JR4

... as we know it ...

Here is an article by Ron Borges that pretty much gives all sides
of the CBA story. ( I know many here don't like Borges but in this article
he tells a lot of what is going on from all sides )

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11510061/

JoeSixPat

Hopefully not.

Seems to me like the current system is a nice balance - a win win for players and owners alike.

But because the NFLPA is demanding that new sources of revnue be added to the mix, now we're getting into some pretty complicated equations as to how to split that up within the rich-poor, lazy-hardworking, smart-stupid divisions within NFL ownership.

Hopefully a fair split among the owners themselves, and between the owners and players, can be found.

To me, Greed isn't keeping what you have earned. It's asking for what isn't yours.

Are the players justified in asking for more? Within reason, I think they are - just as long as they realize that in fairness they need to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars in overhead paid for by the NFL owners.

Are the "have nots" among team owners justified in asking the "haves" to share more with them?

I really don't think so. The problem that remains is that the Players Association is looking at the additional revnues like its one big collective pot of money, equally shared by all teams, when that's just not how it works.

Because they opened this can of worms we could indeed be looking at the end of the NFL as we know it.

__________________

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

JR4

Greed by definition:
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

All three parties can be accused of greed accoding the the definition
Players, Poor Owners(if there is such a thing), Rich Onwers.

I see statements like you made
"they need to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars in overhead paid for by the NFL owners."
and I think
... show me the figures. Show me how much ALL these owners make and
show me their overhead ... show me the net profits ... without any trickery to
conceal the real situation.

My strong hunch is there is Greed by all Parties ... even Kraft said that all
sides are trying to get as much as they can. It is greed and no one group is
off the hook for that accusation.

If the NFL turns into the MLB, I for one will give it up. I will not pay one more
cent to watch a league where championships are bought aka NYY.

ilduce06410

it seems to me that the nflpa has 5 issues that need to be addressed:
1. higher minimum pay, and better "practice pay" for fringe players.
2. some kind of protection of players' rights, like standard buyout clauses, for their contracts with franchises.
3. improvements of the pension program, earlier eges for elgibility, higher payments to retired players.
4. better treatment for injured players, especially fringe players.
5. the league finances these improvements with an annual "surcharge" of $10 million per franchise, to come from the tv contracts.

that might take a day of negotiating. lawyers would make a LOT less money.
the goose that lays the golden eggs lives on for another __ years.

JoeSixPat

Assuming you're not demanding that everyone in the NFL give up everything more than they need, I'm assuming your Dictionary Definition mindset is more focused on the word "deserves".

We've been over this before so I won't bore people with the same debate, but if you need "real" nubmers than Gillete Stadium cost about $325 million to build, all of which was financed by Robert Kraft. Other owners have required that taxpayers pay for the construction of their stadium. That's $0.00.

Owners who haven't incurred such costs don't "deserve" an equal share of revneue those stadiums generate. Players who don't incur such costs don't "deserve" an equal share of all the revenues those staduims generate.

Do the players desere some? No doubt. How much? That's what they are trying to figure out.

The problem comes in that unless the owners can first agree how to fairly divide revenues among themselves, the players then can't get their share without hurting the "have not" teams - destroying the parity of the league in a way you say you hope to avoid.

__________________

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

shatch62

http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forb.../0919/122.html


“Kraft paid a princely sum ($172 million in 1994 – then record for a sports franchise) for a miserable franchise. The team had just finished last in revenue and had the cheapest payroll in the NFL. IN the four seasons before he did the deal, the Patriots had posted the worst win-loss record in the NFL, finishing last or second-to-last in their division and racking up only 14 wins against 50 losses.”

“Before Kraft took over, the Patriots had never sold out, forcing TV broadcasters to black out the team's home games in New England, now the fifth-largest market in the country. Then Kraft stepped in. He initiated a marketing campaign that promised to bring a championship to New England. The new owner rode around in a golf cart before home games, high-fiving fans at tailgate parties. Before the season began, he had sold 40,000 season tickets, a franchise record. He has sold out every home game since--and has a waiting list of 50,000 people seeking future season tickets.”

“The old Foxboro Stadium, unfriendly and uncomfortable, had no higher-priced club seats and only 38 suites; it brought in barely enough money to service Kraft's debt…In 2001 the Patriots won their first Super Bowl, led by a cast of selfless team players including quarterback Tom Brady and wide receiver Troy Brown, an eighth-round selection in 1993.The next year the team moved into Kraft's new Gillette Stadium, with 80 posh suites that rent for $165,000 apiece per season, 6,000 club seats and two club rooms, which are rented out most every day of the year for weddings, business meetings and bar mitzvahs. Revenue is up 50-fold over old Foxboro to more than $90 million. …The new site cost $350 million to build, all of which is privately financed. The Patriots are one of only four NFL teams that own their stadiums (Carolina, Miami and Washington are the others).”

*************
So basically, Kraft bought a crappy team…(let’s say the Arizona Cardinals), spent a lot of time and money and turned them into the 49ers of the 80s and early 90s. He took a low revenue team and made it a high revenue team. I know that all NFL owners need to think about the big picture and share with the other owners but I also know that Kraft worked hard to make the team profitable and it kind of stinks that he needs to send the money to teams that simply don’t try as hard. I know the players are the stars that drive the league but without any owners there is no league.

Nobody is forcing the players to play. They can get a regular job like the rest of us. Also, why is the NFL considered a monopoly? The players have other options. They could play in the Arena Football League (average salary sits at about $36,000. - http://www.tennessean.com/sports/kat...t_ID=64685530).
They could play in the Canadian Football League ($55,000 *Salary figures are in Canadian dollars. http://www.combines.com/leagues/cfl.asp)
Granted, the pay there is bad but they have a choice.

If the players union really wants to help the players it should worry more about fixing the rookie pay issue. Here is a look at some of the guys from 2001 that were overpaid:
Pick Player Name Team Position College
3 3 Joey Harrington Lions QB Oregon ($13 million signing bonus)
4 4 Mike Williams Bills T Texas ($7.5 million signing bonus)
5 5 Quentin Jammer Chargers DB Texas ($6 million signing bonus)
6 6 Ryan Sims Chiefs DT North Carolina ($9.8 million signing bonus)

The poster child – after QB Ryan Leaf – for how screwed up this system is, is DE Jamal Reynolds. The Packers took him with the 10th pick in the 2001 draft and gave him a deal “worth $9.011 million over five years and includes a $4 million signing bonus and a guaranteed option payment of $2 million [the following] spring. Reynolds will earn annual base salaries of $667,000 (2001), $337,750 (2002), $505,500 (2003), $667,250 (2004) and $834,000 (2005). The cap value for the 2001 season is $1.467 million.

Reynolds was an absolute bust in GB only lasting 3 years. In three seasons, he was active for 22 of a possible 53 games. He recorded three sacks, six knockdowns, 6.5 hurries, 11 solo tackles and one-half tackle for loss.

So he got $7.5 million dollars (bonuses and salary for 3 years) for 11 tackles and 3 sacks. You wonder why guys like Richard Seymour want big raises.

The league needs to limit what a rookie can make over their first 3 years and then make them a restricted free agent - no exclusive free agents. If they are worth it the team will THEN have to pony up and pay. If they aren’t then they can be released into unrestricted free agency. This will save the owners millions in wasted signing bonuses, free up more money to pay the good players who have earned it.

ilduce06410

kraft has taken serious risks, with aplomb, with this franchise. he's got some serious courage. 've written about it before.
but stadiums are not much of a risk for nfl owners. they get an accelerated depreciation on their stadiums that's worth about $30 million a year to kraft.
of course, tax breaks are only valuable if you show a profit, and thus a tax liability on your return. think kraft shows a tprofit on returns for the stadium?
as for the players, IMO the nfl has gotten so that players risk ending their careers and permanent disabilities every play they're on the field. practice or games.

JR4

Again numbers you thow out without reference. What about the other
31 owners?
The $325 M ... is that accurate? What about the amount Foxboro paid that
is being repaid by Bob Kraft and will get forgiven after 10 years if not paid off?
Is that part of the $325 million? See there are a lot of details that may or may
not have come as hype and justification attempts and many facts that
are unknown to you or anyone outside the parties involved in the CBA
negotiations.
I doubt we can have access to all the information. Maybe a group
of owners does have it ... maybe the players have it. Maybe if we could
know all the details we'd really see who is being the most greedy.

Bottom line for me until proven otherwise .... they are all being greedy and
no party is off the hook and this sitution may end up very bad for all.

shatch62

I never said owners are "off the hook" I just said if the players don't want to play in the NFL for the salaries that are being offered, don't play. If the players want to strike, hire replacements. If they want to play, great. If the cap goes away and we go back to the days where the 49ers and the Cowboys sign all the great players again, so be it. The league will suffer, revenue will go down - both in tickets as well as TV contracts. If that is what will happen fine.

JR4

Fine ??? Whatever ..... enjoy your money bought hollow championships.