PDA

View Full Version : Rick Reily lets owners have it



Crash
03-03-2011, 05:03 PM
Wow!

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=6177574

ScoreKeeper
03-03-2011, 05:23 PM
That's just crap. If these players would bank or invest their money instead of buying cars, houses, gold teeth, bling, and knocking up 8 women, they they too could reep the rewards of having money later in life.

Look at Carson Palmer. He has banked 80 million of his money so he can be in a position to say trade me or I retire. Then look at the likes of Ashawhatever who plays for the Jets, is flat broke, and can't even remember the names of all his bast ard kids. Pac Man at clubs "making it rain" while blowing his fortune, and trhe many other idiots who should have called an investment advisor insted of a call girl service.

Yes, more money needs put back into programs for retired players. Put all the fine money into a program for better benifits for those suffering from the effects of playing.

feltdizz
03-03-2011, 06:06 PM
That's just crap. If these players would bank or invest their money instead of buying cars, houses, gold teeth, bling, and knocking up 8 women, they they too could reep the rewards of having money later in life.

Look at Carson Palmer. He has banked 80 million of his money so he can be in a position to say trade me or I retire. Then look at the likes of Ashawhatever who plays for the Jets, is flat broke, and can't even remember the names of all his bast ard kids. Pac Man at clubs "making it rain" while blowing his fortune, and trhe many other idiots who should have called an investment advisor insted of a call girl service.

Yes, more money needs put back into programs for retired players. Put all the fine money into a program for better benifits for those suffering from the effects of playing.

Some players blow their money and some are responsible with it. Why is that crap? It's their money and they can do whatever they want with it.

You sound like the typical NFL player hater... pick out 2 or 3 bad apples and slap that label on the rest of the NFL.

How do you even know Pac Man and Ashawhatever are broke? Most NFL players who talk about being broke are usually comfortable compared to the average American.

The article makes perfect sense.... we look at the players and think they are being greedy or should be happy they are making money but the owners? How dare we question the wealth of the owners?

ScoreKeeper
03-03-2011, 06:11 PM
That's just crap. If these players would bank or invest their money instead of buying cars, houses, gold teeth, bling, and knocking up 8 women, they they too could reep the rewards of having money later in life.

Look at Carson Palmer. He has banked 80 million of his money so he can be in a position to say trade me or I retire. Then look at the likes of Ashawhatever who plays for the Jets, is flat broke, and can't even remember the names of all his bast ard kids. Pac Man at clubs "making it rain" while blowing his fortune, and trhe many other idiots who should have called an investment advisor insted of a call girl service.

Yes, more money needs put back into programs for retired players. Put all the fine money into a program for better benifits for those suffering from the effects of playing.

Some players blow their money and some are responsible with it.

What's the problem?
Did you even bother to read the piece in the link? If you did, you would not have wrote that.

Reading your posts is like sucking down a frosty too fast...it gives me a headache.

feltdizz
03-03-2011, 06:16 PM
That's just crap. If these players would bank or invest their money instead of buying cars, houses, gold teeth, bling, and knocking up 8 women, they they too could reep the rewards of having money later in life.

Look at Carson Palmer. He has banked 80 million of his money so he can be in a position to say trade me or I retire. Then look at the likes of Ashawhatever who plays for the Jets, is flat broke, and can't even remember the names of all his bast ard kids. Pac Man at clubs "making it rain" while blowing his fortune, and trhe many other idiots who should have called an investment advisor insted of a call girl service.

Yes, more money needs put back into programs for retired players. Put all the fine money into a program for better benifits for those suffering from the effects of playing.

Some players blow their money and some are responsible with it.

What's the problem?
Did you even bother to read the piece in the link? If you did, you would not have wrote that.

Reading your posts is like sucking down a frosty too fast...it gives me a headache.

here come the insults... I'm surprised. :roll:

I read the article and added to my post.

Why are the players in the wrong?

ScoreKeeper
03-03-2011, 06:28 PM
That's just crap. If these players would bank or invest their money instead of buying cars, houses, gold teeth, bling, and knocking up 8 women, they they too could reep the rewards of having money later in life.

Look at Carson Palmer. He has banked 80 million of his money so he can be in a position to say trade me or I retire. Then look at the likes of Ashawhatever who plays for the Jets, is flat broke, and can't even remember the names of all his bast ard kids. Pac Man at clubs "making it rain" while blowing his fortune, and trhe many other idiots who should have called an investment advisor insted of a call girl service.

Yes, more money needs put back into programs for retired players. Put all the fine money into a program for better benifits for those suffering from the effects of playing.

Some players blow their money and some are responsible with it.

What's the problem?
Did you even bother to read the piece in the link? If you did, you would not have wrote that.

Reading your posts is like sucking down a frosty too fast...it gives me a headache.

here come the insults... I'm surprised. :roll:

I read the article and added to my post.

Why are the players in the wrong?
So, first you comment without reading, then come back and add to your stupidity.

Look around and see how many insults I throw out. They are few, and warrented in your case.

feltdizz
03-03-2011, 06:35 PM
That's just crap. If these players would bank or invest their money instead of buying cars, houses, gold teeth, bling, and knocking up 8 women, they they too could reep the rewards of having money later in life.

Look at Carson Palmer. He has banked 80 million of his money so he can be in a position to say trade me or I retire. Then look at the likes of Ashawhatever who plays for the Jets, is flat broke, and can't even remember the names of all his bast ard kids. Pac Man at clubs "making it rain" while blowing his fortune, and trhe many other idiots who should have called an investment advisor insted of a call girl service.

Yes, more money needs put back into programs for retired players. Put all the fine money into a program for better benifits for those suffering from the effects of playing.

Some players blow their money and some are responsible with it.

What's the problem?
Did you even bother to read the piece in the link? If you did, you would not have wrote that.

Reading your posts is like sucking down a frosty too fast...it gives me a headache.

here come the insults... I'm surprised. :roll:

I read the article and added to my post.

Why are the players in the wrong?
So, first you comment without reading, then come back and add to your stupidity.

Look around and see how many insults I throw out. They are few, and warrented in your case.

:Blah damn dude... you are miserable.

ScoreKeeper
03-03-2011, 06:44 PM
:Blah damn dude... you are miserable.
Only when reading your inane ramblings.

feltdizz
03-03-2011, 06:48 PM
:Blah damn dude... you are miserable.
Only when reading your inane ramblings.

Then don't read them. :Cheers

birtikidis
03-03-2011, 06:51 PM
Felt, gotta agree with you here. I think most players save their money or are more responsible then perceived. there are some that blow it, but I think for the most part, they don't. I agree with the article. I have a real hard time feeling sorry for the owners. None of them get injured or end up with debilitating mental problems (other then al davis).

hawaiiansteel
03-03-2011, 06:56 PM
Bryant McKinnie says he didn’t rack up a $100,000 bar tab

Posted by Mike Florio on March 3, 2011

http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/bryantandbrett.jpg?w=177

Last month, TMZ reported that Vikings left tackle Bryant McKinnie racked up a $100,000 bar tab during an event held in conjunction with the NBA’s All-Star weekend.

Nearly two weeks after the fact, the large man who plays left tackle has denied that he dropped 100 large.

McKinnie tells Jeremy Fowler of the St. Paul Pioneer Press that the story was “exaggerated a lot.”

Specifically, McKinnie claims he was at a concert in L.A., and rapper Rick Ross gave McKinnie what the kids call a shout-out from the stage. Ross then said something about spending “$100,000 on bottles in the club.”

“All of a sudden that became my tab somehow,” McKinnie said. “Like seriously, at the time I was laughing thinking it was in good fun until people started talking about it and took it a little too far.”

That’s fine, but why did it take so long for McKinnie to speak up? Given that the news bolstered the notion that the players won’t have the money to survive a lockout, the union should have immediately launched an effort to get the truth out.

Or, at a minimum, McKinnie’s version of it.

The TMZ report cited sources who said more than 15 bottles of pricey champagne were purchased, including bottles of bubbly so large that the entire club stopped and watched as the wait staff brought the bottles to McKinnie’s area. So there’s a good chance that McKinnie’s version isn’t the truth.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/ca ... ll/page/2/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/category/rumor-mill/page/2/)

Chadman
03-03-2011, 06:58 PM
Very one-sided argument. It forgets to point out that the players make their millions on the back of those dastardly owners with their 4 houses, shetland ponies & helicopters.

And they do it without the obligation of spending their own money to make it back.

How many business' in the world are made to open their profit/loss statements to justify changes to the employees? None? So why should the NFL owners be forced to do that exact same thing?

The owners want to get richer huh? Well- send them straight to Hell for that. I'm sure all of curse the day the Rooneys learned how to make $10 out of a $4 investment...

Crash
03-03-2011, 07:01 PM
The point though is that their is already an agreement and owners are making hand over fist. Now they are just getting greedy and want more without showing WHY they should get it to help "grow" the NFL.

All the players are asking for his for proof that the owners need what they claim. The owners are causing this, not the players.

Chadman
03-03-2011, 07:14 PM
No Crash- the point of the article was the owners are rich bastards and Rick feels we should hate them for wanting more.


It says nothing about how the players are super keen to get back on the field with the money they currently make.

And also- why are we forgetting that the players union is asking for a share of the extra billion dollars not included currently in the owner/player split monies?

We all want to see an agreement, but to simply think the players are getting screwed over here & the owners are to blame is really just seeing things the way you want to see it- not seeing everything that's been reported.

Crash
03-03-2011, 07:18 PM
And also- why are we forgetting that the players union is asking for a share of the extra billion dollars not included currently in the owner/player split monies?

The players want to play under the current deal.

The owners want an additional billion sliced off the top.

That's the issue here. There is only a problem because the owners opted out.

Blockhead
03-03-2011, 07:24 PM
No Crash- the point of the article was the owners are rich bastards and Rick feels we should hate them for wanting more.

That article is mindless drivel. He's basically hating on the owners for being rich.

The owners of NFL teams are rich? Wow, I never would have thought.

Most of them have made their money well before they purchased NFL teams. His comments on Bud Adams and Paul Allen show this is simply a hatred piece. Both of them made much more money outside of football than they ever will make from football.

Chadman
03-03-2011, 07:29 PM
Just lifted this off another site..

As with most labor disputes, this is a gap that can be bridged through creativity and compromise – and, ultimately, it will come down to money and perception. The first thing that has to happen for a deal to be forged is that each side has to move past the rancorous rhetoric and intense emotion that is likely to worsen over the coming months. Certainly, this is a volatile issue that involves principle and impacts the careers and lives of numerous individuals and their families – but in the end it’s a business dispute between two entities that have it pretty good in a strained economy. If the owners and players test fan loyalties by robbing them of an entire season – or, in a worst-case scenario, dragging the dispute past the fall of 2012 – both could end up as losers. Conversely, there is a way to resolve their differences in a win-win scenario that involves growing the pie, rewarding the owners for their investment risks and keeping total player revenues relatively stable. By adding two regular season games and establishing a rookie pool, a new CBA can theoretically create enough additional revenues that owners can get some of what they want (more money credited off the top) and veterans won’t have to take less. For this to happen, the NFLPA needs to abandon its focus on its percentage of revenues – a holdover from the Upshaw regime – and focus on total dollars. Owners, meanwhile, have to get past the perception that they were duped into taking a poor deal in 2006 and try to leverage a deal with the union that seems more like a partnership than a vengeful comeuppance. All of this can be accomplished by rational, well-meaning negotiators who have pro football’s – and its adoring public’s – best interests at heart. “People on both sides have to study the lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis,” says one league source. “Ultimately, in order to settle this standoff, everybody has to feel that they’ve won, or at least saved face, and that they were part of the process.” Until then, players, owners and those of us who love football will be experiencing labor pains on an uncomfortably frequent basis.

feltdizz
03-03-2011, 07:43 PM
No Crash- the point of the article was the owners are rich bastards and Rick feels we should hate them for wanting more.

That article is mindless drivel. He's basically hating on the owners for being rich.

The owners of NFL teams are rich? Wow, I never would have thought.

Most of them have made their money well before they purchased NFL teams. His comments on Bud Adams and Paul Allen show this is simply a hatred piece. Both of them made much more money outside of football than they ever will make from football.


He isn't hating on the owners for being rich.. he is hating on the owners for trying to make us believe they aren't rich.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rick wrote the same type of article about Albert Haynesworth or any player who says "I need to make sure my family is taken care of"

Blockhead
03-03-2011, 07:47 PM
No Crash- the point of the article was the owners are rich bastards and Rick feels we should hate them for wanting more.

That article is mindless drivel. He's basically hating on the owners for being rich.

The owners of NFL teams are rich? Wow, I never would have thought.

Most of them have made their money well before they purchased NFL teams. His comments on Bud Adams and Paul Allen show this is simply a hatred piece. Both of them made much more money outside of football than they ever will make from football.


He isn't hating on the owners for being rich.. he is hating on the owners for trying to make us believe they aren't rich.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rick wrote the same type of article about Albert Haynesworth or any player who says "I need to make sure my family is taken care of"
I haven't heard one owner say they weren't rich. They are complaining about the shrinking margins of their NFL businesses. What does it matter if their other businesses are profiting well?

The players are contracted employees. They need to realize they are not owners and are easily replaceable.

feltdizz
03-03-2011, 07:57 PM
No Crash- the point of the article was the owners are rich bastards and Rick feels we should hate them for wanting more.

That article is mindless drivel. He's basically hating on the owners for being rich.

The owners of NFL teams are rich? Wow, I never would have thought.

Most of them have made their money well before they purchased NFL teams. His comments on Bud Adams and Paul Allen show this is simply a hatred piece. Both of them made much more money outside of football than they ever will make from football.


He isn't hating on the owners for being rich.. he is hating on the owners for trying to make us believe they aren't rich.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rick wrote the same type of article about Albert Haynesworth or any player who says "I need to make sure my family is taken care of"
I haven't heard one owner say they weren't rich. They are complaining about the shrinking margins of their NFL businesses. What does it matter if their other businesses are profiting well?

The players are contracted employees. They need to realize they are not owners and are easily replaceable.

I meant rich from the profits of football since the last deal. Not rich in general.

The players aren't easily replaceable. It's not like they are putting bumpers on cars for 8 hours. If the owners have to start over with new players kiss all the profits goodbye.

The Peyton Manning's, Big Ben's etc... they helped make this league what it is today. People aren't showing up to watch the owners eat steak at the game. The players have leverage and they worked hard for it.

Players get cut/injured everyday in the NFL.. they know first hand how replaceable they are as individuals.. but as a collective they have power.

Blockhead
03-03-2011, 09:45 PM
I meant rich from the profits of football since the last deal. Not rich in general.
Their profit margins have shrunk since the last deal was created.


The players aren't easily replaceable. It's not like they are putting bumpers on cars for 8 hours. If the owners have to start over with new players kiss all the profits goodbye. Yes they are. Most of them will be out of the league in 4-5 years anyway. The down period of talent would be short.


The Peyton Manning's, Big Ben's etc... they helped make this league what it is today. People aren't showing up to watch the owners eat steak at the game. The players have leverage and they worked hard for it.
Would be replaced by the Gabberts, Newton's, Locker's, etc. You think Ben wants to sit at home and watch $11 million go away next year? He'd be begging to play. He knows he can't make anything similar anywhere else. It's not like he's smart enough for real world business that would make that much.


Players get cut/injured everyday in the NFL.. they know first hand how replaceable they are as individuals.. but as a collective they have power.
Absolutely. the league is the power entitity and the players union has been given too much power. I'd gladly take a year of no NFL to see the owners get a deal better suited for league and owner profits and league survival.

flippy
03-03-2011, 09:51 PM
Seems like $1B is peanuts compared to losing popularity in the sport.

I could care less about who gets it. All these guys are making money hand over fist. And they should focus on the bigger picture of making the whole pie bigger. That way, they all win and we the casual fan lose.

I'll just have to watch hockey, baseball, college sports, WWE, UFC, etc. And I hope all these other sports eat into the NFL's overall dollars. That way they'll seem silly arguing over $1B while losing multiple billions.

Blockhead
03-03-2011, 10:00 PM
Seems like $1B is peanuts compared to losing popularity in the sport.

I could care less about who gets it. All these guys are making money hand over fist. And they should focus on the bigger picture of making the whole pie bigger. That way, they all win and we the casual fan lose.

I'll just have to watch hockey, baseball, college sports, WWE, UFC, etc. And I hope all these other sports eat into the NFL's overall dollars. That way they'll seem silly arguing over $1B while losing multiple billions.
The owners are having their profit margins shrunk each year and bottomline profits for some teams are below the star players salaries.

The owners do have the big picture in mind. It's the players that care about getting as much as they can now and couldn't care less about the future.

PS, I think you meant couldn't care less unless you could actually care less?

hawaiiansteel
03-03-2011, 10:18 PM
Bring on the Lockout: A Belief that the NFL Will Be Better in the Long Run

by Michael Bean on Mar 3, 2011


UPDATE: The NFL and the NFLPA have agreed to a 24-hour extension before the CBA officially expires. It's still extremely unlikely that anything gets resolved by tomorrow night, but it's at least a good-faith gesture that both sides are and will continue to take the process seriously. -Michael B.-

In just a few short hours, the 2011 NFL Lockout will officially be upon us. I can't pinpoint an exact date, but speculation about a potential lockout in March of 2011 began at least two years ago. That day is now here, barring a last-minute miracle that we all know ain't happening.

But that's okay. The NFL and it's Players Association need time to get this right. There's much more at stake than just how to divide a big old chunk of change. Agreeing on how to divide annual revenues estimated to be roughly $9 billion dollars may be the primary point of contention in the negotiations, but while the two sides are at the table, they might as well address other issues of critical significance.

While I too am disappointed that the two sides didn't take this more seriously months if not years ago, I as of last night now have faith in the process. And I'm actually quite confident that when we look back at this time in NFL history several years down the road, we'll be happy that this whole mess was addressed head on, and over the course of months not days or weeks.

Why? As humans, we hate change. It scares us and makes us ugly, unconfident people. Sports fans are particularly wary of change, probably because we fear that change might alter our foundation as fans -- memories. But change almost unequivocally brings more good to more people.

But if it ain't broke, don't fix it you might be saying. The NFL clearly was structured and operated in a way that was working. But that doesn't mean it can't be a more profitable, sustainable, better regulated, and more entertaining product. As a fan, I'd be thrilled if there were an 18-game season. I'd just expect there to be bigger rosters, OTAs and mini-camps to be reduced drastically, and more sophisticated and comprehensive resources invested in researching and implementing new ideas and innovations for monitoring and preventing head trauma issues.

I'd be open to new rule changes even, like say, shortening the distance between where kickoff return coverage units begin building up steam as they head-hunt return men. Or say, installing devices in helmets that track the number of head blows during games and practices, and putting a limit on how many an individual can suffer before being done for the day.

The sound of an 18-game schedule may on the surface sound terrible, but there are ways to account for and mitigate the undeniable fact that players assume all the risk -- both with their short-term and long-term health. But with so much at stake with that type of decision, I want it to take time before they come to an agreement. Particularly in the case of concussions and head injuries, the future of the game is very much at stake. There will be litigation in the future, even if there hadn't been a lockout. But again, while they're at the table talking money, now is the right time to finally get serious about agreeing on new innovative ways to make the game safer without altering the product and brand too much. That's tough. But it can be done. And we'll all be better off -- players, owners, and even us fans.

As for things like a rookie-wage scale, the structure of free agency, guaranteed vs. non-guaranteed contracts, a salary cap -- those will all get worked out inter-connectedly in due time. Again, I would hope that they take their time. If I had all the solutions, I would be at the table mediating this deal, but I would hope that there are ideas being thrown around that might on the surface sound blasphemous. Like for example, fattening their television contract by making games 20 minutes longer, but also limiting the number of snaps a player can participate in and then requiring reserves on expanded rosters to spell the starters throughout. That may be a poor example, but it's one where the argument can be made that all sides benefit: owners make more money, more players are given an opportunity to earn an NFL living, players are not exposed to more inherent risk, and us fans are treated to more football, and a game that now requires more in-game strategy, nuance and excitement.

I'm sure I'll ramble on more about the lockout throughout the spring and early summer. But for now, with just under eight hours remaining until the hour-glass is empty for the current CBA, I say fear not. We're at a crossroads for the moment, but this isn't the first time that there's been a long and ugly struggle over how to most equitably enact progress and change. This is one of the more exciting opportunities in the history of organized professional sports. I don't care if it takes time...well, I sure as hell hope this is resolved before the end of August. But even if it takes longer than that, just don't blow the opportunity to make the game even greater for the long haul.

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/20 ... #storyjump (http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/2011/3/3/2027856/bring-on-the-lockout-a-belief-that-the-nfl-will-be-better-in-the-long#storyjump)

BradshawsHairdresser
03-03-2011, 10:31 PM
At some point, the players and owners will come to an agreement, and us fans will fork over even more money so that all of those rich folks will get even richer. They'll be laughing all the way to the bank while we squeeze our budgets to buy fuel and groceries.

hawaiiansteel
03-04-2011, 02:17 AM
Prolonged lockout hurts undrafted rookies

March, 3, 2011
By Tim Graham


The NFL draft is stressful enough for prospects. They wait for their phones to light up, watch ESPN's ticker, repeatedly click refresh on their browsers or try to distract themselves by refusing to pay any attention at all.

A select few know they'll be drafted. A larger group wonders whether their names will be called before Mr. Irrelevant closes the show.

This year's draft will be even more worrisome for the latter group.

Absent a collective bargaining agreement, the draft still will take place April 28-30. But players who aren't selected in those seven rounds won't be allowed to sign with teams because free agency won't exist.

The moments immediately after the draft involve frenzied phone calls. Teams scurry to sign unattached prospects in hopes of landing the next Tony Romo, Arian Foster, LeGarrette Blount, Wes Welker, Antonio Gates or Bart Scott.

The AFC East is rife with undrafted starters. Two of the four team-leading rushers weren't drafted: New England Patriots running back BenJarvus Green-Ellis and Buffalo Bills running back Fred Jackson.

Rookie free agents are necessary to building a roster and maintaining a personnel budget. Although this year's undrafted rookies eventually will get opportunities to find work once there's a new CBA, a prolonged lockout will cripple their chances of making an immediate impact.

When a new CBA is struck, veteran free agents will overshadow the undrafted rookies. Under normal circumstances, the veterans have been picked over long before the draft begins. That allows front offices to concentrate solely on the newbies. We can expect a free-for-all this time.

Undrafted rookies also will face a tougher time when it comes to development. These are marginal pro prospects, long shots who must get into a team's offseason conditioning program as quickly as possible. It would be almost impossible to expect a rookie free agent to understand NFL schemes minus minicamps and voluntary workouts and with a compressed training camp.

These also are the kinds of players who make their way into the NFL on special teams. Imagine how many mistakes we'll see if teams insist on using their undrafted and late-round rookies on return and coverage units.

http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/ ... ed-rookies (http://espn.go.com/blog/afceast/post/_/id/26596/prolonged-lockout-hurts-undrafted-rookies)

Crash
03-04-2011, 03:15 AM
Yeah, league survival. LOL A $9 billion a year business in these economic times and somehow the league is hurting for money.

hawaiiansteel
03-04-2011, 03:17 AM
Mediator persuades union to agree to longer extension

Posted by Mike Florio on March 3, 2011


With a 24-hour extension aimed at laying the foundation for another extension, mediator George Cohen has accomplished half the battle.

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Cohen has persuaded the union to agree to a 7-to-10-day extension. Now, the league needs to consent to a pushing of the deadline back by a week or more.

The disclosure means that someone has violated the vow of silence, and in turn has placed public pressure on ownership to agree to the extension. At this point, it will be difficult if not impossible for the league to not agree to extend the deadline and implement a lockout as of 12:00 a.m. Saturday.

That said, Mort reports that “major differences” between the two sides remain.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... extension/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/03/mediator-persuades-union-to-agree-to-longer-extension/)

feltdizz
03-04-2011, 09:18 AM
I meant rich from the profits of football since the last deal. Not rich in general.
Their profit margins have shrunk since the last deal was created.


The players aren't easily replaceable. It's not like they are putting bumpers on cars for 8 hours. If the owners have to start over with new players kiss all the profits goodbye. Yes they are. Most of them will be out of the league in 4-5 years anyway. The down period of talent would be short.


The Peyton Manning's, Big Ben's etc... they helped make this league what it is today. People aren't showing up to watch the owners eat steak at the game. The players have leverage and they worked hard for it.
Would be replaced by the Gabberts, Newton's, Locker's, etc. You think Ben wants to sit at home and watch $11 million go away next year? He'd be begging to play. He knows he can't make anything similar anywhere else. It's not like he's smart enough for real world business that would make that much.


Players get cut/injured everyday in the NFL.. they know first hand how replaceable they are as individuals.. but as a collective they have power.
Absolutely. the league is the power entitity and the players union has been given too much power. I'd gladly take a year of no NFL to see the owners get a deal better suited for league and owner profits and league survival.

You think people want to see Peyton and Ben sit at home so Cam Newton can shine? I don't think so...

The high profile players aren't replaceable... listen to Steeler fans talk about 25 years since we had a franchise QB.

Players careers are short but the star athletes have 10+ year careers.

last time around this deal was better suited for the league and we watched it rise to the top of the TV ratings at a rate never seen before.

I doubt the owners are really hurting like you think they are... they are hurting like credit card companies and oil companies. Hurting all the way to the bank with all that cash in the bag.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 03:02 PM
You think people want to see Peyton and Ben sit at home so Cam Newton can shine? I don't think so...

The high profile players aren't replaceable... listen to Steeler fans talk about 25 years since we had a franchise QB.

Players careers are short but the star athletes have 10+ year careers.

last time around this deal was better suited for the league and we watched it rise to the top of the TV ratings at a rate never seen before.

I doubt the owners are really hurting like you think they are... they are hurting like credit card companies and oil companies. Hurting all the way to the bank with all that cash in the bag.
Every player is replaceable. Are you saying the NFL franchises that have star players will cease making money and go out of business when the star player leaves?

Who said they are hurting? They should make huge money and in many cases they are not, sometimes less than what their star player earns. That's just not right.

feltdizz
03-04-2011, 04:25 PM
Every player is replaceable. Are you saying the NFL franchises that have star players will cease making money and go out of business when the star player leaves?

No.. I didn't say that. I said if ALL the star players are replaced with scabs, scrubs and draft picks this year the league will take a huge hit in ratings in revenue.

But since the stars are replaceable why don't the owners do just that? Could it be these stars actually generate more money then the scrubs? There has to be a reason these owners are paying crazy amounts of money to these guys.




Who said they are hurting? They should make huge money and in many cases they are not, sometimes less than what their star player earns. That's just not right.

You are the one repeating how the owners are hurting for profits in the NFL....

If an owner doesn't think it's right for the star to make more than he/she does they can trade the guy or cut him. It's not like all the fans in the stand have the stars jersey on..lol :wink:

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 04:28 PM
Well, if they de-certify and try litigation, I am sure players like Ben, who won't now be part of a collective union, will be there to collect his $11 million. It's not like he has any other way of earning that type of money.

Crash
03-04-2011, 04:32 PM
Love how this grass puffing moron with a new alias has somehow managed to take cheap shots at Ben when this is about the league as a whole.

SteelCrazy
03-04-2011, 04:52 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will. My dad worked in a coal mine and made around 50,000 a year and more men died while he worked in the mines that have ever died in the NFL. No, I'm not saying the players should make 50 g's a year, but in the grand scheme of things, they would be lucky to make that little.

feltdizz
03-04-2011, 04:58 PM
Well, if they de-certify and try litigation, I am sure players like Ben, who won't now be part of a collective union, will be there to collect his $11 million. It's not like he has any other way of earning that type of money.


How do you know Ben isn't a good investor?

These players put so much time into football it's insane... who knows what these guys would be if they applied all their athleticism in other things because football wasn't a lucrative sport?

feltdizz
03-04-2011, 05:11 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will. My dad worked in a coal mine and made around 50,000 a year and more men died while he worked in the mines that have ever died in the NFL. No, I'm not saying the players should make 50 g's a year, but in the grand scheme of things, they would be lucky to make that little.

If your Dad thinks he is worth 100K and walks in and gets a raise is he wrong for it?

People are jealous of athletes and I get it... they make a ton of money but why is that wrong? Why is it wrong for them to make millions if they can?

The owners aren't forced to pay these players big money... they can trade, release and cut these guys but they aren't because most are worth what they get paid.

When they are no longer worth that amount they move on... why is this so hard to understand?

No one is holding a gun to the owners head and telling them to spend all the money.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 08:28 PM
Well, if they de-certify and try litigation, I am sure players like Ben, who won't now be part of a collective union, will be there to collect his $11 million. It's not like he has any other way of earning that type of money.


How do you know Ben isn't a good investor?

These players put so much time into football it's insane... who knows what these guys would be if they applied all their athleticism in other things because football wasn't a lucrative sport?
I don't. I said I doubt there is anywhere he can ern $11 million this year in five months of work. I'm sure without a union he would likely come to work versus forgo his salary.

These players put no more into football than people who run businesses, likely less as the business season isn't half the year.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 08:30 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will.

Exactly. Nobody is forcing them to play football.

Crash
03-04-2011, 09:46 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will.

Exactly. Nobody is forcing them to play football.

Nobody forces the owners to own teams also.

If they don't make enough money they can always sell, no?

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 11:24 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will.

Exactly. Nobody is forcing them to play football.

Nobody forces the owners to own teams also.

If they don't make enough money they can always sell, no?
Yeah, that's the answer all owners should take to rising expenses. Wow, what a novel thought. Leave the business to the grown ups.

SteelCrazy
03-05-2011, 12:45 AM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will. My dad worked in a coal mine and made around 50,000 a year and more men died while he worked in the mines that have ever died in the NFL. No, I'm not saying the players should make 50 g's a year, but in the grand scheme of things, they would be lucky to make that little.

If your Dad thinks he is worth 100K and walks in and gets a raise is he wrong for it?

People are jealous of athletes and I get it... they make a ton of money but why is that wrong? Why is it wrong for them to make millions if they can?

The owners aren't forced to pay these players big money... they can trade, release and cut these guys but they aren't because most are worth what they get paid.

When they are no longer worth that amount they move on... why is this so hard to understand?

No one is holding a gun to the owners head and telling them to spend all the money.

I'm not jealous of the athletes or what they make, well, maybe I am a little jealous of their abilities and wish I could have made it into the NFL. However, this is all up to the owners. If they wanted, they could shut down the NFL and laugh at all of us. The players have to understand that they are under the mercy of the owners, but they do have the right to ask for a raise, but on the other hand, they know they run the risk of losing a lot of money while doing it.

feltdizz
03-05-2011, 02:03 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will.

Exactly. Nobody is forcing them to play football.

Nobody forces the owners to own teams also.

If they don't make enough money they can always sell, no?
Yeah, that's the answer all owners should take to rising expenses. Wow, what a novel thought. Leave the business to the grown ups.

Owners have never sold teams due to shrinking profit margins or losses?

Crash
03-05-2011, 02:23 PM
Owners have never sold teams due to shrinking profit margins or losses?

Art Rooney Sr. did.

feltdizz
03-05-2011, 02:28 PM
The owners, owners being the key word here, can do as they please. Until we are no longer a capitalist country, they have the right to pay their players whatever they want. If the players dont accept that, well they'll find new players that will. My dad worked in a coal mine and made around 50,000 a year and more men died while he worked in the mines that have ever died in the NFL. No, I'm not saying the players should make 50 g's a year, but in the grand scheme of things, they would be lucky to make that little.

If your Dad thinks he is worth 100K and walks in and gets a raise is he wrong for it?

People are jealous of athletes and I get it... they make a ton of money but why is that wrong? Why is it wrong for them to make millions if they can?

The owners aren't forced to pay these players big money... they can trade, release and cut these guys but they aren't because most are worth what they get paid.

When they are no longer worth that amount they move on... why is this so hard to understand?

No one is holding a gun to the owners head and telling them to spend all the money.

I'm not jealous of the athletes or what they make, well, maybe I am a little jealous of their abilities and wish I could have made it into the NFL. However, this is all up to the owners. If they wanted, they could shut down the NFL and laugh at all of us. The players have to understand that they are under the mercy of the owners, but they do have the right to ask for a raise, but on the other hand, they know they run the risk of losing a lot of money while doing it.

A business is only as successful as the employees who run it.

Both parties run the risk of losing a lot of money and this is why they keep extending the deadline.

People who say the owners can do what they want because they have all the power aren't living in the real world.

The NHL found out first hand what happens when owners think they have all the power. They end up on Versus with low ratings...

Crash
03-05-2011, 02:32 PM
The NHL found out first hand what happens when owners think they have all the power. They end up on Versus with low ratings...

Yep. The beat the NHLPA, but they damaged their own sports national exposure in the US.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 02:43 PM
A business is only as successful as the employees who run it.
That is partially correct but the employees are replaceable. Talent may be down for a couple of years but the teams will go on. Employees are nothing without the efforts ot the business owners.


Both parties run the risk of losing a lot of money and this is why they keep extending the deadline.
The players share partially in a loss of revenue. They share nothing when it comes to expense costs so that is incorrect.


People who say the owners can do what they want because they have all the power aren't living in the real world.
They should be able to do as they wish. The busines is their's and the players are nothing but contract employees, granted too much leverage.


The NHL found out first hand what happens when owners think they have all the power. They end up on Versus with low ratings...
You cannot compare the two sports. One is perfect for television, has massive following and the other, well, is not. Even hockey people and management admit there is no correleation.

feltdizz
03-05-2011, 03:38 PM
A business is only as successful as the employees who run it.
That is partially correct but the employees are replaceable. Talent may be down for a couple of years but the teams will go on. Employees are nothing without the efforts ot the business owners.

Talent = money... and less talent mean less viewers and less money from the TV contracts. If you replace your flat tire with the spare you can travel but you won't get their as fast. Others with good tires are sure to pass you. Is it worth it? We will see...


Both parties run the risk of losing a lot of money and this is why they keep extending the deadline.
The players share partially in a loss of revenue. They share nothing when it comes to expense costs so that is incorrect.

so what... they both risk losing money. The owners knew the risk when they became owners and made the deal. The owners don't risk losing life, limb, memory etc. Why should we feel bad for owners who bought the team and now have expenses? Everyone on both sides knew the risk coming into this business.



People who say the owners can do what they want because they have all the power aren't living in the real world.
They should be able to do as they wish. The busines is their's and the players are nothing but contract employees, granted too much leverage.

True.. the owners can do what they wish but since most want to make money they understand they have limitations on their power.


The NHL found out first hand what happens when owners think they have all the power. They end up on Versus with low ratings...
You cannot compare the two sports. One is perfect for television, has massive following and the other, well, is not. Even hockey people and management admit there is no correleation.

I'm not comparing the sports... the NHL is a prime example of owners "doing what they want" and paying the price. The owners though they had all the power and realized they didn't after they walked away from the ESPN deal.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 03:53 PM
Talent = money... and less talent mean less viewers and less money from the TV contracts. If you replace your flat tire with the spare you can travel but you won't get their as fast. Others with good tires are sure to pass you. Is it worth it? We will see...The television contracts are guaranteed for several years. By the time they need extended, most, if not all, of the top talents will be replaced. The owners, even if they lose in revenue will gain in lowered expense and cap savings. It's all highly unlikely though as the Union will have to face facts at some point and take a reduction as they know their players cannot withstand a long work stoppage and de-certifying will only cause chaos and longer negotiations.


so what... they both risk losing money. The owners knew the risk when they became owners and made the deal. The owners don't risk losing life, limb, memory etc. Why should we feel bad for owners who bought the team and now have expenses? Everyone on both sides knew the risk coming into this business.
The players share no loss of losing money. The only loss they bear is if total revenues, not expenses do not grow. Why should we feel bad for contracted employees making more in four years than most make in a lifetime, thanks to the efforts of the owners?


True.. the owners can do what they wish but since most want to make money they understand they have limitations on their power. Absolutely, and they agreed to the last deal with an opt out clause becuse they anticipated this. They are now wanting more money to go towards rising expenses, which pay for health care, management, travel, debt servicing, etc. in which the players bear the fruit but not the risk. Once the union hack realizes it's not about "looking good and winning" and it is about the best interests of the league, long term, this will be settled and they will take a reduction or an expanded season or both.


I'm not comparing the sports... the NHL is a prime example of owners "doing what they want" and paying the price. The owners though they had all the power and realized they didn't after they walked away from the ESPN deal.
That debate if flawed. The NHL is not nearly as popular as the NFL. If anything, the television networks would push for an expedited resolution and possibly help to do so. Apples to oranges. The NFL could sit a year and sell out the following.

feltdizz
03-05-2011, 04:08 PM
The NFL can't sell out every game right now in every market... a year off won't help any of them.

The NHL, regardless of TV popularity, found out the hard way about playing hardball with ESPN. I'm not comparing the sports or their ratings. Just showing what happens when owners misjudge their power.

You ask why we should feel bad for players? I ask why should we feel bad for owners?

both are making insane amounts of money compared tot he average US worker. However, more of us are closer to the average NFL players total worth than the owners. Not sure why the owners should get more sympathy.

You keep saying the players share no losses.. that is laughable. Every play could be their last and they can be cut at anytime. Tell some of these practice squad players or a cut player if they don't share in the revenue losses.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 04:16 PM
You ask why we should feel bad for players? I ask why should we feel bad for owners? We shouldn't. It's their league and they are free to run it as they see fit, just like every other person in the world who has ventured into the risks of business ownership.


both are making insane amounts of money compared tot he average US worker. However, more of us are closer to the average NFL players total worth than the owners. Not sure why the owners should get more sympathy. Again, I feel no sympathy for them. They should be allowed to run their businesses as they see fit, like every other person in the world who has ventured into the risks of business ownership. They risk millions and in some cases billions of their own money and worth.


You keep saying the players share no losses.. that is laughable. Every play could be their last and they can be cut at anytime. Tell some of these practice squad players or a cut player if they don't share in the revenue losses.
That is why they are paid the level at which they are paid. That is why they choose to make that tradeoff versus working in a shopping mall or as a salesmen, etc. It is 100% their choice to sign their contracts and play in the NFL. They are free to do anything else, if they desire, with their lives.

Back to the point though. They share no risk of business expenses or loss. The only thing they share is risk of revenue dropping, which is almost guaranteed not to happen with the television contracts. They share no risk of expenses but somehow think they are business partners? Makes no sense but again, it's the owners fault for agreeing to such deals in the past. There comes a time when a wrong has to be righted and i hope this is that time, for the ultimate future of the NFL. Under the current system, there are several teams that may end up moving or folding, such as but not limited to, Jacksonville, Carolina, Arizona, Tampa, Buffalo and Minnesota.

hawaiiansteel
03-07-2011, 02:10 AM
NFL Labor Talks: Money off top may be easiest to settle

Monday, March 07, 2011
The Associated Press


With five more days and nights -- at least -- to reach an agreement, the NFL and the players' union might find money off the top is not the bottom line.

The owners' request that about $2 billion of total revenues be deducted before they split the rest with the players has been a sticking point since 2008. That's when the owners opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, which would have expired Thursday if not for two extensions.

The deadline is at the end of Friday, and a compromise on that figure -- the owners already deduct about $1 billion for operating expenses from the $9 billion overall take -- might be easier than reaching accord on expanding the regular season to 18 games or several other issues.

"We have made player safety our biggest concern, and we won't back off on that," said Tennessee Titans guard and player representative Jake Scott.

"There are so many moving parts, so much that goes on," added Saints tackle Jon Stinchcomb, also a player rep. "When you have these CBA negotiations, what we establish now will affect how we do business for years to come. It's more than just how to slash the pie. It's how you go to work, what your offseason will look like, benefits for former players, how protected are we when injuries come along. There are so many aspects being negotiated, it takes time to come to an agreement on all these different fronts."

One front that could have wiggle room is the owners seeking the additional $1 billion, which they say is essential for league and team operations because of the heavy debt many franchises have for stadium construction loans. Such numbers often are negotiable. Although the players aren't eager to take any sort of pay cut, they might be amenable to a substantially reduced giveback that serves the owners well enough.

The rookie wage scale being proposed also shouldn't be too contentious as long as the owners plan to divert much of the money they save toward the veteran players and not their own pockets. All those players who wince when they see an untested rookie getting more guaranteed money than they've earned in their entire careers are firmly behind such a redistribution of those dollars.

Most dicey, as Scott suggests, is anything dealing with player safety and health benefits for current and retired players. That's where the proposed 18 regular-season games and two preseason games figure in to the deal.

The union is adamant, with so many injuries in a 16-game schedule -- particularly brain trauma and major injuries that can have long-term effects -- increasing the length of the regular season is not an option. The owners are just as adamant that the extra revenue 18 games would bring from league media partners and sponsors is necessary to keep the assets growing.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11066/11 ... z1Ft5dZkgl (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11066/1130242-66.stm?cmpid=steelers.xml#ixzz1Ft5dZkgl)

Crash
03-07-2011, 03:19 AM
If the Union gives them the $2 billion off the top their is no need for 18 games. That would be double dipping by the NFL.

Oviedo
03-07-2011, 09:12 AM
A business is only as successful as the employees who run it.
That is partially correct but the employees are replaceable. Talent may be down for a couple of years but the teams will go on. Employees are nothing without the efforts ot the business owners.


Both parties run the risk of losing a lot of money and this is why they keep extending the deadline.
The players share partially in a loss of revenue. They share nothing when it comes to expense costs so that is incorrect.


People who say the owners can do what they want because they have all the power aren't living in the real world.
They should be able to do as they wish. The busines is their's and the players are nothing but contract employees, granted too much leverage.


The NHL found out first hand what happens when owners think they have all the power. They end up on Versus with low ratings...
You cannot compare the two sports. One is perfect for television, has massive following and the other, well, is not. Even hockey people and management admit there is no correleation.

I agree. Without the owners putting on the show the performers have no place to play. Without the theaters on Braodway the actors have nowhere to work. Without the production companies in Hollywood the performers are waiting tables. It is the owners of the means of production that take and own the risks.

As stated the players want to reap the benefits but if a team loses money they want none of the responsibility for dealing with that. That then becomes the owners problems and the players want to be totally insulated from that.

I anxiously wait for the day when a former player owns a team and will enjoy watching how benevolent he is towards players when he sits in the seat of owner and owns the risks. Different tunes will be sung if that ever happens. Look at our own Mario Lemieux. he was totally for the shutdown of the league and breaking the players union because it saved his team.

Anyone who wants the players to win and gain the upper hand are playing right into the hands of owners like Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, etc. These owners have huge external financial resources and the NFL are simply another subsidiary of their wealth generating potential. Owners like the Rooney's and Mara's have their total wealth in their teams.

If the economic structure isn't balanced and to the benfit of the owners you are essentially hoping that the NFL becomes baseball. If the players gain the upper hand that is the road we are marching down.

papillon
03-07-2011, 12:18 PM
A business is only as successful as the employees who run it.
That is partially correct but the employees are replaceable. Talent may be down for a couple of years but the teams will go on. Employees are nothing without the efforts ot the business owners.


Both parties run the risk of losing a lot of money and this is why they keep extending the deadline.
The players share partially in a loss of revenue. They share nothing when it comes to expense costs so that is incorrect.


People who say the owners can do what they want because they have all the power aren't living in the real world.
They should be able to do as they wish. The busines is their's and the players are nothing but contract employees, granted too much leverage.


The NHL found out first hand what happens when owners think they have all the power. They end up on Versus with low ratings...
You cannot compare the two sports. One is perfect for television, has massive following and the other, well, is not. Even hockey people and management admit there is no correleation.

I agree. Without the owners putting on the show the performers have no place to play. Without the theaters on Braodway the actors have nowhere to work. Without the production companies in Hollywood the performers are waiting tables. It is the owners of the means of production that take and own the risks.

As stated the players want to reap the benefits but if a team loses money they want none of the responsibility for dealing with that. That then becomes the owners problems and the players want to be totally insulated from that.

I anxiously wait for the day when a former player owns a team and will enjoy watching how benevolent he is towards players when he sits in the seat of owner and owns the risks. Different tunes will be sung if that ever happens. Look at our own Mario Lemieux. he was totally for the shutdown of the league and breaking the players union because it saved his team.

Anyone who wants the players to win and gain the upper hand are playing right into the hands of owners like Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, etc. These owners have huge external financial resources and the NFL are simply another subsidiary of their wealth generating potential. Owners like the Rooney's and Mara's have their total wealth in their teams.

If the economic structure isn't balanced and to the benfit of the owners you are essentially hoping that the NFL becomes baseball. If the players gain the upper hand that is the road we are marching down.

I guess it would be difficult to count Jerry Richardson as a player that is now an owner, I think he only played 1 or 2 years in the NFL, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure how he runs the team, but I know the Rooneys and Richardson are tight. He may not have played long enough to get a feel for what it's like to be a player, but he did play.

Pappy

feltdizz
03-07-2011, 01:57 PM
More players are taking on ownership roles in sports. It's a slow process but Mario, Michael Jordan, Stallworth... etc.

NorthCoast
03-07-2011, 02:02 PM
A couple of points not mentioned:

The NFL is not the same business model as a company making, for example, lawnmowers. Why, because the product is heavily tax-payer supported from stadiums built with tax payer money. Of course, you could argue that more and more traditional companies are doing the same thing by demanding tax relief prior to building new facilities.

Second, regardless of shrinking margins, as long as the team is cash-neutral, most owners are making millions. How? Take a look at team valuations in the latest Forbes survey. Most team are 2 - 10X more valuable today than 15 years ago. No different than owning an apartment building that just covers costs. In the end you make the money on capital growth.

I have to agree with others that it is very distasteful on both parts to pass the players or owners as 'not making any money'.

feltdizz
03-07-2011, 02:12 PM
A couple of points not mentioned:

The NFL is not the same business model as a company making, for example, lawnmowers. Why, because the product is heavily tax-payer supported from stadiums built with tax payer money. Of course, you could argue that more and more traditional companies are doing the same thing by demanding tax relief prior to building new facilities.

Second, regardless of shrinking margins, as long as the team is cash-neutral, most owners are making millions. How? Take a look at team valuations in the latest Forbes survey. Most team are 2 - 10X more valuable today than 15 years ago. No different than owning an apartment building that just covers costs. In the end you make the money on capital growth.

I have to agree with others that it is very distasteful on both parts to pass the players or owners as 'not making any money'.

:Agree

Blockhead
03-07-2011, 02:27 PM
If the Union gives them the $2 billion off the top their is no need for 18 games. That would be double dipping by the NFL.

Again, incorrect. With 18 games, comes even more need for the higher expense charge and the revenues, if you read the CBA, is what the cap is based so it would go up.

You really should familiarize yourself with the CBA and the reasons for opting out.

Blockhead
03-07-2011, 02:29 PM
A couple of points not mentioned:

The NFL is not the same business model as a company making, for example, lawnmowers. Why, because the product is heavily tax-payer supported from stadiums built with tax payer money. Of course, you could argue that more and more traditional companies are doing the same thing by demanding tax relief prior to building new facilities.

Second, regardless of shrinking margins, as long as the team is cash-neutral, most owners are making millions. How? Take a look at team valuations in the latest Forbes survey. Most team are 2 - 10X more valuable today than 15 years ago. No different than owning an apartment building that just covers costs. In the end you make the money on capital growth.

I have to agree with others that it is very distasteful on both parts to pass the players or owners as 'not making any money'.

Rising values are not money earned and are not guaranteed to remain. If the NFl profits continue to decline, so will the evaluations. The evaluations have no present day value unless you are borrowing money, in which will require yet another expense in interest payments.

Crash
03-07-2011, 02:57 PM
If the Union gives them the $2 billion off the top their is no need for 18 games. That would be double dipping by the NFL.

Again, incorrect. With 18 games, comes even more need for the higher expense charge and the revenues, if you read the CBA, is what the cap is based so it would go up.

You really should familiarize yourself with the CBA and the reasons for opting out.

No one has proof of the reasons they opted out Diamond Jim. The owners refuse to provide the NFLPA proof.

Until they show their books? All the owners are doing is being greedy.

The NFL shouldn't be claiming they care about player safety ad then want them to play two more reular season games. It's all about making the $700 million more for those two extra games.

Oviedo
03-07-2011, 02:58 PM
A couple of points not mentioned:

The NFL is not the same business model as a company making, for example, lawnmowers. Why, because the product is heavily tax-payer supported from stadiums built with tax payer money. Of course, you could argue that more and more traditional companies are doing the same thing by demanding tax relief prior to building new facilities.

Second, regardless of shrinking margins, as long as the team is cash-neutral, most owners are making millions. How? Take a look at team valuations in the latest Forbes survey. Most team are 2 - 10X more valuable today than 15 years ago. No different than owning an apartment building that just covers costs. In the end you make the money on capital growth.

I have to agree with others that it is very distasteful on both parts to pass the players or owners as 'not making any money'.

Rising values are not money earned and are not guaranteed to remain. If the NFl profits continue to decline, so will the evaluations. The evaluations have no present day value unless you are borrowing money, in which will require yet another expense in interest payments.

I love it when someone who actually has a business background provides informed comments versus someone who has man-love of players and thinks owners have too much money.

Thank you for adding to this debate.

Blockhead
03-07-2011, 03:25 PM
No one has proof of the reasons they opted out Diamond Jim. The owners refuse to provide the NFLPA proof.
I have no idea who diamond Jim is but I suspect this is simply backlash of a childish uninformed debator. Now, back on topic.
The owners have stated their rising expenses and negotiated an opt out and have every right to take advantage of it.


Until they show their books? All the owners are doing is being greedy.
Once again, I urge you to educate yourself on the facts of the debate and the CBA. The books of each team is not what the CBA is based, therefore meaningless. Simply a ploy for PR leverage that the uneducated eat up. The books of each team would be completely different, team by team. Teams and owners own different parts of their teams, surrounding businesses, parking lots, land usage fees, etc. Teams have different debt payments, stadium leases, etc. Hence, the books are an unlevel playing field, that's why the CBA is not based on the books but rather "shared revenue" and the largest portions of the overall revenue.


The NFL shouldn't be claiming they care about player safety ad then want them to play two more reular season games. It's all about making the $700 million more for those two extra games.
The NFL players union shouldn't be claiming they care about player safety when they routinely fight the mandating of proper pads, better helmets for concussions, mouthpieces, etc.

Again, I urge you to educate yourself on the business matters and the CBA.

Crash
03-07-2011, 03:50 PM
The owners have stated their rising expenses and negotiated an opt out and have every right to take advantage of it.

How do people know what their "rising" expenses are when they don't provide the proof? The key owners who are spearheading this are Jones, Richardson, Kraft, and Bowlen. ALL of whom took out massive loans for stadiums.

Seems to me they can't afford to pay their bills. Now they want the players to pay for them also just like the fans do.

hawaiiansteel
03-07-2011, 04:29 PM
Updated: March 7, 2011

Goodell, Smith arrive for negotiations

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- With five days left until their latest deadline for a new labor deal, the NFL and the players' union resumed negotiations before a federal mediator on Monday.

Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, and other representatives of both sides arrived at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service on Monday afternoon, after taking a break in talks over the weekend.

The current collective bargaining agreement originally was slated to run out last Thursday. But the contract now expires at the end of Friday, thanks to two extensions: first for 24 hours, then for a full week. That doesn't necessarily mean a done deal is on the immediate horizon, though.

The NFL has not lost games to a work stoppage since 1987.

The current CBA was agreed to in 2006. Owners exercised an opt-out clause in 2008.

The sides have made progress during 11 days at the offices of mediator George Cohen, but they still remain apart on key economic issues.

What will happen this week is still anyone's guess. A deal could be reached at any time. Talks could break off. The sides could agree to yet another extension.

By buying extra time, the league and union made it clear neither was quite ready to make the drastic move of shutting down a league that rakes in $9 billion a year and is more popular than ever. The past two Super Bowls rank No. 1 and No. 2 among most-watched TV programs in U.S. history.

Money, not surprisingly, is at the center of the standoff.

One person with knowledge of the negotiations told The Associated Press last week that the NFLPA has not agreed to any major economic concessions -- and that the NFL has not agreed to the union's long-held demand that the league completely open its books and share all financial information.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because Cohen asked everyone involved not to comment on the substance of the talks.

The key issues all along have been:

• How to divide revenues, including what cut team owners should get up front to help cover costs such as stadium construction and improvement. Under the old deal, owners received about $1 billion off the top. They entered these negotiations seeking to add another $1 billion to that.

• A rookie wage scale, and where money saved by teams under that system would go.

• Benefits for retired players.

• The owners' push to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 while reducing the preseason by two games.

For the players to agree to a longer regular season, they would want substantial reductions in offseason workouts, minicamps and training camp. Should they get that, and if Smith can coax, say, five extra roster spots per team (160 more jobs), perhaps the league and union could find common ground on that issue.

"There are so many moving parts, so much that goes on," New Orleans Saints union representative Jon Stinchcomb said. "When you have these CBA negotiations, what we establish now will affect how we do business for years to come. It's more than just how to slash the pie. It's how you go to work, what your offseason will look like, benefits for former players, how protected are we when injuries come along."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6190192

grotonsteel
03-07-2011, 06:34 PM
The owners have stated their rising expenses and negotiated an opt out and have every right to take advantage of it.

The key owners who are spearheading this are Jones, Richardson, Kraft, and Bowlen. ALL of whom took out massive loans for stadiums.

Seems to me they can't afford to pay their bills. Now they want the players to pay for them also just like the fans do.

I don't know about other owners but Jerry Jones is one stupid owner. His operating expense for 2010 was around 150 million dollars. No other franchise has even come close to it not even Yankees. Maybe Redskins at 100 million dollars.

No wonder Jerry Jones want a bigger slice else Cowgirls will be on market.

feltdizz
03-07-2011, 06:54 PM
The owners have stated their rising expenses and negotiated an opt out and have every right to take advantage of it.

The key owners who are spearheading this are Jones, Richardson, Kraft, and Bowlen. ALL of whom took out massive loans for stadiums.

Seems to me they can't afford to pay their bills. Now they want the players to pay for them also just like the fans do.

I don't know about other owners but Jerry Jones is one stupid owner. His operating expense for 2010 was around 150 million dollars. No other franchise has even come close to it not even Yankees. Maybe Redskins at 100 million dollars.

No wonder Jerry Jones want a bigger slice else Cowgirls will be on market.

Jerry Richardson is a close second:

The Delhomme contract after 6 INT's in a home playoff loss...
Moving up to draft Armanti Edwards...
Dumping the talent to save money while raising ticket prices
The crazy press conference that made Andrew Luck stay in school...

NorthCoast
03-07-2011, 09:00 PM
Seems like the only teams that should have a beef are the Seahawks and Raiders. Jerry Jones....well he is just another idiot owner.

what the owners are probably sweating over:


The average franchise value for the NFL remained ostensibly flat ($1.043 billion compared to $1.04 billion in 2008), after seeing increases of 9 percent, 7 percent, and 10 percent over the last 4 years. The reason for the flattening is directly related to the financial climate and bad credit markets that discouraged buyers.

With the chilly economy and tight credit markets, eight teams went down in value over the past year: Indianapolis Colts, Miami Dolphins, St. Louis Rams, Detroit Lions, Jacksonville Jaguars, Atlanta Falcons, and Oakland Raiders. The decrease of these eight teams marks the first time in ten years that any team has decreased in value year-over-year.



keep in mind the survey was in 2009...maybe the depths of the recession. So instead of double digit valuation increases, they 'scraped by' with single digit on average. it is idiot owners that don't have the big picture in mind that will end up ruining it for all by overpaying for marginal talent for the apparent one-shot Superbowl run. Short-term perspective of coaches and management to "win now" is the albatross to reasonable agreements for all. The owners have a very easy solution for what ails their books, DON'T PAY THE PLAYERS WHAT THEY WANT. PAY THEM WHAT THEY ARE WORTH.


http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac248/bubbarmw/Presentation1.jpg

hawaiiansteel
03-08-2011, 03:50 PM
NFL, players far apart on revenue split

Tuesday, March 08, 2011
By Mark Maske, The Washington Post

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/images/201103/nfl0308_500.jpg

Alex Brandon/Associated Press
NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, right, with Charlie Batch and other players walk to negotiations with the NFL involving a federal mediator Monday in Washington.


The NFL's labor negotiations resumed Monday with the league and the players union close to $800 million apart on the central economic issue of how to divide the sport's annual revenue, according to sources familiar with the deliberations.

If there is to be a settlement this week, it probably would have to involve a tradeoff between the two sides on the revenue split under a salary cap system and another key issue: whether a federal court judge in Minneapolis would continue to oversee the sport's labor deal, said sources from throughout the sport, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions are at a sensitive stage.

A settlement, if it is to be completed by the new bargaining deadline Friday, also would be likely to include an 18-game regular season that would be accompanied by reductions in offseason workouts and perhaps other concessions to the players, and a version of a rookie wage scale less restrictive than the NFL originally sought, the sources said. They cautioned that all the elements of a potential deal still could change as negotiations progress this week.

They also said that because the league and union remain so far apart on the major issue of how to divide revenue, there remains a significant possibility that the two sides will be unable to complete a settlement this week. That could result in a confrontation, with players decertifying the union and filing antitrust litigation against the sport's franchise owners, and the owners locking out players. The two sides also could extend their deadline again.

Some bargaining progress was made Thursday, according to sources. The league and union, negotiating under the supervision of federal mediator George Cohen, agreed to postpone by 24 hours their original bargaining deadline of 11:59 p.m. Thursday, then agreed Friday to a seven-day extension of talks.

Talks resumed Monday afternoon at the downtown Washington offices of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. Cohen is the agency's director.

"Players will work their butts off -- same as past [two] years -- to get this done," George Atallah, the union's assistant executive director of external affairs, wrote Monday on Twitter.

Participants in the bargaining have adhered to Cohen's request that the negotiators refrain from public comments about the details of the talks. But sources with knowledge of last week's developments said over the weekend and Monday that the optimism sparked by last week's postponements resulted mainly because there was some bargaining movement, not because that movement was particularly substantial.

Various sources said there was modest movement on the revenue-split issue. They put the remaining difference at between $750 million and $800 million per year.

Under the current labor deal, owners are credited with about $1.3 billion per year for expenses before the players' portion of the sport's approximately $9 billion in annual revenues is calculated. The league originally sought another $1 billion annual credit for owners before the players take their cut. The union rejected that proposal, saying it would amount to a pay cut for players not justified by the sport's economic conditions.

That gap was narrowed a bit last week but remains sizable, according to sources. Another major stumbling block this week, the sources said, is that the union continues to seek extensive financial data about team finances, while NFL negotiators remain reluctant to provide it.

Several sources said the two sides probably cannot reach a compromise on the division of revenue unless they couple it with another bargaining issue. That issue, the sources said, could be the continued oversight of the sport's labor situation by U.S. District Judge David Doty.

Doty has overseen the labor deal since 1993. Last week, Doty ruled that the structure of the league's television contracts violated the settlement agreement and wrote that he would hold a hearing to determine damages and remedies, including an injunction. That could jeopardize the owners' ability to receive their approximately $4 billion in TV rights fees from the networks next season if there is a lockout.

The owners view the exclusion of Doty from future involvement as a major issue in these negotiations and would be unlikely to agree to any settlement that includes his continued oversight of the collective bargaining agreement, sources said.

One possible tradeoff this week, multiple sources said, was for the league to essentially buy off the future exclusion of such oversight by making a major concession to the players on the revenue split.

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11067/11 ... z1G2G3OoO3 (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11067/1130425-66.stm#ixzz1G2G3OoO3)

Crash
03-08-2011, 03:55 PM
The owners don't want a deal.

Blockhead
03-08-2011, 03:57 PM
The owners don't want a deal.

link?

Crash
03-08-2011, 04:01 PM
The owners don't want a deal.

link?

Their $4 billion nest egg. They are just biding time to see if they can get that money back, and if they do, the NFL will shut down for a year at least.

Blockhead
03-08-2011, 04:03 PM
The owners don't want a deal.

link?

Their $4 billion nest egg. They are just biding time to see if they can get that money back, and if they do, the NFL will shut down for a year at least.
link?

hawaiiansteel
03-09-2011, 08:19 PM
Report: Agreement reached on rookie wage scale

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 9, 2011


While the NFL and NFLPA wrangle over potentially crippling transparency issues, they have reportedly settled a smaller problem.

Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reports that the two sides have reached a compromise on a rookie wage scale. The new plan will replace the current rookie salary cap and limit the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonuses available to draft picks.

Details on the guaranteed money available have yet to be revealed but here’s a few key points to the agreement.

1. Rookie first-round contracts will be limited to four years. The owners backed off an original idea to require first-round picks signing for five years.

2. Players drafted after the first round will be limited to three-year contracts. Players would be restricted free agents in the fourth year. This isn’t much different from the current system, when the majority of picks after the first round wind up with three-year contracts.

It’s hard to evaluate the new system without knowing how much the high first round picks will make. Cole reports the owners’ original offer for the No. 1 overall pick would have been a five-year, $19 million contract. Only $6 million was guaranteed. (For comparison, Sam Bradford got $50 million guaranteed on a six-year deal last year.)

The owners eventually backed off such a drastic reduction, but we don’t know by how much. Eagles president Joe Banner has been involved in the negotiations, according to Paul Domowitch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

The key concession from the union’s perspective is that first-round picks will hit free agency faster. The good ones will ultimately be rewarded with a big second contract faster than under the old system. (Just think of the leverage Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco would have now after three seasons.)

In the end, ballooning rookie deals was a big problem for the league that had to be corrected.

Now they just have to correct everything else.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... age-scale/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/09/report-agreement-reached-on-rookie-wage-scale/)

feltdizz
03-09-2011, 09:01 PM
5 years.. 19 million? That is peanuts... :lol: I'm joking.

I have no idea why this wasn't agreed to much earlier.. it's not like the rookie scale will hurt current players and the new ones have no idea what it's like anyways so everyone wins.

I think this is the best way for the owners to make money in the short term. Why should the worst team, who probably has half empty stadiums, pay so much for an unproven rookie?

RuthlessBurgher
03-10-2011, 08:44 PM
Bill Simmons also lets owners have it:


Greed is good in NFL labor talksEmail Print By Bill Simmons
ESPN.com

Take a deep breath, suspend all disbelief and walk through the following hypothetical (and admittedly ridiculous) scenario with me ...



It's December 2006.



I decide to leave ESPN, start my own blog and charge $10 per year for anyone to read my column. Just for fun -- again, it's hypothetical! -- let's say one million readers sign up, guaranteeing me $10 million for that first year (2007). And let's say I sign advertising deals with three sponsors for another $2 million apiece, raising my total haul to $16 million for Year 1. I spend the next 12 months writing and pinching myself for my good fortune. Life is good.



Fast-forward to December 2007. I just learned something about myself. I don't like it. I know it's wrong. I can't shake it. I can't deny it. See, I really, really like money. Even if I never imagined making $16 million in my lifetime, much less for a single year, I now find myself smitten by those dollar signs. How much more can I make? How high can this go? Someday, I want my financial adviser to cackle and say, "Good Lord, I don't even know what to do with all this cash flow." That's what I want.



Hence, I need to raise the total value of my "franchise." I build a more sophisticated website, pay for designers and extra bandwidth, then hire a team of writers and editors to work for me. That creates $2 million in expenses for Year 2, which I pay off by finding a fourth sponsor. In order to cover these additional expenses, I'm "forced" to raise the 2008 subscription fee to $25. (That's what I tell my idiot readers.) This time around, only 700,000 readers sign up. Between sponsors and subscribers, I am still guaranteed a total haul of $23.5 million for Year 2. Profit. This is good. I am showing "growth." Even as I slowly antagonize my audience.



By the end of Year 2, I have the hottest sports website on the Internet. Everyone wants to work for me for the visibility and prestige, and also because I share revenue with employees (they get salaries plus a small piece of everything I am pulling in). An overload of potential sponsors allows me to jack my rates and pocket $30 million in ad revenue for Year 3. But you know what? I love the smell of money. I can't get enough of it. Sometimes I go to the bank, withdraw a wad of $100 bills, throw it on my desk, lean my face over it and smell the pile like cookies baking in an oven. I can't get enough. I am insatiable. I need more.



For Year 3, I limit subscriptions to 300,000, then sell "personal subscription licenses." For an upfront fee of $200, a reader would purchase the right to subscribe for 10 years -- a decade-long contract of sorts -- at whatever price I charge. Did you catch those last five words? At whatever price I charge. How stupid are these people? Yeah, I know, they are my fans ... but don't they realize that I'm throwing on a ski mask and holding them up? And so what if this makes me the greediest, most soulless a-hole who ever lived? I WANT THAT MONEY! This is America! Greed is good! I have lost my mind.



Incredibly, I sell those 300,000 PSLs for a total haul of $60 million, then make another 50,000 PSL-free subscriptions available on a first-come/first-serve annual basis. (Those sell, too.) Was that influx of money worth getting ripped by media reporters and savaged on message boards and blogs? Are you kidding? Please. Throw in another $12.25 million from the $35 subscription fee for Year 3 (which, very quietly, I jacked up another 10 bucks) and a robust $20 million in ad revenue and, even after you remove expenses and revenue sharing, I still pocket $80 million.



Now I'm on the cover of Business Week, I'm featured in Vanity Fair, I'm making appearances on Bill Maher and "The Daily Show." ... I'm a rock star, the writer/entrepreneur who turned his little blog into a nine-figure operation. I spend another $5 million on staff, then another $10 million on a five-story building on Hollywood Boulevard, then another $10 million renovating it into a state-of-the-art office that features a lavish two-story sports bar with a 250-inch Panasonic HD plasma that costs $400,000 (the first of its kind) ... which, by the way, I didn't have to pay for because I convinced the city of Los Angeles to fund almost all of it with taxpayer money. I will generate revenue from journalism buffs, tourists, you name it. Or so I think.



See, I may have bitten off a little bit more than I could chew this time.



My site wasn't as good in Year 3. A few of my best writers bolted because I didn't give them a bigger revenue cut. A few rival sites launched -- all free, all cutting into my traffic -- and the backlash over my PSLs and exorbitant subscription fees hasn't slowed down. Not that I care; my only concern is not showing enough growth. Even after selling one-third of the business to foreign investors for $100 million (my employees don't get a cut of this, of course), and even after raising subscription fees to a staggeringly obscene $50 for Year 4 -- which my 300,000 subscribers are forced to pay since they were dumb enough to buy those PSLs that they can't sell now -- my bottom line looks like this:



Year 1 (2007): $16 million profit
Year 2 (2008): $23.5 million profit
Year 3 (2009): $80 million profit
Year 4 (2010): $95 million profit



I'm not growing fast enough. I don't fully own my business anymore. I already played my two best quick-hit tricks (PSLs and investors) for cash flow. I have a 100-person staff at this point that's growing every month. Looking ahead to Year 5, I decide to change my revenue-sharing agreement with my employees -- ask them for more money back, basically -- to make up for my projected fall in revenue. They resist. They want the same agreement as before, only with better health care.



My counter: That's fine, as long as you work six days a week to help me generate more revenue, because again, MY BUSINESS NEEDS TO KEEP GROWING!!!!



That was my ballsiest request yet. I made it despite new medical evidence (take an extra leap of hypothetical faith here) that spending too much time in front of a computer is significantly more dangerous than we ever imagined. Doctors believe over-computer stimulation (OCS) directly leads to early death, Parkinson's, concussions, cancer, blindness and various other terrible things -- a slight problem for me, since, you know, my business revolves around people reading computers and writing on them. For three years, I willfully ignored this information even as the New Yorker and New York Times repeatedly wrote about it, then belatedly pretended to care halfway through Year 4 -- although, really, I could have given two craps, I just had to PRETEND I did -- because legally, I might be liable for making employees work even longer hours despite the risks. Thank God none of my media cronies crushed me for ignoring those same dangers in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Phew.



My long-term fear? The dangers of extensive computer use will scare writers and readers away from computers altogether. But that's decades away. Habits take time to break. I'll be living on my own beach in Mexico or St. Bart's by then.



My short-term fear: My employees will walk at the beginning of Year 5 unless I give them a slightly better deal and bend on six-day workweeks. You'd think I would take care of these people, that I made enough money already, that it's the decent thing to do. But my franchise isn't worth quite what it could be. I wanted to be generating a $150 million profit in Year 5. I can't slam on the brakes. Not now.



I scramble and swing a deal with Apple: $200 million for five-year rights to sell applications for my site. There's an evil wrinkle: The deal can't kick in until the start of Year 5. If my site goes into hiatus because I locked out my employees, I can still cash that $200 million for myself. How does that windfall help me? Now I don't care if my employees walk: I have my Apple money, my foreign investor money and my PSL money. I can play hardball. I can afford to wait them out.



They are peons. They live paycheck to paycheck. They will fold. They will accept my crappy deal. Eventually.



What I don't anticipate: My employees are savvier than I thought. They file a lawsuit claiming my Apple deal was unethical, that I intentionally sought that $200 million nest egg as a negotiating advantage, that I shouldn't be allowed to touch that money during a labor dispute. Uh-oh. A judge rules in their favor. So long, nest egg. Meanwhile, my foreign investors are incensed that Year 5 might not happen; they feel like I deceived them. My PSL owners are threatening to sue for failing to deliver promised content. My bills at my Hollywood complex keep piling up. And the media is crucifying me for being greedy and losing touch with the same readers who made me wealthy.



Guess what? I still don't care.



If Charlie Sheen is addicted to winning, then I am addicted to making money. I have lost any and all perspective. I don't care if I lose my readers in the short term; they will come back. I don't care if I lose my staff; I can always find new people. I don't care about the health of my employees; as far as I'm concerned, they knew the risks. I don't care if my website is gravitating toward quantity over quality, or that we chase page views with shorter, Google-friendly stories instead of posting the same top-notch content that got people reading us in the first place; I want only to generate more revenue than the previous year.



Heck, I don't even care that one of my former employees was so destroyed mentally by OCS that, instead of just killing himself, he made arrangements ahead of time for his brain to be studied by OCS scientists, then shot himself in the heart. It was the creepiest, most haunting story in recent memory, the kind of incident that makes you sigh and say, "Wait, what are we doing to these people?" I don't care. I don't care. I don't care.



Remember the scene in "Shawshank" when Andy tells the warden that he's done with laundering money for him? The warden's eyes narrow. He shakes his head. He looks at Andy as dismissively as one human being can regard another.



"Nothing stops," he says. "Nothing."



That's me. I'm the warden. Nothing stops. I will make more money than I did last year, and I will continue to regard employees and readers as disposable pawns. This isn't about common sense, dignity, relationships, long-term plans, or even preserving the fragile relationship between a customer and a provider. It's about generating more money in Years 5 through 8 than I made in Years 1 through 4. That's it. Oh, and steamrolling anyone who gets in my way. I forgot that part.



Now tell me ...



Would I make a good NFL owner?


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304

feltdizz
03-11-2011, 10:37 AM
Hilarious... but I think former NFL player Muhsin Muhammad said it best.

You can't really compare the NFL to other industries because the players are the product.

Blockhead
03-11-2011, 12:04 PM
Hilarious... but I think former NFL player Muhsin Muhammad said it best.

You can't really compare the NFL to other industries because the players are the product.

That is the opinion of someone on the side of the players. I would say the players are the employees of the product. The players/employees come and go but the league, which the owners created and has given great wealth to many of it's employees, is the product.

People to go see the Roethisbergers/Farriors/Polamalu's play, they go to see the Steelers play and will do so long after the individual players are gone. People hold season tickes for decades, thus watching players come and go because they follow the real product, the franchise.

feltdizz
03-11-2011, 01:07 PM
Hilarious... but I think former NFL player Muhsin Muhammad said it best.

You can't really compare the NFL to other industries because the players are the product.

That is the opinion of someone on the side of the players. I would say the players are the employees of the product. The players/employees come and go but the league, which the owners created and has given great wealth to many of it's employees, is the product.

People to go see the Roethisbergers/Farriors/Polamalu's play, they go to see the Steelers play and will do so long after the individual players are gone. People hold season tickes for decades, thus watching players come and go because they follow the real product, the franchise.

If every team operated like the Steelers then I would agree 100%.

However, the reality is half the teams put out a product that doesn't fill the stadium. Is it football that is truly the product or the star players playing football that makes it so successful? Look at the preseason games... stadiums are half full and everyone complains because the product isn't the same.

hawaiiansteel
03-11-2011, 03:38 PM
Ed: Games Don't Have to Stop if no CBA

FRIDAY, 11 MARCH 2011 07:42 WRITTEN BY ED BOUCHETTE


Thursday’s sparring between the two sides does not bode well for a new labor agreement any time soon, or even them agreeing to another week of CBA extensions. So the CBA likely will expire today and then will come all the legal maneuvering. The union will decertify and then sue the NFL over anti-trust violations. The NFL owners will impose a lockout.

Then what? No football in 2011. There really could be no reason to stop the games. The courts could decide to lift the owners lockout and permit the players to return to work. Then the proceedings would move through the courts at a pace that might not solve matters for quite some time. The players struck after two games of the regular season in 1987. It wiped out one game, three games were played with “replacement” players and then everyone came back to work and worked and worked and played games right up until the new labor agreement – six years later!

It may not take six years to get this one done, but a similar 1987-like strike won’t happen. The owners learned their lesson 24 years ago, even if new owners have hopped on board since then and some former owners are no longer with us. The lockout was designed so, after reaching a negotiation impasses, the players could not walk out during or just before the season. And if the union decertifies, there can be no union strike.

Interesting times, but no matter what happens, there should be football played in 2011.

http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/inde ... -if-no-cba (http://plus.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/pro-sports/steelers/108597-ed-games-dont-have-to-stop-if-no-cba)

Blockhead
03-11-2011, 03:54 PM
Hilarious... but I think former NFL player Muhsin Muhammad said it best.

You can't really compare the NFL to other industries because the players are the product.

That is the opinion of someone on the side of the players. I would say the players are the employees of the product. The players/employees come and go but the league, which the owners created and has given great wealth to many of it's employees, is the product.

People to go see the Roethisbergers/Farriors/Polamalu's play, they go to see the Steelers play and will do so long after the individual players are gone. People hold season tickes for decades, thus watching players come and go because they follow the real product, the franchise.

If every team operated like the Steelers then I would agree 100%.

However, the reality is half the teams put out a product that doesn't fill the stadium. Is it football that is truly the product or the star players playing football that makes it so successful? Look at the preseason games... stadiums are half full and everyone complains because the product isn't the same.
I'd have to look but I would guess there are many more teams that come close to filling the stands but there are a handful that seem to struggle. Jacksonville, Tampa, Arizona and Cinci come to mind. Outside of them, there isn't really any issues with attendance and blackouts.

I'd say your notion of half the teams is off base.

RuthlessBurgher
03-11-2011, 05:03 PM
It will be interesting to see how severe the decline in attendance in Indianapolis will be once a certain large-foreheaded fellow eventually hangs up his cleats to make commercials full-time.

Blockhead
03-11-2011, 05:08 PM
It will be interesting to see how severe the decline in attendance in Indianapolis will be once a certain large-foreheaded fellow eventually hangs up his cleats to make commercials full-time.

I doubt people will decline to renew their season tickets when Peyton hangs it up.

hawaiiansteel
03-12-2011, 10:50 PM
Don't believe the owners -- or the players

By Pete Prisco
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
March 11, 2011


He lied. No, he did.

They won't negotiate. They want to litigate. They will open the books, but only a couple of pages. They want this. They want that. They're billionaires. They're nothing but employees.

Are you sick of it all yet?

It might only be beginning.

With the NFL Players Association deciding to decertify Friday, it means it's likely headed for a courtroom showdown with the NFL owners. It also means there's a chance for the 2011 season to be played.

But for now it's litigate and not negotiate.

That's what the owners want you to believe is the union's calling card.

The union -- oops the old union since they are no more -- wanted us to believe the owners were evil rich men who took advantage of the poor working man.

If you believe either, you have a zip code in Charlie Sheen-ville.

There has been little in terms of information flow that is concrete in these talks. Both sides want you to believe that they are right.

Here's what I believe: They're both wrong.

They're wrong for stiffing the fans. They're wrong for taking a sport that is by far the most popular and putting the focus on lawyers instead of coaches, on DeMaurice Smith instead of the draft, on mediation instead of evaluation.

This is a time when free agents are supposed to be changing teams, the NFL's second season, which is a sport of its own.

Instead we are left wondering if there will be a real season. The move by the union to decertify helps the possibility that there will be a season. If the NFL had locked out the players as a union, then the season would have been in much more jeopardy. But decertifying means it is more likely that we do have a 2011 season, although courts will decide that. The league can now file an injunction to prevent a lockout -- which the NFL plans to do -- and that would make the league implement a set of rules to guide the 2011 season, which the players would play under if they were to their liking as the anti-trust suit wound its way through the courts.

What I want to know is this: Why did it get this bad?

There are a variety of reasons, but the main one is this:

Greed.

Greed is good? Not if you're an NFL fan.

The owners want more money. The players want more. I don't blame either. I blame them both.

I am not a union mouthpiece or a management mouthpiece. I think they both have made big mistakes.

This is a $9 billion-a-year business. It should grow by another $5 billion in the next decade. Isn’t that enough to go around?

I've talked to several players in the past month about the potential for a work stoppage. They've all said they could handle missing checks. Now we might see. Saying it and doing it are two different things.

Players were due $200 million in roster and option bonuses last week. Wonder how the wives are handling not getting that?

If the deal the owners say they offered is real -- and nobody knows for sure -- the union did a disservice to its players. According to a statement released by the league, this is what the union left on the table:

• An offer to narrow the player compensation game that existed by splitting the difference. That sounds like it means splitting the $1 billion difference to $500 million. The league also said it agreed to the union's demand for a 2014 cap at $161 million, but a union source said the league wanted to cut $1.4 billion out of the salaries in the next four years.

• Guaranteed reallocation of savings from first-round rookie deals to veterans and retirees. But the league, according to a union source, wanted five-year rookie deals for first-round picks. The union wanted three.

• New year-round health and safety rules and retain the current format of 16 games and four preseason games and cut down on offseason work.

• A chance to establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

The owners later sent out more information, again favorable to them. The union source balked at all these claims.

I find it interesting that each is trying to spin it their way now. It's a classic case of lawyer said, lawyer said. That's usually enough to make us all puke.

So what was actually offered is up for debate. Heck, how much negotiation there has been is up for debate. One player who was in the room said he saw an owner -- one owner -- for 30 minutes. That's it. Is that negotiating?

What we do know is that we have an outcome none of us wanted for now.

Football is in the hands of the courts. The NFLPA doesn't even exist. The NFLPA's website, NFLPlayers.com, was shut down. A message said, "Please be patient as we work on resolving this. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

Not as sorry as we are.

It's litigation time. The NFL will lock out players now, and we will go dark -- or the league will put in place its own rules.

The bottom line is this move by the players to decertify might actually save us the chance of losing the season. If the owners had locked out, the season would have been in much more jeopardy.

There has already been one anti-trust lawsuit filed by some league players, including Peyton Manning and Tom Brady to stop the lockout. If that is successful, the NFL could impose rules to govern the 2011 season -- maybe the 2010 rules -- and the season would be played as the litigation made its way through the courts. Or other players could file an injunction if those conditions are restrictive

That could take a long, long time, depending on appeals. As it is now, football business is on hold, although the 2011 season still could happen under old rules, and if the rules are reasonable, players plan to play.

But, for now, it appears there are no winners -- and no football business.

To borrow a DeMaurice Smith buzzword: That's something none of us can dig.

http://www.cbssports.com/print/nfl/stor ... he-players (http://www.cbssports.com/print/nfl/story/14798349/dont-believe-the-owners-or-the-players)
For more from Pete Prisco, check him out on Twitter: @PriscoCBS

Crash
03-12-2011, 11:02 PM
The owners want more money. The players want more.

He's wrong. All the players wanted was to keep playing under the current agreement which was hashed out in 2006.

hawaiiansteel
03-12-2011, 11:27 PM
Pete Kendall says owners’ statements are “completely false”

Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011


Owners consistently have accused the players of pushing the negotiation process toward decertification and litigation. And one former player who has been involved in the negotiations disagrees.

Strongly.

“I’m incredibly disappointed,” Pete Kendall tells Tom Curran of CSNNE.com. “It’s completely false. The outcome we have today is outcome the owners sought starting in 2007 when they hired Bob Batterman. Owners started talking publicly about a lockout in 2008 and evidence in the ["lockout insurance" case] made it clear owners planned to do a lockout in 2011. No other conclusion can be drawn.

“The people on the players’ side were more than willing to sit down with ownership and be convinced of the real problems,” Kendall said. “The only way the owners could convince the players was to demonstrate it. Not just say it. The owners said, ‘Trust us.’ After everything revealed in the lockout insurance case, how could we do that? Now we have a lockout. So who got what they were positioning for?”

Well, Pete, both. The players were positioning to decertify and sue, and the owners were positioning to lock the players out. Each side got what it wanted, and now each side is trying to blame the other.

Something else Kendall said caught our attention. With the union supposedly insisting on nothing less than audited financial statements, Kendall indicated that the union would have taken something far less than that.

“We were more than willing to agree to confidentiality in that,” Kendall said regarding the possibility of financial disclosure. “The results could have been blinded so we didn’t know which teams were declining in profitability.”

In other words, the players apparently would be willing to consider team-by-team profitability information without the teams being identified.

The good news? NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith’s public demand for audited financial statements apparently was, as it appeared to be, grandstanding. If/when the negotiations resume, hopefully the two sides will find a middle ground as to the issue of financial transparency, so that they then can find a middle ground as to the challenge of figuring out how to share more than $9 billion per year.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ely-false/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/pete-kendall-says-owners-statements-are-completely-false/)

Crash
03-13-2011, 01:13 AM
All the players say the same thing. If you are losing money, show us why and where.

IMO that's not a unreasonable request.

If the owners are being truthful, and have nothing to hide, what's the hold up?

hawaiiansteel
03-13-2011, 01:23 AM
sounds like the players may not completely trust what the owners are saying...

http://chzupnextinsports.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/funny-sports-pictures-trust-me-im-a-doctor.jpg

Crash
03-13-2011, 01:26 AM
The players were dealt a blow to the Brady lawsuit when the case was not assigned to Judge Doty after the first judge asked to be removed from the case.

hawaiiansteel
03-13-2011, 01:52 AM
The players were dealt a blow to the Brady lawsuit when the case was not assigned to Judge Doty after the first judge asked to be removed from the case.


Initial judge steps aside from Brady case

Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011


I’ve gotten our mitts on the many documents filed to date in the case of Tom Brady et al. v. The National Football League et al., and I’m slowly but surely reading through all of them.

Here’s one that caught my attention.

Since the Brady case was filed as a new case in Minnesota federal court, it was assigned like any new case would be assigned. Most courts employ a simple rotational system, with new cases being dealt to the judges like playing cards.

The Brady case was assigned to Judge Richard H. Kyle. Judge Kyle promptly filed an order disqualifying himself from the case and positioning it for reassignment. He gave no reason for the move, citing 28 U.S.C. § 455 as the basis for the disqualification.

Section 455 requires disqualification under certain specific circumstances pointing to an actual or potential bias, including “[w]here in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter.” Judge Kyle practiced with the firm of Briggs & Morgan at the time he was appointed to the federal bench in 1992. Briggs & Morgan served as the lead local counsel for the NFLPA* in the Reggie White antitrust case. Even if Judge Kyle never worked on the White case, Section 455 potentially would apply if any of the lawyers with whom he worked while at Briggs & Morgan handled the case. Since the White case was pending throughout 1992, this appears to be the reason for the recusal.

Some would say that same reasoning also would apply to NFLPA* local counsel Barbara Berens in the Brady case, who worked as a law clerk for Judge David Doty and who, according to her website, served as a “Special Master” in the White litigation. That said, these are two separate cases, even though one relies on certain aspects of the settlement agreement reached in the other case.

If Judge Kyle relied on his prior relationship with Briggs & Morgan during the prior case as the basis to step aside from the current case, Judge Kyle aguably applied a very broad interpretation to the rule. Perhaps he had no desire to be at the center of a three-ring circus. Perhaps he wanted to help funnel the case back to Judge Doty, the judge whom the NFL fully expects to get the case.

Or perhaps there was some other reason for the move. If the reason had been cited in the order, we’d know what the reason was. The mere fact that the reason wasn’t cited invites speculation as to the real reason — and as to the real motive.

Stay tuned. The case likely will be reassigned on Monday, and the NFL is bracing for what it believes to be an inevitable assignment of the case to Judge Doty.

UPDATE: Will Brinson of CBSSports.com tells us that the case already has been reassigned to Judge Patrick J. Schiltz. Nominated for the bench by George W. Bush in 2005, Judge Schiltz served as a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Though we currently don’t know anything about Judge Schiltz’s track record of rulings, he’s likely not a liberal, which likely plays into the league’s hands.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... rady-case/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/initial-judge-steps-aside-from-brady-case/)

Crash
03-13-2011, 01:55 AM
Like magic!

Oviedo
03-13-2011, 08:50 AM
The owners want more money. The players want more.

He's wrong. All the players wanted was to keep playing under the current agreement which was hashed out in 2006.

Which should immediately tell a rational thinking person that it was biased towards their side. They were getting 60% of the revenues but incurring not of the financial liabilities for running the business.

The opt out clause was built into the 2006 agreement because it was at that time viewed as a potentially flawed agreement with potenial problems. The crash in the economy and the cost of building stadiums and the subsequent negative change in the financial markets were not fully understood or anticipated at that time.

Crash
03-13-2011, 01:17 PM
MOST of the league's teams are already playing in relatively new stadiums that were built and paid for long before the 2006 agreement and long before this economy crunch.

Buffalo, KC (refurbished), Chicago (refurbished), Lambeau (refurbished), SF, San Diego, Minnesota, Oakland (refurbished), New Orleans (refurbished).

That's 9 cities out of 32 teams that are playing in what I would call an "old stadium", and five of them have been basically gutted and refurbished.

They can claim that paying for stadiums is an issue, but the facts show that most of the teams are playing in stadiums that won't be replaced any time soon.

Blockhead
03-13-2011, 01:49 PM
MOST of the league's teams are already playing in relatively new stadiums that were built and paid for long before the 2006 agreement and long before this economy crunch.

Buffalo, KC (refurbished), Chicago (refurbished), Lambeau (refurbished), SF, San Diego, Minnesota, Oakland (refurbished), New Orleans (refurbished).

That's 9 cities out of 32 teams that are playing in what I would call an "old stadium", and five of them have been basically gutted and refurbished.

They can claim that paying for stadiums is an issue, but the facts show that most of the teams are playing in stadiums that won't be replaced any time soon.
Stadiums being old or new is really meaningless as an expense comparison.

New stadiums have lower expenses based on being new and lower maintenance needed but more than make up that difference in debt service fees.

Older stadium have less debt service fees and more expenses.

Crash
03-13-2011, 02:00 PM
MOST of the league's teams are already playing in relatively new stadiums that were built and paid for long before the 2006 agreement and long before this economy crunch.

Buffalo, KC (refurbished), Chicago (refurbished), Lambeau (refurbished), SF, San Diego, Minnesota, Oakland (refurbished), New Orleans (refurbished).

That's 9 cities out of 32 teams that are playing in what I would call an "old stadium", and five of them have been basically gutted and refurbished.

They can claim that paying for stadiums is an issue, but the facts show that most of the teams are playing in stadiums that won't be replaced any time soon.
Stadiums being old or new is really meaningless as an expense comparison.

New stadiums have lower expenses based on being new and lower maintenance needed but more than make up that difference in debt service fees.

Older stadium have less debt service fees and more expenses.

Lovely. But Goodell is using stadium construction costs as a key issue in this whole process.

The facts show that most of the league's 32 teams already have their relatively new stadiums.

hawaiiansteel
03-13-2011, 02:59 PM
Players, too, must accept responsibility

by Peter Schrager

FOXSports.com
Updated Mar 12, 2011


It's easy for the players to say, “Why fix what’s not broken?”

But there are cracks in the system. And despite the record TV numbers and the game’s international popularity, there are still improvements that must be made for the league and its owners to continue to deliver the high-quality product fans expect and deserve.

A new NFL stadium hasn’t been approved since 2005.

That’s not some coincidence.

The owners aren’t looking to fund and build any new ones (and pay the massive mortgages on them) until the players agree to share a bit more of the financial return. Fans don’t want to hear about the financial minutiae of this “billionaires vs. millionaires” war, but the way the owners and players split the annual gross revenue ($9.3 billion is the expected figure from the 2010 season) heavily favors the players.

The owners feel that they got burned with the 2006 CBA by not reading the fine print, and they want to ensure they learn from their mistakes. Though the owners have refused to open their books and it’s assumed that none of the 32 teams is actually in the red at the moment, it’s understood that under the current business model, they quickly would be headed down that path.

And as much as it pains me to say it, the owners have the right to object and, quite frankly, put an end to a situation they believe might lead them down a road to financial ruin. This may not be a popular sentiment, but it’s one that those on the ownership side of any labor dispute would express:

If the players don’t like the compromises the owners are asking them to make, they have every right to take the free college educations this game has earned them and find a job elsewhere in an entirely different line of work. No one is forcing them to play professional football.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Schr ... ers-030311 (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Schrager-NFL-work-stoppage-players-partially-to-blame-fans-are-biggest-losers-030311)

BURGH86STEEL
03-13-2011, 07:27 PM
MOST of the league's teams are already playing in relatively new stadiums that were built and paid for long before the 2006 agreement and long before this economy crunch.

Buffalo, KC (refurbished), Chicago (refurbished), Lambeau (refurbished), SF, San Diego, Minnesota, Oakland (refurbished), New Orleans (refurbished).

That's 9 cities out of 32 teams that are playing in what I would call an "old stadium", and five of them have been basically gutted and refurbished.

They can claim that paying for stadiums is an issue, but the facts show that most of the teams are playing in stadiums that won't be replaced any time soon.
Stadiums being old or new is really meaningless as an expense comparison.

New stadiums have lower expenses based on being new and lower maintenance needed but more than make up that difference in debt service fees.

Older stadium have less debt service fees and more expenses.

Lovely. But Goodell is using stadium construction costs as a key issue in this whole process.

The facts show that most of the league's 32 teams already have their relatively new stadiums.

I will add that tax payers pay a certain %'s of cost for some of those stadiums construction.

Crash
03-13-2011, 08:18 PM
A new NFL stadium hasn’t been approved since 2005.

That’s not some coincidence.

And how many of the 9 teams I listed are even TRYING to get a or need a new one?

Crash
03-13-2011, 08:42 PM
21 of the 32 teams in this league play in stadiums that are under 20 years old. And 12 of those stadiums opened from 2000-2010.

Old stadiums Lambeau, Arrowhead, Soldier Field, and the SuperDome all went massive renovation projects. That's 25 of the stadiums right there.

The issue isn't the cost of building stadiums, the issue is most of the league already has them.

Crash
03-13-2011, 08:44 PM
MOST of the league's teams are already playing in relatively new stadiums that were built and paid for long before the 2006 agreement and long before this economy crunch.

Buffalo, KC (refurbished), Chicago (refurbished), Lambeau (refurbished), SF, San Diego, Minnesota, Oakland (refurbished), New Orleans (refurbished).

That's 9 cities out of 32 teams that are playing in what I would call an "old stadium", and five of them have been basically gutted and refurbished.

They can claim that paying for stadiums is an issue, but the facts show that most of the teams are playing in stadiums that won't be replaced any time soon.
Stadiums being old or new is really meaningless as an expense comparison.

New stadiums have lower expenses based on being new and lower maintenance needed but more than make up that difference in debt service fees.

Older stadium have less debt service fees and more expenses.

Lovely. But Goodell is using stadium construction costs as a key issue in this whole process.

The facts show that most of the league's 32 teams already have their relatively new stadiums.

I will add that tax payers pay a certain %'s of cost for some of those stadiums construction.

And some cities also "share" the cost of certain renovations of their stadiums also. The SEA in Pittsburgh shares cost with the Steelers on a variety of upkeep projects to Heinz Field.

hawaiiansteel
03-14-2011, 02:56 AM
FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2011

NFL releases is proposal


According to the AP, here is what the NFL released as its latest proposal to the NFLPA. It should give you an idea of what they're looking at as future salary caps.

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/sidelines/