Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Ring 6]

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.

Its an impossible argument to have.
IMO, it is the competitiveness of the games and the perception that these are the best that attracts the fans, not the individual abilities of the players.
If none of the current 1700 or so NFL players had chosen football as a career, you would never know they existed and would view the next best 1700 as the best there is, and marvel at their abilities.
In fact, as we have seen in other sports, which has not impacted the NFL yet, when they become global there are many great athletes from other parts of the world that are better than many of the American professionals.
Would you miss some of the greatest players in the league if they have never become football players? Hard to say yes when you don't miss the great ones from countries that don't play football, because you don't know they exist.

Football's popularity, IMO, is first and foremost the game, secondly the job the league has done in marketing it (for an example look at the NBA pre- and post-Stern. Same great athletes with remarkably different popularity levels) and 3rd the perception that these are the greatest players in the world, enhanced somewhat by the individual skills demonstrated by the best players.
The top players end up tremendously popular, but in their absence someone else would have taken their place.

 

[Ring 6]

I don't harbor any hate toward the rich, just towards the greedy. The owners are making big money in a bad economy yet were so desirous for more they are willing to screw the fans and communities who made them grow for more, and that's a disgrace. I'm taking a side in it because the owners deliberately caused this out of avarice and did things that clearly demonstrated that they have zero intention of acting in good faith, and the Direct TV deal is a clear example of that, as was their "TV Insurance" deal. In truth I could care less about who gets what but i absolutely care about the ways they go about their business because that effects everyone who supports the game, and in this case the owners behavior has been a complete disgrace.


I'm fine with people making all sorts of money on their businesses and believe hard work and innovation deserves reward, what i do take issue with is greed and people taking advantage of others and workers simply because they can get away with it, however I realize that is now considered the "american way," and greed is actually celebrated by many, and that imo is as warped as it gets.

You keep calling them 'greedy'. Greedy is defined as an EXCESSIVE desire for money.
Note it is not defined as a desire for an EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

The question becomes where do you draw the line of excessive?
You seem to be basing it on the amount of money they have.
Is there a return on their investment that trips the wire to excessive?

Is not wanting to pay more than you need to or feel you should have to for labor and excessive desire for money?
The owners feel they have overpaid their labor. They are taking the steps available to them to deal with that issue. You really have no clue whether the players share is excessive compared to the profits the owners retain, or vice versa.

But you should consider another side of this issue.

The owners agreed to the last CBA, preventing a work stoppage. They accepted a deal only with an opt out provision, and the deal turned out to be so poor for them, that they opted out at the first option.
Given that the players get half of the revenues, but the owners must pay all of the expenses of the franchise out of their half, why would we not consider the players demands in the last CBA, the ones that the owners begrudgingly accepted to be the case of greed, which has caused all of the events that followed?
How is that any less reasonable than your opinion that without knowing what the owners make you have decided its enough and they are greedy bastards for not shutting up and taking whatever crumbs the union offers?

 

[lamafist]

When signing bonusses continue to grow and become a larger portion of the cap, it creates an issue with cap management and expenditures. You can ignore it all you want, and you can pretend that it won't have an impact, but you are simply ignoring the facts.
The purpose of the cap is to keep teams competitive with each other. To say they can just stop handing out bonusses or cut players is naive to the issue.

I really don't understand how you don't see that signing bonuses cause CAP constraints, but allow for CASH flexibility. It shouldn't be that hard a concept to understand. The NFL's practice of having guaranteed money given out as signing bonuses and not guaranteed contracts would actually be HELPFUL when it comes to periods of declining revenue.

 

[lamafist]

Not at all absurd, in fact they illustrate just how absurd the posters idea is. Taking away property because you do not like the way it is being used is not the way this country operates. Using an example of breaking the law shows the weakness of your argument.

Uh, yes, it is how this country operates, when deemed necessary. It's called eminent domain.

I can't really see a scenario in which it would ever be likely to be employed on the NFL, though.

 

[Ring 6]

I really don't understand how you don't see that signing bonuses cause CAP constraints, but allow for CASH flexibility. It shouldn't be that hard a concept to understand. The NFL's practice of having guaranteed money given out as signing bonuses and not guaranteed contracts would actually be HELPFUL when it comes to periods of declining revenue.

That just makes no sense. When you amortize a signing bonus, that means you spend more than the cap.
If you give a $10,000,000 signing bonus over a 5 year contract, it costs you $10,000,000 of cash now and only 2mill of it on the cap. You are cash over cap of 8mill.
Your solution apparantly is to cut that player and get nothing for the amortized cost, so that you can pay a new player a new signing bonus.
Doesnt work that way.

 

[Ring 6]

Uh, yes, it is how this country operates, when deemed necessary. It's called eminent domain.

I can't really see a scenario in which it would ever be likely to be employed on the NFL, though.

You should study up on what eminent domain is, how it can be applied and what circumstances it can be used under.
Taking away someones business because they are in a labor negotiation is about as good an example as saying Obama is going to take my sons piggy bank because the government is broke.

 

[lamafist]

Its an impossible argument to have.
IMO, it is the competitiveness of the games and the perception that these are the best that attracts the fans, not the individual abilities of the players.
If none of the current 1700 or so NFL players had chosen football as a career, you would never know they existed and would view the next best 1700 as the best there is, and marvel at their abilities.
In fact, as we have seen in other sports, which has not impacted the NFL yet, when they become global there are many great athletes from other parts of the world that are better than many of the American professionals.
Would you miss some of the greatest players in the league if they have never become football players? Hard to say yes when you don't miss the great ones from countries that don't play football, because you don't know they exist.

Football's popularity, IMO, is first and foremost the game, secondly the job the league has done in marketing it (for an example look at the NBA pre- and post-Stern. Same great athletes with remarkably different popularity levels) and 3rd the perception that these are the greatest players in the world, enhanced somewhat by the individual skills demonstrated by the best players.
The top players end up tremendously popular, but in their absence someone else would have taken their place.

The argument of the necessity of owners vs. players is actually pretty easy to have, when you consider that the Packers success both on the field and as a brand proves that owners aren't necessary at all.

I also think that it's crazy to suggest that it's only the perception of talent that really matters to NFL football fans. I mean, go watch the college game, or the UFL, or the old NFL Europe games. Heck, watch the Cardinals vs. the 9ers on MNF this past season. The difference isn't subtle. Bad teams simply can't execute all the plays that talented teams can. Watching them try and fail to complete a pass or get their blockers on the same page is like watching a turtle on its back try to flip itself back over. It's no better when the teams realize how bad they are and start reigning in the playbook and run the same three plays over and over.

As for cautionary tales from other sports -- looks what happened to the NBA, NHL and MLB when they over-expanded in the 90's, thinned out the talent pool, and reduced the quality of the games. Their playoff games get crushed in the ratings by a half-way decent primetime NFL game. Quality of play matter, and not only as a matter of perception.

Also, I don't think it's relevant to pretend like people wouldn't know they're not watching the best players. This isn't a hypothetical mental exercise; the players' popularity and reputation, their ability to draw ratings based on name-recognition, these are assets they bring to the table that they have every reason to expect to be paid for.

 

[peterforpats]

You can say that till your blue in the face but i want you to show me how Bob Kraft is a lying cheating crook. How is having the legal right of privacy wrong? (1st of all someone on a message board not using their real name yelling "transparency for all" is a bit rich) No one has the right to go up to you and say show me how much you earn, how much you bought last year, how you spent your money then tell you how you should do it. If you think that's wrong then i don't know how me arguing with you will help.

2nd once again as no one with your position has rebutted me on this issue i will ask again: How is allowing an interdependent auditor in to look at the owners books to make sure their claims are founded and their numbers correct and true... how did you put it? make them Lying, Greedy or Crooks?

Don't take my money if you want to remain private? hahaha you ever paid a plumber? builder? corner store? IT guy? Doctor? this line of thought (if i can call it that) is ridiculous

i said bob kraft used his own money, but how many owners use public funds(that's what i mean by my money) to line their pockets, grow the value of their teams and continually put out a lousy product? even with the anti-trust exemption allowing a draft, how come some teams always stink even getting the first choices? they stink at their jobs and now the league players need to give them back a billion dollars more than the last contract because they didn't make enough?this league is the haves and have nots in their ability to run a team and just like everywhere the incompetents want more. just because they're private owners they can do whatever they want whenever they want to? then why not dissolve the league start anew league with non-union players and make as much as they want? instead they choose to negotiate with the players, so if the tactics bother them find another business. oh that's right they're to busy laughing all the way to the bank.

 

[lamafist]

You should study up on what eminent domain is, how it can be applied and what circumstances it can be used under.
Taking away someones business because they are in a labor negotiation is about as good an example as saying Obama is going to take my sons piggy bank because the government is broke.

Maybe you're the one who ought to go crack a book or two, smart guy.

As I said, it's not going to happen w/r/t to football, but it is very much a part of our country's history.

 

[jsull87]

i said bob kraft used his own money, but how many owners use public funds(that's what i mean by my money) to line their pockets, grow the value of their teams and continually put out a lousy product? even with the anti-trust exemption allowing a draft, how come some teams always stink even getting the first choices? they stink at their jobs and now the league players need to give them back a billion dollars more than the last contract because they didn't make enough?this league is the haves and have nots in their ability to run a team and just like everywhere the incompetents want more. just because they're private owners they can do whatever they want whenever they want to? then why not dissolve the league start anew league with non-union players and make as much as they want? instead they choose to negotiate with the players, so if the tactics bother them find another business. oh that's right they're to busy laughing all the way to the bank.

First of all because that would be a ridiculous business decision as it would be an inferior product and they would lose money on existing merchandise. The tactics did bother them... and they did lock them out don't know why they would need to find another business (although they do have other businesses... profitable ones). Second of all what the hell is your point... of coarse there are winners and losers... thats sport. A team has to win the superbowl and a team has to come last. Yeah there are poorly run teams... so? what is the point your trying to make? They own the team they can pick it up and move it to another city if they want to. There is a draft to help keep the league competitive why are you even bringing that up i think everyone agrees a draft is good for the league.

Have i taken crazy pills here. i wrote a response to your view of the owners, you don't give me any evidence of them being crooks like you were saying. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Ring 6]

Maybe you're the one who ought to go crack a book or two, smart guy.

As I said, it's not going to happen w/r/t to football, but it is very much a part of our country's history.

The concept is a part of history, your understanding of it is incorrect.
But go ahead learned one, and cite me all of the precedents where eminant domain has been enforced that would be examples of taking away someones business because they had a labor dispute, or anything even remotely similar.
Your "No, Im right because I say so" attitude is tiresome.

 

[townes]

You keep calling them 'greedy'. Greedy is defined as an EXCESSIVE desire for money.
Note it is not defined as a desire for an EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

The question becomes where do you draw the line of excessive?
You seem to be basing it on the amount of money they have.
Is there a return on their investment that trips the wire to excessive?

Is not wanting to pay more than you need to or feel you should have to for labor and excessive desire for money?
The owners feel they have overpaid their labor. They are taking the steps available to them to deal with that issue. You really have no clue whether the players share is excessive compared to the profits the owners retain, or vice versa.

But you should consider another side of this issue.

The owners agreed to the last CBA, preventing a work stoppage. They accepted a deal only with an opt out provision, and the deal turned out to be so poor for them, that they opted out at the first option.
Given that the players get half of the revenues, but the owners must pay all of the expenses of the franchise out of their half, why would we not consider the players demands in the last CBA, the ones that the owners begrudgingly accepted to be the case of greed, which has caused all of the events that followed?
How is that any less reasonable than your opinion that without knowing what the owners make you have decided its enough and they are greedy bastards for not shutting up and taking whatever crumbs the union offers?

Andy, your position is that the owners alone are the arbiters of how much is too much, so there is no response that is suitable because you have already decided that no limit is the only limit, whereas I believe that communities have invested heavily in these franchises by building infrastructure and stadiums for the franchises and therefore they have a stake in it too. You are also claiming that it is the business acumen of the owners that made the game grow while also claiming they are such poor businessmen that they made a deal that they aren't making enough money and need to shut down the game entirely to be able to make enough.

Bottom line--You think the owners can do whatever they want and i think that they have a responsibility to the game and community to deal fairly, and not simply to maximize profits. Nothing is going to change either opinion, and the only thing that may change is my desire to continue to support football. I doubt they'll miss it if i shut it off and stop going to games but that simply demonstrates that they really don't give a sh.t whether they turn off their lifelong fans for good, as money is all that matters to them.


As for what is and isn't "american" I agree with you that all that matters in america is money and profit, there no longer is any sense whatsoever that community, justice, and decency matter, and money is god to many if not most americans. Imo that's a shame but it is what it is, and money matters people don't, that's the "american" way.

I'm glad i'm not really "american."

 

[Ring 6]

The argument of the necessity of owners vs. players is actually pretty easy to have, when you consider that the Packers success both on the field and as a brand proves that owners aren't necessary at all.

The Packers are part of the league, and benefit from the marketing efforts that have enhanced the popularity of the league. They are managed under the same system created by the owners. Your argument fails to recognize any of that.

I also think that it's crazy to suggest that it's only the perception of talent that really matters to NFL football fans.

Well thats not what I said now is it. I said the competiveness of the game is #1. If you peel off the top layer of talent, and keep the competitiveness you would lose very little popularity, certainly less than has been gained by the massive marketing efforts.

I mean, go watch the college game,

What is wrong with college football?

or the UFL, or the old NFL Europe games.

Again, they are clearly inferior, minor leagues. Irrelevant to my point.

Heck, watch the Cardinals vs. the 9ers on MNF this past season.

Did people stop attending and watching their games?

The difference isn't subtle. Bad teams simply can't execute all the plays that talented teams can.

Whatever the level of play, if it is considered the best, and is competitive you could say exactly the same thing. They would also be executing it against lesser competition, in the fantasy world that I started out by saying you can't really gauge.

Watching them try and fail to complete a pass or get their blockers on the same page is like watching a turtle on its back try to flip itself back over. It's no better when the teams realize how bad they are and start reigning in the playbook and run the same three plays over and over.

That is simply ridiculous. There are over 100 college teams that do not do that.

As for cautionary tales from other sports -- looks what happened to the NBA, NHL and MLB when they over-expanded in the 90's, thinned out the talent pool, and reduced the quality of the games. Their playoff games get crushed in the ratings by a half-way decent primetime NFL game. Quality of play matter, and not only as a matter of perception.

There is absolutely no causation to justify your argument. The NBAs popularity has soared. Baseball continues to set attendane records.
NFL is watched because of the game and its competitiveness, so NFL having higher ratings than baseball has nothing to do with this discussion.

Also, I don't think it's relevant to pretend like people wouldn't know they're not watching the best players.

Why? They aren't now. There are many athletes throughout the world who play other sports who would be superstar NFL players but are not. You dont seem to know that.

This isn't a hypothetical mental exercise;/quote]
Yes it 100% is.

the players' popularity and reputation, their ability to draw ratings based on name-recognition, these are assets they bring to the table that they have every reason to expect to be paid for.

Which is EXACTLY why this is hypothetical because if those individual name players had never chosen football as a career, there would be other ones in their places with just as much popularity. You seem to be missing the concept here. No one is saying their popularity isn't real, but if you open your mind an inch, we are discussing WHY that popularity exists.
Your argument appears to be 'they are popular, so they are the reason they are popular, and nothing else could be the reason, because they are popular'. Actors are popular because of the roles they play. If all of Harrison Fords roles had gone to a different actor, in your world no one would have watched the movies.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, your position is that the owners alone are the arbiters of how much is too much, so there is no response that is suitable because you have already decided that no limit is the only limit,

No. I have said it is their business so it is their right to run it how they see fit. You have called them greedy without even knowing how much they make. That is why I am asking you to define greedy. Capitalism defined by position, I don't know what defines yours.

whereas I believe that communities have invested heavily in these franchises by building infrastructure and stadiums for the franchises and therefore they have a stake in it too.

They invested in order to have a team, and all of the economic advantages that provides. They didnt build stadiums so they could claim the team if they thought the players should get raises.

quote]You are also claiming that it is the business acumen of the owners that made the game grow while also claiming they are such poor businessmen that they made a deal that they aren't making enough money and need to shut down the game entirely to be able to make enough.[/quote]
I think it is indisputable that the league has done a tremendous job marketing itself. Why does that make it impossible for their hand to have been forced into agreeing to a poor deal to keep labor peace? You are asking them to do it again.

Bottom line--You think the owners can do whatever they want

I wouldn't go that far, but they certainly can negotiate for whatever they find necessary.

and i think that they have a responsibility to the game and community to deal fairly, and not simply to maximize profits.

Don't you think the fact that the players end up with 90% of the after expense money says they have dealt fairly with them all along? You seem to think disagreement=unfairness by owners. I don't understand why you feel one side is to blame and the other is innocent.

Nothing is going to change either opinion, and the only thing that may change is my desire to continue to support football. I doubt they'll miss it if i shut it off and stop going to games but that simply demonstrates that they really don't give a sh.t whether they turn off their lifelong fans for good, as money is all that matters to them.

But its a business. And no they don't care if you turn off the game if they can market and get 2 new fans to replace you.
I think this is where we diverge. Being a fan doesn't buy you the loyalty of the team owner. Its ludicrous to suggest that the owners will accpet a deal they are unhappy with, one they feel they will do better than, even in court, because there is a potential, possible threat to games being missed. Games are more than 5 months away. You haven't been hurt yet. You are asking the owners to take it on the chin (compared to what THEY feel is FAIR) because the union played hardball. Why would they do that?

As for what is and isn't "american" I agree with you that all that matters in america is money and profit,

Wrong. All that matters to a company is making profits becuase that is why they exist.

there no longer is any sense whatsoever that community, justice, and decency matter, and money is god to many if not most americans.

I don't know what you do for a living but if you work in the private sector you go to work everyday to do your part to maximize the profits of your company. They pay you to do so. That is not greed.
Your employer is not responsible for your sense of community, justice, decency and god. The company exists to make money. It expects everyone to do their best, which results in maximizing profits. They do not ask you to bang your neighbors wife, break the law, or pray to false idols, just to do your job.

Imo that's a shame but it is what it is, and money matters people don't, that's the "american" way.

I'm glad i'm not really "american."

Money matters when it is time to make money.
If your boss came to you tomorrow and said we want to help the community so we will donate half of your pay to charity, would money matter more to you then?

I'm not really here to debate morality. I'm just stating that businesses exist to earn profits, and to expect them to operate contrary to that is naive.

You didnt answer my question about why no blame could be placed on the players for demanding an unfair deal last time.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I'm glad i'm not really "american."

That is self evident from your repeated advocation of seizing other people's property for your personal convenience.

 

[townes]

You didnt answer my question about why no blame could be placed on the players for demanding an unfair deal last time.

How is it "unfair" when both sides made huge money off of it?




Andy, you seem to believe the owners are the aggrieved party, I don't agree and feel they have made huge money, as have the players, and had the players opted out and gone on strike for more I would be calling them greedy, ironically so would you and all the others who support the owners.


As for debating morality, you said what I was suggesting was "unamerican" which I'm guessing is some form of nationalist morality, so I responded to that. I agree with you that all that matters is to many americans is money and profit and that is now considered "THE AMERICAN WAY." I think that's unfortunate and believe our priorities should be more communal than that and believe society helps all of us succeed, we don't simply do so all by ourselves, although personal efforts certainly play the major role in success and failure none of us operate in a bubble and all of us have a responsibility to the community at large. I think this is especially true of businesses and organizations trhat rely heavily upon government support and the NFL has cedrtainly benefitted greatly from the support of the communities they operate in, and they as such have a responsibility to take more into account when making their decisions than simply their profit margin.

 

[townes]

That is self evident from your repeated advocation of seizing other people's property for your personal convenience.

True that, I'm going to make the Patriots play only for me, no-one else gets in.

 

[townes]

Your "No, Im right because I say so" attitude is tiresome.

I realize that was directed at lamafist but I don't see how it is any different than your position that the owners are right because they say so, and that they don't have to back it up in any way because they say so is all that is required of them.

 

[townes]

Somehow I doubt that all those supporting the owners also supported Orthwein when he wanted to move the Patriots, and I know for a fact that many made the argument he had no right to do so.


If I remember correctly at least one Andy Johnson was on the other side of that argument.

 

[townes]

That is self evident from your repeated advocation of seizing other people's property for your personal convenience.

Thanks, i wouldn't want anyone to think I am "american."