Manwiththeplan
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,175
- Reaction score
- 7,682
You must be talking to someone else.
Nope, talking to you...
You must be talking to someone else.
Lets face it, society pays for everything. That stadium .... what exactly do you think that stadium does for that community? How many jobs are created? How much tax revenue is generated? How much money is spent at local bars and restraunts? I fly to 3 or so games a year from California. Lets see. Care rental, hotel, meals, bar, game. I bring myself and normally 3 other people. Now how many other people from around the country do the same? Now look at all the non NFL events at AT&T. Raslin, concerts, NCAA games. AT&T is a year round venue, and Arlington and the surrounding areas benefit greatly by its' presence. It is a win win. Im not sure why people ***** about tax payers covering some of the costs. Tax payers benefit greatly. There are only 32 NFL teams. If your city has one, thank your lucky stars.I agree, but the real shame is the owner making billions and having the tax payer subsidizing their stadium.
https://www.google.com/search?q=spo...dium&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari
Luckily for them they have legions of fanboys and girls that cheer on these excesses and, in fact, get triggered by even the use of words like excess.
Not another Dak thread - but someone please explain to me, from the perspective of a pro athlete, just what makes $30 million/year so badly necessary more than $20 million/year?
Yes, I know, more is always better. Yes I know, inflation. But there is virtually nothing you can want with $30 million/year that you couldn't have with $20 million/year, especially considering that there is no state income tax in Texas (unlike, say, an athlete in California or New York). You want big mansions? You got 'em - you can buy several every year. You want Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, Corvettes, Bugattis, Maseratis? You can buy a dozen each year. You want hordes of women flocking to you? Well, you would have had that with even just $2 million a year, let alone $20 million. You want to send your kids to private school, make sure your family is financially set for life? Again, you sure don't need an income of $30 million a year to do that.
This isn't even taking into account the fact that many such athletes are making plenty of money on the side through advertisements, endorsements, and other ancillary income.
Where I'm going with this is: The difference between $20 million/year and $30 million/year is virtually nil for a pro athlete - either way, he's positively bathing in wealth. But it makes a big difference to a pro team's salary cap, on the other hand. The $10 million difference could mean the difference between an NFL team being able to sign additional talent that could propel them over the top, or not being able to.
Is it simply about "Such-and-such an athlete got so-and-so much, so I want just as much?" Or, "I want to be THE highest paid so I can feel like No. 1?"
Is there, like, a book that outlines the "market" somewhere? I keep hearing things like going rate and Market Value but I haven't really seen anything that dictates you have to pay anybody anything, in terms of set contract values.
IDK
Not another Dak thread - but someone please explain to me, from the perspective of a pro athlete, just what makes $30 million/year so badly necessary more than $20 million/year?
Yes, I know, more is always better. Yes I know, inflation. But there is virtually nothing you can want with $30 million/year that you couldn't have with $20 million/year, especially considering that there is no state income tax in Texas (unlike, say, an athlete in California or New York). You want big mansions? You got 'em - you can buy several every year. You want Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches, Corvettes, Bugattis, Maseratis? You can buy a dozen each year. You want hordes of women flocking to you? Well, you would have had that with even just $2 million a year, let alone $20 million. You want to send your kids to private school, make sure your family is financially set for life? Again, you sure don't need an income of $30 million a year to do that.
This isn't even taking into account the fact that many such athletes are making plenty of money on the side through advertisements, endorsements, and other ancillary income.
Where I'm going with this is: The difference between $20 million/year and $30 million/year is virtually nil for a pro athlete - either way, he's positively bathing in wealth. But it makes a big difference to a pro team's salary cap, on the other hand. The $10 million difference could mean the difference between an NFL team being able to sign additional talent that could propel them over the top, or not being able to.
Is it simply about "Such-and-such an athlete got so-and-so much, so I want just as much?" Or, "I want to be THE highest paid so I can feel like No. 1?"
But he risked everything to do it. Literally, everything he had. That is the reason he gets rewarded. Players didn't do that. That was all Jerry.
Throw in he has had to subsidize some bad ownership groups of other teams also. Some could say outside handful of teams the NFL would have folded up by now in today's climate unless of course others think the Browns, Bidwells, and others that ride the coat tails of the larger market teams really bring nothing to the table.
And an insult rap contest is out of the question because you are too much of an affable chap.
The Cowboys are probably in as good a position now as they have at any time since the Super Bowl years in the 1990's.
It still is though. Life changing injuries happen every year, look at Alex Smith or Ryan Shazier. There's injury that can affect future earnings during contract years, like torn ACL, Achilles etc. Then there's the cumulative effects of playing football that they will live with long after their playing days are over, bad knees, bad backs, bad shoulders, surgeries attributed to their playing days and the decreased life expectancy for playing such a physically demanding sport. They may be regulating the sport to make it safer than it once was, but there's still a great deal of risk and a short earning window.
I agree but we still need to win something.
It is an approximation of what you would get in free agency should you be free to sign anywhere. We see this set of value setting every offseason. Not typically for QBs but most certainly for almost every other position.
I’m not as certain of this anymore. It appears that financial success generating revenue isn’t as directly related to winning or success on the field.I agree but we still need to win something.
I hated that because the rich owners won all the time. There’s a reason they instituted a salary cap.
Lets face it, society pays for everything. That stadium .... what exactly do you think that stadium does for that community? How many jobs are created? How much tax revenue is generated? How much money is spent at local bars and restraunts? I fly to 3 or so games a year from California. Lets see. Care rental, hotel, meals, bar, game. I bring myself and normally 3 other people. Now how many other people from around the country do the same? Now look at all the non NFL events at AT&T. Raslin, concerts, NCAA games. AT&T is a year round venue, and Arlington and the surrounding areas benefit greatly by its' presence. It is a win win. Im not sure why people ***** about tax payers covering some of the costs. Tax payers benefit greatly. There are only 32 NFL teams. If your city has one, thank your lucky stars.
There is one sure fire way to find out what Dak is worth on the open market. If Dallas think he's asking for too much, don't give in. It's really that simple.