Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation : This guy has whining to an art form. He actually complains about calls the Colts don't get in a win. I fully expect that he will complain about the small market revenues going forward. My advice - move to a decent market.
    Posted by EnochRoot[/QUOTE]
    Silly Root - You know, that I am only trying to level the playing field by pointing out non-calls the pats get amidst all of your complaints of those the colts get.  But there you go spinning again.  Do you ever get dizzy?
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    In Response to Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation:
    [QUOTE]We are now on our way to the Yankees vs. the Red Sox.  I guess if Dallas or the Redskins can't get to the Super Bowl on its on merit or the Pats can't beat the Colts on its own merit, take away the thing that gives them a fighting chance - money.  Large market teams have just killed the goose.  If there is some worry about the state of the refs, etc.  It will get worse (IMO) with this move away from Revenue Sharing http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965 this just made Flasox's day.
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

     Udog, I guess you didn’t reply to my post in this thread because you couldn’t justify putting the proposed change in the additional revenue sharing on the Pats or the Pat's fans.

     

    I have little doubt that your non-response is also because I pointed out that you don’t even know how the Colts are going to vote on this.  Well let’s see:  it will take 24 teams to pass this and according to Forbes the Colts have the eighth most valuable franchise in the NFL.  How will they vote? Ha!

     

    Perhaps you didn’t reply to me because I pointed out that this part of revenue sharing only involves a small portion of the NFL pie.  The part of the plan that provided 203 million to each of the 32 franchises will remain unaffected. Revenue sharing is not going away because of this move by the owners. 

     

    In my opinion most of the teams will vote in favor of the change (including the Colts) because the purpose of this move is to provide a bargaining chit to use with the union in the up coming CBA negotiations.  Imagine, the larger market teams will agree to give 11 million dollars to each of the small market teams if the Players Association agrees to a smaller share of total revenue.  Additionally, the owners will have managed to divide the union members into two camps according to the size of the market of the team they play for.

     

    The Colts and Pats are both getting the same wish!  Cutting labor’s share.

     

    Did you read my posted link?????

     

    If you did you may have come to the conclusion that the present revenue sharing system  may contribute to mediocrity by guaranteeing owners an equal share of the pie regardless of the product they put on the field while not forcing owners to meet the minimum payroll.  Believe me; I am seeing this here in Tampa.

     

    As an aside; did you even see the irony that you made a remark about people in Boston leaning to the left while trying to make a case for redistribution of wealth (the primary goal of communism).  Funny!  The only quoted opposition to the change in your article was from George Atallah of the union.  You might check yourself for some left leaning. (“Not that there is anything wrong with that”)    

     

    Don’t worry this thread won’t damage your credibility.  That ship has sailed a long time ago.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation:
    In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation : I figured you had your sonar on.  So, what did the refs do for the colts this week?  Always good to hear thoughts from the fiction writers.
    Posted by underdoggg


    No response to this, eh root?  Must have nothing.  Tsk Tsk.  Your arguement is collapsing like a house of cards. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    Still waiting udoggg.  Will the eighth most valuable franchise (the Colts) be one of the 24 teams required to vote to eliminate additional revenue sharing?

    Did you just post some Patriot hating rhetoric without understanding where your team stood on the issues?  



     

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdoggg. Show underdoggg's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    Bostate - I lost this in the shuffle.  Later on I will try to get to it.  Hopefully the colts did not vote for it, but I don't know whether or not they did.  I would find it financially irresponsible for them to do so. 

    For example, the pension issue was voted for by the wealthier (larger market) teams so that they could control more revenue.  It almost caused the colts to lose 2 of their coaches. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation : No response to this, eh root?  Must have nothing.  Tsk Tsk.  Your arguement is collapsing like a house of cards. 
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    What argument? That the Colts get calls from the refs? They do. They have been pointed out. That they didn't in this game (which I am stipulating because I haven't seen it.) doesn't mean they don't. That has to be one of the dumbest conclusions you have reached for out of a whole outhouse full of dumb conclusions.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation:
    [QUOTE]Bostate - I lost this in the shuffle.  Later on I will try to get to it.  Hopefully the colts did not vote for it, but I don't know whether or not they did.  I would find it financially irresponsible for them to do so.  For example, the pension issue was voted for by the wealthier (larger market) teams so that they could control more revenue.  It almost caused the colts to lose 2 of their coaches. 
    Posted by underdoggg[/QUOTE]

    Then why would you make a remark about the Pats taking away money from the Colts because they can't beat them on merit.  You just said you don't know how the Colts are voting on this and I'm sure that you didn't know if the Colts were one of the nine teams recieving additional money or one of the 15 donor at the time of your original statement.

    If you don't know as you just stated, it doesn't matter what you find out in your research.  You were just trolling when you started this thread because you didn't know what you were talking about by your own admission. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    The story doesn't say where the $100 million comes from, so I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's true enough that Major League Baseball, with its "luxury tax" smokescreen, has become a league in which only a few teams can realistically compete over the long haul. But on the other hand, my practical side wonders why I should hand over my hard-earned money to you, simply because you chose to invest in a small market (I don't think the Irsays are any more from Indiana than Zygi Wilf is from Minnesota). The bulk of NFL revenue comes from television, and I believe that revenue is shared equally. Stadium revenue should be a different matter entirely. That revenue, while determined in part by your available fan base and geographic economic reality -- surprise, surprise . . .  things cost more in New York -- is also tied directly to an ownership groups ability to construct and sell personal seat licenses -- how on earth professional sports franchises were ever able to sell the idea of personal seat licenses, which are nothing more or less than a fee for the privilege of spending more money, is beyond me -- and luxury suites.

    Wilf is an interesting example insofar as he is nearing the end of his lease on an inadequate facility and his team -- whose fan base is hardly avid . . .  local business and network affiliates routinely had to buy ticket blocks at the eleventh hour to preserve the Vikings' "sellout" streak and avoid blackouts in the four years I've lived here -- appears ready to make a run at the Lombardi this season. His problem is his taciturn Scandinavian fan base, who tend to be frugal and just had new stadiums for the Twins and the Gophers shoved down its throat. He's a businessman, and he would be a fool to blow his wad on a state-of-the-art facility in a bandbox city (well, two cities, really) where the fans are going to disappear in droves next year when the Human Turnover retires again (briefly) and the Vikings are right back where they started.

    At some point owners simply have to decide if the bottom line is more important than tradition -- forget about the Colts, they sold their soul once already and will do it again if it becomes necessary -- but is the NFL prepared to present a league without the Green Bay Packers?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostatewarrior. Show bostatewarrior's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    In Response to Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation:
    [QUOTE]The story doesn't say where the $100 million comes from, so I'm not sure how to feel about this. It's true enough that Major League Baseball, with its "luxury tax" smokescreen, has become a league in which only a few teams can realistically compete over the long haul. But on the other hand, my practical side wonders why I should hand over my hard-earned money to you, simply because you chose to invest in a small market (I don't think the Irsays are any more from Indiana than Zygi Wilf is from Minnesota). The bulk of NFL revenue comes from television, and I believe that revenue is shared equally. Stadium revenue should be a different matter entirely. That revenue, while determined in part by your available fan base and geographic economic reality -- surprise, surprise . . .  things cost more in New York -- is also tied directly to an ownership groups ability to construct and sell personal seat licenses -- how on earth professional sports franchises were ever able to sell the idea of personal seat licenses, which are nothing more or less than a fee for the privilege of spending more money, is beyond me -- and luxury suites. Wilf is an interesting example insofar as he is nearing the end of his lease on an inadequate facility and his team -- whose fan base is hardly avid . . .  local business and network affiliates routinely had to buy ticket blocks at the eleventh hour to preserve the Vikings' "sellout" streak and avoid blackouts in the four years I've lived here -- appears ready to make a run at the Lombardi this season. His problem is his taciturn Scandinavian fan base, who tend to be frugal and just had new stadiums for the Twins and the Gophers shoved down its throat. He's a businessman, and he would be a fool to blow his wad on a state-of-the-art facility in a bandbox city (well, two cities, really) where the fans are going to disappear in droves next year when the Human Turnover retires again (briefly) and the Vikings are right back where they started. At some point owners simply have to decide if the bottom line is more important than tradition -- forget about the Colts, they sold their soul once already and will do it again if it becomes necessary -- but is the NFL prepared to present a league without the Green Bay Packers?
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    Mike, the 100 million comes from the top 15 teams in revenue.  Last year 9 teams qualified for a share of this additional money, an average of about 11 million per team.

    The 203 million that each of the 32 teams received from the NFL is unaffected by this change.  The NFL won't say what teams received additional money (I doubt the Colts were one of them).  Oddly, because of the way the supplemental revenue sharing is structured a team can be both a donor and a recipient.

    Edit: Oh, and BTW the supplemental part of revenue sharing has only been around since 2007.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from shenanigan. Show shenanigan's posts

    Re: Pats fans are going to get their wish - Welcome to the New Red Sox Nation

    If the NFL were to become a bidding war for the a championship like baseball I would not watch it anymore.
     

Share