Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[PatsWickedPissah]

If every player were a FA tomorrow and the owners set their salary budgets at half of what the cap is, and offered each player half of what they were paid under the old system, eventually 99% of them would accept it because their second career choice wouldnt pay them anything near that.

Don't believe it for a second.
A couple rich owners start bidding for Brady, et. al. These guys get the big bucks. Then these teams start winning everything. Poor owners sell out. Newer guys with big money and ego buy in. Start bidding for players to win championships.
Result...see MLB where there's no salary cap.

 

[Ring 6]

Don't believe it for a second.
A couple rich owners start bidding for Brady, et. al. These guys get the big bucks. Then these teams start winning everything. Poor owners sell out. Newer guys with big money and ego buy in. Start bidding for players to win championships.
Result...see MLB where there's no salary cap.

But what I am saying is that 60% of revenue may be much higher than what any owner individually would be willing to pay. Certainly if there were no collective bargaining those massive signing bonusses would go away.
I am not saying it would succeed long term, because as I said it would destroy competition, but in the short term I really doubt it would be good for the players.
I think the players feel that eliminating the anti-trust exemption is a win for them, and I think they benefit from it at least as much as the owners, and probably more.
That is why it is a dangerous move to sue for a remedy of removing the exemption that is responsible for both sides to have made so much money.

 

[dhamz]

If every player were a FA tomorrow and the owners set their salary budgets at half of what the cap is, and offered each player half of what they were paid under the old system, eventually 99% of them would accept it because their second career choice wouldnt pay them anything near that.

Marvin Miller always said that MLB players were all free agents every year it would drive down salaries compared to the current system because it would eliminate the bidding wars for elite players that drag up all salaries. He felt that rather than keep bidding up the few elite FA the owners would find comparable if slightly lessor players to take the lower offer leaving no bidding wars for the elite player resulting in a lower salary for that player than he gets now.

 

[Metaphors]

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.

Since I have no idea what your response has to do with my post, I'll show my work:

At a negotiating session in February, the NFLPA presented an offer of 50% of all revenue. The owners initially thought the proposal was for 50% of designated revenue (minus the $1 to $2 billion). Once they found out the truth, they walked out of the session. The NFLPA released a statement saying the offer they had from the owners would represent about 42% of all revenue. Since both numbers are for all revenue, there is your apples to apples. I don't have a link handy but since it was widely reported you should be able to find it on the Google.

Now for the math:

Players...50% of $9.3B = $4.65B / 32 Teams = $145M cap
Owners...42% of $9.3B = $3.91B / 32 Teams = $122M cap

I believe the $145M cap would be a little higher than what the old deal would have called for in 2011...meaning the players are crazy to offer that without other concessions, and that is likely why the owners walked out.

The $122M cap would be less than the cap in 2009 but certainly much higher than 2007 and more than the Crypt Keeper's $114M report. And bear in mind that this was the owners early/initial offer. I can't believe they expected their initial offer to be accepted so any offers in the last month from the owners would certainly result in a higher cap that $122M.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. If the owners effectively split the difference ($134M cap) the players were crazy to turn it down. It would be interesting to see a realistic picture of what the salary cap would look like based on the last/best offer on the table.

 

[Ring 6]

Since I have no idea what your response has to do with my post, I'll show my work:

At a negotiating session in February, the NFLPA presented an offer of 50% of all revenue. The owners initially thought the proposal was for 50% of designated revenue (minus the $1 to $2 billion). Once they found out the truth, they walked out of the session. The NFLPA released a statement saying the offer they had from the owners would represent about 42% of all revenue. Since both numbers are for all revenue, there is your apples to apples. I don't have a link handy but since it was widely reported you should be able to find it on the Google.

Now for the math:

Players...50% of $9.3B = $4.65B / 32 Teams = $145M cap
Owners...42% of $9.3B = $3.91B / 32 Teams = $122M cap

I believe the $145M cap would be a little higher than what the old deal would have called for in 2011...meaning the players are crazy to offer that without other concessions, and that is likely why the owners walked out.

The $122M cap would be less than the cap in 2009 but certainly much higher than 2007 and more than the Crypt Keeper's $114M report. And bear in mind that this was the owners early/initial offer. I can't believe they expected their initial offer to be accepted so any offers in the last month from the owners would certainly result in a higher cap that $122M.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. If the owners effectively split the difference ($134M cap) the players were crazy to turn it down. It would be interesting to see a realistic picture of what the salary cap would look like based on the last/best offer on the table.

Good work, that lays it out pretty clearly, IMO.

However, I still think the prevailing outlook on this is off.
This is a negotiation for a new agreement.
While what the old one paid may be instructive, considering the new bargaining a raise or a paycut is offbase I think. There was no salary cap OR FLOOR last year.
I think comparing the new deal to the old one is apples to oranges because it implies the players had any certainy of what they would be paid this year.

 

[lamafist]

I am not convinced that removal of the anti-trust exemption would be good for the players overall.
If you read the lawsuit, and every remedy being asked for is granted, I am not convinced that would create a better system for the players.
The anti-trust rules help make the teams competitive on the field, but they also serve to require the players to be collectively bargained for. Absent collective bargaining, the owners can pay whatever they want. I find it hard to believe that outside a system that forces them to pay a salary floor, they will fight each other for the right to hand out $40,000,000 bonusses.
Personally, I think the union hs successfully negotiated, to this point, a CBA that pays their players significantly more than a free market would.

If every player were a FA tomorrow and the owners set their salary budgets at half of what the cap is, and offered each player half of what they were paid under the old system, eventually 99% of them would accept it because their second career choice wouldnt pay them anything near that.

But there's no way all of the owners would set their salary budgets at half of cap is. All it takes is two owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder to start handing out big contracts and turn their franchises into the Red Sox and Yankees of the NFL, and any franchise that hopes to be competitive will be forced to follow suit. The franchises that stick with their reduced budget plans will become the equivalent of the Royals, A's or Marlins, teams that try to compete with raw youngsters and JAG cast-offs, inevitably losing any budding star to one of the franchises willing to open its check book.

The draft will lose value, because the teams won't be able to dictate contract length and structure to the incoming rookies, so teams that don't want to pay heralded college stars big money will either have to draft-and-trade, or agree to very short term deals. College standouts who've made their desire for a payday known will end up falling in the draft to teams that are willing to pay them, thus negating the whole purpose of the draft.

We've seen what a cap-less sport looks like in this country, and its players are even more obscenely paid and have guaranteed contracts to boot. There's no reason to believe that the NFL would turn out any differently, and any attempt on the league or owners' part to ensure that teams unanimously reduce salary expenditures would be an overt act of illegal collusion.

 

[patfanken]

Here's my question: What exactly IS all the revenue vs the "designated revenue"

Do the players want a piece of what the Pats negotiated for the local TV and radio contracts. Do they want the revenue of the advertising from the port a potties. Do they want a piece of what Patriot place makes the team?????? Where would it end, and wouldn't a team like the Pats who works hard a marketing, be penalized over teams like the Bengals who don't.

For that matter would the players be willing to part with a percentage of THEIR revenue from endorsement deals???????? wouldn't that be fair??????

I read some where IIRC that the players CURRENTLY get 50% of ALL the revenue (whatever that is ) so their offer was pretty much BS when they made it.

 

[Ring 6]

But there's no way all of the owners would set their salary budgets at half of cap is. All it takes is two owners like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder to start handing out big contracts and turn their franchises into the Red Sox and Yankees of the NFL, and any franchise that hopes to be competitive will be forced to follow suit. The franchises that stick with their reduced budget plans will become the equivalent of the Royals, A's or Marlins, teams that try to compete with raw youngsters and JAG cast-offs, inevitably losing any budding star to one of the franchises willing to open its check book.

Which is why I said the exemption is necessary for the teams to be competitive.
There is no question though, IMO, even in that scenario, the cumulative pay would not come close to 60% of revenue. Even if you disagree with that, the point is at some point, the collectively bargained deal will reach more than the owners would pay without collective bargaining, and it seems we are there.

The draft will lose value, because the teams won't be able to dictate contract length and structure to the incoming rookies, so teams that don't want to pay heralded college stars big money will either have to draft-and-trade, or agree to very short term deals. College standouts who've made their desire for a payday known will end up falling in the draft to teams that are willing to pay them, thus negating the whole purpose of the draft.

There would be no draft.

We've seen what a cap-less sport looks like in this country, and its players are even more obscenely paid and have guaranteed contracts to boot. There's no reason to believe that the NFL would turn out any differently, and any attempt on the league or owners' part to ensure that teams unanimously reduce salary expenditures would be an overt act of illegal collusion.

I am not saying it is a good solution. I am saying that if the players were to get every remedy they asked for the result would likely be worse for them that a CBA based on the owners last proposal.

The players benefit as much or more from anti-trust exemption as the owners do, yet they have asked for the courts to take it away. To me that is a very risky gamble, and they did so because they believe the owners will suffer more in that case, so it gets them back to the table with power. What if the judge awards all of their remedies, and the owners say "Great, lets do that"? I don't think that is a certain player victory.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

Since I have no idea what your response has to do with my post, I'll show my work:

At a negotiating session in February, the NFLPA presented an offer of 50% of all revenue. The owners initially thought the proposal was for 50% of designated revenue (minus the $1 to $2 billion). Once they found out the truth, they walked out of the session. The NFLPA released a statement saying the offer they had from the owners would represent about 42% of all revenue. Since both numbers are for all revenue, there is your apples to apples. I don't have a link handy but since it was widely reported you should be able to find it on the Google.
4.73
Now for the math:

Players...50% of $9.3B = $4.65B / 32 Teams = $145M cap
Owners...42% of $9.3B = $3.91B / 32 Teams = $122M cap

I believe the $145M cap would be a little higher than what the old deal would have called for in 2011...meaning the players are crazy to offer that without other concessions, and that is likely why the owners walked out.

The $122M cap would be less than the cap in 2009 but certainly much higher than 2007 and more than the Crypt Keeper's $114M report. And bear in mind that this was the owners early/initial offer. I can't believe they expected their initial offer to be accepted so any offers in the last month from the owners would certainly result in a higher cap that $122M.

If I'm wrong, please correct me. If the owners effectively split the difference ($134M cap) the players were crazy to turn it down. It would be interesting to see a realistic picture of what the salary cap would look like based on the last/best offer on the table.

I think this is the article you're referencing. Then again, without knowing how that calculation was done, it's hard to say for certain what the deal would look like in year 4. But assuming the 42% was for all revenue and $2B was credited to owners, projects to around 55% of remaining revenue going towards the players, and it could increase to around 45% of total revenue by year 4.

Minor issue, but I think the numbers are for total compensation, and not the cap. There's usually another $20M+ allocated for benefits on top of the cap, except for last season when the owners didn't have to pay certain ones, and I believe that is factored into the equation.

According to this article, the 2009 revenue was around $9B, the owners remove $1B, and the players get 59.5% of the rest which works out to around $149M per team. The 2009 cap was set at $127M though, with another $26M paid out in benefits. Combined, it comes close to your figure, but that has to include benefits.

According to the NFL's final offer presented by DeMaurice Smith, the owners had $27M for benefits in each of the next 4 seasons.

Assuming both owners and players were agreed on the $27M (huge assumption I admit), that would put your estimated cap figures at $118M from players and $95M from owners. In the final offer presented by Smith, the NFL offered $114M for the cap in 2011 plus another $27M in benefits, so they came up significantly from their first offer.

 

[makoute]

Don't believe it for a second.
A couple rich owners start bidding for Brady, et. al. These guys get the big bucks. Then these teams start winning everything. Poor owners sell out. Newer guys with big money and ego buy in. Start bidding for players to win championships.
Result...see MLB where there's no salary cap.

Or European soccer.

 

[patfanken]

If you ever wanted proof that the players leadership played us all for suckers here it is. From one of the most respected player friendly owners in the league.

“The players never really moved off their position, and looking back at the whole mediation, while there may have been a couple of points where there was progress, overall we really never made any progress,” Rooney said. “In my mind, they never really used the process to get a deal done.......it was their plan all along — to decertify and take this thing into the courts.””

For Rooney, the best evidence of the union’s strategy came from the union’s reaction to the league’s willingness to crack the books open.

“That was one of the strange things in the negotiations, because the previous week when that subject came up, we said — after a long time of not being willing to provide anything and really feeling like it was one of those things that wasn’t going to lead to anything — then we felt like, OK, maybe if we agree to give them something and try to provide them some insight into what has happened to the teams, maybe that would lead to a breakthrough,” Rooney said. “So we offered to provide them some financial information through an auditor, we offered to go through a third party and have a third party look at the information.

“It was a very strange reaction. They didn’t take the information, after asking for it. They said it wasn’t good enough. I don’t even know how you can make that judgment without accepting what was offered. Certainly we would not have been surprised if they came back after they had seen it and had questions. But they never even looked at it. To me, that was a little bit of a tip-off as to where they were really headed with this thing.”

The bottom line here is that it was in the personal interest of several in the "union" to take this to litigation. Kessler who was one of the key influence maker would have lost MILLIONS in legal fees if there was a deal. Also the players felt they would be able to keep more if the an outside force dictated a settlement rather than negotiate it. I think the players made a big mistake

[/QUOTE]“[W]e offered to take the 18-game season off the table for now, and that it would be something we would re-visit in two years, and then it would have to be agreed to by both sides,” Rooney said. “That 18-game season seemed to be one of the biggest issues, as far as we knew, that the players were concerned about. So taking that off the table, we felt, was a major move on our part. But it really got zero reaction. Again, they seemed to not really want to continue negotiations, and rather to get into their litigation strategy. . . . nder the current agreement, the one that just expired, we had the right to change the season without the players’ approval. This we felt was a major concession, a major step toward their side in terms of trying to address something that they had expressed a lot of concern about. Again, for them to not even really respond to that was very disappointing.”[/QUOTE]

Just another example of the league making serious concessions while the players stood pat.

Based on what we've seen the owner made concessions on the 18 game season, the money, and the transparency. The players didn't budge an inch.

As more of this comes out the worse it will look for the players and their leadership.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's my question: What exactly IS all the revenue vs the "designated revenue"

Do the players want a piece of what the Pats negotiated for the local TV and radio contracts. Do they want the revenue of the advertising from the port a potties. Do they want a piece of what Patriot place makes the team?????? Where would it end, and wouldn't a team like the Pats who works hard a marketing, be penalized over teams like the Bengals who don't.

For that matter would the players be willing to part with a percentage of THEIR revenue from endorsement deals???????? wouldn't that be fair??????

I read some where IIRC that the players CURRENTLY get 50% of ALL the revenue (whatever that is ) so their offer was pretty much BS when they made it.

OK, I will attempt to answer, but don't believe it until someone more knowledgable concurs, because Ive read some, but far from all the data.

As I understand it, originally the cap (and floor) was based upon 'football revenues'. These did not include revenues such as PSLs and stadium naming rights.
In other words, it was based on revenues that were relatively similar or even shared among all of the teams.
At some point the formula changed to ALL revenue, and an exclusion amount was added. (The $1bill that is always mentioned)
By doing so Bob Krafts Gillette revenue was included in the calculation for example, so each team added a very different amount of revenue to the pot. The $1bill exclusion comes of the top, and the result is that the resulting cap and floor becomes a higher percentage of the revenue of teams who have less supplemental income.
So the solution was the SRSP revenue sharing.

The net effect is that including those revenues increased the cap, and floor by including revenues that some teams had much more of than others, so they created a system to share the 'non-designated' revenue.

Example:

The cap is 125mill.
Only Jerry Jones earns any non-desinated income, and he earns 1.5 bill of it.
That means Jones alone drove the collective cap up by 500mill, and must share revenue with the other teams to address that.

The 60% of designated vs 50% of all revenue, is the difference of lopping that 1billion of the top.

Hope that helps

 

[Miguel]

Since I have no idea what your response has to do with my post, I'll show my work:

At a negotiating session in February, the NFLPA presented an offer of 50% of all revenue. The owners initially thought the proposal was for 50% of designated revenue (minus the $1 to $2 billion). Once they found out the truth, they walked out of the session. The NFLPA released a statement saying the offer they had from the owners would represent about 42% of all revenue. Since both numbers are for all revenue, there is your apples to apples. I don't have a link handy but since it was widely reported you should be able to find it on the Google.

Now for the math:

Players...50% of $9.3B = $4.65B / 32 Teams = $145M cap
Owners...42% of $9.3B = $3.91B / 32 Teams = $122M cap

Your numbers do not show how it will be spent on benefits. Plus, your numbers do not show that the owners want the amount of money the NFL has been allowed to take as a credit to "grow the business" to increase from about $1 billion to about 2 billion.

The players were already getting 50% of total revenue.

 

[Ring 6]

If you ever wanted proof that the players leadership played us all for suckers here it is. From one of the most respected player friendly owners in the league.






The bottom line here is that it was in the personal interest of several in the "union" to take this to litigation. Kessler who was one of the key influence maker would have lost MILLIONS in legal fees if there was a deal. Also the players felt they would be able to keep more if the an outside force dictated a settlement rather than negotiate it. I think the players made a big mistake

“[W]e offered to take the 18-game season off the table for now, and that it would be something we would re-visit in two years, and then it would have to be agreed to by both sides,” Rooney said. “That 18-game season seemed to be one of the biggest issues, as far as we knew, that the players were concerned about. So taking that off the table, we felt, was a major move on our part. But it really got zero reaction. Again, they seemed to not really want to continue negotiations, and rather to get into their litigation strategy. . . . nder the current agreement, the one that just expired, we had the right to change the season without the players’ approval. This we felt was a major concession, a major step toward their side in terms of trying to address something that they had expressed a lot of concern about. Again, for them to not even really respond to that was very disappointing.”[/QUOTE]

Just another example of the league making serious concessions while the players stood pat.

Based on what we've seen the owner made concessions on the 18 game season, the money, and the transparency. The players didn't budge an inch.

As more of this comes out the worse it will look for the players and their leadership.[/QUOTE]

I would caution that reading one side of the story always seems to make it obvious. Every defendant seems guilty before the defense attorney gets his shot.
Each side will present the story to make them seem right, and mostly because they truly believe they are, but also to spin opinion.

 

[Ring 6]

Your numbers do not show how it will be spent on benefits. Plus, your numbers do not show that the owners want the amount of money the NFL has been allowed to take as a credit to "grow the business" to increase from about $1 billion to about 2 billion.

The players were already getting 50% of total revenue.

Can you clarify something for me?

I am under the impression that the $1 billion came into play to offset the change in revenue calculation to include the other sources (SRSP). The difference in the calculations would mean that from the starting point under this method the players would get 60% of increased revenue rather than 50% if they changed it to 50% of all.


You are calling it to 'grow the business'.

Was the $1 billion deduction for the inclusion of all revenues in the formula, or was it an agreement that $1 billion be set aside and earmarked for reinvestment in the growth of the league?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

If you ever wanted proof that the players leadership played us all for suckers here it is. From one of the most respected player friendly owners in the league.






The bottom line here is that it was in the personal interest of several in the "union" to take this to litigation. Kessler who was one of the key influence maker would have lost MILLIONS in legal fees if there was a deal. Also the players felt they would be able to keep more if the an outside force dictated a settlement rather than negotiate it. I think the players made a big mistake

“[W]e offered to take the 18-game season off the table for now, and that it would be something we would re-visit in two years, and then it would have to be agreed to by both sides,” Rooney said. “That 18-game season seemed to be one of the biggest issues, as far as we knew, that the players were concerned about. So taking that off the table, we felt, was a major move on our part. But it really got zero reaction. Again, they seemed to not really want to continue negotiations, and rather to get into their litigation strategy. . . . nder the current agreement, the one that just expired, we had the right to change the season without the players’ approval. This we felt was a major concession, a major step toward their side in terms of trying to address something that they had expressed a lot of concern about. Again, for them to not even really respond to that was very disappointing.”[/QUOTE]

Just another example of the league making serious concessions while the players stood pat.

Based on what we've seen the owner made concessions on the 18 game season, the money, and the transparency. The players didn't budge an inch.

As more of this comes out the worse it will look for the players and their leadership.[/QUOTE]

They are led by a litigator, if that wasnt a clue I dont know what is.

 

[JoeSixPat]

What costs?

Most costs for most businesses over the last three years are DOWN. Health insurance no. Utilities yes. Transportation way down. The cost of transporting goods from overseas is massively down. It used to cost $100k a day to rent a ship. Then the cost dropped to $5k.

What country are you in? And can I move there?

The highest cost most any business is its people. Paychecks, Benefits, Pensions, Insurance, Productivity etc.

Any business that employs people has been dealing with

Increased health insurance - up to 20% a year of a very high cost in the first place
Increased transportation costs - $.51 a mile as the feds currently set it - which is actually low compared to the true cost of fuel today
Increased utilities (killing manufacturing)

... and trying to meet this all on a "fixed income" as neither public nor private interests are able to foot the bill to accommodate all those increasing costs, with competition and a "take it or leave it" attitude keeping the economy halfway solvent

If you're seeing expenses going down anywhere its only because certain businesses are just getting by on their bootstraps, balancing both increased costs and increased competition.

But things are VERY very tight for nearly all businesses these days and they're just hoping to get by until the economy picks up. Not all will make it.

Their employees are in the same boat - with little if any increase in salary, but their share of benefits increasing along with the costs to the employer, making for a net loss to all

I'm not trying to use this to take sides with the owners - I'm just saying, if don't think expenses are increasing for business, you're not doing business in the USA.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Don't believe it for a second.
A couple rich owners start bidding for Brady, et. al. These guys get the big bucks. Then these teams start winning everything. Poor owners sell out. Newer guys with big money and ego buy in. Start bidding for players to win championships.
Result...see MLB where there's no salary cap.

No but there is a luxury tax and they do share some revenue, some of the small market teams exist because of this, they cant buy any top free agents but they can field a team that gets beat on every year. Once in a while a team has enough players come up through the minors that are really good and conttend for a short time, see Tamps bay, where are they this year?

 

[vicspats]

First time posting.Not sure how to answer without stirring up the pot.The way it is set up now...owners make a killing..players get killed.The NFL is entertainment...not like the WWE...but not like college football either.300 million a team a year.One guy gets 170 million..the other 70 guys get 130 million.There are more players who make half a million dollars than those that make million plus.Average years of playing...3 to 5.Average years of ownership??In a ten year span an owner will make 1.5 billion...a player like Brady maybe 50 million??...there are a lot more Neils and Tates and Deadricks in the NFL than there are big time paychecks.Root for the jersey not the player...right?? I believe Troy Brown made 20 million playing for the Pats...after taxes agents..blah blah blah...chump change..he deserved more.Season ticket holder for 13 years....never...ever...ever..have seen Kraft catch a ball...make a stop...kick a feild goal.It is the players who make the game fun.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Sorry, but that is wrong. I deal with this stuff every day.

Tax rates are set every year.
Assessments are not based specifically on market value. They are based on a set point year, and adjusted for inflation. The assessed value of your home and its market value are only related in proportion. If your home is worth $300,000 you could be assessed for $200,000. But all the homes would roughly be 2/3s of value. Full value assessment is not in practice in the majority of the US.
Reassessment has pretty much been eliminated because assessment is not tied to value.
It is incorrect that they reassess every 3 years or that they adjust tax rates accordingly.

Im in real estate in Mass and live here, Im telling you how we do it here in Mass, I see your in NY, you do it differently there.
If you look at property record data here in Mass you'll see comparable sales that they have used to obtain a value.
And yes we do reassess every three years, this is on every town web site in Mass

The Board of Assessors are required by Massachusetts Law to list and value all real and personal property. The valuations are subject to ad valorem taxation on the assessment roll each year. The "ad valorem" basis for taxation means that all property should be taxed "according to value", which is the definition of ad valorem. Assessed values in Massachusetts are based on "full and fair cash value", or 100 percent of fair market value.

Assessors are required to submit these values to the State Department of Revenue for certification every three years. In the years between certification, Assessors must also maintain and update the values based on market conditions. This is done so that the property taxpayer pays his or her fair share of the cost of local government, in proportion to the amount of money the property is worth.

You correct about the other part, all homes are not assessed at market value every year but they are consistent, if yours is not you have a gripe.