Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Miguel]

Miguel - Not sure where you got that the $161 million would include benefits since the cap has never included benefits in the past. Methinks that you are taking Mr. Smith too much at his word.

No offense to Ian Rappaport, but I wouldn't accept that as authentic in any way, shape or form. You can't see the headers or footers. That document smacks of the NFLPA trying to make themselves look good by putting out false information.

Jeff Pash said:
"We offered today to split the difference and meet the union in the midpoint, with a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009 and above player compensation in 2010, and we offered grow it from there over four years by $20 million a club, to the point where in 2014 the player compensation number was the union’s number.

I think that I can explain how both are true.

"With a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009." Jeff Pash used the 2009 cash spent + benefits amount for the player compensation in 2009.

"and above player compensation in 2010" - Not a surprise since the players' benefits were cut in 2010.

I am not just taking Mr. Smith at his word. I am also taking Jeff Pash as his word. Plus, I truly doubt that the owners could plan now in this uncertain economy to be spending over $6 billion on the players in 2014 without having a 18-game regular season guaranteed.

 

[Miguel]

The cap for 2011 and 2012 reportedly would have gone down from 2009.
Players would not actually be taking paycuts, because they are under contract. Its to be seen how much of the decrease is directly tied to the new rookie pay structure. If its 1 for 1 then there would be no pay cut, only a reduction in future player pay as rookies.

It can not be a 1 for 1. Rookies do not take that much cap space in Year 1.

I believe part of the compromise is also that owners would be contributing more to other areas such as pension, health benefits and so forth. I am not sure if that bridges the gap, but I would find it hard to call it a pay cut if the cap goes down but other player related expenses go up commensurately. That would be a choice of distribution not a pay cut.

True but if the benefits are increased to take care of retirees a current player will not materially gain from that in 2011.

 

[Miguel]

No offense to Ian Rappaport, but I wouldn't accept that as authentic in any way, shape or form. You can't see the headers or footers. That document smacks of the NFLPA trying to make themselves look good by putting out false information.

FWIW - John Clayton said that the NFL proposed a 2011 cap of $114 million which is the same figure as in the picture.

 

[Miguel]

No offense to Ian Rappaport, but I wouldn't accept that as authentic in any way, shape or form. You can't see the headers or footers. That document smacks of the NFLPA trying to make themselves look good by putting out false information.

Why would Ian be offended? You are just accusing him of being an unwitting tool of the NFLPA.

 

[Miguel]

Have owners gone on record what they propose that 2011 cap be?2012 cap?2013 cap?2014 cap?We know what 2009 cap ($128 million) was.

Let's see an apples to apples comparison.

Have the players gone on record what they propose that 2011 cap be?2012 cap?2013 cap?2014 cap?We know what 2009 cap ($128 million) was.

Let's see an apples to apples comparison.

 

[Metaphors]

Have owners gone on record what they propose that 2011 cap be?2012 cap?2013 cap?2014 cap?We know what 2009 cap ($128 million) was.

Let's see an apples to apples comparison.

Have the players gone on record what they propose that 2011 cap be?2012 cap?2013 cap?2014 cap?We know what 2009 cap ($128 million) was.

Let's see an apples to apples comparison.

The only apples-to-apples comparison I've heard is the abbreviated negotiating session from about a month ago. The NFLPA offered 50% of all revenue and they contended the owners proposal would amount to 42% of all revenue. If my math is correct, that would be a cap difference of $145M (players) and $122M (owners). This is what the NFLPA said, not the owners.

That is why the NFLPA statement of moving to 2007 levels ($110M cap) and Clayton's report ($114M cap) are total crap. How could the owners' offer get significantly worse after a month of negotiating?

 

[upstater1]

Guess you don't own property upstater .... taxes never go down ... only up. Property may be reassessed and then the amount per thousand is adjusted that's all.

I do own property. Property taxes are down in Western New York and Buffalo. Assessments took me down. The city is maintaining because areas of the city are gentrifying, but beyond that, yes they took in less revenue from property taxes this year than last, and they are not alone.

 

[upstater1]

Where are you getting that energy prices are down??? OIL is back over $100 a barrel and gasoline is almost $3.50 a gallon in many of the "cheaper" parts of the country.

Not sure when the last time you traveled was, but plane ticket prices have gone up because the cost of aviation fuel is up.

So are the cost of commodities. They are up because of the cost of gas.

You keep mentioning the Supplemental Revenue Plan but you are the only person who I have seen mention it.

BTW, the profit margins for the Packers are under 10%. Public knowledge. So, what's your explanation?

I thought we were talking about the last 2 1/2 years? AND Yes, before the financial crisis, oil was higher. Look it up people. It was at $140 when the last CBA was signed. HELLLLLLOOOO!

I'm not sure what you mean about only I mentioned it. It's been mentioned repeatedly. That was the big crux of the whole controversy between owners during the last CBA negotiations.

 

[upstater1]

and we keep asking why companys keep going out of business in america bacause of worker unions like this who want all the profit. if the players get what they want we will see teams like the bills move to canada and more and more small market teams will have to sale or move just like whats happening in the NBA

the NFLPA thinks the owners are saleing them so they should get most of the money but true fans Root for the helmets and long after Brady Manning and so on... are gone fans will still Root for the pats colts steelers...

Your info is all wrong. Worker's salaries have been stagnant for well over a decade. Business profits have been higher than ever before. Wealth is concentrated higher than ever before. Unions are negotiating pay rates that cut salary, increase health, etc. Workers in American auto factories now earn less per hour than workers in auto factories in other nations. That's why foreign automakers are opening plants here.

 

[upstater1]

That was two and a half decades ago, before the advent of 24/7 sports media and the internet and all it entails and it was a very small sample size since the players broke ranks almost immediately and were all back after a couple of games. Given the popularity of college football today vs. then, I'm not sure today's largely televised fans wouldn't adapt to any NFL product pdq.

When I go to college football games, I see alumni and local fans. They rarely care about the quality of play. The NFL does not have the same ingrained base. If the stars went to another league en masse, that league would crater the NFL overnight.

 

[Miguel]

The only apples-to-apples comparison I've heard is the abbreviated negotiating session from about a month ago. The NFLPA offered 50% of all revenue and they contended the owners proposal would amount to 42% of all revenue. If my math is correct, that would be a cap difference of $145M (players) and $122M (owners).

I doubt that your math is correct since the NFLPA has never said that they had a problem with the $1 billion that is already not being included in the salary cap calculation.

 

[Ring 6]

It can not be a 1 for 1. Rookies do not take that much cap space in Year 1.

Thanks for clarifying, wasnt sure if it covered it or not.

True but if the benefits are increased to take care of retirees a current player will not materially gain from that in 2011.

Sure, but that is kind of my point. If they chose to increase funding for retirees and the result is less current pay, that is their choice. In other words, in that scenario, they are trading one for the other.

 

[Ring 6]

I do own property. Property taxes are down in Western New York and Buffalo. Assessments took me down. The city is maintaining because areas of the city are gentrifying, but beyond that, yes they took in less revenue from property taxes this year than last, and they are not alone.

If the entire taxing authority lowered taxes across the board, then you would have a point. If yours did it is one in a million right now.
Your original argument that they would have lower taxes because they are reassess is wrong on a couple of levels. First, your taxes are based on your assessment as a proportion of all properties. And second reassessment only occurs when properties are sold, or when assessment is challenged, which requires proof of similar properties having different assessed values. Neither would be the case.
God bless you if your taxes were reduced, you are among the very tiny minority.

 

[Ring 6]

Sigh. Most people who have jobs experience economic losses when they lose jobs/are laid off/are locked out.

Come on, stop it!!!!!!!

Yes they do, but that is not the point. A business owners must CONTRIBUTE CASH to cover losses. You cannot compare unemployment and no income to negative income.
No one is saying nothing bad can happen to an employee, but the difference between an owner and an employee is more than both suffer in bad times. The owner loses assets and income, the employee loses income.

 

[Frezo]

I'd like to know if the players can collect unemployment.

 

[Ring 6]

It was reported EVERYWHERE. Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder were livid that the 8 small market teams banded together against the CBA. When Kraft brokered the Supplemental Revenue Plan, 6 of the 8 joined the rest of the owners to approve the CBA. Wilson and Brown continued to attack the bi market owners AFTER the CBA was signed, and Wilson even enlisted politicians to try to submarine it many months later. He said they were better off going to an uncapped year. This was covered by Mortenson, Clayton, many others. In fact, they killed Wilson for suggesting the league should have gone to an uncapped year instead of signing the CBA, as the last CBA called for. They called the very idea preposterous, ridiculous, dangerous and ruinous to the league. The owners have never gotten overt the hump that is the Supplemental Revenue Plan.

I find it curious that the money that's being tossed around is more or less in the range of the Plan.

What does any of that have to do with me asking how you back up THIS statement:

It has nothing to do with expenses or revenues since the margins for NFL teams have expanded since the signing of the last CBA. The NFL is not experiencing the hard times that other businesses have.

First everything you mention is about expenses and revenue and second you must be makin up that profit margins have gone up, since the union doesnt even know that and asked for the books. Third how could you possibly know if the NFL is expereincing the hard times other business are? Do you know where they raise and invest their capital? Have you studied their expenses?
This is a complicated topic to begin with so offering guesses as if they are fact will make it a nightmare to discuss.

 

[Ring 6]

It was reported EVERYWHERE. Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder were livid that the 8 small market teams banded together against the CBA. When Kraft brokered the Supplemental Revenue Plan, 6 of the 8 joined the rest of the owners to approve the CBA. Wilson and Brown continued to attack the bi market owners AFTER the CBA was signed, and Wilson even enlisted politicians to try to submarine it many months later. He said they were better off going to an uncapped year. This was covered by Mortenson, Clayton, many others. In fact, they killed Wilson for suggesting the league should have gone to an uncapped year instead of signing the CBA, as the last CBA called for. They called the very idea preposterous, ridiculous, dangerous and ruinous to the league. The owners have never gotten overt the hump that is the Supplemental Revenue Plan.

I find it curious that the money that's being tossed around is more or less in the range of the Plan.

And the thought that the costs of things is this country are going down is ridiculous.

 

[Ring 6]

Read my post. I said the NFL is pushing for a higher share of revenues base don the fiasco last time and the supplemental revenue plan.

I also said that the Player's acquiescence to a $140 million cut w/o looking at the books tells me they are not so concerned about looking at the books either.

However, when the NFL says they need it because of higher expenses, that's when the Player's ask to see proof. That doesn't mean the NFLPA believes it's about expenses. It means they counter the NFL when the NFL gives them that reason.

Anyone who has been following this should damn well realize that the main hangup is the distribution of revenues to small market teams.

Now, I happen to think the owners deserve some relief over that. But, I don't think they deserve $340 million worth of relief. AND I believe that the NFL must insist on a soft floor if they are going to implement a more robust Supplemental. If the player's are going to take a cut, they need to be assured that the money will be spent, and that it won't simply get stashed in Mike Brown's pocket.

The players have sued the NFL and nowhere in that lawsuit does it say the NFL claimed they need more money because there expenses have increased. Please stop saying the request for financials was to say prove what the players say was never said.

Why do the players need any assurance of what the owners do with their share. You sound like it is criminal for Mike Brown to make a profit on his investment. The reason he owns an NFL team is to make a profit.
You are saying the only reason less money should go to the players and more to the owners is if the owners income doesnt increase. That is totally bizarre.
This is a negotiation, well it was, about how they split the revenues.
I find it ludicrous to say the owners only have a right to ask for a bigger share if they don't get to keep it.

 

[Ring 6]

It is adversarial, sure -- but far, far from zero-sum.

Let's remember that the league is a phenomenally successful business whose continued existence is mutually beneficial for all parties.

You ask how opening up the records gets the two sides closer together to an agreement... it doesn't. But when you've hit a dead end, you have to be willing to go backwards a bit to find a successful way forward.

At present, the negotiations are at an impasse between two interest groups. Revealing the franchises' financial records puts a lot more on the table, and enables negotiations to proceed in new directions.

I think the point you are missing is that the owners do not feel the league under the last CBA is 'phenomenally successful' for them.
UIltimately the league is saying we no longer want to operate under this system, because we are not making enough profit.

Revealing financial records involves a lot more than you want to think.
It puts nothing indisputable on the table. It would immediately create months and months of argument over what those records show.
Do you really think that opening up 10 years of 32 teams financials, subject to interpretation, wouldn't end up with completely different interpretations from the side using them to show the owners are underpaying the players and the side using them to show the owners are overpaying the players?
Financials are more subject to interpretation than the football stats that get argued over endlessly here.
Adding them to the process would create an additional stumbling block and delay negotiating all of the things they have been negotiating until they can agree. Each side will walk from the table at least once over the 'insult' of the other sides interpretation of the numbers.

Its remarkable to me that people are suggesting this to be handled like you would handle a disagreement between two 9 year olds.
There are billions of dollars at stake, and each side will twist every fact to support their side, because, that is their job.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

If the entire taxing authority lowered taxes across the board, then you would have a point. If yours did it is one in a million right now.
Your original argument that they would have lower taxes because they are reassess is wrong on a couple of levels. First, your taxes are based on your assessment as a proportion of all properties. And second reassessment only occurs when properties are sold, or when assessment is challenged, which requires proof of similar properties having different assessed values. Neither would be the case.
God bless you if your taxes were reduced, you are among the very tiny minority.

Thats partially incorrect also. The assessment are based on sales and are reassessed every three years or if you challenge. If you assessment goes down they up the tax rate so you end up paying more anyway. Say my assessment is $300,000 tax rate is $10.50 per thousand, assessment goes down to $250,000, tax rate goes up to $13.00 per thousand.