Whos side are you on?

[Chief]

My view, the owners have more griund to stand on. They bought the teams, they(some), put alot of money into building the stadiums. They build the luxury suites to recover some of that money, as well as use it as a corporate benefit in the business world. I believe Mr Ford spent like 300 million of his own money to build Ford Field.

The players are already getting a cut above 50% on revenue from all the other sales, I can't see trying to force the issue into all and any revenue especially when they have a brand new stadium to play in, a brand new weight room, and whatever other benefits the players get to enjoy. I see this as biting the hands that feed you. The owners take all the risk initially and it takes years to recover that money. Does Upshaw tell these guys it'll be 6 yrs now instead of 4 before you can be unrestricted? That salary increases wil be held to 30%, no more significant jumps for having a great year.

It just seems to me the players have far, far more to lose here then they have to gain, let alone the possibility of not having a job. Something you get millions for for nothing more than your gift of size and athleticism. Of course they're not gonna feel it like the average joe would if lost their jobs. Most of em have millions to fall back on,but it will alter their lifestyles.

No where can I make sense of Upshaws stance, especially when he represents the players, who have the most to lose if this stance backfires. I believe the NHL was asking for 60% or more, that in last minute negotiations, the owners were going to agree to 59%. Before anything went further, it was all called off and I believe now they get 41%, a far cry from what could have been had. To me, this si stupid, and the players need to realize all the implications, and start using what brains they have. Theres tons of kids who are almost NFL material, plus all the guys coming out of college who would love a chance at their jobs if the union ends up in a strike.

While me may see a lesser product, i"m sure we'll still watch the games. I can also foresee this having a huge impact on fantasy football as well. Names we never heard of, and hoping hit some luck that they can produce. Would fantasy football mean as much? This thing could really impact many areas, and cost alot of people tons of money, and not just the owners or players either.

[thecerwin]

I mostly just want them to agree...

[Sgt. Ryan]

I want no cap, revenue sharing, a 50% reduction in players salary, 50% reduction of ticket prices and $1 beers at the game.

 

Owners bring in the same cash, players get more what they deserve, and the fan gets a better product, plus a game and drinks for a reasonable price.

Edited March 3, 2006 by Sgt. Ryan

[Ziachild007]

I want no cap, revenue sharing, a 50% reduction in players salary, 50% reduction of ticket prices and $1 beers at the game. 

 

Owners bring in the same cash, players get more what they deserve, and the fan gets a better product, plus a game and drinks for a reasonable price.

1350216[/snapback]

 

I have just decided that I am on Sarge's side.

[kpholmes]

I don't care for many owners, including my own team's,

but I want a cap more than anything.

Because... well...

I hate the Yankee's.

[godtomsatan]

Again, this isn't owners vs. players.

 

This is a faction of owners who don't want to have to give a greater percentage of their goodies away than the other owners.

 

There are 32 entities here, with 32 different revenue streams. Some of these revenue streams are publically financed, some were privately financed (the Ford example, for instance). Some of these still haven't been paid off, and some are physically (and economically) decrepit.

[Rovers]

Again, this isn't owners vs. players.

 

This is a faction of owners who don't want to have to give a greater percentage of their goodies away than the other owners.

 

There are 32 entities here, with 32 different revenue streams. Some of these revenue streams are publically financed, some were privately financed (the Ford example, for instance). Some of these still haven't been paid off, and some are physically (and economically) decrepit.

 

1350386[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Um.... in short, no.

 

The NFLPA wants the % of shared revenues raised, and they also want all of the local team revenues to be part of that pot. When the NFLPA came down from 60% to 58%, they also insisted on increasing the shared revenue pool. Net result.... that 58% would get more money to the players than the previous 60% position they held. That, is why the owners meeting was cut short. The union actually UPPED their demands.

[Sgt. Ryan]

I don't care for many owners, including my own team's,

but I want a cap more than anything.

Because... well...

I hate the Yankee's.

 

1350375[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

For the last time, the NFL has multi billion dollar TV deal, that is shared. the Yankees have their own TV deal that is more than most payrolls, that isnt shared. MLB and the NFL are no where near the same. I dont want a cap, because I want to see players stick with their team if they both sides want it that way, not have to be a cap casualty, for a youth movement that waters down the NFL play like we have today.

[godtomsatan]

Um.... in short, no.

 

The NFLPA wants the % of shared revenues raised, and they also want all of the local team revenues to be part of that pot. When the NFLPA came down from 60% to 58%, they also insisted on increasing the shared revenue pool. Net result.... that 58% would get more money to the players than the previous 60% position they held. That, is why the owners meeting was cut short. The union actually UPPED their demands.

 

1350396[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

How does 58% become more than 60%?

 

And I've been looking for a source that says all of this.

[Skippy]

For the last time, the NFL has multi billion dollar TV deal, that is shared.  the Yankees have their own TV deal that is more than most payrolls, that isnt shared.  MLB and the NFL are no where near the same.  I dont want a cap, because I want to see players stick with their team if they both sides want it that way, not have to be a cap casualty, for a youth movement that waters down the NFL play like we have today.

 

1350399[/snapback]

 

 

 

There would still end up being the "Yankees" of the NFL without a cap. Small market teams would never be able to keep up with the money of the larger market teams, IMHO.

[NinersIn2006!]

I dont care about the owners, I dont care about the union....just GET THE FLIPPING DEAL DONE!!!!

[Gdawg]

$1 beers at the game. 

 

plus a game and drinks for a reasonable price.

 

1350216[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

+1 fer Sarge's Side

[smithkt]

How does 58% become more than 60%?

 

And I've been looking for a source that says all of this.

 

1350403[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I don't have a source for you. I've just read bits and pieces all over the place stating this. To answer your question. 58% becomes more than 60% when the revenue pool gets larger. For example:

 

60% of $100 is $60

58% of $150 is $87

 

Which would you rather have?

 

This is essentially what the players union has done. They've said they will come down to 58%, but in return they want to include additional revenue streams into the calculation of the total revenue pool.

[Duchess Jack]

I think that the players need to shut their collective traps...

 

at least the union.

[Randall]

Green Bay a town of a little over 100,000 people fields a team. That would not happen in baseball or basketball.

 

While I agree with a lot of Sarge's points I think a cap makes this a better sport. I would like to see it altered but not gotten rid of.

[Hat Trick]

I dont care about the owners, I dont care about the union....just GET THE FLIPPING DEAL DONE!!!!

 

1350409[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

+1

[NAUgrad]

Green Bay a town of a little over 100,000 people fields a team. That would not happen in baseball or basketball.

 

While I agree with a lot of Sarge's points I think a cap makes this a better sport. I would like to see it altered but not gotten rid of.

 

1350518[/snapback]

 

 

 

+1

 

The product isn't watered down. Just get the deal done!

Edited March 3, 2006 by NAUgrad

[Sgt. Ryan]

+1

 

The product isn't watered down.  Just get the deal done!

 

1350614[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

When Buffalo cuts Drew Bledsoe to start JP Losman to save cap space, there is a problem with the system. Buffalo was clearly a worse product as a result of this move, as Losman was no where near ready, and the Bills sucked as a result.

 

 

On Every team there is at least 1 player cut, that should be starting over a cheaper option, but is let go because of the cap. That is watered down football.

[TripleW64]

When Buffalo cuts Drew Bledsoe to start JP Losman to save cap space, there is a problem with the system.  Buffalo was clearly a worse product as a result of this move, as Losman was no where near ready, and the Bills sucked as a result.

On Every team there is at least 1  player cut, that should be starting over a cheaper option, but is let go because of the cap.  That is watered down football.

 

1350767[/snapback]

 

 

 

Gotta agree with Sarge here. Talented players are cut because of cap restrictions. Personally, I would like to see a cap to avoid the ARod contracts. But put in place the NBA Larry Bird (?) amendment where a team can exceed the cap to a degree to sign one of it's own veterans. Helps to continue fan loyalty to the team and player but will not allow certain owners to buy an All-Star squad of underachievers.

[Duchess Jack]

But put in place the NBA Larry Bird (?)  amendment where a team can exceed the cap to a degree to sign one of it's own veterans. Helps to continue fan loyalty to the team and player but will not allow certain owners to buy an All-Star squad of underachievers.

 

1350812[/snapback]

 

 

 

No doubt. Reduce how much a vets salaryis counted towards the cap by 10% for every he is on the team beyond 5 years.

[Big Score 1]

They(some), Taxpayers put alot of money into building the stadiums.

1350169[/snapback]

 

 

 

Had to fix that for you Chief.

Very, very, very few owners put a lot of their own money into building stadiums. There are some exceptions such as Robert Kraft, the late Jack Kent Cooke and I guess now Ford. However, the vast majority of stadium funding is financed with taxpayer money through floated City / County or, in some cases, State Bonds.

They Taxpayers build the luxury suites to recover some of that money, as well as use it as a corporate benefit in the business world.

1350169[/snapback]

 

 

 

The majority of the direct income from luxury suites does indeed go to the owners, even though in quite a few cases, they contributed absolutely $0.00 to their construction.

The owners taxpayers take all the risk initially and it takes years to recover that money.

1350169[/snapback]

 

 

 

To be honest, there really is NO risk associated with any Football investment..........with the CBA in place.

There is not one single NFL Franchise that is not making money hand over fist.

I believe the NHL was asking for 60% or more, that in last minute negotiations, the owners were going to agree to 59%. Before anything went further, it was all called off and I believe now they  get 41%

1350169[/snapback]

 

 

 

Comparing the NHL to the NFL is an exercise in futility. The NHL as a viable money making product pales in comparison to the NFL. Tagliabue also remembers the last player strike back in 1987. While the NFL cobbled together scab players and put them out as a product, both fan attendance & TV viewership suffered tremendously. The TV Networks, with their mega million NFL broadcasting contracts, will not allow that to happen again.

There's tons of kids who are almost NFL material, plus all the guys coming out of college who would love a chance at their jobs if the union ends up in a strike.

1350169[/snapback]

 

 

 

It will not end up in a strike. Upshaw will decertify the Union after the 2006 season and has gone on record as saying once the Salary Cap is gone, it will never be accepted again. Anarchy will reign.

 

Without a Union, the NFL owners will not be able to "collude" and set up such things as the Salary Cap, NFL draft etc. To do so would be in violation of anti-trust laws.

 

Every single existing player and incoming College player would essentially be unrestricted free agents and able to negotiate whatever contract they can. With no cap in place you would see players salaries exploding with the big market aggressive owners ala Jerry Jones, Danny Snyder etc getting into bidding wars for the star players. The small market teams with less aggressive owners would not be able to compete.

 

The NFL would dissolve into the type of product we now have with MLB. Some teams would resemble the New York Yankees. They will simply go out and buy All-Pro players at every position and be perennial power-houses in the running for Superbowl Champs every year. Other teams would resemble the KC Royals. Not even able to field a competitive team, let alone having snowballs chance at a Championship.

 

In short the CBA serves to even things out. Without a Union there can be no CBA.

 

Absolute worst case scenario for the NFL.

 

Here's an excellent article written last year. It details the owners in-fighting over revenue sharing amongst themselves, which is a major impediment to getting the new CBA done.

 

www.post-gazette.com

 

Lastly, just to be perfectly clear, the current CBA provides for 64% of the DGR (Designated Gross Revenue) to be shared with the players. The DGR represents 87% of all revenue.

 

So the Union is essentially saying that for a new CBA they will reduce the amount currently assigned by 4% and in return expect 100% GR (Gross Revenue) instead of the current 87%. It works out to roughly $10,000,000.00 per team annually.

 

If the Union were to accept the NFL owners current offer of 56.4% of the GR, it would actually represent less than the 64% DGR they are currently getting.

 

I honestly see both sides making concessions to the %'s that both say are final.

[Chief]

Without a Union, the NFL owners will not be able to "collude" and set up such things as the Salary Cap, NFL draft etc. To do so would be in violation of anti-trust laws.

 

 

Here's something I'd like clarified Scores. If the draft is fine under a CBA agreement, how can it not be without one? I fail to see how this would provide collusion, compared to providing equality as it does today. Let's pretend there is no CBA, no draft, then what? Just bidding wars or? I don't remember exactly what went on before we had a CBA. I would think the NFL would have to have a viable way to do one somehow.......... just asking what could, or does, prevent them from doing so if theres no union, CBA,..................

[Big John]

Without a Union, the NFL owners will not be able to "collude" and set up such things as the Salary Cap, NFL draft etc. To do so would be in violation of anti-trust laws.

  Here's something I'd like clarified Scores. If the draft is fine under a CBA agreement, how can it not be without one?  I fail to see how this would provide collusion, compared to providing equality as it does today. Let's pretend there is no CBA, no draft, then what?  Just bidding wars or?  I don't remember exactly what went on before we had a CBA.  I would think the NFL would have to have a viable way to do one somehow..........  just asking what could, or does, prevent them from doing so if theres no union, CBA,..................

 

1351278[/snapback]

 

 

 

I believe anti-trust laws would kick in, which don't apply if there is CBA.

[Big Score 1]

NFL would have to have a viable way to do one somehow..........  just asking what could, or does, prevent them from doing so if theres no union, CBA,..................

1351278[/snapback]

By definition, if the NFL owners were to attempt to put a formula into play for the draft or player salaries with no CBA, they would be in direct violation of anti-trust laws and would open up a Pandora's Box of law suits.

 

This is how free agency was born after the NFLPA Strike of 1987.

 

The Union temporarily disbanded & then Freeman McNeil was able to take the NFL to court for violation of anti-trust laws in not granting players free agency.

[godtomsatan]

I don't have a source for you.  I've just read bits and pieces all over the place stating this.  To answer your question.  58% becomes more than 60% when the revenue pool gets larger.  For example:

 

60% of $100 is $60

58% of $150 is $87

 

Which would you rather have?

 

This is essentially what the players union has done.  They've said they will come down to 58%, but in return they want to include additional revenue streams into the calculation of the total revenue pool.

 

1350502[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The NFLPA presently gets 63% of "designated revenues".

 

They are asking for 60% of total gross revenues, lower percentage of a different definition of "the pie".

 

Where does the 58% come from? I have a feeling if the number was 58% down from 60%, the owners would be cool with it (if they have their own end of things put together OK).