Rick Reily lets owners have it

[Oviedo]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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.

[url="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Schrager-NFL-work-stoppage-players-partially-to-blame-fans-are-biggest-losers-030311"]http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Schr ... ers-030311[/url]

[BURGH86STEEL]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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]

Re: Rick Reily lets owners have it

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.

[url="http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/sidelines/"]http://www.observer-reporter.com/or/sidelines/[/url]