Felger on the owners: I have to agree with him!

[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.

 

[BTTA]

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.

I think this is a false issue. The money at stake for the owners is in the long term valuation of their franchise, not the relatively small salaries being paid to a few friends and family. That amount of money ($250K here, $350K there) doesn't matter in this power struggle. Those people will get paid that money regardless of how this goes.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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?

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

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

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Fred, think for a minute. Several 'relatives' could make far more than the "$250K and you're rich and need to be taxed" amount and it would not make a significant impact on the Forbes list of team gross incomes expenses. Felger fails basic math as well as critical thinking.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Felger has awful math skills. If I paid 300mill for a team aand I want hire my brother in law and wife and cousin for 300k a year, Id have that right.
He been railing on this for a week and its a dumb thing to waste time on.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

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.

So what if that family member does work that adds value to the franchise?

I guess since you have zero understanding of ownership; we are free to come live in your house.

So if the owners are "greedy" for wanting more profit, in your world, why aren't the players "greedy" for wanting a higher salary cap?

Slave Adrain Peterson's next Bentley is being paid by my ticket purchase.

 

[Ring 6]

So what if that family member does work that adds value to the franchise?

I guess since you have zero understanding of ownership; we are free to come live in your house.

So if the owners are "greedy" for wanting more profit, in your world, why aren't the players "greedy" for wanting a higher salary cap?

Slave Adrain Peterson's next Bentley is being paid by my ticket purchase.

No just 60% of your ticket purchase, the other 40% goes to the owners AFTER they deduct all of the expenses of the business.

 

[mojocaster.com]

Frankly, I am tired of the NFL at this stage.

The owners invest their own money into the teams. To the tune of amounts that I will never comprehend. Without them, there are no players, period, the end.

As for players, yes they should be paid, but give me a break. They're already paid tons of money to basically play a kids' game.

A guy who makes several million a year should never have the indecency to talk about "security for his family" or any other rhetorical variation on that theme.

It's bad faith on both sides in my opinion. There's no way a rookie like that clown QB who was picked #1 by the Raiders should make the kiond of loot he made. That system is asinine. If one doesn't want that to change, then they are either the clown in question, or in bad faith. In the mean time, veterans are being cut or see their salaries being reduced, even though they are proven commodities, so that the guys who've never played a down and in some cases whine about their NFL destination - hi, Eli Manning - can make tons of money that they haven't begun to deserve, yet.

And I don't personally believe that the owners should have to disclose anything when it comes to financials. That's not public info - except maybe for the Packers. If players are not happy, they can pool their own damn money, fund a league, complete with staffers, stadia, advertising and all the other costs and then call the shots. In the mean time, they're employees. If they don't like it, they can go play in the CFL and see if they like it better there.

Enough is enough.

 

[Don Kipines]

I think this is a false issue. The money at stake for the owners is in the long term valuation of their franchise, not the relatively small salaries being paid to a few friends and family. That amount of money ($250K here, $350K there) doesn't matter in this power struggle. Those people will get paid that money regardless of how this goes.

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.

 

[FredFromDartmouth]

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.

Exactly. Business is booming and the owners are asking the players to take a pay cut. And I have no doubt that the owners have Spaulding Smails' pulling down seven figures.

Maybe the whole pay cut thing is a just a bargaining chip but it seems like real genuine greed to me.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Frankly, I am tired of the NFL at this stage.

The owners invest their own money into the teams. To the tune of amounts that I will never comprehend. Without them, there are no players, period, the end.

As for players, yes they should be paid, but give me a break. They're already paid tons of money to basically play a kids' game.

A guy who makes several million a year should never have the indecency to talk about "security for his family" or any other rhetorical variation on that theme.

It's bad faith on both sides in my opinion. There's no way a rookie like that clown QB who was picked #1 by the Raiders should make the kiond of loot he made. That system is asinine. If one doesn't want that to change, then they are either the clown in question, or in bad faith. In the mean time, veterans are being cut or see their salaries being reduced, even though they are proven commodities, so that the guys who've never played a down and in some cases whine about their NFL destination - hi, Eli Manning - can make tons of money that they haven't begun to deserve, yet.

And I don't personally believe that the owners should have to disclose anything when it comes to financials. That's not public info - except maybe for the Packers. If players are not happy, they can pool their own damn money, fund a league, complete with staffers, stadia, advertising and all the other costs and then call the shots. In the mean time, they're employees. If they don't like it, they can go play in the CFL and see if they like it better there.

Enough is enough.

Signed
Jerry Jones
Pres Dallas Cowboys

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

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.

Let's assume your ludicrous case. A dozen relatives at $250K each is $3M. Less than one veteran player and maybe 1% of ~$300M gross. NOT the problem.

Math is hard.

Stick to radio show ranting Felgie

 

[Rob0729]

The thing Felger doesn't acknowledge that many of the owners' kids are actually doing jobs that would normally pay six or seven figures even if they weren't done by family members. Say Jonathan Kraft is pulling down a seven figure salary. Is he just getting it because the Kraft family is hiding their profits or do most team Presidents in the NFL get similiar salaries whether they are sons or daughters of the owners or not? Putting family members in positions that get paid a lot of money is not hiding profits in salaries.

I am sure there are some teams that do that, but other teams just put family members in positions that are highly paid. Siblings like Jonathan Kraft, Dan Kraft, Stephen Jones, Art Rooney II, etc. have all done more than comprehible jobs in their positions. I am sure other teams have siblings coming in collecting paychecks who really don't earn it. To say every or most teams are doing it is pure speculation.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

They are asking for a larger share of revenues because they find their curent profit levels unacceptable.
What difference does it make what they do with those profits.
If Bob Kraft makes $10,000,000 in profit and uses $3,000,000 of it to pay family members for no show jobs, why is it up to you if he feels he needs to make more profit than that in return for his investment and risk?

You seem to be under the misunderstanding that the owners are tying the proposal they make to a claim of what their profits are. They are not. They have never said that setting what profit level is acceptable to them is subject to negotiation, not should they, unless the players want to redefine the CBA and make their payroll a percentage of profit rather than revenue.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. Business is booming and the owners are asking the players to take a pay cut. And I have no doubt that the owners have Spaulding Smails' pulling down seven figures.

Maybe the whole pay cut thing is a just a bargaining chip but it seems like real genuine greed to me.

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

 

[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.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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)

 

[IcyPatriot]

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.

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.:bricks: Seriously ...

 

[Ring 6]

The thing Felger doesn't acknowledge that many of the owners' kids are actually doing jobs that would normally pay six or seven figures even if they weren't done by family members. Say Jonathan Kraft is pulling down a seven figure salary. Is he just getting it because the Kraft family is hiding their profits or do most team Presidents in the NFL get similiar salaries whether they are sons or daughters of the owners or not? Putting family members in positions that get paid a lot of money is not hiding profits in salaries.

I am sure there are some teams that do that, but other teams just put family members in positions that are highly paid. Siblings like Jonathan Kraft, Dan Kraft, Stephen Jones, Art Rooney II, etc. have all done more than comprehible jobs in their positions. I am sure other teams have siblings coming in collecting paychecks who really don't earn it. To say every or most teams are doing it is pure speculation.

But it still doesnt matter. The owners have not flouted a profit number and said "Look we arent making enough"
For there to be a conspiracy that the owners are creating slush funds and no show jobs to drive down the profit on their balance sheet they would have to be showing someone that number and using it to their advantage.

How can people be ripping the owners for not wanting to show financials and at the same time accuse them of cooking the books to hide profit that they are refusing to show?

It seems there are a lot of predetermined conclusions that people are fitting 'facts' into