Simple question - who are you for in the CBA negotiations?

[Chief Dick]

Puddy

[SEC=UGA]

If somebody could tell me one thing that the owners do to earn that money, I'd be all for compensating them for their efforts. In the end, they take no risk and do just about nothing to help the fan enjoyment of their product. They sit back in their throne or beach house and take their multi-millions off the top. That is it. That is all. I can't justify paying them millions more than they are already making to do so.

 

Players are our heroes. They are the ones with the talent that we enjoy watching, and they are the ones having their lives shortened and made more difficult by entertaining us, and they deserve the lion's share of any profits made by the league by doing so, IMO.

 

To equate Peyton Manning to a McDonald's employee doesn't seem quite fitting.

 

1. The owners have put TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN DOLLARS on the line to create a format in which these athletes can display their talents.

 

2. The owners have put TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN DOLLARS on the line to market the sport.

 

In return for their investment they should get the lions share of the profit splits. If a football franchise doesn't make any money in a given year the payroll still gets covered, the debt service on stadiums still gets covered, and the players aren't forced to take a pay cut or be laid off in most cases. Who expends the dollars to ensure that all these things get covered... The owners.

[Bronco Billy]

I lean to the owners but concede some player points. I believe the owners, since they are owners, should have the ability to earn whatever limitless amounts they can. That privledge goes with the risk and with the requirements of running the operations of the entire league.

 

I'm with the owners on the rookie salary cap. Way too much risk for the size of the compensation - most notably in the first half of hte first round of the draft, I'm astounded that the players aren't 100% on board with this also, as overpaid unproven rookies eat up an inequitable amount of cap space, which ultimately means less for the proven vets.

 

I'm with the owners in that the players make an astounding 60% of gross revenues after the initial $1B is removed for expenses. I can't think of a place in the real world where employee compensation remotely reaches this level for a select group of employees. Add in the pensions, the health benefits, and some of the other perks and it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could make the argument that players are under-compensated.

 

I'm 100% with the players on the 16 game schedule. I think an 18 game schedule would seriously diminish the product as well as enhance their risk without appropriate additional compensation.

 

I'm with anyone who promotes throwing out 2 preseason games. The first and last preseason games serve virtually no purpose and fans are charged the same prices as regular season games. You want to keep 4 preseason games? Fine, make the tickets half price.

 

I'm appalled that both sides are perfectly willing to even think about wrecking what has carefully grown over decades here. I am similarly appalled that the owners don't pay for their own facility improvements and that they are comfortable removing the average fan from an affordable entertainment event due to the ridiculous cost. In the long run, that's just bad business.

[Bronco Billy]

If somebody could tell me one thing that the owners do to earn that money, I'd be all for compensating them for their efforts.

 

 

Uh -------- run the league?

[Seahawks21]

1. The owners have put TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN DOLLARS on the line to create a format in which these athletes can display their talents.

 

2. The owners have put TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN DOLLARS on the line to market the sport.

 

In return for their investment they should get the lions share of the profit splits. If a football franchise doesn't make any money in a given year the payroll still gets covered, the debt service on stadiums still gets covered, and the players aren't forced to take a pay cut or be laid off in most cases. Who expends the dollars to ensure that all these things get covered... The owners.

Less than three owners in the current NFL put any money "on the line". They had the capital to be able to sign their name on a piece of paper that ensures that they make hundreds of millions of dollars over a ten-year investment. Not exactly risk. They signed their name. That is all. They signed a piece of paper.

 

The hundreds of millions they are going to make on the back end isn't enough? They need to nickel-and-dime the players that truly entertain us?

 

We're not that stupid. No sports owner, not one, in the last 30 years hasn't made a HUGE profit (even those that moved teams to Oklahoma because they claimed they were losing money). Risk? C'mon.

[Seahawks21]

Uh -------- run the league?

Yeah, Paul Allen runs the National Football League. Ok.

[Cunning Runt]

They need to nickel-and-dime the players that truly entertain us?

 

Seriously? Did you just say nickel and dime? In the context of 9 billion dollars?

 

F the players. That is genuinely how I feel.

[tazinib1]

There already is socialism in the NFL and it's what has led to prosperity of the league. Compare the NFL and it's revenue sharing and parity to something like Major League Baseball where you have 3-4 teams with all the cash and all the players and very little parity. It's not even close to what has shown to be the better business model IMO.

 

Ya know ya could have saved this for a little later. Ya didn't have to nail it with the first bite.

[MikesVikes]

The NFL owners, of their own free will and being of sound mind, have paid the players their salaries. At the minimum, there are 31 owners of sound mind but each of them have offered up players the salaries that they get paid. Yea, the owners have given away the farm. Right? I don't think so. They don't seem willing to prove that.

 

Does anyone here think that the owners are losing out in the NFL? The players get paid very well, but why does a typical NFL fan care if the owners get the cash or the players end up with a majority of it?

Edited March 10, 2011 by MikesVikes

[sundaynfl]

We're not that stupid. No sports owner, not one, in the last 30 years hasn't made a HUGE profit (even those that moved teams to Oklahoma because they claimed they were losing money). Risk? C'mon.

 

I assume you are just talking about the NFL, when you say no sports owner??

 

When I see players selling tickets and paying for the marketing or starting a network, I may be in support of them... but since most of them are bankrupt a few years after leaving the league, I sure as hell don't want them helping to manage the NFL!

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I'm with the owners in that the players make an astounding 60% of gross revenues after the initial $1B is removed for expenses. I can't think of a place in the real world where employee compensation remotely reaches this level for a select group of employees. Add in the pensions, the health benefits, and some of the other perks and it's incomprehensible to me that anyone could make the argument that players are under-compensated.

 

I don't claim to have followed the figures very closely in this dispute but I wanted to take a closer look at this number. Now please correct me if i'm wrong as I work through this logic. You say the players get 60% of gross revenue after $1B is removed from the $9 billion figure. So really they get 53.3% of the full $9B. You say add in benefits, etc. Are those figures in that percentage already? If so, that figure of 53.3% is quite interesting as it's probably only about 1-2% different than what my employers pays out as a percentage of gross revenue in salaries, wages, and benefits.

[detlef]

1. The owners have put TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN DOLLARS on the line to create a format in which these athletes can display their talents.

 

2. The owners have put TENS OF MILLIONS OF THEIR OWN DOLLARS on the line to market the sport.

 

In return for their investment they should get the lions share of the profit splits. If a football franchise doesn't make any money in a given year the payroll still gets covered, the debt service on stadiums still gets covered, and the players aren't forced to take a pay cut or be laid off in most cases. Who expends the dollars to ensure that all these things get covered... The owners.

While I'm certainly not going to approach Seahawks' stance in terms of "the owners do nothing". One thing that I feel does get inflated is the owners financial exposure. Franchises don't cost a ton and happen to maybe make a bunch of money, they cost a ton because they make a ton of money. So, it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The owners expect a huge return because they laid out a ton of money, but the reason why they laid out a ton of money is because they liked what they saw in terms of return. The hard costs of owning a franchise can't possibly have kept up with the price of buying one over the last 20 years.

 

That's a huge difference than, say owning a factory or something. You lay out a bunch of money on machinery and such and hope that you sell enough goods to make it worth your while. So that guy is truly taking a risk. A guy looks to sell his franchise, he points out the money pipeline that the dude who is looking to buy it is inheriting and that sets the price. Sure, there's still a risk involved, but it is far less so than so many other industries. And besides, they're double-dipping the argument. They pay a ton of money because of what these things earn. Then they turn around and say, "Look at how much I paid for this team! I've got to figure out how to make more money off it or it's just not feasible!"

 

The effed up thing is that, both sides could do much to help themselves and both are trying to get the other to do it for them. The players could build a great pension and health plan as well as raise the minimum salary if the top guys didn't push the envelope so much. I mean, as long as there's a hard cap, one player pushing for as much as he can get is just taking money out of the pockets of the rest. And it's these bottom guys, who play one or two years at league minimum who have to be largely responsible for the number of broke former players. Think about how much higher the league minimum could be if you peeled the 10s or millions off the top that the elite players are making. I mean, the top guys could still get paid, just not $15 million per year.

 

The owners as well. I don't think there's any doubt that the league as a whole is making plenty of money. But if there's a few markets that can't cut it, the can do a better job of sharing revenues.

 

But instead each side looks to the other. The players want the owners to make sure that Manning gets his $15 million and the back ups get a bunch as well. The owners want to skew it so it's impossible for any team to make money and have some make silly money.

[flemingd]

I'm not sure how we can be "for" or "against" either side. Neither is being exploited. Neither is underpaid. Neither has to sew clothing until their fingers bleed. All that's happening is that there is a big, big pie out there and they both want as big a piece of it as possible. Nothing none of us wouldn't do in the same situation.

[SEC=UGA]

Here is the operating income (in millions) of the NFL teams as reported by Forbes magazine from 2008, tell me who is making a killing:

 

4 New York Giants $41.2

17 Kansas City Chiefs $11.9

5 New York Jets $25.9

22 New Orleans Saints $21.5

26 San Diego Chargers $19.0

23 St Louis Rams $26.4

27 Buffalo Bills $12.4

21 Cincinnati Bengals $22.0

31 Oakland Raiders $27.0

24 Detroit Lions $-3.1

28 Jacksonville Jaguars $27.6

8 Indianapolis Colts $16.1

25 Arizona Cardinals $19.7

29 Atlanta Falcons $30.9

30 San Francisco 49ers $4.1

32 Minnesota Vikings $18.9

 

2 Washington Redskins $58.1

3 New England Patriots $39.2

1 Dallas Cowboys $30.6

6 Houston Texans $43.9

7 Philadelphia Eagles $33.5

13 Miami Dolphins $36.1

9 Chicago Bears $33.7

10 Baltimore Ravens $23.0

11 Denver Broncos $18.8

12 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $39.3

14 Carolina Panthers $22.3

15 Cleveland Browns $19.3

16 Green Bay Packers $21.9

18 Pittsburgh Steelers $14.4

20 Tennessee Titans $24.5

19 Seattle Seahawks $8.9

 

Not single team is above a 20% profit margin and most of them are closer to 10%, which is well below what most private companies in the US make. Also, these teams are paying for leases on stadiums, or building them themselves. Plus the marketing, plus the players salaries, plus the taxes, plus everything else.

 

ETA: Some of these teams don't make as much as their highest paid player.

Edited March 10, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[SEC=UGA]

Another interesting thing:

In 2009 the players cost the Falcons 129 million, total revenue for the Falcons was 214 million and operating income was 28 million.

 

Of the revenue collected by the Falcons, 60% of it went to the players, nah, they're not getting enough.

[Seahawks21]

Here is the operating income (in millions) of the NFL teams as reported by Forbes magazine from 2008, tell me who is making a killing:

 

4 New York Giants 41.2

17 Kansas City Chiefs 11.9

5 New York Jets 25.9

22 New Orleans Saints 21.5

26 San Diego Chargers 19.0

23 St Louis Rams 26.4

27 Buffalo Bills 12.4

21 Cincinnati Bengals 22.0

31 Oakland Raiders 27.0

24 Detroit Lions -3.1

28 Jacksonville Jaguars 27.6

8 Indianapolis Colts 16.1

25 Arizona Cardinals 19.7

29 Atlanta Falcons 30.9

30 San Francisco 49ers 4.1

32 Minnesota Vikings 18.9

 

2 Washington Redskins 58.1

3 New England Patriots 39.2

1 Dallas Cowboys 30.6

6 Houston Texans 43.9

7 Philadelphia Eagles 33.5

13 Miami Dolphins 36.1

9 Chicago Bears 33.7

10 Baltimore Ravens 23.0

11 Denver Broncos 18.8

12 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 39.3

14 Carolina Panthers 22.3

15 Cleveland Browns 19.3

16 Green Bay Packers 21.9

18 Pittsburgh Steelers 14.4

20 Tennessee Titans 24.5

19 Seattle Seahawks 8.9

 

Not single team is above a 20% profit margin and most of them are closer to 10%, which is well below what most private companies in the US make. Also, these teams are paying for leases on stadiums, or building them themselves. Plus the marketing, plus the players salaries, plus the taxes, plus everything else.

 

ETA: Some of these teams don't make as much as their highest paid player.

Make a list of franchises sold in the last ten years and count how many hundreds of millions these owners made. Franchise owners never cared about making profits on an annual basis because they all knew they were going to get filthy wealthy on the back-end. Even Mr. Ford is going to make a half-billion dollars profit, even losing money for a few years. Now they want to have their cake and eat it too. At what point is enough, enough? How low of a rate should the players accept? Theoretically, since the players are simply employees, should they be willing to pay for say, 10% of the overall profit? Or they can shove it and we'll just simply find replacements?

Edited March 10, 2011 by Seahawks21

[Square]

I'm not sure how we can be "for" or "against" either side. Neither is being exploited. Neither is underpaid. Neither has to sew clothing until their fingers bleed. All that's happening is that there is a big, big pie out there and they both want as big a piece of it as possible. Nothing none of us wouldn't do in the same situation.

I think I'm more on the players side because I believe the owners are asking for too much. They want another 1B off the top, the players to take a pay cut, play 2 more games per year, and then use a rookie wage scale to make up the difference in healthcare for players (many of whom are eating applesauce at 55 years old). The players basically want the same deal they had. If this was the owners asking for 2 percent back and a rookie wage scale, I'd be fine with it. I don't believe the owners shouldn't be allowed to "adjust" the agreement. It just sounds like they want to take a sledge hammer to the current deal (and some of you are applauding them for it while there is very little logical reason I can find to do so). So I'm fine with plus or minus a few percents of what the current deal is. I just don't think the owners "crushing" the players union is good for any players or fans.

[SEC=UGA]

Make a list of franchises sold in the last ten years and count how many hundreds of millions these owners made. Franchise owners never cared about making profits on an annual basis because they all knew they were going to get filthy wealthy on the back-end. Even Mr. Ford is going to make a half-billion dollars profit, even losing money for a few years. Now they want to have their cake and eat it too. At what point is enough, enough? How low of a rate should the players accept? Theoretically, since the players are simply employees, should they be willing to pay for say, 10% of the overall profit? Or they can shove it and we'll just simply find replacements?

 

Why does it matter no cash changed hands according to your post, only three owners actually paid any money for the teams, which is it?

 

And of the revenues to the Falcons, the players got 60% of that, how do you respond, what % should the players get?

Edited March 10, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[Seahawks21]

There is no reason that the players shouldn't be at a number that is very close to 100%. Owners are a completely unnecessary factor in this equation. They should keep stealing whatever it is they can steal and shut up and be rich and happy. More money? More money?? For what!?!?

[Seahawks21]

Why does it matter no cash changed hands according to your post, only three owners actually paid any money for the teams, which is it?

 

And of the revenues to the Falcons, the players got 60% of that, how do you respond, what % should the players get?

You lost me there. Re-phrase for the slow, please.

[bpwallace49]

Here is the operating income (in millions) of the NFL teams as reported by Forbes magazine from 2008, tell me who is making a killing:

 

4 New York Giants $41.2

17 Kansas City Chiefs $11.9

5 New York Jets $25.9

22 New Orleans Saints $21.5

26 San Diego Chargers $19.0

23 St Louis Rams $26.4

27 Buffalo Bills $12.4

21 Cincinnati Bengals $22.0

31 Oakland Raiders $27.0

24 Detroit Lions $-3.1

28 Jacksonville Jaguars $27.6

8 Indianapolis Colts $16.1

25 Arizona Cardinals $19.7

29 Atlanta Falcons $30.9

30 San Francisco 49ers $4.1

32 Minnesota Vikings $18.9

 

2 Washington Redskins $58.1

3 New England Patriots $39.2

1 Dallas Cowboys $30.6

6 Houston Texans $43.9

7 Philadelphia Eagles $33.5

13 Miami Dolphins $36.1

9 Chicago Bears $33.7

10 Baltimore Ravens $23.0

11 Denver Broncos $18.8

12 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $39.3

14 Carolina Panthers $22.3

15 Cleveland Browns $19.3

16 Green Bay Packers $21.9

18 Pittsburgh Steelers $14.4

20 Tennessee Titans $24.5

19 Seattle Seahawks $8.9

 

Not single team is above a 20% profit margin and most of them are closer to 10%, which is well below what most private companies in the US make. Also, these teams are paying for leases on stadiums, or building them themselves. Plus the marketing, plus the players salaries, plus the taxes, plus everything else.

 

ETA: Some of these teams don't make as much as their highest paid player.

 

I would offer that is what the owners paid for. . . . a practically GUARANTEED 10-20% profit every . . .single . . . . year. It isnt like the player that has a very limited career shelf life. The owners are almost GUARANTEED that % profit. Which is why the buy a franchise in the first place . . . . it is a gold-plated investmnet tool as teams dont depreciate in value (at least not yet), they get a guaranteed return YEARLY no matter who plays for the team, and their long term profit when they sell the team can be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

In ANY economy, knowing your have a practically zero risk investmnet like the NFL is an opportunity that everyone would like to have. So the pleading poverty stance tends to not hold up . . .

 

The system needs fixing, but it doesnt need to mirror the nuclear option, our way or the highway debacle that our politics has grown into . . . cmon guys this about something more important. FOOTBALL.

[piratesownninjas]

The owners and the players are not business partners. What part of that do you not understand?

Just saying something doesn't make it true. Are you telling me the the players are just employees? They're the workers and the product. It's different than what you're saying.

 

Seriously? Did you just say nickel and dime? In the context of 9 billion dollars?

 

F the players. That is genuinely how I feel.

Thats funny, because it's the owners that F the fans. We the fans are paying for the stadiums in taxes, which we have no choice on.

 

Here is the operating income (in millions) of the NFL teams as reported by Forbes magazine from 2008, tell me who is making a killing:

Not single team is above a 20% profit margin and most of them are closer to 10%, which is well below what most private companies in the US make. Also, these teams are paying for leases on stadiums, or building them themselves. Plus the marketing, plus the players salaries, plus the taxes, plus everything else.

 

ETA: Some of these teams don't make as much as their highest paid player.

Either side can make the books out to work in the best interest of themselves. And if the teams were really in that big of danger, why aren't they opening up the books across the board? Why? Because they don't want it to be known that owners have family members on the payroll who do nothing and bring in 6-7 figure salaries. Mike Brown has given himself multiple $million plus bonuses for being a great GM. If the owners are complaining about money, they themselves need to not waste it on stupid crap.

 

And people seem to forget that the players aren't asking for any more money then they already make. They're wanting to stay status quo with the contract both sides signed.

 

I'm still closer to the middle, but I'm becoming less and less in favor of the owners.

[SEC=UGA]

We'll look at this another way. Again. let's use the Falcons because I have their info.

 

Arthur bought them in 2002 for $545 million. In 2008 (best I can do) the team was valued at $865 million.

Over those years he had revenue streams (in millions) of 6, 0, 6, 27, -3, 31.

 

If he would have sold the team in 2008 for 865 million his IRR would have been 8.31% (assuming he had no debt to pay down when he sold)

 

For that 545 million in 2002 I could have purchaesd roughly 1.5 billion of Investment properties, I would not have touched anything that didn't have a 5 year or 10 year IRR of 15%+, and more than likely it would have been more in the 20% range. These guys ain't making a killing.

[SEC=UGA]

Either side can make the books out to work in the best interest of themselves. And if the teams were really in that big of danger, why aren't they opening up the books across the board? Why? Because they don't want it to be known that owners have family members on the payroll who do nothing and bring in 6-7 figure salaries. Mike Brown has given himself multiple $million plus bonuses for being a great GM. If the owners are complaining about money, they themselves need to not waste it on stupid crap.

 

And people seem to forget that the players aren't asking for any more money then they already make. They're wanting to stay status quo with the contract both sides signed.

 

I'm still closer to the middle, but I'm becoming less and less in favor of the owners.

 

If a team has 240 million and revenue and the players are getting 60% of that, is that not enough?

[MikesVikes]

The teams making the money are the teams with new stadiums. The teams on the lower end are the teams requesting new stadiums, mostly with government assistance. After the stadiums are built and designed to make more money with luxury suites, than the owners are better off. If I'm looking at the numbers correctly, the Vikihgs rank #32 in team revenue. When and if they build a new stadium, which is in the works and they very much desire, they will climb up the ranking in total revenue. If they achieve their goal of a new stadium, then new teams will be on the bottom for team revenue. Those new low revenue teams will then (if not already) be looking to upgrade their situation.