OT: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

[Synovia]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

At a time when player conduct on and off the field is at an all time low as a generation of entitled talent who believes you have arrived when you're drafted has emerged.

Great Post Mo, but the above is absolute dog****. Its just not even close to correct.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

I mean, you can't even spell capitalism, and you're railing against other people's educations?

No, he wasn't railing against eduation. Re-read. He was saying that in school, the main economic lesson is that capitalism is not a good thing.

Bad spelling vs. lack of reading comprehension. Tsk tsk. What is this country's education system coming to?

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

I spend an inordinate amount of time on matters Patriots and have for decades, however if the NFL becomes MLB or the NBA, there are other life activities worth persuing instead of a bastardized NFL.

I feel the same way, and it concerns me. I'll have to find another activity (that involves beer) that takes up 40 hrs a week

 

[BradfordPatsFan]

Today at 8:25 on Mike and Mike you can hear the NFL's response to Smith.

 

[patchick]

Highlights: Talks continue. Last offer from owners was about a month ago, included an 18 game season, and a (I think he said) 17% rollback of the salary cap. (he called it 70's era salary).

If he really said that a 17% cap rollback was "70's era salary," then the entire interview is a joke. Rolling back the cap 17% from 2009 takes you all the way back to the exploitative era of...2006-7.

As for shared vs. unshared revenues (NOT profits, revenues), we have to remember why that distinction exists to begin with. I am nothing like a cap expert, but it's pretty clear that "shared vs. unshared" is the linchpin to the entire financial framework of the salary-capped NFL. It's how they balance the collective action of a league with 32 individual business owners, and the need for on-field parity with incentive for individual initiative.

Other more informed posters may correct me, but here's my understanding:

The league shares basic football-generated income equally. This includes national broadcasting and internet revenue, licensed merchandise, and ticket sales. But auxiliary stadium-generated revenue like concessions, naming rights, parking, luxury boxes and signage remain with the team that earned them (i.e. unshared). That's how teams like the Patriots pay for building and operating first-class stadiums. If they only got 1/32 of the revenue for all that, they couldn't afford the stadium at all. And they wouldn't have the incentive to aggressively pursue that revenue. And so that part of league revenue simply wouldn't exist -- and the Dallas Cowboys franchise wouldn't be worth any more than the Jacksonville Jaguars.

The cap is calculated based on shared revenue because its whole purpose is to promote parity. If you included unshared, you'd either be giving each team a different cap number or setting the cap at a level that most teams couldn't afford to come close to.

So it seems to me that saying "the league has to include unshared revenues in the cap calculation" is essentially saying "we have to blow up the entire financial framework of the modern NFL and start from scratch."

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If he really said that a 17% cap rollback was "70's era salary," then the entire interview is a joke. Rolling back the cap 17% from 2009 takes you all the way back to the exploitative era of...2006-7.

As for shared vs. unshared revenues (NOT profits, revenues), we have to remember why that distinction exists to begin with. I am nothing like a cap expert, but it's pretty clear that "shared vs. unshared" is the linchpin to the entire financial framework of the salary-capped NFL. It's how they balance the collective action of a league with 32 individual business owners, and the need for on-field parity with incentive for individual initiative.

Other more informed posters may correct me, but here's my understanding:

The league shares basic football-generated income equally. This includes national broadcasting and internet revenue, licensed merchandise, and ticket sales. But auxiliary stadium-generated revenue like concessions, naming rights, parking, luxury boxes and signage remain with the team that earned them (i.e. unshared). That's how teams like the Patriots pay for building and operating first-class stadiums. If they only got 1/32 of the revenue for all that, they couldn't afford the stadium at all. And they wouldn't have the incentive to aggressively pursue that revenue. And so that part of league revenue simply wouldn't exist -- and the Dallas Cowboys franchise wouldn't be worth any more than the Jacksonville Jaguars.

The cap is calculated based on shared revenue because its whole purpose is to promote parity. If you included unshared, you'd either be giving each team a different cap number or setting the cap at a level that most teams couldn't afford to come close to.

So it seems to me that saying "the league has to include unshared revenues in the cap calculation" is essentially saying "we have to blow up the entire financial framework of the modern NFL and start from scratch."

Used to be there was something known as designated revenue. The debaucle of 2006 supposedly did away with most if not all that in part because of the kvetching of the have not owners who wanted a share of the undesignated revenue other better managed or marketed or placed teams were generating. The league ended up opening Pandora's Box to placate them and the NFLPA stuck it's grubby little hand in before the league could close it... They said if you're gonna share it with each other then you're gonna share it with us...

The league then tried to salavage the mess by asking the union to take a lower percentage of a bigger pie. Couldn't get it low enough though (needed mid 50's) to account for the difference. Remember Gene's famous percentage quote as he threatened to strike that went something like his number would start with a 6... I think they finally agreed to a formula that was seheduled to at a little less than 59% and creep up to 60% over the course of the agreement. Hence the basically unanimous decision to bail out by owners just 2 years into a 6 year deal. It didn't take them long to fully realize just how bad a deal they'd agreed to under duress in order to salvage 2006.

At the end of the day if you look at the Forbes valuations you will find there isn't that much of a gap between what Dallas and Detroit or Jacksonville are worth because the vast majority of the data used to formulate the worth of an NFL franchise is the value of the league, and that is based on what it generates as a whole and how popular and stable it has remained while other leagues stumbled and bumbled. Most teams own few tangible assets. A strike or lockout isn't the worst thing that could happen to this league as a result. It would be worse if franchises started folding like the house of cards they in many respects are. Then you would begin to see what is essentially "perceived values" plummet.

 

[Triumph]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

That's what the union wants you to think it boils down to. Owners seem to be proposing growing revenue becoming the foundation for increasing player earnings ability over time. They also want to redistribute the inordinate amount of revenue already being paid to unproven rookies to themselves to allow them to invest in and grow the product, and to veteran players and perhaps players out performing contracts. Nobody else will make less, and rank and file and older veterans may in fact make more even in the short term. I think on purely financial terms without knowing the finite details, the plan has some merit. I just have concerns about the toll increasing regular season games will take on all players and the effect expansion of rosters and likely eventually the league will have on the quality of the game.

17% is almost 1/3 of 60%. You round the 2009 cap up to 130 M and thats a reduction of approximately 43 M per team. It has to hurt just more than just the top 10 rookie contracts.

Thats a killer for teams who spend up the cap virtually every season. I fail to see how some players will make more with less cap room.

 

[Gwedd]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

You clearly didn't go to school. I got pretty much the opposite message: every one outside "amerika t3h aw3some" is a communist and worships the devil. Money justifies everything.

I mean, you can't even spell capitalism, and you're railing against other people's educations?

Dude, at least you got the truth in your education. That's not how they're teaching US History up here in Maine.

 

[patchick]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

17% is almost 1/3 of 60%. You round the 2009 cap up to 130 M and thats a reduction of approximately 43 M per team. It has to hurt just more than just the top 10 rookie contracts.

Triumph, "a 17% reduction in the cap" doesn't mean 60%-17%. (That would be a 28% reduction of the total.) It means taking 17% off of the cap number, IOW rolling it back from $127 mil to $106 mil.

To put that alleged proposal of $106 mil in context, here are past cap numbers in $millions:

2009: 127
2008: 117
2007: 109
2006: 102
2005: 86
2004: 81
2003: 75
2002: 71
2001: 67
2000: 62
1999: 58
1998: 52
1997: 41
1996: 40
1995: 37

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

17% is almost 1/3 of 60%. You round the 2009 cap up to 130 M and thats a reduction of approximately 43 M per team. It has to hurt just more than just the top 10 rookie contracts.

Thats a killer for teams who spend up the cap virtually every season. I fail to see how some players will make more with less cap room.

The league has asked for a reduction in the amount of total revenue earmarked for players, not a reduction in the cap. If it's reduced at all it would be minimally. What they want is for the cap and player payroll cost to stop growing at a greater rate than revenue. No player presently under contract will experience any loss of income. The league has been pretty clear on that. Their main target/proposal appears to be capping rookie deals where a tremendous amount of money is presently being squandered on guys who haven't even proved they can handle a snap at the pro level. They want to redistribute the savings inherent in capping rookie contracts between the league itself - so it can afford to continue to invest in and grow the overall pie thereby increasing the $$$ players see - and veteran players who have earned the right to be paid to continue playing as opposed to being prematurely cut or forced to choose between that or playing out their career at league minimums because of cap concerns.

They may also be asking players presently under contract to play 2 more regular season games in the forseeable future with no additional compensation. But the caveat is if they do and revenue increases proportionally as projected all players present and future will benefit from that increase at contract time going forward.

Again, it's not my approach. In the end I think the league would be happy to get a reasonable cap on the rookies and some concessions about recoverability of bonus money that would total a 8-10% rollback. You never open negotiations asking for exactly what you want. They could even do it in part by lowering the 60% back down to the mid 50's, but that's actually a harder sell. So they have tried to come up with some consiliatory give and take that doesn't dramatically impact the immediate bottom line for the present day rank and file or the vast majority of future draftees (who would also likely be tied to rookie deals for lesser terms). And while it may slow dramatic growth that has seen some undeserving performers benefit of late from silly money deals, it will insure that everyone (including the majority of players and owners) continues to do pretty damn well financially for the forseeable future.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

17% is almost 1/3 of 60%. You round the 2009 cap up to 130 M and thats a reduction of approximately 43 M per team. It has to hurt just more than just the top 10 rookie contracts.

Thats a killer for teams who spend up the cap virtually every season. I fail to see how some players will make more with less cap room.

As others pointed out, your math is wrong. It is 17% reduction of their share of revenue income, not 17% reduction of the total part of the league revenue they will get. So if they get 60 cents on every dollar now, the league is proposing that they reduce that share by 17% of 60 cents which is 49.8 cents of every dollar rather than what you are suggesting of a reduction of 17% more off the total revenue which would be only 43 cents on every dollar. When you are talking billions of dollars, a 6.8 cent difference is huge.

Since the cap is growing at 10% or so a year anyway, all this will really do is stall or slow the growth of the cap. That is unless the NFL stops their revenue growth, but then even with the current CBA that would stall or slow the growth of the cap.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

If he really said that a 17% cap rollback was "70's era salary," then the entire interview is a joke. Rolling back the cap 17% from 2009 takes you all the way back to the exploitative era of...2006-7.

I am fairly certain he said 17%, but there was some traffic noise, so if I'm wrong, I take responsibility for that mistake. He def said, "70's era" and a percentage that I heard to be 17%.

 

[Rob0729]

I am fairly certain he said 17%, but there was some traffic noise, so if I'm wrong, I take responsibility for that mistake. He def said, "70's era" and a percentage that I heard to be 17%.

He probably said 70's era. He probably was talking about that was the percentage of revenue the players got back then not the actual dollar value spent back then. Even then, I think he is exaggerating the case because every other argument I have read said it was the percentage prior to the CBA in 1993 although the argument said the percentage would go down to 43% of the total revenue which is incorrect.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Turns out in making his case for what the NFLPA offered he neglected to report there was a third aspect of their proposal that called for 3 year UFA and the elimination of the franchise tag. So in other words, their last proposal was a total non starter...