- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 5,824
- Points
- 113
Jones, Kraft and Snyder disagree with you.
How about if the Rooneys decided to move the team to L.A.? If it was good business, they'd be stupid not to, right?
Wal Mart Usually Scummy Corp. Does 1 Thing Right by Turning on Christian Fascists
- Thread starter Elfiero
- Start date
Jones, Kraft and Snyder disagree with you.
How about if the Rooneys decided to move the team to L.A.? If it was good business, they'd be stupid not to, right?
You're comparing apples to oranges. See what I mean about understanding business?
First, Walmart is a publicly traded company. The NFL is a private organization. The NFL is a franchise model, Walmart is not. You're comparing a dump truck to a motorcycle.
OFTB's touched on this, but let me add. As a franchise model, the NFL puts teams in cities to promote its overall business. They are careful about where teams exist, the markets, the overlap of TV coverage, etc. They take great care and control of the franchise model. So too, for instance, does a McDonalds. You can't just sign up to get a McDonalds franchise and plop it down wherever you want. They will tell you where they believe you can put one - if there is opening in your area. It can't be too close to another one, for instance, unless there is traffic to support it. They also won't allow price wars between the franchises. They don't allow one McDonalds to try to put another McDonalds out of business. This is a parallel to a salary cap for instance, and revenue sharing. By having all of the franchises competitive, the overall business improves. And you don't allow one franchise to crush the others. It ruins your overall business if you allow competition like that between franchises.
If you want to make an analogy to the big guys getting rich and the smaller guys losing out, look at the Seattle Supersonics. Or the St. Louis Cardinals and the city of St. Louis for decades when the Bidwells left for Arizona. The owners of those franchises, primarily for financial reasons, left to take their teams to other cities where they could make even more money, or land lucrative stadium deals or tax breaks. The losers were the cities that couldn't line their pockets as well. But the league had to approve the moves, and in the end, they did. Those cities lost out.
Your mentality is that shouldn't happen. Teams shouldn't be able to improve if anyone or anything else is hurt along the way. Walmart shouldn't come to town and drive a mom & pop out of business. Likewise, a better business model has driven teams (with league approval) from once city to another. Leaving one city and it's fans high & dry, like a mom & pop. Those cities aren't any different than the mom & pops, if you want to make an analogy.
If you want to make a public business analogy, compare publicly traded firms to each other, both being franchise or non-franchise models. Then we'll have a business discussion.
The real crux of the discussion should be, from your POV I'm guessing, is how do you stop a better business model from putting older business models out of business - cuz that just ain't fair.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 5,824
- Points
- 113
The Packers are publicly traded, aren't they?
My point is that the NFL is restraining capitalism with the salary cap and revenue sharing. I would think you would object to this. If you don't, you have parted ways with the wealthier owners and the players when it comes to opinions about the merits of unrestrained capitalism.
The NFL isn't so careful about what cities have franchises. They have been very accommodating in letting teams pack up and move - about a third of them have done so.
The NFL is very interested in having a franchise in L.A. Market is a huge part of a business model. Would you support the Rooney's moving the Steelers to much bigger, much wealthier L.A.? Or is that where your support of unrestrained capitalism ends?
The NFL isn't exactly a normal business model because the number of franchises is limited, therefore it isn't really capitalism from the get-go because no just anyone can open up an NFL franchise. In that case, a salary cap and revenue sharing IS how you ensure equal opportunity.
NFL teams have been tried in L.A. My take is that there is simply too many other things for people to do, plus they have to fight heavy traffic every day going to work and don't feel like doing it on Sunday too.
NFL teams have been tried in L.A. My take is that there is simply too many other things for people to do, plus they have to fight heavy traffic every day going to work and don't feel like doing it on Sunday too.
You have to understand what a franchise is and look at the NFL and all it's teams (franchises) as one corporation.
A McDonalds franchise owner is nothing but a glorified manager that has to abide by and follow the rules, policies, and procedures set forth by the franchisor.. MCDonalds Corp.. He cant make up his own menu for example.
MCDonals Corp. sets forth policies (salary caps/maximum cook time for a burger) they deem makes McDonalds corporation as a whole successful....has nothing to do with "restraining capitalism". Same with a salary cap.
But yes...if the NFL deems a Steelers move to LA benefits the NFL, then Rooney would be given permission.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,125
- Reaction score
- 7,857
- Points
- 113
A company's decisions on how to run its own franchises are not "restraints on capitalism". When you buy an NFL team you agree to be bound by the terms the owners have voted on and agreed upon. If you don't want to be bound by those terms, you are free to create your own football team and call it the TFL Hippies. No one's restraining you from doing that. You probably won't be very successful at it because the NFL has invested decades and billions building up its franchise, but there is nothing stopping you from doing that.
You are so lost it is laughable. The NFL isn't restraining capitalism, the NFL is a business model built upon franchises.
Yet you continue to compare the apple to the orange.
How does one debate with someone who can't recognize logic?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 5,824
- Points
- 113
Yes, I understand the owners are bound by league rules, but the NFL isn't required to have a salary cap rule. I disagree that the salary cap is not a restraint on capitalism. It limits the owners investment in their franchises and the earning potential of the players. How is that not restraining capitalism?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 5,824
- Points
- 113
A business model that gives it's smaller markets like Pittsburgh protection from being dominated by it's larger markets. It interferes with the survival of the fittest in the interest of the weak.
Apples and oranges, indeed. Small businesses have no such protection against large corporations.
It's an analogy. I sympathize with the salary cap and revenue sharing rules like I do small businesses.
What you forgot to mention is the fact that once you get some real life experience behind that success, more than just competitors can feel the threats.
Wal-Mart suddenly closed 5 stores and laid off thousands of workers and no one knows why
Wal-Mart suddenly closed five stores in four states on Monday for alleged plumbing problems.
The closures could last up to six months and affect roughly 2,200 workers in Texas, California, Oklahoma, and Florida, CNN Money reports. All workers will receive paid leave for two months. After that, full-time workers could become eligible for severance, according to CNN Money. But part-time workers will be on their own.
A city official in Pico Rivera confirmed to CBS Los Angeles that the city has not received any permit requests for building repairs. A Wal-Mart spokesman told Consumerist that the company had not secured permits "because we have yet to know the full extent of the work that needs to be done. We may also have to do additional upgrades that may require additional permits."
Some employees believe that the stores were closed because of worker protests for higher pay.
Employees of the Pico Rivera store were among the first to hold Black Friday protests in 2012.
"This is the first store that went on strike," an employee told CBS Los Angeles. "This is the first store in demanding changes for Walmart."
http://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-suddenly-closes-stores-2015-4
So what's the moral of the story ?
My Momma used to tell me .."Keep messin' with me boy... I brought you into this world, I can take you out "
Then there's the story about the franchisor screwing the franchisee...
Some McDonald's franchisees are furious over the company's recent decision to raise wages for some employees. The pay raise affects only employees of company-owned restaurants, which account for one-tenth of the roughly 14,000 McDonald's restaurants in the US. The rest of McDonald's restaurants are owned by franchisees, who are now under pressure to raise wages for their employees.
But franchisees say they can't afford more payroll costs because sales are plunging and McDonald's corporate is bankrupting them with fees, aggressive promotions, and costly restaurant upgrades. The wage announcement "sent a wave through the operator community," the franchisee wrote. "An already-strained relationship was fractured and I don't know if they can recover."
http://www.businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-franchisees-against-pay-raise-2015-4
My Momma had a sayin' for that too..." 'cause I said so, that's why"
Last edited:
The NFL would not have been as accommodating about the Browns moving to say...Lewistown. The moves you reference were indeed allowed but only after the NFL granted its permission which was based in large part on whether the team would generate at least equal or greater revenue in the new location. That is a business owners prerogative.......to ensure maximum profits. The salary cap is most definitely a restriction on "free market capitalism" but it's a restriction within one business, not a restriction that impairs or impedes the success of a rival league or business. There is only one NFL.
I'd be incredibly pissed if the Steelers packed up and moved anywhere. But I fully support their right to do so.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 5,824
- Points
- 113
As do I, but I'm thankful the Rooney's haven't given capitalism priority in all of their decisions. I suspect they could have moved on to greener pastures 15 years ago.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 7,497
- Reaction score
- 5,032
- Points
- 113
Capitalism doesn't mean that you have to do everything possible to maximize profits. Capitalism is the ability to do it if YOU want too.
I thought it was for Operation Jade Helm and Wal-Mart was either forced or wanted to play nice with the govt and use the closed stores as warehouses and staging points for the military.
Where's Wig? We need a professional opinion on this.
You want the entire business world to be based on a franchise model? Outline how that works.
You want smaller markets protected by larger markets? Outline how that works. Is it geographically based? Is it based on company size? Or the # of mom & pops in one geographic area, or municipality? When would a K-Mart be allowed to set up shop under these rules, and when would it be prohibited?
How would you implement something like a salary cap and revenue sharing in your Unicorn World? Outline how that works. You would let Walmart earn say $XX/year and only that amount, then when they've made the $XX they have to close their doors till January 1 when they can re-open next year and stay open only until they've sold their cap?
That's sounds kinda retarded man. Capitalism is a system we all are a part of. Its not "priority" because its the only game in town...now if you had said that you're thankful Rooney isn't taking advantage of the capitalist system by maximizing his profits, then you would have had a coherent statement.
Capitalism is not only about what you liberals call "profiteering", it's about freedom.
Read up on the definition.....
Capitalism is a social system based on the principle of individual rights. Politically, it is the system of laissez-faire (freedom). Legally it is a system of objective laws (rule of law as opposed to rule of man). Economically, when such freedom is applied to the sphere of production its result is the free-market.
Last edited:
Last edited:
A DEPRESSION-ERA RELIC
The Export-Import Bank was incorporated in 1934 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to finance trade with the Soviet Union. Congress later constituted the bank as an independent agency under the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945. The most recent authorization of the Ex-Im Bank was set to expire on September 30, 2014, but lawmakers extended the charter until June 30, 2015. The bank provides loans and loan guarantees as well as capital and credit insurance to “facilitate” US exports. The financing is backed by the “full faith and credit” of the US government, which means taxpayers are on the hook for losses that bank reserves fail to cover. Ex-Im Bank’s current exposure exceeds $140 billion
That is until the Marxists put their stamp on it and start to 'lean on the scales' so to speak. Our current "know it all's " use the complicated and seldom heard of bank for cronyism and to do damage to the system.
Lobbying for reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), advocates emphasize its importance to small businesses and economic growth. A new analysis of government data reveals that Ex-Im Bank’s top 10 overseas buyers are large corporations that primarily purchase exports from multinational conglomerates. Furthermore, the subsidies lavished on these foreign firms actually undercut American companies and workers that must compete without such government assistance.
Five of the top 10 buyers are involved in the exploration, development, and production of oil or natural gas. These foreign concerns are collecting subsidies from American taxpayers at the same time that the Obama administration is restricting domestic oil and gas operations. Consequently, the federal government doubly disadvantages US energy firms—through Washington’s excessive regulation and Ex-Im Bank subsidies granted to US firms’ foreign competitors.
The other five top buyers are airlines that collectively have received more than $15 billion in Ex-Im Bank subsidies in the past seven years solely to purchase products from Boeing—the single largest US beneficiary of Ex-Im Bank financing. The bank’s subsidization of foreign airlines has tripled since 2008, significantly increasing competitive pressure on domestic carriers. In reality, Ex-Im Bank subsidies are a form of corporate welfare that is neither necessary nor appropriate.
The news agency determined that companies owned by billionaires such as Warren Buffett and Mexico’s Carlos Slim, as well as by Japanese and European conglomerates, were listed by Ex-Im Bank as small businesses.
http://click.heritage.org/lwHTl000ebjW0T3s40r0W0M
So the blame aimed at big box stores can be shared with big business, as they have managed to wrap their hands around a good chunk of our tax money before it get's a chance to benefit poor mom & pop. Hopefully it's about to end, we shall see
Last edited:
Very interesting, I haven't seen that before now...thanks JonBoy
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Ron Burgundy again
Is the rep thingy broke again...I/m seein' that message a lot lately
Hit me and I'll let ya know.......
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
- Messages
- 14,870
- Reaction score
- 5,824
- Points
- 113
No, but I sure as hell want the NFL to continue to restrain capitalism and interfere with natural order via the salary cap and revenue sharing. Jerry Jones disagrees with this. What's your take?
boxer briefs!...
I'm not sure i'd say the "vast majority" comes from China though...like i said...90-95% of my normal everyday purchases are the same brands i'd find at every other store...except most of the time...Walmart carries a bigger selection from those brands...
anywhere i go...i'm lining the owners pockets...if you don't want to do that...make your own ****...but every company is in business because of a thing called profit...
if you don't want to buy Chinese...don't buy it...
Similar threads
