Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091140
    NFLPA- 9 bil 1 bil off top 59.8% remainder = 4,784,000,000

    / 32 teams

    = 149,500,000 per team

    That was the so-called offer by the union. It was merely the status quo.

    Here is the "horrible pay cut" that the NFL reportedly proferred:

    NFL- 9 bil 2 bil off top 59.8% remainder = 4,186,000,000

    / 32 teams

    = 130,812,500 per team

    One cannot help but notice that's 2 million more than the last salary cap!
    So what is the problem then? If it's only 2 million a year why did the owners lockout in the first place? I would think the lawyers and mediators cost more than that?

  2. #12
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,819

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "AngloVike" #1091127
    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1091124
    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091123
    I don't know where the thread belongs, but I do know this much...

    All those that are insisting that the players are "in the right" as regards the CBA talks really need to ask themselves one simple question.

    When they see their favorite players' salaries continue to jump by leaps and bounds, do they really honestly think that the "billionaire owners" are the people that pay that money, that they are digging into their own pockets to pay them?
    Great post.

    I think, might be wrong, that I am in a very small minority here on PPO when I think the players are fricken crazy with their demands.

    No one goes into business for themselves expecting to not make money. The owners are in this to make money. If they can cut expenses, they will, just like any business owner.
    not crazy my friend but there are some that feel that players can do no wrong and that the owners are the next coming of the antichrist :evil:

    Like anyone else, for the players it is a job that they choose to do and get well paid for it. By the same token the owners are doing it as a business as well and they expect to turn a profit as well as they're not charities.
    The owners do pay the money of course but, like any good company, they ensure the costs are passed onto the consumer ie the fans. Unfortunately some fans are too dim to realise that fact.
    My take, for what it's worth

    It's not about right or wrong, fair or unfair...as in any negotiation, it's about leverage. Both sides will always try to get the best deal and both sides will always argue they should be getting more. Our perception of appropriate salary has little merit as we are not paying the checks. All we really should care about is the final product that they are asking us to pay are hard earned dollars to take part in.

    The player's (labor force), mostly have strike as their best leverage, which is generally not a great option. The threat of strike is more powerful than actually striking IMO, as both sides have the potential to lose in a strike.

    The owner's bring a lot of leverage to the table, as they control the money. As many "expert" analysts are saying, the further this goes along the antsier the players will get. Not necessarily the guy negotiating for the player's, but the player's who are more dependent on their paychecks and health benefits than any owner. The owner's are also very experienced businessmen that have a better feel how to play this game. The player's simply play the strike card and "fairness" card. At the end of the day though, the owner's will determine what is fair and it will not be based on any negotiation point that the player's union is putting together. It will be based on what they believe is an acceptable amount of payroll that enables them to reach their desired level of profit based on their revenue projections. The talking points will be about perceived fairness, but mostly BS IMO to appease the players.

    Also this dim fan would argue that player's salaries do not directly relate to fan costs. Rather fan spending dictate a player's salaries. That is the pool of money that is being argued about. The NFL, like most businesses will always try and get as much revenue and profit as possible, regardless of what they pay their employees. As the revenue grows, the players want to share more in that wealth, just like most companies. If the revenues go down, the player's should expect lower salaries as well. Revenue is dictated by the fans. So, the way I see it, it is fans like Marrdro and DF that are most directly contributing to the high salaries of the players.

  3. #13
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,819

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1091139
    Quote Originally Posted by "AngloVike" #1091137
    no-one is trying to say that the owners and NFL are blameless in this as they are companies and companies strive to maximise profits. The ways they do this are not always appreciated by the fan base either or necessarily morally right in the way that they are done.
    Having said that lets not try and make out that players are hard done by by any way shape or form. Somehow I doubt very much that they are suffering pay cuts like many people in normal jobs and even those on league minimum are still earning way more than a lot of folk will earn over a few years.
    The players and owners both do very well. Neither side "needs" more money. Both sides "want" more money.
    Yup, it's the "want" and perceived "deserve" terms that they are fighting for, not the "need". If the salaries were reduced by 2-3x and they knew that was all they could get, I would guess that they would mostly still choose this profession.

  4. #14
    tastywaves's Avatar
    tastywaves is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    3,819

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1091141
    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091140
    NFLPA- 9 bil 1 bil off top 59.8% remainder = 4,784,000,000

    / 32 teams

    = 149,500,000 per team

    That was the so-called offer by the union. It was merely the status quo.

    Here is the "horrible pay cut" that the NFL reportedly proferred:

    NFL- 9 bil 2 bil off top 59.8% remainder = 4,186,000,000

    / 32 teams

    = 130,812,500 per team

    One cannot help but notice that's 2 million more than the last salary cap!
    So what is the problem then? If it's only 2 million a year why did the owners lockout in the first place? I would think the lawyers and mediators cost more than that?
    I think he's saying that the owners are offering $2M more in salary cap per team. $128M to $130M. The players are asking for a raise of close to $19M in salary cap per team. The actual amount of money in question is roughly $600M. If the lawyers are getting that much, I need to get my wife hooked up in NFL law.

  5. #15
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "jmcdon00" #1091141
    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091140
    NFLPA- 9 bil 1 bil off top 59.8% remainder = 4,784,000,000

    / 32 teams

    = 149,500,000 per team

    That was the so-called offer by the union. It was merely the status quo.

    Here is the "horrible pay cut" that the NFL reportedly proferred:

    NFL- 9 bil 2 bil off top 59.8% remainder = 4,186,000,000

    / 32 teams

    = 130,812,500 per team

    One cannot help but notice that's 2 million more than the last salary cap!
    So what is the problem then? If it's only 2 million a year why did the owners lockout in the first place? I would think the lawyers and mediators cost more than that?
    The NFLPA did not accept that offer from the league. They have you (the fan) convinced that they (the players) would be taking a pay cut. The reality is that it IS a pay cut in the sense that revenues increased since the last salary cap was imposed, and the "pay cut" is merely a reduction in the money the players WOULD HAVE RECEIVED if the owners did not opt out of the CBA, again, due to increased revenue (which was MOSTLY accrued by only 3 of the 32 teams, but the other 29 teams pay equally as the 3)

    The nuts and bolts of retaining some of that revenue should be of great interest to Vikings fans. That 1 bil historically "reserved" by the owners allowed them to contribute 150 mil from the stadium fund (interest free loan) to Jerry's monstrosity in Dallas. It stands to reason that if the reserve to the owners increases, AND THAT IS THEIR RATIONALE-BUILDING/IMPROVING VENUES- that the contribution to say, a new metrodump (although I suspect you Vikes folk might improve upon on my naming :P )

    ...just might be more than that 150 mil, one might argue that if the annual "contribution" into the fund has "doubled", there exists a far better revenue pool to draw from for your new [strike]hell hole[/strike]
    stadium.


    It's also worth noting, as regards that 150 mil from the league-- original cost projection for Jerry's place was 650 mil, so one can speculate that the loan was based on THAT number, as oppossed to the 1.2 bil Jerry wound up spending after he installed the Taj Mahal package...
    Which would you rather have your $$$ go to? Increased bloat of the player's salaries, or the opportunity to ensure the retention of your team in Minneapolis? That is FAR closer to your choices than most realize, imo

  6. #16
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091135
    Small correction on the facts as relating to your post, jmcdon00-

    Miami and Detroit both lost money in 2009, according to Forbes. Forbes also over-stated Green Bay's actual profit by almost double the actual income in their estimate, the one team that we do know the figures for.





    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

    Also, a fair reading of those Forbes valuations would also note that 18 teams lost value from the preceding year, this in a time of booming popularity of the league. In the case of the Vikings, Zygi's investment lost 54 million in value, for example.
    Without any type of transparency in their books it is not really possible to know whether the team really lost money or if they shifted an expense from one of their other businesses to that one to make it look worse than it was. They could have also taken some sort of accelerated depreciation or other accounting shift. That is one of the great thing about having multiple sources of significant revenue.

  7. #17
    Marrdro's Avatar
    Marrdro is offline Beware My Spreadsheet, Bitches!
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    43,899

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1091152
    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091135
    Small correction on the facts as relating to your post, jmcdon00-

    Miami and Detroit both lost money in 2009, according to Forbes. Forbes also over-stated Green Bay's actual profit by almost double the actual income in their estimate, the one team that we do know the figures for.





    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

    Also, a fair reading of those Forbes valuations would also note that 18 teams lost value from the preceding year, this in a time of booming popularity of the league. In the case of the Vikings, Zygi's investment lost 54 million in value, for example.
    Without any type of transparency in their books it is not really possible to know whether the team really lost money or if they shifted an expense from one of their other businesses to that one to make it look worse than it was. They could have also taken some sort of accelerated depreciation or other accounting shift. That is one of the great thing about having multiple sources of significant revenue.
    You see were the owners offered up 5 years of their books and the players came back with....."Thats not the right part of the books".

    Seriously, not the right part?
    Many many thanks to my talented friend Jos for the new Sig.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v343/josdin00/Vikings/Marrdro_sig.jpg

  8. #18
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1091198
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1091152
    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091135
    Small correction on the facts as relating to your post, jmcdon00-

    Miami and Detroit both lost money in 2009, according to Forbes. Forbes also over-stated Green Bay's actual profit by almost double the actual income in their estimate, the one team that we do know the figures for.





    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

    Also, a fair reading of those Forbes valuations would also note that 18 teams lost value from the preceding year, this in a time of booming popularity of the league. In the case of the Vikings, Zygi's investment lost 54 million in value, for example.
    Without any type of transparency in their books it is not really possible to know whether the team really lost money or if they shifted an expense from one of their other businesses to that one to make it look worse than it was. They could have also taken some sort of accelerated depreciation or other accounting shift. That is one of the great thing about having multiple sources of significant revenue.
    You see were the owners offered up 5 years of their books and the players came back with....."Thats not the right part of the books".

    Seriously, not the right part?
    Yeah, they were only showing one or two columns on the "ol spreadsheet and not the whole thing.

  9. #19
    thorshammer is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    507

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    What does any of this have to do with Rice's market value??

  10. #20
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,275

    Re: What will be market value for new Rice contract

    Quote Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1091198
    Quote Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1091152
    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1091135
    Small correction on the facts as relating to your post, jmcdon00-

    Miami and Detroit both lost money in 2009, according to Forbes. Forbes also over-stated Green Bay's actual profit by almost double the actual income in their estimate, the one team that we do know the figures for.





    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

    Also, a fair reading of those Forbes valuations would also note that 18 teams lost value from the preceding year, this in a time of booming popularity of the league. In the case of the Vikings, Zygi's investment lost 54 million in value, for example.
    Without any type of transparency in their books it is not really possible to know whether the team really lost money or if they shifted an expense from one of their other businesses to that one to make it look worse than it was. They could have also taken some sort of accelerated depreciation or other accounting shift. That is one of the great thing about having multiple sources of significant revenue.
    You see were the owners offered up 5 years of their books and the players came back with....."Thats not the right part of the books".

    Seriously, not the right part?
    Doesn't seem strange at all. Of course the owners will pick and choose what documents to give the union.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sidney Rice - the new Jerry Rice
    By HEY in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 05-18-2008, 02:57 AM
  2. Who's the best WR? Sorry, Randy, it's Rice with a side of Rice
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-30-2008, 07:21 AM
  3. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-15-2007, 11:19 AM
  4. Small-market team, big-market attitude
    By singersp in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-10-2006, 01:44 PM
  5. The Sig Market
    By josdin00 in forum Help / Suggestion Box
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 02-20-2006, 07:55 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •