Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[lamafist]

I'm not trying to tell you anything, I AM telling you it happened.


Yet the Redskins are clearly more popular and have a greater fan base.
Perhaps its because while the Bills had one 4 year run, the Redskins were in the SB in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Interesting that you think the demographic that spends the most is in its early to mid 30s. You are wrong.

Doesn't matter what demo I think spends the most. What matters is what demo the advertisers are interested in, and that would be what we call in the TV business "the demo" - 18-49. 30's are right in the middle of that.

Those are not profit and loss statements. There is nothing in that article that establishes where those numbers were obtained from.


Nice articles, you should read them because they do nothing to support your viewpoint. But feel free to direct me to where it says that the NFL teams have gotten the lions share of benefit from the MASSIVE GAINS in popularity over the last 10 years.

If you think that, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

The articles discuss the more than healthy growth in revenue and rapid growth in aggregate operating income (profit) over the course of the last CBA. The 2010 franchise values shows that the league's least valuable franchise today (Jax) is more valuable than the most valuable franchise in 2000 (Redskins.) In 2000, there were no teams at $750 million yet; in 2010, only one team hasn't broken that mark, and half of the league has broken $1,000 million.

So, yeah, I think the articles support my viewpoint that the NFL has enjoyed tremendous growth over the past 10 years.

 

[Ring 6]

Doesn't matter what demo I think spends the most. What matters is what demo the advertisers are interested in, and that would be what we call in the TV business "the demo" - 18-49. 30's are right in the middle of that.

Again, you lose the point. What demographic TV advertisers target means nothing to this discussion.

If you think that, you need to work on your reading comprehension.

The articles discuss the more than healthy growth in revenue and rapid growth in aggregate operating income (profit) over the course of the last CBA. The 2010 franchise values shows that the league's least valuable franchise today (Jax) is more valuable than the most valuable franchise in 2000 (Redskins.) In 2000, there were no teams at $750 million yet; in 2010, only one team hasn't broken that mark, and half of the league has broken $1,000 million.

We are not discussing the value of the franchise we are discussing a reasonable split of revenues between players and owners, which you seem to want to base on what the owners do with their portion.
Show evidence that the profit of each team has risen more in the past 10 years than the payroll to the players, and you would be on the right track. Otherwise you are grasping at straws.

So, yeah, I think the articles support my viewpoint that the NFL has enjoyed tremendous growth over the past 10 years.

That was not your total viewpoint, your total viewpoint was that the owners benefitted more from that, or to quote

but I have a hard time believing that he's the one owner who's found a way to put money into growing your franchise and not see dividends. The NFL's massive gains in popularity over the past 10 years has been a rising tide that's carried up a lot of ships with it.

So the point was not to show the NFL grew, everyone knows that, the point was to show Ralph Wilson is the only owner who has not 'seen the dividends of it'. And to counter my point, which you disagreed with, that it seems the players have reaped more reward, and finally, to get back to your original point that how owners split their share of the revenue among themselves is relevant to negotiating the split between owners and players.
You have accomplished none of those.

 

[Miguel]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6232635

Can someone please reconcile this story with Goodell's contention that under the owners' offer there would be "a salary cap for 2011 that would avoid a negative financial impact on veteran players"? I think that getting released is a negative financial impact as is taking a pay cut.

 

[lamafist]

Again, you lose the point. What demographic TV advertisers target means nothing to this discussion.

Well, I would think popularity in the demo factors into the valuation of local endorsement and sponsorship rights. But apparently that's not the point. I still haven't quite grasped the point you were trying to make, so if you want me to stay on point, please be so kind as to clue me in.

We are not discussing the value of the franchise we are discussing a reasonable split of revenues between players and owners, which you seem to want to base on what the owners do with their portion.
Show evidence that the profit of each team has risen more in the past 10 years than the payroll to the players, and you would be on the right track. Otherwise you are grasping at straws.

That was not your total viewpoint, your total viewpoint was that the owners benefitted more from that, or to quote

So the point was not to show the NFL grew, everyone knows that, the point was to show Ralph Wilson is the only owner who has not 'seen the dividends of it'. And to counter my point, which you disagreed with, that it seems the players have reaped more reward, and finally, to get back to your original point that how owners split their share of the revenue among themselves is relevant to negotiating the split between owners and players.
You have accomplished none of those.

Actually, I was talking about the relative value of franchises, and my point was, in fact, to show that the majority of the NFL's franchises showed excellent growth in the '00s, while only a handful of franchises, like the Bills, grew anemically. Your take on my viewpoint is entirely wrong, and your notions of what I was trying to accomplish are confused.

The problem, it turns out, is that the post of mine that you quoted where I was talking about Wilson's Bills' earning relative to the Texans' and Redskins' was a response to Upstater1 from a conversation he and I were having based on Matt Light's comments about how the league's economic problems had really more to do with revenue sharing than with the owners/players split.

At the point you jumped back into the conversation, we'd moved on from the talk of the revenue split between players and owners, and were discussing instead the rapidly growing disparity in value between the NFL's richer and poorer franchises. In particular, we were focusing on what was the putative cause for the Bills' lack of revenue growth.

So, yeah, I really have no idea what you thought I was trying to say, because, as it turns out, we were having entirely different conversations.

 

[Joker]

scintillating exchanges ...I'm so interested in all this ad talk because..well..you know...I love the Pats and the NFL and enjoy watching football and second guessing the coaching and talking up players and discussing strategies and breaking down strengths and weaknesses and...wait....how did ad revenue talk insinuate itself into what is,ostensibly, a football site dedicated to the Patriots??

I'll just say this....F all this ancillary crap...F the owners...F the players...F the lawyers ,may they all rot and burn in hell for eternity.

 

[Ring 6]

Well, I would think popularity in the demo factors into the valuation of local endorsement and sponsorship rights. But apparently that's not the point. I still haven't quite grasped the point you were trying to make, so if you want me to stay on point, please be so kind as to clue me in.



Actually, I was talking about the relative value of franchises, and my point was, in fact, to show that the majority of the NFL's franchises showed excellent growth in the '00s, while only a handful of franchises, like the Bills, grew anemically. Your take on my viewpoint is entirely wrong, and your notions of what I was trying to accomplish are confused.

The problem, it turns out, is that the post of mine that you quoted where I was talking about Wilson's Bills' earning relative to the Texans' and Redskins' was a response to Upstater1 from a conversation he and I were having based on Matt Light's comments about how the league's economic problems had really more to do with revenue sharing than with the owners/players split.

At the point you jumped back into the conversation, we'd moved on from the talk of the revenue split between players and owners, and were discussing instead the rapidly growing disparity in value between the NFL's richer and poorer franchises. In particular, we were focusing on what was the putative cause for the Bills' lack of revenue growth.

So, yeah, I really have no idea what you thought I was trying to say, because, as it turns out, we were having entirely different conversations.

I can only respond to what you post, not what you think you meant.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6232635

Can someone please reconcile this story with Goodell's contention that under the owners' offer there would be "a salary cap for 2011 that would avoid a negative financial impact on veteran players"? I think that getting released is a negative financial impact as is taking a pay cut.

I think the key here is Clayton seems to realize that this offer was part of a negotiation and not a take it or leave it offer. Another might be that we don't know what other components might have been included (or could be available depending on how other areas of the negotiation go including cap peg assumptions vs. true up proposals) such as increases in the level of veteran minimum deals that are exempted from the cap. The league had proposed funneling half of the savings from a rookie contract cap or wage scale to veteran players (with the other half going to pre 1993 retiree benefits). The NFLPA had proposed only 25% of that money be earmarked for that group, with the lions share (50%) being funneled right back to the rookie class. The rookie savings was initially estimated to be $200M, but the owners have also reportedly moved closer to the NFLPA's rookie wage proposal so perhaps that # is now closer to $160M. If $80M of that provides additional relief of veteran salaries by increasing or broadening the formula on which exemptions are based, it would be equivalent to adding $2.5M to each teams cap... via a mechanism that would insure that the money was spent as intended and not merely added to an amount that flows into ever increasing top tier deals.

A belief that the league wide cap must increase sufficiently to continue to facilitate the kind of stupid deals some teams may continue to opt to enter into would be the equivalent of insisting we should all have the same credit card limits as folks who make and choose to spend more than most of us can afford to... And we all know what that leads to... And despite limited revenue sharing among league owners, the fact remains that the revenue of a handful of franchises is presently skewering the perception that everyone is making money hand over fist and anyone who isn't is just incompetent.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the key here is Clayton seems to realize that this offer was part of a negotiation and not a take it or leave it offer. Another might be that we don't know what other components might have been included (or could be available depending on how other areas of the negotiation go including cap peg assumptions vs. true up proposals) such as increases in the level of veteran minimum deals that are exempted from the cap. The league had proposed funneling half of the savings from a rookie contract cap or wage scale to veteran players (with the other half going to pre 1993 retiree benefits). The NFLPA had proposed only 25% of that money be earmarked for that group, with the lions share (50%) being funneled right back to the rookie class. The rookie savings was initially estimated to be $200M, but the owners have also reportedly moved closer to the NFLPA's rookie wage proposal so perhaps that # is now closer to $160M. If $80M of that provides additional relief of veteran salaries by increasing or broadening the formula on which exemptions are based, it would be equivalent to adding $2.5M to each teams cap... via a mechanism that would insure that the money was spent as intended and not merely added to an amount that flows into ever increasing top tier deals.

A belief that the league wide cap must increase sufficiently to continue to facilitate the kind of stupid deals some teams may continue to opt to enter into would be the equivalent of insisting we should all have the same credit card limits as folks who make and choose to spend more than most of us can afford to... And we all know what that leads to... And despite limited revenue sharing among league owners, the fact remains that the revenue of a handful of franchises is presently skewering the perception that everyone is making money hand over fist and anyone who isn't is just incompetent.

Is it possible that since under some circumstances the last offer on the table would be in effect, that the owners reduced their last offer knowing nothing they offered was going to be accepted anyway?

 

[part-timer]

scintillating exchanges ...I'm so interested in all this ad talk because..well..you know...I love the Pats and the NFL and enjoy watching football and second guessing the coaching and talking up players and discussing strategies and breaking down strengths and weaknesses and...wait....how did ad revenue talk insinuate itself into what is,ostensibly, a football site dedicated to the Patriots??

I'll just say this....F all this ancillary crap...F the owners...F the players...F the lawyers ,may they all rot and burn in hell for eternity.

Here Here, I compleately agree with every word of this post. Being that Not one owner, not one player, and no one involved with this abortion of a money grab gives a dam what any of us think or feel about this whole situation. The fans have divided themselves into agresively antagonistic oponents, chirping and fighting among themselves over topics that we have no controll over unless we unite against both the owners and players and make ourselves heard by withholding all monies spent on anything to do with the nfl, jersies, nfl network, tickets, and all. We will be the only losers in this deal, and no one seams to care including the divided fans who have been distracted from this point by the media, players and owners, who have played us through this whole deal.

 

[BPF]

- Google Scholar

Facts of the Case: After their collective-bargaining agreement expired, the National Football League (NFL) -- a group of football clubs -- and the NFL Players Association -- a labor union -- began to negotiate a new contract. The NFL presented a plan that would permit each club to establish a "developmental squad" of substitute players, each of whom would be paid the same $1,000 weekly salary. The union disagreed. When the negotiations reached an impasse, the NFL unilaterally implemented the plan. A number of squad players brought an antitrust suit, claiming that the employers' plan unfairly restrained trade. The District Court awarded damages to the players, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision.

Question: Are several employers immune from a union anti-trust suit when these employers, bargaining together, unilaterally impose terms on the union if the collective bargaining process reaches an impasse?

Conclusion: Yes. In affirming the Court of Appeals decision, the Supreme Court held that federal labor laws protect professional football franchises from anti-trust actions brought by their players when those franchises unilaterally impose terms after the collective bargaining process breaks down. Labor laws stabilize, encourage, and protect the collective bargaining process. When that process breaks down, labor laws provide adequate remedies. Employee suits under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, by contrast, might undermine the integrity of collective bargaining and preempt unnecessarily the labor laws.

Decision: 8 votes for Pro Football Inc., 1 votes against

 

[lamafist]

I can only respond to what you post, not what you think you meant.

Actually, current evidence would suggest that you, in fact, can't.

So don't cop an attitude with me just because you have trouble keeping up.

 

[dhamz]

Exhibit A of why "just open the books" is a red herring and would not move the dispute any closer to an agreement:

Players Association disputes NBA's claims of broad losses - ESPN

 

[Miguel]

News from The Associated Press

 

[lamafist]

News from The Associated Press

Miguel - I'm not sure I understand what "incremental revenues" refers to. Can you 'asplain?

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, current evidence would suggest that you, in fact, can't.

So don't cop an attitude with me just because you have trouble keeping up.

Clearly this is pointless, as I responded to your comments directly.
I will move on.

 

[BPF]

Both parties were dug in but in the end I think we can all agree that the NFL made the best faith attempt at getting a deal done. I had a feeling all along that De Smith/Kessler are more comfortable in the court room so inevitably we'd be at this point. That good-faith attempt by the league is key in terms of the court battle to follow though. Some background first. We all know that it is illegal to enter into any contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade per Sec 1 of Sherman Act. The NFL has protected itself from antitrust litigation based on the "nonstatutory labor exemption" rule.

That exemption protects the NFL/NFLPA CBA from being in violation of antitrust laws, as long as there exists good-faith bargaining over wages, hours, and working conditions. It recognizes that some restraints on competition are part of collective bargaining and that these restraints are justified by the benefits of collective bargaining. Main question for the courts will be: With no CBA and union in place, would the nonstatutory labor exemption continue in effect? An argument can be made that it would. This is not the chip shot the NFLPA thinks it is, Judge Doty or not. I understand there is precedent from the 1989 case of the NFLPA vs NFL but the circumstances were very different.

Before they go down that path though there will be the "sham" decertification lawsuit. Lawsuits cost lots of $$ and appeals to those cost even more $$$$. Rd 1 in terms of litigation battle has gone to the players in the "Lockout Insurance" case but the NFL has deeper pockets for a more prolonged battle if needed. Litigation is not good for either side and even if the NFL proves that today's "decertification" is a ploy that opens the door for antitrust lawsuits and further proves that even though the NFLPA "decertified" it still remains in effect as a "union," it will take $$ and time. It would seem more logical to focus that time in negotiations. The entire idea is silly when common sense is used and ultimately Bob Kraft was right, get too many lawyers involved and in the end those lawyers will benefit most and they certainly will here. At the end of the day, it’s better to have 45-55% of $9 billion than it is 60% of $6 billion. Court battles are bad for the bottom-line and more costly than the lawyers fees, the cost will be the casual fan that contributes to the $9 billion. When that happens, the NFL and the former NFLPA will begin to really feel the pressure which in the end will be the only real pressure that gets this matter resolved. I'm not siding with the owners or the players, I'm siding with the game of football.

League makes three main arguments against lifting the lockout | ProFootballTalk

The NFL contends that the players are “demonstrably unlikely” to prevail in their case, given that the so-called “nonstatutory labor exemption” permits a lockout to proceed without antitrust laws being implicated, until a point “sufficiently distant in time and in circumstances from the collective bargaining process.” In English, or as close to English as we can manage, this means that the league is relying on a principle of law that, in the league’s view, prevents antitrust claims from being used to block a lockout, unless the antritrust lawsuit is filed long enough after the collective bargaining process has ended so that the antitrust lawsuit won’t interfere with collective bargaining.

 

[BradyManny]

News from The Associated Press

Figures obtained by The Associated Press underscore the substantial divide between the NFL and the locked-out players on a core issue: What portion of additional revenue goes to players.

Players' share of incremental increases to all revenues under the NFL's expired contract was about 53 percent from 2006-09, according to calculations by the accounting firm that audited the collective bargaining agreement for both sides.

The NFL has repeatedly said that 70 percent of extra revenue went to players, a main justification for changing the sport's economic system. The league's numbers remove the portion of revenues - about $1 billion a year - taken off the top for owners to spend on expenses....

"It also spurred some discussion and research, and we had PricewaterhouseCoopers look at the numbers," Kendall said last week while at the players' meetings at Marco Island, Fla. "And what they came back with is, the only way the NFL could arrive at that was if they excluded the deductions they take (at the outset). But that is money that came into the league."

According to the figures obtained by the AP:

- In 2005, player costs were $3.32 billion, and all revenue was $6.49 billion;

- In 2006, the first year under the just-expired CBA, player costs rose to $4.1 billion, an increase of $780 million, which is 61 percent of that year's $1.28 billion increase in all revenue to $7.77 billion;

- By 2009, player costs were $4.5 billion, while all revenues were $8.88 billion.

 

[lamafist]

Clearly this is pointless, as I responded to your comments directly.
I will move on.

You responded to my posts without understanding what I was talking about, and then got pissy because my answers were about what I had actually been talking about and not what you had mistakenly assumed I was talking about.

But by all means, move on. I'm happy to, as well.

 

[JoeSixPat]

News from The Associated Press

Although I think it's only one of a great many issues, it seems to me that getting the players of TODAY to agree to do with less so that the owners can grow the NFL for the players of TOMORROW is going to be an exercise in frustration.

Although the NFLPA is supposed to be representing all players - past, present and future - in reality they're primarily concerned with the players of the present.

Telling the NFLPA that the NFL intends to invest a portion of their revenues into the game to make it more lucrative for the NFLPA of the future holds little interest of the players of today who are ultimately responsible for negotiating a new agreement with the owners.

If the players are expecting anything resembling a 50/50 split, but with only the owners responsible for costs related to overhead, infrastructure and investment for growth, this is going to drag on a very long time.

 

[Miguel]

If PWC's numbers are correct, then

in 2005 the players' costs took up 51.16% (332/649) of all revenue.
in 2006 the players' costs took up 52.77% (410/777) of all revenue
in 2009 the players' costs took up 50.68% (450/888) of all revenue.