World's Most Boring Thread: The CBA

[retailguy]

PB - I'm talking more about ROI or ROACE instead of pure profit. I might be making 10% on my money, but if I can make 15% somewhere else with relatively the same level of risk, which is the better investment?

That's the discussion that I think is going on with the Dan Snyders of the world. Owning a team is "fun". Earning 6% isn't "fun". These guys think differently than the rest of us. It's all about "more more more". It becomes a game after a while, and they're in it to win. I understand the owners, but I don't always agree with them. The biggest mistake they made was agreeing to the last CBA. It was a ridiculous decision that will haunt them for generations.

Sharpe, I'm not "pissed" but probably a little frustrated. Too many folks on the internet who have never done a damn thing in their lives. Yet they are an expert at whatever they do. Some of those folks are here (not saying you specifically so don't take it that way), and it gets old arguing with them all the time. It's better since Tyrone left, for example, but still.

There are times when I know I'm right, because I've lived it, so I just wander away, and don't say any more because it isn't worth the battle. Then the person I've stopped arguing with, thinks they are right, and it emboldens them for the next time. Eventually, you can't even talk to them, and they always have to be right. That gets damn old.

Then, there are philosophical debates. Example, Dan and I are similarly educated, probably from the same institution, but probably couldn't agree about the best thing for breakfast, much less anything in our own industry. We'd probably fight about the color of the sun. That gets old after while too. So, eventually, in my case at least, we just post less. Thank God this place isn't my problem anymore. It was impossible to please anybody, most of the time.

Take care.

[pbmax]

I am sure that its always about money and more, more and more. But there are far more profitable investments than a pro franchise of any sport. So while they are chasing more, if they invested this money to maximize the investment only, they would have chosen to do something else. That has always been true, even when the only money that they counted was gate receipts. The exception might be Snyder. He made his fortune on turning around under marketed businesses and given his success in DC, he made have had a slightly different motivation. But even Jones was a crazy fan before he owned the team.

If the last CBA was such a predictable catastrophe, then they wouldn't have signed on. I think it was more likely that Jones/Snyder/Kraft thought they would be able to stiff the lower revenue clubs and Tags and Goodell pushed through a number more than they were comfortable with. That coupled with the fact that low revenue clubs were not forced to make any business or marketing concessions made it unpalatable.

I think its as much an internal struggle among the peer group as it is against player cost. The irony is that faint-hearted and emotional fans are already wringing their hands over franchises moving to better markets. But if Buffalo, Jacksonville, Cincinnati and Minnesota did find more profitable venues, then the supplemental sharing wouldn't be such an issue and the costs wouldn't be prohibitive for the revenue impaired.

I have no doubt you are sincere RG and tired of bickering with emotional posters. But in comparing the current situation to other businesses and owners you have worked with, I think you may be drawing too direct a parallel. No doubt the primary motivations are similar, but the barriers in each case are probably a little different.

[ThunderDan]

I can't believe where this thread is going.

It is plain and simple, the players salaries are going to go down. The owners feel they are overpaying but they won't open their books to the NFLPA.

To Retail's point, he says payroll over 50% is too high or some such number. For a lot of businesses that might be true. The NFL is a completely different animal. The players are the product. A product were your ability to earn money is potential over on every play that you are in. The owners damn well should play their players a "premium" for playing. The average NFL player loses like 20 years in expected life span and a vast majority are crippled or servely hinder later in life.

I became friends with Elroy Hirsch later in his life. He could tell you about every game he play with the Rams but he couldn't tell you how many strokes it took him to get to the green. He had absolutely no short-term memory. He couldn't drive, he couldn't find his keys, he couldn't remember what he ate for lunch. He would ask you the same question honestly (not pulling your leg) 7 times in 18 holes and be interested in the answer everytime because he had no idea he had asked you 6 times before.

[Patler]

No, the players are not the product any more than the fancy leather seats in your car are the product, or the luxurious extras in the mansion are the product. The team and the league are the product, the players are simply parts assembled into different models. When the player leaves or retires, another takes his place. Many Packer fans are just now experiencing for the first time that a player is not the product, the team is. Favre left, and guess what? The product isn't gone! The Packers are still quite entertaining, even if it is a new model.

Looking at just the player costs is a waste of time. Many fans talk as if everything other than player salaries is profit to the owners. The Packers report having about 250 employees. At any one time, about 60-65 of those are players. Sure, some of the others don't make a lot of money, but you have a head coach, GM and President each making multiple millions, perhaps another $10 million tied up in the coaching staff. The cost to transport a team, training it, etc. are huge.

I haven't verified the numbers, but my recollection is the Packers reported about $250 million in gross revenue, and about $20 million in profit. If I were the owner of the Packers, I would be looking at ways to increase that number ($20 million), not just from an increase in gross sales, but also increasing the profit percentage by getting cost percentage more under control.

In a sense the owners and players (not individual players, but the NFLPA) are partners, because the players salaries are tied to some part of gross incomes. Its not like a typical CBA where salaries are fixed. Since they are partners, there has to be a certain level of trust in the running of the business, mostly by the players trusting the owners. Basically, the owners are telling the players that there is not enough profit in operations right now to fund expansion. With more cash to work with in the short term, long term revenues can be increased to the betterment of both the owners and the NFLPA.

As to the question that started this thread, which percentage is the most accurate? The answer is: either, both, neither; depending on how you want to look at it. However, the owners argument for the decrease is an old one.The old "50% of $200 is less than 40% of $300" argument. So if someone asks you if you want 40% or 50% without specifying "of what", how can you answer?????

[3irty1]

No, the players are not the product any more than the fancy leather seats in your car are the product, or the luxurious extras in the mansion are the product. The team and the league are the product, the players are simply parts assembled into different models. When the player leaves or retires, another takes his place. Many Packer fans are just now experiencing for the first time that a player is not the product, the team is. Favre left, and guess what? The product isn't gone! The Packers are still quite entertaining, even if it is a new model.

Looking at just the player costs is a waste of time. Many fans talk as if everything other than player salaries is profit to the owners. The Packers report having about 250 employees. At any one time, about 60-65 of those are players. Sure, some of the others don't make a lot of money, but you have a head coach, GM and President each making multiple millions, perhaps another $10 million tied up in the coaching staff. The cost to transport a team, training it, etc. are huge.

I haven't verified the numbers, but my recollection is the Packers reported about $250 million in gross revenue, and about $20 million in profit. If I were the owner of the Packers, I would be looking at ways to increase that number ($20 million), not just from an increase in gross sales, but also increasing the profit percentage by getting cost percentage more under control.

In a sense the owners and players (not individual players, but the NFLPA) are partners, because the players salaries are tied to some part of gross incomes. Its not like a typical CBA where salaries are fixed. Since they are partners, there has to be a certain level of trust in the running of the business, mostly by the players trusting the owners. Basically, the owners are telling the players that there is not enough profit in operations right now to fund expansion. With more cash to work with in the short term, long term revenues can be increased to the betterment of both the owners and the NFLPA.

As to the question that started this thread, which percentage is the most accurate? The answer is: either, both, neither; depending on how you want to look at it. However, the owners argument for the decrease is an old one.The old "50% of $200 is less than 40% of $300" argument. So if someone asks you if you want 40% or 50% without specifying "of what", how can you answer?????

Nice post Patler. Especially when you see that other teams struggle much harder than the Packers to turn profits.

[pbmax]

Players may not BE the product, but they are not leather seats. Corintian leather, maybe.

I do not remember the detail of the AFL's financial operations or the effect on the NFL, but I think that the move of Joe Namath to the AFL had to affect the income of the NFL far more than leather seat choices. I know the immediate effect of the AFL was a signing war between the two for stars and high profile draft picks.

Patler, if you're contention were believed by the NFL teams at that time, they would not have cared about who they signed, just that they got a decent, functional player. From a marketing standpoint alone, they are not the same as a replaceable part. If the name Joe Namath was worth more, then the players are far more like sweet 19" spinning rims.

And Favre leaving has hurt the Packers financially, even in Jersey sales alone. Car manufacturers do not compete for parts suppliers by bidding them higher like teams do for players. Players are replaceable, but they aren't simple parts either. There is a financial impact to them. Otherwise Ziggy would not have brought 4 West. And the Packers were lucky to have a quality replacement. Past history has shown that does not happen often. And I think we can agree that a run of mediocrity will impact the income of a franchise.

Going back to the AFL for a moment, there is also value in having all the best in one place.

[pbmax]

Oddly enough, I think I have constructed the outline of an argument that Ted Thompson sees the players as Body by Fisher parts and Dan Snyder thinks the players are Tom Cruise.

That might be the first time RG agreed with TT on a philosophical basis.

[Patler]

Leather is more expensive than vinyl, each can be used to make a car.
Brady is more expensive than Orton, each can be used to field a football team.

Specific players might make the product "better", and improved teams overall might increase income, but the teams are the product. I won't go and watch Favre or Rodgers throwing a football on a field by himself to no one. I will and did watch the Packers when the team was bad, when Tagge was throwing to Staggers.

To grow to what it is, the NFL needed and still needs very rich, very ambitious owners who can afford to and will take financial risks in the hope of mega returns. The Packers can keep up, but I doubt they would ever have led the way for the growth of the NFL. Their story in the '60s certainly helped, but they weren't the visionaries.

Sure, quality players improve the product. But without the right types of owners, the ones who could and did sustain losses in its infancy, the NFL might have ended up being pro soccer or the NHL in fan interest.

Players come and go. The NFL (the product) has continued to grow, replacing parts as necessary, just like other new products get a foothold, get better and eventually become something society thinks it can't do without.

[retailguy]

I think I would maintain that the entertainment is the product, not even the NFL per se. The better the players the better the fans entertainment. That's why there are bidding wars for components (players), not dissimilar to "unique" options on cars, they make the product more desirable.

Peyton Manning makes the product more desirable (sells more tix, merchandise, etc) than Kyle Orton, though Kyle produces a fine product.

When that works, you get rich, ala Robert Kraft. When that doesn't work, you struggle to sell tickets and avoid blackouts like Al Davis & Wayne Weaver.

PB, I think you're right that at a certain level the NFL is unique, but in most ways, they are just a really big business with the same nagging problems most of us "little normal" people face.

[pbmax]

Leather can be obtained from numerous suppliers in nearly unlimited quantities.

Quarterbacks who can increase the value of an NFL product (as Favre certainly did in Green Bay, Brady does in New England and Manning does in Indianapolis) are in far shorter supply.

They are not simple components.

Orton, or any street free agent QB can play the position and allow the game to continue and tickets to be offered for sale. Diehards may watch, but Replacement Level Players will not elevate your franchise's value or revenue. So you will be dependent on other teams and players to continue to grow the pie so your investment can continue to appreciate. But this is not maximizing your return on investment.

The league cannot survive as is, with the growth they wish to have with replacement level players. This is exactly the point. The NFL reaches its maximum potential revenue when it has the best players.

[Patler]

So long as the NFL pays significantly better than the player's alternative, they will have most of the best players. If every starting QB's salary was decreased by $2 million, would they all quit? I doubt it. More importantly if the salaries had escalated more slowly, so that each was 20% less right now, would all the best players have left? I doubt it. If the salary cap had stayed at about $90 million instead of raising to $120 million the last few years, would the league be devoid of talented players? Again, I doubt it. Most players don't have options for comparable work.

QB's are not in short supply. If 20 of them left right now, 20 others would replace them. Performance might change, maybe running would again predominate, but that's just the point. The owners, the league, the coaches put on an entertaining product featuring what they have. For some in the not too distant past it was defense.

[Patler]

Leather can be obtained from numerous suppliers in nearly unlimited quantities.

Not if P.E.T.A. has their way!

[MJZiggy]

Otherwise Ziggy would not have brought 4 West. And the Packers were lucky to have a quality replacement. Past history has shown that does not happen often. And I think we can agree that a run of mediocrity will impact the income of a franchise.

Watch who you're blaming, there, buddy!!

[pbmax]

QB's are not in short supply. If 20 of them left right now, 20 others would replace them. Performance might change, maybe running would again predominate, but that's just the point. The owners, the league, the coaches put on an entertaining product featuring what they have. For some in the not too distant past it was defense.

So your contention is that performance at QB will not change the revenue of the franchise?

If you dropped the salary and lost the top 20 QBs, of course the game would readjust and compensate. But it would not be the same game. Those QBs might choose to play elsewhere or an entirely different sport.

Just as college basketball has been hurt in the TV ratings by not showcasing the best young stars, football would be affected. It would be slower and less easily noticed, but affected none the less. And like the NCAA now is considering increasing the postseason field to 96 teams, the league would eventually have to make changes to the game in order to keep increasing revenues with an inferior product with fewer marketable players.

And I am not sure it would go unnoticed for long. In a passing dominated league, a sudden drop in quality at QB is going to be noticed. And while diehards might love a defensive struggle, casual fans (the ones that truly make the difference in revenue as they often choose to spend their money on other alternatives) will watch or do other things.

[pbmax]

Otherwise Ziggy would not have brought 4 West. And the Packers were lucky to have a quality replacement. Past history has shown that does not happen often. And I think we can agree that a run of mediocrity will impact the income of a franchise.

Watch who you're blaming, there, buddy!!

I can't help it is your screen name and Triple Word Score Wilf are nearly the same.