Lockout

[Bronco Billy]

The owners get the first billion off the top before the pie is divvied up.

 

And? Does it matter if the players get the first billion or the last billion as long as it is a billion? As long as the owners pay the players that enormous amount what difference does the time frame mean?

[WaterMan]

Someone show me an owner who is about to be homeless because of the deal made in 2006, TIA.

 

[Ursa Majoris]

And? Does it matter if the players get the first billion or the last billion as long as it is a billion? As long as the owners pay the players that enormous amount what difference does the time frame mean?

I was simply pointing out that the division of the spoils is AFTER the first billion has been shaved off the top to cover owner expenses. It is the owner's desire to increase this to two billion that is one of the roots of the issue. References to the division percentages are incomplete and misleading unless that first billion is included in the calculation.

[The Holy Roller]

Wiil The Huddle make projections for the scabs that will undoubtedly be playing in place of the striking NFLPA next season? I don't think there will be a lockout. Television won't allow it.

[Azazello1313]

I think there needs to be some sort of rookie pay structure, and 18 games is probably ok. I take no position one way or another on whether players deserve a greater or lesser share of league revenues.

 

but I think the league should really spend MORE on post-career health care, counseling and such for ex-players. the dave duerson thing shook me up a little bit. while we're at it, I think the players ought to push for some kind of mandatory 4 games (or whatever) lay-up after any kind of concussion.

[BeeR]

Don't forget that part of the reason the NFL is so outrageously successful is that they have not let the players run away with the sport like some other pro leagues have.

 

Apparently this is the part where your drugs kicked in.

[Skilly]

Wiil The Huddle make projections for the scabs that will undoubtedly be playing in place of the striking NFLPA next season? I don't think there will be a lockout. Television won't allow it.

 

Supposedly there will be no replacement players. Unlike previous shortened seasons, this situation is not a players strike, but an owner's lockout. And I believe that the networks have already agreed to pay the NFL the regular tv revenue even if there are no games....not sure how that works, but I know it definately gives the owners an advantage in this.

 

And for the record, I am also firmly on the side of management in this one. If only for the reason that I am SICK of the players and former players complaining about playing two extra games. Very convenient for them to never mention the fact that we the fans still pay FULL PRICE for those tickets to the meaningless preseason games. I am tired of the players believing that THEY are the product...........the players are not the product, the GAME OF FOOTBALL is the product.

[WaterMan]

You need to look at NFL.com and see if they are selling the game of football or the players.

[HowboutthemCowboys]

And I believe that the networks have already agreed to pay the NFL the regular tv revenue even if there are no games....

 

 

if true ..

[nuke'em ttg]

 

MJD moppin floors and fetchin beers at H8s' Computer Empire

[tazinib1]

if true ..

 

Very much so. However, there is litigation going on about this at the moment. However, however, the judge has refused to hand over a ruling saying that it could severely affect the outcome of CBA negotiations.... now THAT is

[wiegie]

No one is forcing the players to play in the NFL.

Likewise, no one is forcing anyone to own an NFL team. They choose to do it.

 

I find it somewhat interesting that if owners are losing so much money due to their crappy contract with the players that Forbes' estimated average franchise values have gone up every year since 1998 except for last year (which Forbes said was due to the recession).

[nuke'em ttg]

who's a good hockey team ta root for i liked Bobby Orr when i was a kid, is he still playin

[wiegie]

I think there needs to be some sort of rookie pay structure, and 18 games is probably ok. I take no position one way or another on whether players deserve a greater or lesser share of league revenues.

 

but I think the league should really spend MORE on post-career health care, counseling and such for ex-players.

agree all the way around here

[delusions of grandeur]

I am tired of the players believing that THEY are the product...........the players are not the product, the GAME OF FOOTBALL is the product.

 

You don't think the players are the primary part of the product, when now more than ever individual accomplishments are driving the popularity of the game? People watch games they wouldn't otherwise to keep up with their fantasy players, place wagers on the teams/scores, etc... If it was just about the game, more people would watch things like the CFL, UFL. Thus is the reason why those leagues are trying to grab big names (just look at the Omaha Nighthawks).

 

Further, to think that players don't deserve their fair share of the revenue is to discount what American capitalism is all about. You are not compensated according to how important your job is to society; If this were the case, teachers would be payed much better, and celebrities should make next to nothing....

 

Yes, I would love a more fair pay scale (particularly regarding rookies who've never played a snap), but you are paid according to your earning potential for the company. They don't shell out all of this dough to guys like Peyton just because their that talented. They pay him that much because he enables them to earn them more than that.

 

So it's silly to me to say that the players are completely off-base in wanting their fair share, when they are driving the enormous revenues to the owners by providing both the labor and product worth selling.

[tazinib1]

You don't think the players are the primary part of the product, when now more than ever individual accomplishments are driving the popularity of the game? People watch games they wouldn't otherwise to keep up with their fantasy players, place wagers on the teams/scores, etc... If it was just about the game, more people would watch things like the CFL, UFL. Thus is the reason why those leagues are trying to grab big names (just look at the Omaha Nighthawks).

 

Further, to think that players don't deserve their fair share of the revenue is to discount what American capitalism is all about. You are not compensated according to how important your job is to society; If this were the case, teachers would be payed much better, and celebrities should make next to nothing....

 

Yes, I would love a more fair pay scale (particularly regarding rookies who've never played a snap), but you are paid according to your earning potential for the company. They don't shell out all of this dough to guys like Peyton just because their that talented. They pay him that much because he enables them to earn them more than that.

 

So it's silly to me to say that the players are completely off-base in wanting their fair share, when they are driving the enormous revenues to the owners by providing both the labor and product worth selling.

 

This

[Riffraff]

Name me another field on the planet where their employees have to go through a combine, get poked, prodded, stared at naked, drafted, and then within three years can never work in the field again for the rest of their lives, and I'll think about agreeing that players are employees and nothing more. I don't know about you, but when I watch Peyton Manning, the first thing I think is, "man, that guy's teammates should be making less money and the owner of his business should be making much more."

Military. Most only serve 4 years and the first 4 years is when they are treated the worst.

 

Some of them actually get shot at with ill intent, injured in physical terms, or scarred for life mentally.

 

Service members are employees: barely a name, rank, or serial number to the service branch for whom they work for.

 

There's your example, you may now agree that NFL players are employees and expendable.

[Chavez]

And for the record, I am also firmly on the side of management in this one. If only for the reason that I am SICK of the players and former players complaining about playing two extra games. Very convenient for them to never mention the fact that we the fans still pay FULL PRICE for those tickets to the meaningless preseason games.

 

Well, it's the OWNERS who charge you full price for less-than-sterling product.

 

I think what players/fans are saying is "get rid of two useless preseason games"; Goodell and the owners are HEARING "add two regular season games" which isn't quite what's being said.

 

Basically, the owners don't want to lose any of their 20 games.

[Chavez]

Military. Most only serve 4 years and the first 4 years is when they are treated the worst.

 

Some of them actually get shot at with ill intent, injured in physical terms, or scarred for life mentally.

 

Service members are employees: barely a name, rank, or serial number to the service branch for whom they work for.

 

There's your example, you may now agree that NFL players are employees and expendable.

 

 

Soldiers should get paid a lot more than they do.

 

There, argument for the players is logically consistent.

[delusions of grandeur]

Military. Most only serve 4 years and the first 4 years is when they are treated the worst.

 

Some of them actually get shot at with ill intent, injured in physical terms, or scarred for life mentally.

 

Service members are employees: barely a name, rank, or serial number to the service branch for whom they work for.

 

There's your example, you may now agree that NFL players are employees and expendable.

 

Not sure you can really compare the players (business) to soldiers (tax-payer funded), but I don't think either group is expendible as a whole... Yes, some soldiers are obviously expendible and replaceable just like some NFL players, but regardless of the workplace, those who are really good at their jobs and/or show potential for promotion are certainly not expendible. Even the armed forces (who are built to be "expendible") cannot achieve their goals without competent folks in their chain of command.

 

So I have to ask, do you think teams should view guys like Peyton Manning as expendible? I don't, when they are the biggest part of putting fans in the stands. People don't pay to come watch a guy like Painter play.

 

Your argument may apply to guys in less "important" positions (but of course they aren't the ones who are making insane dough). Obviously the owners wouldn't already be paying some of these guys millions, or even worry about negotiating, if they were simply expendible.

 

 

 

(BTW, I agree with Chavez that soldiers should be compensated more, and should receive more assistance when coming back home for their tremendous sacrifices and subsequent problems/disabilities they face, but that's really a different matter than how American business works).

Edited February 26, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[Chavez]

Sports aren't really an accurate example of how American business works either - they're kind of in their own weird little universe.

[delusions of grandeur]

Sports aren't really an accurate example of how American business works either - they're kind of in their own weird little universe.

 

I dunno. Aside from injury risks, it's not really that much different than celebrities whose earnings are in line with the earnings of the marketability of their product.

 

I'll stop now to not turn this thread into "DoG arguing for the players side", but the one point lost in this argument is that it is not the owners that determine that these players are worth millions.... As long as you buy your Rodgers jersey, watch games on TV, buy into their endorsements, and help drive up prices just to go watch them in person, then it is us who are making these guys worth millions. If you don't like that, then you are free to not support it and drive up the earnings.

 

We are the ones who pay the players, and their play-making ability is a big reason why...

Edited February 27, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[tazinib1]

Basically, the owners don't want to lose any of their 20 games.

 

 

While I agree that owners like Al Davis,Jerry Jones,Kraft,Rooney and others don't want to "lose" any games, I tend to think that a percentage of owners only care about filling the stadium (except Wayne Weaver of course). Thats why, love or hate him, Steinbrenner was such a fantastic part of American sports..the guy breathed to win. Cuban is another example, although eccentric, of ownership that goes all out to win. But to say as a blanket statement that "owners" don't want to lose any of their 20 games is false....MOST do and as sad as it sounds, some couldn't give a SHAM WOW! as long as there is profit.

Edited February 27, 2011 by tazinib1

[Chavez]

I dunno. Aside from injury risks, it's not really that much different than celebrities whose earnings are in line with the earnings of the marketability of their product.

Well, "celebrities" aren't how American business works either.

 

 

Here, let's put it this way - say WidgetCo just had a HUGE 3rd quarter; plant C had the best production EVER, while plant K was lagging behind. The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC fawn over the three months that plant C's production line manager (let's call him Joe Hardy) put in, where this ranks with best quarters ever by a production line manager, if Hardy's now got that "can't have a big quarter" monkey off his back.

 

Now, plant K is doing poorly, so plant K's plant manager makes Hardy a HUGE offer to come over and run plant K's production line. However, this isn't allowed by WidgetCo's CEO because Hardy is under contract with plant C. So Hardy has another few terrific quarters, and his contract is allowed to expire. At this point, plant K makes ANOTHER offer but it's again no go because plant C has franchised Hardy, and must pay him the average of other top line managers, but he isn't allowed to entertain other offers. But at this point, plant C offers to send Hardy to plant K for a young up-and-coming AR clerk, their top machinist, and 500 tons of raw materials.

 

Let me know when this starts sounding like a typical business.

[tazinib1]

Well, "celebrities" aren't how American business works either.

 

 

Here, let's put it this way - say WidgetCo just had a HUGE 3rd quarter; plant C had the best production EVER, while plant K was lagging behind. The Wall Street Journal and MSNBC fawn over the three months that plant C's production line manager (let's call him Joe Hardy) put in, where this ranks with best quarters ever by a production line manager, if Hardy's now got that "can't have a big quarter" monkey off his back.

 

Now, plant K is doing poorly, so plant K's plant manager makes Hardy a HUGE offer to come over and run plant K's production line. However, this isn't allowed by WidgetCo's CEO because Hardy is under contract with plant C. So Hardy has another few terrific quarters, and his contract is allowed to expire. At this point, plant K makes ANOTHER offer but it's again no go because plant C has franchised Hardy, and must pay him the average of other top line managers, but he isn't allowed to entertain other offers. But at this point, plant C offers to send Hardy to plant K for a young up-and-coming AR clerk, their top machinist, and 500 tons of raw materials.

 

Let me know when this starts sounding like a typical business.

 

 

Best analogy of the year contender.