Yeah, that's not a solution.

I've been trying to figure out an alternative to the draft so we can free some of these young millionaires from bondage. A lottery seems to be the only possible alternative ... kind of like the NBA does it (or used to, anyhow). But, you would have to have some kind of player veto power so they can have some sort of control over the team they join. If there's a lottery, maybe there's a wild card ball, or something with each player's name on it and, when that's selected, they get to choose their team and are awarded an automatic bingo.

It's either that, or do away with free agency entirely and, after the draft, each team gets to brand their logo on the players' buttocks.

FAX

1. There are some that argue that expenditure is likely to approach revenues and are unlikely to regularly exceed that point. Owners still want to make a profit.

2. and isn't baseball relatively competitive these days? Is the worst team in baseball any worse off than the detroit lions have been under the NFL cartel system?

3. Haven't you argued recently that there are large expenditure differences in the nfl anyway? Haven't the redskins been spending a fortune for some time now and getting nowhere?

They choose their profession, shouldnt they be able to choose where they play at? most regular people get that choice.

They sign away that right when they sign the CBA because they appreciate competitive balance is a good thing for the game as a whole.

I'm pro cap and pro draft but I'm anti union. I do appreciate the need for oversight into cartel behaviour though and it seems like the NFL needs a CBA with the union to avoid that.

The problem with allowing the players to select their team is that any semblance of parity goes out the tunnel under the floorboards. I don't think that would work very well in the long run. All the players would want to play in cities with the most media hype, car dealerships, and floozies. You could, I suppose have an auction instead of a draft, with the player going to the highest bidder. That might work and isn't reminiscent of slave trading at all, whatsoever. Especially if we put the player in a loin cloth and chain him to a post during the bidding.

FAX

The owners are each earning hundreds of millions in revenues, they just don't want to share that data with the players because they'll want a bigger piece of the pie.

Unfortunately, the owners shot their wad and unless both parties can come to an agreement (which isn't likely), they'll be opening their books for everyone to see.

The Lions were not a bad team for lack of spending money but for bad decisions.

In MLB, every poor decision made by small market teams is extremely costly because television revenue isn't shared. So a few poor drafts or free agent signing doesn't affect the Yankees (who pull in $600 million per year in TV rights, more than CBS pays a year for AFC broadcast right) like it does small market teams.

The Lions were 6-10 this past season, just two seasons removed from 0-16. A team like the Royals hasn't been in the post season since 1985.


Expenditures? No. Revenue? Yes.

As I detailed in another thread, each NFL team, after paying its players and admin (and the admin was grossly over-estimated), each owner has a minimum of $110 million in gross revenues. That figure does not include luxury box, parking, pre-season or concession revenues. Preseason broadcast rights do not fall under the CBS, ABC, Fox, ESPN agreements, unless they're nationally broadcast preseason games.

As you can likely imagine, teams like Dallas, NY Giants, NY Jets, etc. have a larger amount of preseason television income than smaller market teams like the Chiefs, Cardinals, etc.

I'm anti-union as well but I do understand the need. Before the 1970's, American professional athletes were poorly paid and the owners reaped the overwhelming majority of all of the revenues.

Without the unions and the courts, the owners continue to keep 90% of the revenues to themselves.

That much is clear.

Hold on - didn't you say that in the absence of cartel behaviour and the union, player compensation would rise? This view is put forward in the Brady and ors lawsuit also.

Yes, I think that player compensation will rise if the courts demand that the owners reveal their books to the players.

no. read the thread.

**** you dane.

prove what here?

the owners expect to MAKE MONEY off of the TV contract.

how is that even debatable?

lol, you are obviously not as ****ing smart as you think you are.


where did i say that?



again for the guy who just cant get it.


there are other expenditures that are involved in owning a team above and beyond player and admin. contracts.


those expenditures take away from the bottom line.

so they arent making what you think they are by doing the math you have been doing.


how is this even debatable?

so we hear that dane has invested some money that he gets a yearly ROI of 10-12%

you dont think the owners expect to get a similar %?


why else would they own a team?


they could hire dane's guy and get 10-12% sitting on their asses.


and 100 million is 10% of a billion.

how is this even debatable?

I stand corrected.

:D