Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[townes]

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

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.

 

[townes]

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

You are mistaking envy for disgust, I have all i need and want and don't envy anyone who worships money as i think they have their priorities 100% wrong. And 20th century history clearly demonstrates that funneling all the wealth to a small minority causes the economy to collapse, which is why actions were taken to reverse that trend after it caused the great depression. Once again a small minority possesses the majority of wealth in america, and the structure we operate under guarantees that the trend of funneling the wealth to that small minority will continue.

 

[Clonamery]

....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.

Sorry but this ain't Indonesia or freaking sweatshops in the Bronx fer crissakes.

It's entertainment.

 

[lamafist]

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

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

You misunderstand. Of course the players, owners, coaches, league executives, trainers, groundskeepers, et al. are going to benefit from the combined success of the NFL over the past decades. This is what happens when a business grows in value the way the NFL has.

But however you feel the credit for the NFL's success should be awarded amongst these groups, it really has no bearing on how the current proceeds should be divvied up.

 

[lamafist]

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.

Well put.

Additionally, the success of the publicly owned, not-for-profit Green Bay Packers, both on the field and as one of the more well-managed brands in the league, is a strong argument that team owners aren't necessary at all. Fans come out for a team without an owner -- the idea of the same happening for a team without players is comical.

 

[lamafist]

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

If the pun on "eminent domain" was intended, than very well played, indeed.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

You are mistaking envy for disgust, I have all i need and want and don't envy anyone who worships money as i think they have their priorities 100% wrong. And 20th century history clearly demonstrates that funneling all the wealth to a small minority causes the economy to collapse, which is why actions were taken to reverse that trend after it caused the great depression. Once again a small minority possesses the majority of wealth in america, and the structure we operate under guarantees that the trend of funneling the wealth to that small minority will continue.

No it's uncontrolled envy, subconscious though it may be.
Your understanding of history is deeply flawed.
You post here as a self-anointed arbiter of who shall have how much wealth before it is redistributed as you see fit. You'd make a great dictator; that's what they do.
Also you are shall we say "obsessed" with this issue as the vast majority of your posts in this forum harp on this one issue as reflected in your redistributionist philosophy stated ad infinitum.

 

[townes]

No it's uncontrolled envy, subconscious though it may be.
Your understanding of history is deeply flawed.
You post here as a self-anointed arbiter of who shall have how much wealth before it is redistributed as you see fit. You'd make a great dictator; that's what they do.
Also you are shall we say "obsessed" with this issue as the vast majority of your posts in this forum harp on this one issue as reflected in your redistributionist philosophy stated ad infinitum.

lmao-I may have a "redistributionist philosophy," but you have a revisionist history.

Keep on worshipping money there ayn, you're an island.

 

[townes]

No it's uncontrolled envy, subconscious though it may be.
Your understanding of history is deeply flawed.
You post here as a self-anointed arbiter of who shall have how much wealth before it is redistributed as you see fit. You'd make a great dictator; that's what they do.
Also you are shall we say "obsessed" with this issue as the vast majority of your posts in this forum harp on this one issue as reflected in your redistributionist philosophy stated ad infinitum.

Feel free to re-post all my "redistributionist" posts, i'll be waiting.

 

[townes]

No it's uncontrolled envy, subconscious though it may be.

Great post Dr. Phil.

 

[mb6592]

I don't harbor any hate toward the rich, just towards the greedy.

And of course by greedy you mean anyone who makes (sorry, I mean takes) $1. more than what you deem necessary. Please, stop with the "I don't begrudge anyone earning whatever they can" crap.

 

[peterforpats]

the owners will never open their books for two reasons-1. they dont wan't to be embarrassed when the world sees the nepotism, bad management, and
'cooked" books. that info would come out.2. the most important reason is not for the union, its so local cities or states would blow a gasket when they saw how much money they make when they had their hands out for stadium funds ,infrastructure improvements, and anything else politicians give to keep a football team. fact is , most places would be better served given that money to a business that would create better jobs than the part-time vendors,etc. who work the brief football season. even the well paid players mostly go elsewhere ( with their money) in the offseason. politicians love teams so they can hobnob with the owners, get tickets and impress, but say a toyota plant would be a much better investment., if anybody really cares. at least kraft used his money and built patriot place, but most owners aren't that smart.

 

[jsull87]

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

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

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

I know your having a good time making fun of andy. But if your for this then ok... when and who calls when a company has gone to far? Because they haven't broken any laws. They are just negotiating for a better deal as any astute business person would. Yet somehow people are acting like they are criminals and their companies should be ripped from them (companies they built from the ground up mind you: see one Bob Kraft). If like some people on here seem to have suggested (i haven't read every post... way too many) that the gov takes the teams from the owners and gives it to the "people" then that is idiotic to say the least.

 

[jsull87]

the owners will never open their books for two reasons-1. they dont wan't to be embarrassed when the world sees the nepotism, bad management, and
'cooked" books. that info would come out.2. the most important reason is not for the union, its so local cities or states would blow a gasket when they saw how much money they make when they had their hands out for stadium funds ,infrastructure improvements, and anything else politicians give to keep a football team. fact is , most places would be better served given that money to a business that would create better jobs than the part-time vendors,etc. who work the brief football season. even the well paid players mostly go elsewhere ( with their money) in the offseason. politicians love teams so they can hobnob with the owners, get tickets and impress, but say a toyota plant would be a much better investment., if anybody really cares. at least kraft used his money and built patriot place, but most owners aren't that smart.

Nope there is only one reason. They don't have to by law. Maybe if there's a second reason but it really relates to the 1st is that no one has the right to walk up to a private company and say hey how much money you making show me everything. The owners offered to have an independent auditor come in and confirm their claims and figures and the NFLPA said no. Why does everyone gloss over that when they are trying to make their arguments that the owners are lying greedy criminals?

 

[peterforpats]

Nope there is only one reason. They don't have to by law. Maybe if there's a second reason but it really relates to the 1st is that no one has the right to walk up to a private company and say hey how much money you making show me everything. The owners offered to have an independent auditor come in and confirm their claims and figures and the NFLPA said no. Why does everyone gloss over that when they are trying to make their arguments that the owners are lying greedy criminals?

gee, give us anti-trust exemption, throw in some taxpayer money, and let us determine what is important for you to know. sorry, they may have the legal right but that is just wrong. don't take my money if you want to remain private.and yes, they are lying, greedy crooks.

 

[jsull87]

gee, give us anti-trust exemption, throw in some taxpayer money, and let us determine what is important for you to know. sorry, they may have the legal right but that is just wrong. don't take my money if you want to remain private.and yes, they are lying, greedy crooks.

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

 

[Ring 6]

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

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

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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

In fact, he has confirmed that is exactly what he meant.

Surely you aren't as thick/obtuse as many of your posts suggest. Individuals and/or corporations shouldn't be allowed to act in a ways that are grossly detrimental to other individuals, or to society as a whole.

Are you suggesting that the NFL owners are acting in a way that is GROSSLY DETRIMENTAL to others and/or 'society as a whole' by opting out of the last CBA and wanting to negotiate a new one? Really?

Um, it's called 'the rule of law' and it's a concept that's been around a pretty long time.

That doesnt even make sense. The rule of law has absolutely nothing to do with what you are talking about.

quote] Regarding companies, it's called 'regulation'--it hasn't been around as long, but it has been vital in keeping our capitalist system intact.[/quote]
Stripping NFL owners of their businesses is not regulation, and is by no means capitalism.

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

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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

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

Wouldn't a cash floor and cap actually make more sense than a salary cap and floor?
I suppose it would depress the market though.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy, you appear to be very emotional about this,

Since I noted the emotion of your position, I suppose this is obligatory. If not you couldn't be more wrong. My approach to this entire topic has been 'its business not personal' and there has been zero emotional content at all in my posts.

as your analogies in your last post and the 50,000 other posts you have invested in the subject make clear,

How are analogies emotional??????

but yes, i am suggesting stripping the owners of their franchises and putting them up for public offerings

That is simply unAmerican.
You are going to take away their business because you don't like the fact that they want to negotiate a better labor contract? Every company in America that has union workers would be disolved under your plan.

so the communities who made them grow into what they are can own them.

All I can say is I disagree, Comrade.

Contrary to your assertion that the franchises are the sole property of the individual owners the reality is that the owners are actually stewards of franchises that existed before their purchase and will exist after their deaths,

Its not my assertion, its a stone cold fact that the franchises are the sole property of the individuals that own them.
The PURCHASED them, they did not sign up to be a 'steward'.

with a few exceptions as Al may never die, or he already did and we simply can't tell the difference. The growth of these franchises is the result of decades and decades of fan and community support, and not the incredible business acumen of Ralph Wilson or Mike Brown. The game and league is bigger than the owners or the players, and both need to recognize this and act in accordance with that responsibility.

The fans are the customers of the franchises. Should you and I own PepsiCola because it only exists because we supported it for years?

The players are limited by the league in what they can make, yet you and others seem to think that the owners shouldn't be, and that their only responsibility is to make as much money as they possibly can,

The players are limited by what they NEGOTIATE which turns out to be somewhere North of 90% of the revenue after expenses, which are paid by the owners from their share.
The owners should be limited in what they make by what their customers are willing to pay. That is what a business is. A business exists for the purpose of maximizing profit. You seem to be very anti-capitalism when you consistently write that there is something wrong with a business operating as a profit-minded entity.

no matter how badly thaty screws all those who made the league what it is.

Who is being screwed right now?

The FACT is that in a sh.tty economy the football owners are making money hand over fist,

The players are making more.

and rather than acknowledge their good fortune they are exploiting the situation for even greater profit.

So you think that the negotiating position of the owners should be:
"Thank you everyone for allowing us to be a proftable league. We are so honored to be able to make a profit, we would like the players to take whatever they feel is fair, and we would not dare negotiate a larger share than the players willingly give us"?
That's been my point throughout this. You are asking the owners to do things that are totally moronic and approach their business matters in a manner that would have made them penniless years ago. You clearly know absolutely nothing about business, and I cannot understand how you think you can give business advice to the owners of NFL franchsies.

You can be fine with that but I'm not, and I believe the owners have abrogated the trust of the communities who have supported them for almost a century and as such no longer deserve the right to own those teams. While i know this is an unpopular opinion in a country that actually celebrates greed it is still what I believe is best for all.

You have a bizarre opinion of what constitutes greed. Are the players not greedy for turning down the owners offer, since they make more than the owners do?
What makes them greedy? You don't even know how much profit they are making. Are the Packers greedy because they made $5mill profit out of $258mill in revenue?
Who do you expect to absorb the risk if the franchise loses money after you ripped it away from its owner? Fans? Taxpayers?

I know you think this is grossly unfair to the billionaire owners

It has nothing to do with 'billinaire'. It is a ridiculous suggestion that you feel justified to take away a business that an owner paid hundereds of millions for. I'd have the same problem if you tried to take someone's donut shop away because you didnt like the way they ran it either.

but given the dire straits their franchises have put them in financially I think we are really doing them a favor by removing the financial burden these franchises have put upon them and allowing them to invest their billions in something profitable for them,

The owners have not said they are in dire straits. They have not said they aren't making money.
They have said they feel the players are getting to large of a share of the revenue. Thats all. You apparently have decided you know better than them, and the players share is fair, and the owners should just be happy to exist.

as apparently owning an NFL team isn't profitable enough or they wouldn't be willing to screw the communities who have supported them for a long long time for greater profit.

They are running a business and negotiating a labor contract. They are not screwing the community.

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

Maybe since you have decided that you know better than the owners what they should do, you should buy one of the franchises. Then you can convince the other 31 owners that business isnt about profits.