Packers Pep Rally

[coolman3]

From Packers.com:

The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue. Revenue from Packers merchandise sold elsewhere - your local mall, for example - is shared by the entire league. In other words: Buy from the Pro Shop, help the Packers win. Buy anywhere else, help the Chicago Bears win, too.

http://www.packers.com/fan_zone/faq/

Oh.

[MadtownPacker]

Whats FC? Where you been at playette?

Dont waste your time arguing with ole polar-pendejo there, his game is always arguing without merit.

[coolman3]

Again:

"The Packers Pro Shop and PackersProShop.com are the only shopping locations where the Packers organization inherits all sales revenue."

Yes, but that alone would not save the Packers without the revenue sharing system.

[FavreChild]

You are right about the NFL doing a lot of collaborative marketing - but it is also correct that one of the reasons the smallest market team (us) ranks near the top ten in team revenue is because of the pro shop sales.

By the way, why the hell is my rat name still "Allie Rat?"

[Scott Campbell]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.

You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

[FavreChild]

Whats FC? Where you been at playette?

Dont waste your time arguing with ole polar-pendejo there, his game is always arguing without merit.

It is my duty to post the facts - now I'm done with it.

[coolman3]

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, each team must spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players. Suppose that the salary cap is $107 mil; that means that the Packers must spend at least $59.92 mil on player salaries.

I don't think the Pack can generate $59.92 mil per year solely on local revenues. Market is not big enough.

[MJZiggy]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.

You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau

[coolman3]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.

You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau

Economics majors do though. Its part of a research course.

[FavreChild]

Aren't you required to use current and/or accurate sources??

[MadtownPacker]

If the Packers need help with $$$ they can always steal one of their dad's credit cards.

[Scott Campbell]

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, each team must spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players. Suppose that the salary cap is $107 mil; that means that the Packers must spend at least $59.92 mil on player salaries.

I don't think the Pack can generate $59.92 mil per year solely on local revenues. Market is not big enough.

It's not 56% - the minimum is 84% of the salary cap. I think the salary cap is set at 59.5% of total football revenues.

[Scott Campbell]

I used it as a source in my the Economic thesis paper.

You actually write your own papers now? Gotta admit, you've come a long way since Greenspan.

Scott, you know undergrads don't write theses.

Sincerely,
Inspector Clouseau

Sorry - I went to a cheap in state school.

[Scott Campbell]

Aren't you required to use current and/or accurate sources??

At Georgetown - yes.
At Stevens Point - not so much.

[MJZiggy]

Under the new collective bargaining agreement, each team must spend at least 56% of the salary cap on players. Suppose that the salary cap is $107 mil; that means that the Packers must spend at least $59.92 mil on player salaries.

I don't think the Pack can generate $59.92 mil per year solely on local revenues. Market is not big enough.

It's not 56% - the minimum is 84% of the salary cap. I think the salary cap is set at 59.5% of total football revenues.

Wow. You been taking lessons from Patler?