The problem is if there is no new CBA there isn't going to much in the way of free agent talent available.

No CBA sees many free agents become restricted free agents and it also gives teams an extra tag to use.

That means most players won't qualify for the open market and the good ones that do will be tagged.

On the plus side it means no cap and therefore we can probably re-sign as many of our pending restricted/free agents as we like (Spitz, Colledge, Collins, Jolly, Chillar etc) and then possibly tag Kampman and/or Pickett.

---

hehe...well, you didn't see my #1, which is "major action both in free agency and draft with respect to the OL". I cannot believe that "Spitz" and "Colledge" are going to be the best available at OL.

As for "not much available"....well, the economist in me just says that means you have to be willing to pay even more for what is available.

If you want to compete in formula one, you can't do it with a dirt track spending philosophy.

---

Hey Wade- :pottytrain1: :pottytrain2: :pottytrain1: :pottytrain2: :pottytrain1: :pottytrain2: :pottytrain1: :pottytrain2:

---

But there is a rub here.. and it is simply that the public or seat holders as you will own the franchise already via local tax base and there invoice for the tickets already.

So while the Packers admission is a value in the overall landscape of the sporting market, you the ownership of the Packers really stand for that type of increase.

It is this unique situation that really keeps some of the checks and balances in place for the Packers... and in my opinion with some of the inflated prices around the NFL market, how much money some of the true owners of this league are pocketing yearly.. that is with the cap in place holding the most costly expense relatively even across the league.

Another reason why the revenue sharing aspect of the league is both fair and unfair in some terms. Without the revenue sharing in place, this inflation of ticket prices might become a reality to remain competitive in the league.. either that or expand the stadium yet again.

---

IMO: Job 1 of Packers and its "ownership": put together a consistent championship contender for the millions of Packer fans out there. Not to provide "affordable outdoor entertainment" for 70 thousand or so attendees at 8-10 games/year. If being a championship contender requires competing with those deep pocket owners, it makes no sense to me that the team is leaving all that revenue unrealized.

Consider a ten-buck increase per ticket. $10 x 72,500 seats x 8 games. That's a cool $5.8 million bucks per year foregone. A twenty-buck increase is 11.6 million missed.

If I were a rich bastard owner (see Jones, Jerry; Snyder, Dan; et al), I'd object the heck out of "sharing revenue" with people who leave 5.8 - 11.6 million unrealized every year.

And if I were a public funding agency (ack, choke, vomit), I'd sure as heck not be paying public funds to enterprises that are squandering multi-million dollar opporutunities every year.

Oh, it's nice to brag about all those years of sellouts and a zillion-person waiting list. But it's damn bad economics. Having a waiting list makes sense -- it's a cushion against downturns, bad seasons,etc. But a waiting list that takes a generation or more to move to the top of the list? That's just dumb.

p.s. Nice butts, wpr.

---

But Wade, you are forgetting about the Tundra Sales, the Fan Fest revenues from not just the same ticket holder base, but the extended fan base as well. There are other

Is it bad economics.. maybe in a sense that you note.. leaving revenue upon the table.

But considering that the revenue is being taken from a portion of the ownership group is a delicate line the board must walk.

Here is my point to it all though, in years where we were paying the max cap, we were still pocketing a pretty healthy bottom line. And raising ticket prices just to increase that bottom line isn't going to fly well with a publicly owned franchise.

BTW.. we are not the issue in the revenue sharing debates, it is the clubs that can't fill their seats weekly that are the targets, see Jones own words towards our neighbors to the West a little..

---

BTW.. it is not a financial restraint in the traditional sense of overall monetary budget the will keep us from inking both players, it is the constraint of the overall cap and budget proportions along the different units of this ball club.

We have two very well paid players along the defensive line already in Jenkins and Raji.. so can we really afford to pay premium money for 2 more when we only play three on a every down sense?

IMO, there has to be balance in how you budget these dollars out on the roster... too heavy in one area will create a shortage in another.

---

20% on the brews and brats as well. 94 mil payroll. Cowboys around 150. We made 4 mil net last year. Stick all that in your econ machine as well, factoring in product costs (Read PLAYERS salaries). Last I checked, the better they are, the more they cost. I don't think many have checked up on that...They want all our players to go to the pro-bowl, as a "for instance"

Small market--- Reduced potential revenue streams

Passionate fanbase----Milk 'em dry!

From an econimics standpoint, a STRONG argument exists that we should have the HIGHEST ticket and concession prices in the entire NFL.

"Blue-collar" sensibilities aside, BUSINESS is BUSINESS, and I'm in the business of wanting my Packers to be the best team in the NFL..after all, it's what I do for a living, lol.

I don't think it is fair that I have to go to a visitors stadium to see the Packers. I pay fair market prices for good seats, but I have to pay scalper prices just to see the Packers at home and all I get is end zone seat.

I think the argument about local taxes is weak because they would be paying them anyway for something else in a city the size of GB. Packer fans outside of Green Bay and Wisconsin purchase plenty of merchandise to support the Packers.

A certain percentage of season tickets should go to a lottery for only those living outside of Wisconsin. There isn't anything fair about how they do things now. I'd pay double the listed price for one season of tickets that some lucky person inherited.

---

Aren't we under the cap by 20 some million? Front load their contracts like we've done in the past. And I do believe the DL is that important. Afterall, its said that everything starts in the trenches, right? So, sure up the trenches and it should be a domino effect.

Better DL, makes your LB better, which in turn makes your secondary better.
Better OL, makes your protection better, which makes your QB and WR better.
Better OL, makes your running game better, which opens up the passing game.

Etc ...

---