Pats726

It's clear that many of the players believe that the 2011 season could start with a lock out by the owners. I know that this has been a tactic of business owners but really...what is the rationale by the owners in doing this? What do they have to gain by using this tactic? What are they going to tell the public to get the public on their side?
It just doesn't make sense that the owners would do this especially in this environment. For them to take the game away from a public that loves football is one way of basically killing the NFL. I know others have looked at the CBA and understand it all better and I am sure they can help me to understand the owners reasoning.
I know many have said that without football for a year or two, it will not mean much and that fans will be back, but I think many thought the same about baseball or basketball. Both have changed..and NOT for the better. The interest in baseball has been declining for years and the same for roundball. The NFL is king of the hill in pro sports and yet with a lockout and labor trouble could be skidiung down very quickly with these actions.
Is it just a threat or would teh owners basically kill the sport?? Thoughts??

Maroney TD

Baseball has actually be increasing revenue for years although this year it might soften a bit. Last year for baseball was their best year ever so I don't agree that it's been in decline. There is no doubt that the NFL is #1 though which is why I think it would be foolish for the owners to cause any missed games. It would still be #1 upon it's return but there will certainly be some fans that are lost in the process.

upstater1

The really odd thing about it is that in the NFL, the owners prefer to have a labor contract, while the players would prefer to play without one.

In their business lives, the owners are exactly the opposite, which makes them hypocrites, I guess.

The difference is that the players have a lot more leverage in sports than workers do in corporations or industry.

For this reason, the owners would much rather have a CBA in place rather than eliminate the draft and salary cap, and then try to keep salaries down through collusion.

PatsFanSince74

To answer your question. As far as I can make out, different owners have different motivations for wanting to force changes in the CBA at this time.

The "revenue challenged" franchises want to be able to spend less on salaries in relation to revenues in a way that leaves them competitive (i.e., in a situation where everyone has to play by the same rules). Think Vikings, Raiders, Jaguars, to name just a few.

The "rich" franchises (the Pats are clearly a member of this group) could afford to bust the cap, but are tired of watching less successful franchises be enabled to compete with them on an equal footing while getting away with not being aggressive when it comes to marketing their Brands, selling merchandise and getting paid for Stadium naming rights (think the Bills). Bob Kraft is a leading voice for this particular chorus, along with Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

Other franchises create other reasons for some owners to want to alter the playing field. The Colts, for example, benefit from a Sweetheart Tax Deal that enables them to play in a state of the art stadium without incurring a lot of Debt. The Colts carry only $43 million of debt vs. nearly $300 for the Pats and even much more for other teams; this low debt service enables the Colts to generate an Operating Profit that is almost the same as the Pats, despite Revenues that are nearly $80 million lower. This doesn't sit well any more with Bob Kraft and several others.

So, there are a variety of motivations among owners that make them willing to take a short term hit at this time. They are taking a long term view of franchises that are now worth over $1billion and could be worth a lot more in a decade or so. They have concluded that they will be better off in the long run if things are adjusted now and are ready to pay a price for that.

It's speculation to say that a shortened or missed season would damage the League in the long run (i.e, beyond one or two years). No one can know what will be the outcome. However, the owners have built up War Chests in anticipation of a Lockout and have weighed the costs and benefits pretty carefully, I think, from their perspectives. These generally aren't the same yahoos that have run Baseball for decades, but are a pretty level-headed group of business folks who love the game but for whom their NFL investment is their largest personal investment (an exception of course exists in Seattle, but not everyone helped found Microsoft).

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

Pats726

Baseball may be increasing revenue...but it's far less popular now than it was 40...50 yars ago when it was REALLY America''s past time. It's changed...and not for the better.
Do you think the owners really wish for a CBA and the players do not? If the owners do want a CBA..then why would they be getting ready for a lock out?
I undesrtand that owners have different reasons for wishing to change parts of the CBA..that has been thatw ay for awhile..but why the lockout?? Why basically shut down teh league? How does that make sense? Is that not a large gamble to have a lockout in this economy? What is odd is that few of the fans of todat remember the labor trouble in the 80s..which did not help it's growth at that time. Maybe the owners are looking at it long term, but shutting the league down is more like cutting one's nose to spite their face. Many may look at it as millionaire players battling billionaires who own teams..and will not care at all. I just think theres a large down side that is being overlooked.

JoeSixPat

Sorry for stating the obvious, but the owners want the players to make concessions in the next CBA.

If they don't they get locked out and we have a work stoppage until the two sides can bridge their difference and come to an agreement.

That's why any management team would threaten a lockout.

We can debate the issues as to whether WE feel its worth it for the owners and players to have a disagreement, but all that matters in the context of a lockout or strike is that either side believes they have an issue.

Or am I missing something?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

cmasspatsfan

Check attendance records 40-50 years ago, they're much, much higher now. Football was second class back then, its been the last 20+ years that football has gained a big following, so in relation to football today, baseball may not be as big but its more popular than ever.

Believe me, the owners have calculated any losses that may incur to the gains they may benefit from going forward, they know.

DaBruinz

PFS74 hit on many of the reasons that the owners are looking at a lockout.
Here are some others.

One of the reasons the owners are threatening a lockout is because they realized that they gave away too much when the last CBA was signed. So they used their "get out of jail free" option to shorten the length of the CBA.

Another reason is the economy. The owners know that their attendance and therefore the revenue is going to be down because people aren't going to drop $500-$600 to take a family of 4 to a single game. There are things that just are more important.

I think that the more propserous owners want the NFLPA to realize that the league losing 1 or more franchises hurts the players much more than it hurts the owners. And with such "small market" franchises as Jacksonville, Buffalo, and others being unable to pay out the money needed to be competative, that its much more likely that they will disappear, and thereby causing a loss of a minimum of 61 player spots. Losing one NFL franchise won't be that problematic for the other teams. In fact, they will actually end up with more money to spend in the long term.

PatsFanSince74

good analysis and good point. from the owners' perspective, there's nothing "magic" about "32" as the number of NFL franchises other than it makes for two equal-sized conferences and four divisions of four teams each; (also, there's nothing magic to them about the specific locales in which those franchises are playing today). many owners feel that marginal franchises have been subsidized for too long without even trying to pull their weight (best example, the Bills).

And, according to the stories published at the time, it was Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones (along with Dan Snyder and a couple of others) who salvaged the last CBA by going against their own self-interest at the time. They won't be so generous this time around.

And, while Bob Kraft is too good a businessman to let his emotions cloud his business decisions, it doesn't help that several of the less viable and more dependent franchises were leading the chorus against the Pats during Spygate. He doesn't owe those guys anything and might relish sticking it to them, all other things being equal of course.

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

fnordcircle

The NBA's flagging popularity has more to do with the loss of #23 than their labor issues.

Yeah fans of baseball proved to definitely not be worth their word when it came to all the anger over the strike season back in the 90s. It's as big as it ever was in terms of sheer numbers.

Fans of the NFL will do the same if there is a lost or shortened season. There might be a season at most of lower attendance/viewer numbers and then it will go right back up again.

So to answer the question, the owners have more to lose if they show weakness at the bargaining table than they do if they go ahead with a lockout.

__________________