Gorringe: I'm disgusted, Port lied to me.

[Suit]

Just generate that value in your workplace and see how much youll get paid and how much more you would want.

Cry me a river.

Profitability has little to do with the actual product, but rather how the product (and means of production) is managed and marketed. Market factors (exposure, supply/demand, currency and commodity rates, government etc) also play a major part in determining profitability.

The only way a 'workforce' can influence (but not guarantee) profitability is through its own efficiency, or lack there of. Most individuals are happy to (solely) blame 'management' for losses (and rightfully so). Yet, it's these same individuals who claim an entitlement to profit, when it occurs. Yep, have that cake, and eat it too.

PowerForGood, are professional netballers a lesser form of athlete, because their sporting organisation does not generate the same amount of revenue/profit? Are these netballers responsible for the lack of market exposure, and subsequent lack of revenue/profit and outside investment?

 

[PowerForGood]

Cry me a river.

Profitability has little to do with the actual product, but rather how the product (and means of production) is managed and marketed. Market factors (exposure, supply/demand, currency and commodity rates, government etc) also play a major part in determining profitability.

The only way a 'workforce' can influence (but not guarantee) profitability is through its own efficiency, or lack there of. Most individuals are happy to (solely) blame 'management' for losses (and rightfully so). Yet, it's these same individuals who claim an entitlement to profit, when it occurs. Yep, have that cake, and eat it too.

PowerForGood, are professional netballers a lesser form of athlete, because their sporting organisation does not generate the same amount of revenue/profit? Are these netballers responsible for the lack of market exposure, and subsequent lack of revenue/profit and outside investment?

Nonsense argument. Generating profit involves providing value for the market. Not necessarily better quality or efficiency. Footballers generate a more valuable product than netballers. Not better, just more valuable.

 

[Suit]

Footballers generate a more valuable product than netballers. Not better, just more valuable.

How? Due to their indivdual efforts on the sportingfield? Oh, please.

Let's forget the fact that Aussie Rules is a more commercially viable sport (which has little to do with today's crop of players), and that the AFL is a well run (strictly, from a commercial point of view) enterprise.

AFL footballers are already well paid. The fact the league is highly profitable, has little to do with said footballers individual input.

 

[PowerForGood]

How? Due to their indivdual efforts on the sportingfield? Oh, please.

Let's forget the fact that Aussie Rules is a more commercially viable sport (which has little to do with today's crop of players), and that the AFL is a well run (strictly, from a commercial point of view) enterprise.

AFL footballers are already well paid. The fact the league is highly profitable, has little to do with said footballers individual input.

Footballers play football. No one else.
AFL footballers are the best at playing football. They produce the product we watch. If anyone could produce that same quality valued product that urges people would put their hard earned into, they would.

If you think that the AFL football economy would survive in another form without AFL footballers, then good luck to you.

 

[Suit]

If you think that the AFL football economy would survive in another form without AFL footballers, then good luck to you.

I never said that, you have obviously misinterpreted my posts.

Why does the AFL produce more revenue than the NRL. Because of the players?

Is the reason why the Collingwood Football Club is (now) so financially successful, due to the players? Then by that very implication, the reason why CFC was on its knees in the 90s, was also because of the players? Am I doing this right?

 

[AstonSouffle]

I never said that, you have obviously misinterpreted my posts.

Why does the AFL produce more revenue than the NRL. Because of the players?

Is the reason why the Collingwood Football Club is (now) so financially successful, due to the players? Then by that very implication, the reason why CFC was on its knees in the 90s, was also because of the players? Am I doing this right?

Not sure why you guys were arguing, you're both right.

You aren't going to generate revenue without a product. For example it stands to reason if I was in the business of selling chocolate bars, I'd need chocolate to sell. But how do I make more money than my competitors? Having the best chocolate isn't the binding factor, there's plenty of other factors such as price, marketing, finding the right audience etc etc.

 

[suspect footskills]

Just on that rant on page one of the thread he sounds like a deadest oxygen thief and my boys afterbirth would have been a more deserving member of society. Ranting on about a missed order... F*ck knuckle...

 

[Suit]

You aren't not going to generate revenue without a product.

I never claimed that.

Seriously, I don't know where you, or PFG got that idea from. My initial post referred to profitability, not revenue. And whilst both profit and revenue are related, they are two distinct concepts.

Of course you need a product to generate revenue, AstonSouffle. However, it is the market that dictates the amount of revenue that can be generated. And it's the managerial processes implemented, during the procurement of said revenue, that determines the amount of profit made.

Just because the players are required part of the game (the product), doesn't mean they are responsible for the amount of revenue the market has to offer, nor the amount of profit the League makes.

Not sure why you guys were arguing, you're both right.

Well...

....the impact on the economy that those few players playing football generate. Gate, venues, merchandising, tv rights, radio, newspaper, internet, bigfooty, advertising, gambling. Just generate that value in your workplace and see how much youll get paid and how much more you would want.

Has a faint smell of socialistic rhetoric. Hence my objection.

 

[AstonSouffle]

Of course you need a product to generate revenue, AstonSouffle. However, it is the market that dictates the amount of revenue that can be generated. And it's the managerial processes implemented, during the procurement of said revenue, that determines the amount of profit made.

Just because the players are required part of the game (the product), doesn't mean they are responsible for the amount of revenue the market has to offer, nor the amount of profit the League makes.

Er spot on? What are you in furious agreement with me or something?

Has a faint smell of socialistic rhetoric. Hence my objection.

I literally just noticed you've got quote there from Ayn Rand of all people. Geez louise, I imagine you've got a lot more objections to socialism than you've let on.

 

[Suit]

Er spot on? What are you in furious agreement with me or something?

Not furious at all . Posted that part for the benefit of another.

I literally just noticed you've got quote there from Ayn Rand of all people. Geez louise, I imagine you've got a lot more objections to socialism than you've let on.

Hahaha, I just like that quote. Rand's 'philosophy' is another thing entirely. To be honest, Rand's substance lacking ramblings, leave a lot to be desired.

Much more of a Hayek, von Mises, and Friedman fan.

 

[rodent killer]

Sounds like a Grade-A bellend.

Portz don't need shitstains like him ruining their culture, shown sweet jack shit at AFL level anyway. Go back to the SANFL you pleb.

sounds like a douchbag but his one claim to fame is his name is the only word that rymes with orange!!!

 

[PowerForGood]

I never claimed that.

Seriously, I don't know where you, or PFG got that idea from. My initial post referred to profitability, not revenue. And whilst both profit and revenue are related, they are two distinct concepts.

Of course you need a product to generate revenue, AstonSouffle. However, it is the market that dictates the amount of revenue that can be generated. And it's the managerial processes implemented, during the procurement of said revenue, that determines the amount of profit made.

Just because the players are required part of the game (the product), doesn't mean they are responsible for the amount of revenue the market has to offer, nor the amount of profit the League makes.



Well...


Has a faint smell of socialistic rhetoric. Hence my objection.

Wow. You're funny. Arguing that more money coukd go to the rare few people who create the product that attracts so much attention and upon which a sporting economy is based, is vaguely socialist? Oh dear. ..

 

[Suit]

Arguing that more money coukd go to the rare few people who create the product that attracts so much attention and upon which a sporting economy is based, is vaguely socialist?

Your original argument was based on the premise that because one is employed (and already paid for their services) in profitable industry, they are basically entitled to a share of said profits. That is pure rhetoric. There are too many factors (both internal and external) involved and too many decisions made by others 'down-the-line' that are responsible for this amount of revenue and subsequent profit made.

My issue isn't with your opinion that players could be paid more. It is just that your reasoning behind this opinion is somewhat simplistic and near-sighted. I reiterate:

Just because the players are a required part of the game (the product), doesn't mean they are responsible for the amount of revenue the market has to offer, nor the amount of profit the League makes.

However, I am fully aware that my thoughts on this matter may put me at odds with the traditional (somewhat generalised) supporter base of the PAFC.