Phinfans, why did Ross buy the Dolphins? Ego, Huizenga put a pretty picture together, by doubling ticket prices on the 20th year of the new stadium, so ticket prices presented unreal income. Ross was a real estate guy, thought the long term value of the surrounding area had value in apt rentals condo sales, he had his kangaroo tv dream. He sold a big chunk of his company to Micheal Dell, and thought the dolphins were a safeway to diversify his wealth. I guess parking your cash for a time period in the NFL is a safe place to put the cash in a very uncertain world.
If you take on the Florida Marlins model, keeping your payroll signifigantly below the cap, you can make the team cash flow. I honestly think the NFL ownership, is not a smart move anymore, which is another reason brilliant businessman Wayne H got out, He sold at the top of the market like he always does. Viacom bought blockbuster for billions, whats it worth now...lol. I hope they get it fixed, and understand, your point of why in the world would people line up to buy the rams.

The bottom line is, without the players....this league is nothing.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Phinfans,
I am not a fan of talking in circle either but you surely are not being fair in your assesment. If people are against the NFLPA, they are just anti union. How about, if you have a position like you, you are just pro union, anti management.
I give you numbers from a very respectable institution like Forbes. You give me a rebuttal, by saying the books are cooked, and a reference by a blogger on New times. And you done remotely acknowledge the major difference of the validity of the sources. WHich even you have to admit is absurd.
According to what you are trying to sell around here, Anything the owners supply is cooked number and bad offers and anything the NFLPA offers is fair honest and gold... That is total BS and I obviously believe you know that....lol.
The owners open some books and you say it is a joke and not good enough. Everything the owners do, you negate and discredit, and everything the players do, you overvalue, you sell,and want us to accept as the gospel...lol
I leave you with this, an antithesis of your main point with nothing to back it up at all.
Just as you said, except, if the Players really wanted to get a fair deal done they would have one.
You are talking in circles becasue you have nothing of value or substance, other then the owners are lying and the players are honest brokers... Come on, sell that cr*p to someone who might believe it...

The owners will not fold because for most of them this is not their primary source of income. Like I said before countless times the owners are the richest participants in this debate, and form a historical standpoint the side with the most money and power usually wins.

Finshady Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The owners will not fold because for most of them
> this is not their primary source of income. Like
> I said before countless times the owners are the
> richest participants in this debate, and form a
> historical standpoint the side with the most money
> and power usually wins.


What everyone's forgetting is it's in the courts hands now, if the courts tell the the owners to open their books this will get settled real quick, with the players "winning", if the courts determine the de-cert is a sham this will get settled real quick with the owners "winning". I personally don't give 2 squirts if p.ss who "wins" as long as it's settled real quick.

Dolphaholic- I agree that the court case will dictate the next move for both sides. But I dont think the court can force the owners into signing a deal that dont want. They could just stop the lockout, which would just entail another step by the owners. If the players lose the battle in court, which I think is most likely, just based on the common sense that everyone pretty much agrees the decertification was a sham to do nothing more then play a legal tactic when mediation was not going the way the NFLPA wanted it to go. When the NFLPA lose in court they are in deep trouble and will give up more then they would have to give up now. Why you ask, because a ruling against the NFLPA will only empower the owners at a time that is not beneficial to the players.
The NFLPA is playing an all or nothing game, betting on a ruling that goes against the general publics commone sense. That means they are believing their own BS and think they can fool the judge and public as well. That is a major misstep IMO.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/02/2011 06:38AM by Crowder52.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dolphaholic- I agree that the court case will
> dictate the next move for both sides. But I dont
> think the court can force the owners into signing
> a deal that dont want. They could just stop the
> lockout, which would just entail another step by
> the owners. If the players lose the battle in
> court, which I think is most likely, just based on
> the common sense that everyone pretty much agrees
> the decertification was a sham to do nothing more
> then play a legal tactic when mediation was not
> going the way the NFLPA wanted it to go. When the
> NFLPA lose in court they are in deep trouble and
> will give up more then they would have to give up
> now. Why you ask, because a ruling against the
> NFLPA will only empower the owners at a time that
> is not beneficial to the players.
> The NFLPA is playing an all or nothing game,
> betting on a ruling that goes against the general
> publics commone sense. That means they are
> believing their own BS and think they can fool the
> judge and public as well. That is a major misstep
> IMO.


Crowder, if I worked for you and we signed a 5 yr deal stating that I get 50% of the revenue, then after 3 yrs you ripped up that deal telling me that it's no good because you're losing money, you don't think if it went to court that legally you'd have to show those lost revenues? The courts could absolutely order the owners to open the books to prove this lost revenue they're talking about, the owners could then back down and settle with the players out of court, which is the most likely scenario in all of this. Everyone knows there's 9 billion dollars in revenue, I think it's fair that the owners should have to prove how they're losing money.

Can I ask all of the owner lovers 1 question. Why didn't the owners just let the current CBA run it's course until 2013? (it's only 2 more years) Why did they have to opt out and grandstand? I'll tell you why, they the thought the players would crumble under fear of a work stoppage and agree to a bad deal, what other reason did they have to opt out early?

Dolphalolic- If we signed a 5 year deal and in that deal I had the option to opt out after 3 years, and I used that option, whats the problem? The right to opt out after a certain term was part of the agreement.
The owners own private companies,and have that right, as it is in the title, to financial privacy and nondisclosure . They dont own public companies they own private companies. So the NFLPA is special and has the right to demand of a private company to give up its right to privacy. There is enough information out there between the packers and other teams who are willing to share their records. The NFLPA does not have the right to demand of private companies what they are demanding. Plain and simple, and the owners do not need their rights as a free enterprise jeopardized to appease some greedy ahtletes and agents. The owners ar exactly that owners, the players are employees. Yet the players think and want respect and rights like owners.

I disagree but I guess time will tell.

Phinfans, I dont need validate information, when I can do math on the type of risk involved with debt in the hundreds of millions if not billion dollar ranges. That type of debt is crippling, and can cost anywhere between 30 to 75 million dollars in interest a year. Now if inflation happens these guys are destroyed. Let the players association share in the personal guarantees and estate tax problems the teams are facing, and I would demand the NFLPA get every financial record they are looking for. But they dont share in the financial risk and burdens associated with owning a NFL team, yet want all the rights, that is ludcicours IMO. You must include all of the risk and cost associated with owning a NFL team now and into the future, into the NFL business model, And as other owners have said it is obviously broken and doesnt take a savvy business person to realize that. Everyone is predicting higher cost of money in the future. The cost of money is not a fixed cost in the commercial business world. Higher interest in laymans terms would cripple the NFL owners.

Dolphaholic- if in the contract it said in order for me to opt out, i would have to disclose financial documents and prove losses, to execture the opt out, then I would agree with you. But that was not the case. You are right time will tell. I think the teams are overvalued, and that is the root of alot of these problems. And the owners dont want to devalue the assetts, Based on cap rates which are at a low, the teams still dont come anywhere close to what the claimed value and purchase prices involved. What I am saying , is if you told me all the team were worth half what they are said to be worth, then everything makes alot more sense.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> Except you have NO IDEA what debt structure any of
> these teams have, let alone what the league looks
> like as a whole.
>
> If its as bad as you say, then the owners deserve
> a MUCH better deal than what they have. But its
> not.
>
> How do I know that? Simple: 1) they agreed to
> the last two CBA's knowing what their debt
> structure ACTUALLY was ahead of time. 2) They
> aren't operating with razor thin profit margins in
> a 9.5 billion dollar industry. 3) Most stadiums
> were/are built in large part, if not entirely with
> public funds. And when they aren't there are
> usually other tax benefits or land grants given to
> the owners to off set their out of pocket costs or
> entice them to stay in that city. 4) The owners
> won't open their books.


I personally understand the debt structure involved in 50 to 100 million dollar projects, so I can make a more then educated guess, at what they are facing. As well, I left the span pretty large to adjust for special deals these owner could get with penion funds, overseas, etc wherever they might be drawing the money from. The cost of money is pretty much the cost of money with in a relative range, at any given time.

Alot has changed since the last 2 cba's were agreed upon, which is why the option to opt out was in place and then executed by the owners.

Honestly, I hope you are right phinsfans, and Mr Ross and the rest of the ownership groups are making money hand over fist, and this is all one being sham by the owners. I just dont believe it to be the case, if it was so , I dont believe the owners would have jeopardized the golden goose, over a chirade.