Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Email from Kevin Mawae "Let us play"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
    And actually this is normal for the entertainment business, where the names are the draw and as such collect the lion's share of the revenue.

    Remember that no one is buying a jersey with Bowlen's name on it. Bowlen's participation is not what brings people to the stadium to buy tickets.

    As I've pointed out, Robin Williams makes a lot more as a standup comic than Gabriel Iglesias because Williams is a much bigger name on the marquee than Iglesias. Not only that, but Williams makes the lion's share of the revenue over anyone else in the organization.

    Since it's an entertainment business and the players are the draw, it's not unusual for the players to get the lion's share of the money.
    Considering that Williams has been around a lot longer and has had a substantially more successful career, it's no surprise he would make more than a guy I've never heard of.

    I'm pretty sure the businesses that back entertainers make more than the individual entertainer. Take a look at Sony, they have numerous "artists" under contract and I seriously doubt that Sony doesn't make more than their artists.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Freyaka View Post
      Exactly...I think both sides are being stupid but I don't really care which one wins I just want some football next year!
      That's exactly what the owners are counting on!

      Fans taking a DUMB "it's both their faults" position. That way when the league forces the players to "strike" by declaring an "impasse" in the negotiations, then unilaterally institutes a new CBA which has all the things the owners want: a roll-back in wages for the players and more of the pie for the owners, the 18 game season, a new lower rookie salary cap, etc., etc., then the fans will blame the players for "walking out."

      The owners could settle this tomorrow if they would simply re-institute the CBA as it exists or negotiate in good faith (not trying to force a roll-back).

      But, they know perfectly well that they cannot WIN without a work stoppage. They have to break the union and to do that they have to suspend the season, and then hope that missing paychecks is going to force the players to surrender. After all the Billionaires who own these teams have a LOT more money than the players.

      You think some guy like Orton who has a few million dollars can compete with a guy like Bowlen whose team is worth $1.1 BILLION? Bowlen can buy and sell mere MILLIONAIRES every day and never miss the pocket money.

      The BILLIONAIRES have all the power. They can agree to a settlement tomorrow. But, they won't. Not until they get their greed money. They want about $200 million a year more revenue, and that money can only come out of the pockets of the players.

      That's what this is about. This is going to be a LONG strike and will probably be settled in the courts. The league thinks they can win there too.

      Now, do any of you, and I mean ANYBODY ON THESE BOARDS really think for one second that when they get their money that the owners are going to give back to the fans ONE SINGLE PENNY of those additional profits? Perhaps roll back ticket prices?

      Me neither.


      When they go to the 18 game season, those season ticket prices will just go UP! "Whoopee! More money for me!" -- Pat Bowlen
      Last edited by Cugel; 01-31-2011, 10:18 AM.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by JCJE View Post
        So everything else is normal EXCEPT the fact that the players (employees) get 60% of the revenue and the owners get to pay all of the overhead out of their 40%. That's the problem.
        Once again you're buying into the owners' propaganda that it's "all about revenues."

        And why should "revenues" go mostly into the owners' pockets? Who gives a DAMN about "revenues" anyway?

        These owners bought STOCK. The STOCK PRICE = their return on investment. Just like any other business.

        Pat Bowlen bought at $87 million and now has a team worth $1.1 BILLION. That's over $1 BILLION difference!

        Now if these owners were like any other billionaire with a successful investment would they be complaining: "my stock price is through the moon, I've made a huge PILE of money, but the company just doesn't pay enough in quarterly dividends!"

        Well, HELLO MORON, if you have a CASH PROBLEM then there's one sure thing you can do: SELL SOME OF YOUR INVESTMENT! SELL SOME STOCK and take some of your PROFITS as long-term capital gains!

        And stop trying to fool gullible idiot fans into thinking that there's a "revenue problem."

        There's only a "revenue problem" because these owners don't treat their businesses the same way any other investor does. They want to HOLD ONTO their investment and never sell to realize their profits! And then complain that their "revenues" aren't enough to pay for their lavish lifestyles, their beach-front 2nd homes, their yachts and designer dresses for their wives.

        But, that's NOT how a business works! NOBODY should be fooled by this. It's perfectly NORMAL for a business to funnel most of it's revenues back into growth for the company (including salaries for their employees!) and not pay big dividends.


        The investors all know their reward is that the company is more and more profitable, and the STOCK PRICE reflects that value -- it goes UP and UP making all the investors happy! Just like the value of the 32 NFL teams making their owners all BILLIONAIRES instead of mere MILLIONAIRES.

        Except apparently in the NFL where the owners bitc h and moan about "revenues" to fans who just don't seem to have a clue.

        I'll try and simplify this for you: It doesn't matter a DAMN what "revenues" (i.e. dividend returns) are if the stock price (the value of their franchises) keeps going up and up! And their insisting differently is PURE PROPAGANDA!
        Last edited by Cugel; 01-31-2011, 11:02 AM.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #79
          If every player was told that they are now going to make $500,000 exactly for now on. Take it or leave it. Most would take it.

          See, the reality of the situation is, that is more than they'll get paid doing any other job out there. Including being a Doctor or Lawyer.

          For some reason, you still think that the owners are making X amount of profit and therefore I should be entitled to some of it. No, you shouldn't.
          Sure, IF the NFL was like any other business. If the employee doesn't want to work for one shoe company that pays lousy wages then he can work for another that pays more. And under Federal Labor Law and Federal Anti-trust laws, that shoe company is PROHIBITED from buying up all the other shoes companies and forming a monopoly. That's ILLEGAL.

          But, in any FREE MARKET, unless the employees are smart enough to join a union and bargain together they have to take what the company offers, like it or not -- that's why we have LABOR LAWS that give workers collective bargaining rights.

          But, the NFL is NOT just like "any other business." It's a MONOPOLY. And therefore, their collusive bargaining just as you described in that passage is ILLEGAL under Federal Labor Laws as "in restraint of trade."

          If there was no DRAFT and the players could sign with any team (just like a normal business) and the owners truly competed against each other then a team that offered all its players a flat $500,000 would quickly go out of business as other teams out-competed them for players by paying higher wages -- and then winning all the games and putting the CHEAP franchise out of business!

          There would be NO PROBLEM WITH THAT! That's capitalism baby!

          But, if all the teams in the industry (NFL) get together and say: "Let's ALL offer ALL our players $500,000 a year, take it or leave it!" Then that's FLAT ILLEGAL! Period!
          Last edited by Cugel; 01-31-2011, 11:05 AM.
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by JCJE View Post
            Considering that Williams has been around a lot longer and has had a substantially more successful career, it's no surprise he would make more than a guy I've never heard of.

            I'm pretty sure the businesses that back entertainers make more than the individual entertainer. Take a look at Sony, they have numerous "artists" under contract and I seriously doubt that Sony doesn't make more than their artists.
            Well, but musical artists for years have complained about the way the music industry rips off artists, and Sony is one of the biggest violators. It's one of the reasons why many established artists leave Sony to go find a contract elsewhere. Same with Columbia. For a number of years, Columbia had many of the major artists under contract, and also did their best to control the product being put out, to make it more "commercial." It caused a number of artists to leave the label entirely.

            New acts coming up want to take whatever deal they can get. Their options are limited.
            You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

            Comment


            • #81
              First of all thanks for all the good insights from both sides.

              That being said, Here is the killer question:

              -When will it stop? Players wanting more anr owners wanting more

              1-There is no technical monopoly of the game (football), players could switch to the USFL the CFL or whatever other league exist.The monopoly agrument is weak.
              why the player say it's a monopoly?
              Bigger salary in the NFL (compared to the other leagues)

              2-Ask any company owner (whatever the field) if his employees take more or less 60% of the revenues directly in their pockets? The answer would be no. No buissness model (that I know of) can sustanable in the long term.
              Why ?
              Buisness groth comes with what is reinvested (normally), here we are talking about, better trainning facilities for the players/stadium for the players and the fans/field for the players/etc.
              Why? better experience, bettre trainning, better rehabilitation possibilities for players.

              Players always more money has to stop, 5 years ago a QB making 10 mil a year to start was almost outrageous now it's the average. With the speed at with salarys are stepping up, it will be impossible to make enough money to pay them in 5 years (without ransacking the fans, who are the people for witch the game is played btw)


              3- 18 games schedule is a joke,
              it will ask the owenrs to put more players under contract thus limiting money available to the other players,
              it wash up the talent on the field, more player = less talent (if not teams would have 2 52 roster teams (on for playing the games and the toher on to train against)

              4-Unions have only one purpose and its to get their members better salaries and nothing more

              5-As a owner of a team wouldnt you find it normal to get money from the team you own ? (beside the groth of value)
              Let's say you have appartments you rent, would you let people lease them for a price that does not allow you to make good money off them or you would say 'nah, it's okay not making money, one day I'll sell them and make money'. The answer is clear, you want to get as much as you can from you investment.

              What I dream the CBA will become
              1-rooke salary cap with built in normalized incentive so that even a 4rd player that performs will not sit out for a new deal, he will be paid based on his performance
              2-player salary cap based on the global league revenue, per position, cap the salary of players and build in incentives so they will feel the need top perform to get the big payday
              3-Get the big F/A you want by Signing bonuses, here the FO and team take their risk and live by the consequences (Albert vs Julius signing for exemple)


              PLayers need to stop playing the poor weak child being bullied, they had the possibility of free education, big paydays (even the lower salary players). At 300 000$ per year, and playing 3-4 years they still make way more than I would make 18 years worth working.

              Owners need to stop passing the bill to the consumer (one day people will say, you know waht I had enough and will find something less expensive to do on sundays, plain simple) and get the game back in their hands.

              Player wont play?, fine get them into lockout and find other players (they get out of school every year btw)
              Player feel hurt?, let them start their own league and see what happens...

              If your not happy about your boss/company owner with what they give you, what do you do? you go out and get an other job!

              problem with that phrase is: player dont have a job the play a game to entertain fans, who in return pay to see them play for their team


              It is a big risk for everyone in this negociation. will the fans be fed up and done with the nfl if there is no 2011 season? will they turn to an other game?


              When it's all say and done, I say each sides need to sit down and agree on a sustainable buisness model as a point of reference and built the CBA on that fundation. not on the flux of revenu of the last year (in wich the NFL did very well I agree)
              Canadian Denver Bronco Fan #7

              Adopted Broncos:
              -:Mr. Decker:-

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Cugel View Post
                Once again you're buying into the owners' propaganda that it's "all about revenues."

                And why should "revenues" go mostly into the owners' pockets? Who gives a DAMN about "revenues" anyway?

                These owners bought STOCK. The STOCK PRICE = their return on investment. Just like any other business.

                Pat Bowlen bought at $87 million and now has a team worth $1.1 BILLION. That's over $1 BILLION difference!

                Now if these owners were like any other billionaire with a successful investment would they be complaining: "my stock price is through the moon, I've made a huge PILE of money, but the company just doesn't pay enough in quarterly dividends!"

                Well, HELLO MORON, if you have a CASH PROBLEM then there's one sure thing you can do: SELL SOME OF YOUR INVESTMENT! SELL SOME STOCK and take some of your PROFITS as long-term capital gains!

                And stop trying to fool gullible idiot fans into thinking that there's a "revenue problem."

                There's only a "revenue problem" because these owners don't treat their businesses the same way any other investor does. They want to HOLD ONTO their investment and never sell to realize their profits! And then complain that their "revenues" aren't enough to pay for their lavish lifestyles, their beach-front 2nd homes, their yachts and designer dresses for their wives.

                But, that's NOT how a business works! NOBODY should be fooled by this. It's perfectly NORMAL for a business to funnel most of it's revenues back into growth for the company (including salaries for their employees!) and not pay big dividends.


                The investors all know their reward is that the company is more and more profitable, and the STOCK PRICE reflects that value -- it goes UP and UP making all the investors happy! Just like the value of the 32 NFL teams making their owners all BILLIONAIRES instead of mere MILLIONAIRES.

                Except apparently in the NFL where the owners bitc h and moan about "revenues" to fans who just don't seem to have a clue.

                I'll try and simplify this for you: It doesn't matter a DAMN what "revenues" (i.e. dividend returns) are if the stock price (the value of their franchises) keeps going up and up! And their insisting differently is PURE PROPAGANDA!
                I guess I would have to see how the value of the team is determined.

                I would say that you would have to subtract all of the debts and expenses to accurately put a value on any business and just like my house, it's only worth what someone is willing and able to pay in an open market.

                Comment


                • #83
                  How about they just negotiate.
                  If the product is at it's best right now, why even ATTEMPT to change it?

                  Can they really be this stupid?
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
                    And actually this is normal for the entertainment business, where the names are the draw and as such collect the lion's share of the revenue.

                    Remember that no one is buying a jersey with Bowlen's name on it. Bowlen's participation is not what brings people to the stadium to buy tickets.

                    As I've pointed out, Robin Williams makes a lot more as a standup comic than Gabriel Iglesias because Williams is a much bigger name on the marquee than Iglesias. Not only that, but Williams makes the lion's share of the revenue over anyone else in the organization.

                    Since it's an entertainment business and the players are the draw, it's not unusual for the players to get the lion's share of the money.
                    Who does Robin Williams work for? Oh yea...he doesn't have a boss. He is an independent contractor who fields offers and takes the ones he likes. In reality who makes the lions draw in the movie industry, the stars or the producers who put up the money to make the movie in the first place? If you think it's the stars you are sadly mistaken.

                    If the players take most of the money and the owners get a minimal amount, if any, what incentive is there to be an owner? The glory?

                    I don't see how you can think the player salary isn't part of the issue. Teams have a salary cap. One that limits how much they can spend and one that limits how little they can spend. They are required to spend X amount of dollars on team salary every year. If the team doesn't bring in that much, they lose money. You mentioned in a previous post that it's fair for a player to hold out and demand more money. They signed a contract. How is that not breach of contract that in any other business would be illegal.

                    I also pointed out how salaries are climbing at 12%/year while income rises at 4%/year. How is that not a problem? When players cry and whine that they don't like their coach, or want to be the highest paid player ever and that salary gets topped every year when a guy signs a new contract, where does it end? They will be making $200M/7 years before too long. Out of control salaries is THE biggest problem with the NFL right now.

                    Tell me this. If you owned a company and you paid your workers more than you made personally, how long would you be in business??
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      How sad for the NFL Players.

                      They just want to make sure their families get food on the table. Caviar for breakfast, caviar for snacks, caviar for lunch, caviar for dinner, and of course gold plated bathtubs. They need more money. That way they can bath in caviar instead of just eating it.

                      Players make enough money as is. Sure, teams make lots of money. But, teams also have obligations such as stadium upkeep, ads, etc... Further, of course owners are supposed to make money. They OWN the team. The players WORK for them. So, it really shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the owners (the person that actually pays the players) would make more money than the players.

                      NFL players should stop their pity parade and sign on the dotted line. There should be a rookie salary cap. There should be a cap for players. Nobody should be signing these $60 million+ contracts.
                      The Browns are gone; I'm not a fan of the Impostors

                      The real Browns are in Baltimore, see?

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
                        How sad for the NFL Players.

                        They just want to make sure their families get food on the table. Caviar for breakfast, caviar for snacks, caviar for lunch, caviar for dinner, and of course gold plated bathtubs. They need more money. That way they can bath in caviar instead of just eating it.

                        Players make enough money as is. Sure, teams make lots of money. But, teams also have obligations such as stadium upkeep, ads, etc... Further, of course owners are supposed to make money. They OWN the team. The players WORK for them. So, it really shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the owners (the person that actually pays the players) would make more money than the players.

                        NFL players should stop their pity parade and sign on the dotted line. There should be a rookie salary cap. There should be a cap for players. Nobody should be signing these $60 million+ contracts.
                        agreed . . . especially when 3/4 of them have no intention of playing that 8 year contract out and want a raise in 2-3 years, actually id have no problem with it if when they were not playing as well they took a pay cut, but we all know theres not a snowballs chance in hell
                        sigpic
                        -------

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          maybe the players should just work on commission.

                          $1000/play
                          $1000/tackle
                          $10,000/ TO
                          $20,000/game holding passing game to under 150 yards
                          $15,000 defensive TD
                          $5,000/ offensive TD
                          $1,000/ play you don't allow a QB pressure or a RB gains 3+ yards
                          $10,000/4th down conversion


                          etc......

                          Just saw this...
                          In 1994 the cap was $34.6 million. In 2009 it was $128M...300%= increase in 15 years.

                          Or here is another idea.
                          $128M comes out to 8M/game. For every game divide that $8M up between the 53 players based on how they performed. Best player gets top money, worst player gets worst money. QB throws 4 INTs and throws for 125 yards, he only makes like $50,000 instead of $800,000. A backup RB comes in to start for some reason and runs for 175 yards and 3 TDs, he gets $200,000 instead of $30,000
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
                            Who does Robin Williams work for? Oh yea...he doesn't have a boss. He is an independent contractor who fields offers and takes the ones he likes. In reality who makes the lions draw in the movie industry, the stars or the producers who put up the money to make the movie in the first place? If you think it's the stars you are sadly mistaken.
                            But the same is true of veteran football players. Once their rookie contract is up, they can go on the market, field the best prices and go to the team they thing will be the best for them, whether it be financially, getting a ring, etc. That's why the players hire agents, to help them get into a position and then negotiate the contract.

                            If the players take most of the money and the owners get a minimal amount, if any, what incentive is there to be an owner? The glory?
                            Minimal amount? Define "minimal?" When you buy something for millions and then it's worth at least a billion, I think that profit is more than "minimal." But then, everything is relative. But then, these guys are already billionaires, so the money shouldn't be the primary objective. Yes, they should make money. If all sides don't make a good living, why do it at all? But the owners hardly need the money.

                            Also, remember that an NFL franchise isn't like the standard corporation where your only objective is to make money. The Tampa Bay ownership used to be like that, and they lost games like crazy and people refused to buy tickets for their games. For years, the Bidwell family under patriarch Billy Bidwell ran the Cardinals like it was only a money-making venture and it was only when his sons came in and ran it like a team and didn't worry about profits as much did they get the personnel to be a contender and play late in the playoffs.

                            I don't see how you can think the player salary isn't part of the issue. Teams have a salary cap. One that limits how much they can spend and one that limits how little they can spend. They are required to spend X amount of dollars on team salary every year.
                            Ok, you clearly don't understand the salary cap. There is no "MINIMUM" amount that must be spent. Only a maximum that can't be exceeded.

                            The NFL, which is to say, the OWNERS, set the salary cap. THE OWNERS SET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN BE SPENT ON SALARIES. Then, the players jockey for how much of that amount they can get, but the amount spent on the team salary can't exceed that amount. That's the reason why players salaries aren't the issue here, at least the way you define it. If Revis wants to negotiate for a larger salary, he can't get too much without someone else's salary being cut, and if the team doesn't want to negotiate with them (such as when Marshall acted out demanding a new contract), the team doesn't have to. And had Marshall refused to come to training camp and been in violation of his contract, the league could have called for arbitration, a neutral party would sit down with Marshall and his agent and the team representative and the contract and gone over it with both parties looking for a way to come to a compromise. And even then, if the arbitrator cant' come up with a solution the team can choose to simply refuse to pay the player.

                            THAT'S why players salaries, as you describe, are not the issue here.

                            What IS at issue here is that the owners had negotiated before with the players association (union) that the players, as the marquee names that sell tickets, tv contracts and cause all the other merchandise to be sold, were entitled to 60% of the profits.

                            Now, after years of this agreement, the owners have decided that they don't want the players association to get 60% of the profits. They want the players association (which is to say, the players) to get, say, 50% of the profits. Perhaps less. That is what is going to be the knockdown, drag out part of the CBA. Even the eighteen game season is secondary to that.

                            And for that reason, the OWNERS opted out of the current agreement and are preparing to lock out the players in order to try to break the union's back.


                            If the team doesn't bring in that much, they lose money. You mentioned in a previous post that it's fair for a player to hold out and demand more money. They signed a contract. How is that not breach of contract that in any other business would be illegal.
                            Two things here to address: First, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the NFL had RECORD REVENUES this past season, IN SPITE OF THE RECESSION. So, how can we have a "team doesn't bring in that much" situation? Second, breach of contract is a legal term. And legal possibilities would be an eventuality if the parties submitted to arbitration, as required by their contract, and then one of the parties refused to abide by the arbitrator's decision. (I suspect that this was one of the reasons that Plummer retired, rather than go to Tampa Bay or fight the issue with the league. The league could force him into arbitration and make him report to Tampa, but if he retires, they have no power)

                            I also pointed out how salaries are climbing at 12%/year while income rises at 4%/year. How is that not a problem? When players cry and whine that they don't like their coach, or want to be the highest paid player ever and that salary gets topped every year when a guy signs a new contract, where does it end? They will be making $200M/7 years before too long. Out of control salaries is THE biggest problem with the NFL right now.
                            Not if the owners and league refuse to negotiate with the crybabies, like the Broncos refused to negotiate with Marshall.

                            You keep bringing this up like it's an issue. The Broncos themselves showed why it wasn't an issue. Marshall is the textbook case.

                            Marshall was a problem child with tons of issues and even some suspensions, but he demanded a new contract. Fans on the forums here demanded that management "pay the man," even though there was more than just money at issue, including Marshall's off-field shenanigans and suspensions.

                            Marshall acted out in training camp. Marshall was suspended for training camp. Marshall was warned by his agent what he had to lose and he cleaned up his act somewhat and didn't act out again until he made his numbers in week 16, then promptly quit on his team before the final game.

                            The Broncos refused to negotiate with Marshall.

                            Instead, their options were: go with the current contract. Trade him. Give in to him. They chose to trade him, but part of that trade agreement was that whoever traded for Marshall had to give him a new contract.

                            The Dolphins did. They didn't have to, but the Dolphins figured they had cap room and they wanted Marshall's talent, so the law of supply and demand (one of the basics of capitalism) came into play and the Dolphins signed Marshall to a new contract and gave up draft picks to the Broncos.

                            Marshall's new contract was not, in any way, a reason for the current CBA.

                            I don't know how I can explain this in any smaller terms.

                            Tell me this. If you owned a company and you paid your workers more than you made personally, how long would you be in business??
                            I've asked you this before and you still haven't responded: how can a millionaire be making more money than a billionaire who doesn't even need the money that comes in from the team?

                            EDIT to add: Also, remember that the 60% is split up among ALL the employees, while you still get 40%, so you are still making more than your employees.
                            Last edited by rogue719; 02-01-2011, 09:04 AM.
                            You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post

                              Just saw this...
                              In 1994 the cap was $34.6 million. In 2009 it was $128M...300%= increase in 15 years.
                              And WHO sets the salary cap again? Oh, that's right, it's the League, AKA, the owners. If the owners didn't want to set the cap that high, could they vote and refuse to do so? Of course they could.
                              You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
                                How sad for the NFL Players.

                                They just want to make sure their families get food on the table. Caviar for breakfast, caviar for snacks, caviar for lunch, caviar for dinner, and of course gold plated bathtubs. They need more money. That way they can bath in caviar instead of just eating it.

                                Players make enough money as is. Sure, teams make lots of money. But, teams also have obligations such as stadium upkeep, ads, etc... Further, of course owners are supposed to make money. They OWN the team. The players WORK for them. So, it really shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the owners (the person that actually pays the players) would make more money than the players.

                                NFL players should stop their pity parade and sign on the dotted line. There should be a rookie salary cap. There should be a cap for players. Nobody should be signing these $60 million+ contracts.
                                Uh, some teams do and some teams don't. For example, Mile High stadium was mostly built by the taxpayers, not by Bowlen. Bowlen selected the design which included fewer regular seats and more luxury boxes. Money spent on regular seats is shared with the NFL while all the money from the luxury boxes goes to the owner. Right now Mile High sells out all it's regular seats and could sell more if they had them. Meanwhile a good number of the luxury boxes are empty at game time. No one purchased the right to watch the game from them.

                                Also, team owners often get sweetheart deals from their local city, which wants the prestige of having an NFL franchise in their city. In many cases, the city provides the services that keep the maintenance and cleaning of the stadium.

                                On top of that, there are nearly always a number of "corporate welfare" deals with the teams as there are with any large corporation that wants to move or stay in a city, because such organizations provide jobs. In the case of the Broncos there are jobs maintaining and cleaning the stadium, providing merchandise, selling merchandise, running the parking lots, etc etc. So, there are undoubtedly corporate welfare deals where the organization may pay less corporate tax than other entities that didn't get the deal, or less local taxes or other perks that are offered to keep the team in place.

                                Bowlen got the new stadium built by taxpayers and one of the promises he had to make was that he wouldn't move the team for at least 20 years after the Broncos moved into the new stadium. The city wanted them here and Bowlen was able to make the deal.

                                Please, let's not try to pretend that the poor, overburdened billionaires are hurting for money.
                                You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X