Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

"Greed is Good" Good Article on CBA.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
28 replies to this topic

#16 PantherBrew

PantherBrew

    Educated White Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 6,248
  • Reputation: 1,078
SUPPORTER

Posted 05 March 2011 - 09:50 AM

A good read on the other cba thread will show you that's not true. It'd more complicated then it seems and he didn't even add in the salary cap. Like I said he ignored a lot of things.


What part is not true?

#17 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:00 AM

Waste of time.

Richardson voiced at the beginning of last season how he was focused more on trying to help keep the jobs of his employees that make the show run, not just the players.

The players are only looking out for themselves. The owners, while predominantly concerned with themselves in some cases, are also responsible for many of their employees. Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft will probably cut jobs without a care, but JR take the human factor into consideration.

Perhaps if the writer could focus less on dollar amounts and more on investigating and reporting, perhaps there would be been more substance to the article. Otherwise he's just like every other shmuck that thinks because football players get paid millions that the players should have to work in a coal mine and a chemical plant during the offseason to justify the pay. Only in this case, it's criticizing business owners for trying to make their business model grow but doing so in a manner to raise ire against the owners with a hypothetical business model. Had Simmons wrote an article with a well run organization as well to go with it, I might be more inclined to take the article more seriously. But a one-sided grenade toss is nothing new here.

I can't wait until all this is over with. The CBA has really exposed many people's lack of business sense to go along with their Chicken Little syndrome.


fuging unbelivable! Do you actually believe what you just said there? Man, I got fiefdom to sell you.

Edited by antame, 06 March 2011 - 02:10 AM.


#18 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:20 AM

People who write stuff like that: Assuming you're not an NFL owner, is the NFL model the way you want to be treated as an employee, or better yet, a customer? Seriously?

#19 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 02:36 AM

Waste of time.

Richardson voiced at the beginning of last season how he was focused more on trying to help keep the jobs of his employees that make the show run, not just the players.

The players are only looking out for themselves.

The owners, while predominantly concerned with themselves in some cases, are also responsible for many of their employees. Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft will probably cut jobs without a care, but JR take the human factor into consideration.

The CBA has really exposed many people's lack of business sense to go along with their Chicken Little syndrome.


Isolating a few points, if you can even call them that - these absolutely blow my mind. As an actual employer, where do I find such devoted peasants as these, in real life?

Edited by antame, 06 March 2011 - 02:45 AM.


#20 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,915
  • Reputation: 397
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 04:29 AM

Its an easy scapegoat to just blame operating expenses on player costs, but their are many, many reason expenses go up.

I also find it interesting that the article places the blame of operating cost on the players, BUT there are 0 mentions of the 14 million dollar upgrade of the Scoreboard and Sound systems.1

Furthermore, the players dont force the owners to pay them what they want. The owners have to "offer" the contract. :nopity:

:boxing_smiley:

1) http://www.bizjourna...coreboards.html


Last I checked, this is a venue to paying fans. If the expectations have changed then the market demands that responsible business owners accomodate. The article I cited gets to the bottom line of being unable to meet both the changing market needs along with a business model that mandates nearly 60% of net be devoted not to ALL employees but a certain section of them.

The players have had a sweetheart deal for a while now and the business model is not going to be able to keep up with the status quo. Something HAS to give. Instead of being happy that players have had an excessively good deal for the past decade and a half, people think that taking a responsible step back is akin to slave wages.

If the working environment is THAT bad and the benifits are THAT horrible, players do not HAVE to play. Yet, we see tens of thousands of people swarming for the chance to be in the players' shoes EVERY YEAR. Do you actually think that will change if the owners change the business model to what they have proposed?

How is a business supposed to plan for future endeavours (expected and otherwise) if they can't accrue the equity to be nimble enough to see their plans through? In the midst of planning to meet what the fans want regarding a new scoreboard, the Packers have introduced PAYMENT PLANS for season tickets so the fans can still come to the games as they have before. This is yet another indication of the market and how it is struggling. Should the NFL owners ignore this and continue to let profits slide under the current model?

Lastly, let's be honest about all of this: the vast majority of owners (if not all) are not wealthy because of their ownership of an NFL team. They made their fortunes elsewhere and have decided to embark on ownership of an NFL team for their own personal reasons (status, long-time dreams, etc). If you have hundreds of millions of dollars to invest, you can let it sit in the bank and make 5% DOING NOTHING as opposed to active investments. To say that their NFL franchise underperforms when compared their other business ventures is an understatement. If all they cared about was the money, they'd have left the league LONG ago. They do it because they want to do it, and I don't think it unreasonable that they make a modest return on their investments in the process.

#21 Happy Panther

Happy Panther

    Now even funnier.

  • Joined: 16-March 09
  • posts: 18,501
  • Reputation: 3,467
SUPPORTER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 08:42 AM


The players have had a sweetheart deal for a while now and the business model is not going to be able to keep up with the status quo. Something HAS to give. Instead of being happy that players have had an excessively good deal for the past decade and a half, people think that taking a responsible step back is akin to slave wages.

If the working environment is THAT bad and the benifits are THAT horrible, players do not HAVE to play. Yet, we see tens of thousands of people swarming for the chance to be in the players' shoes EVERY YEAR. Do you actually think that will change if the owners change the business model to what they have proposed?


This is a complete misunderstanding of the players position, as well as owners.

Team profits and owners net worth have been increasing year over year as a whole. NFL owners are making more money than they were 10 years, 5 years and 2 years ago. The current model is completely sustainable and would continue to grow over time. The owners however want to invest large amounts of money into new endeavours which is completely understandable.

Neither side is suggesting that the players are poor or that the owners don't need the best of the best. Everyone agrees that the players deserve huge amounts of money. Both sides are merely trying to figure out who gets the last billion dollars.

Stop comparing the players to the accounts payable girl at your company.

#22 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,915
  • Reputation: 397
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:53 AM

i'm pretty sure the article cited at the outset of this thread did

#23 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:35 PM

i'm pretty sure the article cited at the outset of this thread did


Did what? Compare low-level, transient employees to NFL players? I don't think it did.

#24 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 10:42 PM

Anyway, that's hardly the point. Nice post by Happy.

#25 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,915
  • Reputation: 397
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 11:08 PM

Did what? Compare low-level, transient employees to NFL players? I don't think it did.


"Hence, I need to raise the total value of my "franchise." I build a more sophisticated website, pay for designers and extra bandwidth, then hire a team of writers and editors to work for me. "

#26 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 06 March 2011 - 11:18 PM

"Hence, I need to raise the total value of my "franchise." I build a more sophisticated website, pay for designers and extra bandwidth, then hire a team of writers and editors to work for me. "


I don't think that makes your "point?" at all; if anything it disproves it.

#27 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,915
  • Reputation: 397
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2011 - 06:23 AM

I don't think that makes your "point?" at all; if anything it disproves it.


From Happy Panther:

"Stop comparing the players to the accounts payable girl at your company."

#28 antame

antame

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 27-February 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 811
  • Reputation: 11
HUDDLER

Posted 07 March 2011 - 09:59 PM

From Happy Panther:

"Stop comparing the players to the accounts payable girl at your company."


Exactly. You completely misunderstood the metaphor. If you don't understand why, I'm not going to try to explain it to you, because you probably can't understand.

Edited by antame, 07 March 2011 - 10:04 PM.


#29 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,915
  • Reputation: 397
HUDDLER

Posted 08 March 2011 - 12:22 AM

Exactly. You completely misunderstood the metaphor. If you don't understand why, I'm not going to try to explain it to you, because you probably can't understand.


Accounts payable girl
Website designer
Writers and Editors
NFL Pro Football Player

Which of these is more like the others?

The metaphor is severely flawed in that it should read that a business had been increasingly successful for years when its employees took them to court. A judge then quickly sided with the employees to grant them everything they sued for, thereby forcing the business to comply with their demands regardless of how workable the business model would be. Even the employees didn't expect such a quick ruling as they had piled on demands hoping that an out-of-court resolution would meet more of what they actually wanted to force negotiations and get their base demands.

Now, the owner of the business has been held hostage by this same court with the same court decision for 15 years and is not even looking for a chance for a change of venue. Instead of business people being able to make business decisions, the government has once again intervened via the original court to wield its almighty hammer in favor of employees that now regard what was once a list of unreasonable demands as a right of entitlement regardless of how it may kill the business in the future.