Latest on the CBA

[BearBroncos]

You can't double-dip the financial risk argument. Sure, the owners all paid top dollar to buy their teams and this number has continued to climb. So, that means that there are eager buyers who want a piece. That means it must be pretty damned profitable. And, for all the tales of sadness, you just don't see it. Even bad teams sell seats and they all get to share the massive TV deal. Sure, Jacksonville is sucking ass, but maybe that's because Jacksonville isn't a good place to put a team.

 

I think there is some delusion here that NFL owners bring in 100% profit or some other ungodly amount of revenue from being a franchise owner. Granted, if an owner of a team built a franchise that was good and turned a 100% profit, I'd have no problem with that. If the owner of Jacksonville is content with earning 4% of directs, then I guess we will continue to see a sub-prime team year in from that market. As I stated, there is only 1 team I'm aware that turns a nice profit (relatively speaking) and continues to loose and that's Detroit but I could be wrong about that. I haven't looked at their finances in years.

 

Do you not see Pat Bowlen, of the Denver Broncos in serious panic mode? It took that franchise YEARS to get the season ticket waiting list the wait it is and now people can't give those packages away. Hence is move to stop the bleeding ASAP. Granted, his roster right now is one of the cheapest, I don;t see that reaming that way very much longer. He's willing to spend top dollars on most occasions.

 

But really, they are nothing like any other businessman. They're a license to print money. Name one other industry where consumers who are fed up with an inferior product are chastised for not being loyal? But it happens in the NFL. You can suck for 10 years and people keep showing up. It's a matter of civic pride to keep showing up, even if the team sucks. If I start putting out crappy food, I'm done, in a month. And nobody would give two poops. "Oh, that place used to be good. Now it sucks. I'm gone" There would be no "civic pride" in supporting my place. No, I'd be held accountable for my inability to do my job. And this is simply not the case for the NFL. How soon do you think the flap over the how poorly the SB was run will blow over? Oh, wait, it already has. Never mind.

 

1 response, General Motors!

 

But because the players make a lot, they should just shut up and play. That it's their fault and their fault only if hot dog vendors end up out of work because of this. So, let me get this straight. If the owner thinks he can squeeze you for another $10 at the gate, another $5 in the lot, and another buck each on the hot dogs, then we should be cool with that. Because that guy is a businessman and businessmen are supposed to try and make as much as they can. And he knows he can because, every time he does, someone pays. Hell, you have to pay for the right to buy tickets! It's freaking amazing. So, this is all cool even if they're already crazy wealthy. But if the players realize that there's a huge pile of money sitting there, they're a-holes for trying to get as much of that as they can, because they already make so much.

 

I never said shut up nor do I think the majority of the owners feel that way. I do think there is a time when greed does get out of hand. We have some players making well over 100 million! The base salary is more than most people will ever see and yet they keep driving up the cost. You do realize we see this cost brought down to our level, right? That's why we pay a freaking arm and a leg for things like a beer. The cost to pay these athletes will continue to drive the common man from going to these events! That's okay with you?

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

No we can't!

[bpwallace49]

I painted a broad picture in which I should not have. Players are looking for a bigger split of the 9 billion dollar blanket while owners feel that their revenue stream is drying up each year. The Packers organization whom have opened their books can attest to. the players said they would be happy with the current CBA. The OWNERS opted out early because they want an addition billion for them off the top. That has been their stance since day one that they havent budged from. That isnt negotiating, that is demanding.

 

It is the NFL players union who have canceled talks from all I understand so if they continue to refuse to negotiate, isn't that in essence their stance and considered a strike since they know the outcome is a lockout if they do not negotiate? I have no idea what you are talking about. The owners have said they need an extra billion off the top every year, and that hasnt moved one iota. Does that sound like negotiating? It is considered a strike if the owners say "give us what you want or we will lock you out?" that is a MANAGEMENT decision by the owners, and NOT a strike at all. if your job said to you right now, "you will take a 30% paycut, and we will double your workload because we want more profits and if you dont accept we are closing down shop" . . .and then you say screw you I quit . . . would you be considered "on strike"?

 

We live in a capitalist society. If the market dictates their worth, they will be paid it. If that team doesn't pay the worth, then another team eventually will. If the players agent wrote them into a corner, is that the fault of the team or the agent? I have no idea where you are going with this. Seriously. Are you somehow upset with agents?

 

A city gets a HUGE portion of revenue from major league team, hence you see cities courting teams on a regular basis. Part of that negotiation process is to split stadium revenues. The city generally gets a HUGE chunk of stadium revenues and parking so they are more opt to finance a new stadium. Some teams opt to capitalize on all that revenue but because a market can be fickle, so owning 100% of a stadium can be devistating to a franchise and that's where you see profit sharing. I have no issues with that. But it is harder to plead poverty when the city is helping pay the expenses. And another reason why the owners could be more forthright on their finances to benefit everyone. The owners, the players and the league.

[bpwallace49]

I never said shut up nor do I think the majority of the owners feel that way. I do think there is a time when greed does get out of hand. We have some players making well over 100 million! The base salary is more than most people will ever see and yet they keep driving up the cost. You do realize we see this cost brought down to our level, right? That's why we pay a freaking arm and a leg for things like a beer. The cost to pay these athletes will continue to drive the common man from going to these events! That's okay with you?

 

So you are saying that if NFL players were paid say . . . at a cap of 1 million per year, that all of a sudden hot dog prices, beer and ticket prices would magically drop? You really think the owners would automatically reduce all their prices and not simply just realize more profits?

 

You apply the greed label to the players, but not to the owners?

[BearBroncos]

The owners opted out because of revenue decreases the last 2 years as well they wanted a tighter grip on rookie salaries (which I see no problem with IMPO). The players union are unwilling to negotiate and aren't even willing to sit at the table because they WANT the status quo. Why not at least sit down and discuss options? You say the owners are demanding, it's more the Players union demanding if their not even willing to discuss it.

[BearBroncos]

So you are saying that if NFL players were paid say . . . at a cap of 1 million per year, that all of a sudden hot dog prices, beer and ticket prices would magically drop? You really think the owners would automatically reduce all their prices and not simply just realize more profits?

 

You need only look at New Yorks (Hah, Jersey) new stadium and their pricing and see how long they opt to charge that kind of money. Eventually, if they don't adjust their prices, all the revenue dries up.

 

Here in Denver, there is a huge uptick in events like soccer and Lacrosse because $50 can get you lots of fun for a a family unlike the NFL where you need to bring a small fortune.

 

I go back to General Motors. There are some line workers that make more than some small company executives which drive the price of their vehicle up. They have to use sub-par parts to keep the price somewhat competitive with other automakers but over the years of having crappy quality but paying luxury price is now catching up to them . The only cure is to get their workers back down to national standards so the price and quality of their product meets consumer standards.

 

 

You apply the greed label to the players, but not to the owners?

 

Again, you're putting words into my mouth! I never said the owners weren't greedy. I did say they bear the most risk however.

Edited February 16, 2011 by BearBroncos

[Ursa Majoris]

I think there is some delusion here that NFL owners bring in 100% profit or some other ungodly amount of revenue from being a franchise owner. Granted, if an owner of a team built a franchise that was good and turned a 100% profit, I'd have no problem with that.

Red McCombs bought the Vikings for about $300m, IIRC and sold them for over $600m without having put a red (pardon the pun) cent into the team. There is more than one way to make money from being an owner.

[Ursa Majoris]

The owners opted out because of revenue decreases the last 2 years as well they wanted a tighter grip on rookie salaries (which I see no problem with IMPO). The players union are unwilling to negotiate and aren't even willing to sit at the table because they WANT the status quo. Why not at least sit down and discuss options? You say the owners are demanding, it's more the Players union demanding if their not even willing to discuss it.

I thought the NFL broke off negotiations and sued the NFLPA yesterday?

[detlef]

I think there is some delusion here that NFL owners bring in 100% profit or some other ungodly amount of revenue from being a franchise owner. Granted, if an owner of a team built a franchise that was good and turned a 100% profit, I'd have no problem with that. If the owner of Jacksonville is content with earning 4% of directs, then I guess we will continue to see a sub-prime team year in from that market. As I stated, there is only 1 team I'm aware that turns a nice profit (relatively speaking) and continues to loose and that's Detroit but I could be wrong about that. I haven't looked at their finances in years.

 

Do you not see Pat Bowlen, of the Denver Broncos in serious panic mode? It took that franchise YEARS to get the season ticket waiting list the wait it is and now people can't give those packages away. Hence is move to stop the bleeding ASAP. Granted, his roster right now is one of the cheapest, I don;t see that reaming that way very much longer. He's willing to spend top dollars on most occasions.

 

 

 

1 response, General Motors!

 

 

 

I never said shut up nor do I think the majority of the owners feel that way. I do think there is a time when greed does get out of hand. We have some players making well over 100 million! The base salary is more than most people will ever see and yet they keep driving up the cost. You do realize we see this cost brought down to our level, right? That's why we pay a freaking arm and a leg for things like a beer. The cost to pay these athletes will continue to drive the common man from going to these events! That's okay with you?

 

 

 

No we can't!

My point about the value of teams is this. It costs what it costs to buy a franchise because that's what they're valued at. Not because that's the hard cost of doing what they do. After all, that's why they've gone up in price so dramatically over the last decades. The value of NFL franchises has blown away any other growth. That cost has nothing at all to do with player salaries, because that is the cost of the privilege of doing business in the NFL. The player salaries and what not are operational costs and are rather conveniently attached to revenue. Hell, it's actually a pretty nice deal. I wish my labor was fixed to revenues. That way, when we had a slow year in '09, I could go tell the guys they were all going to make less money. Trust me, if I could sign some deal with my employees that required me to pay a minimum of x% of sales to the group but came with a max % as well? Are you kidding me? I'd sign it in a second. Provided, of course, that I got to work it out with them what those numbers were.

 

I don't think US car companies enjoy nearly the loyalty that NFL teams do.

 

You could not be more wrong than to say that players salaries drive up expenses. That just means you're drinking the kool-aid. Do you honestly think that a bunch of heavy hitters like NFL owners are going to be reactionary like that. That they're going to let some barely educated thug get them to pay more than they can afford and then go scrambling to see if they can get more out of the fans? Honestly? That simply doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that these guys are charging as much as they think they can get away with and the public keeps proving that number is higher and higher. So, they've got the money. Then the players see that money and want theirs. Do the players make way too much? Damned right. If there was some deal where both players and owners offered to peel off a slice and give it to firemen, policemen, and teachers? I'd be all freaking for that. But that ain't gonna happen.

 

So, again, this is no more about player greed than it is about owner greed. And why they both need to realize, before they kill the golden goose, that nobody has much sympathy for either side. At least nobody should have sympathy for either side. But I guess the owners realize they've duped enough people like you to feel they can get away with this.

Edited February 16, 2011 by detlef

[BearBroncos]

My point about the value of teams is this. It costs what it costs to buy a franchise because that's what they're valued at. Not because that's the hard cost of doing what they do. After all, that's why they've gone up in price so dramatically over the last decades. The value of NFL franchises has blown away any other growth. That cost has nothing at all to do with player salaries, because that is the cost of the privilege of doing business in the NFL. The player salaries and what not are operational costs and are rather conveniently attached to revenue. Hell, it's actually a pretty nice deal. I wish my labor was fixed to revenues. That way, when we had a slow year in '09, I could go tell the guys they were all going to make less money. Trust me, if I could sign some deal with my employees that required me to pay a minimum of x% of sales to the group but came with a max % as well? Are you kidding me? I'd sign it in a second. Provided, of course, that I got to work it out with them what those numbers were.

 

There are MILLIONS of people who work on commission that fall into this category every year. Sub contract labor also falls into this category. Most FTE's generally don't fall under these type of guidelines but to say this is the norm is naive at best.

 

 

I myself took a $23,000 pay cut (I'm an FTE mind you) last year due to the economic down turn, along with several other analyst's and or Op's heads. I took a ¢50 (an hour) raise this year, basically a token "thank you" for making it where others did not lose their jobs.

 

So, again, this is no more about player greed than it is about owner greed. And why they both need to realize, before they kill the golden goose, that nobody has much sympathy for either side. At least nobody should have sympathy for either side. But I guess the owners realize they've duped enough people like you to feel they can get away with this.

 

In fairness, I need to understand the negotiations better but I've also been self employed and also had to deal with unions on a regular basis. Not dissing the value unions brought to this country but more less what they've done in the last 2 decades. Unions have been a principle force for driving cost up and if you think that players salaries don't impact simple things such as parking lots fees or concession cost, then it's you whom have sipped the kool-aid. I've seen industry after industry fall apart from poor negotiations from the local union leaders (Consolidated Freight way is only 1 of THOUSANDS of examples).

 

Yes, owners are greedy, no denying that. As I mentioned, I was an owner of a fairly large catering company for about 8 years and yes, I wanted my gross margin to grow every month. But it was I who bought the equipment, I who mortgaged my house, I who mortgaged my life for 6 years and it was I who put ALL the risk on the table to compete in the catering world. I hired the best employees I could afford and payed them everything they deserved that allowed me to bring home the bacon. So yes, I have a dog in this fight. I understand the perspective from an owners point of view while others have an entitlement mentality.

 

You know what... You want to make what owners make, BUY AN F'ING TEAM!

[BearBroncos]

I thought the NFL broke off negotiations and sued the NFLPA yesterday?

 

Because its come out that the NFLPA is already planning to decertify so they can launch an anti-trust lawsuit when the lock-out occurs. Again, if your planning for a lock out and not even willing to go to the table, is it really a lock out, or a strike?

[detlef]

There are MILLIONS of people who work on commission that fall into this category every year. Sub contract labor also falls into this category. Most FTE's generally don't fall under these type of guidelines but to say this is the norm is naive at best.

 

 

I myself took a $23,000 pay cut (I'm an FTE mind you) last year due to the economic down turn, along with several other analyst's and or Op's heads. I took a ¢50 (an hour) raise this year, basically a token "thank you" for making it where others did not lose their jobs.

 

 

 

In fairness, I need to understand the negotiations better but I've also been self employed and also had to deal with unions on a regular basis. Not dissing the value unions brought to this country but more less what they've done in the last 2 decades. Unions have been a principle force for driving cost up and if you think that players salaries don't impact simple things such as parking lots fees or concession cost, then it's you whom have sipped the kool-aid. I've seen industry after industry fall apart from poor negotiations from the local union leaders (Consolidated Freight way is only 1 of THOUSANDS of examples).

 

Yes, owners are greedy, no denying that. As I mentioned, I was an owner of a fairly large catering company for about 8 years and yes, I wanted my gross margin to grow every month. But it was I who bought the equipment, I who mortgaged my house, I who mortgaged my life for 6 years and it was I who put ALL the risk on the table to compete in the catering world. I hired the best employees I could afford and payed them everything they deserved that allowed me to bring home the bacon. So yes, I have a dog in this fight. I understand the perspective from an owners point of view while others have an entitlement mentality.

 

You know what... You want to make what owners make, BUY AN F'ING TEAM!

Dude, I own two businesses, I understand the deal. So, spare me the "I understand the perspective" bit. However, that doesn't mean I have to blindly side with ownership in every situation. And, yes, I do think the owners use the players as a scapegoat for raising prices on everything, because they know that nobody is going to get their back. Why would we? They "make millions to play a game", waste much of it, and get in tons of trouble. So the owner reaches into your pocket for another $20 and know your first thought is gonna be, "This is all TO's fault. If they didn't pay him so much, Jerry Jones would let me park for free."

 

But TO doesn't owe it to you to save his money and spend it wisely. It's his freaking money and he can do with it what he wants. And if more than one team wants his services, he can make them fight it out.

 

See, you're so over the top on this thing, you think I'm actually on the side of the players. But I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not on either side. None of us know enough about the numbers at play to say who is looking for more than their fare share. I'm just trying to shed some perspective. That maybe, just maybe, Jerry Jones isn't the victim here. And apparently, because of that, I hate ownership.

[Red McCombs]

Red McCombs bought the Vikings for about $300m, IIRC and sold them for over $600m without having put a red (pardon the pun) cent into the team. There is more than one way to make money from being an owner.

 

Greed is good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who wants to buy a used car?!?

[Ursa Majoris]

Because its come out that the NFLPA is already planning to decertify so they can launch an anti-trust lawsuit when the lock-out occurs. Again, if your planning for a lock out and not even willing to go to the table, is it really a lock out, or a strike?

It's a lockout. And to use your own paradigm, is it really a negotiation when the starting point is the owners unilaterally declaring they are taking an additional billion dollars off the top of the whole cake before it gets divvied up?

[piratesownninjas]

It's a lockout. And to use your own paradigm, is it really a negotiation when the starting point is the owners unilaterally declaring they are taking an additional billion dollars off the top of the whole cake before it gets divvied up?

Are you saying Demaurice Smith from the NFLPA is doing a standup job? Running to the media like a bitch? Both sides are acting like children. And again, those in favor of the NFLPA, how do you like baseball in it's current state? A stronger players union is bad for the game.

[Big Country]

The Detroit Lions (owned by auto scion William Clay Ford) are one of only two teams to lose money ($2.9 million) last season on an operating basis (the Miami Dolphins lost $7.7 million). This marks the third time in four years the Lions have posted an operating loss.

 

The team is burdened with a hefty debt load of $350 million thanks to the Lions' contribution to the $440 million Ford Field, which opened in 2002. The Lions have struggled to sell tickets since becoming the first NFL team to ever finish winless in a 16-game season in 2008. The Lions had half of its eight home games blacked out last year as it failed to sell out 72 hours before kickoff. The team cut ticket prices on 19,000 seats for this season in hopes of boosting attendance.

 

 

As I stated, there is only 1 team I'm aware that turns a nice profit (relatively speaking) and continues to loose and that's Detroit but I could be wrong about that. I haven't looked at their finances in years.

 

 

Yup, you would be wrong.

 

Neither side is being reasonable yet. Probably wont change for quite some time.

[SLAYER]

Roger G.. is bad for the game.

 

fixed

[osu1322]

2) And this one is huge, they can wait this thing out. It is well-documented how bad players are with their money, so I wonder how much many of them have in reserves. It seems silly to most of us that guys who've been making as much as they have can't afford to go a few months without pay, but I'd bet there's a ton of these guys who really, really need this thing to get settled before the paychecks stop coming. The owners? They've got plenty of money and know how to deal with it.

 

The key to this is people spend money at the level they earn it. If ur making $100k a year then ur going to have a bigger more expensive home, and a summer home and take vacations..... etc

 

If ur making $50k ur going to have all those things (well maybe not the summer home) but ur going to spend the money u have made.

 

Ownerr have made their money in the real world and know how to manage it, invest it and save it.

[detlef]

Are you saying Demaurice Smith from the NFLPA is doing a standup job? Running to the media like a bitch? Both sides are acting like children. And again, those in favor of the NFLPA, how do you like baseball in it's current state? A stronger players union is bad for the game.

From a consumer standpoint, unions are pretty much always bad for any industry. Any pro-labor deal is bad for consumers. In tight-margin industries, it drives prices up. In things like pro sports, players not being made to play for certain organizations for their entire career is bad for competition. But that doesn't mean they should be done away with. Partially because consumers are also labor. So, their status as consumers is only as strong as their status as labor.

 

This is not to say that a misguided union couldn't strangle an industry and ruin it for everyone. And, for all any of us know, this is what is going on here. But I think it is folly to just assume that is the case and that the ownership has really got our backs.

 

You know what would really be good for consumers? For players to take a massive pay cut and owners to slash ticket prices as well and for the networks to renegotiate the contracts way down and sell less advertising. But none of that is going to happen. All that is being talked about is that the players take less of the pie. The consumer still pays top dollar at the gate, the networks still pay a ton and inundate us with ads to pay for it. It's just the owners make more money. Again, maybe they're really not making any money right now. Who knows. Funny, the owners could put a nail in the NFLPA coffin if they came out and said they want players to take less and also charge less at the gate. They've got accountants who could make it work so that the players shoulder most of that cut, but since the public is already pre-disposed to vilify the players, they'd eat it up.

 

But I'm just guessing they understand that they can afford a lockout way more than the players can, so they're just playing hardball right now.

 

Also, I don't think adding two games a year is good for the consumer. At least not me. I think it will dilute the product. There are enough injuries as it is and I think that negatively impacts the quality of the product on the field. I don't want to watch back-ups. At least with having so many damned pre-season games, I can simply avoid watching back-ups play by not tuning in until September. What I don't want is to watch sub-par players playing in games that matter. I understand that season ticket holders are stuck paying for these pre-season games and that sucks for them, but that's not my problem, because I've already decided live NFL football is a rip-off, so I'm not effected. So, yes, this consumer would rather keep 4 pre-season and 16 regular season games. In this case, I selfishly side with the NFLPA.

 

The key to this is people spend money at the level they earn it. If ur making $100k a year then ur going to have a bigger more expensive home, and a summer home and take vacations..... etc

 

If ur making $50k ur going to have all those things (well maybe not the summer home) but ur going to spend the money u have made.

 

Ownerr have made their money in the real world and know how to manage it, invest it and save it.

Which brings us back to this point. I hope you understand that I'm not qualifying this situation with the players, or saying we should pity them or support them because of this. Just saying that, because of their spending habits, they've put themselves in a vulnerable situation. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that this is certainly a leg up for the owners and one that I think they're certainly using to their advantage.

 

Mind you, this is also a QB's league and I would guess that those are the guys who have enough that they could weather the storm. My guess is the massive number of players who end up broke just after retirement is largely inflated by the number of guys who play one or two years at league minimum (which is certainly nothing to shake a stick at, but hardly enough to set anyone but the more fiscally disciplined amongst us up for life). And, in general, these are the easiest guys to replace, because they're really only marginally better than the guys on the outside looking in.

 

So, the owner's leverage in this regard might not be as great as I originally stated. The guys they're most likely to break are the guys they need the least. It's the Tom Bradys and Payton Mannings and Drew Brees. And I'm guessing those are the guys who aren't going to end up in the poor house if they don't get paid for a year. Because an NFL with nothing but QBs that were not good enough to make a roster is going to look a whole lot like the XFL, and that really didn't take off. Of course, the pressure these guys at the top of the wage scale may feel to not screw the bottom half may be enough. Because I'm pretty certain that, if it comes to scabs, and picket-line breakers, the money is going to be a whole lot less than the NFLPA would have to settle for to end the lock-out.

 

Oh, and my wife and I make more than 100K combined and we don't have a second house. We have a modest first home, no kids, and don't take lavish vacations. And that leaves us with basically enough to put something away for retirement. We were also able to weather her getting laid off in '09, (even though her income was very significant to our total).

Edited February 17, 2011 by detlef

[redrumjuice]

Players Salary's have doubled in ten years, the avg is $2M per year. It is out of control.

[Seahawks21]

Players Salary's have doubled in ten years, the avg is $2M per year. It is out of control.

Out of control compared to what? Is it out of control in relation to how much owners are making by owning franchises? Franchises are worth BILLIONS now. Isn't the appreciation of sports franchises then out of control as well? Hasn't that more than doubled in ten years? So owners should pocket more cash than ever before (most of this on the back end), but the players salaries should stay the same?

 

Nobody, not one person, has said that they feel NFL players aren't making enough money, in relation to Burger King employees. All I'm reading is that the discussion involves what percentage of this massively huge pie the players deserve. The actual dollars are completely irrelevant.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Seahawks21

[tazinib1]

The NFL and the NFL Players Association have agreed to federal mediation starting Friday in Washington D.C. The mediator is the same dude who helped resolve the MLS mess.

[detlef]

Out of control compared to what? Is it out of control in relation to how much owners are making by owning franchises? Franchises are worth BILLIONS now. Isn't the appreciation of sports franchises then out of control as well? Hasn't that more than doubled in ten years? So owners should pocket more cash than ever before (most of this on the back end), but the players salaries should stay the same?

 

Nobody, not one person, has said that they feel NFL players aren't making enough money, in relation to Burger King employees. All I'm reading is that the discussion involves what percentage of this massively huge pie the players deserve. The actual dollars are completely irrelevant.

This

[redrumjuice]

Isn't the appreciation of sports franchises then out of control as well? Hasn't that more than doubled in ten years?

 

They hit a ceiling before this recent crash, and many are dropping now.

 

For every dallas cowboys' team, there are 5 Buffalo's, St.Louis's and Tampa Bays. If the players UNION doesn't want to play ball? Then they can stay home. I'll watch a team of 53 'HE HATE ME' Jags run around and slaughter the 'boys again.

 

The big problem is the rookies, the first round guaranteed last year was in the hundreds of millions. But players union wants those inflated salary's regardless what they say publicly becuase it inflates the rest of them as well.

 

Hence the reason for the 18 game push, the TV money alone will help offset some of the losses.

 

Here is some more info: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...2424300234.html

[piratesownninjas]

fixed

Rodger Goodell isn't acting like a child, trying to get the media involved. At the very least he's acting like an adult. Rodger Goodell's no.1 priority is the game.

 

This is not to say that a misguided union couldn't strangle an industry and ruin it for everyone. And, for all any of us know, this is what is going on here. But I think it is folly to just assume that is the case and that the ownership has really got our backs.

See MLB. Look at the small market clubs. They have no chance. Everyone that is pro NFLPA needs to take a look at what it has done to baseball. If the NFLPA gets as strong as the MLBPA say goodbye to the Steelers, Packers, Chargers and the like being able to hold onto there players.

I'm anti-NFLPA, but I'm not exactly pro owners. I think the 18 game schedule is just a tactic to get the NFLPA to move a little bit. Both sides will have to give a little, but the way Smith is acting is pathetic. He's acting like a clown. Goodell at least has some dignity.

[lennykravitz2004]

Speaking of a rookie pay scale....

 

...when is a rookie no longer a rookie?

 

Under a proposed rookie scale, how long is that scale imposed? Could Bradford renegotiate his contract after this year, or Mike Williams down in TB? Are we looking at heavy incentives for rookie deals now? Escalators based on performance?

 

Anybody have any ideas/insight on what's being considered?