I want mo' money

[Ring 6]

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.

Please show me one source not named Townes that says that the players are disputing the transparency of REVENUE.
You cannot be so naive as to assume that the union---in a settlement of a lawsuit---would agree to accepting whatever the NFL decides to tell them the revenue their pay is based on has to be when it is in the billions of dollars, or do you?

Please respond to this question

Do you think that the union agreed to a CBA where they receive a percentage of the revenues and are not allowed to verify what they are?

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.

I have never commented on their trustworthiness, because it is irrelevant to me.
Whether they are negotiating by telling 100% unadultered truth, or like everyone who negotiates a deal at that level, they are bending the facts to support their case (just like the union is) means nothing to me.
I do not care to comment on the Directv deal because 2 separate authorities found differently, and choosing one or the other is simply executing a bias.

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

So what's the problem?

The owners do not want to have an NFL if they must stick to therecently expired CBA.
The players do not what to have an NFL based on the owners proposal of a CBA that will work for them.

The owners are offering a price, and the union is not accepting.

Why are you so intent on focussing on all the other bs?

I will ask AGAIN. What would you expect to result from the owners turning over 10 years of 32 teams financials?

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Why?
That is simply the Bengals saying they need to make more than 65million. (Obviously the numbers are silly)

I do not understand why there is a difference between ownership saying

"We need to be more profitable"
and ownership saying
"We are losing money" Which, by the way they have never said, and the lawsuit specifically cites them saying they have never claimed they are losing money.

Why do they have to prove why they feel they need more profit to make their investment worthwhile to them, other than to satisfy public opinion in constrast to the Ty Law feed my family type of comment.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

There is nothing that says Brown cannot make money even where he was receiving revenue sharing in the SRSP.
The NFLPA WANTS the SRSP. They sued to keep it in effect.
The dispute is that the NFL believes it is not applicable to 2010 because it was uncapped.
Explain why you think it is an issue.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

By the way, the SRSP is not related to profits, it is related to revenue, so Mike Brown could burn money in a bonfire and there would be nothing wrong with that. (Other than it being illegal to destroy currency

The SRSP was designed to share revenues. Since the cap is based upon all revenues and they differ from team to team, the richer clubs would drive the cap up and the poorer clubs would be less profitable.
In other words, if you use the Bengals revenue for the calculation perhaps the cap would be 90mill, but if you use the Patriots only it would be 150 mill.
From the Bengals perspective the Patriots revenue dives the cap up to a level that is unprofitable to them. So they share revenues to make up the difference.
The exact point is that it is SUPPOSED TO put money in Mike Browns pocket, not pay his bills.
If he reports a profit or loss it has no impact on his SRSP money.

 

[patsfan-1982]

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?

IMO the players cant play that card just look at the three main guys fighting for the players Brady just got 48 million guaranted bress makes over 10 million per year and Manning has made why over 100 million since he has been in the NFL. the NFL min for a rookie is 325k i dont know about you but i dont make that much in a year so i cant feel bad for them

 

[Wolfpack]

Why?

Because if you're trying to make the argument that the current business model cannot be sustained due to financial losses so you need the players to accept pay cuts, then profitability becomes a major issue - especially if you're trying to make that argument in a court of law (which we may be seeing).

I do not understand why there is a difference between ownership saying

"We need to be more profitable"
and ownership saying
"We are losing money" Which, by the way they have never said, and the lawsuit specifically cites them saying they have never claimed they are losing money.

If you do not understand the difference between a company making money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can make more money" versus a company losing money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can return to profitability" then there's nothing I can say to help you.

 

[Ring 6]

Because if you're trying to make the argument that the current business model cannot be sustained due to financial losses so you need the players to accept pay cuts, then profitability becomes a major issue - especially if you're trying to make that argument in a court of law (which we may be seeing).

There is no pay cut. There hasnt been a cap since 2009. They were negotiating to determine agreement on a NEW cap. The owners feel they need it to be lower than the old one in order for them to agree to a deal.
They do not have to justify that business decision to anyone by showing 10 years of their operations.
The lawsuit specifically addresses the leagues reasoning and it says they have specifically stated they have NOT lost money.
You cant justify having to turn over financials based on claiming they said something they did not.
And you cannot justify that anyone other than the owners themselves should be allowed to judge what level of profit is acceptable to them.

I mean really, do you expect the financials to be reviewed and someone to say, you made X amount of profit, so thats enough, or you deserve Y more?
Thats the whole point here. They have an agreemet to split revenues. Allowing the union to judge what the owners do with their share effectively redefines the criteria, which the union has no right to do.

If you do not understand the difference between a company making money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can make more money" versus a company losing money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can return to profitability" then there's nothing I can say to help you.

Of course there is a difference in those 2 scenarios, but there is no difference in either companies right to take that stance.
Are you telling me that every company should be satisfied with making a meager profit and only be allowed to make changes when it costs them money to be in business?
In essence you are saying if I sell lemonade in front of my house, and work 80 hours a week to make $300 if the cost of lemons goes up and cost me an extra $150 I cant increase my price, until it costs me an extra $301.
May sound like a silly example, but what you are suggesting is that someone other than the business owner be responsible for judging what level of profit is acceptable. That is simply not capitalism.

 

[Ring 6]

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?

Essentially they have by locking them out.
Great analogy with the contract.
However, in this case the contract is expired (opted out of).
I this example the boss has told you he will not renew your contract nor continue the old one. You must renegotiate. IF you cannot come to an agreement that is beneficial enough to him, go home, he does not want to employ you any longer under those circumstances.
The entire group of NFL players are represented by 'you' in that example and the owners by 'your boss', and is an excellent analogy.

Now if you were to say to your boss "I want to see the company's financials to see how much THEY make before I decide what I will accept for pay" how would yuo expect that would go over.
Now to take it a step further, and get the REAL point here.
-If you were given those financials you know as well as I do that you would study them and deliniate all of the items in there that YOU would consider unneccesary and consider your salary more important than. In other words, handing them over would only create a new. separate argument about what the financials really say, distancing you even further from an accord.
That is why I keep asking and no one seems able to answer what result you would expect to come from turning over the financials?

 

[peterforpats]

the owners are responsible for growing the revenue? i wouldn't pay to see jerry jones vs. robert kraft on sunday. i watch tom brady et al against mark franchise because that is what makes football. no owner never caused me to go to or watch a game. if some super billionaire came along and offered all the players the same deal they have now without having to give money back and formed a new league with the the same teams , i would watch and follow it instead of the pats with whatever players they could round up. the players come and go, but it is to them i'm drawn not ownership.

 

[Ring 6]

the owners are responsible for growing the revenue? i wouldn't pay to see jerry jones vs. robert kraft on sunday. i watch tom brady et al against mark franchise because that is what makes football. no owner never caused me to go to or watch a game. if some super billionaire came along and offered all the players the same deal they have now without having to give money back and formed a new league with the the same teams , i would watch and follow it instead of the pats with whatever players they could round up. the players come and go, but it is to them i'm drawn not ownership.

I don't think thats what was meant.
The owners are responsible for growing revenues through marketing, exposure, and investment. By building stadiums, creating the NFL network and otherwise branding their product.

If Tom Brady had chosen to play professional baseball rather than football, someone else would be in his place. You would never know he wasn't here and some other player would bring you in.
Collectively, players bring in fans. But if the top 100 NFL players never had entered the league there would be 100 others considered the 'best' and the ones that bring in the fans.
It is the level of COMPETITION that brings fans, not the level of talent.
If every current NFL had chosen a different career, the product would look similar because the best AVAILABLE players would make it a competitive league, and you would feel you are seeing the best their is.

Its a reasonable argument that the owners provide the platform for the players popularity and the league would survive without those specific players better than it would survive with these players and without the marketing macine that got it where it is. Debatable whether thats the case, but it is certainly a reasonable position.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I don't think thats what was meant.
The owners are responsible for growing revenues through marketing, exposure, and investment. By building stadiums, creating the NFL network and otherwise branding their product.

If Tom Brady had chosen to play professional baseball rather than football, someone else would be in his place. You would never know he wasn't here and some other player would bring you in.
Collectively, players bring in fans. But if the top 100 NFL players never had entered the league there would be 100 others considered the 'best' and the ones that bring in the fans.
It is the level of COMPETITION that brings fans, not the level of talent.
If every current NFL had chosen a different career, the product would look similar because the best AVAILABLE players would make it a competitive league, and you would feel you are seeing the best their is.

Its a reasonable argument that the owners provide the platform for the players popularity and the league would survive without those specific players better than it would survive with these players and without the marketing macine that got it where it is. Debatable whether thats the case, but it is certainly a reasonable position.

So, if every NFL player was replaced by a scrub, you think people would just be interested? Have you watched D1AA football lately? It sucks. I don't even like college football all that much, just because there isn't enough talent there to make it interesting.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, when you could say the same thing (and be more correct) about the owners. To say that the NFL would be just as popular without its top 100 players is debatable. You could make teh case, but it's a direct decrease in the quality of the product that we pay for.

Now, if someone else owned the Raiders instead of Al Davis, what then? Would anyone even notice, let alone care?

 

[Ring 6]

So, if every NFL player was replaced by a scrub, you think people would just be interested? Have you watched D1AA football lately? It sucks. I don't even like college football all that much, just because there isn't enough talent there to make it interesting.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, when you could say the same thing (and be more correct) about the owners. To say that the NFL would be just as popular without its top 100 players is debatable. You could make teh case, but it's a direct decrease in the quality of the product that we pay for.

Now, if someone else owned the Raiders instead of Al Davis, what then? Would anyone even notice, let alone care?

Yes, I think Division 1AA football is great. I think High School football is great too.
My point is that the NFL doesnt attract fans because of the level of talent but the level of competition.
For example, there could be 100 people out there that are better than anyone in the NFL right now and we dont know it because we havent seen them. The issue is how competitive they are. No one is paying to see them go through drills to show off their athleticism, they are paying to see them compete against equally talented players.

The owners side is not the same thing because I am not talking about the individual owners, I am talking about what they do to increase the popularity of the game.

A better way to put it is:
If the owners owners did nothing to increase the popularity of the game, through marketing, exposure, stadium investment, media relations, etc, it would have a bigger impact on the popularity of the game than it the talent level of the players was watered down, as long the play was competitive.

Of course the current players have name value, so there would be an immediate affect on popularity, but it would not last long, as is evident by the growing popularity even though the most poplular players of 15-20 years ago are retired. Individual players are replacable, the efforts of ownership to grow the popularity of the sport is not.

 

[Ring 6]

. You could make teh case, but it's a direct decrease in the quality of the product that we pay for.

This is something I do not agree with at least in the long term, once the name value and perception of quality wears off.
The quality of the product is the competition not the level of ability.
If you replaced every player with one who had 90% of his ability the competition would remain constant and the dropoff in individual talent would go unnoticed.
You may see it differently but I see the attraction of football being the competitive nature of the games, not the athletic moves of the players.
I would pay to see a competitive game between less skilled players than to athletic ability on display but not in a competitive way such as in the ProBowl.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is something I do not agree with at least in the long term, once the name value and perception of quality wears off.
The quality of the product is the competition not the level of ability.
If you replaced every player with one who had 90% of his ability the competition would remain constant and the dropoff in individual talent would go unnoticed.
You may see it differently but I see the attraction of football being the competitive nature of the games, not the athletic moves of the players.
I would pay to see a competitive game between less skilled players than to athletic ability on display but not in a competitive way such as in the ProBowl.

I get that you think the value is in the competition vs. the talent. Or, I should say, relative talent vs. absolute talent. I just don't agree with you.

 

[Deus Irae]

I get that you think the value is in the competition vs. the talent. Or, I should say, relative talent vs. absolute talent. I just don't agree with you.

Nobody does. Ask the scabs.

 

[Wolfpack]

In essence you are saying if I sell lemonade in front of my house, and work 80 hours a week to make $300 if the cost of lemons goes up and cost me an extra $150 I cant increase my price, until it costs me an extra $301.
May sound like a silly example, but what you are suggesting is that someone other than the business owner be responsible for judging what level of profit is acceptable. That is simply not capitalism.

Your analogy is epic fail for far too many reason to address here. We're talking about labor costs, not supply and demand.

 

[Ring 6]

I get that you think the value is in the competition vs. the talent. Or, I should say, relative talent vs. absolute talent. I just don't agree with you.

Thats fine. I think you would be correct in the short term because people would believe they are not seeing the best product. But over time, the attraction would be the games not the individuals.

 

[Ring 6]

Nobody does. Ask the scabs.

That example is poor on so many levels.

 

[Ring 6]

Your analogy is epic fail for far too many reason to address here. We're talking about labor costs, not supply and demand.

No we are talking about running a business.
You stated that they should have to prove they are losing money in order to backup their proposal of lower costs.
If they simply want to make more profit that is their prerogative.
Perhaps you feel they have no right to make their profits, but of course they do, and there will not be an NFL if they do not have the ability to get there.

The analogy was not intended to be analalogous to the labor negotiations it was to address you saying this:

If you do not understand the difference between a company making money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can make more money" versus a company losing money saying "we need you to take a pay cut so we can return to profitability" then there's nothing I can say to help you

Where you imply they have a right to address loses but not increase profit.

 

[Deus Irae]

That example is poor on so many levels.

For the record, and something that you seem to fight against constantly:

It destroys your argument. That's the level that matters.

Then again, you've been wrong on just about everything regarding this, so why should one more example matter to you, right?