upstater1

I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today. But maybe that's me talking because I'm a fan of PSU and UConn and haven't seen what a decent QB looks like in many many years. I'm having visions of Matt Cavanaugh as the starting Patriots QB, or Tommy Hodson, or Marc Wilson.

That's the NFL without the likes of Brady, Manning and Brees over the next few years.

5 years down the line, it's the same, but in that time, franchise values sink, and there's always the threat that the stars develop another league, and there are plenty of experienced sports owners like Cuban who would love to see that because of the potential pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

AndyJohnson

[QUOTE=upstater1;2501479]I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today.[quote]
That is a rule change issue, not a talent issue.

I think you are missing my point. I am not saying remove the good QBs and use crappy ones that couldn't make the league. I am saying if the level of TALENT, ACROSS THE BOARD was reduced, you wouldnt even notice the difference. The lesser QBs would be playing against lesser defenses. The lesser WRs would be running routes vs lesser corners.
The COMPARATIVE TALENT of players across form each other would be the same as it is now.
SOMEONE would be the Brady, someone would be the Manning. They would be equally successful, because although they are not quite as talented the competition is less. For example look at all the QBs who light up the NCAA because the competition level is lower. If the best football in the world to offer was the WAC then those players would be the stars.

The key is that the games are competitive. If the receivers and dbs run 4.7 instead of 4.3 you still have the same sport being played competitively.


Again the league would have its stars just the same.

I accept that initially if those players went away there would be a big drop in interest. But that doesnt answer the question I am asking.
Obviously its not provable in either way, but to answer the question of whether the marketing and competiveness of the game or the skill level are the reason for the popularity, the question isnt if those players, after already being popular stopped playing, but would the league be as popular if they never existed and the next best guys were in their place, playing against a level of competition equal to them.
I don't think the popular players are popular because of what their skills are, they are popular because their skills are the best in the league, and the same would hold in a league where the talent had been a bit watered down all along.

TheBostonStraggler

AJ, obviously the answer is multifaceted but "big" is a relative term. How big is big? More specifically, will watered down skill level, game quality, name recognition cause a huge revenue drop of 50%? Or will it be more like 20%? The difference between those two numbers could mean the difference between being acceptable and causing panic in the owner ranks (though that is ultimately a guess). But I think football is now a habit for many (what will Fall Sunday's be without football? I don't even want to think about it). I suspect Fall Sundays watching football is an entrenched habit and football will remain very popular (but without question would take a hit). An analogy I would make would be: step outside the United States and you'll find world cup "soccer" is wildly popular. Working with a Brit and hearing his fervor for it, I tried to like it. The game just doesn't do it for me (and I realize others will disagree with that). In my view "soccer' pales in comparison to American football (as does baseball, basketball, hockey etc imho). And to my point, would the superior (again imho) American football product with it's very high quality product out sell "soccer" outside the United States? I highly doubt it. Further, would world cup soccer become significantly less popular if the game was watered down and had less well known names? Again I think the answer is no. And I believe the reason to be non Americans grew up watching soccer. It is an entrenched habit. Football is now an entrenched habit for many Americans. This leads me to believe that many fans would still follow football even with a watered down product.

So the hypothetical, and admittedly outlandish, question becomes: Would the owners accept 1/3 less (arbitrary number) revenue for significantly less pay for players? In this instance I believe the answer is no. Even if the owners saw concrete proof that they would make more profit in that scenario, their franchise values would be hurt (their franchise value has got to be of huge importance to them).

To the larger context of who is more at fault for the lockout, decertification, call it what you will, is pretty meaningless. Besides, how can blame be assigned when the fight contains two wealthy sides fighting over a relatively small slice of the pie (this just the haggling of business isn't it?). The only point that really matters is which side is less adamant. There was no way the NFLPA was going to give up any slice (or very little) of their future pie. No one should be surprised by this. I doubt any of us in the same circumstance would be "yea, our business is more popular and making more money than ever! Let's give some back to the owners!". The question is: how adamant are the owners that they must have a bigger slice of the future pie? If they are and hold the line, I believe the NFLPA will give in. However, and again, there is no way the NFLPA is going to give in without making the owners prove they are adamant, prove they will suffer to get that extra slice of the future pie. If the owners falter then the NFLPA gets their way. It's high noon and someone will eventually blink. The only wild card is the legal system. Any ruling one way or another could cause either side to immediately blink. So barring the legal system wild card, my guess is if the lockout is still in place by June, I would expect the NFLPA will give in from their current stance. I will be shocked is one side or the other doesn't cave in before the start of the season..

__________________
“This is one you should have thought twice about before hitting submit”

upstater1

[QUOTE=AndyJohnson;2501502][QUOTE=upstater1;2501479]I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today.I honestly don't think it works this way. You have lesser talent on the college football field. And the vast majority of college QBs look like they can't hold Tommy Hodson's jockstrap. I'm talking against college football players. All I'm saying is that college ball would hold no appeal for me were it not for my affiliation with a couple universities. Now, as I said, I consider 1970s NFL to be a step down in terms of QBs and athletically, and I'm sure it would be a popular league at that caliber of play. But I'm not sure it would be AS popular.

My main point is that, below a certain threshold of skill, you have diminishing returns. It's got to look like 1970s football, rather than the UFL.

I've seen the same dynamic in college hockey and college basketball. Without the best players, these sports have lost some of the sheen. Jay Bilas was on yesterday wrecking the tournament, calling it just junk. And that was all because of the skill level of the players. Fan interest is down as well.

upstater1

BostonStraggler's soccer analogy is meaningful on another level. I grew up in the 80s and 90s following Seria A soccer from Italy. Why? Because that league had all the world's best players. AC Milan, Napoli, Juventus were the Barcelona, Man U and Chelsea of their day. Play seems to have shifted largely to the Premier League, with some of it reserved for La Liga. And don't forget, NASL was watched by billions back in the day. The Cosmos were legendary.

The NFL is entrenched. I simply don't see them messing around with the formula unless Manning and Brady break ranks the way Montana broke ranks.

Do I think the NFL could say screw you to the players if Manning crossed the line and played for the Colts + Replacements? Yes. Stick five schlubs in front of him and play ball. Montana and others crossing just killed the NFL. I also find it pretty curious/fortuitous for the NFL to have gone through the 87 strike right after the USFL went kaput. The timing is too coincidental.

DW Toys

I see what you are saying. Did you see the post on NFL2? It captures a lot of what is being said here.

Most of us on this forum want to see football. The NFL has grown to where it is a full tear entity. Most of us on this forum are still very interested in the NFL draft. If the NFLPA decertifies and goes after the owners, these legal proceedings can be long and drawn out. I say why can't the owners start new corporations with LLC's or secondary corporations or even trusts. Let a new league form. In the past NFLPA/owner breakdowns. the owners attempted to field teams with “scabs”. The world has changed. I can see new teams evolve under present ownership. If the draftees are not yet signed under NFLPA labor agreements m and if the NFLPA decertifies that should not be a issue, then why can't we still have a draft and take the best players available in 2011 and field complete teams?

We know the owners would need to be prepared to take less attendance dollars and if they could give back some guarantees to the networks, I could see this working in today's world where it failed back in the day. A smaller part is better than nothing. There are Arena Leagues and the UFL that are surviving (barely). I am not advocating getting those players. I suggest having a normal draft and taking this year's players as a core and starting a team in each present NFL location. There are many other NFL players presently not under contract as FAs who might disavow the NFLPA in order to get back to work and play football. Would I like to see Tom Brady? Of course, but I want to see football. The owners and the NFLPA are not going to get together until one or the other caves. The sport is so much bigger now than it was so any NFL football is better than nothing at all. The NFLPA and Owners impasse has one loser in this...the fans. We have to understand that the NFLPA nor the owners or even the players give one crap about us. It is a wallet driver contest and we are the chumps.

I want to know legally if if the players can go after the “new” league? I want to know legally if new LLC's or secondary corporations could be formulated without falling into the clutches of legal roadblocks? If the NFLPA is decertified, how could the union have control over these upcoming drafted players?

I think it would be very interesting to start a new league with new players regardless of our present lofty position of being one of the top teams in professional football. I would suggest that the owners would have to give discounts for tickets, parking and concessions. But it would keep cash flow however reduced, going into their stadiums and coaches, employees, stadium personnel and other businesses affected would get some positive financial gain to pay bills.

This way the greed is vanquished on both ends of the spectrum. The owners get a smaller percentage to maybe pay some of their debt service. The present players better hope that there long term contracts had enough upfront money for them to survive.

As said, all of these new draftees would form the core of each team. The draft would have to be expanded to like back in the day when there would now be 15-17 rounds or better to stock each team. No doubt some present players would opt to break ranks and prefer to” feed their families”(Where have we heard that before?) Also there are some players that are not obligated by contract that would accept a lesser paycheck to get full-time work back in what we could call NFL 2.

I know this is simplistic and I am not a business attorney but what are your thoughts? If a tickets for the Pats was $100. Would you pay half or one third of that to see BB and his staff coach some youngsters and a smattering of FAs? Would you not watch the games with morbid curiosity? Rather than “0” NFL football, could this interest you?

I would like your thoughts and feedback?
DW Toys

townes

i.e....you will ignore what is asked but demand others respond specifically to your questions.


You were the one claiming no party questioned owners claims on revenues but then said the players were on a fishing expedition asking for a review of financials, when asked which it was you ignored it.


If the owners want the players to accept a percentage then open the books, if they want to offer a lump sum then don't, it's as simple as that. the Direct TV deal was a clear violation of the CBA and demonstrates the owners cannot be trusted so the players should refuse any deal based on revenues until there is a mechanism to make sure the owners aren't being dishonest about them as they have shown they cannot be trusted to do so on their own, and the players demand that they produce their financials demonstrates they don't trust the information given to them to date.


Bottom line you are fine with the owners crushing the players and apparently feel the owners are the game, I disagree and believe the players request for transparency is completely reasonable. Nothing is going to change your unmitigated support for the owners and their right to make as much money as possible while crushing everything in their path, and nothing is going to change my view that people taking a percentage deserve transparency.


Given your refusal to address the Direct TV deal i'll bow out as nothing is going to change, you'll just keep on repeating the owners spin until everyone is burned out on hearing it, and I have already reached that point. Root root root for the replacements, i'm sure they'll love hearing you cheer them on, i'll be finding other ways to spend my time, if the owners crush the players they'll never get a dime from me again.

Hopefully the players destroy the owners in court, the owners deserve that much.

A.C Vegas

My take on the whole asking for money and "transpancy" is this if my boss asked me and the 600+ employees that one time is he could take 10% off the top to cover things he had to pay and 40% of everything else and we agree. Then he comes back a few years later and says to us "i am going to need to take another 10% (Making it 20%) and take a 50% cut of everything else" I am going to wonder what happened and why he has to dip into my pocket and I am going to want to know where the money went.

The players are not saying "no you can't have any more money" they just want to know why they need so much and it is only fair that the players get to see that the owners are not losing money they are losing Profit they want more money so they keep making more or at least staying at the same amount of profit.

Is it really fair that they need to take away from their empoyees to make more. if it is to maintain the same amount of profits that is not that big a deal if it is to raise profits then that is an issue

__________________
Beware of the MBWC (Media Brain Washing Conspericy) the only known way to stay safe is to read at least one thread here a day. You have been warned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Onion See Wes [Welker], here, the man with the honor of being my chauffeur? This resourceful bastard actually beat me home, so it's not like it can't be done.

upstater1

This is the way it happened in the automotive industry. Of course, we're talking about public records there, but the fact is, the people who redesigned the companies worked for labor.

I think this speaks to a certain amount of inbreeding at the top ranks of American Auto, and it might also speak to the tech schools financed by Big Auto. if you look at the affiliations of executives from the 1990s, you'll see a lot of grads from places that began as company "town" schools.

AndyJohnson

I havent ignored anything.


It is both.
There are established rules for calculating and verify revenue.
Do you really think the NFLPA would agree to splitting $9BILLION based on whatever the owners decided to tell them revenue was? My paperboy is more intelligent about business than to think that could happen.

The request for financials had nothing to do with revenue because they already have it.

The request for financials was a fishing expedition in order to find dynamics that occured within 32 teams financials in any of the last 10 years that they could isolate from the overall picture and use it as a bargaining tool.


When the players start looking at profit, they are saying they want to make the argument about what what the revenue splits results in after the owners run their business and manage a profit from their half of the revenue.
The players have every right to argue that they feel they deserve a higher percentage of the revenue.
They are hypocritical if they say the reason they deserve more depends on how efficiently the owners manage their share and make profit.



They have paid them a percentage for years. A percentage of revenues. The books are open on revenues. Why are expenses relevant to the union? Why should the owners have to justify what they do with their half?

I think it is safe to say the Judge Doty and the Special Master who issued their rulings know significantly more than you or I about this.
They ruled differently. That would refute your statement that it is a CLEAR VIOLATION. That doesnt stop you, however from saying it over and over again.



There has been a mechanism ever since the cap has been based on revenues.
Your argument is equivalent to saying that Ian should give you access to his administrative functions as long as he requires a login and password and has never allowed you to get a login and password.

It isnt about trust, its about leverage. If you were looking at this as a negotiation between 2 parties each trying to secure the best deal you would sound less like an 11 year old worried about proving whether the other guy tells the truth and realize that this is all about leverage. The negotiations, the proposals, the request for financials, the union not even looking at the financials that were given, decertification, lockout, lawswuit. All about leverage every step of the way. You are just the tool that buys into the propoganda both sides spew to make you feel angry at the other side because they are mean, greedy, unethical, etc. They got you hook, line and sinker.


What? How do you crush someone by splitting the revenue 50/50 and paying all of the expenses? The NFL players would have one of the greatest labor packages in the history of the US if they accepted the worst offer the owners give.
You know why? Because they deserve it. Because they are among the top 1% of 1% of the people in the country at doing something people will pay to see. They deserve a big portion of the revenue. But the owners who invest their money to make allow the forum for it to happen deserve to make a good return on it too.

Steven Ross paid about 550million for HALF of the Miami Dolphins 3 years ago.
Making the assumption that the cap, based on 50/50 split that was in place would be around 140mill, then Steven Ross paid 550,000,000 for the right to collect half of 280mill of revenue per year, give half to the players, and keep half to pay all of the expenses of the franchise from.

From Ross' perspective it cost him 550mill to

Receive 140 mill a year
Give 70 mill of it to the players
Pay the expenses of the the franchise from it which according to the Packers financials would be anywhere from 50-68 mill of that.

For his 550 mill investment he earns the right to make a profit of maybe 20 mill a year in the best case, while the players recieve 140,000,000 in payroll after investing nothing.

Tell me how you see that as CRUSHING THE PLAYERS.

You take half, I'll take the other half and I'll pay all the costs. Wow I CRUSHED you.

Once again, obviously you believe that but you have yet to give a reason other than misstating the reason they want them.

If you were an owner would you willing give your financial information to the adversary who is trying to get every penny they can from you? Honestly?


Well I dont remember when I said that was what I supported.
In fact, I do not 'support' the owners. I think their procrastination in dealing with the issue is central to why the season could be at risk.

I recognize they have the right to opt out of a deal that includes and opt out without being villified.
I recognize that the existence of the company that owns each team is based upon making money. I do not know why you think that is evil.
I know that the request for financials would accomplish nothing if they turned them over (AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER WHAT YOU THINK WOULD TRANSPIRE) and was simply a negotiating tactic to gain leverage partially by tugging at the heartstrings of people like you who apparently resent successful businessmen because they have money, and as soon as I say "The rich guy wants more money" you think Sodom and Gamorrah reopened for business.

I am not on either side. I happen to be debating with people who are taking an extremely naive side of the argument which includes thinking the union's motives are peace on earth and goodwill to man, and the owners are striving to release hell's fury on the great unwashed.


Adopting an open mind would. Particularly accepting that the numbers which the payroll is based on are transparent and the ones that are not have never been part of the agreement, formula or debate.


When did I refuse to address it?
I addressed it many times, exactly the same way.
2 qualified arbiters gave opposite rulings. They know more about it than I do.
I have not studied it enough to give an educated opinion, so I wont make one up.
That is not refusing to address it that is refusing to do what you do and speak as if I understand it perfectly when I do not


(CONTINUED)