Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Revenue Sharing

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-07-2006, 09:43 PM   #16
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 43
Posts: 3,048
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoSkins!
In America, we call this ...


com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
  1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
...From dictionary.com
Unfortunately for 100 million Earthlings unlucky enough to have been born in the last century in various parts of Asia or the European backwater called Russia, it was and is much more than "theoretical". But I digress... Back to football...

P.S. Maybe we should look up the definition of "sharring". I bet it has something to do with Shar Pourdanish.
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 03-07-2006, 09:53 PM   #17
Impact Rookie
 
CRT3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rockville
Age: 51
Posts: 795
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.
Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.
__________________
16-0 for 2007
CRT3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:00 PM   #18
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 52
Posts: 515
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
The sort of business where you can't just move your team to better situate yourself to have more financial success. Think of the NFL as customer sharing business rather than money a sharing business.
OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:02 PM   #19
Camp Scrub
 
dan_snyder69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: maryland & south carolina
Posts: 92
Re: Revenue Sharring

Burnnnnn!
__________________
Moving to the South only has one drawback: No FedEx Field!
dan_snyder69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:02 PM   #20
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 9,966
Re: Revenue Sharring

In America, we call the NFL a monopoly. Actually even worse, it's a monopoly with its own subset of monopolies.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:09 PM   #21
Playmaker
 
70Chip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Manassas
Age: 43
Posts: 3,048
Re: Revenue Sharring

St. Louis Cardinals - - - - Chicago Cardinals

L.A. Rams - - - - - - - - - Cleveland Rams
__________________
This Monkey's Gone to Heaven
70Chip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:19 PM   #22
Impact Rookie
 
CRT3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rockville
Age: 51
Posts: 795
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan
OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.
Only 2 of these with SB's. BAltimore and St. Louis.
__________________
16-0 for 2007
CRT3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:22 PM   #23
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 52
Posts: 515
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRT3
Only 2 of these with SB's. BAltimore and St. Louis.
That's right. I had forgotten Tennessee lost to St. Louis in 1 super bowl. But as Houston, they made 0 appearances in the big game. Was Oakland the L.A. Raiders when they beat the 'Skins or were they still in Oakland at that time?
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:32 PM   #24
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 9,966
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRT3
Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.
First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. Price fixing, which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about Anti-competitive practices teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look here.

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 10:54 PM   #25
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 9,966
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan
OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.
You are right teams can move. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said they can move, but they can never move to big markets. What is really interesting though is how well new teams have done (Browns, Ravens, Texans). They certainly seem to have better management in place but that in itself is not enough if you want to be in the same league as the Redskins. You need affluent customers too.
__________________
"The Redskins have always suffered from chronic organizational deformities under Snyder."

-Jenkins
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 11:00 PM   #26
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 52
Posts: 515
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony.
The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 11:04 PM   #27
Impact Rookie
 
CRT3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Rockville
Age: 51
Posts: 795
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. Price fixing, which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about Anti-competitive practices teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look here.

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.
This is why I love this board. Great info and intelligent arguements. Excellent Saden, point taken, but we will see in the comming days.
__________________
16-0 for 2007
CRT3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2006, 11:12 PM   #28
Impact Rookie
 
LongTimeSkinsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: LaVale MD
Age: 52
Posts: 515
Re: Revenue Sharring

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
You are right teams can move. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said they can move, but they can never move to big markets. What is really interesting though is how well new teams have done (Browns, Ravens, Texans). They certainly seem to have better management in place but that in itself is not enough if you want to be in the same league as the Redskins. You need affluent customers too.
The Baltimore Ravens are drawing from the same SMSA as the Redskins. I would be inclined to think if their management was as agressive in marketing the Ravens, the Redskins would not be nearly as profitable as they have been over the past few years. The Tennessee Titans mismanaged themselves and had to release several high salaried veterans because of cap implications, but not because of financial insolvency. Who do the Titans compete with for a fan base in Tennessee other than college teams? No one. They are unique in their georgraphical area and I'm sure that was part of the incentive to move from Houston (with Dallas nearby). Indianapolis is much the same story. In Baltimore, they were competing against a Redskin team that was consistently a winning team if not a playoff team. Then owner Robert Irsay demanded a new, larger stadium to increase revenues. He didn't get it, and Indianapolis steps in- a new domed stadium and a market with no pro ball competition.
__________________
...skins fan since 72 and still breathin'!
LongTimeSkinsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2006, 02:28 AM   #29
Propane and propane accessories
 
JWsleep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Houston, TX
Age: 45
Posts: 4,610
Re: Revenue Sharring

I'm not sure revenue sharing is communism. It's about the overall health of the league in the long term. I don't think leveling is the answer, but some kind of give-back where the rich teams help keep the league competitive isn't a bad idea. The question is how to best implement that idea without removing incentive to improve your team and so on.

Leagues with single team (or just a few team) dynasties don't make as much money overall, and are less fun to watch--so even the "rich" owners have an incentive to buy into the plan.

It's less like communism and more like a meeting of mafia dons deciding how to carve up their criminal empires. Don Snyder sends his repects to Don Jones. Perhaps Don Rooney will soon sleep with the fishes? Has Don Tagliabue made the owners an offer they can't refuse?
__________________
Hail from Houston!
JWsleep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2006, 04:04 AM   #30
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,278
Re: Revenue Sharring

those according to their abilities to those according to their needs.

It is at its heart a socialist idea; saying that it's not would be incorrect. Whether it's in the better interest of the league (as a whole) is debateable.

And with all the talk of moving teams, I can't believe no one mentioned the Boston Braves. shame on you.
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.42559 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25