Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Giantone;809642]Haven't confused a thing jr.players generate the revenue by playing the game,so [B]if they don't play and don't generate revenue how much profit do you make[/B] ....if they don't play?It's minds like yours that put the housing market the way it is today.[/quote]

Okay, that's step one... players generate revenue. Without revenue there is no profit. Everyone agrees with you there. It's step two with which you seem to be having difficulty ....

Now watch carefully, stay with me on this ... I know it's hard for you as moving beyond a one variable equation seems to send you into system shock ....

If you have revenue and use to much money on dumb expenses you have (wait for it) ... LOSS. [I]On the other hand[/I], if you have revenue and don't use money on dumb expenses, you have PROFIT.

See how the revenue generated can result in [I]EITHER[/I] profit [I]OR[/I] loss? While it is true that without players there can be no profits, it is also true that player generated revenues don't [I]guarrantee[/I] profits.

I'll stop now. We wouldn't want to overload that single little neuron running around in your head. <sarcasm font off>

Is this what you are trying to say: but for the owners decisions, investments, and marketing, the players wouldn't be generating 9 billion in revenue. If so, I would agree generally with that statement. Still, as a player, I wouldn't want my income tied to the profit/loss statement but rather simply a cut of the gross revenues before the owners start deducting their investments.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Monkeydad;809647]If we were talking about opinions, you would have the right to disagree. We're talking about facts here and you're just wrong/mistaken.

Do you wish to continue your disagreement on finances with an accountant? I'm honestly bored with repeating myself. :D[/quote]

Eron had accounts also and look where that is? What I want is for you and the other rocket scientist to tell me how you generate profit from revenue....if there is no revenue coming in ie....no product to sell?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Ruhskins;809651]Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz[/quote]

lol........agree .

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;809660]Okay, that's step one... players generate revenue. Without revenue there is no profit. Everyone agrees with you there. It's step two with which you seem to be having difficulty ....

Now watch carefully, stay with me on this ... I know it's hard for you as moving beyond a one variable equation seems to send you into system shock ....

If you have revenue and use to much money on dumb expenses you have (wait for it) ... LOSS. [I]On the other hand[/I], if you have revenue and don't use money on dumb expenses, you have PROFIT.

See how the revenue generated can result in [I]EITHER[/I] profit [I]OR[/I] loss? While it is true that without players there can be no profits, it is also true that player generated revenues don't [I]guarrantee[/I] profits.

I'll stop now. We wouldn't want to overload that single little neuron running around in your head. <sarcasm font off>

Is this what you are trying to say: but for the owners decisions, investments, and marketing, the players wouldn't be generating 9 billion in revenue. If so, I would agree generally with that statement. Still, as a player, I wouldn't want my income tied to the profit/loss statement but rather simply a cut of the gross revenues before the owners start deducting their investments.[/quote]


LOL...this remeinds me of the Professor from the Rodney Dangerfield movie Back to School ...where he starts a company.....and it all starts good but Rodney tells how it's done in the real world.real world you are not.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Giantone;809704]Eron had accounts also and look where that is? What I want is for you and the other rocket scientist to tell me [B]how you generate profit from revenue....if there is no revenue coming in ie....no product to sell[/B]?[/quote]

You can't. No one disagrees with that statement. To generate profit you [I]must[/I] have revenue.

Revenue, however, does not [I]guarantee[/I] profit.

[quote=Giantone;809706]LOL...this remeinds me of the Professor from the Rodney Dangerfield movie Back to School ...where he starts a company.....and it all starts good but Rodney tells how it's done in the real world.[B]real world you are not[/B].[/quote]

So I take it in the real world basic arithmetic doesn't apply? Revenue - Expenses= Profit/Loss (which by the way works w/ your R.Dangerfield example 'cause paying off the unions was just one of his expenses).

Really, what's your point? Or are just being blatantly obtuse?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

^ I just gave up, Joe. Only one person here fails to understand the difference between revenue and profit. Let's just all be glad that he does not run our businesses.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

^^ True enough. My last post on the subject. When he opens a business, I want to be his initial supplier. "Hey buy this really expensive stuff from me (cash only please) and then you can sell it and generate revenues so you will automatically make a profit!!"

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

We seem treading dangerously toward personal attack zone here.

In defense of Giantone, I'm not sure he said the players guarantee profits (unless I missed it), just that they affect it, which they do to an extent by affecting the revenue.

All that said, I'm not sure what the original point of this discussion was. Was it BHA's talk about paying players based just on profit?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;809895]We seem treading dangerously toward personal attack zone here.

In defense of Giantone, I'm not sure he said the players guarantee profits (unless I missed it), just that they affect it, which they do to an extent by affecting the revenue.

All that said, I'm not sure what the original point of this discussion was. Was it BHA's talk about paying players based just on profit?[/quote]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to launch an attack, just end a pointless discussion.

Yes, the jumping off point was the idea of paying players based on profit.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Lotus;809898]Sorry, I wasn't trying to launch an attack, [B]just end a pointless discussion.[/B]

Yes, the jumping off point was the idea of paying players based on profit.[/quote]

Add boring to that. LOL.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;809895]We seem treading dangerously toward personal attack zone here.[/quote]

Fair enough. To the extent I contributed, I apologise.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Lotus;809898]Sorry, I wasn't trying to launch an attack, just end a pointless discussion.

[B]Yes, the jumping off point was the idea of paying players based on profit[/B].[/quote]

And I guess I am just not sure what Giantone's take on that is. Is he saying:
(1) "Sure pay based on profit because player generated revenues are just part of the equation that leads to profit." [I][B]or[/B][/I]

(2) "B/c the owners wouldn't have any profit w/out the player generated revenue, the players should be paid based on the revenue they generate".

By the way, sorry for boring you Ruhskins. I do that to people on a regular basis. It's why I have no friends and why my wife & kids ignore me.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

GIANT fans count???
Where's my conduct.........Hoyle?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;809895]We seem treading dangerously toward personal attack zone here.

?[/quote]

I apologize if I did that to anyone ,it was not my intent.
Let me try it another way ......all of you are 1000% right ...just answer me this how much revenue do the teams generate if the players don't play...just a simple question ?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;809913]And I guess I am just not sure what Giantone's take on that is. Is he saying:
(1) "Sure pay based on profit because player generated revenues are just part of the equation that leads to profit." [I][B]or[/B][/I]

(2) "B/c the owners wouldn't have any profit w/out the player generated revenue, the players should be paid based on the revenue they generate".

QUOTE]

Not trying to be a smart ass but why can't it be both?

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[quote=Giantone;810048]I apologize if I did that to anyone ,it was not my intent.
Let me try it another way ......all of you are 1000% right ...just answer me this [B]how much revenue do the teams generate if the players don't play...just a simple question [/B]?[/quote]

For all intents and purposes - 0. Nada. Zilch. We are all in 1000% agreement with you on this point. No players = no revenue. No one. Absolutely not a soul is disagreeing with you on this point.

[quote=Giantone;810049][QUOTE=JoeRedskin;809913]And I guess I am just not sure what Giantone's take on that is. Is he saying:

(1) "Sure pay based on profit because player generated revenues are just part of the equation that leads to profit." [I][B]or[/B][/I]

(2) "B/c the owners wouldn't have any profit w/out the player generated revenue, the players should be paid based on the revenue they generate".[/quote]

Not trying to be a smart ass but why can't it be both?[/quote]

<sigh> All right, one last time, but this is my last shot at it G1 - if you get it, great. If not, c'est le vie:

[B]The Basic Equation:[/B] [Revenue Generated By Players] - [Owners' Expenses] = [Owners' Profit/Loss].

Although the players salaries are an expense, the size of that expense will be determined based on the percentage of some number under the new CBA. The question is - What number should be used to define the Players' Percentage?

(1) Should the Players' Percentage be determined based on the Revenue Generated By Players [B][I]before[/I][/B] owners deduct their Non-Player Expenses? [B][I]OR[/I][/B]

(2) Should the Players' Percentage be determined based on the Revenue Generated By Players [B][I]after[/I][/B] owners deduct their Non-Player Expenses?

Using theory (1) the final equation looks like this: [Revenue Generated By Players] - [Players' Salaries (Percentage of Revenue)] - [Owners' Non-Player Expenses] = [Owner's Profit/Loss].

Using theory (2) the final equation looks like this: [Revenue Generated By Players] - [Owners' Non-Player Expenses] = [Owners' [I]Preliminary[/I] Profit/Loss] - [Players' Salaries (Percentage of Preliminary Profit/Loss)] = [Owner's [I]Final[/I] Profit/Loss].


and .... Ruhskins, I am sorry for once again boring the crap out of you.

Re: ESPN: Teams that are helped/hurt by the new salary cap proposal
 

[QUOTE=JoeRedskin;810054]For all intents and purposes - 0. Nada. Zilch. We are all in 1000% agreement with you on this point. No players = no revenue. No one. Absolutely not a soul is disagreeing with you on this point.

QUOTE]

....and if people go back and see where I joined in on this they will see that's all I was saying. 0 players =0 revenue= 0 profit ...at no point did I say it should be before this or after this .There are to many mitigating factors that we(the fans) are not aware of to say weather it should be one way or the other. All I said was when the analogy of a lemonade stand cane up was ..."think of the players as leomade" .