Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by BradfordPatsFan, May 20, 2008.
Your move player's association.
(Mods, please merge with other thread on CBA if necessary.)
Not unexpected, but good news nonetheless.
Not surprising at all. None of the owners liked the current CBA. It was starting to make it hard for the small market teams to be competitive for players year after year. Larger market teams saw their profits from additional marketing initiatives like stadium sponsorships start to decline because they were forced to give up a lot more revenue to keep the smaller market teams afloat to pay for the increase in salaries.
I think if the CBA stayed in place, it would not be all that far away that the small market teams would be struggling to pay salaries and maintain day to day operations because a team like the Bills can only generate so much revenue and even revenue sharing can only do so much.
Yippy something for the mindless idiots on radio and TV to fill air time with!!!!
BTW, it is no coincidence that two small market teams are rumored to be up for sale. Both the Rams and Jags have pretty strong rumors of being shopped around. Add Buffalo soon to be up for sale (within the next few years) and probably moving to Toronto around 2013.
I am surprised it was unanimous...solidarity from ALL owners..Goodell on the other side?? THAT is interesting...what does that say about his future? This is a complex issue, especially with the economy tanking. With a stronger economy, it might have been more viable long term, but with things liek now, it might have been the only REAL option..a way for all parties to look at the situation NOW and solve it more long term. If Tags was around, I would think it was possible, but with this schmuck, I don't know if that will be possible. This could be the start of the downfall of the league. Upshaw might keep peddling the 'we won't go under 60%' figure, but with the threat of franchises folding, when faced with reality, I believe his tune will change. This is the REAL issue I believe that who love football should be looking at...I wonder how many of these idiot sportwriters will delve into it in detail?
Goodell will eliminate the first round of the NFL draft this year, and suspend the owners for 8 weeks to a season, depending on market size. Goodell will cite "unprecidented punishment" as his logic. When told that it is impossible to remove the first round of the draft, Goodell will suspend his intern. He will then go put his cowboy hat back on and get on his rocking horse, shooting his play six-shooter at the TV.
Just as an FYI, one of the franchises with the least amount of revenue income made over $25 million in profit last year (Buffalo).
So, it's not like we're talking about a failing industry.
This may have been a necessary move for the small market owners
but why is it good news? It could be the end of the salary cap and
the draft. The NFL would be like baseball with wealthy teams like the
Yankees and Red Sox with all the good players. The only party that
benefits from a situation like this is the new football league that
starts operations in 2009. With Gene Upshaw in charge of the player's
union, no good can come of this because Upshaw has dug in his heels
demanding 60 % of total revenues.
It's good because it was necessary. Without it, the league was in big trouble. With it, the new CBA will, hopefully, feature:
Less money for the players
Less power to discipline for the Ommissioner, and clearer guidelines for it
A more equitable distribution of ownership monies
A rookie wage scale of some sort
All weeping and gnashing of teeth will prove pointless. They have 2 years for a new CBA.
I don't see it ever happening. The players know it isn't in their best interest to lose the salary cap. Yes, teams like the Cowboys, Redskins, and Patriots will be able to afford to overpay for the players they want, but each team can only employ 53 players. Rosters are much larger than baseball and some of the small market teams in the NFL would have trouble even signing a team of average players without revenue sharing and the salary cap.
I wonder though how much debt they have moving forward as well as other factors in their economic picture. It seems like a lot of money, but they will also pay out somewhere around 140 mill in players costs. How profitable is the Buffalo franchise as opposed to other companies in other industries? Might this opting out be done to insure that franchises are not sold, moved en masse?
It looks like both teh Rams and Jags may be up for sale. It will be interesting to see what happens. The NFL has a few years to get another CBA hammered out and I hope that it can be done.
I agree as it was necessary...to wait a few yaers might have been a worse course for teh league, for a great deal of times have a ton of debt and solving the problem now is muich better than to continue on a path that will fail down the road. I don't think it would be good for teams to go under, or not be able to sign players because they did not have the money. ALL the teams know and see that as possible with a projection out given the CBA like it is. SO, you opt out now and try to solve it all now. The wildcards in this are Goodell and Upshaw. Goodell is totally inept and could fumble this whole thing into oblivion. Upshaw is on his last legs and instead of letting new blood take over the union, may fight to his death, old principles that do not work. I think it folly to believe that because they opted out that ANY of them are in favor of a league with no salary cap etc etc. It's that they DO NOT want that to happen that they have opted out now. They have a bit of vision and that they did it as a whole says a lot about their relationship with Goodell, who apparently was urging them NOT to opt out.
This is where Goodell either sinks or swims. And it doesn't look good for him as he's just been treading water so far ... As fans we might as well start making alternative plans for the fall of 2010, 'cuz there likely won't be a full football season, if any at all.
I think profits and losses can be misleading. How do teams recognize signing bonuses on the books? If they are amortized over the life of the contract like they are for the salary cap, then that profit is far less.
Also, profits don't account to debt. The Bills paid out a lot of signing bonuses last year which were probably financed. What do the Bills owe?
I guess ol' Roger doesn't have quite the clout he thought he did. Not surprising.
read PFT..as they are on this big time as they should be. I think the owners will do the right thing, depite Goodell's failings. I believe they KNOW how Goodell is and will solve the problem of the CBA. A BIG sign of that was that it was an unanimous vote to opt out..not small markets and large divided..while Goodell was trying to convince them NOT to opt out...Maybe I am overly optimistic, but he may be less of a factor in all of this, if not out altogether. Upshaw may push this to the brink, but all lose if teh CBA goes down.
Hey, as long as this takes the attention off Fabri-gate then it's all gravy, baby.
A player's time in the NFL is extremely short. To lose a season's pay is really
money down the toilet since there is not a chance in hell that the money will
ever be returned via a CBA. The owner's (most of them) have tons of leverage
and the players don't have much. I expect lots and lots of posturing on behalf
of the players union and nothing coming from the owners. As a result the
player's union will sign a much more agreeable contract with the owners. It
will still be good for the players but not quite as good. I really doubt that there
will be a season lost. Not only does the players union have history to go back
on for a strike but the NHL strike is still in the rear mirror and if you ask one
player in the NHL to tout the benefit of the strike and he says it was a good
thing, let me know. The players will not take that route, I guarantee it. Even
if Upshaw wants it, the players will not go for it.
Well if they opt for the model of 1987 with replacement players ( small chance I think), it should be pretty interesting, at least for the Patriots. Pioli could use his talents to round up talent and Belichick could teach/coach enough to beat the other replacement teams. Even if they are just replacement players, it is in their interest to win using the model of the 49ers (Walsh implemented an option using the skills of his QB IIRC) versus the Eagles where Buddy Ryan wanted nothing to do with the 'scabs' and barely tolerated them resulting in an 0-3 record.
I think that as long as the current union leadership is in place, they are headed for a work stoppage. As one poster noted, there has to be a rokie wage scale and that will benefit the veterans ( an overwhelming majority of the union) that weren't first rounders.
Hey maybe the union will disband (they threatened that two years ago while negotiating the CBA) which will nullify the NFL's anti-trust exemption. With no anti-trust exemption, our good buddy Arlen Specter would have no power to butt into the league's business.
Sorry to bring Spygate into this, but I couldn't resist.
First step in a long process.....
We will hear a few things about this issue now and then it will go behind the scenes for a while until the deadline is to close for comfort (weeks, months) than we will hear that the parties are discussing their options and when all is said and done the players will give a little back and the owners will give a little added security (in unknown form)
Godell may have public urged the owners to vote no, knowing full well they would vote yes.
This way when Godell negotiates with the union he can say, "look I didn't want us to be in this situation either" then position himself as the mediator between the owners and players to a much greater degree than if he was the one calling for a no vote.
It is standard negotiating tactic. The negotiator (who doesn't have the final say) is more even keeled and even "on your side" but needs to get the approval of someone else who is making the harsh demands.
If you want to see this in its finest form swing by your local auto dealership.
The only problem is that he risks being marginalized by both sides and this is especially true for a 'new' commissioner who doesn't have the pull/power of a Rozelle or a Tagliabue after he'd been commissioner for a while. His job is not that of a mediator but of the representative of the owners who hired him.
Good analogy for the car delaership but everyone sees through that and look how effective that technique ("I have to check with my manager") is in the long run...
Not sure that he's that smart....
Unless you know what their costs were 25 million is irrelevant. It could cost 75 million to make 100 million (25 profit) in the NFL but in other areas that 75 could return 150 (50 profit). NFL owners are fans but they're also business men. To make player's salaries correspond directly to the profit margin is crazy. Imagine if we walked into starbucks and asked for a discount cause "they make enough already".
It goes farther than that. From an accounting standpoint, it is possible to spend $150 million to generate $100 million in revenue and still have a $25 million profit on the books. Certain expenses cannot be recognized fulling in the year it is paid for and must be depreciated. Stadiums and other building expenses definitely fall in that category. I am not sure if signing bonuses would count since they are spread out over the life of the contract for the cap.
As I recall correctly there was a theory a while back - when the announcement on how much debt the NFL teams were carrying - where many small market teams wanted to see one year without a cap. The idea was that without a slary cap (or floor) they would choose to bottom out, spending only about $40 million on salary. By going cheap for one year they could pay down some of the debt, then rebuild the following year with a new CBA and no over inflated contracts on the books.
Keep in mind that while lots of talking heads are today pushing the not to worry button because 2008 and 2009 and 2010 will be fine, that's not exactly true. We are back to the standard poison pill clauses as well which will impact contract negotiation and extensions from today on out. Less time to amortize bonus money, Deion and 30% rules to deal with in contract structure, much more difficult to even do simple restructures for cap space.
And while the CBA read to me like it precludes either side taking any work action before the current deal expires after 2010, I recall hearing some opine a while back that the owners will not wait for a strike - they would lock players out before the 2010 season rather than let the uncapped season unfold. As a means of precluding Upshaw's threat/promise that once the cap is gone it will never be revisited. Absent a cap there will be no substantive revenue sharing in a league where 9 votes are all it takes to kill any concensus.
Separate names with a comma.