is correct. I live further away from San Diego then that and they were blacked out here a couple of times last year. What I've read is that we are considered a San Diego market and thus subject to the blackout rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I'm not sure that 75 mile radius is correct. I live further away from San Diego then that and they were blacked out here a couple of times last year. What I've read is that we are considered a San Diego market and thus subject to the blackout rules. If any of the market area gets within the 75-mile radius, then all of it is blacked out even though most of it could be more than 75 miles away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetsfan Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Well, for starters, even the basic cable package with just the networks costs something in my market. I don't think my TV even has a jack for rabbit ears. Maybe it does, never checked. It does. And you're missing out. Over-the-air HD smokes the compressed crap on cable and satellite. I get almost 50 channels over the air for free, with more coming online all the time. Wasting money on cable is so passe. 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.