|
Are post season games included in that?
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:14 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 23:46 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Are post season games included in that? First option and face value are included. Post season in the NFL is weird, in that the NFL Corporate receives all the profits and redistributes them across the league via profit sharing. Teams survive playoffs financially by merchandise and concession sales. Once a team has qualified for Playoffs, all current season ticket holders are given the option to buy the tickets on first come-first serve basis. Once your team qualifies for the Super Bowl, an even number of tickets are distributed to the owners of both participants, which are then offered in whatever way they decide. Our owner kept a ton to give to local business owners to bribe them for later. Some teams have a lottery. Some teams offer them to the most expensive season ticket holders first, and some simply release them all to the market to profit on the 300% markup they tend to run. A large portion of SB tickets are not released to either team and simply sold by the NFL in the market, and goes into the profit sharing category. It keeps small markets financially successful and creates parity in the league.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:20 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Are post season games included in that? Edit, Beaten on more thorough explanation drat you MJBuddy. You will regret this! I'll never visit!
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:21 |
|
|
Wow, I didn't know that about the money going to the NFL. That's really weird. Does it mean you could have a playoff run that results in the team losing money because they have to pay wages of staff and stuff like that? I guess they'd always sell enough stuff to turn a profit, but it's still weird. Do they get extra TV money for it and is the prize money significant even if you only get a game or two?
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:24 |
|
|
Jollzwhin posted:So if Barca have financial issues they'll be prevented from playing in Europe in a few years time then Mr. Platini? It's so obvious they're going to back pedal on it. You can't imagine a champions league without any of the big Spanish, English or Italian sides.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:28 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Wow, I didn't know that about the money going to the NFL. That's really weird. Does it mean you could have a playoff run that results in the team losing money because they have to pay wages of staff and stuff like that? I guess they'd always sell enough stuff to turn a profit, but it's still weird. Do they get extra TV money for it and is the prize money significant even if you only get a game or two? Nope, no way to lose money into the playoffs. Wages are already paid by that point and wages cover playoff runs. TV money goes to the league rather than individual teams and their isn't really any prize money other than a slight league bonus for being champ. Gridiron is hardcore socialism rather than Football/Soccer's free-market mentality. The league reaps huge benefits then redistributes it with individual teams making extra money through tickets, merchandise, and foods. This, like drafting ensures profitability and parity across the league so any given year anybody could be champion. To give you an idea of the value of the league, 30 seconds at the Superbowl (championship match) will run an advertiser around 1-2 million. The game lasts 2-3 hours.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:31 |
|
|
Right, thanks for the info. It's always struck me as strange that US sports are so centrally controlled compared to everything else in the country.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:36 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Right, thanks for the info. Its for two reasons. One, sports in the US have to apply for the right to be a monopoly from the government which is strange and how you end up with teams in places like New Orleans. Two, what Americans' love in sports is parity and regularity. We want to watch a bunch of competitive teams who all have a chance at winning and we want to make sure every match they have is ruled on in the same manner. A strong centralized league ensures everyone has roughly equal finances and equivalent, difficult/impossible to bribe officiating.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:40 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:It's always struck me as strange that US sports are so centrally controlled compared to everything else in the country. The leagues would tell you they are one large corporation. In fact the NFL made that argument recently in a supreme court case... which the justices didn't buy. It's a good thing too, because it would have had bad consequences for the fans. (Massive price increases across the board.) Baseball enjoys an anti-trust exemption (courtesy of congress in the... 1920s I believe) which lets them get away with quite a bit from a business standpoint. Technically they are 32 separate entities "competing" against each other. The league just "manages" the competition. Edit: Barudak posted:One, sports in the US have to apply for the right to be a monopoly from the government which is strange and how you end up with teams in places like New Orleans. That's not really the case. Baseball is the only sport that enjoys a congressional exemption from anti-trust laws. The others could theoretically be attacked as monopolies in the courts. But as the courts didn't buy the NFL as a "single entity" they aren't going to strike it down as a monopoly either. Capt Murphy fucked around with this message at Jul 8, 2010 around 16:45 |
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:43 |
|
|
Right. I guess those things are only really possible because it's a closed shop. Not only in terms of the set number of teams, but also that nobody else plays the sports at the same level.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:43 |
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:It's so obvious they're going to back pedal on it. You can't imagine a champions league without any of the big Spanish, English or Italian sides. It's time for another period of German, Dutch and Belgian supremacy 
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:45 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Right. I guess those things are only really possible because it's a closed shop. Not only in terms of the set number of teams, but also that nobody else plays the sports at the same level. Exactly. For instance Los Angeles, one of the USA's largest cities, hasn't had a team since 1994. So when smaller teams underperform, don't make enough money etc the league can threaten to move the team out there. Then the city usually coughs up money for a new stadium. Its also why you see a lot of people from local area's investing in their Teams to prevent them from being able to move. For instance, the Saint Louis Rams were under threat of moving back to LA, so a couple of business owners bought more stake in the team. Can that even happen in Football? I mean I figure you could move but any new city wouldn't really want your club.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:49 |
|
|
Presumably Platini has been shouting his mouth off about Barcelona's finances? Who was it who was arguing with me a while ago saying that all was fine and dandy with Barcelona's finances and that the Presidential candidate was just bullshitting? Whoever it was, I expect an apology. Hopefully Barcelona go down the shitter and have to sell all their best players so they can return to where they were 10 years ago or whatever. Normally I would say that it was nailed on they'd be bailed out (probably by the government) but with the state of the Spanish economy as it is... 
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:49 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Can that even happen in Football? I mean I figure you could move but any new city wouldn't really want your club. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimble...o_Milton_Keynes That explains it pretty well.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:52 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Right. I guess those things are only really possible because it's a closed shop. Not only in terms of the set number of teams, but also that nobody else plays the sports at the same level. Kind've. I wouldn't want that to be mistaken for a complete monopoly. Frequently competitors enter the market and fail or are bought out. Why is this relevant to Football as a whole? The MLS chooses to follow the NFL's style of league management, using salary caps, drafts, and to an extent profit sharing. The goal is to create drama in the league in all markets, opposed to power house teams like Man U, Arsenal, blah blah blah that take decades to fall apart even with bad management. A bad year in the NFL will lead to two year minimum of rebuilding before you may become a playoff contender. The New Orleans Saints, during Katrina, had a 3-13 record and followed it with a NFC championship appearance, didn't make the playoffs the following year or the year after that, then won the Super Bowl. Since 2002, when it was created, the NFC South Division was known for a weird tendency - the team that came in last place each year won the division the following year.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 16:58 |
|
|
Whatever you want to call it, its still sports communism. Sports want to be free too. 
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:00 |
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Kind've. I wouldn't want that to be mistaken for a complete monopoly. Frequently competitors enter the market and fail or are bought out. I take your point in relation to the MLS, but isn't part of it to stop teams throwing money at foreign stars with the teams and league going tits up if interest wanes? I could be wrong, but I've always though that's what went wrong with the NASL?
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:03 |
|
|
MJBuddy posted:Kind've. I wouldn't want that to be mistaken for a complete monopoly. Frequently competitors enter the market and fail or are bought out. Hey man, remember the MLS does have more restrictions on the players ability to control their destiny thats inline with other international leagues. And where was The God of Parity with the Buffalo Bills post 1993, the year that God revealed Buffalo was a sinful city and unworthy of salvation? Mickolution posted:I take your point in relation to the MLS, but isn't part of it to stop teams throwing money at foreign stars with the teams and league going tits up if interest wanes? I could be wrong, but I've always though that's what went wrong with the NASL? Yes in part and in recent years the players have been clamoring for more American style rights. The other part is that the USA really wanted to be respected by international Clubs and be compatible with them in terms of contracts. Although Clubs now have special parts of their budgets assigned to pick past their prime up foreigners who will never play BECKHAAAAAAMMM. Barudak fucked around with this message at Jul 8, 2010 around 17:08 |
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:05 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:I take your point in relation to the MLS, but isn't part of it to stop teams throwing money at foreign stars with the teams and league going tits up if interest wanes? I could be wrong, but I've always though that's what went wrong with the NASL? If it was a club style with an open market system, I would imagine it would work itself out on a club level, but if the Premier League was in the U.S. it would fail, because no one would root for anyone other than the top 5 and they would all fail/be crap level do to restricted finances. The closest thing to PL football in the US is college sports, in which each year one team in the top 25 may drop out while another may move up, and shifts in dynasties are short within that bubble. If a good team pops up out of no where, the entire staff is quickly bought by successful colleges (i.e. Cincinnati last year).
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:18 |
|
|
Yeah, I've always gotten the impression that support for college teams is similar to that of teams over here while the likes of the NFL are seen more as entertainment, or have I got that wrong?
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:25 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Yeah, I've always gotten the impression that support for college teams is similar to that of teams over here while the likes of the NFL are seen more as entertainment, or have I got that wrong? You tend to support College teams because you went to College there so its a lot tighter bond. I was under the impression that Football and Gridiron shared the whole root for the team from the city where you live thing. As for the more entertainment thing I don't follow? Do you mean fans are less serious or don't view the outcome as important or what?
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:29 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Can that even happen in Football? I mean I figure you could move but any new city wouldn't really want your club. While this does happen (as in the example posted) it's really rare and promotion/relegation kind of fulfil the same role in a different and altogether more dramatic way as it's ultimately the players playing for the teams in the battle who decide which cities will have a club in the top league.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:34 |
|
|
Barudak posted:You tend to support College teams because you went to College there so its a lot tighter bond. I was under the impression that Football and Gridiron shared the whole root for the team from the city where you live thing. Yeah, I could be way off here and I'm not really sure where I got the idea from, but I thought that people are much more "into" their college teams the way people are here about their clubs, whereas with teams being able to move and stuff like that, the bond is less for the likes of the NFL, resulting in fans being less rabid in their support. I could be wrong, but I've always gotten that impression. Of course fans of pro teams do care about the outcome, but they seem more into their college teams.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:36 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Yeah, I've always gotten the impression that support for college teams is similar to that of teams over here while the likes of the NFL are seen more as entertainment, or have I got that wrong? Maybe I'm misreading, but people don't just watch the NFL as entertainment - the fanbase is large and very dedicated. Usually people root for the teams in the cities where they were born (or nearest team). A number of teams have extremely rabid fans (Green Bay and Pittsburgh come to mind). Edit: College is a different animal really... and trying to type now I realize I don't exactly know how to explain it. Yeah I'd say college fandom is very rabid, but it's also impacted by the fact that you're at college from 18-22. Fun young years of your life. Capt Murphy fucked around with this message at Jul 8, 2010 around 17:43 |
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:37 |
|
|
Edawg06 posted:Maybe I'm misreading, but people don't just watch the NFL as entertainment - the fanbase is large and very dedicated. Usually people root for the teams in the cities where they were born (or nearest team). A number of teams have extremely rabid fans (Green Bay and Pittsburgh come to mind). Ahh ok, fair enough. I don't know where I got that impression from.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:39 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Yeah, I could be way off here and I'm not really sure where I got the idea from, but I thought that people are much more "into" their college teams the way people are here about their clubs, whereas with teams being able to move and stuff like that, the bond is less for the likes of the NFL, resulting in fans being less rabid in their support. I could be wrong, but I've always gotten that impression. Of course fans of pro teams do care about the outcome, but they seem more into their college teams. If you went to a top 10 football College you have a rabid dedication to college football. Did you not? Zero interest, especially given how up hosed the college playoff structure is. On the other hand, if you like football you like the NFL. A lot of people are hardcore dedicated to the sport. I mean more than a 10th of the US population watches some Monday Night Football games and their teams certainly aren't playing. A thanksgiving tradition is watching the Detroit Lions suck and lose, regardless of home city. edit: Green Bay doesn't have rabid fans, they have zealots. The fans literally own the team piecemeal, own houses directly around the stadium, and pass down season tickets like a Seat in the House of Lords. And it gets below zero for some of there games and people are out their. Thats hardcore. Barudak fucked around with this message at Jul 8, 2010 around 22:26 |
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:41 |
|
|
Kwik posted:The Yankees do better as far as the cheap seats go though, the cheapest season ticket is $5 per game, or $405 for the year, though that is in an obstructed-view seat. Total derail but how on earth have they built a brand new stadium that still has obstructed-view seats?
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 17:45 |
|
|
Bacon of the Sea posted:It's so obvious they're going to back pedal on it. You can't imagine a champions league without any of the big Spanish, English or Italian sides. I sure hope not, it's about time some financial sensibility took hold in the top flights of football. Spending moon money to 'preserve competitiveness' is all kinds of hosed up.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 20:52 |
|
|
MrBling posted:Whatever you want to call it, its still sports communism. Often times, if you leave the market free and unregulated, there will eventually be a lot of incentive for capitalists to collude because unrestrained competition will ultimately drive down profits and revenues. From what I understand, that's pretty much what happened to many teams before the big American leagues were set up.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 22:04 |
|
|
Grez posted:Total derail but how on earth have they built a brand new stadium that still has obstructed-view seats? Its to recreate the feeling of the old stadium/save money on the costs of the new stadium. The Yankees are big loving money and they know it. If people really complain they could invest to fix the stadium, but they're confident not enough people will care. You don't win about a 1/4 of all possible championships in your sport and not be big money. TyChan posted:Often times, if you leave the market free and unregulated, there will eventually be a lot of incentive for capitalists to collude because unrestrained competition will ultimately drive down profits and revenues. This is pretty much it. For instance, Gridiron didn't become really profitable until the AFL/NFL merger in the 1960s. Before then it was a ton of leagues all trying to get at each others money. Before then it was a bunch of nobodies slamming into each other in poorly defined and organized leagues that went bankrupt every other week.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 22:28 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Its to recreate the feeling of the old stadium/save money on the costs of the new stadium. The Yankees are big loving money and they know it. If people really complain they could invest to fix the stadium, but they're confident not enough people will care. So they've built a stadium on the cheap.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 23:36 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:So they've built a stadium on the cheap. Well I looked into it to make sure. 600 out of 50,000 seats were affected. They put tv monitors in the area and dropped the price from 12 to 5 USD. On the other hand the stadium cost 1.5 Billion USD so its not exactly like the 600 seats saved them a ton money.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 23:46 |
|
|
Barudak posted:Well I looked into it to make sure. 600 out of 50,000 seats were affected. They put tv monitors in the area and dropped the price from 12 to 5 USD. On the other hand the stadium cost 1.5 Billion USD so its not exactly like the 600 seats saved them a ton money. I don't know much about stadium design engineering but it seems to me choosing to build a stand using 'traditional' supports rather than a modern cantilever design is a pretty fundamental decision to do things on the cheap and not something that could be easily fixed after it's built.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 23:48 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't know much about stadium design engineering but it seems to me choosing to build a stand using 'traditional' supports rather than a modern cantilever design is a pretty fundamental decision to do things on the cheap and not something that could be easily fixed after it's built. It uses a cantilever design. The blockages are caused by art touches and sports bars.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 23:51 |
|
|
Barudak posted:It uses a cantilever design. The blockages are caused by art touches and sports bars. Somebody has made some poor decisions.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 23:52 |
|
|
MrBling posted:Seperate sponsors for league and cups. Levy is playing his favourite money game. ENIC own part of Autonomy. The owners are effectively sponsoring themselves.
|
| # ? Jul 8, 2010 23:55 |
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Somebody has made some poor decisions. It's classic baseball stadium design that brings back warm feelings about glory days gone by. Sort of like terraces, except nobody died in an obstructed view seat. And you're paying $10 for beer.
|
| # ? Jul 9, 2010 01:10 |
|
|
Nothus posted:It's classic baseball stadium design that brings back warm feelings about glory days gone by. Some people are mugs. Would cholera bring back warm feelings about days gone by too?
|
| # ? Jul 9, 2010 06:35 |
|
|
Nothus posted:It's classic baseball stadium design that brings back warm feelings about glory days gone by. Sort of like terraces, except nobody died in an obstructed view seat. And you're paying $10 for beer. The days of 60+ HR seasons as the wind tunnels funneled balls over the fence that appears to be actively decreasing in distance the longer the game goes on. 
|
| # ? Jul 9, 2010 06:38 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 23:46 |
|
|
Mickolution posted:Yeah, I could be way off here and I'm not really sure where I got the idea from, but I thought that people are much more "into" their college teams the way people are here about their clubs, whereas with teams being able to move and stuff like that, the bond is less for the likes of the NFL, resulting in fans being less rabid in their support. I could be wrong, but I've always gotten that impression. Of course fans of pro teams do care about the outcome, but they seem more into their college teams. It's a bit like people who passionately support their a perpetual League 2 team in England. It doesn't make a lot of sense to an outsider (especially if there's a top-flight team in the area) and they probably have another team that they semi-support in the top division (they at least have a few that they hate). But the reasons for "choosing" them are similar. Colleges and universities are inseparably linked to the community, and there is one or more in every city as opposed to the 32 (or less in the past) NFL franchises. In the past, a lot of people would get jobs and settle in the area after graduating and so fathers would take their sons to see "their" team because it was closer, cheaper and the father had a connection with it since he had gone there. This then becomes the son's team, and after high school a lot of them go to their local uni and the cycle continues. Of course there are people who grew up in an NFL market who are lifelong fans and passionate supporters ("real fans") but if you grew up in Oregon, which is a full day's drive from an NFL city, you're going to support the University of Oregon or Oregon State (pity the poor people in eastern Oregon). You might support the Seahawks in the postseason (after the college season is over) but in the summer all you'll be interested in is the new recruits.
|
| # ? Jul 9, 2010 07:21 |
|
