Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Let's look at the owners' and players' shares under what was the most recent CBA and then under what the owners are currently proposing. For simplicity's sake, instead of working with $9B, let's say that number is $9,000 instead. Under the former agreement, the owners take $1,000 off the top of the $9,000 and then the remaining revenue is split 40% to owners and 60% to the players. The owners are also offering an additional $85M ($85 in our model) to retired players. Assuming revenues increase at a rate of 3% and that costs increase at the same rate of 3%, here's how the shares would work for the next 5 years: 2011 - Total revenues of 9,000 Owners 1,000 40% of remaining 8,000 less 85 = 3,115 4,115 Players 60% of remaining 8,000 4,800 Players earn 685 more than owners 2012 - Total revenues of 9,270 Owners 1,000 40% of remaining 8,270 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,193 4,193 Players 60% of remaining 8,270 4,962 Players earn 769 more than owners 2013 - Total revenues of 9,548 Owners 1,000 40% of remaining 8,548 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,274 4,274 Players 60% of remaining 8,548 5,129 Players earn 855 more than owners 2014 - Total revenues of 9,835 Owners 1,000 40% of remaining 8,835 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,359 4,359 Players 60% of remaining 8,835 5,301 Players earn 942 more than owners 2015 - Total revenues of 10,130 Owners 1,000 40% of remaining 9,130 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,447 4,447 Players 60% of remaining 9,130 5,478 Players earn 1,031 more than owners 2016 - Total revenues of 10,433 Owners 1,000 40% of remaining 9,433 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,538 4,538 Players 60% of remaining 9,433 5,660 Players earn 1,122 more than owners ********************************************************* Now let's look at the splits with the same assumptions, but the owners get the currently proposed additonal $500M off the top ($500 for our model) 2011 - Total revenues of 9,000 Owners 1,500 40% of remaining 7,500 less 85 = 2,915 4,415 Players 60% of remaining 7,500 4,500 Players earn 85 more than owners 2012 - Total revenues of 9,270 Owners 1,500 40% of remaining 7,770 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 2,993 4,493 Players 60% of remaining 7,770 4,662 Players earn 169 more than owners 2013 - Total revenues of 9,548 Owners 1,500 40% of remaining 8,048 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,074 4,574 Players 60% of remaining 8,048 4,829 Players earn 255 more than owners 2014 - Total revenues of 9,835 Owners 1,500 40% of remaining 8,335 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,159 4,659 Players 60% of remaining 8,335 5001 Players earn 342 more than owners 2015 - Total revenues of 10,130 Owners 1,500 40% of remaining 8,630 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,247 4,747 Players 60% of remaining 8,630 5,178 Players earn 431 more than owners 2016 - Total revenues of 10,433 Owners 1,500 40% of remaining 8,933 less 3% cost increase less 85 = 3,338 4,838 Players 60% of remaining 8,933 5,360 Players earn 522 more than owners ************************************* So, what do we see? Both sides make more money. But in the new model being proposed by the owners the difference between the owners' amount and the players' amount, while still increasing, does so at a lesser rate and keeps the split quite a bit more equitable. Under the old CBA the players' differential grew substantially in a short time. This makes sense. While the owner's amount off the top is static, the pie keeps getting bigger, which makes that static amount worth relatively less as time goes on. Meanwhile, the players keep getting the lions share of revenues once the static amount is removed, meaning that as the pie gets bigger, their share increases incrementally. This is what De Smith and the NFLPA called the owners screwing over the players and a system that was blatantly unfair to players. Does this look unfair to anyone here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Dude, there are like 4 threads about owners v players already started. Why do you have to keep starting new ones? Why don't you go back to your last thread and recant the hugely inaccurate and misleading basis for your argument. As far as your simple math is concerned, it's so simple, it's wrong. Do you mean to imply that taking a static cut off the top is actually worse than the % revenue piece? Yes, I get the total percentage goes down if revenues go up. Well, what if they go down? Plus, you do realize how many of the costs are also static and do not go up as total revenue does? You know, the fixed costs? Listen dude, there is so much that none of us know about this financial picture that anyone here claiming they absolutely know who's right and who's wrong between these two sides is 100% full of it. Edited March 13, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Dude, there are like 4 threads about owners v players already started. Why do you have to keep starting new ones? Why don't you go back to your last thread and recant the hugely inaccurate and misleading basis for your argument. Great point. With 5 threads being responded to so far today, we certainly don't have room on the board for a new thread that specifically examines the numbers involved. Fell free to ignore this thread as you see fit so it drops off the front page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 So, you are saying that owners and players should earn about the same amount--why? I'll note that for the United States as a whole, the share of income that goes to workers is significantly higher than the amount that goes to owners. Why should the distribution of revenue in the NFL be different than in most other industries? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Great point. With 5 threads being responded to so far today, we certainly don't have room on the board for a new thread that specifically examines the numbers involved. Fell free to ignore this thread as you see fit so it drops off the front page. Dude, this is 100% about you. "I'm going to disengage myself from all the other threads". Right, and start your own. And then another one. And as soon as someone pokes a hole in this one, you'll start another. Because that way, you don't have to bother with backing up your posts, you can just keep giving us "facts". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Dude, this is 100% about you. "I'm going to disengage myself from all the other threads". Right, and start your own. And then another one. And as soon as someone pokes a hole in this one, you'll start another. Because that way, you don't have to bother with backing up your posts, you can just keep giving us "facts". Feel free to poke holes. You haven't so far. I haven't seen any responses in any threads address the numbers to quanitfy them and the pissing matches in the other threads are useless. It seems to me that is important. Apparently you don't. I respect your opinion in disagreeing. So why don't you either put forth your evidence to show how false the information is, or ignore the thread and let it drop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Feel free to poke holes. You haven't so far. I haven't seen any responses in any threads address the numbers to quanitfy them and the pissing matches in the other threads are useless. It seems to me that is important. Apparently you don't. I respect your opinion in disagreeing. So why don't you either put forth your evidence to show how false the information is, or ignore the thread and let it drop? Hole #1) We have no basis for wondering what the owners should be making relative to the players. And yet, you've devoted an entire thread to a hypothesis that seems to state where that split should be. Hole #2) You make it sound like shaving a cut off the top is somehow not as good as relying on a percentage and go through some great lengths to show how that, assuming rising revenues, that their total cut goes down as a percentage. All the while ignoring how many of their costs are also basically static. And come clean, you don't respect mine or anyone's opinion who's not on your side here and have made that abundantly clear with a litany of backhanded insults. Edited March 13, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 So, you are saying that owners and players should earn about the same amount--why? Pretty obvious that the owners and the players don't make the same amount. And all the other operating costs other than players' salaries come out of the owners' shares. Not sure where you got that notion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Pretty obvious that the owners and the players don't make the same amount. And all the other operating costs other than players' salaries come out of the owners' shares. Not sure where you got that notion. Great, so what should that cut be? I mean, you spent a long time typing a bunch of stuff and showing a bunch of numbers, but they're all completely meaningless out of context. How is showing relative percentages of what owners and players make an argument for why the owners want the deal changed? It's just a bunch of numbers. And if none of us know what is behind those, they're 100% pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) As a business owner, I would never share 50/50 or even 60/40 with my employees. I hold all the risk, I have to keep the lights on, pay the rent, Insurance, phones, internet, supplies, and the list goes on and on. Even after all expenses are paid, I am not opening my books and sharing what is left. Get real, its insane for a private company like NFL teams (other than GB, which is completely stupid and another discussion all together) to do that either. They get a wage, that I feel they are worth and if they dont like it, they can go work down the road. This is how I feel about the players here. The Owners can just say we are giving pay cuts, if you dont like it, take your services down the road. The owners like I, hold all the risk. If in my business, rates hike, and people go somewhere else to get their service I provide, Im cutting employees to save my business. Just like employees are leaving me if another opportunity comes that they are better compensated, or in my situations, get married and they become house wives. Consider this, lets just use SD as an example. Lets say SD loses Rivers to a season ending injury in week 1. They go onto to lose 4 games in a row, the demand for Charger games have reduced considerably. In fact the owners cut take a huge hit, as game tickets are now not sold, there are potential TV blackouts in the area, and the team loses a huge amount of their share of the revenue, where the players salaries are locked in for that year. There are half a dozen teams you could make this arguement for. Jax, Balt, STL, TB, Cincy, and probably a few more. Edited March 13, 2011 by Brent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Great, so what should that cut be? I mean, you spent a long time typing a bunch of stuff and showing a bunch of numbers, but they're all completely meaningless out of context. It's just a bunch of numbers. And if none of us know what is behind those, they're 100% pointless. So your contention is that the NFL didn't have about $9B in gross revenues last year, that last year the CBA didn't allow owners to take $1B off the top, and then the remaining gross revenues weren't split 60% to the players and 40% to the owners? Or is it your contention that the owners did not put on the table that they would split the difference in off-the-top numbers so that they would be getting $1.5B and then the players would get 60% of the remaining gross revenues while the owners would get 40%. How is showing relative percentages of what owners and players make an argument for why the owners want the deal changed? Do you not see the overt difference in compensation to each side under the past CBA (if that was in fact the past CBA - You seem to deny that) and what was on the table when the union decertified and walked? Not arguing right & wrong here - just looking at what the differences in numbers are, given the well documented and widely acknowledged numbers of the past CBA and what the owners were offering prior to the union walk out. Draw your own conclusions if you can accept that these numbers are evn in the ballpark. If you think they are way off, I'd like you to support that with some kind of documentation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 So your contention is that the NFL didn't have about $9B in gross revenues last year, that last year the CBA didn't allow owners to take $1B off the top, and then the remaining gross revenues weren't split 60% to the players and 40% to the owners? Or is it your contention that the owners did not put on the table that they would split the difference in off-the-top numbers so that they would be getting $1.5B and then the players would get 60% of the remaining gross revenues while the owners would get 40%. Do you not see the overt difference in compensation to each side under the past CBA (if that was in fact the past CBA - You seem to deny that) and what was on the table when the union decertified and walked? Not arguing right & wrong here - just looking at what the differences in numbers are, given the well documented and widely acknowledged numbers of the past CBA and what the owners were offering prior to the union walk out. Draw your own conclusions if you can accept that these numbers are evn in the ballpark. If you think they are way off, I'd like you to support that with some kind of documentation. No, my point is simply this. You titled this thread, "Why the owners want the agreement changed". Then you showed the difference between what the payouts would be if the current CBA was extended and what it would be if the owners got their way. Gee, guess what, if the owners got their way, their cut would be better. How is this news? Then you go on to explain how it is more equitable. Why is that? Because the numbers are closer? Don't you think that is an overly simplistic view? Hell, if costs were way higher, the owners could be losing their asses even if they were only giving 40% of the shared revenues to the players. Or, maybe the costs really aren't that much at all and the 33 million per team pretty much covers it (don't forget the money they get from concessions and such) and they're really taking home nearly all of the $100 million or so per team that's in the 40% cut. Lacking this knowledge, you're just throwing around numbers out of context and pretending they mean something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 What's missing in this discussion? The owners pay other people's salaries. Typical players do not other than the Union and their agents (or alimony and child support if you are like Travis Henry). The owners aren't just pocketing their 40%. They have mouths to feed: a coaching staff medical doctors, physical therapy staff urinalysis guys dude holding the 3rd down marker shipping and receiving guys for footballs, food, spamshirts, etc. sound system staff for all the headsets, microphones, lighting, etc. IT guy that maintains the team.com website electricians, plumbers, and such ground maintenance guys for the field, the stands, the parking lot Legal team. Loads more like HR, safety/OSHA guys, and payroll sections. Some franchise locations cost of living is more than other locations. Cost of uniforms and rehab equipment maintenance contracts. I have no doubt that an NFL team employs about 1,000 employees that are not players. Probably more. Lots of paychecks and lives hoping the NFL continues. Even with the head coach, coordinators, lawyers, and medical doctors skewing the upper end of salaries, I would use a lower average salary of $40,000 annually per person. $40,000 x 1,000 employees = $40M $40M x 32 teams = $1.2B This does not include the employer side of medical benefits, 401k, and other normal job perks of a major corporation. $2B is easy to reach in just employment operating costs. I'll use a nice round figure of 20% in taxes of the $4B total income. $800M The $2B left over, minus taxes is $1.2B Now divide it amongst the 32 teams in revenue sharing. 37.5M per "owner" (not all teams have a single owner). Not a bad haul, but can be about the same as the #1 over-all draft pick gets in guaranteed salary/signing bonus. I have no problem with a guy that invests $600M to $1B in a team to get a decent return on investment per year. It's not like they make their money back after 1 year. It takes years to recoup. Just like a restaurant owner investing $100,000 into their first diner. I wouldn't begrudge them if they got a 10% return on investment to be able to buy restaurant #2 in 10 years time. It's capitalism at it's finest. ........... Again, just some round numbers. Nothing based upon known quantities. The point is that we tend to forget the operating costs and those that are normal employees of the teams/NFL. It's not just the players or owners at stake here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) No, my point is simply this. You titled this thread, "Why the owners want the agreement changed". Then you showed the difference between what the payouts would be if the current CBA was extended and what it would be if the owners got their way. Gee, guess what, if the owners got their way, their cut would be better. How is this news? Then you go on to explain how it is more equitable. Why is that? Because the numbers are closer? Don't you think that is an overly simplistic view? Hell, if costs were way higher, the owners could be losing their asses even if they were only giving 40% of the shared revenues to the players. Or, maybe the costs really aren't that much at all and the 33 million per team pretty much covers it (don't forget the money they get from concessions and such) and they're really taking home nearly all of the $100 million or so per team that's in the 40% cut. Lacking this knowledge, you're just throwing around numbers out of context and pretending they mean something. Well, since you've decided to be evasive again, I'll put it plainly and see if you'll actually answer the questions asked. The CBA that just expired allowed for the following: The owners get $1B from the total gross revenues and then the remaining gross revenues are divided with the players getting 60% of the remaining amount and the owners getting 40% of the remaining amount. Do you beleive this to be true or not? The offer the owners had on the table when the players walked out of negotiations and decertified the union was that the owners get $1.5B from the total gross revenues and then the players get 60% of the remaining gross revenues while the owners get 40%. Do you believe this to be true or not? Do you agree or disagree that the gross revenues of the NFL for the purposes of dividing the revenues between owners and players is currently approximately $9 billion? Edited March 13, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Well, since you've decided to be evasive again, I'll put it plainly and see if you'll actually answer the questions asked. The CBA that just expired allowed for the following: The owners get $1B from the total gross revenues and then the remaining gross revenues are divided with the players getting 60% of the remaining amount and the owners getting 40% of the remaining amount. Do you beleive this to be true or not? The offer the owners had on the table when the players walked out of negotiations and decertified the union was that the owners get $1.5B from the total gross revenues and then the players get 60% of the remaining gross revenues while the owners get 40%. Do you believe this to be true or not? Sure, sounds about right. So, what's your point? I wasn't questioning the numbers in your initial post, I was posting as to why we should think they mean anything out of context. Also, in your latest cost breakdown, you have the owners paying taxes on the entirety of their share of the revenues before expenses. I would hope they'd hire accountants that were good enough to tell them that they actually just have to pay taxes on the profits, not the revenues. Edited March 13, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Sure, sounds about right. So, what's your point? I wasn't questioning the numbers in your initial post, I was posting as to why we should think they mean anything out of context. Because they provide a common basis for rational discussion. Once we agree what the numbers are when each side divvies them up and how much each side gets, then we can start discussing the more detailed aspects. But if there is no common ground then the discussion is pretty meaningless, which is the way we've seen other threads devolve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 Also, in your latest cost breakdown, you have the owners paying taxes on the entirety of their share of the revenues before expenses. I would hope they'd hire accountants that were good enough to tell them that they actually just have to pay taxes on the profits, not the revenues. How do taxes affect gross revenues? There is no accounting for taxes paid by anyone in the breakdown in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 The Owners can just say we are giving pay cuts, if you dont like it, take your services down the road. Most companies are not closed-shop monopolies with anti-trust exemptions so the analogy really doesn't work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Because they provide a common basis for rational discussion. Once we agree what the numbers are when each side divvies them up and how much each side gets, then we can start discussing the more detailed aspects. But if there is no common ground then the discussion is pretty meaningless, which is the way we've seen other threads devolve. That's all well and good, but that's not what you did. You took those numbers, and then said that the new split makes more sense. And that's the part that you simply don't have the info needed to say. And, frankly, nobody will have the info as long as nobody can see the books. None of has has any basis to say that it's "more equitable" the way the owners want it. It might be. Then again, we simply don't know. And there is absolutely no way that we could use your first post as a jumping off point to get to anything because, those are the only numbers we can even guess at. How do taxes affect gross revenues? There is no accounting for taxes paid by anyone in the breakdown in the OP. Sorry, that was Riffraff's post. I thought it was yours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Most companies are not closed-shop monopolies with anti-trust exemptions so the analogy really doesn't work. That's the thing. Many of us recognize the strong stance the owners are bargaining from but assume the players would be in the same boat as any of us if our boss came over and told us we were getting our pay cut. If that was actually the case, the owners wouldn't have budged at all from their first offer, they wouldn't have extended the CBA even a week, and they damned well would have never agreed to the CBA that just ended 5 years ago. So, apparently the owners know something that most on this board don't. That the players have some pull as well. I mean, do you think the owners are even negotiating at all because they're just good-natured guys? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 13, 2011 Author Share Posted March 13, 2011 None of has has any basis to say that it's "more equitable" the way the owners want it. It might be. We absolutely can make that statement. Are you disagreeing that the margin between that the players' cut of gross revenues will be closer to the owners' share under the proposal put forth in the latest negotiations than that margin would be had the old CBA simply been extended? If you agree that the margin would be less, than the sharing of gross revenues by definition would be more equitable to each side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Most companies are not closed-shop monopolies with anti-trust exemptions so the analogy really doesn't work. there is always the CFL. It isnt like I'm saying they can never play football again. The players left the NFL for the AFL, and even more recently the USFL. So yea it kinda does really work like I said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 We absolutely can make that statement. Are you disagreeing that the margin between that the players' cut of gross revenues will be closer to the owners' share under the proposal put forth in the latest negotiations than that margin would be had the old CBA simply been extended? If you agree that the margin would be less, than the sharing of gross revenues by definition would be more equitable to each side. Dude, the only numbers that matter is how much individual players take home vs how much owners take home. Simply looking at what the entirety of the players take home vs what the owners get in addition to non-shared revenue sources (which we don't know) minus what it actually costs to run the team (which we also don't know) tells us nothing. Absolutely nothing. So, there is simply no way you can make that call. Great, so the numbers are closer together. If that's your idea of equitable, then yes, your math is very simple. Way too simple, in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Most companies are not closed-shop monopolies with anti-trust exemptions so the analogy really doesn't work. I just find this argument really humorous since the players sure didn't seem to mind it when the golden goose was laying the colored eggs it likes. Seems disingenuous as hell that the NFLPA plays this card when it's convenient and not when they're getting their way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted March 13, 2011 Share Posted March 13, 2011 Most companies are not closed-shop monopolies with anti-trust exemptions so the analogy really doesn't work. This. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.