Ursa Majoris Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 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. I wasn't siding with the players, simply pointing out that (regardless of the CFL, etc) the NFL is a closed-shop monopoly and therefore it's silly to say that an NFL player can "go and work down the road". It's not Target / Walmart or Wendy's / Burger King or Gap / Old Navy, each of which has employees earning similar wages doing pretty much the exact same things. The NFL IS a monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 I wasn't siding with the players, simply pointing out that (regardless of the CFL, etc) the NFL is a closed-shop monopoly and therefore it's silly to say that an NFL player can "go and work down the road". It's not Target / Walmart or Wendy's / Burger King or Gap / Old Navy, each of which has employees earning similar wages doing pretty much the exact same things. The NFL IS a monopoly. Oh I know, but I just don't get how the players can justify their argument. I'm curious if a judge can rule something to this effect: Yes, the NFL is a monopoly, but due to its unique business model, it's going to be exempt from any anti-trust litigation. Doesn't baseball have "anti-trust exempt" status? And if a judge CAN rule that, is it a wholly 'nother matter or one that could surface in this current situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Major League Baseball has exempt status from antitrust laws (for reasons that don't make much sense). Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the NFL does not have a similar exemption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 14, 2011 Author Share Posted March 14, 2011 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. So you admit that the numbers in the OP are reasonably accurate but you admit that you have no understanding of them. That being the case, why do you continue to argue on behalf of the players when you freely admit you don't understnd any of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) So you admit that the numbers in the OP are reasonably accurate but you admit that you have no understanding of them. That being the case, why do you continue to argue on behalf of the players when you freely admit you don't understnd any of this? I have been quite consistent in my arguments that I am not for either side. My stance all along has been that none of us know enough about the details to say who is being unreasonable here. The only reason why it seems like I'm for the players is that most of these threads have been started by guys who, despite knowing no more about the situation than I do, assume the owners are in the right and the players are the greedy ones. At no point have I said that the players should continue to get the deal they've gotten, rather I've merely questioned whether or not the current situation is as bad for the league as people seem to be prepared to believe. That, if this is merely a case of the owners trying to capitalize on what they think is a good hand and make more money, despite the fact that they're doing quite well (if that's the case), than shame on them if this means we lose football for a year. That, just because they want a bigger cut, doesn't mean the players should be obliged to give it them, just because "they get paid millions to play a game". And, btw, your bit about how they squander it is very socialist of you. You realize you're basically arguing that they shouldn't be able to negotiate for the best deal they can because you don't agree with how they spend their money? I'll admit, the fact that this is a lockout rather than a strike, means that I'm leaning towards the players side. However, if they could actually show that the expired CBA was truly bad for the game, I'd be 100% behind them in a second. My stance, all along, is that I just want to know who to believe. That's why I refused to vote in Cunning Runt's poll. My argument with you has little to do with the side you've chosen to defend and everything to do with the manner in which you've chosen to defend it. That you keep smugly "schooling us with facts" but you're really just looking at the same tiny sliver of the picture that all of us are and assuming you know the rest. That's my beef with you. That none of us honestly know, but you think you do. This thread is a perfect example and the logic is childish. Look, in this set of numbers, this one is higher than the other. In this set, they're closer to the same. The second set must be more equitable. Dude, tell me that you don't actually believe that. And I've called you out on it multiple times. That you're so convinced that you think anyone who isn't lock-step in line with the owners, despite not actually knowing the deal (because, again, none of us do), must be on the side of the players. But I'm not. Honestly, I'm not. I'm just not going to stand by and let you pretend you have the answers, especially when your logic is so flawed. Edited March 14, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 (edited) And by the way, here's why your numbers in this thread are silly: Say you and I are involved in a venture and there's $1000 to split. What's the "most equitable" way to split it? $500 each seems "equitable", doesn't it? Well, what "you" really means "you and 49 other dudes" and me really means "me". Is it still equitable? Now I get $500 and you and your buddies all get $10. Still "equitable"? Maybe. But that depends on even more info that we don't know. Like who's doing how much work and who's putting up the scratch. Hell, for all we know, that's a bad deal for me. What if "you" means you and 9 other guys and "me" means "me but I've also got to pay for all the costs that went into our little scheme and those costs come to $485". Now, you and your buddies all walk away with $50 and I walk with $15. Still equitable? Again, maybe you and you and your buddies are doing all the work and put up all the money and the only thing I'm doing is letting you use my name. So maybe it's a great deal for me. But there's simply no way of telling based only on the first question. There is simply no way of understand what is the most "equitable" way of splitting the money without knowing all the numbers. Simply looking at the top line is completely pointless. And thus, the entire basis for this thread, is pointless. Edited March 14, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 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. That's what happens in the real world when you work at one of these jobs. You get paid to do your work and not worry about what's wrong with the management. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cunning Runt Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 My stance all along has been that none of us know enough about the details to say who is being unreasonable here. Det, I appreciate your sense of fairness, but me? I couldn't care less about the details. My take comes from a much more basic view - Owners vs. Players. I'm for ownership pretty much 100% of the time in these situations. Whether it irks people or not, I do believe that the players need the league far more than the league needs the players. Players come, players go, but there's only 1 NFL. I was a fan of the Colts before Peyton Manning and I'll be a fan of the Colts after Peyton Manning. He really had nothing to do with my being a fan or not. AND, I might add, I do consider the players to be employees, not partners. That may irk some as well, but that's my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 Det, I appreciate your sense of fairness, but me? I couldn't care less about the details. My take comes from a much more basic view - Owners vs. Players. I'm for ownership pretty much 100% of the time in these situations. Whether it irks people or not, I do believe that the players need the league far more than the league needs the players. Players come, players go, but there's only 1 NFL. I was a fan of the Colts before Peyton Manning and I'll be a fan of the Colts after Peyton Manning. He really had nothing to do with my being a fan or not. AND, I might add, I do consider the players to be employees, not partners. That may irk some as well, but that's my opinion. And, well, I appreciate your stance. At least you don't make any bones about it. So, in your case, I think it comes down to "agree to disagree". Well, sort of, because, should I end up seeing actual info that supports the owners, then we really won't be disagreeing on anything. If your stance is, "screw the players" then that's fine. Seems a bit rash, but so be it. But if you try to fabricate arguments why the expiring deal wasn't fair or equitable out of random numbers out of context, that's where I take issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fitzkek Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 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...
fitzkek Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 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. Wow. I real hard ass. You must be pleasant to work for. I wish you were my teams owner. Hey Peyton Manning, you don't like it? Then haul ass to the CFL. I got Sorgi here. Don't need ya. That would be successful! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) And by the way, here's why your numbers in this thread are silly: Say you and I are involved in a venture and there's $1000 to split. What's the "most equitable" way to split it? $500 each seems "equitable", doesn't it? Well, what "you" really means "you and 49 other dudes" and me really means "me". Is it still equitable? Now I get $500 and you and your buddies all get $10. Still "equitable"? Maybe. But that depends on even more info that we don't know. Like who's doing how much work and who's putting up the scratch. Hell, for all we know, that's a bad deal for me. What if "you" means you and 9 other guys and "me" means "me but I've also got to pay for all the costs that went into our little scheme and those costs come to $485". Now, you and your buddies all walk away with $50 and I walk with $15. Still equitable? Again, maybe you and you and your buddies are doing all the work and put up all the money and the only thing I'm doing is letting you use my name. So maybe it's a great deal for me. But there's simply no way of telling based only on the first question. There is simply no way of understand what is the most "equitable" way of splitting the money without knowing all the numbers. Simply looking at the top line is completely pointless. And thus, the entire basis for this thread, is pointless. I don't understand why you play these kinds of games. You and I have disagreed in the past, but I always thought of you as being intelligent and thinking things through thoroughly. Then you come back with this kind of stuff and I just shake my head. Who determined it was equitable? The owners and the players did. It was the agreement that both sides thought was reasonable enough to each side that both sides signed the CBA and then the extension and the league operated under it. It wasn't me saying it was equitable, it was both sides involved saying it was equitable. The economic equation for the league is fairly obvious. The players bring their unique athleticism, skill set, and desire to inflict and absorb punishment. The owners supply the framework and the infrastructure under which the league is operated. Both sides are required for the league to operate successfully. Both sides need each other to make the whole work. The function of the league itself is a substantial undertaking that should not be underestimated by those who say trite things like, "It's the players who put their lives on the line every day." The costs of other employees besides players - including but hardly limited to coaching staffs - , of facilities, of debt service, of lawyers' fees, of insurance costs, of health care costs, of equipments costs, of travel and accomodations costs, of marketing, of utilities, of unemployemnt and workers' comp, of marketing, of administering both the league itself and each individual team, and of a myriad of other items that players don't have to, nor should they have to being employees, worry about. But these things are abolutely vital to the health of the league, every bit as much as the play on the field. When revenues go up, both sides benefit. However, when costs go up only the owners have to account for that in the operation of the league. The owners recognize this and see the equation beginning to become inequitable. The numbers in the OP bear that out. So, since both sides had determined since 2006 that the equation was divided equitably - after all, there were games played and the league was running like a finely tuned machine, what changed in the equation? We can see that under the former CBA that the players were going to get an additonal $685M than the owners were under the former conditions if the player accepted the agreement but the owners didn't get an additonal $500M off the top as they had proposed. The owners instead wanted to reset the compensation so that the split was tilted to the players' side but not so drastically. It was an attempt to reset the equation to what the differential was when the extension was signed in 2006 and let it move forward from there. So my question to you is: What more value do the players bring to the league than they did in 2006 that the balance of the equation should continue to swing further and further incrementally in their favor? After all, it is plain to see that while both sides continue to get greater compensation as revenues increase, the players continue to get incrementally a greater share of that. If the equation in 2006 was determined to be equitable for both sides - as defined by the agreement that both sides signed - what changed to make the players' contribution so much more valuable that by 2016 the differential between the players share and the owners share would be 11% of total revenues? Hell, look at the owners' offer that the players walked out on. Even then the owners were offering compensation that changed incrementally over the next 5 years so that the differential in division of revenues was still in the players' favor by almost exactly 5% of total revenues - again, with the players bringing exactly no more to the equation than they did in 2006, or in 1996 or earlier than that. In fact, the players were going to have substantially less work days under which they made these gains. That's the difference in equitability that is being discussed. So you tell me. What more do the players bring to the league that they didn't bring last year that they should get so much greater a slice of the pie than what they determined was equitable by both sides in 2006? What value did they increase their contribution to the league by that justifies them getting so much more of the revenues over the increase in what the owners get? Edited March 15, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Oh my. For starters, perhaps the fact that the owners are asking for cash off the top as opposed to just splitting all the revenues means they know something you don't. Like maybe revenue-growth has tended to out pace cost-growth? Something else perhaps or in addition to that? After all, even in your more "equitable" version of the deal, they still lose pace as revenues go up, right? I mean, the very nature of having a static compensation in addition to a smaller % of the rest insures that regardless of the specific numbers involved. Hell, the owners could take $4 billion off the top and 48% of the balance and the argument you made above would still work. Why should the players be worth more to the league in 5 years than they are this year. Because their cut of the entire nut will have increased relative to the owners cut during that span. Are you saying that the owners are stupid? Or are they simply philanthropic? I mean, I realize that it makes your numbers work better if you assume they're both going up the same, but surely, had the owners been as wise as you, they would have realized that taking a cut off the top as opposed to just locking in on a percentage was a losing deal for them. Why would they be so foolish as to continue down that path, even with more off the top? So, again, either the owners wished they had a smart guy like you at the table to remind them of this very simple math, or they had privy to knowledge and data that you (or I) don't have. Because otherwise, they surely have not learned their lesson since 2006. So, while I'm still on the fence to a large degree in the whole debate, here's one thing that I'm truly taking the owners backs on. I don't think they're as stupid as you do. You can say your "simple math" is sound and that, because I don't agree that it paints the whole picture I'm not smart enough. But the fact remains that there are still far too many unknowns to just look at how much the entirety of the players are dividing up vs how much the smaller group of owners are dividing up and paying for costs out of and say, "Well, obviously, this new spread proposed by the owners is more 'equitable'" That is really it. Dude, you're pretending to know things you don't know and implying anyone who doesn't draw the same conclusions as you do is not smart enough. And that's quite insulting. ETA: FWIW, I actually dug through the expired CBA to see what revenues were actually shared. I heard so many different things and it appears that concessions and parking are included in the total number. There are things that aren't shared, but as I had repeated the assumption that those weren't (though I did always disclaim that it was rumored and put "?" after things like that) I thought it only fair to recant that much. Edited March 15, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted March 15, 2011 Author Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Oh my. For starters, perhaps the fact that the owners are asking for cash off the top as opposed to just splitting all the revenues means they know something you don't. Like maybe revenue-growth has tended to out pace cost-growth? If that's the case, it would be stupid to attempt to get additonal up-front money rather than having the percentage split more favorable to the owners' side, no? And I'm attempting to draw conclusions based upon the only evidence we have - past data and what the owners put on the table. That's a hell of a lot better than saying that the owners are just trying to screw the players while doing a lot less than the players do, and the players are "partners" - something the union is trying to portray and is insulting to any thinking person who is paying attention. It's pretty obvious that player compensation is going to rise substantially without players doing anything more than what they have done in the past that they agreed to in CBAs, and in fact working less days per the owners' offer. Edited March 15, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I don't understand why you play these kinds of games. You and I have disagreed in the past, but I always thought of you as being intelligent and thinking things through thoroughly. Then you come back with this kind of stuff and I just shake my head. Who determined it was equitable? The owners and the players did. It was the agreement that both sides thought was reasonable enough to each side that both sides signed the CBA and then the extension and the league operated under it. It wasn't me saying it was equitable, it was both sides involved saying it was equitable. The economic equation for the league is fairly obvious. The players bring their unique athleticism, skill set, and desire to inflict and absorb punishment. The owners supply the framework and the infrastructure under which the league is operated. Both sides are required for the league to operate successfully. Both sides need each other to make the whole work. The function of the league itself is a substantial undertaking that should not be underestimated by those who say trite things like, "It's the players who put their lives on the line every day." The costs of other employees besides players - including but hardly limited to coaching staffs - , of facilities, of debt service, of lawyers' fees, of insurance costs, of health care costs, of equipments costs, of travel and accomodations costs, of marketing, of utilities, of unemployemnt and workers' comp, of marketing, of administering both the league itself and each individual team, and of a myriad of other items that players don't have to, nor should they have to being employees, worry about. But these things are abolutely vital to the health of the league, every bit as much as the play on the field. When revenues go up, both sides benefit. However, when costs go up only the owners have to account for that in the operation of the league. The owners recognize this and see the equation beginning to become inequitable. The numbers in the OP bear that out. So, since both sides had determined since 2006 that the equation was divided equitably - after all, there were games played and the league was running like a finely tuned machine, what changed in the equation? We can see that under the former CBA that the players were going to get an additonal $685M than the owners were under the former conditions if the player accepted the agreement but the owners didn't get an additonal $500M off the top as they had proposed. The owners instead wanted to reset the compensation so that the split was tilted to the players' side but not so drastically. It was an attempt to reset the equation to what the differential was when the extension was signed in 2006 and let it move forward from there. So my question to you is: What more value do the players bring to the league than they did in 2006 that the balance of the equation should continue to swing further and further incrementally in their favor? After all, it is plain to see that while both sides continue to get greater compensation as revenues increase, the players continue to get incrementally a greater share of that. If the equation in 2006 was determined to be equitable for both sides - as defined by the agreement that both sides signed - what changed to make the players' contribution so much more valuable that by 2016 the differential between the players share and the owners share would be 11% of total revenues? Hell, look at the owners' offer that the players walked out on. Even then the owners were offering compensation that changed incrementally over the next 5 years so that the differential in division of revenues was still in the players' favor by almost exactly 5% of total revenues - again, with the players bringing exactly no more to the equation than they did in 2006, or in 1996 or earlier than that. In fact, the players were going to have substantially less work days under which they made these gains. That's the difference in equitability that is being discussed. So you tell me. What more do the players bring to the league that they didn't bring last year that they should get so much greater a slice of the pie than what they determined was equitable by both sides in 2006? What value did they increase their contribution to the league by that justifies them getting so much more of the revenues over the increase in what the owners get? Wow, a word smith at it's best. No one is arguing that what your saying above "could" be correct. Hell, it probably is. The only argument is that you throw out numbers that you don't know and can't possibly know. That's it. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 If that's the case, it would be stupid to attempt to get additonal up-front money rather than having the percentage split more favorable to the owners' side, no? And I'm attempting to draw conclusions based upon the only evidence we have - past data and what the owners put on the table. That's a hell of a lot better than saying that the owners are just trying to screw the players while doing a lot less than the players do, and the players are "partners" - something the union is trying to portray and is insulting to any thinking person who is paying attention. It's pretty obvious that player compensation is going to rise substantially without players doing anything more than what they have done in the past that they agreed to in CBAs, and in fact working less days per the owners' offer. Let me make my point abundantly clear once again: My issue with your stance is that you are assuming conclusions from fragments of data. I am not claiming that the owners are screwing anyone or doing less than the players or anything of the sort. Honestly, I think what Seahawk has been saying of late is downright crazy. I think I agreed on one point he made some time ago on this topic, but I'm not remotely on board with any of the nonsense he's been saying the last few days. It's just that there seems to be no shortage of people ready to jump on him for those posts, so I guess I felt that I didn't need to as well. So, again, whatever the reason the owners wanted a slice off the top in 2006 and still want now, I'm assuming is a good one. I'm not going to pretend to know their business better than they do. It seems, however, you are. Now, if you want to argue with someone who is crying "oppression" on the part of the players, you're going to have to find someone else to have that argument with, because that is not me. That, by the way, is also not what I've been hearing in sound-bites from the players. All I've been hearing is that, "If the owners want more money off the top, we just want to see the books." That they just want to know why a deal that all parties agreed upon a few years ago is now so bad that the owners are ready to lock them out. And, honestly, that seems like a rather fair request to me. I'm not saying that guys who are truly in the fight haven't been saying what you're implying, just saying I haven't heard it. Are you certain that you're not taking what Waterman and Seahawks have said and thinking that they're echoing Drew Brees? 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.