I want mo' money

[upstater1]

I recognize that dynamic.
The question was whether the players or efforts of ownership (marketing, etc) are more responsible for the growth of the league.
My point was that the popularity of the league is based more on the competitveness of games than the talent level of individual players.
If you replaced players across the board with less talented ones who played equally competitive games, the league would be as popular and THOSE players would be the Bradys, Mannings, etc.
If you remove the job the league has done in marketing itself the talents of the players would still not have produced the same popularity. If you remove the competiveness of the games no one will watch, like the pro bowl.
Of course it is all hypothetical, and of course if the owners fired those players their would be backlash from fans, but to get to the point of the topic, if those players never existed, the ones in their place would be as popular and the league would as well.
In other words if the worst players good enough to make the league were the best players in it and nothing else changed, I believe it would be as popular, and those players would the stars that are idolized.
I do not believe you would notice an appreciable difference in the quality of the game with the 1000-2600th best players in the world than you would with the 1600 best.
In fact, as other sports show us, there are athletes in other countries who would be better than many NFL players, and no one is missing their elevated skills.
I don't know if I am being real clear here.

I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today. But maybe that's me talking because I'm a fan of PSU and UConn and haven't seen what a decent QB looks like in many many years. I'm having visions of Matt Cavanaugh as the starting Patriots QB, or Tommy Hodson, or Marc Wilson.

That's the NFL without the likes of Brady, Manning and Brees over the next few years.

5 years down the line, it's the same, but in that time, franchise values sink, and there's always the threat that the stars develop another league, and there are plenty of experienced sports owners like Cuban who would love to see that because of the potential pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[Ring 6]

I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today.

That is a rule change issue, not a talent issue.

But maybe that's me talking because I'm a fan of PSU and UConn and haven't seen what a decent QB looks like in many many years. I'm having visions of Matt Cavanaugh as the starting Patriots QB, or Tommy Hodson, or Marc Wilson.

I think you are missing my point. I am not saying remove the good QBs and use crappy ones that couldn't make the league. I am saying if the level of TALENT, ACROSS THE BOARD was reduced, you wouldnt even notice the difference. The lesser QBs would be playing against lesser defenses. The lesser WRs would be running routes vs lesser corners.
The COMPARATIVE TALENT of players across form each other would be the same as it is now.
SOMEONE would be the Brady, someone would be the Manning. They would be equally successful, because although they are not quite as talented the competition is less. For example look at all the QBs who light up the NCAA because the competition level is lower. If the best football in the world to offer was the WAC then those players would be the stars.

The key is that the games are competitive. If the receivers and dbs run 4.7 instead of 4.3 you still have the same sport being played competitively.

That's the NFL without the likes of Brady, Manning and Brees over the next few years.

Again the league would have its stars just the same.

5 years down the line, it's the same, but in that time, franchise values sink, and there's always the threat that the stars develop another league, and there are plenty of experienced sports owners like Cuban who would love to see that because of the potential pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I accept that initially if those players went away there would be a big drop in interest. But that doesnt answer the question I am asking.
Obviously its not provable in either way, but to answer the question of whether the marketing and competiveness of the game or the skill level are the reason for the popularity, the question isnt if those players, after already being popular stopped playing, but would the league be as popular if they never existed and the next best guys were in their place, playing against a level of competition equal to them.
I don't think the popular players are popular because of what their skills are, they are popular because their skills are the best in the league, and the same would hold in a league where the talent had been a bit watered down all along.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I accept that initially if those players went away there would be a big drop in interest. But that doesnt answer the question I am asking.
Obviously its not provable in either way, but to answer the question of whether the marketing and competiveness of the game or the skill level are the reason for the popularity, the question isnt if those players, after already being popular stopped playing, but would the league be as popular if they never existed and the next best guys were in their place, playing against a level of competition equal to them.
I don't think the popular players are popular because of what their skills are, they are popular because their skills are the best in the league, and the same would hold in a league where the talent had been a bit watered down all along.

AJ, obviously the answer is multifaceted but "big" is a relative term. How big is big? More specifically, will watered down skill level, game quality, name recognition cause a huge revenue drop of 50%? Or will it be more like 20%? The difference between those two numbers could mean the difference between being acceptable and causing panic in the owner ranks (though that is ultimately a guess). But I think football is now a habit for many (what will Fall Sunday's be without football? I don't even want to think about it). I suspect Fall Sundays watching football is an entrenched habit and football will remain very popular (but without question would take a hit). An analogy I would make would be: step outside the United States and you'll find world cup "soccer" is wildly popular. Working with a Brit and hearing his fervor for it, I tried to like it. The game just doesn't do it for me (and I realize others will disagree with that). In my view "soccer' pales in comparison to American football (as does baseball, basketball, hockey etc imho). And to my point, would the superior (again imho) American football product with it's very high quality product out sell "soccer" outside the United States? I highly doubt it. Further, would world cup soccer become significantly less popular if the game was watered down and had less well known names? Again I think the answer is no. And I believe the reason to be non Americans grew up watching soccer. It is an entrenched habit. Football is now an entrenched habit for many Americans. This leads me to believe that many fans would still follow football even with a watered down product.

So the hypothetical, and admittedly outlandish, question becomes: Would the owners accept 1/3 less (arbitrary number) revenue for significantly less pay for players? In this instance I believe the answer is no. Even if the owners saw concrete proof that they would make more profit in that scenario, their franchise values would be hurt (their franchise value has got to be of huge importance to them).

To the larger context of who is more at fault for the lockout, decertification, call it what you will, is pretty meaningless. Besides, how can blame be assigned when the fight contains two wealthy sides fighting over a relatively small slice of the pie (this just the haggling of business isn't it?). The only point that really matters is which side is less adamant. There was no way the NFLPA was going to give up any slice (or very little) of their future pie. No one should be surprised by this. I doubt any of us in the same circumstance would be "yea, our business is more popular and making more money than ever! Let's give some back to the owners!". The question is: how adamant are the owners that they must have a bigger slice of the future pie? If they are and hold the line, I believe the NFLPA will give in. However, and again, there is no way the NFLPA is going to give in without making the owners prove they are adamant, prove they will suffer to get that extra slice of the future pie. If the owners falter then the NFLPA gets their way. It's high noon and someone will eventually blink. The only wild card is the legal system. Any ruling one way or another could cause either side to immediately blink. So barring the legal system wild card, my guess is if the lockout is still in place by June, I would expect the NFLPA will give in from their current stance. I will be shocked is one side or the other doesn't cave in before the start of the season..

 

[upstater1]

I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today.

That is a rule change issue, not a talent issue.


I think you are missing my point. I am not saying remove the good QBs and use crappy ones that couldn't make the league. I am saying if the level of TALENT, ACROSS THE BOARD was reduced, you wouldnt even notice the difference. The lesser QBs would be playing against lesser defenses. The lesser WRs would be running routes vs lesser corners.
The COMPARATIVE TALENT of players across form each other would be the same as it is now.


Again the league would have its stars just the same.


I accept that initially if those players went away there would be a big drop in interest. But that doesnt answer the question I am asking.
Obviously its not provable in either way, but to answer the question of whether the marketing and competiveness of the game or the skill level are the reason for the popularity, the question isnt if those players, after already being popular stopped playing, but would the league be as popular if they never existed and the next best guys were in their place, playing against a level of competition equal to them.
I don't think the popular players are popular because of what their skills are, they are popular because their skills are the best in the league, and the same would hold in a league where the talent had been a bit watered down all along.

I honestly don't think it works this way. You have lesser talent on the college football field. And the vast majority of college QBs look like they can't hold Tommy Hodson's jockstrap. I'm talking against college football players. All I'm saying is that college ball would hold no appeal for me were it not for my affiliation with a couple universities. Now, as I said, I consider 1970s NFL to be a step down in terms of QBs and athletically, and I'm sure it would be a popular league at that caliber of play. But I'm not sure it would be AS popular.

My main point is that, below a certain threshold of skill, you have diminishing returns. It's got to look like 1970s football, rather than the UFL.

I've seen the same dynamic in college hockey and college basketball. Without the best players, these sports have lost some of the sheen. Jay Bilas was on yesterday wrecking the tournament, calling it just junk. And that was all because of the skill level of the players. Fan interest is down as well.

 

[upstater1]

BostonStraggler's soccer analogy is meaningful on another level. I grew up in the 80s and 90s following Seria A soccer from Italy. Why? Because that league had all the world's best players. AC Milan, Napoli, Juventus were the Barcelona, Man U and Chelsea of their day. Play seems to have shifted largely to the Premier League, with some of it reserved for La Liga. And don't forget, NASL was watched by billions back in the day. The Cosmos were legendary.

The NFL is entrenched. I simply don't see them messing around with the formula unless Manning and Brady break ranks the way Montana broke ranks.

Do I think the NFL could say screw you to the players if Manning crossed the line and played for the Colts + Replacements? Yes. Stick five schlubs in front of him and play ball. Montana and others crossing just killed the NFL. I also find it pretty curious/fortuitous for the NFL to have gone through the 87 strike right after the USFL went kaput. The timing is too coincidental.

 

[DW Toys]

BostonStraggler's soccer analogy is meaningful on another level. I grew up in the 80s and 90s following Seria A soccer from Italy. Why? Because that league had all the world's best players. AC Milan, Napoli, Juventus were the Barcelona, Man U and Chelsea of their day. Play seems to have shifted largely to the Premier League, with some of it reserved for La Liga. And don't forget, NASL was watched by billions back in the day. The Cosmos were legendary.

The NFL is entrenched. I simply don't see them messing around with the formula unless Manning and Brady break ranks the way Montana broke ranks.

Do I think the NFL could say screw you to the players if Manning crossed the line and played for the Colts + Replacements? Yes. Stick five schlubs in front of him and play ball. Montana and others crossing just killed the NFL. I also find it pretty curious/fortuitous for the NFL to have gone through the 87 strike right after the USFL went kaput. The timing is too coincidental.

I see what you are saying. Did you see the post on NFL2? It captures a lot of what is being said here.

Most of us on this forum want to see football. The NFL has grown to where it is a full tear entity. Most of us on this forum are still very interested in the NFL draft. If the NFLPA decertifies and goes after the owners, these legal proceedings can be long and drawn out. I say why can't the owners start new corporations with LLC's or secondary corporations or even trusts. Let a new league form. In the past NFLPA/owner breakdowns. the owners attempted to field teams with “scabs”. The world has changed. I can see new teams evolve under present ownership. If the draftees are not yet signed under NFLPA labor agreements m and if the NFLPA decertifies that should not be a issue, then why can't we still have a draft and take the best players available in 2011 and field complete teams?

We know the owners would need to be prepared to take less attendance dollars and if they could give back some guarantees to the networks, I could see this working in today's world where it failed back in the day. A smaller part is better than nothing. There are Arena Leagues and the UFL that are surviving (barely). I am not advocating getting those players. I suggest having a normal draft and taking this year's players as a core and starting a team in each present NFL location. There are many other NFL players presently not under contract as FAs who might disavow the NFLPA in order to get back to work and play football. Would I like to see Tom Brady? Of course, but I want to see football. The owners and the NFLPA are not going to get together until one or the other caves. The sport is so much bigger now than it was so any NFL football is better than nothing at all. The NFLPA and Owners impasse has one loser in this...the fans. We have to understand that the NFLPA nor the owners or even the players give one crap about us. It is a wallet driver contest and we are the chumps.

I want to know legally if if the players can go after the “new” league? I want to know legally if new LLC's or secondary corporations could be formulated without falling into the clutches of legal roadblocks? If the NFLPA is decertified, how could the union have control over these upcoming drafted players?

I think it would be very interesting to start a new league with new players regardless of our present lofty position of being one of the top teams in professional football. I would suggest that the owners would have to give discounts for tickets, parking and concessions. But it would keep cash flow however reduced, going into their stadiums and coaches, employees, stadium personnel and other businesses affected would get some positive financial gain to pay bills.

This way the greed is vanquished on both ends of the spectrum. The owners get a smaller percentage to maybe pay some of their debt service. The present players better hope that there long term contracts had enough upfront money for them to survive.

As said, all of these new draftees would form the core of each team. The draft would have to be expanded to like back in the day when there would now be 15-17 rounds or better to stock each team. No doubt some present players would opt to break ranks and prefer to” feed their families”(Where have we heard that before?) Also there are some players that are not obligated by contract that would accept a lesser paycheck to get full-time work back in what we could call NFL 2.

I know this is simplistic and I am not a business attorney but what are your thoughts? If a tickets for the Pats was $100. Would you pay half or one third of that to see BB and his staff coach some youngsters and a smattering of FAs? Would you not watch the games with morbid curiosity? Rather than “0” NFL football, could this interest you?

I would like your thoughts and feedback?
DW Toys

 

[townes]

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?



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.




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?

i.e....you will ignore what is asked but demand others respond specifically to your questions.


You were the one claiming no party questioned owners claims on revenues but then said the players were on a fishing expedition asking for a review of financials, when asked which it was you ignored it.


If the owners want the players to accept a percentage then open the books, if they want to offer a lump sum then don't, it's as simple as that. the Direct TV deal was a clear violation of the CBA and demonstrates the owners cannot be trusted so the players should refuse any deal based on revenues until there is a mechanism to make sure the owners aren't being dishonest about them as they have shown they cannot be trusted to do so on their own, and the players demand that they produce their financials demonstrates they don't trust the information given to them to date.


Bottom line you are fine with the owners crushing the players and apparently feel the owners are the game, I disagree and believe the players request for transparency is completely reasonable. Nothing is going to change your unmitigated support for the owners and their right to make as much money as possible while crushing everything in their path, and nothing is going to change my view that people taking a percentage deserve transparency.


Given your refusal to address the Direct TV deal i'll bow out as nothing is going to change, you'll just keep on repeating the owners spin until everyone is burned out on hearing it, and I have already reached that point. Root root root for the replacements, i'm sure they'll love hearing you cheer them on, i'll be finding other ways to spend my time, if the owners crush the players they'll never get a dime from me again.

Hopefully the players destroy the owners in court, the owners deserve that much.

 

[A.C Vegas]

My take on the whole asking for money and "transpancy" is this if my boss asked me and the 600+ employees that one time is he could take 10% off the top to cover things he had to pay and 40% of everything else and we agree. Then he comes back a few years later and says to us "i am going to need to take another 10% (Making it 20%) and take a 50% cut of everything else" I am going to wonder what happened and why he has to dip into my pocket and I am going to want to know where the money went.

The players are not saying "no you can't have any more money" they just want to know why they need so much and it is only fair that the players get to see that the owners are not losing money they are losing Profit they want more money so they keep making more or at least staying at the same amount of profit.

Is it really fair that they need to take away from their empoyees to make more. if it is to maintain the same amount of profits that is not that big a deal if it is to raise profits then that is an issue

 

[upstater1]

My take on the whole asking for money and "transpancy" is this if my boss asked me and the 600+ employees that one time is he could take 10% off the top to cover things he had to pay and 40% of everything else and we agree. Then he comes back a few years later and says to us "i am going to need to take another 10% (Making it 20%) and take a 50% cut of everything else" I am going to wonder what happened and why he has to dip into my pocket and I am going to want to know where the money went.

The players are not saying "no you can't have any more money" they just want to know why they need so much and it is only fair that the players get to see that the owners are not losing money they are losing Profit they want more money so they keep making more or at least staying at the same amount of profit.

Is it really fair that they need to take away from their empoyees to make more. if it is to maintain the same amount of profits that is not that big a deal if it is to raise profits then that is an issue

This is the way it happened in the automotive industry. Of course, we're talking about public records there, but the fact is, the people who redesigned the companies worked for labor.

I think this speaks to a certain amount of inbreeding at the top ranks of American Auto, and it might also speak to the tech schools financed by Big Auto. if you look at the affiliations of executives from the 1990s, you'll see a lot of grads from places that began as company "town" schools.

 

[Ring 6]

i.e....you will ignore what is asked but demand others respond specifically to your questions

I havent ignored anything.

You were the one claiming no party questioned owners claims on revenues but then said the players were on a fishing expedition asking for a review of financials, when asked which it was you ignored it.

It is both.
There are established rules for calculating and verify revenue.
Do you really think the NFLPA would agree to splitting $9BILLION based on whatever the owners decided to tell them revenue was? My paperboy is more intelligent about business than to think that could happen.

The request for financials had nothing to do with revenue because they already have it.

The request for financials was a fishing expedition in order to find dynamics that occured within 32 teams financials in any of the last 10 years that they could isolate from the overall picture and use it as a bargaining tool.


When the players start looking at profit, they are saying they want to make the argument about what what the revenue splits results in after the owners run their business and manage a profit from their half of the revenue.
The players have every right to argue that they feel they deserve a higher percentage of the revenue.
They are hypocritical if they say the reason they deserve more depends on how efficiently the owners manage their share and make profit.

If the owners want the players to accept a percentage then open the books, if they want to offer a lump sum then don't, it's as simple as that.

They have paid them a percentage for years. A percentage of revenues. The books are open on revenues. Why are expenses relevant to the union? Why should the owners have to justify what they do with their half?

the Direct TV deal was a clear violation of the CBA

I think it is safe to say the Judge Doty and the Special Master who issued their rulings know significantly more than you or I about this.
They ruled differently. That would refute your statement that it is a CLEAR VIOLATION. That doesnt stop you, however from saying it over and over again.

and demonstrates the owners cannot be trusted so the players should refuse any deal based on revenues until there is a mechanism to make sure the owners aren't being dishonest about them

There has been a mechanism ever since the cap has been based on revenues.
Your argument is equivalent to saying that Ian should give you access to his administrative functions as long as he requires a login and password and has never allowed you to get a login and password.

as they have shown they cannot be trusted to do so on their own, and the players demand that they produce their financials demonstrates they don't trust the information given to them to date.

It isnt about trust, its about leverage. If you were looking at this as a negotiation between 2 parties each trying to secure the best deal you would sound less like an 11 year old worried about proving whether the other guy tells the truth and realize that this is all about leverage. The negotiations, the proposals, the request for financials, the union not even looking at the financials that were given, decertification, lockout, lawswuit. All about leverage every step of the way. You are just the tool that buys into the propoganda both sides spew to make you feel angry at the other side because they are mean, greedy, unethical, etc. They got you hook, line and sinker.

Bottom line you are fine with the owners crushing the players and apparently feel the owners are the game,

What? How do you crush someone by splitting the revenue 50/50 and paying all of the expenses? The NFL players would have one of the greatest labor packages in the history of the US if they accepted the worst offer the owners give.
You know why? Because they deserve it. Because they are among the top 1% of 1% of the people in the country at doing something people will pay to see. They deserve a big portion of the revenue. But the owners who invest their money to make allow the forum for it to happen deserve to make a good return on it too.

Steven Ross paid about 550million for HALF of the Miami Dolphins 3 years ago.
Making the assumption that the cap, based on 50/50 split that was in place would be around 140mill, then Steven Ross paid 550,000,000 for the right to collect half of 280mill of revenue per year, give half to the players, and keep half to pay all of the expenses of the franchise from.

From Ross' perspective it cost him 550mill to

Receive 140 mill a year
Give 70 mill of it to the players
Pay the expenses of the the franchise from it which according to the Packers financials would be anywhere from 50-68 mill of that.

For his 550 mill investment he earns the right to make a profit of maybe 20 mill a year in the best case, while the players recieve 140,000,000 in payroll after investing nothing.

Tell me how you see that as CRUSHING THE PLAYERS.

You take half, I'll take the other half and I'll pay all the costs. Wow I CRUSHED you.

I disagree and believe the players request for transparency is completely reasonable.

Once again, obviously you believe that but you have yet to give a reason other than misstating the reason they want them.

If you were an owner would you willing give your financial information to the adversary who is trying to get every penny they can from you? Honestly?

Nothing is going to change your unmitigated support for the owners and their right to make as much money as possible while crushing everything in their path,

Well I dont remember when I said that was what I supported.
In fact, I do not 'support' the owners. I think their procrastination in dealing with the issue is central to why the season could be at risk.

I recognize they have the right to opt out of a deal that includes and opt out without being villified.
I recognize that the existence of the company that owns each team is based upon making money. I do not know why you think that is evil.
I know that the request for financials would accomplish nothing if they turned them over (AND I AM STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER WHAT YOU THINK WOULD TRANSPIRE) and was simply a negotiating tactic to gain leverage partially by tugging at the heartstrings of people like you who apparently resent successful businessmen because they have money, and as soon as I say "The rich guy wants more money" you think Sodom and Gamorrah reopened for business.

I am not on either side. I happen to be debating with people who are taking an extremely naive side of the argument which includes thinking the union's motives are peace on earth and goodwill to man, and the owners are striving to release hell's fury on the great unwashed.

and nothing is going to change my view that people taking a percentage deserve transparency.

Adopting an open mind would. Particularly accepting that the numbers which the payroll is based on are transparent and the ones that are not have never been part of the agreement, formula or debate.

Given your refusal to address the Direct TV deal i'll bow out as nothing is going to change,

When did I refuse to address it?
I addressed it many times, exactly the same way.
2 qualified arbiters gave opposite rulings. They know more about it than I do.
I have not studied it enough to give an educated opinion, so I wont make one up.
That is not refusing to address it that is refusing to do what you do and speak as if I understand it perfectly when I do not


(CONTINUED)

 

[Ring 6]

(CONTINUED)

you'll just keep on repeating the owners spin until everyone is burned out on hearing it, and I have already reached that point.

As I said I not spinning anything in any direction.
My opinions are consistent and backed by reason.
You keep saying I spin things, but you are the one saying a case that was ruled in each partys favor once was CLEAR malfeasance. You keep calling the owners liars and say they are hiding things.
I am saying, ad have been saying all along:
1) The request for financials was folly BECAUSE
a) The union didnt even look at the financials that were provided
b) Nothing good could come from two sides analyzing 320 annual reports and spinning them to their own favor
2) Turning over the financials would have caused (b) which would not have helped matters, but only created a new argument to resolve (which may not even be possible) before getting back to the point the negotiations had reached
3) The deal is and should be based upon a split of revenues. The players are responsible for revenues. There sharing should stop at the point their contribution does, i.e. the people who run the franchise manage the teams share of revenue and the players have nothing to do with how much profit results from the revenue and everything to do with generating the revenue.
4) The owners exercised their rights to opt out. Nothing is wrong with that
5) The players made offers, the owners made offers. Nothing wrong with that.
6) The players used a negotiating tactic by asking the owners to provide information not pertinent to the division of revenues. Nothing wrong with that.
7) The owners used a negotiating tactic by refusing. Nothing wrong with that.
8) The union decertified, the owners locked out, the players sued. Nothing wrong with any of that.
Neither side is willing to sign a deal that is not both acceptable to them and the best they feel they can get. Why must we choose pieces of 1-8 which were simply exercising rights they have and use them as blame?
See, YOU may be shilling for one side, I am looking at all sides. I just happen to be discussing from the center with someone (admittedly) standing in the players camp. I would be disagreeing just as much with someone blindly supporting the owners.

The problem Townes, is that you seem to have picked which side you were on before knowing the facts, and are knowing fitting the facts into your conclusion.
I suppose a good portion of people in this country are predisposed to side with labor or management, but that just makes them start with a bias and ignore or reinvent the facts.

Root root root for the replacements, i'm sure they'll love hearing you cheer them on, i'll be finding other ways to spend my time, if the owners crush the players they'll never get a dime from me again.

So what you are saying is that no matter what the sides were asking for, I either take the players side, or I want replacements?

Question. What if the financials were to show that the Packers are the norm?
That the players earn 160mill per team, and the owners pay the expenses out of their share and are left with 5 mill of profit out of 258 mill of revenue? That Ross' 550,000,000 investment is giving him a 2.5 mill return (with the understanding that if expense rose by 2% he would have to pay money out of his pocket for the team to operate)?
Would you still say the players are being crushed?

You are making a judgment with certainty while lacking any of the facts.

By the way, here is the rub. The REAL reason most fans are on the side of turning over the financials is so that they can find a way (inappropriate as it may be) to assign blame.
Fans want to see what Bob Kraft makes so THEY can decide if he should be happy with the profitability of his business, so they can decide who to blame.
Unfortunately, if fans got what they wanted it would set the negotiations back 6 months, another reason I am on the side of negotiatinng what is supposed to be negotiated and not pulling a stunt to win public approval.


Hopefully the players destroy the owners in court, the owners deserve that much.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ring 6]

I can't say I'm totally convinced. I mean, I think there'd be less fans if the NFL looked like the 1970s NFL, all run run run. But it would be fairly popular, certainly more than it was in the 1970s. But I'd say not near as popular as it was today.

I honestly don't think it works this way. You have lesser talent on the college football field. And the vast majority of college QBs look like they can't hold Tommy Hodson's jockstrap. I'm talking against college football players. All I'm saying is that college ball would hold no appeal for me were it not for my affiliation with a couple universities. Now, as I said, I consider 1970s NFL to be a step down in terms of QBs and athletically, and I'm sure it would be a popular league at that caliber of play. But I'm not sure it would be AS popular.

My main point is that, below a certain threshold of skill, you have diminishing returns. It's got to look like 1970s football, rather than the UFL.

I've seen the same dynamic in college hockey and college basketball. Without the best players, these sports have lost some of the sheen. Jay Bilas was on yesterday wrecking the tournament, calling it just junk. And that was all because of the skill level of the players. Fan interest is down as well.

I think its too hypothetical to discuss, especially on a message board.
Unless you can envision that if the top 500 players had never shown up you would hold the next 500 best in the same regard, we are speaking in different languages.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

A lot of irrational hate is going to the players based on inherent biases people have against unions outside of professional sports.

What they don't get is it's totally different from ordinary unions.

The example in the 1st post of this thread does not apply, because there are probably millions of people who can do the same job as you. In the NFL there are 30-60 people on the planet who can play quarterback.

Another thing is the players are not and never asked for more money. It's the OWNERS who opted out of the current deal. The old system was the owners first take $1B off the top, then they share a % with the players. Now it's the owners want $2B off the top, and share a smaller % with the players too. It's the OWNERS who want more money (and make the players play 18 games a year). The owners also violated the original deal, it's clear they wanted a lockout all along which is why they pre-emptively got a deal with TV where they will get 4.5Bill if they lock out the players (breaking the 'good faith' part of their deal). The owners signed, and then got out of a contract they had previously agreed to.

This reminds me of how peons will blame players for exercising free agency rights to earn as much as they can, but don't bat an eye when owners cut or release players in the middle of their contracts.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Given your refusal to address the Direct TV deal i'll bow out as nothing is going to change, you'll just keep on repeating the owners spin until everyone is burned out on hearing it, and I have already reached that point.

Isn't it already clear to everyone that "AndyJohnson" is in some way affiliated with the Patriots? Over the years he always posts supporting management and ownership, and is never critical of the team - ever.

 

[Ring 6]

My take on the whole asking for money and "transpancy" is this if my boss asked me and the 600+ employees that one time is he could take 10% off the top to cover things he had to pay and 40% of everything else and we agree.
Then he comes back a few years later and says to us "i am going to need to take another 10% (Making it 20%) and take a 50% cut of everything else" I am going to wonder what happened and why he has to dip into my pocket and I am going to want to know where the money went.

But you are misstating this.

It change from (approximately)
Owners receive 50% of all revenues and players receive 50% of all revenues to
Owners receive 100% of the first 1billion and 40% of everything else and players receive 0% of the first 1 billion and 60% of the rest

Therefore you have BEFORE and AFTER. If the league made revenues of:

1 billion (O=owenrs P=players)

BEFORE 500mO/500mP
AFTER 1billO/0P

10 billion
BEFORE 5billO/5BillP
AFTER 4.6BO/5.4BP

20 billion
BEFORE 10bO/10BP
AFTER 8.6BO/11.4BP

So, the sides agreed that the owners would protect themselves against low revenues (and obviously get more in situations where they would be losing money) and in turn the players earn a bigger share of the additional revenue so that they get a bigger share of growth in return for the 'insurance' of the $1Billion

This is being widely misstated.

The players are not saying "no you can't have any more money" they just want to know why they need so much and it is only fair that the players get to see that the owners are not losing money they are losing Profit they want more money so they keep making more or at least staying at the same amount of profit.

Right. The owners are saying that the deal they agreed to back then, only agreeing with the ability to opt out, has turned out to be less beneficial to them than they expected, so they opted out, and want to change the splits.
I cannot understand why people feel that its somehow dishonorable if the reason is that they find their profits unacceptable.
Profits are the PURPOSE of a business, not something they are lucky to be allowed to have
Steven Ross paid 550mill for HALF of the Dolphins. He made that investment in order to make money. Many fans want to tell him that it shouldn't be up to him to determine what return on that investment is acceptable to him.

Is it really fair that they need to take away from their empoyees to make more. if it is to maintain the same amount of profits that is not that big a deal if it is to raise profits then that is an issue

Where do you draw the line?
The players get half, or about 140mill.
The owners get half, and cover all of the expenses.

After the expenses the owners end up with their share.

By your line of argument, we need to determine what percentage of PROFIT(before their payroll) the players are entitled to.
For the Packers the players got 160 out of the 165 mill.
Understand that. The Packers took in 258 mill. Aside from player costs, they had 93 mill of expenses.
So AFTER expense the players and owners had 165 million to share.
160 mill went to the players
5 mill went to the owners (or actually was retained as earnings)

Is that fair?
What if it was 140/25
120/45
82.5/82.5

You cant really say they have a right to maintain profits but not to increase unless you know whether their profits are meager or robust.

Now, the natural answer would be if you saw the financials you could decide, which would result in the players union claiming they have the right to decide what the owners should accept as a profit margin on their investment.
For that to be a realistic demand, then the players would have to change their request to a percentage of the profits, after they share in the expenses rather than a percentage of the revenues.

 

[Ring 6]

Isn't it already clear to everyone that "AndyJohnson" is in some way affiliated with the Patriots? Over the years he always posts supporting management and ownership, and is never critical of the team - ever.

I support Bill Belichick because I believe he is the best there is.
I support him on his body of work.
I expect that the best decision makers in the league are wrong half the time.
I judge BB in comparison to realistic expectations and his peers.
Therefore I will give him the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise and I will expect that he makes mistakes and if he makes less than his peers, I will not criticize his mistakes harshly.

Before BB I was anything but supportive of the organization.
I have said all of these things before.

If BB is the best and you are telling me I am the most supportive of him, I guess you just told me I am the most right. Thanks

 

[Ring 6]

A lot of irrational hate is going to the players based on inherent biases people have against unions outside of professional sports.

Wow, Im seeing zero hate toward the players.
I see anti-owner sentiments being personal, but I have yet to see anyone rip the players. Their tactics, yes, but thats not hating at them.

What they don't get is it's totally different from ordinary unions.

The example in the 1st post of this thread does not apply, because there are probably millions of people who can do the same job as you. In the NFL there are 30-60 people on the planet who can play quarterback.

Agree 100%. Thats why the players get 50% of the revenue and probably around 90% of the profit that would result before their payroll was taken.
I'm pretty sure that is unheardof in any industry for non-management labor costs.

Another thing is the players are not and never asked for more money.

Basically correct.
But its only realistic to accept the fact that since the owners have opted out of the previous deal, the players were begging to just keep going under it, the owners proposals call for a reduction in players share, and the players proposals also call for a reduction, that the starting point is a deal that was very favorable to the players.

It's the OWNERS who opted out of the current deal. /quote]
But you must recognize having the ability to opt out was a concession they needed to agree to the old deal. The players collectively bargained other benefits they have been receiving in return for that right, so if you are using that statement as blame you are off-base.

The old system was the owners first take $1B off the top, then they share a % with the players. Now it's the owners want $2B off the top, and share a smaller % with the players too. It's the OWNERS who want more money (and make the players play 18 games a year).

Its been reported that under the old CBA the owners had the right to change the schedule to 18 games without player permission, but during negotation took that 18 games off the table.
I'm pretty sure 2million left the % after the off the top reduction the same as it was. Effectively reducing the percentage, but not doubly as you suggest.

The owners also violated the original deal, it's clear they wanted a lockout all along which is why they pre-emptively got a deal with TV where they will get 4.5Bill if they lock out the players (breaking the 'good faith' part of their deal). The owners signed, and then got out of a contract they had previously agreed to.

I don't think the deal is proof they wanted a lockout, but perhaps proof they expected one. They turned out to be right.
Also, if there is no 2011 season, the players are better off because they owners negotiated that deal. Very little is black and white.

This reminds me of how peons will blame players for exercising free agency rights to earn as much as they can, but don't bat an eye when owners cut or release players in the middle of their contracts.

It seems like most times players are criticized for exercising their free agent rights is when the leave YOUR team. So it emotion not logic driving that.
You make a good point though. How many times have we heard people say the Ty Law, for example, was an @ss to want more money because he should be happy that what he already has is enough.
It seems though that attitude is now being turned against the owners.
Perhaps its just American culture to not want anyone with more money than you to get any more?

 

[Ring 6]

Your words on the cap:



Please explain how I twisted your words?
These are your words and they say, just as I posted that the cap has not been an issue for teams in years. You even said Miguel has noted it mulitple times, but never showed even one when I asked.

Concede on this point?

Bump to see if Deus Irae will continue to avoid the direct answer to his own question that proves him wrong.

 

[DW Toys]

The players are not saying "no you can't have any more money" they just want to know why they need so much and it is only fair that the players get to see that the owners are not losing money they are losing Profit they want more money so they keep making more or at least staying at the same amount of profit.
Right. The owners are saying that the deal they agreed to back then, only agreeing with the ability to opt out, has turned out to be less beneficial to them than they expected, so they opted out, and want to change the splits.
I cannot understand why people feel that its somehow dishonorable if the reason is that they find their profits unacceptable.
Profits are the PURPOSE of a business, not something they are lucky to be allowed to have
Steven Ross paid 550mill for HALF of the Dolphins. He made that investment in order to make money. Many fans want to tell him that it shouldn't be up to him to determine what return on that investment is acceptable to him.

Great post by Andy.

Cousins , If one dissects those two statements, that is the entire story of this huge clusterzuck.


Both sides are to blame. There were some parts of the CBA that needed to be adjusted dramatically. A major piece was the Rookie payout scale. The bigger piece is the bottom line payout adjustment. I would suspect some Teams are doing just fine. On the whole you have big problems in Buffalo, Jacksonville and more that drive down that bottom line. The Packers are less than half as healthy as 2008 as we can all see because they are publicly traded.

No one has mentioned this. I can't see the Teams going back to their ticket holders and fans to increase their revenue stream and I think with the weak economy, they knew that would hurt both the League and players if no one shows up to the ball park. That might have been the better message of "why?".

Andy, you were right on with your assessment that if their last CBA was not working for them, the owners had the option that they could opt out. If the owners getting only 40% of the pie after the "DBA" charge of $1b did not work in what they forecasted and considered a reasonable profit structure. No one says they are losing money. They agreed to agree last CBA that the owners could do so. Why would the owners opt out if their cost of business did not increase? It would be folly not to say that between the last CBA and now, everyone has business cost increases. Is the NFLPA so naive they can't look at the economy of the world to figure that out? So even if Jerry Jones had every relative working for him back the last CBA, he probably has the same amount of nepotism today. It was perfect when Andy mentioned the new owner of the Dolphins return dictated by the NFLPA?

My argument is that that was a pretty good deal the NFLPA got offered Friday at the closing and it appears the little man in the hat never did want to do a deal. He feels this makes him Presidential timber by pounding "the man". Decertification was his agenda day one. It just inflamed the issue when Smith is saying things guys risk their health ....to play a game? Policeman and Firemen risk their health. The players can choose not to play and the world goes on. We need the other guys for our lives to flourish. Then Smith is saying meet us half way? ......What? If you note there was not one counter or suggestion that the NFLPA made in the entire negotiation. All the NFLPA said was no to every proposal. They are banking on Doty giving them a full win on every issue. I still think Doty winds up with it.

I am more apt to be for the players but Smith cured me of that. In the PR peeing match he severely hurt the players with what can be said is arrogance. He doesn't give a crap about the players which I saw. It became all about him and face time. Upshaw never made these negotiations his personal forum.

Why the hell is the NFLPA going to Court with Manning, Brady, Brees et.al? These guys are as rich as the owners. Their "superstardom" as plaintiffs was a terrible choice.

A deal could have been made. Can you go up to your boss and say show me your books? I understand the players bottom line is net profit percentage of the take. As offered by the NFL, if the independent accounting firms could have established an across the board formula to produce a net without involving whether the Eagles ownership pays a relative for Assistant Management somewhere or the Eagle president takes $3 million in Salary and Jerry Jones only takes $1 million so therefor the Eagles are cheating the Players, and thus the President of the Eagles should make the same as the President of the Cowboys. Robert Kraft of the Patriots said he doesn't want someone else running his business. In fact if the Players are allowed to regulate the direction of commerce within each Team, it is the nuts running the asylum.

I agree their should be a reasonable formula. But at least the NFL put it out there. All the NFLPA is saying at every turn is no. Not how about this? ..........The basics for this type of agreement were set last Friday. It could have been whittled into something workable maybe not Friday but in a few days. Because Smith had predetermined decertification, time and millions of dollars in legal fees, transportation and accommodations were wasted. Reading some of the excerpts of the players, they are solidified, but none are happy a deal couldn't be done. That sir, is a failure of their hired "Negotiator" Mr. Smith. And the boy from Bronxville is no bargain. I am as qualified to run the NFL as he his. He might be the worst commissioner in all Major League sports. For him to announce to the world the fans wanted 18 games was B.S. and a poorly veiled trading chip. Then with him saying to better the game for the fans. Mr. Bronxville, just say "so the NFL Teams can realize the full potential of their investment", and call it a day. Because of Lil' De I am for the NFL, But Goodell almost pushes me the other way.

It sticks in every bodies craw that the NFL hedged their bets with the networks in the case that the union decertified and a lockout happened. Most people get insurance in case of a catastrophe. Listening to Smith as some people should do so, he made it perfectly clear that he had sent letters for some time to the NFL stating his resolve..........Why should this be a shock and sneaky to the NFLPA? He practically told the NFL this storm was coming. So the Owners are not to be trusted because they were about to be wacked? The NFLPA says we don't trust you?....What?

I am not 100% owners on this deal. I don't like unreasonable negotiation. First of all, why do the players get 60% of the pie anyway? How about 50-50 split and just let the other financial terms stay. The players can argue they should get more? Why? Upshaw and Doty made that outrageous deal with the threat of internal business investigations that would be made public by delving into Ownership personal finances. It was blackmail. Public company or not, you are NOT seeing everything that goes on with every dollar at Bank America, Ford Motor Company, Budweiser etc. I would expect that there could even be some Teams that say absolutely not to scrutiny of their business accounting. So what if there are 10 or 12 Teams that say no? Has anyone thought of that? You can't take those Teams to court for not handing over books as a privately held firm unless you are the IRS. Yet the NFLPA is demanding to see everyone's' books.

Kraft was right. Throw the Lawyers out and Smith is one of those, and cooler heads could have actually negotiated. Political agenda is Smith's goal. I don't think people realize that there is more to this than just owners and players fighting. The economy of each State involved gets major financial cash flow and many jobs from the NFL in their state.

I made the mistake of listening to Felger. He has convinced me he is a 1950's communist with his drivel. His anti-business rants are out of touch with reality. According to him we should all be working in a government controlled factory making tractors and eating borscht, with his attitude. How dare business make a profit!!! How dare Jones pay his son to run his business.!!

In actuality it almost is coming down to a political deal. The liberal Obamites want the players to get back their old CBA with no changes. Power to the unions. The conservatives can see how the economy has changed and free enterprise dictates that private companies can allow the old outdated CBA to run out and be revised if it did not work for their amount of investment, (which both sides agreed could happen after it ran out), but as far as I can see, in a give and take negotiation from the NFL. Well the NFLPA is not interested anymore. Let's use the Owners private financial accounting to determine if they made enough money or not, according to us.....What!? I guarantee you Felger is a big fan of Obama liberalism and his policies. He leaned over the fence yesterday and started that stuff and it was mentioned when he said he wants all the Owners to divulge all of their financials to the Union or let's go for a prolonged court battle because it was not fair how the Teams handled their business. It is just ironic that it seems to fall politically that way between who the fans side with.

He keeps ranting that so and so is paying their son or relative too much. If Felger had his own company, he would do the same thing. If I was a multi-billion dollar Team owner, I would do that for may kids. How many would not?

I like the underdog too. Guys like Fletcher and White are hurt by this. Let them make more But here is a very clear point. Has anyone thought that Brady and Manning are making three times what the Green Bay Packers are making (public record)? Are you still feeling sorry for the poor, underpaid players?
DW Toys

 

[townes]

The posts are so longwinded that I won't bother reposting them, i'll simply say what I have to say and leave it at that.

I came here to talk football, not politics, and this debate is a political debate and not a football debate, and the arguments made reflect that. I want to see football and talk football and I place the blame according to who stopped the game and why, and that goes to the owners, who want more but refuse to demonstrate why they need it. They have created a situation where they have to be trusted to make a deal and because of their own behavior they cannot be trusted. This leaves two choices, give the players a lump sum to play and let them take it or leave it, or open their books so the players can verify that they are getting the share agreed upon, and the owners refuse to do that, so we are left with owners locking out players, and I blame the owners for that, period.

Had the players gone on strike for more while refusing to show why they need or deserve more then i'd blame them, as i have in the past in those situations, but in this situation the owners spent years preparing to lock the players out and forced them to decertify by not even beginning to negotiate until the last second, leaving the players the choice of either using their one bargaining chip or losing it, the players chose to use it and i don't blame them.

I have zero interest in discussing politics because I am completely disgusted with them and don't invest any time or effort on following them any longer, so i'm no longer going to bother with a discussion that while ostensibly about the NFL is really just a vehicle for people to make stands on their personal political philosophies.