NFL labor talks break down.

[chuckywang]

Anybody understand this sentence?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

 

[mrchan]

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Anybody understand this sentence?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

Big market team A makes $200 million per year.

Small market team B makes $100 million per year.

If they both have to contribute $40 million to the players fund that is only 20% of Team A's profits, while it is 40% of team B's profits.

 

[scttgrd]

Millionaires fighting other millionaires over billions of revenue, everyone gets rich but they still seem to find a way to fvck things up. I hope they get this worked out otherwise alot of teams are going to have to start cutting alot of salaries.

 

[mrchan]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
Millionaires fighting other millionaires over billions of revenue, everyone gets rich but they still seem to find a way to fvck things up. I hope they get this worked out otherwise alot of teams are going to have to start cutting alot of salaries.

<cough> Redskins <cough>

Haha.

 

[scttgrd]

Redskins, Raiders and Jets are the few that come to mind first. All of them are more than 20 mil. over the cap.

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: mrchan

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Anybody understand this sentence?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

Big market team A makes $200 million per year.

Small market team B makes $100 million per year.

If they both have to contribute $40 million to the players fund that is only 20% of Team A's profits, while it is 40% of team B's profits.

Earlier in the article it says the contribution to the players is a percentage, not a set amount. Once again, 😕

 

[mrchan]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: mrchan

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Anybody understand this sentence?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

Big market team A makes $200 million per year.

Small market team B makes $100 million per year.

If they both have to contribute $40 million to the players fund that is only 20% of Team A's profits, while it is 40% of team B's profits.

Earlier in the article it says the contribution to the players is a percentage, not a set amount. Once again, 😕

Where?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

Apportioned, not proportioned. I think you misread the article...

 

[oboeguy]

Originally posted by: scttgrd
Millionaires fighting other millionaires over billions of revenue, everyone gets rich but they still seem to find a way to fvck things up.

Haha so true. The NFL is doig so well right now that they look incredibly stupid for risking it all.

As for small-market teams whining about proportional costs and all, DEAL WITH IT. A small market team shouldn't make as much money as a big market team. Duh?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: mrchan

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: mrchan

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Anybody understand this sentence?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

Big market team A makes $200 million per year.

Small market team B makes $100 million per year.

If they both have to contribute $40 million to the players fund that is only 20% of Team A's profits, while it is 40% of team B's profits.

Earlier in the article it says the contribution to the players is a percentage, not a set amount. Once again, 😕

Where?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

Apportioned, not proportioned. I think you misread the article...

I was reading here:

They differ, however, on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

 

[mrchan]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: mrchan

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: mrchan

Originally posted by: chuckywang
Anybody understand this sentence?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417

Big market team A makes $200 million per year.

Small market team B makes $100 million per year.

If they both have to contribute $40 million to the players fund that is only 20% of Team A's profits, while it is 40% of team B's profits.

Earlier in the article it says the contribution to the players is a percentage, not a set amount. Once again, 😕

Where?

Teams with lower revenues -- mostly small-market clubs -- say that if the contributions to the players' fund are equally apportioned among 32 franchises, they will have to pay a substantially larger proportion of their nontelevision and ticket money because they have less.

Apportioned, not proportioned. I think you misread the article...

I was reading here:

They differ, however, on the percentage of revenues to be allocated to the players -- the union is asking for 60 percent and the league's current offer is 56.2 percent.

Two different things. That quote refers to the fact that the NFLPA wants 60% of the league's profits to go to players. Not 60% of the profits from each team.

The quote in the OP refers to where that 60% comes from, equally split among the 32 teams or the higher revenue teams paying a larger amount. Which is where the hold-up is. They won't agree on a new bargaining agreement till revenue sharing gets hammered out.