What is Upshaw's goal......
I am trying to understand what Upshaw sees as a goal a few years out...what is that big gold mine that he wishes for??? It is so so obvious that he is pushing the owners more and more fot a higher percentage and threatening with the uncapped year and decertification and a strike. I don't see that as helpful at all to players in the long run. The uncapped year works at both ends..top and bottom and for every FA that hits it big, I bet there are 3 or 4 that will be paid a LOT less. But given 07 is uncapped...what is beyond that is SO great for the players?? Does he think that revenue in general is going to increase after a strike and labor problems?? What magic wand is going to come and reward players even more than now?? If a league is like baseball and not competitive what makes him think it is going to bring in more fans?? What bargaining will players have with NO union at all?? I just do not see how the players gain anything at all by what they are doing....to me Upshaw is selling a nirvana that doesn't exist, will never exist and is just leading the players to economic slaughter. If the revenue is all down and the goose is dead, who wins??
You misunderstand Upshaw's motives. He is not really concerned about the players or the owners because he is just a puppet. The people he's really working for are the Agents and they are pulling all his strings.
They want to maximize the amount of player contract bargaining required in order to maximize the amount of money the Agents can get representing the players. Happy overpaid players means happy well paid agents. They can do that by minimizing the times between rookie contracts and free agency. Ideally, they want to kill the NFL draft setup so that it becomes free agency right from the start. Step one in their agenda is to kill the CBA and they appear to be very close to achieving that goal and making it look like it's all the owners fault! :rolleyes:
A friend did mention that he also was the agent of the players ion a more formal way....which would seem a conflict of interest..but if it is NOT helping the players at all, why are they not uprising and kicking him to the curb?? Or are they just hoodwinked thinking he will just take care of it and all will be well??? Would free agency like that really be a paradise for agents??
If a deal does not get done today,a don't I don't think it will, I hope that Bob Kraft uses his money to stick it to the ohter teams during the uncapped years.
I hope that he ask BB for a shopping list and he spends as much as it takes to bring in any player that BB wants.
Why is it that you think that Upshaw is the problem in the negotiations?
Isn't the problem is that a few owners have figured out how to make more money than the rest, even though TV revenue and seating revenue are socialized among all the owners? All the owners are profitable, but many are jealous and want more to share (be handed) more than just TV and seating revenue ("designated revenue").
Is the union offer of 59.5% of designated revenue outrageous? Why do you think so?
FWIW, I think that the top owners have no problem with 59.5% of designated revenue. They do have a problem with having to share with other owners the results of many years of work in developing sources of revenue. Why did they bother if almost all the money will be simply "stolen" from them.
So, I BELIEVE that the top owners are willing to share more with the players, but not with the whining owners who refuse to even try to make money on their own.
Upshaw is negotiating just like the agents he represents. He's huffin and puffin as an agent would when they are flyin' their clients around shopping for the best deal in free agencies. Easy to make the big demands when teams are bidding against each other because you know there will always be bigger fool who will panic and agree to even the most outlandish deal.
In that sense, Usphaw and Condon were smart to define the issue as revenue sharing (and issue of competition among the owners).
But my question was what Upshaw's larger goal is??? If one looks at the union lit, it is quite obvious that Upshaw sees the uncapped year and no salary cap as nirvana...why?? Does he NOT realize that the compromises the owners made gave the players a great deal??? WIll the owners give up more without a salary cap?? Frankly I doubt it...yes, some will pay way more, but will these other small revenue teams pay more?? I doubt it...and what about the bulk of the players will they get more..or less..having the bulk of the money go to the "stars"...so to speak. It's obvious that Upshaw and many want to frame the situation as high vs low revenue teams, but to me that is a ploy to divide owners and to grab all that one can. I understand the issues with the owners..but I don't with the so called "players" union. How will the average JAG player benefit at all from Upshaw's future?? I see star players getting mega bucks but what about the JAG..how does he gain anything?? To me he loses big time..and there are many JAGS to each star..so should the headline players (few) control the union?? Methink it is all about agents and what they want...Funny how many see Upshaw as anti-agent...
Upshaw's goal right now is that he wants the players to have a percentage of all revenue. OK, I think there's some debate on that many poster do not believe that low revenue, highly profitable teams like the Bengals deserve the local money that the Patriots generate. However, Upshaw's point is that don't the players deserve a share of this local money because they are the product on the field? Upshaw says that they do, and that they deserve around 60% of this local revenue (since they want 60% of all revenue).
However, this affects lower revenue teams, which was why Upshaw really felt that there would not be a new CBA without new revenue sharing. This is probably best explained in numbers. I'm going to ballpark figures to make things simple.
Let's say that the CBA is 60% of all revenue, and this is what the salary cap is based off. Let's say there are 3 teams in the league, lower revenue, high revenue, and middle class. Let's say that the national revenue that is already shared like TV, etc is 300mil or 100mil for each team. Now, let's dole out the local revenue.
High: 40mil local
Middle: 20mil local
Low: 0 local
So, the total revenue per team is:
Now, if the salary cap is 60% of the total revenue, it would be .6 X 360mil = 216mil.
Or 72mil per team
Therefore, the net for each team after labor costs would be:
OK, you might be saying, who cares? All of the teams are still making plenty of money here. However, the point for the low revenue teams is that they are the ones that are actually subsidizing the high revenue teams here! If you had just taken 60% out of each team's revenue and made that the cap, the low revenue teams would have only had to pay 60mil, and the high revenue team would have had to pay 84mil. So, without revenue sharing, there is actually a transfer from low revenue teams to high revenue teams here.
Kraft has said, in the past, that he doesn't have an issue with the Salary cap being determined by the Total Gross Revenue. What Kraft has said is that he has an issue of having to share any money above and beyond that with other owners. The proposal that low end teams want is that the high revenue teams would have take huge cuts in their revenues while the lower revenue teams could just sit back and do nothing. Ala the KC Royals and Minnesota Twins of MLB.
I did up an example that showed that Kraft would be forced to give up something like 75% of the local revenue that the Patriots generate under the plan that the lower-revenue owners want to instill.
And, one thing to remember here is that we are talking about REVENUE, not profit. So expenses aren't taken into account.
Personally, I think that the players getting 60% of the gross revenue in the cap AND getting the absurd benefits package (225K-300K per player) constitutes significantly more than the 60% gross revenue. I also think that Gene Upshaw isn't fairly representing the NFLPA because he has a conflict of interest with Tom Condon being his agent.
Personally, the plan being floated by the Steelers (that each team gives up 25% of the local revenue to the pot) is a good compromise. I also believe that the lower revenue franchises have to be held accountable and forced to try and exapand their revenue bases. Why should they be getting something for nothing?
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 © Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1
The opinions posted in this forum do not necessarily reflect the opinions of our staff at PatsFans.com or USA Today.
We are not affiliated with the New England Patriots™ or the NFL™. The Photo Used In the header was taken by Ian Logue.
© Copyright 2000-2012. PatsFans.com Is a Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties.
This site is owned and operated by I&K Internet Design Enterprises, LLC