How does that mesh with a salary cap, which is widely regarded as one of (if not the) reason the NFL is so successful?

As much as I hate to agree with him it's not a bad argument. Much like a player hitting incentives so he opts out of his contract looking for a bigger one.

He was able to void the old one, now he wants a new one with what he can get out of it.

Not much different than what players do.

Not saying it's good or right. Same concept though.

Do you have any idea how much work it would be to own and therefore manage the operation of that many business operations? It would be a tough ass job.

He isn't just signing checks unless he is really, really, good at hiring people to make all decisions.

Thing is people like that rarely are willing to turn over total control so they are involved in most of what goes on. You have to be or you could get driven into the ground without even knowing it.

It's not even close. Here's where that part of the thread began:

Notice the bold part, and notice what I was responding with:

Thanks for that thorough explanation. I know my opinion was changed.

My post wasn't to the point he was making.

It was "The owners aren't taking money back" logic thing.

We all know that the owners aren't technically taking money back.

It's a stupid, obtuse, arguing point.

So players don't opt out of a contract looking for a new one expecting to get more profitability ($)?

Which is basically implying they are underpaid under the terms of their remaining contract had they not opted out?

I assumed the "taking $ back" part meant their portion of the revenue.

Doesn't matter.

There's no CBA, so we all know that the owners are not taking money back.

When someone talks about the owners taking money back, they are simply saying that the offer the owners made is not as profitable as the previous CBA that the owners opted out of.

Won't it be so much better when we can go back to arguing about who sucks and doesn't suck on the Chiefs.

At least we can all argue the draft in a few days.

You're assuming that all owners are Robert Kraft.

Not all owners care about their job. Not all owners are good at hiring people, or have any idea what the **** they are doing. The Fords don't care about their team. They hired an incompetent boob in Matt Millen to run the franchise into the ground and refused to fire him. And you know what? The Lions STILL likely made money.

So yes, I still believe the only requirement to owning an NFL team is to have capital to invest in the team. To be a good owner, you have to know what you're doing. To make money, I don't think you have to have any clue what you're doing.

And again... the owner's job is to hire a few really good people. Scott Pioli hires the vast scouting network. Denny Thum, I believe, handled most of the ops side. Again, the fact that you can be a CEO for another business and still own a successful franchise tells you quite a bit about the time commitment. If a guy like Hunt had to consistently pump work into his franchise, there's no way he could be CEO of another business, let alone a franchise owner of several soccer franchises.

I don't have time to read all of these threads, I just read the first few pages. But I can't believe some of the lack of common sense on this board. Everything that Goodell said is exactly right. If you worked for me in my business or any business, why should I ever have to open the books to you for you to see what I make. You work for me, I own the company....hence the term "owners". If there is not a salary cap and a draft, then the NFL will turn into the MLB and make farm clubs out of many of the teams, including KC. The rookie situation needed adjustments. They need to leave the season length the same and they need to set up a system to take care of retired players better. The players' profit sharing needs to drop. These guys are not factory union workers. They make more in one year than most union workers do in a lifetime. The owners should have locked them out...dumb jocks hiring a moronic lawyer. This guy makes Willie Upshaw look like a genius. They need to take a pay cut, let the rookies make $700G's first round $600G's second round, dropping incriments of $50G per draft round following assigned to their drafting teams for 2 years, able to negotiate in the second year. This stuff is easy solved, idiotic players. I'm a business owner. They can thank God I'm not commissioner. I would be for firing everybody, establishing the benefits and salary caps with the rest of the owners and the agreement that all players who want to return come back to the team that they are under contract with. If they don't want to, the ones that are rich enough can retire, the others can sell cars or insurance. They would crawling back to the negotation table with bells on in about 6 months.

#1 - I don't believe that is at all true. For all this talk about parity, the MLB has done a great job of getting small market teams to do well and despite an enormous black eye the game suffered between steroid abuse and a strike years ago, the game is as popular as ever right now. The only teams that haven't had a chance at competing are the ones with shitty front offices, like the Royals. That doesn't have anything to do with money, necessarily.

#2 - Again, if it's truly the case that smaller market teams are struggling to make ends meet with the rising cap, then so be it. I doubt that's true. But if it is true, then make them prove it. If it's not true, then you need to keep raising the cap until players can eventually hit their true market value. There is definitely a ceiling. If everyone's team's payroll was $300M, I doubt any team would spend anywhere close to that. And yes, I believe that true market value is going to be higher than can be afforded. So yes, I agree that the salary cap needs to below a payroll's full "true market value." But given that players are getting short-changed by being paid less than their market value, they should try to get as close as they can to that number.

#3 - On the cap... I don't agree at all that restricting spending from big teams had much effect on parity. I would argue that parity is more driven by forcing cheapskate owners to actually invest in their teams. Look at the MLB--the Pittsburgh Pirates' owner doesn't care if he wins games. That ballpark makes a shitload of money and he doesn't have to pay anything in payroll. So no, a salary cap increase doesn't change parity as long as every team can actually afford the pay increases and as long as everyone's cap number increases by the same amount.

I love the Royals... but hate the way the MLB is set up.

#1 - Most of these Owners are benefiting off of public money. Taxpayers are investing in that enterprise. I think taxpayers have every right to ask how that is being spent

#2 - These owners are not "owners" in the same sense as the Private Sector. They belong to the NFL. The NFL gives them the league that creates the competition between owners that allows them to make money. And the NFL creates the massive licensing, endorsement rights, TV and media rights, etc... that teams share between each other.

#3 - If you're an owner and you restrict your employee's wages, your employee can rebel by finding a new job with an employer who will pay. In the NFL, the league has created a monopoly so players really have no other place to go. Hence, the reason for a union.

#4 - You can't compare players to factory workers. Factory workers can be replaced. You can't replace Peyton Manning with some guy off the street and expect to sell tickets that make you money

#5 - If you were commissioner, based on your approach, you would bleed the league dry.