Some NFL Owners Resist New Deal

[DropKickFlutie]

There is an internal struggle among the owners over the new deal that was ironed out over the past few days. This just confirms that all along, it's been the owners and not the players with the issues. The original CBA that worked great for the league was opted out because a few owners didn't like it, and the current deal is facing difficulty getting passed because of the same issues. This was never about owners vs. players but rather owners vs owners as it pertains to revenue sharing and revenue keeping. The players were not the ones that opted out of the original deal, and the players were not the ones asking for more money up front as well as more money off the remaining pie.


Several NFL owners resisting deal to end lockout, sources say - ESPN

 

[upstater1]

When I said this would happen a few months ago, I was totally ridiculed by several of the more prominent posters. I said that one of the sticking points in the negotiations was clearly a disagreement among small market and large market owners. This is not surprising.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

When I said this would happen a few months ago, I was totally ridiculed by several of the more prominent posters. I said that one of the sticking points in the negotiations was clearly a disagreement among small market and large market owners. This is not surprising.

No deal will happen until the owners themselves come to an agreement. The longer this goes on the longer it becomes apparent this was never about players vs owners, but rather greedy owners vs other greedy owners.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

We've been discussing this in the deal in a few days thread...

I think both of you are over reacting in the same way the over exuberant folks were about how close a deal was. This isn't about revenue sharing between owners, it's about how to split what they share with players. Rumor has it most of the concessions in that area to date have come from the owners side (some reports say the additional $1B is now down to $250M). Some of the hawks amongst them (who aren't necessarily haves or have nots) don't like that. They want this deal to regain the upper hand for ownership after being talked into a compromise deal that tipped the balance in the other direction in 2006. They need to be reassured that they are getting sufficient concessions from the union to warrant what they've already gone this far to achieve because they likely won't have an opportunity to close the gap again any time soon. And many of them have genuine concerns about the overall economy as well as they own other businesses and they want this one to be positioned to ride out any further economic downturn.

And the players don't have to ask for more money or a share of a bigger pie...they got that last time out. That is why the cap imploded...

 

[Fencer]

There's zero information there, and by that I don't mean to criticize the reporting.

Rather, if this for some reason weren't true, it would be leaked anyway as a negotiating strategy, to help convince the players that they're at the limits of the deal they could get.

 

[Wolfpack]

There's zero information there, and by that I don't mean to criticize the reporting.

Rather, if this for some reason weren't true, it would be leaked anyway as a negotiating strategy, to help convince the players that they're at the limits of the deal they could get.

That's actually what I think may very well be going on here. It's just posturing. If all 32 owners were pleased-as-punch at the terms currently being negotiated, it would embolden the players to demand more. But you announce a bunch of owners are unhappy and the players think they're at the end of the lne.

 

[DaBruinz]

There is an internal struggle among the owners over the new deal that was ironed out over the past few days. This just confirms that all along, it's been the owners and not the players with the issues. The original CBA that worked great for the league was opted out because a few owners didn't like it, and the current deal is facing difficulty getting passed because of the same issues. This was never about owners vs. players but rather owners vs owners as it pertains to revenue sharing and revenue keeping. The players were not the ones that opted out of the original deal, and the players were not the ones asking for more money up front as well as more money off the remaining pie.


Several NFL owners resisting deal to end lockout, sources say - ESPN

The previous deal did NOT work great for the league as a whole. When will people like you realize that?? Seriously. When teams like the Packers are making less than 10% profit, there is an issue. People like you can't say that they aren't maximizing their revenue because they are.

Another thing is that the LAST deal was NOT the original CBA. Not by a long shot.

It was known from day one that the owners would end up opting out because many knew it was a bad deal, overall. What you fail to acknowledge is that we are at the point we are now because of the demands the players put in after they knew the owners would be opting out.

 

[BradyFTW!]

People like you can't say that they aren't maximizing their revenue because they are.

Oh, well okay then. Bulletproof.

 

[Deus Irae]

There is an internal struggle among the owners over the new deal that was ironed out over the past few days. This just confirms that all along, it's been the owners and not the players with the issues. The original CBA that worked great for the league was opted out because a few owners didn't like it, and the current deal is facing difficulty getting passed because of the same issues. This was never about owners vs. players but rather owners vs owners as it pertains to revenue sharing and revenue keeping. The players were not the ones that opted out of the original deal, and the players were not the ones asking for more money up front as well as more money off the remaining pie.


Several NFL owners resisting deal to end lockout, sources say - ESPN

The old deal would have been fine except for the problem with ownership revenue sharing. Instead of taking the time to work out a long term solution to that problem amongst themselves and then using that as a foundation for the owners side in a new CBA, the owners decided to stick it to the players. As a result, we're where we are now. Guys like Ross have made that clear.

Now that they're at the stage of granting major concessions (at least by reports I've read) on the amount of 'off the top' money ($250 mill rather than another billion), it's not surprising to hear about owner strife.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

The previous deal did NOT work great for the league as a whole. When will people like you realize that?? Seriously. When teams like the Packers are making less than 10% profit, there is an issue. People like you can't say that they aren't maximizing their revenue because they are.

Another thing is that the LAST deal was NOT the original CBA. Not by a long shot.

It was known from day one that the owners would end up opting out because many knew it was a bad deal, overall. What you fail to acknowledge is that we are at the point we are now because of the demands the players put in after they knew the owners would be opting out.

You just cited a 10% profit for a non-profit team in a tiny market as support for your argument. Can you not see the irony in that?

 

[DaBruinz]

You just cited a 10% profit for a non-profit team in a tiny market as support for your argument. Can you not see the irony in that?

And you just proved that you don't know much about the Packers. First off, In their case, any "profit" goes back into the team fund. Secondly, the Packers, like every other team, have fans across the United States. The invention of Sunday Ticket has made it possible for fans to watch their respective teams anywhere in the country. It's not 1980 anymore where, once you leave an area, you're unlikely to see your Team's games. It's 2011 and you can watch games anywhere now, pretty much.

 

[Rob0729]

As I said in the other thread, this is a non-story unless nine teams oppose it. It is doubtful that nine teams oppose it.

Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown will likely oppose any deal that isn't heavily skewed in the owners' favor which will never happen. Depending on how many more (if there are any) owners who oppose the new deal as it is being negotiated, the deal will probably pass the first vote.

I also quoted Mike Florio from PFT in the other thread stating that the fact that some owners aren't happy with where the talks are going it means that the owners and players have really closed the gap on their differences.

 

[BSR]

This just confirms that all along, it's been the owners and not the players with the issues.

Is this somehow new information? They were the ones that opted out after all. However, that doesn't change the notion that the previous deal didn't work for a segment of the owners. If anything, this rumored potential split verifies how much the previous deal didn't work for those owners.

 

[patsinthesnow]

I also quoted Mike Florio from PFT in the other thread stating that the fact that some owners aren't happy with where the talks are going it means that the owners and players have really closed the gap on their differences.

That is a very good point. :rocker:

This four month joke should be over with soon.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

And you just proved that you don't know much about the Packers. First off, In their case, any "profit" goes back into the team fund. Secondly, the Packers, like every other team, have fans across the United States. The invention of Sunday Ticket has made it possible for fans to watch their respective teams anywhere in the country. It's not 1980 anymore where, once you leave an area, you're unlikely to see your Team's games. It's 2011 and you can watch games anywhere now, pretty much.

I work for a non-profit. Having very stringent rules on captial vs. operational budgets, they spend money very differently than their for profit counterparts. Are you really going to try to argue that because teams can have fans in other parts of the country, there are no small market teams?

 

[plk]

I work for a non-profit.

Can you resolve something that I am uncertain about. Do the Packers fit the legal definition of a "non-profit" company, or are they simply a company that is being run for the benefit of the team and not for profit. Thank you.

 

[LuthierJr]

The packers are for profit. They are just a publicly traded co.

 

[Rob0729]

Can you resolve something that I am uncertain about. Do the Packers fit the legal definition of a "non-profit" company, or are they simply a company that is being run for the benefit of the team and not for profit. Thank you.

The Packers are a public, technically for profit company that has in it's charter that they cannot make a profit for distribution. They are not a non-profit company nor receive the benefits of true non-profit companies.

EDIT: I may be wrong about this. They may be a legal non-profit after doing some research.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

However, that doesn't change the notion that the previous deal didn't work for a segment of the owners. If anything, this rumored potential split verifies how much the previous deal didn't work for those owners.

Exactly. The owners tried to demonize the players as the bad guys, when the issue has always been amongst the owners themselves. Jonathan Kraft negotiated the last CBA and a few owners (mostly the small market teams) really wanted to opt out. Even with these new negotiations, it still goes back to the owners unable to get on the same page. This entire thing has been less about the players, or the players wanting anything more, and about the owners who can't agree. The longer this drags on the more it shows how inept Roger Goodell is, as well as creates more support for the players.

 

[Ring 6]

Exactly. The owners tried to demonize the players as the bad guys, when the issue has always been amongst the owners themselves. Jonathan Kraft negotiated the last CBA and a few owners (mostly the small market teams) really wanted to opt out. Even with these new negotiations, it still goes back to the owners unable to get on the same page. This entire thing has been less about the players, or the players wanting anything more, and about the owners who can't agree. The longer this drags on the more it shows how inept Roger Goodell is, as well as creates more support for the players.

How did the owners try to demonize the players?
The owners, as a group are simply saying the old deal is no good for them, and they need a new one that is more favorable.
How does that add up to 'demonzing' the players, or 'sticking it to the players'?
Somehow because there is a difference in revenue and profitability among the teams people seem to think the proper solution is for the owners with greater revenue (or profit whichever you want to base it on) should agree to a deal that makes them subsidize the less revenue owners.
Clearly the owners would prefer a deal where every franchise has an accpetable level of profit with no owner to owner welfare. Why do people see something malevolent, dirty or unethical in that?
Clearly if it is the only way to get a deal done, and that deal is better than no deal, then the 'richer' owners will buy the acceptance of the poorer owners by paying them a subsidy. How anyone thinks that is something they should be volunteering to do, or how not doing so makes them evil or dastardly is beyond me. They is a real lack of understanding of how a business operates and a businessman thinks on this board.