Welcome to PatsFans.com

Interesting Round-up from Jeff Howe

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by DaBruinz, Mar 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,895
    Likes Received:
    390
    Ratings:
    +991 / 72 / -55

    #50 Jersey

    Not sure who Howe's source is, but it does shed some light on things..

    Source: Players 'Optimistic' That NFL, Player's Association Can Agree on New CBA With Additional Extension - NFL - NESN.com

    Some of the things the players want:
    1) Pro-rated raises for the 18 game season
    2) Better Healthcare
    3) Better Pension
    4) How the owners plan on spending the extra billion they want off the top.

    Said that the Rookie Wage scale is a done deal. Said it something both sides wanted. Said could be in place for 2011 if they get CBA done prior to 2011 Draft.
     
  2. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,947
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    Howe is local and relatively recent so it's likely his source is local too. Best guess would be Light.

    As for what the players want:

    1) You aren't going to get pro rated raises for the 18 game season, what you get is a larger pie from which your % evolves increasing the value of future deals. But I think it's telling that at the end of the day what it all comes down to for most players and for their union is the same thing it comes down to for owners, more money...

    2) They already have the very best in healthcare. The issues revolve around who pays for it and for how long. If players want the league to carry them post career the logical tradeoff is % and $$ in the present. I think some of them have only just realized what it costs to provide that benefit in filing their COBRA paperwork in anticipation of a lockout. There were a lot of players over the years who lobbied for better healthcare benefits post career as well as better retirement to no avail because their union told them the better approach was get more money now. Sadly because 78% of them can't manage that money that approach has been a colossal failure.

    3) See 2 above.

    4) Next time they go to work they should look around at state of the art stadiums and practice facilities and wonder who paid for those... The answer will be either owners or taxpayers. The JETS and Giants both have franchise values in excess of a billion dollars. They also have stadium debt in excess of $650M and for a facility built on leased land... And most stadiums require not only maintenance but renovation if not total reconstruction every 20 years or so. Whats that old saying, it takes money to make money...

    As for the rookie wage scale, that there will be one going forward was never in doubt. It's just the formula that remains at issue. The league wants 3-5 (6 for 1st round QB's) year terms and no restructure or extension for 3 years on drafted players with the $$$ saved to go exclusively to veterans and retirees. Once again the NFLPA has different ideas, including about what constitutes a veteran player... They want 2-4 year terms with new deals on the table after year w and half of the money to remain with rookies anyway whom they now contend become veterans apparently the moment they take the field.

    I think most fans would be inclined to side almost exclusively with players if what they wanted was truly fair and reasonable and meant that all who played the game were insured of some level of reasonable protections for playing such a violent game that potentially takes a terrible toll on it's participants. That has just seldom been the case where the NFLPA is concerned. Some bank just forclosed on JaBustus Russell's Oakland home on which he is $195K behind in mortgage payments. After the Raiders paid him almost $40M because of percieved talent and received 3 years of indifference in return. Carson Palmer is threatening to take his ball and go home because the team who invested upwards of $80M in him over the last several seasons is NOW in his opinion incompetent. And while he may have a point, he needs to be willing to look in the mirror too, where he will find an entitled talent who was only too happy to take their $$$ while failing to work on eliminating his own shortcomings and improving his own performance along the way.
     
  3. patsfaninpittsburgh

    patsfaninpittsburgh Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2008
    Messages:
    3,055
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There is still millions of dollars in debt outstanding on the old Meadowlands.

    Allegheny County still has $30 million on old Three Rivers Stadium.

    Of all the things to be thankful about as Patriots fans, Robert Kraft and Gillette Stadium are at the top.
     
  4. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,895
    Likes Received:
    390
    Ratings:
    +991 / 72 / -55

    #50 Jersey

    Mo - While I agree with what you posted, I tried to take a step back and had these questions.

    What does "better healthcare" mean? Does it mean having it for life? Does it mean more things covered? Does it mean a lesser cost to add dependents?

    The good thing about where the situation is at is that the players are learning just how much their healthcare costs are since they are having to line-up their COBRA payments.

    What does "better pension" mean?


    Another thing I found interesting is the funny math mentioned. The number thrown around has been 9 billion in "Gross revenue". As it stands, the owners get 1 billion off the top. Of the remaining 8 billion, the players get 59.5%. By my calculations, that is 4.76 billion. The article says that is only 41% of the Gross revenue, yet, when I do the math (4.76/9) I come up with 52.89%. Even taking the extra billion off the top and running the same equation only drops the number to 4.165 billion to the players and that being 46.2% of the revenue.

    For the 4.76 billion that the players receive to only be 41% of the Gross Revenue, the Gross Revenue would be over 11.6 Billion. So, the implication is that the owners are hiding over 2.6 Billion from the players. I have a hard time believing that.
     
  5. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    24,517
    Likes Received:
    993
    Ratings:
    +3,045 / 26 / -17

    Disable Jersey

    Your comments and questions illustrate why I never even bother to read any sports articles covering financial matters (and sadly most other areas too). Business secrecy amplified by the reporters' abysmal ignorance of all things numeric leaves open too many interpretations and contradictions. It's not possible to glean the actual figures from the reportage in any one or two articles. I'm an engineer and a MBA guy so I appreciate real #s.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2011
  6. AQPE

    AQPE On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    320
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +35 / 0 / -0

    #80 Jersey

    You nailed it here, as you usually do, in particular the points I've highlighted.

    You are correct, I think, that most of us fans will naturally side with the players. What's exciting about football is primarily what we see the guys do on the field. Some of us also like following the draft, and the more savvy among us are fascinated by what the coaches are doing. I imagine very few of us understands or has much interest in what it is that the owners do, and all too often are annoyed at the owners for the shabby way they seem to treat the players, the coaches, and all of the other folks they employ (asking team employees to take unpaid time off during the lockout, for example). So, naturally it is very difficult for me and I'd expect for most of us average Joes to have any sympathy for the ultra-rich owners.

    With that said, however, I know I'm already irritated hearing about the alleged "partnership" between the players and owners. Heck, I heard whats-her-name who does the news updates on the NFL Network a couple nights ago use this term when interviewing someone named Feldman (one of NFLN's correspondents?) about the Doty decision. Since when are the employees considered "partners" with their employers? Do any of us that are employees think that way about our employers? If not, then why is the NFL's arrangement any different? If so, then please explain to me why.

    Look, I love what the players are able to do, and to your point on health care, I'm very sympathetic to the fact that most of them take a vicious beating doing it. There ought to be more and better provisions for them in their post-playing career than there is right now. However, in my view it is entirely up to the NFLPA to ensure that happens, through their contracts (the CBA and/or individual contracts) with the owners. If the NFLPA is incapable of managing those provisions themselves (as is done by plenty of unions), and they "need" the owners to take care of the retired players for them, then the NFLPA - not the owners - has an obligation to make sure that is addressed properly in the CBA.

    The key to all of this CBA business I think pertains to your point about the huge investment the owners have made to upgrade stadiums. From what I can see, the two most significant developments affecting the economics of ownership in the NFL are (1) increased self-financing for stadium/facility improvements, and (2) increased "market price" to purchase franchises. Given what most of us are experiencing with rising health care costs, it isn't hard to think of that being a rising concern for the owners as well, especially since the issues relating to health care for retired players has become so much more of a focal point in the media. So, the costs of these businesses are going up and up, and even though (most of) the owners are wealthy beyond comprehension, if they don't manage the business well enough they can get wiped out pretty quick by even one or two poor decisions - just ask the Wilpons (NY Mets owners) about that.

    Each of the owners obviously has their own reasons for wanting to get into this business, and there may be some who aren't in this to make a huge monetary return on their investment, but I'm pretty sure there isn't any one of them that wants to lose a ton of money. As successful as the NFL is, there have been plenty of owners over the years - including these past 5 years - that have been forced to sell their teams or do stupid things financially to hold on; as Patriots fans, we ought to understand that pretty well given what we saw from the Sullivans and Victor Kiam. I know that fact escapes people like Gerry Callahan, but its true, owning an NFL franchise is not a guarantee to make obscene profits, or even acceptable profits.

    I don't see how anyone can deny that the owners made a crappy and unsustainable deal last time, and that was before the economic meltdown. Whether they wind up getting that "lockout slush fund" or not, the owners are not going forward with a CBA without guaranteeing themselves what they consider to be an acceptable return on their investments. The union can decertify, appeal to Congress regarding antitrust issues, or whatever else they want to do, but in the end I really think they are going to lose this one. We may need to put up with scabs next season, and that would suck like it did back in the '80's, but if so I see it playing out the exact same way this time as it did last time: a massive failure for the players, probably within a month of replacement player games starting.
     
  7. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    24,517
    Likes Received:
    993
    Ratings:
    +3,045 / 26 / -17

    Disable Jersey

    Well done AQPE. Post more. We need respite from the loud repeated rantings of the ignorant, e.g. "we shoulda signed Peppers!"

    Ian, Bring Back Rep!!!
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2011
  8. BlueThunder

    BlueThunder PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,262
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +114 / 0 / -3

    #24 Jersey

    Guess that's why I read more than I post here....


    even tho I don't think we should have signed Peppers :cool:
     
  9. Box_O_Rocks

    Box_O_Rocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2005
    Messages:
    20,544
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -0

    We love you anyway.
     
  10. jmt57

    jmt57 Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2005
    Messages:
    13,605
    Likes Received:
    272
    Ratings:
    +812 / 1 / -3

    I re-read Howe's column and maybe what he's saying is that after that first billion 59.5% and owners get 41.5% - though it is odd that a player rep would point that out. I can't figure out anything else that would work out to 41.5%. Or maybe he is just reporting what the player rep said to him without questioning the figures, I don't know.

    Also, the fact a player rep pointed it out to Howe would back up MLR's speculation that the source is Matt Light.


    "The other big snag hinges on the owners' financial demands. Currently, the owners take $1 billion off the top of the NFL's total revenue, and after that, the players receive 59.5 percent of the remaining revenue, which ends up working out to 41.5 percent of the total revenue, according to the player rep."
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>