Its impossible to determine a fair profit when the owners fail to properly document revenues and expenses.
$0 - They make their money when they sell the team.
$10 M max. Similar to players on their second contract
$10 - $20 M. Like a top line veteran player
$20 - 30 M. As much as the highest paid players
$30 - 40 M. A bit more than the top players
$40 M+. Its a huge investments in a wildly successful business. A solid return is deserved.
Its impossible to determine a fair profit when the owners fail to properly document revenues and expenses.
You can always talk about a fair profit. The fair profit we are talking about is the actual, accurate number, whether it is the owners number, the players number or more likely something in between.Originally Posted by rbaloha
Last edited by Patler; 03-15-2011 at 06:46 PM.
Again -- impossible to determine an actual number w/o full disclosure. Its moot since full disclosure shall not occur -- nor should it. Players are entertainers with a unique set of skills. The market determine the wage. However the market could be corrupted due to a blatant violation of anti trust laws.
Why is disclosure of anything required for determining what a "fair" profit is? The question is merely "supposing that the books were exposed, what profits by the owners would lend you to conclude 'that's enough'." Saying "I can't answer" a question that presupposes "if the books were opened..." by saying "I can't answer unless they opened the books" is absolutely nonsensical.
Last edited by Lurker64; 03-15-2011 at 07:09 PM.
</delurk>
The reality of the situation is that the players have demanded, and likely will get significant access to their owners' books. They will be given a number or will calulate a number on their own that represents the owners annual cash take from the business. Some players have implied that the owners currently get too much, and more of the $9 billion should go to the players. That presupposes that there is an acceptable amount for an owner to "take". I am trying to get a feel for that number.
If Peyton Manning is paid $25 million, if the players determine that Irsay paid himself and his family $40 million, will that be fair? Is it fair to him if all gets on a year to year basis is $5 million?
Are you not understanding the question? You don't need actual numbers to determine what a fair rate of return is. Assuming the owner is not making distributions to himself, what is a fair percentage?
Go PACK
Yes you do.
No. you don't.
You do not need to know what the actual profits are to estimate the dividing lines are between an insufficient profit, a sufficient profit, and an excessive profit (assuming there were such a thing). You do not need actual data to address hypothetical questions. To demand real data in order to address a hypothetical question means that you don't actually understand what "hypothetical" means.
</delurk>
Its an impossible hypothetical. To simplify -- High profit margin -- players receive a bigger share than a small profit margin.
Stubborn aren't you. Are you representing the players by any chance?
Go PACK
Actually its easy to figure. As much as the market will bear. What you think is fair can be voted on by you spending your money on the product. What the players think is fair will be determined by them choosing a different career.
I don't hold Grudges. It's counterproductive.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote