Felger on the owners: I have to agree with him! - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

DW Toys · 03-15-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Kipines

Well, wait a minute, that doesn't make sense.

The owners are asking the players to take pay cuts because their expenses are so high. But let's say each of the teams has a dozen "relatives" on the payroll earning six-figure salaries for no-show jobs. Sure, you have every right to do that if you own the club. But if you're asking the employees whose work the company actually depends on to survive to give money back because your expenses are out of control, it's totally relevant if your "expenses" are actually profit disguised as salaries, handed out to a bunch of little Krafts and Joneses whose "jobs" are to pound doughnuts in the press box and pick cheerleading squads.

Hold on Cousin. If Mr. Kraft borrowed money to buy the Pats or build the stadium, he has a certain debt service. If he borrowed it from family, he pays them the way that he sees fit be it cash out, partnership etc.. What Mr. Stupid Felger insists on is that though each Team might have a different debt service or payroll, it is the players right to review how they pay items such as that. Kraft says he doesn't want anyone to tell him how to run his business. In fact, that is what the players are asking. You set the payouts in YOUR business in accordance to what we want so we can determine if you are doing profit balances the way we want you to so we know where all the cash flow money is going even though it is your business. The players get 60% after a cost of doing business initial charge but yet they do not pay for any out expenses the owners do. Read all of this at least three times and think about what you read. Felger has got this Obamite liberal also communistic method of how to do business in his head. He is so uninformed it is a crime. Each Team has different debts service options, In fact if Little "Sapulding" as he says, can make a tax benefit for the company by getting on the payroll. It is nice to have that problem but in no way is it Feleger's business or the NFLPA if they choose that route for perhaps tax reasons.

Here is all I know. The three big shot QBs who are the Plaintiffs, each make more per year that the World Champion Packers. These guys must use bowling ball bags for jock straps if they are bringing the message to court of how the NFL players are underpaid. Who was the brain surgeon that decided these guys should be Plaintiffs? I can understand Mankins because the Patriots are treating him so terribly at only $10m+ per year, those S.O.B.s. That my Cousins,...... is a travesty.

Mr. Barrack Felger, do you think Bob Kraft is taking a salary of $10m+ per year?.......Ah... so the boss is paid less than the employee here? That bastard Kraft, let's see that guys books!!!!!!

Andy, maybe you have the answer or can find out. How many NFL Team owners make less salary than some of their players?
If Jerry Jones is making $3m that is about in line with a third round Draft pick. I maybe on to something. Give me Pash's number.
DW Toys

DropKickFlutie · 03-15-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DW Toys

Mr. Barrack Felger, do you think Bob Kraft is taking a salary of $10m+ per year?.......Ah... so the boss is paid less than the employee here? That bastard Kraft, let's see that guys books!!!!!!

Kraft and most other owners have seen their wealth double or more. Their net worth isn't based on some sort of annual salary, the assets they own have grown in value DRAMATICALLY over the past decade.

This entire issue is about the owners wanting more money, not the players. They thought the players were bluffing and found out they weren't. If a bunch of other rich people got together and signed current NFL players to another league, I think many fans would switch.

***AndyJohnson*** · 03-15-2011, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Kraft and most other owners have seen their wealth double or more. Their net worth isn't based on some sort of annual salary, the assets they own have grown in value DRAMATICALLY over the past decade.

Do you think Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre, Ray Lewis, Jemarcus Russell, Nnamdi Asomugha, Sam Bradford, and many other players have not seen their net worth double or more?

Quote:

This entire issue is about the owners wanting more money, not the players. They thought the players were bluffing and found out they weren't. If a bunch of other rich people got together and signed current NFL players to another league, I think many fans would switch.

If its about the owners wanting more, and not the players wanting more, why havent the players just given it to them?

It is so naive to expect a business to not act to maximize their profits.

What do you think the goals of an NFL team, or any business are?

SteveBsFan · 03-15-2011, 11:06 PM

It's good to see people picking sides and taking a stand against the greedy CEO's of the NFL.

All while they walk around wearing clothes made from Chinese slave labor and eat out at fast food restaurants being served by minimum wage - no benefit employees.

I'm tired of this really. NFL players are treated better and paid higher than almost every other job in the world, and I'm supposed to be upset when the owner of that company has a huge paycheck himself? That's bull.

Let's see some uproar over the huge financial disparities between the millions of minimum wage workers in this country and the paycheck their CEO's make. You want to take a stand against 'the man', do it on a topic that can make a real difference in lives.

I may sound self righteous with this post, but I'm pretty tired of reading people acting like owners shouldn't be making money off their business when their employees are treated so freakin well.

The founders of Google are worth $20 billion each, and nobody mentions that, probably because their employees are treated awesome and they don't complain like a bunch of whine-bag NFL, NBA, and MLB players. Same goes for Facebook and Microsoft, I assume those employees are treated pretty great as well..

Wal-Mart though... you want to take a stand, complain about how rich those CEO's are while their employees struggle to feed their kids.

SteveBsFan · 03-15-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

Kraft and most other owners have seen their wealth double or more. Their net worth isn't based on some sort of annual salary, the assets they own have grown in value DRAMATICALLY over the past decade.

Oh, you mean the same guy who spent $175,000,000 to buy your favorite team and keep them in New England winning 3 Super Bowls because he spends a lot of money to run a top-notch organization including getting a privately funded $350,000,000 stadium for the team to have top-notch equipment and conditions?

Is that the guy you're complaining about doubling his net worth?

Or are you talking about the guy who has donated tens of millions of dollars to local charities over the years? Oh wait, that's the same guy.

Whoop-de-freakin-do if their net worth has grown in value over the past decade.. Guys like Bruschi come and go (as much as I love them), but guys like Kraft are why we have a team in New England to root for in the first place. I'm more than fine with Kraft doubling his net worth if he keeps producing what he has in the past decade. I'll take that ANY DAY!

skinnydog · 03-15-2011, 11:22 PM

I am amazed at how many shills there are here for the owners. Oh course the owner can make as much as they want, but so can the players. Someone said above, ther would be nonNFL if if it weren't for the owners. Really?? Anyone here think football is kind of boring, but loves to watch the Pats because that just love Bob Kraft?? Come on. You can make money by falling out of bed as an NFL owner these days. You just can't get into the club without a half billion to start with. Some seem to think any argument in favor of the players interferes with the owners god given right as capitalists to make as much as they want and give as much as they want to their kids for no-show jobs. Hey, I personally love capitalism, but the owners want no part of capitalist free markets. Nothing. They want the certainty of a ceiling on salaries. They fought for that and for that I applauded them. But now were just talking about dividing up the pie and the owners want more because of escalating costs, but won't give up the details.

***AndyJohnson*** · 03-15-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinnydog

I am amazed at how many shills there are here for the owners.

Do you really believe that anyone here has an incentive to dupe people into believing the owners? Thats kind of foolish.

Quote:

Oh course the owner can make as much as they want, but so can the players.

Which is why we are where we are, both sides are trying to squeeze out as much as they can get and neither has blinked yet. What does that have to do with your point?

Quote:

Someone said above, ther would be nonNFL if if it weren't for the owners. Really?? Anyone here think football is kind of boring, but loves to watch the Pats because that just love Bob Kraft?? Come on.

Do you really think thats what he meant? Do you really think he likes to watch football because of who the owner is? Or maybe he meant the enormous financial investment that is necessary to run a league at the level the NFL is run at is responsible for its existence?

Quote:

You can make money by falling out of bed as an NFL owner these days. You just can't get into the club without a half billion to start with. Some seem to think any argument in favor of the players interferes with the owners god given right as capitalists to make as much as they want and give as much as they want to their kids for no-show jobs. Hey, I personally love capitalism, but the owners want no part of capitalist free markets. Nothing. They want the certainty of a ceiling on salaries.

All business have a certainty of a ceiling on salaries.
The current system is one that was COLLECTIVELY BARGAINED. You are a tool if you try to say the owners forced this system on the players and imply some evil in it.

Quote:

They fought for that and for that I applauded them. But now were just talking about dividing up the pie and the owners want more because of escalating costs, but won't give up the details.

Actually, the UNION fought for the current agreement.
They won Free Agency in court. And instead of accepting it, they agreed to the current system. Understand that. There would be Free Agency unless the union decided it wanted the CBA instead.
As far as the financials, the NFL offered to hand 5 years of each teams financials to an auditor to review, audit, analayze and report findings to the NFPLA. The NFLPA said no. (Per Peter King)
So you would now need to change your entire opinion on this would you not, since your opinion is based upon the owners refusing to 'give up the details'.
Doesn't your own argument when applied to the correct facts now mean all blame should fall on the union for 'refusing to accept the facts the owners wanted to give up'?

cmasspatsfan · 03-16-2011, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DropKickFlutie

I can agree to some degree it doesn't matter what the owner's profits are, it's their right as a private entity to not open the books.

On the other hand, it needs to be very clear it is the OWNERS who opted out of the current CBA deal, because they want more money up front and a higher % of money to them from the remaining amount left over as well. Contrary to the PR spin going on, the players aren't being greedy asking for more money.

I also don't buy the argument that the owners put up all the risk. In most other enterprises this is true, however just like NFL unions aren't like everyday unions, NFL owners oftentimes get the public to pay for their stadiums, and they get all sorts of financing deals that the everyday businessman can't get.

Of course the owners assumes all the risk, their the ones who put up millions of dollars. The public isnt paying for stadiums anymore, the stadiums being built lately have been mostly with the teams money, the problem is due to the economy they havent been able to sell as many PSL's and luxury boxes that they thought they would and their asking for more money off the top to offset this.

Off The Grid · 03-16-2011, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredFromDartmouth

It pains me to say this but Felger appears to be spot-on in his rants about the owners. In case you missed it Felger is saying that the reason many owners do not show a lot of profit is because they have bloated executive salaries and perks. He suspects that the front offices are filled with "Spaulding Smails" relatives and that owners such as Jerry Jones are pulling down gigantic and multiple salaries.

We will not know for sure until (ha) the financial details are released. I suspect that the paper shredders are working overtime.

The principle at work here is that there is no limit to greed. The owners were making untold millions already but that was not enough. It is never enough in corporate America. The owners gave some lame-ass excuses about expenses and capital layouts when it was just a greedy shakedown of the players.

It is the players that I pay to watch and not some litigious eel owner. It is the players who play with excruciating injuries in appalling weather and risk long-term disability. They deserve at least what they got before plus a cut of the new TV money that the owners tried to hide.

As allways, Fred, you are HILARIOUS.

The next time that that Donkey, Felger, is "spot on", will be the FIRST.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Just so I understand your point here.

When Steven Ross purchased half of the Dolphins for $550,000,000 he did not earn the right to make as much money as he could on his investment?

You feel that when the money coming in is split right now the middle between the players and the owners, after the owners pay every expense, it is not their right to do whatever they want with their share?

And that if they are making a profit, whether it hits the bottom line as profit, or paid to owners, partners, family members etc, some other person, entity or group other than the man who made the investment and is at risk to lose money should be the arbirter of how much profit is enough or not enough?

Really?

It is AMAZING that anyone sides with the players, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Box_O_Rocks

Ah, Felger, the voice of reason in football analysis.

NICELY said!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

How do you know business is booming?
There was more talk of blackouts due to low attendance last year than I ever remember. I would imagine in a crappy economy merchandise sales are not robust.

The agreement is a split of revenues. Why is what the owners do with their share relevant to how they split?
The owners aren't 'asking the players to take a paycut'.
The owners are saying the old deal is not worthwhile to them and they will not continue to have an NFL if it must be under those terms.
Clearly the union recieved a lot of concessions in return for allowing an opt out. If the owners felt opting out was their best move, then it would seem they gave away too much in the last negotiation.

I dont get why you expect owners of a business to apoogize for wanting to make money. That is the purpose of the companys existence

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson

Its debatable whether they are asking for BOTH a larger exclusion AND a higher percentage thereafter.

I'm not sure why the owners opting out is being used as evidence they are wrong.

Both sides agreed to the deal in 2006. The owners negotiated an opt out. The players got something in return for that.
The owners chose to opt out at their first option. It is only logical to assume:
1) The owners wouldnt have agreed to the deal to begin with if they thought it was bad
2) The owners wouldnt have opted out if it was working as well as they expected, because it would still be a good deal for them
3) Since they did opt out, clearly the deal wasnt working out well for them

Why is it surprising that when they renegotiate the deal they chose to get out of because it was going porly for them, they want a more favorable structure?
The reason they want the players to get less is that as it evolved the players were getting more than they expected when they felt the 2006 deal was acceptable.
How is it evil to say in essense, we are losing in this deal, we can get out, so we will, and we do not want to continue to lose on the next one?
(Lose meaning making out worse than the players on the deal, not losing money per se)

Quote:

Originally Posted by IcyPatriot

Another fraud media personality who does not want to lose contact with the players. Sorry but any media member who needs access to the players - I cannot believe anything they say at this point. to go against the players is like cutting their own throat.

Anyone that spends one minute listening to Felger needs a life.

Seriously ...

Well, for the record, I only tune in for the background noise, when I'm driving...

But, yes, I DO need a life.

FredFromDartmouth · 03-16-2011, 06:09 AM

Hiding profits by having the company pay for the luxury vacations and transportation (e.g. private jet) and perks (not to mention padding the payroll with relatives) is a common practice among business owners trying to cut their taxes so I would not be surprised in the least if NFL owners do the same thing...it is an almost certainty.

The only owner demand that I have any sympathy with is a rookie wage scale. Not only does it move money toward vets who have proved themselves but it potentially cuts out weaselly agents.

There are no limits to greed...