IllegalContact
PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2010
- Messages
- 31,809
- Reaction score
- 16,273
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.Wait, are you saying that the players aren't largely responsible for the growth of the NFL's popularity?
These would be the same owners who worked out broadcast contracts that screwed the players and protected themselves in the event of a work stoppage, right? The same group that has had Mike Brown giving himself a "GM bonus"?
Can't imagine why the players wouldn't feel trusting of such gents. :bricks:
They'll pay all of them. If the NFL cap is $150 million, they could do a third of that and run 10 franchises. Could they make $50 million in revs to pay off the players? I'm sure.
The USFL, after all, was paying players 50% MORE than the NFL was paying back in the 1980s.
Let's back out tickets and concessions which would net about $3 million a game. Say 10 teams and 12 games before 3 games in the playoffs. That's 63 games. That's about $190 million.
How much would NBC shell out for the total package? Say 3 games each weekend day, 2 each on MSNBC. I bet they could easily ask for $300 million. Cuban and Trump wouldn't need to take any profit home if they could sustain this model for a few years and become a legit league. Their franchises would inflate in value, become at least as popular as say an NHL franchise in just a few years.
The Direct TV deal is obviously something the owners majorly screwed up. Still, the reluctance to back off their request on seeing detailed books of every team, even when an alternate approach was suggested, seems to me like going overboard.
I'm not sure how you came up with that number of what the USFL was paying its players. They paid some of the superstars, but not the regular Joe Shmoes. It's the equivalent of the US Soccer league wooing David Beckham. It didn't mean it was a great soccer league all of a sudden.
Even if your scenario was to be achieved - which would be an incredible difficult task due to finding stadiums, litigation from the NFL, etc - you're still talking about a 10 team league. That means 70% of the NFLPA lose their jobs and out of the remaining 30%, everyone except the top 50 players would end up taking pay cuts. Not exactly a "W" for the NFLPA.
the owners cant ask for more of what is alredy theres
If you can't see the problem with the GM bonus, I'm not going to waste time explaining it.
Mike Brown is allowed to make money as the owner of the team.Since the Bengals don't have a GM, Brown is technically in the right to do so. He's not stealing anything from anyone except Bengals' fans. But that's a different argument altogether.
The Direct TV deal is obviously something the owners majorly screwed up. Still, the reluctance to back off their request on seeing detailed books of every team, even when an alternate approach was suggested, seems to me like going overboard.
The USFL stuff is a FACT. The average USFL salary was exactly 48% higher than the average NFL salary.
As for the 10 team league thing, consider that if it wer the stars that left, the NFL would implode.
Since the Bengals don't have a GM, Brown is technically in the right to do so. He's not stealing anything from anyone except Bengals' fans. But that's a different argument altogether.
The Direct TV deal is obviously something the owners majorly screwed up. Still, the reluctance to back off their request on seeing detailed books of every team, even when an alternate approach was suggested, seems to me like going overboard.
the owners cant ask for more of what is alredy theres
If you can't see the problem with the GM bonus, I'm not going to waste time explaining it. As for the part above, perhaps you haven't heard Pete Kendall talk about it.
Kendall says owners statements are 'completely false'
Townes you keep running thread to thread spreading this fallacy that revenues are not transparent. The union has never, ever, ever claimed the reason they want financials is because they doubt the revenue calcualtions they are being paid on.The Direct TV deal wasn't a "screwup" it was a deliberate attempt to rip off the players and it violated the deal they had in place. The players have every right to demand transparency in any deal where they receive a percentage of profits and every right to have a neutral party make sure they are getting what is agreed to, as the owners clearly cannot be trusted to do so.
No. The owners gave financial information they felt comfortable giving, and the players said they want more. There was no dispute over the accuracy, it never even got that far. The players said bend over, and after the owners did they said open up, and they refused.To date the only people insisting that the owners have provided the necessary information is the owners and those who support them, no independent party has made such an assertion, so claims the owners have delivered are invalid as once again that requires trusting them, and they have already shown they can't be trusted.
You realise players dont want to be free agents every year they want the security of a long term deal... also you realise that everyone are not free agents. One lawyer can't jmp ship to another law firm if in his contract that he signed it says he can't...thats the point of contracts. Anywho why am i bothering... vent away btw yeah freedom to get the best deal... so that includes the owners and the players right? both sides? hence why ou should be negotiating rather than sueing
Townes you keep running thread to thread spreading this fallacy that revenues are not transparent. The union has never, ever, ever claimed the reason they want financials is because they doubt the revenue calcualtions they are being paid on.
They want the as a bargaining tool.
No. The owners gave financial information they felt comfortable giving, and the players said they want more. There was no dispute over the accuracy, it never even got that far. The players said bend over, and after the owners did they said open up, and they refused.
I am not going to dispute the idea that Mike Brown and Jerry Jones and Bob Kraft have a right to pay themselves a salary, but those are issues which I believe should be factored when considering a team's profitability. If the Bengals said "we lost $10 million last year so we need to reduce players' salaries to survive" I'd say they have a point. But if the team lost $10 million all while paying $75 million in salary to the owner and his family, then that's another story.Mike Brown is allowed to make money as the owner of the team.
Whatever way he chooses to pay himself is irrelevant except for the tax implicaitons.
Are we really saying that there is something unethical about Mike Brown making some money out of the 40% of his companies revenue that he doesnt hand over to players?
Link?
I would disagree. But that is not the point at all. The point I started with is that if it wasn't for the NFL, most of these guys would be working at McDonalds, in construction, or as jail security guards. Your scenario of a 10 team replacement league doesn't resolve that problem.
Mike Brown is allowed to make money as the owner of the team.
Whatever way he chooses to pay himself is irrelevant except for the tax implicaitons.
Are we really saying that there is something unethical about Mike Brown making some money out of the 40% of his companies revenue that he doesnt hand over to players?
The Direct TV deal wasn't a "screwup" it was a deliberate attempt to rip off the players and it violated the deal they had in place. The players have every right to demand transparency in any deal where they receive a percentage of profits and every right to have a neutral party make sure they are getting what is agreed to, as the owners clearly cannot be trusted to do so.