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

[detlef]

So, BB calling out Azz as a "pro-unionist" clinches it. Anyone who isn't 100% behind the owners and everything they're doing. Anyone who sees both sides as seedy, not just the players, is a commie.

[MikesVikes]

Can I change my vote?

 

F the players. They make too much money. The owners should make the money. They need to keep the players in line.

 

I don't care if the players won't remember their names when they are 50 years old. The game is a dangerous game and they all knew what they were signing up for.

 

It should be 90% off the top and the players can share in equal amounts the remaining portion.

 

I enjoy watching Spartacus on tv as much as the next guy. That is what the league should be all about. If a guy goes down, well he can be replaced!

Edited March 11, 2011 by MikesVikes

[delusions of grandeur]

I'm amazed at the anti-player sentiment here, but this one has to take the cake:

 

The best part - the plaintiffs the players intend to use in an anti-trust suit are the players who are making absolutely astronomical salaries at the expense of all the other players.

 

So now it's at the expense of the other players too? You can't be serious. The anti-player/union folks have such anomosity about a few players making such high salaries, that you all seem unwilling to even look at why that's the case.

 

You're worth what you're worth to the company. Removing injuries and shortened careers out of the conversation, the guys who make the most are the guys who have the greatest potential for return along with the lowest risk involved. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why Peyton Manning has a $23 million tender, while his backup is probably making the league minimum. He's simply a much less risky investment than probably 100% of the QBs available out there (as well as an ultra-marketable commodity that sells tickets, spamshirts, ratings, etc.). Then we add in how other teams in the bidding can drive up the price, and it's pretty easy to see why owners shell out big bucks to retain their star-talent. They enable them to make more.

 

So I can't stand that people just fixate on how these guys are making too much "to play a game", when it's clear that the owners view them as investments where compensation is based on potential for return, the level of risk involved for them, in addition to competition for specialized services.

 

Nobody is taking money out of anyone else's pockets in paying them millions. If all NFL players were worth millions, they would be paid that. You're worth what your worth.

[bushwacked]

Not going to read through this thread, but I'm going to conclude that Bronco Billy is right and everyone else in the world is wrong.

[Bronco Billy]

I'm amazed at the anti-player sentiment here, but this one has to take the cake:

 

 

 

So now it's at the expense of the other players too? You can't be serious.

 

I can't be serious? Let's see: Each team has a fixed cap. That fixed cap is divided between all the players on the team (as well as contracts of players no longer with the team but still on the books for that year). If one player takes $20M out of the cap for the year, that means no other players have access to that $20M for their salaries. So the larger the chunk one player takes out, the less there is to share amongst the rest.

 

It's a pretty simple concept.

[Bronco Billy]

So, BB calling out Azz as a "pro-unionist" clinches it. Anyone who isn't 100% behind the owners and everything they're doing. Anyone who sees both sides as seedy, not just the players, is a commie.

 

Well, I certainly mischaracterized Az's position by including the word "other". That's my fault and I was wrong.

 

I believe the very response you are using against me clearly states my position that the owners trying to set aside guaranteed TV revenues is just as unethical and dirty as the union descertifying. And I also believe I posted a much earlier thread stating that I think the players have some valid positions.

 

So if you want to chastise anyone for jumping to inaccurate simplistic conclusions, you ought to be standing at the front of your own line.

[delusions of grandeur]

I can't be serious? Let's see: Each team has a fixed cap. That fixed cap is divided between all the players on the team (as well as contracts of players no longer with the team but still on the books for that year). If one player takes $20M out of the cap for the year, that means no other players have access to that $20M for their salaries. So the larger the chunk one player takes out, the less there is to share amongst the rest.

 

It's a pretty simple concept.

 

So the owners can take whatever they want, but for everyone else you're advocating socialism? You sure you don't work for the Obama administration?

 

If they were to base players' salaries solely on things like % of jersee sales and marketability, I can assure you it'd be much more skewed. Fortunately, guys like top O-linemen who can keep the QB upright do still make millions, even though they are among the least marketable players, because it's a specialized talent. Not just anyone can do what some of these top freak athletes do.

[piratesownninjas]

So, BB calling out Azz as a "pro-unionist" clinches it. Anyone who isn't 100% behind the owners and everything they're doing. Anyone who sees both sides as seedy, not just the players, is a commie.

Then I guess I'm just a commie.

 

Dear NFL Owners and NFLPA,

Please remove your heads from your asses. You're hours away from chopping the head off of your golden goose.

Like I said earlier, I'm leaning towards the NFLPA, but I view De. Smith as the biggest Ionic Breeze in the mix. I think the players DO want to work something out, as do most of the owners, but a few knuckleheads with foolish pride are holding things back.

[Bronco Billy]

So the owners can take whatever they want, but for everyone else you're advocating socialism? You sure you don't work for the Obama administration?

 

What in the Seven Hells does the amount that the owners make have to do with the way the salary cap is divided among the players on each team?

 

How can a single entity such as the NFL be socialist?

 

What are you talking about? Taking valid points of discussion (or argument, if you will) and subverting them into some other unrelated nonsense sounds much more like Obama and his cronies. Oh - you forgot to blame Bush for all the woes in the NFL.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Bronco Billy

[Bronco Billy]

Then I guess I'm just a commie.

 

Dear NFL Owners and NFLPA,

Please remove your heads from your asses. You're hours away from chopping the head off of your golden goose.

 

+1000

 

Unfathomable that these two sides can't find a way to divvy up such incredible wealth but would rather risk substantial fan animosity that has damaged other pro sports.

[piratesownninjas]

+1000

 

Unfathomable that these two sides can't find a way to divvy up such incredible wealth but would rather risk substantial fan animosity that has damaged other pro sports.

Then you factor in where our country is with the recession, high unemployment... As I sit hear watching the news on the earthquake/Tsunami it sickens me to see that the two sides can't put on there big boy pants and make something happening.

 

Not to get too far off topic, but I'm finding out now that I'm losing out on nearly 3k in incentive money that I earned at my job. Why? Not because we didn't hit our goal... We did, but they're doing it do make the bottom line look better. The kicker is that other associates that didn't out perform me were paid out there incentive money... After figuring this out I come home to hear the NFLPA and Owners group bitch about how to divide a billion dollars. Dick faces. I don't make close to six/seven/eight figures a year. Losing 3k hurts. I can't imagine those that are out of work and trying to get back on track... And these morons can't meet in the middle.

 

The arrogance of boths sides is astounding. I'm as diehard as it gets, and I'm waivering on kissing football goodbye if they Ginsu up the season. If I feel this way then I know there are a lot of others out there as well. The guys that buy Sunday Ticket, buy shirts, go to games.... You alienate us, we may not come back.

 

Ginsu the owners that are holding this up.

Ginsu De. Smith for holding this up.

[Cunning Runt]

And on another note, as seen in The Tailgate.......

 

I run an NCAA pool every year - $5 per entry. Over 500 entries last year including lots of Huddlers. Go ahead and sign up now. Brackets are released this coming Sunday evening and March Madness starts a week from Thursday. Everyone is welcome and feel free to invite others. Thanks!!!

 

To join, click here: http://www.pickhoops.com/2011NCAA

[delusions of grandeur]

What in the Seven Hells does the amount that the owners make have to do with the way the salary cap is divided among the players on each team?

 

How can a single entity such as the NFL be socialist?

 

What are you talking about? Taking valid points of discussion (or argument, if you will) and subverting them into some other unrelated nonsense sounds much more like Obama and his cronies. Oh - you forgot to blame Bush for all the woes in the NFL.

 

I was just trying to point out the double-standard that you don't seem to think that the players should have say in what they're actually worth, but yes, of course how the owners disperse that money has everything to do with how much money they make. Just ask the Raiders and Redskins. If they'd been wiser in spending that money on better players, they'd be winning and making more money. They made some bad investments, but that doesn't discount why they chose to pay that much for them.

 

It may not be socialism, but similarly, what is the incentive to be a top player if you were getting paid roughly the same as everyone else in the league? Do selling thousands of jersees and tickets not count for anything? BB, as someone who's in support of the owners, you obviously can understand why some players are safer "investments" than others. I really don't see how it's taking away from a backup for them to shell out dough for a much safer bet as a key starter, who can enable you to earn even more money. Winning teams fill seats.

 

(Edit: and you can't discount the owner's standpoint of competition and bidding from 32 teams all trying to grab up the most specialized talents and keep their edge on the competition. All of these factors contribute to the worth of some players over others).

Edited March 11, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[SEC=UGA]

+1000

 

Unfathomable that these two sides can't find a way to divvy up such incredible wealth but would rather risk substantial fan animosity that has damaged other pro sports.

 

I know people like to ignore some of the facts, but the one question that has not been answered and the one thing that remains constant is that you guys seem to think that the owners are making a killing while others are'nt getting their fair share.

 

In most of these organizations the players salaries take up somewhere between 55/60% of the total revenue generated by the team. This leaves 45/40% revenue to pay all of the coaches, support staff, travel, lodging, meals, marketing, charities, debt service for stadiums, taxes, etc... expenses that you have to incur to run the business that is a football team. So, to recap, over half of the total revenue that a team earns goes to the players, over half. If this is not enough, what percentage is?

 

What is left over after these expenses is your profit. That profit for many of these teams is in the 10% to 14% neighborhood, which is what a normal business makes. These profits or a portion thereof are then reinvested into the corporation in many cases so that they have operating capital.

 

At the end of the day, the owner is not pocketing the other 40/45% of the revenue, it is more like 10%, if that... He is probably making good money, but these teams are no where near as lucrative as you guys are imagining, the money just isn't there with all of the expenses the teams incur.

[Cunning Runt]

........what is the incentive to be a top player if you were getting paid roughly the same as everyone else in the league?

 

 

For me, it'd simply be my desire to the best and be recognized by fans/peers as such.

 

That's a pretty big incentive right there in my book.

[Ursa Majoris]

I know people like to ignore some of the facts, but the one question that has not been answered and the one thing that remains constant is that you guys seem to think that the owners are making a killing while others are'nt getting their fair share.

 

In most of these organizations the players salaries take up somewhere between 55/60% of the total revenue generated by the team. This leaves 45/40% revenue to pay all of the coaches, support staff, travel, lodging, meals, marketing, charities, debt service for stadiums, taxes, etc... expenses that you have to incur to run the business that is a football team. So, to recap, over half of the total revenue that a team earns goes to the players, over half. If this is not enough, what percentage is?

 

What is left over after these expenses is your profit. That profit for many of these teams is in the 10% to 14% neighborhood, which is what a normal business makes. These profits or a portion thereof are then reinvested into the corporation in many cases so that they have operating capital.

 

At the end of the day, the owner is not pocketing the other 40/45% of the revenue, it is more like 10%, if that... He is probably making good money, but these teams are no where near as lucrative as you guys are imagining, the money just isn't there with all of the expenses the teams incur.

You obviously haven't been paying attention since it's been stated repeatedly that, when the revenue pie is divided up, the first billion goes straight to the owners to help defray expenses of the kind that you have mentioned. That's about $33 million per owner. Pretty good start. It is only after that billion is taken that the percentages kick in, so in fact the owners do pick up roughly half of the overall pie.

[delusions of grandeur]

For me, it'd simply be my desire to the best and be recognized by fans/peers as such.

 

That's a pretty big incentive right there in my book.

 

Yes, like I said in another thread, in an ideal world teachers would be among the highest paid, but let's get back to the real world, shall we...

 

So if you're playing in front of 10's of thousands with your jersey on their back that they paid 100 bucks for, and you're going to be happy making less just because "it's just a game" and all you want is "just enough compensation and recognition for brutalizing my body"? The owners can just go ahead and keep the rest, and make sure my buddy the backup gets a fair piece of our small salaries, since he deserves some recognition for being ready on the sidelines to play at 75% of the level I do, right?

 

Or say that is your actual job, selling spamshirts and tickets. You sell 100,000 and the guy next to you sells 0. A competitor offers you both a job. Which one of you 2 do you think the company would give a healthy pay raise to stay?

Edited March 11, 2011 by delusions of granduer

[MikesVikes]

And on another note, as seen in The Tailgate.......

 

I run an NCAA pool every year - $5 per entry. Over 500 entries last year including lots of Huddlers. Go ahead and sign up now. Brackets are released this coming Sunday evening and March Madness starts a week from Thursday. Everyone is welcome and feel free to invite others. Thanks!!!

 

To join, click here: http://www.pickhoops.com/2011NCAA

 

[SEC=UGA]

You obviously haven't been paying attention since it's been stated repeatedly that, when the revenue pie is divided up, the first billion goes straight to the owners to help defray expenses of the kind that you have mentioned. That's about $33 million per owner. Pretty good start. It is only after that billion is taken that the percentages kick in, so in fact the owners do pick up roughly half of the overall pie.

 

The owners have to pay expenses out of that pie.

[Cunning Runt]

 

Couldn't resist.

 

I got your email. I'll be signing up.

[piratesownninjas]

The owners have to pay expenses out of that pie.

Which is what the 33 million up front per team knocks a portion out of.

 

The turning point is that under the current CBA that the owners and NFLPA agreed to was for 1 billion. The owners signed it and backed out a few years early.

 

The players have said they conceed that some additional money on top of the 1 billion needs to be kicked back to the owners. Since the owners backed out of a deal they signed, shouldn't they meet the players at the middle and open up the books? If the NFLPA is having to deal with a partner thats backed out of a deal that's the least they could do.

 

Unfortunately, I think De. Smith is power hungry and wants to show everyone how big and bad he is. Even if the players got to see all of the books who knows if that would even make a deal happen.

[detlef]

The owners have to pay expenses out of that pie.

Nobody is implying that the $33 million covers everything and the owners take their split of the $8 Billion post split home. However, in your post that Ursa replied to, you sure made it sound like they were paying all the expenses out of their %, which is clearly not the case.

 

You also, like so many others made the rather skewed statement that players are getting between 55-60% of the revenues. That is, quite simply, wrong. They've been getting that % of the Revenues once $1 Billion has been shaved off the top.

 

And, like I've said before, I don't think there's anything wrong with the owners getting to slice a piece off before the split. It goes a long way to protecting them from having fixed costs eat up their share too much. Because, even if revenues plummet, they still have that $33 million each.

[piratesownninjas]

AdamSchefter's twitter page...

.We'll see if anything changes, it always could, but De Smith told players during his conference call the plan is to decertify.

40 minutes ago via web

[piratesownninjas]

AdamSchefter's twitter page...

.We'll see if anything changes, it always could, but De Smith told players during his conference call the plan is to decertify.

40 minutes ago via web

And if this happens it's going to be the Owners getting crushed in court. David Doty is going to get the case. The guy is pro union, and it's going to be a painful pill for the NFL to swallow. At this point I wish the negotiations were more public.

[Jackass]

I know people like to ignore some of the facts, but the one question that has not been answered and the one thing that remains constant is that you guys seem to think that the owners are making a killing while others are'nt getting their fair share.

 

In most of these organizations the players salaries take up somewhere between 55/60% of the total revenue generated by the team. This leaves 45/40% revenue to pay all of the coaches, support staff, travel, lodging, meals, marketing, charities, debt service for stadiums, taxes, etc... expenses that you have to incur to run the business that is a football team. So, to recap, over half of the total revenue that a team earns goes to the players, over half. If this is not enough, what percentage is?

 

What is left over after these expenses is your profit. That profit for many of these teams is in the 10% to 14% neighborhood, which is what a normal business makes. These profits or a portion thereof are then reinvested into the corporation in many cases so that they have operating capital.

 

At the end of the day, the owner is not pocketing the other 40/45% of the revenue, it is more like 10%, if that... He is probably making good money, but these teams are no where near as lucrative as you guys are imagining, the money just isn't there with all of the expenses the teams incur.

 

How could you know that?