Actually, I'm not really concerned about Jolly because with no cap pending he will only qualify for RFA. Pickett is the guy to lock up right now with the extra cap money for 09.

Collins, Colledge, Spitz, Jolly may all see one year deals next season. But Uncle Ted needs to get off his ass and lock somebody down and spend that remainder cap. Not spending it is unacceptable.

---

This I agree with.. that there are better ways to divide up whom gets the tickets..

On the ticket prices, I guarantee there is lots of thought and careful migration of increases in ticket prices in regards to the Packers. It is a publicly held company, owned by the people. And increasing ticket prices just to increase the bottom line isn't going to go over well.

And, furthermore.. if the base ticket prices rise, you think your scalped tickets won't?

We have a good problem going for the most part.. and I am still years away from getting my season tickets.. more so for my children than me.

---

What cap?

The cap is no longer relevant, and it never really was all that relevant when you factor in the various machinations of many teams.

Those numbers I posted were the actual cash outlays (salary cap thread) NOT the salary cap. We have had a 50 million dollar disparity between us and the top spending teams while under the auspices of a salary cap. There is no cap in what we are talking about here, which is the retention of our existing players, coupled with remaining financially competitive under the new economic paradigm which will exist going forward.

Just because some teams might opt to reduce their payroll under the new system---That doesn't mean that they will be competitive---It MIGHT, but all things being equal, you gotta HAVE the money to PAY the money.

We are talking about the meat and potato part of a small market publicly owned team. That 94 mil salary and 4 mil profit is really the only numbers needed to figure out the problem. The cap number means nothing. The 240 whatever gross revenue means nothing. The bottom line is what matters. Some have pointed out the nature of the ownership, and how that would preclude what I and (one) other are advocating.

"Tightwad Ted" is under a constraint that no other GM is. His boss is under the same one. The NUMBER ONE responsibility of those gentlemen is a FIDUCIARY one. That team canot lose money. They came CLOSE last year, with (almost) the lowest payroll in the league.

A Jerry Jones can hit and miss. He can have OODLES of dead money...

He can have a 140 mil + actual payroll...Not only due to revenues, but it's his own play money.

Not a luxury for a Mark Murphy and co. They are the ones in charge of "franchise husbandry" of the Green Bay Packers.

Any perceived responsibilities to the fanbase are infinitesimal in comparison, public statements to the contrary notwithstanding...

They do a great job of making everyone think they own that team, but the fact is...They are nowhere near being owned in any real sense by the citizens or the fans, including the stockholders.

If we want to talk about who owns what...We should probably change the team name to the Green Bay Amorphous owners. Everyone owns nothing, and the GD FO better not screw anything up too bad financially, or the ghosts are gonna get 'em. :thumbleft:

That is just the reality of it.

I know this might sound a little odd, but an uncapped life in the NFL I don't think is going to be a long term situation.

Either side is that boneheaded to realize that the cap has driven this league to heights unthinkable 25 to 30 years ago.. it is the best model in sports for all parties.. and they know it.

Now the last CBA with the record increases in Cap requirements is at the heart of the issue, coupled with some adjustments desired int he game day revenues in which we have been speaking about. Along with the spiraling contracts of rookies coming into the league.

The Jones of the world want to keep their revenues from the stadium and ticket sales.. where as they are now spread across the entire ownership base. That will put the pressure back upon the teams to take care of their own fan base and keep them coming to the parks.

I know the players are saying once there is no cap.. it isn't coming back.. that type of talk is nonsense. That will fold in a hurry.. and both sides know it. Why do you think the players are pushing for talks now.. because at least currently they have the threat of such a proclamation.

Now.. onto next season.. if the CBA is not redone.. like Dakota said, there is no issue next season. But I hate to see what happens if we go uncapped and then try to enforce a cap again with teams having overages all around.. well probably only one in Big D.

Personally, I think the world of sports is going to changes in the next couple of season with the economy shifting and almost every operation needs to rethink how they do business.

---

Wade you have miscalculated. GB requires season ticket holders to pay full price for the preseason games as well. One game for Green package and one game for the Gold package. It doesn't matter to them that the game is more of a minor league game than a real NFL game. It costs the same.

---

I think the millions saved with having a rookie standardized wage that will go to the veterans will help things.

---

What's the waiting list now? 50,000? That's 50,000 more people who are willing to pay the face value of tickets right now than are getting them. And between those 50,000 and the 72,500 who now get tickets, I'm betting that there are at least 80,000 who are willing to pay a hefty premium over today's face value.

As for the other sales (jerseys, whatnot, fanfest, etc). MOST OF THOSE ARE SOLD TO PEOPLE WHO CANT GET INTO THE STADIUM ON GAME DAY now. Those people who bought those "shares" when they had the "public offering" a few years ago. Lots of those people DONT GO TO GAMES EITHER.

I was in my chiropractor's office yesterday reading a magazine story about Monte Carlo. Yeah, I've always dreamed of going to Monte Carlo, hobnobbing with the rich and shameless on their yachts and watching the grand prix with supermodels in string bikinis. But it ain't ever going to happen no matter what. But you know what, I'm still going to read stories about it. I'm still going to watch the grand prix on TV.

If I invest in a company, profit or non-profit, I want that company to pursue its prime objective. If it's a profit-seeking company, that's getting as much profit as it can. If it's a not-for-profit, like the Packers, that's whatever the objective of the not-for-profit is, stopping cancer or helping the poor or whatever.

And IMO, the objective of the Green Bay Packers Football Organization should be to do whatever it can to put a team on the field that beats the crap out of the Cowgirls and the Vikings and the Bears and the Dolts and all the rest. A team that doesn't just look cool in Green and Gold and doesn't just play in The Shrine in front of the Elect and the Fortunate of Wisconsin 8-10 times a years. A team that contends for championships with regularity for the worldwide faithful of millions.

And if doing that means playing in a league with clubs owned by gazillionaires, it isn't good practice to leave millions of dollars on the table out of some vague notion of "public service" to the people of Wisconsin.

Yeah, you don't have to be the biggest spender to win in the NFL. I get that. But put it this way: if you're pursuing the prime objective of yours, whatever it is, and I offer you 6 million extra to do it, why in the world would you turn it down?

"Wade, you've just won the lottery. Come and get your check for $98 million."
"That's okay. Bill Polian gets by with just $92 million. Keep the extra $6 million to keep financing the Powerball lottery."

No. Effing. Way.

---

Ah. But that means they (the Packers) are leaving more money on the table, not less, doesn't it?

---

I do too, Zero. (The rookie thing, in case someone posted while I was typing)

The position that many of the player's agents, along with the NFLPA, has historically taken on that issue has been absolutely ridiculous.

I think that was due in large part because Gene Upshaw (rip) was an exceptional bullshit artist.

Even that bs will not stand anymore, imo. A positive benefit of the information age. We probably know more about caps, the CBA, etc. than half the agents did 15 years ago. The public has spoken, and the NFLPA is going to have to cave on that one. Hopefully it will assist in negating some of the greed of the players, but then you gotta start looking a baseball, which will only just make you nervous again.

To Wade-- I spent a Christmas on the Riv.<--- not hob-knobbin' --jarheadin'

Female hairy armpit epicenter of the planet.

I have been all through France, and we know about that reputation, but I'm tellin' ya-- It is those Monte Carlo / Monaco / Nice corridor hairy armpit girls that did the whole country in, reputation-wise... I'm just sayin' lol

I've a question for all you parents out there.

Do kids still play baseball/softball as much as they did when you were kids?

Here's why I ask: I'm with everyone else in hoping that the NFL never goes the way of MLB. I barely notice MLB anymore, and I used to know every player on every roster in the NL West between the days of Koufax/Drysdale and Sutton/Hershiser. And I can see myself doing the same with regard to the Packers did the NFL go that direction. I could care less about the Dodgers now. I could care less about the world series or batting averages or steroids or mvps or any of the rest. I could care less which MLB franchises are economically sound and which are on the brink of bankruptcy. I just care less.

If the NFL goes that way, I'll be pissed. But I'll find other things to do on Sunday afternoons in November just as I've found other thigns to do on Saturday afternoons in July. I'll be nostalgic, but I'll get over it.

On the other hand, I do care whether kids are still playing football on sandlots and in town parks. Not the kind of organized football with screaming parents and neat chalk lines, but the kinds of pickup games we used to play using wadded up jackets to show sidelines and endzones.

Just as I care about whether kids are still playing unorganized baseball out there on streets or in those same parks.

Hence my question: Has the decline in the value of MLB been accompanied by a falloff in kids playing baseball and softball? If the NFL fucks itself up, will that reduce how much kids play pickup games of football?

---