1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!

    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Packers delighted in new CBA deal --- ???

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by IPBprez, Mar 9, 2006.

  1. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
  2. route25

    route25 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    162
    Ratings:
    +0
    In the short term, having an agreement hurts the Packers because it gets teams like Washington, teams that are way over the cap, off the hook. In the long term though, any deal that preserves the salary cap and current revenue sharing plan is good for the Packers. :joy:
     
  3. CaliforniaCheez

    CaliforniaCheez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Yes and under the new deal a high revenue team like the Packers has to give money to the deadbeat-lowest revenue-highest proportion of debt team, the vikings.

    I don't mind sharing with Buffalo and San Diego whose markets are constrained by geography.

    I hope other teams remember should the Packers ever have the need. Ideally the teams will be somewhat cyclical in revenue. For example as new stadiums are constructed they will rise to the top and as they age decend in revenue.

    Washington has a natural advantage as every lobbyist in the capital will want a luxury box to host Congressmen and Senators to games. New York and Chicago with large populations can charge higher prices until only a small percentage of the population can afford to attend yet still fill the stadium.

    In the long run it keeps things more competitive and is good for the Packers. Short term like the next 2 years it is a disadvantage for the Packers. The only thing I would like to see is a longer time in the league before a player can be a free agent. Five years would be better as fewer rookies would be playing and the quality of football would go up. Now I think signing bonuses can agin be amortized over 5 years and rookies can be signed for up to 7 years. Agents never go for that be cause the history of salaries is very inflationary.

    Remind a viking fan that the Packers are taxed to keep their team on "welfare".
     
  4. IPBprez

    IPBprez Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,883
    Ratings:
    +5
    I would add a couple of items here ------

    1. The Packers have what's called the "Halll of Fame" Football venue
    2. Without the basis for maintaining this superior fan base - where would Green Bay be?
    3. Is it an oxy-moron to call a small town (102,000) team, a high-revenue team?

    Number two on this list is probably the most important.

    The Packers are always looked at as David... versus all the other Goliaths - that's why everyone luvs to watch the Pack. It's the little guy, all bloodied, yet still coming out on top. Without it, this Team would have folded right about the same time as the Decatur Staleys.

    Of all the football venues - everyone (to a man) remarks how you should always take in at least one game at Lambeau - Arrowhead being Number Two.

    Number three on the list is the kicker I guess - can you imagine where the Packers would be if the rest of the NFL were to copy our template for internal organization - no single owner, rather a Committee / a board of Directors w/ Fans owning stock in this Corporation at 1265 Lombardi Ave.

    I aspect they'd be at the bottom of the heap... wouldn't you?

    I guess I'll never call the Packers a high-revenue team, even if they are.

    Without the fans, Green Bay falls off the map - Way to go, Curly!
     
  5. PackFaninBucLand

    PackFaninBucLand Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    128
    Ratings:
    +1
    The market for the Pack is the states of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and some parts of Illinois and Michigan. It also encompasses, in a lesser part, Canada, Europe and South America.
     
  6. digsthepack

    digsthepack Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,486
    Ratings:
    +0
    Agreed Bucland. Even though the town is small, the Pack is worldwide, moreso than any other team in the league. As a result, we consistently have on of the highest revenue streams from merchandise/licensing agreements. It is in the best long-term interest to contribute, because we can and should. If that ever changes, I am sure we will benefit from this agreement.

    Good job!
     
  7. warhawk

    warhawk Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,922
    Ratings:
    +38
    The down side is only short term but in reality not that much. Other teams are provided a little more cushion and we already had one but it also gives us that same extra amount in our cofer as well.

    It does gives teams an opportunity to up the anty on a few top FA's that they otherwise wouldn't have had a chance to obtain.

    That little edge we lose this year is a drop in the bucket compared to what it does to allow us to be competive in years to come.

    Short term though, it will mean dealing with Kampy, and others, will be a more expensive proposition.
     
  8. Chamuko

    Chamuko Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    1,067
    Ratings:
    +0
    Boy the Packers ARE THE PACKERS AND WILL BE THE PACKERS, the team to beat, the small David vs the big and ugly Goliats around the league.

    You can see Packer shirts and jerseys and jackets a lot in México.

    By the way I feel that this deal is good for the Pack, maybe not in 2006 but will certainly be for 2007 and beyond, keeping the cap really keeps this sport competitive.. And that I really like about football !!!

    Imagine being a Viqueen fan, never had a SB ring so you hate your neighbor that has plenty, having the worts staidium in NFL so you hat your neighbor that plays in Lambeau, having one of the ugliest uniforms in sports worldwide so you hate your neighbor that wear that beautiful green and gold,,,,, and on top of it you make little money so you hate your neighbor who makes much more than what you make and to add insult to injury your hatred neighbor provides cash so you can remain alive.. Ja, Ja, Ja, so this queenies are not even good enough to feed themselves !!!!

    Go Pack Go.
     
  9. yooperfan

    yooperfan Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2004
    Messages:
    1,900
    Ratings:
    +0
    The only downside in my opinion is having to prop up the Vikings, other than that it is business as usual.
    There won't be as many high priced free agents to choose from but so what.
    In the long run it is better for the Green Bay Packers.
     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,078
    Ratings:
    +0
    Today the Packers are a HIGH revenue team -- but a big part of that is a tax supported state of the Art stadium rebuild with high revenue luxury boxes. There high revenue is also a result of their success during the Favre days -- the winningest football team of their era -- which fueled product buying (posters, shirts, hats, logo items).

    Before the Packers recent winning role, the stock selling/fund raising, government subsidies... the Packers were one of the lowest revenue teams. These things can go in cycles. As new stadiums are built -- team revenues automatically rise. The same with winning and losing. Beyond the die-hard fans (like all of you) the more causal bandwagon fans -- jump from winner to winner.

    The Packers were 4 - 12, any kind of a repeat and the possible retirement of Brett Favre can quickly send the Pack back in the revenue Pack.

    The CBA is very good for the Packers in the long run.
     
  11. gopackgo4

    gopackgo4 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,080
    Ratings:
    +0
    The huge downside is that we have more money but so do other teams so they wont have to cut as many people
     

Share This Page