Will Greed ruin the NFL?

[JR4]

... as we know it ...

Here is an article by Ron Borges that pretty much gives all sides
of the CBA story. ( I know many here don't like Borges but in this article
he tells a lot of what is going on from all sides )

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11510061/

 

[JoeSixPat]

... as we know it ...

Here is an article by Ron Borges that pretty much gives all sides
of the CBA story. ( I know many here don't like Borges but in this article
he tells a lot of what is going on from all sides )

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11510061/

Hopefully not.

Seems to me like the current system is a nice balance - a win win for players and owners alike.

But because the NFLPA is demanding that new sources of revnue be added to the mix, now we're getting into some pretty complicated equations as to how to split that up within the rich-poor, lazy-hardworking, smart-stupid divisions within NFL ownership.

Hopefully a fair split among the owners themselves, and between the owners and players, can be found.

To me, Greed isn't keeping what you have earned. It's asking for what isn't yours.

Are the players justified in asking for more? Within reason, I think they are - just as long as they realize that in fairness they need to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars in overhead paid for by the NFL owners.

Are the "have nots" among team owners justified in asking the "haves" to share more with them?

I really don't think so. The problem that remains is that the Players Association is looking at the additional revnues like its one big collective pot of money, equally shared by all teams, when that's just not how it works.

Because they opened this can of worms we could indeed be looking at the end of the NFL as we know it.

 

[JR4]

Hopefully not.

Seems to me like the current system is a nice balance - a win win for players and owners alike.

But because the NFLPA is demanding that new sources of revnue be added to the mix, now we're getting into some pretty complicated equations as to how to split that up within the rich-poor, lazy-hardworking, smart-stupid divisions within NFL ownership.

Hopefully a fair split among the owners themselves, and between the owners and players, can be found.

To me, Greed isn't keeping what you have earned. It's asking for what isn't yours.

Are the players justified in asking for more? Within reason, I think they are - just as long as they realize that in fairness they need to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars in overhead paid for by the NFL owners.

Are the "have nots" among team owners justified in asking the "haves" to share more with them?

I really don't think so. The problem that remains is that the Players Association is looking at the additional revnues like its one big collective pot of money, equally shared by all teams, when that's just not how it works.

Because they opened this can of worms we could indeed be looking at the end of the NFL as we know it.

Greed by definition:
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

All three parties can be accused of greed accoding the the definition
Players, Poor Owners(if there is such a thing), Rich Onwers.

I see statements like you made
"they need to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars in overhead paid for by the NFL owners."
and I think
... show me the figures. Show me how much ALL these owners make and
show me their overhead ... show me the net profits ... without any trickery to
conceal the real situation.

My strong hunch is there is Greed by all Parties ... even Kraft said that all
sides are trying to get as much as they can. It is greed and no one group is
off the hook for that accusation.

If the NFL turns into the MLB, I for one will give it up. I will not pay one more
cent to watch a league where championships are bought aka NYY.

 

[ilduce06410]

hey miguel, what's your opinion?

... as we know it ...

Here is an article by Ron Borges that pretty much gives all sides
of the CBA story. ( I know many here don't like Borges but in this article
he tells a lot of what is going on from all sides )

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11510061/

it seems to me that the nflpa has 5 issues that need to be addressed:
1. higher minimum pay, and better "practice pay" for fringe players.
2. some kind of protection of players' rights, like standard buyout clauses, for their contracts with franchises.
3. improvements of the pension program, earlier eges for elgibility, higher payments to retired players.
4. better treatment for injured players, especially fringe players.
5. the league finances these improvements with an annual "surcharge" of $10 million per franchise, to come from the tv contracts.

that might take a day of negotiating. lawyers would make a LOT less money.
the goose that lays the golden eggs lives on for another __ years.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Greed by definition:
An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth

Assuming you're not demanding that everyone in the NFL give up everything more than they need, I'm assuming your Dictionary Definition mindset is more focused on the word "deserves".

We've been over this before so I won't bore people with the same debate, but if you need "real" nubmers than Gillete Stadium cost about $325 million to build, all of which was financed by Robert Kraft. Other owners have required that taxpayers pay for the construction of their stadium. That's $0.00.

Owners who haven't incurred such costs don't "deserve" an equal share of revneue those stadiums generate. Players who don't incur such costs don't "deserve" an equal share of all the revenues those staduims generate.

Do the players desere some? No doubt. How much? That's what they are trying to figure out.

The problem comes in that unless the owners can first agree how to fairly divide revenues among themselves, the players then can't get their share without hurting the "have not" teams - destroying the parity of the league in a way you say you hope to avoid.

 

[shatch62]

Kraft has EARNED what he gets

http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2005/0919/122.html


“Kraft paid a princely sum ($172 million in 1994 – then record for a sports franchise) for a miserable franchise. The team had just finished last in revenue and had the cheapest payroll in the NFL. IN the four seasons before he did the deal, the Patriots had posted the worst win-loss record in the NFL, finishing last or second-to-last in their division and racking up only 14 wins against 50 losses.â€

“Before Kraft took over, the Patriots had never sold out, forcing TV broadcasters to black out the team's home games in New England, now the fifth-largest market in the country. Then Kraft stepped in. He initiated a marketing campaign that promised to bring a championship to New England. The new owner rode around in a golf cart before home games, high-fiving fans at tailgate parties. Before the season began, he had sold 40,000 season tickets, a franchise record. He has sold out every home game since--and has a waiting list of 50,000 people seeking future season tickets.â€

“The old Foxboro Stadium, unfriendly and uncomfortable, had no higher-priced club seats and only 38 suites; it brought in barely enough money to service Kraft's debt…In 2001 the Patriots won their first Super Bowl, led by a cast of selfless team players including quarterback Tom Brady and wide receiver Troy Brown, an eighth-round selection in 1993.The next year the team moved into Kraft's new Gillette Stadium, with 80 posh suites that rent for $165,000 apiece per season, 6,000 club seats and two club rooms, which are rented out most every day of the year for weddings, business meetings and bar mitzvahs. Revenue is up 50-fold over old Foxboro to more than $90 million. …The new site cost $350 million to build, all of which is privately financed. The Patriots are one of only four NFL teams that own their stadiums (Carolina, Miami and Washington are the others).â€

*************
So basically, Kraft bought a crappy team…(let’s say the Arizona Cardinals), spent a lot of time and money and turned them into the 49ers of the 80s and early 90s. He took a low revenue team and made it a high revenue team. I know that all NFL owners need to think about the big picture and share with the other owners but I also know that Kraft worked hard to make the team profitable and it kind of stinks that he needs to send the money to teams that simply don’t try as hard. I know the players are the stars that drive the league but without any owners there is no league.

Nobody is forcing the players to play. They can get a regular job like the rest of us. Also, why is the NFL considered a monopoly? The players have other options. They could play in the Arena Football League (average salary sits at about $36,000. - http://www.tennessean.com/sports/kats/archives/05/01/64685530.shtml?Element_ID=64685530).
They could play in the Canadian Football League ($55,000 *Salary figures are in Canadian dollars. http://www.combines.com/leagues/cfl.asp)
Granted, the pay there is bad but they have a choice.

If the players union really wants to help the players it should worry more about fixing the rookie pay issue. Here is a look at some of the guys from 2001 that were overpaid:
Pick Player Name Team Position College
3 3 Joey Harrington Lions QB Oregon ($13 million signing bonus)
4 4 Mike Williams Bills T Texas ($7.5 million signing bonus)
5 5 Quentin Jammer Chargers DB Texas ($6 million signing bonus)
6 6 Ryan Sims Chiefs DT North Carolina ($9.8 million signing bonus)

The poster child – after QB Ryan Leaf – for how screwed up this system is, is DE Jamal Reynolds. The Packers took him with the 10th pick in the 2001 draft and gave him a deal “worth $9.011 million over five years and includes a $4 million signing bonus and a guaranteed option payment of $2 million [the following] spring. Reynolds will earn annual base salaries of $667,000 (2001), $337,750 (2002), $505,500 (2003), $667,250 (2004) and $834,000 (2005). The cap value for the 2001 season is $1.467 million.

Reynolds was an absolute bust in GB only lasting 3 years. In three seasons, he was active for 22 of a possible 53 games. He recorded three sacks, six knockdowns, 6.5 hurries, 11 solo tackles and one-half tackle for loss.

So he got $7.5 million dollars (bonuses and salary for 3 years) for 11 tackles and 3 sacks. You wonder why guys like Richard Seymour want big raises.

The league needs to limit what a rookie can make over their first 3 years and then make them a restricted free agent - no exclusive free agents. If they are worth it the team will THEN have to pony up and pay. If they aren’t then they can be released into unrestricted free agency. This will save the owners millions in wasted signing bonuses, free up more money to pay the good players who have earned it.

 

[ilduce06410]

read the tax law for nfl stadiums again

Assuming you're not demanding that everyone in the NFL give up everything more than they need, I'm assuming your Dictionary Definition mindset is more focused on the word "deserves".

We've been over this before so I won't bore people with the same debate, but if you need "real" nubmers than Gillete Stadium cost about $325 million to build, all of which was financed by Robert Kraft. Other owners have required that taxpayers pay for the construction of their stadium. That's $0.00.

Owners who haven't incurred such costs don't "deserve" an equal share of revneue those stadiums generate. Players who don't incur such costs don't "deserve" an equal share of all the revenues those staduims generate.

Do the players desere some? No doubt. How much? That's what they are trying to figure out.

The problem comes in that unless the owners can first agree how to fairly divide revenues among themselves, the players then can't get their share without hurting the "have not" teams - destroying the parity of the league in a way you say you hope to avoid.

kraft has taken serious risks, with aplomb, with this franchise. he's got some serious courage. 've written about it before.
but stadiums are not much of a risk for nfl owners. they get an accelerated depreciation on their stadiums that's worth about $30 million a year to kraft.
of course, tax breaks are only valuable if you show a profit, and thus a tax liability on your return. think kraft shows a tprofit on returns for the stadium?
as for the players, IMO the nfl has gotten so that players risk ending their careers and permanent disabilities every play they're on the field. practice or games.

 

[JR4]

......
We've been over this before so I won't bore people with the same debate, but if you need "real" nubmers than Gillete Stadium cost about $325 million to build, all of which was financed by Robert Kraft. Other owners have required that taxpayers pay for the construction of their stadium. That's $0.00.

......

Again numbers you thow out without reference. What about the other
31 owners?
The $325 M ... is that accurate? What about the amount Foxboro paid that
is being repaid by Bob Kraft and will get forgiven after 10 years if not paid off?
Is that part of the $325 million? See there are a lot of details that may or may
not have come as hype and justification attempts and many facts that
are unknown to you or anyone outside the parties involved in the CBA
negotiations.
I doubt we can have access to all the information. Maybe a group
of owners does have it ... maybe the players have it. Maybe if we could
know all the details we'd really see who is being the most greedy.

Bottom line for me until proven otherwise .... they are all being greedy and
no party is off the hook and this sitution may end up very bad for all.

 

[shatch62]

Bottom line for me until proven otherwise .... they are all being greedy and
no party is off the hook and this sitution may end up very bad for all.

I never said owners are "off the hook" I just said if the players don't want to play in the NFL for the salaries that are being offered, don't play. If the players want to strike, hire replacements. If they want to play, great. If the cap goes away and we go back to the days where the 49ers and the Cowboys sign all the great players again, so be it. The league will suffer, revenue will go down - both in tickets as well as TV contracts. If that is what will happen fine.

 

[JR4]

.................. If that is what will happen fine.

Fine ??? Whatever ..... enjoy your money bought hollow championships.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Show me the money!

That's what it's all about right now. It will get fixed and I don't care who gets the money as long as the Patriots have enough to do what they need to do.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Dr. Z has an interesting take on all of this. He thinks it's just a sham crisis to get Upshaw off the hook for the lousy deal he's bargained for most rank and file "members" over the years. The NFLPA, like is brother union in MLB, has always just been a loose association representing the interest of the stars of the league. What they haven't done for the average player who plays 3-5 years if lucky and faces all sorts of physical disabilities for the remainder of his life is just pathetic.

The model Kraft employs here in NE - spreading the wealth - would be a laudable goal if the have not's and the union didn't just really want more wealth spread to line the pockets of the select few, themselves and their present and future stars.

"Looming over the NFL is the specter of the uncapped season and the expiration of the current collective bargaining agreement. I say looming, but it's not as if this thing were waiting to happen within a week or two. It's more than a year away.

Club officials are calling this a crisis situation, but in my gut, I have an odd feeling that a scenario is being played out here. Company unions always have made me nervous, and that's the way I read the NFL Players Association. The fact that Gene Upshaw and Paul Tagliabue have been going arm and arm through life does not give me the warm feeling that others read into this relationship. I've always preferred any union to which I belonged to at least maintain a certain wariness, if not a downright adversarial relationship, toward management.

I might be totally off base ... this is just an uneasy feeling, mind you ... but I get this sneaking suspicion that this crisis is somewhat contrived. I see a last-minute settlement and hurrahs all around. Good old Tags, good old Gene, buddies again.

The Players Association's guiding principle, ever since the advent of free agency, seems to be money, particularly at the higher salary levels. But lately a number of retired veterans have been voicing protests about what they perceive as the NFL's great deficiency in pension and retirement benefits, especially for players suffering crippling injuries and financial problems. Upshaw and the Players Association have been criticized just as heavily as the league in this matter.

"It's the deep, dark secret nobody wants to talk about," former Raider and current Fox studio analyst Howie Long told the Charlotte Observer's Charles Chandler last month. Thirteen Hall of Famers contacted for Chandler's piece agreed that the league and the NFLPA are sorely deficient in this area. Mercury Morris has submitted a statement to the Washington, D.C., Bar accusing the league's Retirement Board of double dealing and a conflict of interest.

I keep getting information about this growing sense of unrest. During Super Bowl week I thought for sure that it would surface at the union's Thursday afternoon press conference and we'd see some real fireworks. But the dissident alumni stayed away. Maybe they were told that they wouldn't be welcome, but still, someone representing them should have shown up. Instead we had to listen to a lot of blah blah on what a great job the NFLPA was doing.

For some people."



http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/dr_z/02/22/notes/index.html

 

[JoeSixPat]

Again numbers you thow out without reference. What about the other 31 owners?

The $325 M ... is that accurate?

Bottom line for me until proven otherwise .... they are all being greedy and
no party is off the hook and this sitution may end up very bad for all.

You're really stretching if you're basing your argument on the hope that the $325 mil isn't accurate. Maybe its $275 million - maybe its $400 million. Does that really make a difference?

And did you REALLY NOT KNOW that there are teams that have taxpayer funded stadiums? You really need me to prove it to you?

This is not secret information that someone is conspiring to keep from you. Do a Google search. St. Louis, Atlanta, NY, Green Bay, and Kansas City to name just a few have stadiums mostly or fully financed by public bond.

Your original thesis was that Bob Kraft and the successful owners were the only ones at fault.

If you've now come around to realize that- everyone - the players, the successful owners, and the less than successful owners, want to make as much money as possible, I'm in agreement with you. I suppose you could even say they are all greedy.

But for the purposes of this situation it should be acknowledged that the owners who had the taxpayers finance their stadiums - who have not run successful operations - and who are now demanding additional revenuesharing from those owners that chose a more responsible course are the MOST culpable in this.

If they would be reasonable and compromise on this issue there would likely be an agreement reached.

 

[spacecrime]

Fine ??? Whatever ..... enjoy your money bought hollow championships.

What? The NFL had championships before the cap. Are you saying every championship team, every superbowl winner, from the beginning until the mid-90's are hollow championships.

That's just sour grapes.

The NFL will be finewith or without a cap. I watched it and enjoyed it for years before there was a cap.

If you think all it takes to win a championship is to get a bunch of players that you think are the best at thieri positions, then you are wrong wronf wrong.

The 2001 Pats were in Cap Hell. Most of teh team that went on the field worked off of veteran minimum contracts.

A sizeable part of money spent that year was dead money.

St Louis Rams, in contrast, had much better players that the Pats.

Who won?

The same thing that happened in 2001 will happen again and again without a cap. Some clubs will invest in high profile "can't miss" prospects. The will collect an amazing array of talent that will be the envy of the talking heads. They will win every game played on paper.

On the field, they will face clubs with lesser payrolls that have put together a TEAM that plays better together.

Stats don't win games, and while you can buy stats, you can't buy team chemistry.

You sound like wRONg Borges, with an ax to grind against the Pats. There are 32 teams negotiating, and a union representing hundreds of players.

It isn't one guy's problem.

ps I'm not employed right now. I want to see Pats games as much as employed people. Please PM me so I can give you the address you can send tickets to. Please buy two for each game (my wife is employed but doesn't make much money.) We don't like the third deck or end zone. You may have to take out a loan to pay for the tickets (like Kraft did to build the stadium) but that doesn't matter to me. We are only talking REVENUE, and you have more than me. SHARE IT!

 

[JR4]

What? The NFL had championships before the cap. Are you saying every championship team, every superbowl winner, from the beginning until the mid-90's are hollow championships.

That's just sour grapes.

The NFL will be finewith or without a cap. I watched it and enjoyed it for years before there was a cap.

If you think all it takes to win a championship is to get a bunch of players that you think are the best at thieri positions, then you are wrong wronf wrong.

The 2001 Pats were in Cap Hell. Most of teh team that went on the field worked off of veteran minimum contracts.

A sizeable part of money spent that year was dead money.

St Louis Rams, in contrast, had much better players that the Pats.

Who won?

The same thing that happened in 2001 will happen again and again without a cap. Some clubs will invest in high profile "can't miss" prospects. The will collect an amazing array of talent that will be the envy of the talking heads. They will win every game played on paper.

On the field, they will face clubs with lesser payrolls that have put together a TEAM that plays better together.

Stats don't win games, and while you can buy stats, you can't buy team chemistry.

You sound like wRONg Borges, with an ax to grind against the Pats. There are 32 teams negotiating, and a union representing hundreds of players.

It isn't one guy's problem.

ps I'm not employed right now. I want to see Pats games as much as employed people. Please PM me so I can give you the address you can send tickets to. Please buy two for each game (my wife is employed but doesn't make much money.) We don't like the third deck or end zone. You may have to take out a loan to pay for the tickets (like Kraft did to build the stadium) but that doesn't matter to me. We are only talking REVENUE, and you have more than me. SHARE IT!

Prior to CAP it was easier to put together Championship teams and maintain
them ... aka: dynasties were born. Even Players who played then admit to
this fact as Aikman for example has admitted on several occassions.

But that was then ...
today we have owners who are Billionairs. No CAP means teams can buy
the best talent available. For example a Belichick coached team with the
Best talent money can buy would be near impossible to beat.

Great for PAts fans but I would feel hollow even though my team was
a dynasty for 2 decades. Why? I mean if you got the money and you buy the best coaches and the best players then the outcome is expected to be a
championship. What's so great about that?

The way it is today, with the CAP the Draft setup, tends to try and keep
ALL teams competitive not just the wealthy teams. IMO, that's the way it
should be.

I am for keeping things the way they are so even teams like the Browns
or the Saints have a real shot at making the big dance if they get the
coaching and some decent talent.

Hey your entitled to your opinion. If you want the teams that spend the most
money to be year to year play off contenders then you may get it.

Sour grapes about what? This is just my preference and just one opionion
about the kind of NFL desired.

"On the field, they will face clubs with lesser payrolls that have put together a TEAM that plays better together."
Right ... ????

Your example of the 2001 PATs is about a team coached by one of the best
coaches ever and is an example of one of the biggest upsets in NFL
history. Hardly the norm.

No "ax to grind against the Pats". I love my Patriots. I also love the NFL and
don't want to see it change for the worst which, IMO, a CAPless NFL would
be.

About your ps, sorry you are unemployed and hope you find what you are
looking for. I have no tickets to send.

 

[JR4]

You're really stretching if you're basing your argument on the hope that the $325 mil isn't accurate. Maybe its $275 million - maybe its $400 million. Does that really make a difference?

well people keep saying how big a deal it was the B.Kraft put $350M
of his own money so he needs a lot of revenue to offset that investment.
If it's no big deal why do people keep using it to justify not sharing certain revenues?


.........

Your original thesis was that Bob Kraft and the successful owners were the only ones at fault.

I suppose you are refering to that other thread. Yes I was keying in
on the undesignated revenues in that thread. But that didn't mean that
all other parties did not have faults.


....... I suppose you could even say they are all greedy.

Agree


But for the purposes of this situation it should be acknowledged that the owners who had the taxpayers finance their stadiums - who have not run successful operations - and who are now demanding additional revenuesharing from those owners that chose a more responsible course are the MOST culpable in this.

without more facts .... I have to disagree.
If you have FACTS, not opinions, to support your claim that they are the
"MOST culable", I would like to read about it.



If they would be reasonable and compromise on this issue there would likely be an agreement reached.

YES YES YES! I agree with your last statement here .... 100%!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[JoeSixPat]

well people keep saying how big a deal it was the B.Kraft put $350M
of his own money so he needs a lot of revenue to offset that investment.

If it's no big deal why do people keep using it to justify not sharing certain revenues?

I'm a bit confused by your response. As you said, people are saying its a big deal to pony up $350 million. NO ONE is saying its "no big deal".

Kraft felt he could afford to do that under the existing rules. Now some of the owners - including those that built their stadiums on the backs of taxpayers - want to change the rules on Kraft and other owners. That's unfair.


without more facts .... I have to disagree.
If you have FACTS, not opinions, to support your claim that they are the
"MOST culable", I would like to read about it.

It is my OPINOIN that the irresponsible, unsuccessful owners should not expect the responsible, succesful owners to share their profits with them.

I would think a contrary opinion to that would be on very thin ice.

The FACT is, there is a disagreement among owners holding up a CBA.

The FACT is, the disagreement centers on whether successful, responsible owners have an obligation to bail out the irresponsible unsuccessful owners.

My OPINION is that Kraft and owners in similar sitautions are in the right. However I expect all will have to compromise. There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution here. But having the Players Union can also help by not demanding too much of the additional revnues for themselves too.

 

[spacecrime]

I was responding to your comment that future championships would be hollow and that the NFL would be ruined without a cap. Past championships were not hollow and that the NFL was fun before and during the cap, and will be fun after the cap.

About your ps, sorry you are unemployed and hope you find what you are
looking for. I have no tickets to send.

Send me money, I will buy them myself.

Think for a minute. Or, like Kraft, stand by your guns and refuse to share the benefits of your hard work with lazy shiftless me.

This is exactly what owners with money are telling owners without money. You have no more an obligation to give me money to buy me tickets than Kraft has to give anyone else money to buy players.

 

[mikey]

HAre the players justified in asking for more? Within reason, I think they are - just as long as they realize that in fairness they need to acknowledge the hundreds of millions of dollars in overhead paid for by the NFL owners.

I thought NFL players have the worst deal of all professional sports.

They are the ones who are most susceptible to career-ending injury, yet they don't have any guaranteed contract.

They also have the shortest career, yet they have very little post-retirement pension or medical benefit. Most players end up shouldering their own medical expenses from their own pocket.

In contrast to the players, NFL owners have the best deal in professional sports, often at the expense of the players. The worst NFL team is worth more than the best NBA team.


.

 

[mikey]

kraft has taken serious risks, with aplomb, with this franchise. he's got some serious courage. 've written about it before.
but stadiums are not much of a risk for nfl owners. they get an accelerated depreciation on their stadiums that's worth about $30 million a year to kraft.
of course, tax breaks are only valuable if you show a profit, and thus a tax liability on your return. think kraft shows a tprofit on returns for the stadium?
as for the players, IMO the nfl has gotten so that players risk ending their careers and permanent disabilities every play they're on the field. practice or games.

The reality is that NFL owners take VERY LITTLE risks, including Bob Kraft.

Their shared revenue from TV alone is greater than the salary cap.

That means their variable income is guranteed to be greater than their variable expense.

This leaves the owner to worry only about fixed expense and overhead, which they can easily manage and control.

The fact is that even the worst teams, the Saints and lions, are making serious money.

Bob Kraft likes to mention that he invested $350M of his own money on the team and stadium. But he won't tell you that that investment is now worth over $1.2 B.

And the only reason he has such astounding return on his invesment is because of the league popularity due to the sharing-of-wealth economic model.

.