Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yeah, we all heard the call to "redistribute the wealth" and I'm not talking circa 1917

 

[jsull87]

The owners banned communities from owning their teams?


The list of scumbaggery grows longer by the minute.

The greenbay packers are a public company owned by their fans.... the scumbaggery continues.

Someone has tall poppy syndrome

 

[lamafist]

The greenbay packers are a public company owned by their fans.... the scumbaggery continues.

Someone has tall poppy syndrome

As I said, the Packers were grandfathered in when this rule was instated at the time of the NFL-AFL merger. The grandfather clause originally included the then-publicly-owned Patriots as an exception to the barring of publicly owned and/or non-profit NFL teams. The Pats lost the right to sell public shares of the team when Billy Sullivan bought up all of the team's shares, making it privately owned.

 

[jsull87]

As I said, the Packers were grandfathered in when this rule was instated at the time of the NFL-AFL merger. The grandfather clause originally included the then-publicly-owned Patriots as an exception to the barring of publicly owned and/or non-profit NFL teams. The Pats lost the right to sell public shares of the team when Billy Sullivan bought up all of the team's shares, making it privately owned.

Kraft can take his company public whenever he wants as long as it's operations are not "partially" to do with football, they have to be wholey based on football activities. It's not "scumbaggery" as that guy said. I know both sides have valid arguments but i just can't believe some of the people here sometimes with the... ooo this side is evil the other side are saints.

Both sides needed to compromise.

In my opinion i thought the owners did compromise on alot of issues that the players wanted them too all except showing the NFLPA their books even though they said they would let an independent auditor go through and corroborate that they were telling the truth. I see no reason why the NFLPA can then just go nup i am taking my toys and going home.

 

[Ring 6]

But cash-over-cap amounts haven't been increasing, and in the past 10 years, only once have a majority of teams had actual player payroll expenditures higher than that year's cap. What generally has happened is a cycle in which more teams start spending cash-over-cap in anticipation of predictable jumps in the salary cap - so in the year before each TV contract renewal and every cap extension year, teams are more willing to pay more cash-over cap because they're anticipating more cap space the following year.

The thing about cash over cap expenditures is that they do all count against the cap eventually. The more cash-over-cap a team spends, the more annual dead cap space they build up, and eventually, will have to either tighten their belts in free agency and/or trade down in the draft in the future, or hope to get bailed out by a big jump in the cap, which is unlikely now that there aren't new revenue streams for the NFLPA to go after.

So there's an automatic limit built in to how much teams can spend beyond their cap means, even if teams were continuously pushing the envelope with it, which they're overwhelmingly not.

OK. So you are now using reasons that have nothing to do with the statement that you made to backup the statement that you made?
How does what has happened during increasing revenue address what would happen in the event of declining revenues, which was the point that was raised?

 

[Ring 6]

Given the investment fans and communities have made in their teams in every way I would love to see a class action suit joined by fans from all NFL cities and communities that charges the owners with abrogating the trust their stewardship of their franchises entrusts them with and turning all into publically operated companies with the current owners getting paid off by public offerings for the value of their franchises.


Works for me, we own the teams and football returns for all. Greed factor gone and it benefits everyone but the 32 owners too greedy to make it work for themselves.

Now that i think about it this also helps those 32 owners by relieving them off the costly burdens their teams have become for them and it allows them to use their money for endeavors where they can make some good money, not the pittance they receive from their NFL team's.

You are seriously suggesting that in AMERICA we legislate taking assets as large as a football franchise away from their owners?
Should we take your house away from you if you 'abrogate your duty' of being a good neighbor? How about taking away your car if you speed.
I know you are very emotional about this and bear a grudge against people who try to maximize their return on investment but you can't really be suggesting that our government be allowed to take property away from someone who isnt using it the way you wish they would, can you?

 

[Ring 6]

Yeah, we all heard the call to "redistribute the wealth" and I'm not talking circa 1917

Are you talking, maybe 91 years or so later than that?

 

[lamafist]

OK. So you are now using reasons that have nothing to do with the statement that you made to backup the statement that you made?
How does what has happened during increasing revenue address what would happen in the event of declining revenues, which was the point that was raised?

In the event of declining revenues, you refrain from handing out signing bonuses that you can't afford.

Signing bonuses front-load your actual cash expenditure in the year you hand them out -- it's only in terms of cap can you get hit by surprise, if you end up cutting a player with a couple years of amortized cap value left. If declining revenues have you concerned, signing bonuses aren't a problem -- you've already paid last years, and you can refrain from offering any new ones this year.

 

[JMarr]

You are seriously suggesting that in AMERICA we legislate taking assets as large as a football franchise away from their owners?
Should we take your house away from you if you 'abrogate your duty' of being a good neighbor? How about taking away your car if you speed.
I know you are very emotional about this and bear a grudge against people who try to maximize their return on investment but you can't really be suggesting that our government be allowed to take property away from someone who isnt using it the way you wish they would, can you?

I'm sure that's exactly what he was suggesting, Andy.

Surely you aren't as thick/obtuse as many of your posts suggest. Individuals and/or corporations shouldn't be allowed to act in a ways that are grossly detrimental to other individuals, or to society as a whole. Um, it's called 'the rule of law' and it's a concept that's been around a pretty long time. Regarding companies, it's called 'regulation'--it hasn't been around as long, but it has been vital in keeping our capitalist system intact.

Your examples are absurd. No one would suggest taking away someone's car if they drive 50 in a 35. If they rack up 10 DWI's or kill someone while driving intoxicated, then yes, the evil government might be wise to step in and take their car away.

 

[Joker]

unbelievably scintillating AND enjoyable Patriots football talk here on the Patriots football thread...to hell with the games and next season...let's blather and blither ad nauseum about what does and does not constitute a modern day NFL phlogiston theory.....:bricks:

 

[Miguel]

But the dead money was paid out, so it was still a cash cost at one point.

My main point is that since both the players and the owners had a problem with a cap floor they are going to a cash floor. Another problem with the cap floor is the use of the LTBE move which increases a team's cap number but not cash outlay.

Pushing cap room from 2007 into 2008 [Archive] - KFFL Community
Pushing cap room from 2008 into 2009

 

[TruthSeeker]

The players are irreplaceable; they represent the fraction of a percent of people who are capable of playing football at the level they do.

Actually, you've got it wrong. If every single player in the NFL today stopped playing football tomorrow and never played it again - there would still be NFL football and it would still be very popular. One of the big issues that players face is that they are very replaceable. I've read several times how it has hit players when they've been carted off with an injury to hear the roar of the crowd as the team plays its next play. Only then did they realize how insignificant they were in the greater scheme of things.

Yes, each individual player brings unique gifts to the NFL that perhaps no one else can replicate. But the NFL existed before this player was in the NFL and can still be very successful if the player gets hurt (for example) and never plays another down.

 

[townes]

You are seriously suggesting that in AMERICA we legislate taking assets as large as a football franchise away from their owners?
Should we take your house away from you if you 'abrogate your duty' of being a good neighbor? How about taking away your car if you speed.
I know you are very emotional about this and bear a grudge against people who try to maximize their return on investment but you can't really be suggesting that our government be allowed to take property away from someone who isnt using it the way you wish they would, can you?

Andy, you appear to be very emotional about this, as your analogies in your last post and the 50,000 other posts you have invested in the subject make clear, but yes, i am suggesting stripping the owners of their franchises and putting them up for public offerings so the communities who made them grow into what they are can own them. Contrary to your assertion that the franchises are the sole property of the individual owners the reality is that the owners are actually stewards of franchises that existed before their purchase and will exist after their deaths, with a few exceptions as Al may never die, or he already did and we simply can't tell the difference. The growth of these franchises is the result of decades and decades of fan and community support, and not the incredible business acumen of Ralph Wilson or Mike Brown. The game and league is bigger than the owners or the players, and both need to recognize this and act in accordance with that responsibility. The players are limited by the league in what they can make, yet you and others seem to think that the owners shouldn't be, and that their only responsibility is to make as much money as they possibly can, no matter how badly thaty screws all those who made the league what it is. The FACT is that in a sh.tty economy the football owners are making money hand over fist, and rather than acknowledge their good fortune they are exploiting the situation for even greater profit. You can be fine with that but I'm not, and I believe the owners have abrogated the trust of the communities who have supported them for almost a century and as such no longer deserve the right to own those teams. While i know this is an unpopular opinion in a country that actually celebrates greed it is still what I believe is best for all.


I know you think this is grossly unfair to the billionaire owners but given the dire straits their franchises have put them in financially I think we are really doing them a favor by removing the financial burden these franchises have put upon them and allowing them to invest their billions in something profitable for them, as apparently owning an NFL team isn't profitable enough or they wouldn't be willing to screw the communities who have supported them for a long long time for greater profit.


Let's all help these poor owners out of their bind and take responsibility for their struggling franchises.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I think your characterization of my argument as discounting the role of management in the success of the NFL is a -- perhaps unintentional -- straw man argument. My argument is that what the then-owners and commissioners' office did in the 60's and 70's is academic to the argument over today's labor situation. Nobody deserves to get paid today for what they or their successors were responsible for.

It sounds like this is the heart of the disconnect. Actually, owners should and do get paid for owning a successful franchise whether it's an NFL team, a McDonalds or a Home Depot. Just carrying on the business should reap good profits - because just carrying on the business takes a lot of work.

Are you also willing to argue that the players of today shouldn't get paid for what was built up in the last 50 years? Well, they are being paid for this, you know. They're not making the $15K or $25K of their predecessors of the 1960s, they're making $350K or $3.5 million or more. What's good for the goose is good for the gandar.

 

[TruthSeeker]

You are seriously suggesting that in AMERICA we legislate taking assets as large as a football franchise away from their owners?
Should we take your house away from you if you 'abrogate your duty' of being a good neighbor? How about taking away your car if you speed.
I know you are very emotional about this and bear a grudge against people who try to maximize their return on investment but you can't really be suggesting that our government be allowed to take property away from someone who isnt using it the way you wish they would, can you?

Hey, it's eminently reasonable. Just ask anyone.

 

[townes]

yeah, we all heard the call to "redistribute the wealth" and i'm not talking circa 1917

greed sucks.

 

[townes]

Hey, it's eminently reasonable. Just ask anyone.

Thanks. I appreciate that.


It really is good to see that someone else believes the well being of the communities who support the NFL matters more than more billions for billionaires.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

greed sucks.

Envy of those who posses what you in your self appointed arrogance decides they do not deserve sucks. Seizing personal assets of demonized targets that the crowds deem theirs leads to very bad things, that is if you've read 20th century history.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Thanks. I appreciate that.


It really is good to see that someone else believes the well being of the communities who support the NFL matters more than more billions for billionaires.

You seem to have a lot of hate for rich people and it skewing and rational view you have towards this. The owners were bargaining which is common practice in labor disputes. You can just as easily place the blame on the players for going the litigation route and not continuing to bargain.
How rich they are or how much money they may or not may not be making should have nothing to do with the discussion. You could argue players are well compensated for the short time they play in the NFL and are greedy.
I dont think the owners are acting in such bad faith that taking away their franchises should be considered. They're just bargaining and trying to get a deal that they feel comfortable with.
I see both sides just trying to get the best deal for themselves and until a game or games are missed let them have at it. If they're both stupid enough to miss games over this then they can pay the consequences then, I dont see it getting to that point.
I dont see how anyone can take one side in this dispute at this juncture unless there is some underlying bias.

 

[McCourty Island]

Actually, you've got it wrong. If every single player in the NFL today stopped playing football tomorrow and never played it again - there would still be NFL football and it would still be very popular. One of the big issues that players face is that they are very replaceable. I've read several times how it has hit players when they've been carted off with an injury to hear the roar of the crowd as the team plays its next play. Only then did they realize how insignificant they were in the greater scheme of things.

Yes, each individual player brings unique gifts to the NFL that perhaps no one else can replicate. But the NFL existed before this player was in the NFL and can still be very successful if the player gets hurt (for example) and never plays another down.

I disagree about the NFL being very popular without the current players. Yes, a single player is replaceable but not all of them in my opinion. There would be a dramatic dropoff in play if the NFL didn't have any of the current players which would effect fan interest.

Looking back to 1987 when the NFL played with replacement players the attendance and viewership were all down. Given how heavily the NFL relys on fantasy football for interest I think that would take a huge hit as well since I don't believe most people would want to draft teams of replacement players.

If it were the case that any talent level of football is popular I think you would have seen other football leagues be more successful such as the XFL or USFL. The XFL couldn't even get people to watch for free.