Again, each team is considered a franchise of the NFL. I'm not going to rehash this with you, or anyone else again. The NFL gets special considerations...FACT
Because? lol... The Lions also lost money that year. Why do you think the top 15 or so teams have to give money to the rest of the teams in the league?
I judge Ross by only one standard. Does he do everything he can to put the best product on the field ? Is he willing to spend what it takes to make this a first class football organization and bring in the GM, coaches and players to compete with the best teams in the NFL? So far Ross has been more concerned with bringing in big name minority owners and creating a party atmosphere at the stadium than he has in bringing a winning team for the fans to support. Ross has proved to be nothing but a complete failure as an NFL owner and the sooner he sells the team, the better off the Dolphins and the fans of the Dolphins will be. Perhaps Micky Arison would be interested in buying the Dolphins. We certainly know that he is willing to do what it takes to put a winning organization on the playing field.
The Lions were $17 million in the green the year before, though. And even in 2009, still increased their overall revenue by $2 million, from $204 million to $206 million. Once again, the standard isn't whether a team is in the green every year, though aside from extenuating circumstances almost every team is (the Cowboys made $143 million last year). The standard is that -- over the life of the investment -- no one loses money on an NFL franchise. No one. How can it therefore be said to be a risk? This whole "the top teams support the bottom teams" thing is just the wrong way to look at it. The NFL collectively shares it's TV revenue because that's the smartest way to do it. The fact that every team is potentially competitive is what makes the TV revenue so high.
I'm a management guy. I feel these guys should reap the rewards for getting to the penthouse suite. And the players absolutely won the last CBA negotiation. But as mentioned by others, this isn't a normal business. There's little risk involved because it's a guaranteed money-maker. It's actually much harder to lose money on these deals than it is to make it. The ultimate set-it-and-forget-it. These guys get sweetheart land deals and tax breaks. The taxpayers build their stadiums. Free room and board! It's a pretty sweet gig if you can get it. And if by chance you're unprecedentedly incompetent, you just sell the team and cash out. Hell, if you're in the NBA or MLB, you don't even have to solict. They just buy you out and take over. Like a big bank.
Do you even realize that you always argue that the NFL gets special rules outside of the norm, but then turn around and act as if they should follow all the normal rules? Tell me you realize that?
Wrong. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that each team had to conduct business independantly of each other ONLY when selling merchandise and apparel.
lol..Again, I've proven to you over and over that what I wrote is true. Oh hell...I'll do it one more time. But professional sports is a special case with considerations that don't apply to oil companies or paving contractors. Competing steel companies that might fix prices don't have to do business with each other as an inherent part of their normal business. Subject to limitations imposed by freight costs, steel from one company can be sold anywhere, even in a competitor's backyard. But most sports teams have local monopolies for live games. Steel companies have no legal means to keep new competitors from starting up. But established sports leagues have nearly absolute power to control establishment of new teams. All leagues use this power of excluding new teams to collectively maintain the profits and asset values of individually owned member teams. This constitutes a "barrier to entry," the key precondition for monopoly power. -----Economist Edward Lotterman The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Other features of the NFL may also save agreements amongst the teams. We have recognized, for example,’that the interest in maintaining a competitive balance’ among ‘athletic teams is legitimate and important’ . . . . While that same interest applies to the teams in the NFL, it does not justify treating them as a single entity . . . when it comes to the marketing of the teams’ individually owned intellectual property. It is, however, unquestionably an interest that may well justify a variety of collective decisions made by the teams.” --Supreme Court of the United States
lol...It seems you're confused. You see, FinD, the NFL because of the unique nature of pro sports leagues, gets special considerations. At least according to the Supreme Court. The fact that they get these special considerations doesn't mean that they also don't get to follow the "normal rules" too. For example. If you were handicapped you'd be able to park in a handicapp space. However, if you wanted to you could park in the space furthest from the building you're going into. Special considerations for a handicapped person, yet that handicapped person still gets to follow "normal rules". Understand?
In an article I posted earlier it showed how the Green Bay Packers spent $250,000,000 on stadium repairs/renovations. It talked about how if each team splits that $1 billion off the top they would each get ~$35,000,000. The average NFL team makes $30 million in operating income per season ...that's before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. So, and even though you're correct that most teams can't help but make money, there are risks involved and not every season is a money making adventure. In fact, the players make more money than the owners. For example, an average NFL team brings in about $250-$300 mil in revenue. The salary cap (which most teams are at least close to) is at about $130 mil, or nearly half the team's revenue. The, and even if you factor in that extra $30 mil from the "investment fund", teams revenue becomes about $200 mil. After all the other expenses, and paying off of debt (for example, the Dolphins have about $400 million in debt, why do you think Ross has been selling small pieces of the team to celebrities? A lot of people act like Ross is trying to make a circus of the Dolphins, when in fact he's being a smart business man and selling off some of his debt.) And again, the Dolphins posted a net loss last year. Last year 8 teams declined in value and the Lions, Raiders, and Colts all lost between 6%-8% of team total value. That's a lot of money. However, the players, and because they don't risk losing money, don't care because no matter if the owner brings in $100,000 profit or $100,000,000 in profit they still get paid.
In an article I posted earlier it showed how the Green Bay Packers spent $250,000,000 on stadium repairs/renovations. It talked about how if each team splits that $1 billion off the top they would each get ~$35,000,000. The average NFL team makes $30 million in operating income per season ...that's before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. So, and even though you're correct that most teams can't help but make money, there are risks involved and not every season is a money making adventure. In fact, the players make more money than the owners. For example, an average NFL team brings in about $250-$300 mil in revenue. The salary cap (which most teams are at least close to) is at about $130 mil, or nearly half the team's revenue. The, and even if you factor in that extra $30 mil from the "investment fund", teams revenue becomes about $200 mil. After all the other expenses, and paying off of debt (for example, the Dolphins have about $400 million in debt, why do you think Ross has been selling small pieces of the team to celebrities? A lot of people act like Ross is trying to make a circus of the Dolphins, when in fact he's being a smart business man and selling off some of his debt.) And again, the Dolphins posted a net loss last year. Last year 8 teams declined in value and the Lions, Raiders, and Colts all lost between 6%-8% of team total value. That's a lot of money. However, the players, and because they don't risk losing money, don't care because no matter if the owner brings in $100,000 profit or $100,000,000 in profit they still get paid.
I'm not confused at all. They get special consideration because they have special conditions in doing their business. Those conditions do not begin and end with the Supreme Court apparel ruling. The apparel issue was taken to the SC, but just that one issue. The ruling on that one issue does not define the entirety of their business model. That ruling doesn't dictate the ONLY way they are different than other businesses. Now, what you are doing is saying the handicapped person gets to use special parking spaces because of their condition, but they don't get to have wide doors, bathroom stalls with handle bars, ramped entryways, etc. And your sole justification for saying that, is they don't get those other things because you don't need them. Understand?
Steve Biscotti is a good man. He started the company I worked for directly out of college--Aerotek. Great company to work for and really makes you work your tail off. If you do, you're rewarded nicely.
It's apparent that you're confused. And no, as a handicapped person gets special considerations they can also live their lives as a non-handicapped person would. Again, pro sports leagues are unique and as such get special considerations in order for them to stay in business. The American Needle case, although a "loss" for the NFL, also cleared up some things. Some of the Justices that commented on the ruling made sure to explain everything I've been saying here: "The NFL gets to do business a little differently than other businesses". Yes they still have to abide by certain governing laws, but they are also allowed to conduct themselves in a manner unique to their situation. Their franchise-hybrid model is one of those major differences. The SCOTUS said, and I'm paraphrasing, that even though the NFL has to merchandise it's apparel as if they were 32 different businesses, they are allowed to collaborate on certain things, as a franchise does, on things like pay, hiring (the draft), team locations, and rules of the game. There are many other things I haven't mentioned, but hopefully this clears up a few things.
Do you know of any NFL football player that isn't rewarded nicely? Hell, nowadays they get rewarded before they even play one down.
You are ignoring the uniqueness of the NFL business model in any other aspect than the apparel issue. As far as you're concerned, unless the SC says they are different in any other way, then they aren't. The problem is most times they practice their business model, it doesn't get taken to the SC. The further "explanation" the justices gave are basically opinions and not the law. What you haven't cleared up, is how why you think that there's only one special condition for the NFL and not others.
Again FinD, you're not getting the point. I bring up the apparel aspect because that's what some here want to keep harping on. A typical franchise operation will operate it's business nearly identical to the NFL save a few differences...merchandising being one of them. The SCOTUS doesn't make law, they interpret the constitution and give opinions. I don't think that there is only "one special condition" for the NFL. In fact, in this veyr thread I've mentioned a few "special conditions" afforded to the NFL.
None of that says what you seem to think it does. For instance the SCOTUS ruling specifically does not address the issues you say it does. Which is ironic, as you have made it the basis of your argument.
Between 1999 and 2009 the NFL was sued 222 times for violating antitrust laws. The NFL won 221 of those cases. Again, unique circumstances (Pro Sports) affords special considerations.
No, it really doesn't. Below is the whole decision linked and quotes with your points pulled out as they actually read... With the parts you conveniently left out bolded. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-661.pdf and the Rule of Reason that must be passed: Basically it is saying that the NFL can schedule games and minor things such as that, but it must still pass the anti trust test for collective rules. The Draft, restricted free agency, etc... do not. At least not with out a CBA.
Well, currently there is no CBA in place and the NFL is being sued for antitrust violations once again. We'll see who wins this go around.
No, you are not getting the point. You claim they have special considerations due to their special conditions, yet the only one you mention is the apparel issue, and then act like the things we are asking for aren't any of those considerations and you base that on.........nothing. Nothing at all. All you've "proven" is the apparel issue. That's it. Nothing else. Now on to your "logic" behind your stance. It is absent. You cannot logically claim we are wrong using your job or regular job as an example, yet allow that the NFL has special conditions in which they do business in. Its not even apples to oranges, it is more like apples to giraffes. And you certainly can't do that, unless you back up your claim with an actual ruling to this specific issue, which you can't. Now, maybe we'll see the courts rule in the owner's favor, I don't know, but until that happens you cannot act as if anyone else is wrong or right.
I don't think you understand what is happening this "go around". The NFL is not trying to operate without a CBA. They are locking out and shutting down until a new CBA gets negotiated to put pressure on the Players to give into their demands. No one is saying that the NFL can operate like you say they can, not even the NFL. The players are saying that the lockout violates antitrust laws and that it is irreparably damaging them and that the season should go forward under the old CBA rules until a new one can be negotiated. They are also suing on antitrust for the draft, etc… to put pressure on the owners to give into their demands. I have no idea who is legally right this time. Probably both sides, as there are multiple law suites. Morally, I side with the players, for various reasons that have been discussed.
It's not just Ross cutting salaries so this really can't be used against Ross to seperate him from other owners. What CK said about the midddle class employees getting caught in the middle and used as pawns in a battle between greedy billionaires and millionaires rings so true though. I am sickened completely sickened by pro sports at this point. THe Heat are in the finals and I still have yet to even watch one game on TV. Just don't care anymore. The "regular Joe" working in these organizations and the avg. fan are the ones getting severely screwed. I do agree with Ross on the players though. Although both sides share some blame between owners and players I still stand by my take that it's much more the fault of the players than the owners. They are NOT business owners and therefore are making much more absurd demands than the owners are.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/colu...i_gene&page=wojciechowski/110527&sportCat=nfl Pretty interesting article from Gene Wojciehowski on Ross' comments regarding the labor situation.
