PDA

View Full Version : CBA extended 7 days....



Crash
03-04-2011, 03:25 PM
Per ESPN.......

RuthlessBurgher
03-04-2011, 03:27 PM
That's certainly better than the alternative...

Still not feeling exactly hopeful yet, though...

Crash
03-04-2011, 03:31 PM
I think they realize they can't piss away a season. Too much at stake for everyone involved.

Baseball is a mess, no one cares about the NBA and the NHL is a cult sport.

The NFL is now America's past time. A season off would be a PR disaster when they make $9 bil in these economic times.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 03:46 PM
I think they realize they can't piss away a season. Too much at stake for everyone involved.

Baseball is a mess, no one cares about the NBA and the NHL is a cult sport.

The NFL is now America's past time. A season off would be a PR disaster when they make $9 bil in these economic times.
Speak for yourself. I go to as many MLB games as possible and listen/watch when in the car/on the road. I watch NBA games about every night. I have never cared about hockey on television but go to the occassional game.

Better to have a season or so off to get a deal beneficial to the owners and the long term viability of the league.

Crash
03-04-2011, 03:53 PM
Better to have a season or so off to get a deal beneficial to the owners and the long term viability of the league.

The league is swimming in revenue and it's popularity has never been higher. The league is in no danger whatsoever of not having a long term future.

Stop making up BS 43.

feltdizz
03-04-2011, 03:56 PM
I think they realize they can't piss away a season. Too much at stake for everyone involved.

Baseball is a mess, no one cares about the NBA and the NHL is a cult sport.

The NFL is now America's past time. A season off would be a PR disaster when they make $9 bil in these economic times.
Speak for yourself. I go to as many MLB games as possible and listen/watch when in the car/on the road. I watch NBA games about every night. I have never cared about hockey on television but go to the occassional game.

Better to have a season or so off to get a deal beneficial to the owners and the long term viability of the league.

you keep talking like the league is in the red and headed for bankruptcy. :wink:

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 04:00 PM
you keep talking like the league is in the red and headed for bankruptcy. :wink:
Not at all. A billion dollar franchise should have a net income of at least $50 mill imo. If the Packers and the owners words are any indication, most teams aren't close to that percentage.

Any business that allows the workforce to control ownership is a business headed for failure. Players don't understand complete business ownership and shouldn't be granted the leverage to decide how a business is run. The owners need to defend their businesses and do what it takes to make them better balanced.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 04:01 PM
Better to have a season or so off to get a deal beneficial to the owners and the long term viability of the league.

The league is swimming in revenue and it's popularity has never been higher. The league is in no danger whatsoever of not having a long term future.

I don't expect someone who has never held a job, let alone run a business, understand business ownership or labor relations.

Crash
03-04-2011, 04:06 PM
I don't expect someone who has never held a job, let alone run a business, understand business ownership or labor relations.

I would expect some obsessed junkie who sells diamonds out of the trunk of his car to actually think the NFL's long term future is in jeopardy.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 04:12 PM
I don't expect someone who has never held a job, let alone run a business, understand business ownership or labor relations.

I would expect some obsessed junkie who sells diamonds out of the trunk of his car to actually think the NFL's long term future is in jeopardy.

That's great but what does that have to do with me?

hawaiiansteel
03-04-2011, 04:15 PM
I don't expect someone who has never held a job, let alone run a business, understand business ownership or labor relations.

I would expect some obsessed junkie who sells diamonds out of the trunk of his car to actually think the NFL's long term future is in jeopardy.


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vetNeNnya3c/SwNxcDcR_cI/AAAAAAAABhk/eWEFfkYkjq0/s1600/kids+fighting.jpg

feltdizz
03-04-2011, 04:48 PM
you keep talking like the league is in the red and headed for bankruptcy. :wink:
Not at all. A billion dollar franchise should have a net income of at least $50 mill imo. If the Packers and the owners words are any indication, most teams aren't close to that percentage.

Any business that allows the workforce to control ownership is a business headed for failure. Players don't understand complete business ownership and shouldn't be granted the leverage to decide how a business is run. The owners need to defend their businesses and do what it takes to make them better balanced.


Not every team is a billion dollar enterprise. What a team should make and what they do make are 2 totally different things.

These owners know the risk just like the players know the risk when they get on the field.

Is the NFL Wall Street now? It's like these billionaires only thought the market would go up and up and they would never have a bad year. So a few owners didn't hit their profit margin (so they say)... if other did then it's not due to the players getting over. It's just owners not wanting to take any chances of not hitting their profit margin.

papillon
03-04-2011, 05:20 PM
At the end of the day the players have to determine when is the best time for them to strike a deal with the NFL? Now or September (or later)? I believe now is the time for them to negotiate this deal. As Rick Riley has so eloquently pointed out, the owners have the financial were withal to last a lot longer than the players. It's my belief, if the players don't do a deal now, they will have to settle for something less in the fall when paychecks don't begin.

This is the players' time, the owners know this and are more willing to make concessions now than they will be when the checks don't start in the fall. The top 5%-8% of the players will be fine, but, those making the minimum or around there (even though it's great money) will be under pressure to get back to work a lot more quickly than Peyton, Ben, Tom, etc.

Hopefully, this 7 day extension will allow everyone to see more clearly and they can get the framework of a deal ironed out. If not, I think the players will lose this battle if it extends into the fall.

Just my opinion

Pappy

Crash
03-04-2011, 06:01 PM
The owners didn't want a deal. They want to shut the league down and collect their $4 billion nest egg for a year or so. Ever since Judge Doty ruled against them the players have picked up momentum and the owners are now singing like canaries.

phillyesq
03-04-2011, 07:31 PM
I think they realize they can't piss away a season. Too much at stake for everyone involved.

Baseball is a mess, no one cares about the NBA and the NHL is a cult sport.

The NFL is now America's past time. A season off would be a PR disaster when they make $9 bil in these economic times.

There is absolutely too much at stake for a lockout, but I think you underestimate both other sports and the harm a lost season could inflict on the long term viability of the sport.

I'm not quite sure how MLB is a mess. There is plenty of star power in the league, and here in Philadelphia, with a rotation that has the potential to be historically good, there is quite a buzz about the start of baseball season. It might even rival or exceed the buzz around the eagles.

Baseball took years for attendance to come back after its strike, and never fully recovered until the McGuire and Sosa's steroid fueled chase of 61. The NBA was hugely popular years ago, but the popularity of the league isn't what it once was. The NFL has a great thing going, but it can easily mess things up.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 08:19 PM
Not every team is a billion dollar enterprise. What a team should make and what they do make are 2 totally different things.

These owners know the risk just like the players know the risk when they get on the field.

Is the NFL Wall Street now? It's like these billionaires only thought the market would go up and up and they would never have a bad year. So a few owners didn't hit their profit margin (so they say)... if other did then it's not due to the players getting over. It's just owners not wanting to take any chances of not hitting their profit margin.
Correct, that's why they want a deal that makes the profits for them better. They've had shrinking profits under the current deal. That's also why they want this idiot Doty gone from the next deal.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 08:22 PM
The owners didn't want a deal. They want to shut the league down and collect their $4 billion nest egg for a year or so. Ever since Judge Doty ruled against them the players have picked up momentum and the owners are now singing like canaries.
That's such an ignorant statement. Of course, the owners want a deal. They don't want to continue a bad deal. Doty is a union pro player hack and the owners would be foolish to allow his jurisdiction to continue in any new deal. The owners are the ones who presented the union with changes to establish the extension.

Basically, everything you have stated on the matter has been completely false. You may want to read the CBA and look into the facts of the current situation.

Crash
03-04-2011, 09:44 PM
That's such an ignorant statement. Of course, the owners want a deal. They don't want to continue a bad deal.

Show us proof that it's a bad deal. If it's so bad, why did they agree to it?

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 11:23 PM
As I said above, read it. Why would I bother trying to explain it to you? Facts matter nothing to you and you believe whatever you want, regardless of facts. It's been proven thousands of times, most recently with the drafting of Ben and Colbert quotes.

Crash
03-04-2011, 11:34 PM
The facts are 43 is the owners accepted this deal. If it was so bad and they accepted it anyway then they have no one to blame but themselves. They should have never accepted it then.

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 11:42 PM
The facts are they accepted it with the opt out clauses because they had reservations, which were realized.

As I said, read it!!!!!!

Blockhead
03-04-2011, 11:44 PM
The facts are 43 is the owners accepted this deal. If it was so bad and they accepted it anyway then they have no one to blame but themselves. They should have never accepted it then.

Is this english or are you developing a new language and sentence structures?

Crash
03-05-2011, 12:14 AM
The facts are 43 is the owners accepted this deal. If it was so bad and they accepted it anyway then they have no one to blame but themselves. They should have never accepted it then.

Is this english or are you developing a new language and sentence structures?

Structure this junkie troll. It's been pretty much proven that the owners didn't want deal. They wanted their $4 billion for free.

Now that Doty ruined that all of the sudden they want to talk.

The owners are getting destroyed in the court of public opinion when history has proven in any league lockout/strike that the "greedy players" are too blame.

But not this time. Now the owners are getting it tenfold.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 01:16 AM
Structure this junkie troll.
Perhaps with those english classes, some anger management classes?


It's been pretty much proven that the owners didn't want deal. They wanted their $4 billion for free.
Wow, where to start? First of all, it wouldn't have been free money and would have come of future years. Secondly, they anticipated the ruling as Doty is a hack for unions. They want him removed from future grievances and I doubt/hope they will sign anything that maintains him as arbitrator. The owners counted the players union, which gave the reason for the extension.


Now that Doty ruined that all of the sudden they want to talk.
As stated, Doty's ruling was expected. If the extension doesn't garner what the owners feel is fair, look for the union to de-certify, players to be locked out and the ruling appealed. Regardless, the owners are in much better shape than the owners in the event of a lockout. Once the union is going, each player will have their own representation and their own decisions to make.


The owners are getting destroyed in the court of public opinion when history has proven in any league lockout/strike that the "greedy players" are too blame.

But not this time. Now the owners are getting it tenfold.
I don't know if that is true. Anyone who takes the time to educate themselves on the circumstances and the raising expenses, to which the players do not share, knows the players got a sweetheart deal last time. Even members of the union leadership have stated this to be true. It's by and large those that do not understand or take the time to learn about the matters that feel bad for the players. That and other union or labor attorneys.

aggiebones
03-05-2011, 01:50 PM
Apparently the reason for the 7 day extension is the Feds insisted on it. Neither side has budged much.
Owners are locking out. Players will be united, then panic and bend over as September gets closer.
We'll see. Both sides think they have something. But the collective players are dumb and have no money in the bank. They have no alternative outside of football. They are in the long run, hired guns.

birtikidis
03-05-2011, 01:57 PM
How can anyone take the owners side? Hell, did you read the article about the owner and his three yachts? the owners aren't losing money, they're just a greedy bunch of pricks. Most of them don't want to increase benefits for former players (from 20+ years ago) who need medical assistance. Give me a break with this "owners losing money" garbage.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 02:47 PM
How can anyone take the owners side? Hell, did you read the article about the owner and his three yachts? the owners aren't losing money, they're just a greedy bunch of pricks. Most of them don't want to increase benefits for former players (from 20+ years ago) who need medical assistance. Give me a break with this "owners losing money" garbage.
Paul Alllen? Might want to see how he made his money.

The owners profit margins are shrinking due to rising expenses, hence the desire to raise the expense payment taken off the top. Shrinking profits does not mean losing money.

The NFL ownership has been the driving force behind the "retired players" funds while the current players couldn't care less. You are completely wrong in that regard. The owners have paid more than the players union and by a lot.

birtikidis
03-05-2011, 02:49 PM
How can anyone take the owners side? Hell, did you read the article about the owner and his three yachts? the owners aren't losing money, they're just a greedy bunch of pricks. Most of them don't want to increase benefits for former players (from 20+ years ago) who need medical assistance. Give me a break with this "owners losing money" garbage.
Paul Alllen? Might want to see how he made his money.

The owners profit margins are shrinking due to rising expenses, hence the desire to raise the expense payment taken off the top. Shrinking profits does not mean losing money.

The NFL ownership has been the driving force behind the "retired players" funds while the current players couldn't care less. You are completely wrong in that regard. The owners have paid more than the players union and by a lot.
and with 9 billion dollars of revenue, they should pay more than the players union. why should the players put their money in? they're gonna be in the same exact situation as those retired players. THEY are the ones putting their bodies on the line.
Put it this way.. how many owners are lining up to sell their teams? These owners will never lose money and they will never be in need of it either.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 02:50 PM
Apparently the reason for the 7 day extension is the Feds insisted on it. Neither side has budged much.
Owners are locking out. Players will be united, then panic and bend over as September gets closer.
We'll see. Both sides think they have something. But the collective players are dumb and have no money in the bank. They have no alternative outside of football. They are in the long run, hired guns.
The owners have lowered their agreement by $250 million in expense deduction alone.

The players are the people dragging this out. The new union hack is more concerned with "winning" than doing what is in the best long term interests of the league.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 02:54 PM
and with 9 billion dollars of revenue, they should pay more than the players union. why should the players put their money in? they're gonna be in the same exact situation as those retired players. THEY are the ones putting their bodies on the line.
Put it this way.. how many owners are lining up to sell their teams? These owners will never lose money and they will never be in need of it either.
They pay the players, after a billion dollar deduction for expenses, which the owners have shown is not enough for stadium costs, debt charges, management costs, etc. It's less than $32 million per team. They want it doubled, which is still less than half of the cap of each team, if doubled. The players receive 58-58% of the remaining portion after the deduction.

Why should the players put their money into retirement benefits? Are you seriously asking this question? You think the owners should pay for all retirement benefits and pensions? What business does this and survives? None, not even federally backed teachers unions.

If they don't want to put their bodies at risk, they are free not to play football and make a 1/20th of the salary, have to work forty years, not four, for retirement benefits. It's completely their choice.

feltdizz
03-05-2011, 03:06 PM
How can anyone take the owners side? Hell, did you read the article about the owner and his three yachts? the owners aren't losing money, they're just a greedy bunch of pricks. Most of them don't want to increase benefits for former players (from 20+ years ago) who need medical assistance. Give me a break with this "owners losing money" garbage.

Someone has to be to blame for the stock market crash, housing crash, bad investments and corrections in the market over the last 3 or 4 years. Those who side with the owners usually think unions are the reason our country is going downhill.

The owners made a deal and now they want to change it because they "claim" they aren't making money. Only a fool would agree to restructure the deal to make less without putting up a fight.

hawaiiansteel
03-05-2011, 03:33 PM
progress is being made, the two sides are now only $800 million apart... :Beer


NFL and NFLPA negotiation extension still has Steelers fans concerned

March 4th, 2011


Pittsburgh, PA. - Thursday, the NFL owners and NFL Players Association agreed to a 24-hour extension on negotiations that could prevent an NFL lockout for the 2011 season, but the news did little to relieve the breath that Steelers fans have been holding the past couple of days. An extension could mean that there will soon be an agreement between the two sides, but Steelers fans aren't counting their chickens before they hatch (so to speak).

The biggest issue on the table between the NFL and NFLPA is how to split revenue between owners and players. There's around $9 billion in revenue and currently, both sides currently share it very near to 50/50. The owners get $1 billion off the top of the total for stadiums and other needs, while players get 60 percent of the remaining $8 billion. Discussions tabled yesterday were whether or not the owners should get their requested $2 billion off of the top in the future. Players argue that would decrease their cut. Some reports are saying that cut could go as deep as 18 percent. Other significant deals on the table are the owners' push to expand the regular NFL season from 16 games to 18 (reducing the preseason by two games); a rookie wage scale; and benefits for retired NFL players.

According to ESPN's Adam Schefter, the argument gap is closing to being around $800 million between the two sides. This amounts to nearly $25 million per team per year.

It's nearly certain that no agreement will be finalized until the 11:59 p.m. deadline today, and the best possible outcome would be that the two sides announce that they have finally agreed on terms. Unfortunately, that may not be the case. If the deadline tonight is not reached, the best news for fans would be another extension. Rumors in the sports world is that the two sides may need to extend negotiations for another week. In what seems like an 180 degree turnaround in the last 24 hours, legitimate signs of progress have been made. However, just like Thursday, today will prove to be good for an NFL season in 2011, or historically terrible for progress into a new season.

When I was personally asked by Steelers fans this week through personal communications and on social networks whether or not I believed there would be a 2011 season or not, I told them that I felt about 65 percent sure that the lockout would happen. It was the way owners have stood their ground that made me evaluate their position as being harder to break down than the Berlin Wall; but that was before the announcement of negotiation extensions. Now I am split 50/50. I'm not the only sports writer that was taken off guard by the news of an extension, and more than 400 fans contacted me following the announcement.

Overall, Steelers fans are now split nearly as much as I am on the issue. Tanner from Ohio sent a personal email that stated, "I think the owners are being ridiculous over pennies. If the extra million is such a big deal to them, then they should let the players off the hook in helping pay for stadiums. The players would lose a chunk in the deal, but in all reality, how much would they pay in the long run if the team kept improving the stadium and facilities while they were playing for that team anyway?"

I have asked a similar question myself. If I were a player that spent, for example, five years with a club that built a new stadium and had to help pay for it (under the current rules), then got traded or waived and picked up by another team that was building a new stadium that year, I would feel a bit stressed out, and so would my wallet. On the other hand, if I signed a long-term deal with a team, I might be more inclined (due to loyalty to the organization) to be pleased to add part of my paycheck.

Thomas Carter, a Steelers fan from Colorado, wrote me and said, "I think a lockout is inevitable. Players over the years have become more and more self-absorbed. If they want to play as bad as they claim they do, then they should be realistic about the costs."

More than 30 Steelers fans corresponded that they believe that Roger Goodell, NFL Commissioner, is making a deal between the NFL and the NFLPA impossible to settle. Those same fans said that they felt that the owners were being unreasonable.

Jason from the Arlington, Virginia, area said, "Steelers fans need to realize that the players don't just want more money. They're concerned about the long-run as well. Retired players need insurance and backup that the owners and NFL won't just blow them off. Look at Jerome Bettis who can barely walk after years of abuse on the field as a running back. He's got the knees of an eighty year old."

Even though issues are bigger this time, there is still hope that the 2011 collective bargaining negotiations (similar to those held in 2006) will be extended and both sides will agree to a deal. A lockout would hurt the NFL and NFLPA in not only revenue and pay, but also in image. The 2006 CBA was opted out of in a clause in 2008.

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch smiled following negotiations on Monday, his fourth consecutive day of federally mediated negotiations. He said, "Things are going well right now. We'll see how things progress over the next couple of days." Batch is a member of the NFLPA executive committee. George Cohen, director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (a U.S. government agency) is holding the negotiation sessions in his office. "Any time that you talk," Batch said, "you have to feel better."

While Steelers fans wait, concerned; patience may be the key to seeing their favorite players on Heinz Field in 2011.

http://www.examiner.com/pittsburgh-stee ... z1FkeClp60 (http://www.examiner.com/pittsburgh-steelers-in-pittsburgh/nfl-and-nflpa-negotiation-extension-still-has-steelers-fans-concerned#ixzz1FkeClp60)

feltdizz
03-05-2011, 03:57 PM
and with 9 billion dollars of revenue, they should pay more than the players union. why should the players put their money in? they're gonna be in the same exact situation as those retired players. THEY are the ones putting their bodies on the line.
Put it this way.. how many owners are lining up to sell their teams? These owners will never lose money and they will never be in need of it either.
They pay the players, after a billion dollar deduction for expenses, which the owners have shown is not enough for stadium costs, debt charges, management costs, etc. It's less than $32 million per team. They want it doubled, which is still less than half of the cap of each team, if doubled. The players receive 58-58% of the remaining portion after the deduction.

Why should the players put their money into retirement benefits? Are you seriously asking this question? You think the owners should pay for all retirement benefits and pensions? What business does this and survives? None, not even federally backed teachers unions.

If they don't want to put their bodies at risk, they are free not to play football and make a 1/20th of the salary, have to work forty years, not four, for retirement benefits. It's completely their choice.

Football players generate insane amounts of money.... you can't compare the NFL to everyday jobs.

The federal govt and state governments dip into pension funds to cover other expenses and never pay them back then they claim those payments are the reason they can't stay afloat.

Do pensions and retirement funds, when used correctly, really hurt businesses? Look at Wisconsin... they claim the pensions are bringing the state down but the fund is strong.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 04:02 PM
Football players generate insane amounts of money.... you can't compare the NFL to everyday jobs.
No, the game of football and the NFL franchises the owners have built generate insane amounts of money. Football players, by and large, are faceless to the fans. They are contracted employees. When you buy a ticket, you buy it for a team, not a player. When the television networks agree to a contract, it has nothing to do with individual players.


The federal govt and state governments dip into pension funds to cover other expenses and never pay them back then they claim those payments are the reason they can't stay afloat.
Exactly, so why should the NFL bear the total cost of retirement for a contracted, well paid employee who in many cases, worked less than five years in their employ? They need to plan, save, invest, like the rest of the world.


Do pensions and retirement funds, when used correctly, really hurt businesses? Look at Wisconsin... they claim the pensions are bringing the state down but the fund is strong.
See above.

hawaiiansteel
03-05-2011, 04:08 PM
Harris: Advantage players in labor dispute

By John Harris, PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, March 5, 2011


It was the least they could do.

You know, negotiate.

It doesn't matter who thinks who is right. It doesn't matter who thinks who is wrong. NFL owners and players just have to get a deal done.

The sides have retreated to their neutral corners after agreeing Friday to extend a deadline to reach a new collective bargaining agreement until midnight next Friday. But they are certain to come out swinging again next week.

The weekend respite no talks are scheduled until Monday provides another opportunity for reflection, and hopefully common sense will prevail.

When a judge ruled that owners can't have $4 billion in TV revenue if the season is lost because of a lockout, the owners lost a huge bargaining chip.

It led to a one-day extension Thursday, which led to a seven-day extension, which leads to optimism and hope.

Is it too much to ask both sides not to settle for a deal two months from now if they can get the same deal now?

Maybe that is asking too much, considering the negotiating strategy being applied by the owners could be likened to a vise grip.

Your boss invites you to lunch. But instead of picking up the check, he makes you pay.

While awaiting your meal, your boss tells you what a good employee you are and how he wishes he had 10 more just like you.

You're almost ready to forgive him when he announces that you have to work seven days a week instead of five. And take a pay cut.

That's the equivalent of owners negotiating to extend the regular season from 16 to 18 games while asking the union for a financial giveback because ... well, just because.

The owners don't need the extra money. But they've convinced themselves that they do.

The players aren't backing down. Instead, they've ramped up the pressure.

It starts with leadership. Union chief DeMaurice Smith is doing what people believed couldn't be done.

He spent a lot of time early in his tenure unifying his constituency. Players no longer hold it against him that he didn't play in the league.

Smith's ability to convince high-profile quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees to agree to be plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit against the league if the union decides to decertify was a stroke a genius.

Players are reluctant to attach their names to anything that could be construed as being negative or counterproductive Brady and Manning, in particular. Their participation was vital and unexpected.

It delivered a forceful message to owners that the union won't buckle.

Besides, how would it look for owners to be embroiled in a legal battle with three of the most successful and popular players in NFL history?

Bad PR for the owners. Brilliant strategy by the union.

Advantage, players.

Owners have always been the richest people in the room. They take the biggest risks, so they deserve the biggest bite of the apple. But when is enough finally enough?

Owners want players to give up more money than they already do. In return, owners want players to play two more games.

Who can blame the players for folding their arms and refusing to budge?

It's also difficult to swallow the argument that owners, who asked for and received $1 billion from players in the last deal, now need $2 billion off the top to construct new stadiums and renovate old ones some of them built with public funds.

Your tax dollars at work.

Maybe not in cities like Cincinnati, where the county owns Paul Brown Stadium. Under terms of the lease with the Bengals, the county must pay $43 million for repairs and upgrades over the next 10 years, repairs the Bengals say are needed. Of course, the county can't fund improvements if games aren't played because of a lockout.

No games, no revenue.

No sense.

NFL owners have met the enemy themselves.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... z1Fkn9izhS (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_725933.html#ixzz1Fkn9izhS)

Crash
03-05-2011, 04:35 PM
They pay the players, after a billion dollar deduction for expenses, which the owners have shown is not enough for stadium costs, debt charges, management costs, etc.

They have? When? They won't open their books 43.

Blockhead
03-05-2011, 04:55 PM
They pay the players, after a billion dollar deduction for expenses, which the owners have shown is not enough for stadium costs, debt charges, management costs, etc.

They have? When? They won't open their books 43.
I'm unaware what Books 43 is or if it differs from Books 42 or Books 44 but if you mean the profit/loss books, they shouldn't. Each team is run differently and owns different assets. The cap is not based on individual team books, but rather shared revenue so showing the books is not needed. It's simply a PR tool by the union, which the uninformed fan views as being a true part of negotiations. Again, I urge you to read the CBA so you can better discuss the situation and be informed.

They have stated it and given examples of the rising expenses, therefore they have shown it.

birtikidis
03-05-2011, 04:59 PM
They pay the players, after a billion dollar deduction for expenses, which the owners have shown is not enough for stadium costs, debt charges, management costs, etc.

They have? When? They won't open their books 43.
Since when do teams pay for their stadiums.. unless you mean upkeep. Tax payers and sponsors pay for building them with just a little money from the owner.

Crash
03-05-2011, 05:06 PM
In another example of how much the owners want to make a deal Bob Kraft, one of the driving forces behind this entire mess will not even be in the country next week.

hawaiiansteel
03-06-2011, 07:58 PM
Could NFL shutdown look like baseball and hockey?

Analysis: MLB strike, NHL lockout offer lessons that linger years later

Sunday, March 06, 2011
By Dejan Kovacevic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/images/201103/20110305nfl_330.jpg

Mike Ehrmann/Getty Images
The NFL is facing a potential lockout.


Anyone looking for historical precedent for a possible National Football League lockout might learn more from baseball and hockey than from the NFL's most recent work stoppage.

That occurred in 1987, when the players' 24-day strike canceled the third week of games, then prompted the owners' use of replacement players for weeks four through six. The Steelers were throwing touchdown passes to someone named Lyneal Alston, and the rest of the league -- some teams derisively nicknamed, such as the San Francisco "Phony Niners" and Oakland "Masque-Raiders" -- looked no less illegitimate.

The NFL has since grown financially nearly tenfold, free agency has been instituted, players now draw seven-figure salaries, and the league now generates a mountain of television money. Comparing these eras is akin to comparing Ben Roethlisberger to Bobby Layne.

What might be more relevant is how -- or if -- the current situation compares to the two longest work stoppages in professional sports history: Major League Baseball's strike in 1994 and the National Hockey League's lockout 10 years later. Both had dramatic impacts on their sports, and both were felt deeply in Pittsburgh.

Will that history repeat?

Baseball strike, 1994
Baseball players walked off the job Aug. 11, 1994, beginning a seven-month strike that cost the sport the World Series for the first time as well as millions in players' salaries, about $1 billion for the teams and countless fans. By the next official pitch, April 25, 1995, it was the longest stoppage in any sport.

Tony Gwynn was batting .394 at the time of the strike. Matt Williams' 43 home runs had him on pace to break Roger Maris' hallowed mark of 61. And the Montreal Expos, never having won a division title, were headed for 105 wins and what many felt would be a world championship.

All were lost, and the Expos eventually were lost altogether. The team's average attendance in that great year was 24,543, but it shrank to 18,189 the following year, then hovered just above 10,000 for five years leading to a move to Washington in 2005.

Overall attendance plummeted from a record average of 31,612 in 1994 to 25,260 the following year. It took a full decade for attendance to return in 2004 to the pre-strike level.

The Pirates' average attendance plummeted, too, from 21,448 before the strike to 12,577 the following year, though it quickly climbed back to 20,457 in 1997, thanks to the beloved "Freak Show" team that contended for a division title despite a paltry $9 million payroll. But it was not until 2000, the final year of Three Rivers Stadium, that attendance returned to the pre-strike level.

People everywhere fumed.

"Fans were angry, and understandably so," said Frank Coonelly, the Pirates' president who worked a decade in MLB commissioner Bud Selig's office before taking his current post in 2007. "The economic damage was felt everywhere, but some markets felt it more acutely. Perhaps the most profound and lasting lesson from 1994 was that our fans will be particularly angered if we ask them to invest in a season that we cannot guarantee we will complete."

Pittsburgh had the most memorable display of anger, with many of the 34,841 fans at the 1995 home opener throwing giveaway flags onto the field late in an ugly 6-2 loss to the Expos. Shortstop Jay Bell, the Pirates' union representative, was booed with each trip to the plate.

The sport's bottom line took a hit, too: MLB's revenues were at $1.87 billion in 1993, the last full season before the strike, and did not return to that level until 1997. And, when those revenues topped that figure beginning in 1998 -- the summer of Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa chasing Maris' home run record -- that rebound, in hindsight, would be tainted by baseball's steroids scandal.

All that probably explains why MLB never had another stoppage. The 1997 labor pact brought revenue sharing and a luxury tax, the 2002 pact was signed with barely a whisper, and even the expiration of the current pact Dec. 11 is expected to affect little more than how drafted amateurs are paid. It has been 17 years of peace after three decades marred by eight work stoppages.

Some credit the longtime presence of the lead negotiators -- Rob Manfred, MLB's executive vice president, and Mike Weiner, who took over as union chief last year -- as being instrumental. Others point to revenues hitting a record $6.6 billion in 2009. But the foundation of this peace is the memory of 1994.

"Owners and players both had to appreciate the lasting damage from the strike," Coonelly said.

One more result of the fear of another stoppage: MLB remains the only league without a salary cap, which brings dramatic extremes in how much teams can pay their players. The New York Yankees' payroll has been in the $200 million range the past three seasons, while the Pirates' has been in the $40 million range. There never has been a significant appetite to address that disparity.

Hockey lockout, 2004-05
In stark contrast, there was little that the NHL's lockout did not address.

Hockey's stoppage lasted 310 days, from Sept. 16, 2004, to July 13, 2005, and a full season was lost, another first in professional sports. No Stanley Cup was awarded for the first time since 1919.

That might sound as though it should have had a far worse impact than baseball's, especially given hockey's stature as North America's No. 4 sport. But it turned out quite the opposite: Twenty-five of the league's 30 teams increased attendance right after the lockout, none greater than the Penguins' increase of 33 percent. Arenas were filled to 91.7 percent and a total attendance record of 20,854,169 was set.

What happened?

The game became fairer and faster, and the fans -- among the most loyal in sports -- immediately fell in love.

"What the lockout did for the NHL and for the Penguins ... it allowed us to survive," said David Morehouse, the Penguins' president who joined the team shortly after the lockout. "It accomplished cost certainty with the salary cap, bringing parity to the game. Pittsburgh can compete with the larger markets because they can't pay any more than we can."

NHL team owners claimed to have lost a collective $273 million in the 2002-03 season, and that, they said, occurred because they were spending 76 percent of revenues on players' salaries. That is well above the usual 50 percent-to-60 percent for most leagues. The NHL tried to sustain its finances by charging $50 million expansion fees for nine new franchises in as many years, but that bubble contributed greatly to that 76 percent of revenues going to the players because so many new ones were needed.

"It was a flawed model," Morehouse said.

Because teams in lucrative markets had raised the bar for player salaries -- a few payrolls began approaching $100 million -- they were able to buy up elite players. In Pittsburgh, money forced the trade of scoring champion Jaromir Jagr for three middling prospects. In Canada, the sport's birthplace, beloved franchises left Quebec and Winnipeg for the United States, and others were threatened in Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa.

The league's commissioner, Gary Bettman, diligently held owners together, even though a couple resisted the lockout strongly, and even threatened them with fines up to $1 million for speaking out against it. His job was made easier because two-thirds of the owners were losing money.

When an agreement finally was reached, the NHL had its first salary cap, limiting each team to $39 million in the first season and limiting players to 54 percent of all revenues for the life of the pact. Because revenues increased after the lockout, the cap rose to $44 million the next season and is at $59.4 million now.

Revenues were at $1.8 billion before the lockout and now are close to $3 billion.

The new rules and enforcement standards, plus a shootout after tied overtime periods, added excitement, too. The Penguins' Sidney Crosby was part of an exceptional group of rookies and immediately achieved 100 points.

Rough ice might be ahead, though: The NHL's current labor pact expires in September 2012, and the union has hired Donald Fehr, the longtime chief of the baseball union who engineered the 1994 strike. The NHL players caved in 2005, but pushback is expected this time.

Football, 2011
What can be culled from those stoppages to illuminate what might happen now?

Maybe the main thing is that the NFL's situation does not look all that serious, by comparison.

"I think the NHL was in a much different place than where the NFL is today," Morehouse said. "The NFL is the greatest league in the world, and they don't need to reinvent what they do."

Maury Brown, author and founder of the Business of Sports Network, sees at least one similarity.

"I would say that the relationship between the leagues and unions are very similar," Brown said. "There's distrust. Acrimony. There's just a sense of no partnership between the NFL and its players, which was certainly the case with MLB and the NHL leading up to their work stoppages."

But what separates the NFL, Brown added, is its popularity and profitability.

"In MLB, there had been labor strife at each deadline, and fans finally had enough when the '94 season was lost. For the NHL, it was a matter of a less popular sport losing a season, which impacted some gains that had been made. For the NFL, I think any losses will be very short-lived. Fans have an incredible appetite for the NFL. I would expect them back in a short period of time."

Most factors point to the NFL settling without much damage or time lost:

Foremost is that the NFL and its union do not have differences close to those of the baseball and hockey examples. Football's biggest is how to divide the pool of $9.1 billion that dwarfs those of other leagues. There is no individual owner confirmed to be losing money, either.

The NFL's revenues are 30 percent higher than those of baseball, more than triple those of hockey. Consider that each NFL team gets $100 million in national revenue-sharing monies -- including TV rights and merchandising -- compared with the $90 million that the entire 30-team NHL divides today.

Football players figure to be far more interested in settling. The average NFL career lasts only 3.5 seasons, compared to 5.6 in baseball, 5.5 in the NHL. A lost season in football costs veterans the chance at championships and milestones, and it will wipe out some careers in some cases. The Steelers' Hines Ward, 35, and James Farrior, 36, have raised the latter possibility in their cases.

If the NFL shuts down for an entire season, it would have two full draft classes upon restarting in 2012. Football draft picks -- unlike those in baseball and hockey, sports that have minor league systems for player development -- commonly contribute right away. Thus, training camp in 2012 could involve double the number of new candidates, as many as 20, for jobs on a 53-man roster. Players on the fringe would have cause for concern.

NFL owners and players agreed Friday to extend the current collective bargaining agreement and continue talking for another seven days, delaying the deadline for a lockout.

Still, negotiations can turn ugly, and sides can become bitter on a personal level, outweighing any history or other factors that point to a settlement. That happened in baseball and hockey, and there is no assurance it will not happen between NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and union chief DeMaurice Smith.

For now, NFL training camps are set to open the third week of July.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11065/1130054-66.stm
Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11065/11 ... z1FrZMP9Ru (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11065/1130054-66.stm#ixzz1FrZMP9Ru)