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

[NLC1054]

...We suck and fans still spend money on this team...

[Ruhskins]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lol........agree .

[JoeRedskin]

^^ 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!!"

[SmootSmack]

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?

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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?

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

Add boring to that. LOL.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Lotus

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.

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." or

(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.

[Giantone]

[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." or

(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?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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 ?

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.

Originally Posted by Giantone

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

<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:

The Basic Equation: [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 before owners deduct their Non-Player Expenses? OR

(2) Should the Players' Percentage be determined based on the Revenue Generated By Players after 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' Preliminary Profit/Loss] - [Players' Salaries (Percentage of Preliminary Profit/Loss)] = [Owner's Final Profit/Loss].


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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We seem treading dangerously toward personal attack zone here.

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

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

We seem treading dangerously toward personal attack zone here.

?

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 ?

[Hog1]

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