I want mo' money

[IllegalContact]

Really bad analogy........ I wonder if kraft has the balls to terminate bradys contract or remove the franchise tag from mankins.

 

[bucky]

Wait, are you saying that the players aren't largely responsible for the growth of the NFL's popularity?

It's like any other entertainment industry. The players' responsibility is to put a good product on the field. And they do a great job at it. The owners' responsibility is to take that product and maximize its financial value. And they've done a great job at that. So from a fans' perspective, it's all about the players. But from a business and financial perspective, it's all about the owners.

 

[bucky]

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:

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.

 

[bucky]

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.

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.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

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'

 

[upstater1]

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 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.

Stadiums? They're there. 10 stadiums nationwide. Yankee or Citi Field. Old RFK. Pontiac Silverdome. U Minnesota. Orange Bowl. College stadiums everywhere. Cotton Bowl. Rose Bowl in Pasadena. Granted in New England, you only have 45k stadiums outside of Foxboro.

 

[upstater1]

the owners cant ask for more of what is alredy theres

You mean you work for free? Because the salary that you earn by contract (I have a contract, I don't know if you do) means the owner is bound by law to pay you if you complete the work you're assigned/responsible for. He can fire you, he can also ask for you to drop your salary. But, in any case, it's not HIS money. By contract, it's yours. He can ask you to take a paycut and if you refuse, he can fire you.

Maybe the owners should cut the players. That would be one way to take "their" money back, wouldn't it? Why don't they just cut the players?

 

[bucky]

If you can't see the problem with the GM bonus, I'm not going to waste time explaining it.

Or perhaps you just don't understand my point. I would be willing to bet that (a) the Bengals spend a significantly smaller amount of money on coaching and other operational expenses than other teams, and (b) the $1 mil bonus he gives himself is not any more than he would have paid to another GM, or than Jerry Jones pays himself for being a GM. While it's an obvious indicator of the Bengals' problems, it's not something that affects the CBA in any significant way.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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?

 

[bucky]

The USFL stuff is a FACT. The average USFL salary was exactly 48% higher than the average NFL salary.

Link?

As for the 10 team league thing, consider that if it wer the stars that left, the NFL would implode.

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.

 

[townes]

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 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.


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.

 

[townes]

the owners cant ask for more of what is alredy theres

Well, I guess if they don't need players then you can enjoy watching the Kraft's play the Jones.

 

[Ring 6]

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'

Are you talking about the part where Kendall says they lied when they said its unprecedented, or the part later when he said, yeah actally it is unprecedented?
Or are you truly consider SPIN to be fact?


Wow, you must change your vote 1000 in an election year if you don't know that.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[olschool]

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

Right. The players should be able to take whatever best offer they get, from whatever employer they want to work for, and the owners should be able to hire or fire anyone they want. It's called free enterprise.

If anyone breaks a contract, well, that's what courts are for.

 

[townes]

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.

Actually it is just the opposite, you keep saying the owners have given the necessary information but have no independent source to support it, only the owners contention, and the players clearly don't believe them. By your logic if jeff Pash says it is true then it is true.


Once agin you refuse to address the Direct TV deal despite many many opportunities to do so, and the reason is obvious, as it blows your contention that the owners are trustworthy completely out of the water.


The owners told the players to bend over or be locked out, so the players decertified, good for them.

 

[Wolfpack]

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?

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.

 

[upstater1]

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.

I read it wrong. The NFL's salaries leapt by 48% because of competition with the USFL.

ESPN.com: NFL - USFL made an impact in three-year run

Regardless, $3 million a game would be easily doable. The Bills make $9 million a game.

Current NFL players would be playing professional football were it not for the NFL, not working at McDs.

 

[upstater1]

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?

Well, there may be, since the other owners are giving him THEIR money to apply toward player salaries. I'd agree with you if there were no Supplemental Revenue Plan.

 

[bucky]

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.

I agree with you. Be that as it may, the owners were not able to get away with it and will surely end up compensating the players for it. I don't really want to waste my time defending the owners here because I believe they're just a bunch of greedy billionaires and both sides are to blame. However, within the context of this particular conversation, I just think that the players are not within their right to see each team's detailed finances over the past 10 years. And it appears to be their reluctance to give ground on this subject that triggered the decertification process.