Welcome to PatsFans.com

OT: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Va_Pats_Fan, Jul 21, 2010.

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

    Va_Pats_Fan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Messages:
    1,236
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    DeMaurice Smith was on Mike and Mike this morning.

    Talked about the ongoing negotiations between NFLPA and the league.

    Highlights: Talks continue. Last offer from owners was about a month ago, included an 18 game season, and a (I think he said) 17% rollback of the salary cap. (he called it 70's era salary).

    NFLPA offered a cap on rookie salaries by removing 200m from rookie pool if 100m went to pre 1993 player pensions, and 100m went to veterans. Owners turned down the proposal.
  2. mcgraw_wv

    mcgraw_wv Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    There is no need to roll back the Salary Cap... The Amount of money spent in a year on Player Salaries I guarantee you isn't even 15% of the Profit a Team makes.


    The Salary Cap should be defined as a percentage of gross profit from all shared revenue.

    For all TV contracts, and other shared revenues, + Ticket sales, and Merchandise that has a players likeness on it ( no general Team gear ) should be also included.

    If they make everything as a percentage, then everyone has a vested interested in being successful and making more money.
  3. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    I thought the Packers only made 9 million last year?
  4. BennyBledsoe

    BennyBledsoe Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 2 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #11 Jersey
    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Maybe this guy should be working on a deal instead of doing a f'ing radio show.

    Asshat.
  5. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Until at least January, most of the talk on both sides will most likely be posturing. I won't even bother listening because the NFLPA will say that the league is trying to screw them and the league will say the NFLPA is only in it for the money and doesn't care about perserving the league.
  6. Clonamery

    Clonamery PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    3,274
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    So are the players going to include what they make in endorsements, etc.? No? No?

    So it's just the money from the team side? Sounds fair.
  7. patriot lifer

    patriot lifer Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2007
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    The problem with a percentage of profits is that they are employees, not partners. Partnerships share in profits. Employees receive salaries. If they were to share in profits, then they should have equity interest.
  8. Metaphors

    Metaphors Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,670
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Not a math major, but let's look at your statement...

    Player Salaries = .15 x Profit or
    Profit = Player Salaries / .15

    If the last salary cap was around 125M, that means...

    Profit = 125M / .15 = $833M

    You have to realize that figure is silly.
  9. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    The players get 60% of the revenue as defined by the CBA. So every dollar the NFL makes (excluding certain side marketing deals individual teams cut), the players get 60 cents of it. That means that if the league had absolutely no expenses whatsover except player salaries, the maximum they could have for a profit margin is 40% of every dollar brought in. So if the players get 60 cents of every dollar the league makes, how exactly are they not getting even 15% of the profits the league makes?
  10. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,509
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Problem being that school does not educate students on economics, like what is "profit" vs gross revenue, etc. All kids get in school especially college is that capatalism and profit are evil. No wonder topics like salary cap and national debt get such strange pronouncements and 'guarantees'.
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2010
  11. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    It would be pretty easy to guarantee you are wrong.

    The salary cap is a percentage of gross profit from all shared revenue. Used to be a percentage of designated revenue, some of which wasn't shared, and the TV deals funded the bulk of it. Therein lies the problem. That percentage is currently just under 60% of essentially all gross profit. What the league wants is a reduction that either lowers that percentage or again designates some revenue as exempt. That's because they have a lot more than players to pay, they have off field employees and capital improvements and travel and debt service and the cost of growing the pie to pay for everyone. Owners clearly believe that rookie contracts are clearly at the core of the problem because of the disparity in bang for your buck that it realized on upwards of half of all draft picks. Just redistributing that money alone doesn't accomplish anything for the league when reducing it in a shared split (half back to owners and half back to veteran players) could go a long way towards rebalancing the scales.

    De prefers to spew simplistic rhetoric and misrepresent what is being asked for because that's what unions tend to do when facing demands for economic relief from unsustainable terms. That he suddenly wants half of it to go to pre cap retirees his union has essentially ignored for decades is a hoot. The league and the union should share in support of retirees. He wasnts the owners to essentially cover the entire cost thereby netting nothing. In the last couple of years the salary cap floor has exceeded what the salary cap ceiling was less than 5 years ago.

    The NBA is gearing up for the same kind of battle. Because they chose the star method as the vehicle around which to grow their game, and they are now in a situation where the tale wags the dog - often with gun in hand. The NFL has always tried to maintain focus on the game rather than the talent as the draw, in large part because the average NFL career even for it's stars is less than half as long for lots of reasons, not the least of which is the physical nature of the game and the fact most players join the league at age 22 or later and are on their way out of it at 30 or earlier.

    Part of the enduring charm of this league was another way in which it differered from other sports leagues. Contracts weren't guaranteed. Like most Joe's home watching the game from their couches, football players were expected to play for/earn their pay. Over the last decade that has changed dramatically. First signing bonuses got ever grander and arbitrators ruled that they were earned and unrecoverable under pretty much any circumstance. Enter guaranteed money that could have some recoverability or accountability. But demands for those guarantees have also increased from maybe 20-30% of deal value to in excess of half. At a time when player conduct on and off the field is at an all time low as a generation of entitled talent who believes you have arrived when you're drafted has emerged. Lost in the shuffle as usual are the less hyped and talented and undercompensated for the risks and abuse they endure rank and file players who are the backbone of this league. Those guys and not the over hyped megastars need to be protected lest they end up as merely the next generation of the players this league and this union has left behind in their neverending quest for every last dollar.

    It sounds if De can be remotely believed as if owners are basically proposing the givebacks come from the rookie contract cap and in exchange the % of giveback that equates to will be offset by the growth of the regular season to 18 games. I don't particularly like that tradeoff although from a purely financial standpoint it probably makes sense and in the end the union will take any deal that it can spin as growing it's bottom line as well...even if it's via expansion. More games will expand rosters and potentially teams and markets. Meh...all it means for fans is an increasingly expensive and deluted product.

    At the end of the day core football fans are the only ones who still care about the game. The majority of owners and players and the NFLPA only truly care about what's in it for each of them financially. Makes it increasingly hard for fans to really have a dog in their fight.
  12. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    This may end up being the post of the uncapped final CBA season...
  13. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,358
    Likes Received:
    46
    Ratings:
    +58 / 1 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    One correction, the players get 60% of the gross revenue, not the gross profit. Sixty percent of the gross revenue is far more than 60% of the gross profit.
  14. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,509
    Likes Received:
    70
    Ratings:
    +78 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    #37 Jersey
    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    I spend an inordinate amount of time on matters Patriots and have for decades, however if the NFL becomes MLB or the NBA, there are other life activities worth persuing instead of a bastardized NFL.
  15. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,867
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Theres going be a lock out.

    I cannot see the players agreeing to more games while taking less money.
  16. RelocatedPatFan

    RelocatedPatFan Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Messages:
    2,236
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Seems to be mostly posturing by the owners (or shoot the moon). Oversell what you want with the expectation that it will move down or getting only part of what you ask for.

    Still, a lockout for 2011 could very well be possible. Makes me curious to wonder how owners factor in fan response to a lockout. Ultimately, I think a lockout serious hurts everyone (players and owners) and certainly destorys the JAGs, but not the stars of the game. Though, even losing a year of playing time can really put alot of rust on the players (not getting a good product when football is back on) and the obvious aging affects on players.
  17. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    That's what the union wants you to think it boils down to. Owners seem to be proposing growing revenue becoming the foundation for increasing player earnings ability over time. They also want to redistribute the inordinate amount of revenue already being paid to unproven rookies to themselves to allow them to invest in and grow the product, and to veteran players and perhaps players out performing contracts. Nobody else will make less, and rank and file and older veterans may in fact make more even in the short term. I think on purely financial terms without knowing the finite details, the plan has some merit. I just have concerns about the toll increasing regular season games will take on all players and the effect expansion of rosters and likely eventually the league will have on the quality of the game.
  18. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike


    Except they've shared in profits for years. The cap is ALWAYS based on a percentage of profit/revenue.
  19. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    You clearly didn't go to school. I got pretty much the opposite message: every one outside "amerika t3h aw3some" is a communist and worships the devil. Money justifies everything.

    I mean, you can't even spell capitalism, and you're railing against other people's educations?
  20. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Never let a little thing like facts get in the way.
  21. Synovia

    Synovia Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2008
    Messages:
    3,922
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Great Post Mo, but the above is absolute dog****. Its just not even close to correct.
  22. spacecrime

    spacecrime Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    8,329
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    No, he wasn't railing against eduation. Re-read. He was saying that in school, the main economic lesson is that capitalism is not a good thing.

    Bad spelling vs. lack of reading comprehension. Tsk tsk. What is this country's education system coming to? :cool:
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2010
  23. nashvillepatsfan

    nashvillepatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,213
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    I feel the same way, and it concerns me. I'll have to find another activity (that involves beer) that takes up 40 hrs a week :eek:
  24. BradfordPatsFan

    BradfordPatsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    2,525
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Today at 8:25 on Mike and Mike you can hear the NFL's response to Smith.
  25. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,111
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +32 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    If he really said that a 17% cap rollback was "70's era salary," then the entire interview is a joke. Rolling back the cap 17% from 2009 takes you all the way back to the exploitative era of...2006-7. :rolleyes:

    As for shared vs. unshared revenues (NOT profits, revenues), we have to remember why that distinction exists to begin with. I am nothing like a cap expert, but it's pretty clear that "shared vs. unshared" is the linchpin to the entire financial framework of the salary-capped NFL. It's how they balance the collective action of a league with 32 individual business owners, and the need for on-field parity with incentive for individual initiative.

    Other more informed posters may correct me, but here's my understanding:

    The league shares basic football-generated income equally. This includes national broadcasting and internet revenue, licensed merchandise, and ticket sales. But auxiliary stadium-generated revenue like concessions, naming rights, parking, luxury boxes and signage remain with the team that earned them (i.e. unshared). That's how teams like the Patriots pay for building and operating first-class stadiums. If they only got 1/32 of the revenue for all that, they couldn't afford the stadium at all. And they wouldn't have the incentive to aggressively pursue that revenue. And so that part of league revenue simply wouldn't exist -- and the Dallas Cowboys franchise wouldn't be worth any more than the Jacksonville Jaguars.

    The cap is calculated based on shared revenue because its whole purpose is to promote parity. If you included unshared, you'd either be giving each team a different cap number or setting the cap at a level that most teams couldn't afford to come close to.

    So it seems to me that saying "the league has to include unshared revenues in the cap calculation" is essentially saying "we have to blow up the entire financial framework of the modern NFL and start from scratch."
  26. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Used to be there was something known as designated revenue. The debaucle of 2006 supposedly did away with most if not all that in part because of the kvetching of the have not owners who wanted a share of the undesignated revenue other better managed or marketed or placed teams were generating. The league ended up opening Pandora's Box to placate them and the NFLPA stuck it's grubby little hand in before the league could close it... They said if you're gonna share it with each other then you're gonna share it with us...

    The league then tried to salavage the mess by asking the union to take a lower percentage of a bigger pie. Couldn't get it low enough though (needed mid 50's) to account for the difference. Remember Gene's famous percentage quote as he threatened to strike that went something like his number would start with a 6... I think they finally agreed to a formula that was seheduled to at a little less than 59% and creep up to 60% over the course of the agreement. Hence the basically unanimous decision to bail out by owners just 2 years into a 6 year deal. It didn't take them long to fully realize just how bad a deal they'd agreed to under duress in order to salvage 2006.

    At the end of the day if you look at the Forbes valuations you will find there isn't that much of a gap between what Dallas and Detroit or Jacksonville are worth because the vast majority of the data used to formulate the worth of an NFL franchise is the value of the league, and that is based on what it generates as a whole and how popular and stable it has remained while other leagues stumbled and bumbled. Most teams own few tangible assets. A strike or lockout isn't the worst thing that could happen to this league as a result. It would be worse if franchises started folding like the house of cards they in many respects are. Then you would begin to see what is essentially "perceived values" plummet.
  27. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,867
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    17% is almost 1/3 of 60%. You round the 2009 cap up to 130 M and thats a reduction of approximately 43 M per team. It has to hurt just more than just the top 10 rookie contracts.

    Thats a killer for teams who spend up the cap virtually every season. I fail to see how some players will make more with less cap room.
  28. Gwedd

    Gwedd PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,896
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +15 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    No Mood
    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Dude, at least you got the truth in your education. That's not how they're teaching US History up here in Maine. :cool:
  29. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,111
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +32 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    Triumph, "a 17% reduction in the cap" doesn't mean 60%-17%. (That would be a 28% reduction of the total.) It means taking 17% off of the cap number, IOW rolling it back from $127 mil to $106 mil.

    To put that alleged proposal of $106 mil in context, here are past cap numbers in $millions:

    2009: 127
    2008: 117
    2007: 109
    2006: 102
    2005: 86
    2004: 81
    2003: 75
    2002: 71
    2001: 67
    2000: 62
    1999: 58
    1998: 52
    1997: 41
    1996: 40
    1995: 37
  30. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    My Jersey:

    Re: DeMaurice Smith on Mike and Mike

    The league has asked for a reduction in the amount of total revenue earmarked for players, not a reduction in the cap. If it's reduced at all it would be minimally. What they want is for the cap and player payroll cost to stop growing at a greater rate than revenue. No player presently under contract will experience any loss of income. The league has been pretty clear on that. Their main target/proposal appears to be capping rookie deals where a tremendous amount of money is presently being squandered on guys who haven't even proved they can handle a snap at the pro level. They want to redistribute the savings inherent in capping rookie contracts between the league itself - so it can afford to continue to invest in and grow the overall pie thereby increasing the $$$ players see - and veteran players who have earned the right to be paid to continue playing as opposed to being prematurely cut or forced to choose between that or playing out their career at league minimums because of cap concerns.

    They may also be asking players presently under contract to play 2 more regular season games in the forseeable future with no additional compensation. But the caveat is if they do and revenue increases proportionally as projected all players present and future will benefit from that increase at contract time going forward.

    Again, it's not my approach. In the end I think the league would be happy to get a reasonable cap on the rookies and some concessions about recoverability of bonus money that would total a 8-10% rollback. You never open negotiations asking for exactly what you want. They could even do it in part by lowering the 60% back down to the mid 50's, but that's actually a harder sell. So they have tried to come up with some consiliatory give and take that doesn't dramatically impact the immediate bottom line for the present day rank and file or the vast majority of future draftees (who would also likely be tied to rookie deals for lesser terms). And while it may slow dramatic growth that has seen some undeserving performers benefit of late from silly money deals, it will insure that everyone (including the majority of players and owners) continues to do pretty damn well financially for the forseeable future.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page