ESPN Just released

[Big Score 1]

Yeah right ... stockholders are playing a game.

Well...I said stockbroker, not stockholder, but either one, they're gambling.

 

Again does your definition of people not really working, only apply to those who make their serious money from physical games, while those who make their serious money from mental games, are exempt from your definition?

[Big Score 1]

I didn't see a point. The fact that a business requires employees does make the employees the product. Are you arguing that the McDonalds employees are the product that is being sold by McDonalds?

You've veered of tangent quite a bit.

 

I wasn't really arguing anything. I simply pointed out that if there were no players to stock the game, then the game would cease being a product. Conversely, if there were players, but no game for the players to play, they also would not be a product.

 

Thus the game & players are intimately entertwined & neither could exist as a product, if a stand alone entity.

[Seahawks21]

Grits, I would love to live one minute in whatever reality you are in. Why couldn't the players union hire the same poeple that get the stadium deals done now??

 

Finally somebody mentioned how filthy rich these owners get after they sell their franchise. You don't own a sports franchise for yearly profits.

 

You are telling me...that if Brady and Manning and LT went into a new league, you would not watch?? Why, because there are no owners?

 

The owner literally does NOTHING in this current business model. NOTHING. There is no reason for him to be there, other than the fact that this is the way it has always been done. Owners risk nothing, do nothing, and cash checks. It just isn't right.

 

The players aren't the product?? Take LT, Manning & Brady to another league, then fill the NFL up with replacements, and then tell me which "product" you are going to watch. Wake up!! The NFL is nothing more than a name for their collection of players.

 

I honestly just can't believe you said a new league wouldn't work, if they had the support of all the players. That may be the most narrow-minded thing I have seen on these boards in years. I don't even have a reply. I can't believe somebody would honestly make that assessment. Wow.

 

I'm playing golf with a group of football players this weekend, not that they are geniuses, but it is going to be interesting to get their take on this.

 

For the last time, these players don't need to be owned by anyone. THey are big boys and can survive on their own. It is just a matter of time before they figure that out.

[Grits and Shins]

Grits, I would love to live one minute in whatever reality you are in. Why couldn't the players union hire the same poeple that get the stadium deals done now??

 

Finally somebody mentioned how filthy rich these owners get after they sell their franchise. You don't own a sports franchise for yearly profits.

 

You are telling me...that if Brady and Manning and LT went into a new league, you would not watch?? Why, because there are no owners?

 

The owner literally does NOTHING in this current business model. NOTHING. There is no reason for him to be there, other than the fact that this is the way it has always been done. Owners risk nothing, do nothing, and cash checks. It just isn't right.

 

The players aren't the product?? Take LT, Manning & Brady to another league, then fill the NFL up with replacements, and then tell me which "product" you are going to watch. Wake up!! The NFL is nothing more than a name for their collection of players.

 

I honestly just can't believe you said a new league wouldn't work, if they had the support of all the players. That may be the most narrow-minded thing I have seen on these boards in years. I don't even have a reply. I can't believe somebody would honestly make that assessment. Wow.

 

I'm playing golf with a group of football players this weekend, not that they are geniuses, but it is going to be interesting to get their take on this.

 

For the last time, these players don't need to be owned by anyone. THey are big boys and can survive on their own. It is just a matter of time before they figure that out.

 

Talk about living in a fantasy world.

 

What do the owners do? Do you mean aside from the fact that they front the MILLIONS of dollars that make it possible for the players to play?

 

Speculate with me for just a minute. Lets presume that all the existing players stepped into your fantasy world and bought out all the existing NFL owners. Now the owners and the players are the same. The players hire people to run their NFL so that they can play the game. I would speculate that they wouldn't simply turn the reigns over and be done with it ... there would some drop off in performance on the field as the owners/players had to be involved in both phases of the business. If you work 2 jobs I would venture a guess that you would not perform as well in both as would in just one.

 

Then 10 years from now the owners of the teams would all be ex-players and you'd be back where you are today. A group of rich owners and a group of players wanting more of the righ owner's money. Unless in your fantasy world the players sell their teams when they retire.

 

Of course we haven't even talked about how ownership would work. Which players get to own the teams? Do all the Cowboys have ownership in the Cowboys? If so how are decisions made? Does the team have to vote on every decision? How about money distribution. The players get to decide how to distribute the money amongst themselves ... I see that working real well.

 

In your fantasy world we'd be lucky to have a single game played.

[godtomsatan]

What do the owners do? Do you mean aside from the fact that they front the MILLIONS of dollars that make it possible for the players to play?

 

Technically speaking, the fans and consumers of the NFL provide the dough involved. The owners collect it and distribute it amongst the players.

[Big Country]

Uggh... posted a good article link about the Buffalo Bills and how any new ownership group would likely look at losing money for the forseeable future compared to the current state where the Bills are one of the most profitable teams in the NFL, but apparently it was eaten by the innernets.

 

The reason, the Bills currently have no "mortgage" payment as the original owner back in 1959 paid $25,000 for the team, a debt long since paid. Any new ownership group would likely be looking at financing of $500 million or more to acquire the franchise, with interest payments easily approachin $35 million a year or more, which was the amount of operating income the team had a year or two ago.

[Big Country]

Technically speaking, the fans and consumers of the NFL provide the dough involved. The owners collect it and distribute it amongst the players.

 

Technically the owners front all of the money to purchase the team taking a calculated risk that the combined income from the NFL deals (television, radio, merchandise), ticket sales etc. which the fans/consumers provide will make up for that outlay of expense.

[detlef]

Uggh... posted a good article link about the Buffalo Bills and how any new ownership group would likely look at losing money for the forseeable future compared to the current state where the Bills are one of the most profitable teams in the NFL, but apparently it was eaten by the innernets.

 

The reason, the Bills currently have no "mortgage" payment as the original owner back in 1959 paid $25,000 for the team, a debt long since paid. Any new ownership group would likely be looking at financing of $500 million or more to acquire the franchise, with interest payments easily approachin $35 million a year or more, which was the amount of operating income the team had a year or two ago.

Well, you can't double-dip the mortgage argument. Yes, anyone who'd buy an NFL team would likely finance it rather than just scratching a check for upwards of $900 mil. So, that interest would certainly be one of the operating costs. However, you can't say the mortgage is a cost and still compare the profit against the sale price of the team in terms of ROI. Why? Because, that counts the cost twice. More importantly, the opportunity cost of investing that money is not what they could otherwise do with $900 mil, rather what they could otherwise do with whatever they had to put down.

 

Since it is not in the best interest of the owners to make themselves look more profitable than they are, anyone who's paid even close to what teams are going for, and thus is servicing debt on the purchase is claiming the interest as an expense. Why wouldn't they? Thus, this $18 mil or $20 mil, or whatever amount of money the average team is making takes this into account. So, the ROI isn't as bad as originally reported. This guy actually dropped $200 mil of his own money down and is taking home $20 mil per year. Not a great ROI, but better than the 2% that's being thrown around.

 

And, in terms of the "calculated risk". You guys still need to admit that the market sets prices for a reason. And the reason that these franchises are valued as highly as they are is because of the fact that you can take that money straight to the bank. Hell, look at the Lions. How freaking badly can you run a team? You'd think that they were trying to run that thing into the ground.

[Bronco Billy]

Technically speaking, the fans and consumers of the NFL provide the dough involved. The owners collect it and distribute it amongst the players.

 

Technically speaking, no the fans and consumers don't provide the dough. The owners are responsible for all operating expenses. If the fans and consumers suddenly disappeared, the owners would still be responsible for those debts.

[Bronco Billy]

For the last time, these players don't need to be owned by anyone. THey are big boys and can survive on their own. It is just a matter of time before they figure that out.

 

For the last time, no one "owns" the players. They are contacted employees of the teams. And very, very few of them - maybe a handful at most - would be remotely capable of running a business as large as a NFL team, much less keeping an entire league up & running.

 

Seriously, could you have any less of a clue? How old are you? Between your regular bragging about hanging out with NFL players and your fantasies about how the world "should" work, I've got to think you're about 18 or 19.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Thus, this $18 mil or $20 mil, or whatever amount of money the average team is making takes this into account. So, the ROI isn't as bad as originally reported. This guy actually dropped $200 mil of his own money down and is taking home $20 mil per year. Not a great ROI, but better than the 2% that's being thrown around.

 

Are you seriously suggesting that the money put down by someone on something is their only investment in it? So if I buy a house and put down 20% of the purchase price, financing the other 80%, that you think my only investment is the 20%?

 

This thread keeps getting more bizarre by the page. It's interesting seeing people passionately argue points when they have absoluetly no idea what they are talking about.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[detlef]

For the last time, no one "owns" the players. They are contacted employees of the teams. And very, very few of them - maybe a handful at most - would be remotely capable of running a business as large as a NFL team, much less keeping an entire league up & running.

 

Seriously, could you have any less of a clue? How old are you? Between your regular bragging about hanging out with NFL players and your fantasies about how the world "should" work, I've got to think you're about 18 or 19.

At the risk of getting labeled as a communist or rich guy hater again, I've got to remind you that you are, yet again, failing to actually read Seahawks post and are simply fixating on the notion of Chris Henry and Pacman Jones sitting behind big oak desks with Mike Irvin hand-me-down pimp suits.

 

While I'm not arguing on behalf of his plan, it is not inconceivable. The players themselves would not be signing paychecks and hiring hot dog vendors between practices and "making it rain" at night. Not unlike the owners (well, at least the good ones), they'd hire the same sorts of people to take care of the day to day operations. In fact, only "handful at most" need to be capable of running a business like this. I mean, as it stands "only a handful" participate in union talks. So, this same "handful" have the same sorts of meetings that the owners do. GMs still do GM stuff. Coaches still coach. There's still some assistant GM who oversees the ticket office and such. I mean, how does Green Bay do it? The don't have some Jerry Jones guy waving his arms around. How much different would it be if the players owned the league than a bunch of random people in Green Bay Wisconson? Do you think each and every one of those people is any more adept at running a team than Ray Lewis?

 

We've seen a somewhat similar (if very much scaled down) version of players taking more control of things in the way many NBA players are cutting out agents, negotiating their own contracts, and hiring a lawyer to simply draw it up.

 

Now, again, I'm not saying this is the best way to go about it. None the less, the rather silly picture of anarchy that you insist upon painting makes you look, well, silly.

[Grits and Shins]

At the risk of getting labeled as a communist or rich guy hater again, I've got to remind you that you are, yet again, failing to actually read Seahawks post and are simply fixating on the notion of Chris Henry and Pacman Jones sitting behind big oak desks with Mike Irvin hand-me-down pimp suits.

 

While I'm not arguing on behalf of his plan, it is not inconceivable. The players themselves would not be signing paychecks and hiring hot dog vendors between practices and "making it rain" at night. Not unlike the owners (well, at least the good ones), they'd hire the same sorts of people to take care of the day to day operations. In fact, only "handful at most" need to be capable of running a business like this. I mean, as it stands "only a handful" participate in union talks. So, this same "handful" have the same sorts of meetings that the owners do. GMs still do GM stuff. Coaches still coach. There's still some assistant GM who oversees the ticket office and such. I mean, how does Green Bay do it? The don't have some Jerry Jones guy waving his arms around. How much different would it be if the players owned the league than a bunch of random people in Green Bay Wisconson? Do you think each and every one of those people is any more adept at running a team than Ray Lewis?

 

We've seen a somewhat similar (if very much scaled down) version of players taking more control of things in the way many NBA players are cutting out agents, negotiating their own contracts, and hiring a lawyer to simply draw it up.

 

Now, again, I'm not saying this is the best way to go about it. None the less, the rather silly picture of anarchy that you insist upon painting makes you look, well, silly.

 

Fantasy Land

[detlef]

Are you seriously suggesting that the money put down by someone on something is their only investment in it? So if I buy a house and put down 20% of the purchase price, financing the other 80%, that you think my only investment is the 20%?

 

This thread keeps getting more bizarre by the page. It's interesting seeing people passionately argue points when they have absoluetly no idea what they are talking about.

Dude. Why do you do this?

 

My point is simply this. Provided that the owner finances the deal, and includes the loan payment as a cost of doing business, you can't also continue to say that his return is against the whole nut. Because he hasn't laid out the whole nut.

 

That's really it. And BTW, you have the house thing wrong as well. One of the great things about buying a house in a solid market is that you are controlling something worth, say $200K with only $40K. If the value of the house goes up to $240K, and you sell, you get $80K out of it. That means your personal investment doubled despite the fact that the value of the house only went up 20%.

 

If you were looking at the house as an investment, you would be comparing that to, say buying stock, where your $40K would get you $40K worth of stock. That stock would have to double to earn you the same return.

 

Oh, and before you start. I understand the notion of financial exposure and, yes, that is a liability. However, having negotiated a number of deals, I also know that bringing cash to the table buys you more than agreeing to be on the hook for the same amount.

Edited May 22, 2008 by detlef

[detlef]

Fantasy Land

Pointing to your own BS argument to support your BS argument is... oh forget it.

[Bronco Billy]

We've seen a somewhat similar (if very much scaled down) version of players taking more control of things in the way many NBA players are cutting out agents, negotiating their own contracts, and hiring a lawyer to simply draw it up.

 

Now, again, I'm not saying this is the best way to go about it. None the less, the rather silly picture of anarchy that you insist upon painting makes you look, well, silly.

 

The last time I checked, this was still America. If Seahawks' idea is so brilliant, then why don't the players on one team band together, pool their resources, obtain the necessary financing, create their own ownership group, and buy a team? Cut out the ownership (and they could cut out the agents also, since they wouldn't be needed to negotiate their own compensation) and simply pocket all that cash?

 

Ummmmm - because it's not even remotely feasible, they would be in way over their heads, there would be a complete breakdown of structure in the team, and no one in their right mind would bankroll them? It would be complete and utter chaos. I couldn't wait to see how the players would assign compensation for the following season if they as a group were in charge of making the decisions.

 

My response that you posted was aimed directly at a word-for-word assinine quote from him. That kind of statement deserves a derisive response.

 

And please, don't lecture me on looking silly after the way you have presented your understanding of even the most basic business fundamentals.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Dude. Why do you do this?

 

I do this because you don't know what you're talking about, but you do it in a very loud & brash manner.

[Bronco Billy]

That's really it. And BTW, you have the house thing wrong as well. One of the great things about buying a house in a solid market is that you are controlling something worth, say $200K with only $40K. If the value of the house goes up to $240K, and you sell, you get $80K out of it. That means your personal investment doubled despite the fact that the value of the house only went up 20%.

 

So you completely discount having to repay the financing or being responsible for it, but you take the benefit of writing off the interest as a business expense?

 

Now that's creative accounting!

 

Please, do yourself a hugh favor. Stop with your position on this now. The board's IQ is dropping at a precipitous rate.

Edited May 22, 2008 by Bronco Billy

[Grits and Shins]

Pointing to your own BS argument to support your BS argument is... oh forget it.

 

Yes that is an easy way to avoid the issues.

[Big Score 1]

Dude. Why do you do this?

You'll get used to his style, it's very predictable.

[detlef]

So you completely discount having to repay the financing or being responsible for it, but you take the benefit of writing off the interest as a business expense?

 

Now that's creative accounting!

 

Please, do yourself a hugh favor. Stop with your position on this now. The board's IQ is dropping at a precipitous rate.

Not really sure if it's your inability to read or form a rational thought, but... oh never mind.

 

Like I said, there's a huge, huge difference between being on the hook for an amount of money and actually putting that money up.

 

Say two guys are going to go into business. They need 400K to start it. One guy puts up 200K, the other signs his name to be the soul guarantor on a 200K loan that the business will be paying off. Should these guys be equal partners?

[Big Country]

the other signs his name to be the soul guarantor on a 200K loan

 

Must be a deal with the devil.

[TheShiznit]

Are you seriously suggesting that the money put down by someone on something is their only investment in it? So if I buy a house and put down 20% of the purchase price, financing the other 80%, that you think my only investment is the 20%?

 

This thread keeps getting more bizarre by the page. It's interesting seeing people passionately argue points when they have absoluetly no idea what they are talking about.

 

Maybe ROE is a better measure then?

[Big Score 1]

Must be a deal with the devil.

Considering how some of our nations top financial houses have been acting eg: Bears & Stearns, you might not be that far off with your assesment.

[Kansas State 2000]

Blitz ... clean out your in box.