NFLPA chief: 2011 lockout chances "14" on a scale of 1-10

[Rob0729]

The owners aren't giving up anything. The owners themselves stand to make a significant amount of money if there is no football. At least some owners would make more money without football than with it.

Obviously the owners don't want to go down the lockout path. The impact to their community, local businesses and their staff would be devastating. However, that motivation only goes so far in the negotiations with the players.

Not really true. They get revenue streams doing a lockout, but it isn't free money. The networks are not going to pay the NFL for the right not to broadcast games. The networks will pay the league during the uncapped year, but the league still owes them the games they paid for. That means that they could broadcast games for free the last year of the contract.

 

[Rob0729]

What happens with the Raiders 2011 pick if there is a lockout?

There is a 2011 draft no matter what. The CBA doesn't expire until after the 2011 draft. That means the Pats would have the pick, but the player they drafted would be unemployed until the league resumed.

 

[Maroney TD]

It's not the owners who want to "kill the game." It's the players who do because they believe that they should be getting 90% of the money and the owners should only be getting 10%. What these players fail to realize is how much debt some of these owners have incurred to pamper their sorry arses.

Every single one of them should watch the movie "MAJOR LEAGUE" and see what life COULD be like. With sub-standard equipment and stuff..

Personally, the players are taking too much as it is.

Also, the idea that you can't go back to the salary cap after it's gone is BS. They sure can. Just the same way they did when it was introduced.

I'll be honest, if the players insist on keeping the money breakdown the same, then the owners should insist that the medical expenses be shared by the players. That, at the end of the year, the total medical expenses paid out gets tallied and then broken down across each team and that money come out of the player's week 17 paycheck.

I would also charge the players for the security and parking.

Do you have anything to back up your statement that the players want 90% of the revenue or is this just a hyperbole?

According to Bloomberg the NFL has $8 billion in annual revenue and the players make up ~60%. According to the union they would be fine with extending the current CBA.

The NFL is the only major professional sports league to not have guaranteed contracts. I'm not saying that they should but you're acting like NFL players are bankrupting the poor billionaire owners which just isn't the case. Nevermind the annual profits, the value of their franchises have gone through the roof so no owner will be losing any money overall on their investment.

The Players have gotten ridiculous in their demands and they need to know that without the owners, there are no stadiums for them to play in. There are not multi-year contracts with the TV stations that pour in more than 50% of the revenue for the league.

So you think people would be paying the same prices for tickets and beer to go see the Patriots if they didn't have Tom Brady and Randy Moss but instead had people you've never heard of? It's called the XFL and it wasn't all that successful.

 

[Metaphors]

Wow, I don't understand that. They'd be paying for nothing? I wonder how they'd swing that without the advertising revenue the games pull in.

I knew that DirectTV would pay even during a lockout, but their revenue is subscriber-based. They would lose all the NFL package revenue, but they likely get to keep the subscribers who went with DirectTV to get the Sunday Ticket in the first place.

I don't understand how the other broadcast partners would be able to pay though. I'm wondering if that is actually accurate.

 

[Metaphors]

Not really true. They get revenue streams doing a lockout, but it isn't free money. The networks are not going to pay the NFL for the right not to broadcast games. The networks will pay the league during the uncapped year, but the league still owes them the games they paid for. That means that they could broadcast games for free the last year of the contract.

I really don't know what the deal with ESPN/FOX/CBS/NBC contains. I assumed the league would get nothing from them during a lockout but I could be wrong.

The DirectTV contract is widely reported to be $1B/year for the next few years whether or not there is any football. If there is a lockout, that is absolutely money for nothing <insert Dire Straits reference here>.

 

[mgteich]

So, one party in a negotiation is indicating that there is no chance of agreement in the next 15 months. He does this without see any of the books for 2009, never mind 2010. He has no idea what will reasonable 15 months from now. He doesn't know what will be offered, He doesn't know what he will offer. But he is sure that there will be no agreement. I'm not sure I'd want him at the head of team negotiating for me.

And yes, if there is no agreement, there will a lockout.

 

[furley]

This excerpt is numbing...



Smith said the NFL would receive $5 billion from its network television deals even if no games are played in 2011. He regarded that as proof owners are preparing for a lockout.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Not really true. They get revenue streams doing a lockout, but it isn't free money. The networks are not going to pay the NFL for the right not to broadcast games. The networks will pay the league during the uncapped year, but the league still owes them the games they paid for. That means that they could broadcast games for free the last year of the contract.

Thats right, in essence its a loan but it gives the owners the upper hand, most players arent frugal with their money and would be devastated without a paycheck for too long, the union has a plan that gives the players $4800 per month for a time if their is a lockout but how far do you think that will go?
The owners will win this, they're expenses without salaries, and other costs associated without playing games is probably something they can absorb for a lot longer than most of the players can survive on $4800 per month.

The PR flack the players would take in this recession also plays against them, the owners know this and will probably get most of what they want.
lets hope everyone is reasonable because if they lose a season, they lose fans for a awhile, me included.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Thats right, in essence its a loan but it gives the owners the upper hand, most players arent frugal with their money and would be devastated without a paycheck for too long, the union has a plan that gives the players $4800 per month for a time if their is a lockout but how far do you think that will go?
The owners will win this, they're expenses without salaries, and other costs associated without playing games is probably something they can absorb for a lot longer than most of the players can survive on $4800 per month.

The PR flack the players would take in this recession also plays against them, the owners know this and will probably get most of what they want.
lets hope everyone is reasonable because if they lose a season, they lose fans for a awhile, me included.

Yup- if the NBA lockout proved anything, it's that athletes just don't set themselves up financially to survive work stoppages. And that's in a league with fewer and higher-paid players with guaranteed contracts.

 

[nashvillepatsfan]

lets hope everyone is reasonable because if they lose a season, they lose fans for a awhile, me included.

I still havent gotten back into baseball after their strike. Im also getting tired of listening to players whine about feeding their families, because the 6 mil they just made isnt enough. I don't have a problem with them complaining, and wanting more money, but i don't want to hear it. Keep that crap behind closed doors (wilfork).
At this point, there's nothing the NFLPA could say to make me side with them. I have no sympathy for 80% of the players. Whereas guys like Bruschi will always have my support!

 

[Patjew]

Sounds like something Spinal Tap would say.

 

[alamo]

I have lost a lot of respect for Demaurice Smith (not that he ever built any up really). Some of his statements are ludicrous, like saying the NFL is a non-profit organization and thus isn't taxed. Guess what, they get TV and licensing money and pass it on to the teams and the teams pay taxes on it. Makes me question every statement he makes.

Not that the NFL is an angel, but the NFL has not put out the amount of misleading rhetoric that the union has. The union doesn't believe it can win public opinion based on the real facts.

 

[hawk]

I don't receive a portion of the revenue of the company I work for. I also don't have an agent to negotiate my contract. It's not as though the players are oppressed workers, and no one has forced them to play professional football. When one considers the amount of money required to purchase a team, finance a stadium, etc., NFL ownership is only profitable when a team is sold. I think Demaurice Smith is determined to force a lockout. The players should seriously consider how long it will take to financially recover from an unpaid year. Some number of them will never play again after a lockout. A lockout will be a big step backwards for the NFL. Fans, players and owners will all be losers.

 

[Miguel]

When one considers the amount of money required to purchase a team, finance a stadium, etc., NFL ownership is only profitable when a team is sold.

The Packers are a publicly owned team. So everyone knows how much profit they make. If your statement is true, then you should be able to back it using the Packers. But you can not.

Rough economy does not sack Green Bay Packers' profits - ESPN

 

[tanked_as_usual]

the problem is that both sides have gotten too fat and too greedy at the same time.

nobody wins and both sides know it. players lose a year of salary. owners lose a year of revenue. players who are supposed to get their big contracts about now lose more. owners who are in new venues and have bi notes to pay off also lose more.

screw 'em if they take it that far.....I'll find something else to do.

 

[Rob0729]

I have lost a lot of respect for Demaurice Smith (not that he ever built any up really). Some of his statements are ludicrous, like saying the NFL is a non-profit organization and thus isn't taxed. Guess what, they get TV and licensing money and pass it on to the teams and the teams pay taxes on it. Makes me question every statement he makes.

Not that the NFL is an angel, but the NFL has not put out the amount of misleading rhetoric that the union has. The union doesn't believe it can win public opinion based on the real facts.

Why lose respect for the guy for playing the negotiation game? The league will play similiar games as it goes along. It is all part of the dance. To me it is white noise.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Why lose respect for the guy for playing the negotiation game? The league will play similiar games as it goes along. It is all part of the dance. To me it is white noise.

exactly.....why chide the guy for doing his job?

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Not really true. They get revenue streams doing a lockout, but it isn't free money. The networks are not going to pay the NFL for the right not to broadcast games. The networks will pay the league during any work stoppage, but the league still owes them the games they paid for. That means that they could broadcast games for free the last year of the contract.

FYPFY.

I'm not sure whether they get free games during 2013 or the contract gets "extended" into 2014 or what have you, but the key point is the owners get paid now but have to give it back later.

 

[lostjumper]

FYPFY.

I'm not sure whether they get free games during 2013 or the contract gets "extended" into 2014 or what have you, but the key point is the owners get paid now but have to give it back later.

This is esentially correct. For every game that is not played, the broadcasting comapanies still have to pay for it, but an additional game is added to the end of the contract that they do not have to pay for. Basically, its a clause specifically for this scenario. The owners will be able to pad their war chests while the players will get nothing.

 

[Rob0729]

Good news! Peter King said on WEEI that there is a 60-70% chance that there will be a lockout next year. That means there should be a deal done for a new CBA tomorrow.