Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > Sports Bar & Grill
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-15-2010, 05:42 AM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani View Post
LOL

Selig is commissioner. He has interest in the brewers. Fact? Yes.

Selig's brewers benefit from revenue sharing. Fact? Yes.

Selig has been pushing revenue sharing for the last 20 years. Fact? Yes.

Revenue sharing has been a hot topic in baseball and there has been a big fight over the years. Fact? Yes.

So does Selig have any Agenda? LOL. No, I guess not.
Bud Selig sold his interest of the brewers 5 years ago
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-15-2010, 11:25 AM
dalakhani's Avatar
dalakhani dalakhani is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 5,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
Bud Selig sold his interest of the brewers 5 years ago
The "arcitcle" that you googled was from 2006. The numbers were from the preceeding years. Try again.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-15-2010, 11:41 AM
dalakhani's Avatar
dalakhani dalakhani is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 5,277
Default

There is no doubt that the NFL has been a much better run organization than Major league baseball over the last 40 years. There is also little question that football's moves including revenue sharing, tv contracts and overall marketing has been far better than the MLB. I am not in any way saying that TV alone set football apart.

However, I don't think the rev sharing was the primary force as I thought you had said. If I misread that, then this is all moot.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-15-2010, 04:52 PM
clyde's Avatar
clyde clyde is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Welsh Pride!
Posts: 13,837
Default

^^^^Frumped and frustrated for lack of Peanuts Pud to fly from boat.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-17-2010, 07:01 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani View Post
The "arcitcle" that you googled was from 2006. The numbers were from the preceeding years. Try again.
Oct of 2007 isn't 2006. And why would it matter anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-17-2010, 07:18 PM
dalakhani's Avatar
dalakhani dalakhani is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 5,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
Oct of 2007 isn't 2006. And why would it matter anyway?
Because the question is what reason would he have to pump up the numbers.

The rev sharing in baseball was a very heated topic and will be Selig's legacy. Of course its going to be presented in the best light possible. Its kind of like the numbers on the economy.

The NFL doesn't publish their total rev numbers and with a new CBA looming the last thing those owners want to show is how much they are taking in.

The point is that baseball isn't close to the net rev the NFL is taking in and it really isn't debatable.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-17-2010, 07:31 PM
herkhorse's Avatar
herkhorse herkhorse is offline
Flemington
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gonesville
Posts: 11,422
Default

^^^^^

You guys are Like Carville and Matalin
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-17-2010, 08:12 PM
Cannon Shell's Avatar
Cannon Shell Cannon Shell is offline
Sha Tin
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 20,855
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalakhani View Post
Because the question is what reason would he have to pump up the numbers.

The rev sharing in baseball was a very heated topic and will be Selig's legacy. Of course its going to be presented in the best light possible. Its kind of like the numbers on the economy.

The NFL doesn't publish their total rev numbers and with a new CBA looming the last thing those owners want to show is how much they are taking in.

The point is that baseball isn't close to the net rev the NFL is taking in and it really isn't debatable.
Which makes my point for me, thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-17-2010, 08:29 PM
dalakhani's Avatar
dalakhani dalakhani is offline
Del Mar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Washington dc
Posts: 5,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell View Post
Which makes my point for me, thanks.
Yeeeahhh....okay then.

That stupid article you posted says that it is. Regardless...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-17-2010, 09:06 PM
clyde's Avatar
clyde clyde is offline
Saratoga
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Welsh Pride!
Posts: 13,837
Default

..uh-oh...
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.