detlef Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 That might be one of the reasons why some of the Owners seem to have a condescending attitude towards the Players during CBA negotiations. They realize that they are not dealing with serious businessmen, but oftentimes spoiled, overgrown children who don't seem to understand how to protect their own piece of the pie. It certainly doesn't help the players in terms of the court of public opinion. That said, I think it's a flawed argument that, just because the players want to see the owner's books, the owners should care at all what the players are doing with their money. It's apples and oranges. For starters, the owners are implying that there needs to be a shift for the health of the industry, that it just doesn't add up the way it is. So, if that's the case, I think they should show it. The players are not saying the "need" the money because they can't make it on less than what they're getting. The players are simply saying they're worth what they're getting. That the current deal leaves plenty for everyone and that they're vital to profitability of the league and thus, deserve the cut they negotiated in '06. So, if the owners want to say that their role in the whole picture is worth a bigger piece than they're getting, so be it. But that doesn't seem to be the argument they've chosen, they've decide to play the hardship card, which is a much more palatable card to accept, assuming it's true. But I'd be much more on their side if they simply admitted that, despite the fact that they're doing fine, that, for perhaps the first time ever, the scales have tipped too far in the player's favor. That their new number seems to be the most illustrative of each party's value to the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 The owners want the players to take a pay cut so they can build bigger stadiums to bring in more slices of pie. It's smart business. How is it again that you think the owners want the players to take a pay cut? Aside from the rookies getting scaled, there are no cuts to vets in the cap numbers, and the players get paid progressively more across the breadth of the proposed deal. In fact, the vets also work less days each year to make more money, and get better benefits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 How is it again that you think the owners want the players to take a pay cut? Aside from the rookies getting scaled, there are no cuts to vets in the cap numbers, and the players get paid progressively more across the breadth of the proposed deal. In fact, the vets also work less days each year to make more money, and get better benefits. They only make more money because the pot is speculated to get larger. Regardless of whether or not the new deal proposed by the owners is fair, it doesn't mean more relative money for the players. There's simply not enough money to be saved by cutting rookie salaries (especially since they're really only talking about cutting the highest paid rookie salaries). For the sake of honesty, you need to come off this stance, because it's not genuine. The owners want the entirety of the players to accept a smaller % of the cut than they are now. The top 15 or so rookies drafted will bear the brunt of that, but it's not like the rest are going to see their percentage increase or even stay the same. Whatever increases they get in benefits and such will come at the expense of something, because, again, all in all, the owners are asking for a bigger increase in shared profits than the rookie thing can pay for in and of itself. Quite simply, the owners are not going to start a lock-out to force the players into a better deal than they currently have. Yet that seems to be how you're trying to spin it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 They only make more money because the pot is speculated to get larger. Regardless of whether or not the new deal proposed by the owners is fair, it doesn't mean more relative money for the players. There's simply not enough money to be saved by cutting rookie salaries (especially since they're really only talking about cutting the highest paid rookie salaries). For the sake of honesty, you need to come off this stance, because it's not genuine. The owners want the entirety of the players to accept a smaller % of the cut than they are now. The top 15 or so rookies drafted will bear the brunt of that, but it's not like the rest are going to see their percentage increase or even stay the same. Whatever increases they get in benefits and such will come at the expense of something, because, again, all in all, the owners are asking for a bigger increase in shared profits than the rookie thing can pay for in and of itself. Quite simply, the owners are not going to start a lock-out to force the players into a better deal than they currently have. Yet that seems to be how you're trying to spin it. What you are saying is false. I've shown that several times before and I will not get drawn in again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) What you are saying is false. I've shown that several times before and I will not get drawn in again. Dude, the statement from the league that I read and posted in the math thread I started specifically stated that rookies drafted after the 1st round would not see a decrease in salary. That puts a floor on how much lower they can go with rookies picked in the back half of the first, which basically puts the onus of the savings on those picked in the top 10-15. And there's simply not enough money there to do all the things you're saying. There's maybe $75 million a year there. For the entire league. That doesn't pay for all the things you're saying it does. Even if you stretch that out 4 years and make it $300 million, that doesn't come close to paying for the initial $1 Billion off the top the owners wanted and likely would barely pay whatever number they agreed on in between (which assumes the owners came all the way off $1 Billion to $300 Million. But again, you've used the savings up and vets haven't seen a dime. Unless the owners are demanding the players give them an additional $300 million so they can fund a benefits package for the players. Which again, doesn't make sense from either side. Besides, listen to what you're saying. That these two sides are fighting and prepared to risk a season of play because the owners are demanding the players agree to a better deal than they have but the players insist upon sticking with the status quo. Just so 15 players a year who've never played a down can continue to get paid mad jack. Say it right here. The owners are not asking for a larger cut of the pie. Because, that's that's the argument. I just said that the players are seeing a relative cut in their share of the pot and you're saying that is false. Keep in mind, also, that the $300 million per year will only be realized after 4 years. If they gut the top-end rookie salaries, there's only $75 million total this year, then another next year, and so on. So, for now, they're really doing everything you say they're going to do by freeing up an additional $2.5 million Edited April 21, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Okay, I'm going to try the simple math one more time, then I'll simply quit since it doesn't seem to matter anyhow. The 2009 NFL salary cap was $128M/team. link to ESPN story on 2009 salary cap The proposed 2011 salary cap, according to the NFLPA, is $141M. The cap would increase incrementally to $161M in 2014 Bloomberg article citing NFLPA statement Therefore, the factor of the F/P of $141M/$128M is approximately a 5% increase over each of the two years between 2009 and 2011. You read that, correct? That is an increase of 5%. The players do not get paid less. They get paid more. Now let's factor in the rookie salary cap. The 2009 salaries would have to be adjusted to the rookie cap, since the 2011 year would be inclusive of the rookie cap. Let's pretend that the reduction in rookie salaries is $75M per year. That's $2.34M per team per year. So subtract the 2009 cap number by 2 years X$2.34M per year to make the 2009 salariy cap and the 2011 salary cap equivalent in regard to rookie wage imapct. 2009 adjusted cap = $128M - 2($2.34M) = $123M F/T adjusted = $141M/$123M = 1.14 So the rate of return over two years on a factor of 1.14 is a rate of return of about 7% increase per year. That means that the vets will see their wages increase by about a 7% margin per year over each of the two seasons between 2009 and 2011. That means they are getting paid more. The vets are not losing money. How much of a share of the pie they are gaining or losing is nothing less than speculative. The owners are claiming that a projected rate of return of 5% per year over the next 3 years is reasonable. The player want an 8% rate of return like they were getting under the old CBA. In today's economy and the economy that is projected over the next 3 years, which estimate do you think is more reasonable? Then on top of that, the players are getting fixed increases to $161 over the next 3 years. That means they are locked into gaining another $20M per team over those 3 years regardless of what the economy does. So if there would be an 8% rate of return they'd take a smaller share of the pie. If there is a 5% rate of return they would get an equal share of the pie. If there is a 3% rate of return, they would get a bigger share of the pie. Again, where do you see the rate of return heading? Then add that the players will have to work less days under the new agreement that would pay them a 5% increase over the past 2 to future 3 years (actually 7% over the past 2 to 5% over the next 3 for the vets) and that the owners will take out of their share an additonal $85M per year to ante into the retired players' plan (that comes out of the owner's share of the pie, remember, and goes to the players' future) and it's difficult to see where anyone could think that the players are actually getting paid less. And how does that stack up to the rest of the world - you know, the fans who watch the games? You think they're getting 5% guaranteed raises while working less days every year to help them pay for the season tickets to go to the games? Anyone here locked into that kind of "losing" deal? But hey, I'll let you make your case. I'm done. Edited April 21, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 You can roll your eyes and pretend that you're simply offering clear logic and I refuse to believe it, but one thing remains: In the old CBA, the owners were taking $1 Billion off the top and then taking 40% of the remaining (well, that number wasn't exactly static, it seemed to be moving either towards or off that number, I forget which). The net difference between that arrangement and the new one was that the owners wanted to take a bigger cut off the top. They wanted another billion but were obviously, ultimately going to settle for something less than that, but it doesn't change the fact that, over all, the owners were going to get a bigger piece of the pie. So, where does that piece come from. You seem to be implying that they can save enough money off rookies alone to give the owners that larger piece and still, somehow, increase the share the veterans are enjoying. Kindly note that getting more money and getting a bigger share are not the same thing. Understand that I'm not saying that the players will make less money, but rather that they'll make less money with respect what they would have made under the now-expired CBA given the same level of growth. And this is indisputable. And this is the only thing that I'm demanding you admit, because you keep trying to pretend it is not happening. And I'm not even saying that's wrong. I've said it time and again, maybe the owners should make a bigger cut, and that's OK. That it's all about who can make the best case and end up holding the winning hand. I just want to call it what it is. That the owners are seeking to increase their share, relative to the players, and you keep dancing around that point by massaging the numbers in a way that supports that theory. I get it, the players will make more this year than last year and more the year after that. But both you and I know that's not the same thing. And whether or not the players would be getting a better deal from the owners than any other work force gets from their bosses means about nothing. I've challenged you on this before and you've ducked it time and again. When it comes to how much a businessman should be allowed to exploit his position to make as much as he can, there seems to be no limit. But you seem to think that there very much is a level at which a man who is employed should just shut up and be happy. Why is that? And what is that universal price? Because you keep on bringing up how much better off the players are than others as if that has any bearing at all on what the players should be willing to accept from their bosses. But there's one thing over all things, that makes your theory come crashing down. If, in fact, the owners are not looking to take a bigger cut (and doing so obviously has to come at the expense of the players), then why in the hell are they locking them out? And if the owners are stupid enough to demand that the players accept an offer than is, at worse, just as good as the one they have or, as you seem to be implying, even better, why are the players stupid enough to be fighting them? You can show all the cap numbers you want, and it doesn't change the fact that, if the owners are looking to increase their pre-cut stake by anything more than $75 million in the first year (and all signs seem to point to that), it is impossible for that cut to be paid for entirely by savings on rookies. Thus, would have to negatively impact the relative share of the total revenues that all players, including vets get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Sorry. I admit to saying that I was done, but I just can't help responding to yours above But there's one thing over all things, that makes your theory come crashing down. My theory? The numbers are the numbers. Both sides agree with them and they are documented. The only people that seem to dispute them are people like you & waterman. If, in fact, the owners are not looking to take a bigger cut (and doing so obviously has to come at the expense of the players), then why in the hell are they locking them out? The lockout was a response to the union decertifying (well, pretending to decertify) and then filing an antitrust lawsuit. If the players don't walk out, the lockout doesn't happen. And if the owners are stupid enough to demand that the players accept an offer than is, at worse, just as good as the one they have or, as you seem to be implying, even better, why are the players stupid enough to be fighting them? So you are saying that the players are actually lying and inflating the numbers that the owners put on the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 (edited) Sorry. I admit to saying that I was done, but I just can't help responding to yours above My theory? The numbers are the numbers. Both sides agree with them and they are documented. The only people that seem to dispute them are people like you & waterman. The lockout was a response to the union decertifying (well, pretending to decertify) and then filing an antitrust lawsuit. If the players don't walk out, the lockout doesn't happen. So you are saying that the players are actually lying and inflating the numbers that the owners put on the table? There you go again, pretending I'm saying things I'm not. Question 1: Are the owners looking to increase their cut of the revenues prior to splitting the remainder with the players? Question 2: Does that increased pre-split cut not come with a corresponding decrease in % share of the remaining? Safe to say the answer to Question ! is yes and to Question 2 is no? OK then, the owners are looking to increase their cut relative to the players as a whole. OK, moving on... Is the degree to amount that the owners want to increase their pre-cut take greater than $75 million league wide that could reasonably be in the first year? Honestly, I don't know, but if it's less, then they've basically caved entirely, going from $1 Billion extra to less than $100million extra and the players should have gladly accepted that as victory and settled. Do we know what the final amount the owners want in addition to the 1 Billion they used to get? At any rate, if the owners are looking to increase their pre-split total by more than $75 million in the first year and ending up at $300 million by year four, then the rookie cap will not cover that and, thus, the balance will have to come out of the veteran's cut. Again, I realize the players will make more money with each new year (assuming revenues increase, of course), but don't pretend that is what I'm debating. ETA: Oh, and get your facts straight, the owners opted out of the deal, not the players. The players may have been the ones who ultimately walked out on negotiations, but those negotiations were happening because the owners wanted out of the deal. So, if you want to argue semantics, fine. Why did the owners opt out a deal in order to give the players a better one? Edited April 21, 2011 by detlef Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Cracker Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 And if they would simply spend a fraction of that money on a money manager who doesn't go by a nickname, they could forget about everything. Doesn't the player's union have a list of reputable financial guys? I mean, that would be a sweet, sweet gig. Sweet enough that truly reputable brokers to take very, very seriously to stay on the inside. Then the players don't have to know dick about what is going on with their money, they just need to know that there's enough smart guys in the union that these are certainly people they can trust with their money. Except when 75% of those clients ignore your advice and spend more than they should or take money out for random "business ventures." Turnover would be very high. Granted the people who did heed your advice and succeeded at maintaining a reasonable lifestyle would be great but the headaches from the others would be hard to make it worthwhile IMO. There are 2 problems with Muck's suggestion. 1. Most players can't accumulate 5MM because they spend too much. 2. If they did manage to accumulate 5MM there is virtually no way they can gear down to spending only 10K/month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Except when 75% of those clients ignore your advice and spend more than they should or take money out for random "business ventures." Turnover would be very high. Granted the people who did heed your advice and succeeded at maintaining a reasonable lifestyle would be great but the headaches from the others would be hard to make it worthwhile IMO. There are 2 problems with Muck's suggestion. 1. Most players can't accumulate 5MM because they spend too much. 2. If they did manage to accumulate 5MM there is virtually no way they can gear down to spending only 10K/month. Of course, but I would hope the smarter vets would really urge the young guys to just let these guys do their thing and not screw with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 reports from a host of sources (athletes, players' associations, agents and financial advisers) indicate that: By the time they have been retired for two years, 78% of former NFL players have gone bankrupt or are under financial stress because of joblessness or divorce. This indicates that the statistics refer to NFL players, not the larger pool of former draft choices. That would put these guys in the 6-year-average-career category. The bolded is significant - divorce can f*ck up your finances even if you've made fiscally sound decisions all the way down the line. I agree, but the thing that really perplexes me is that all the current players can plainly see just like we can what is happening to these former players and how they have pissed their money away, and yet I don't think it's modifying the way the current and incoming players are reacting and responding to it. I know this is part of the education seminars that the league puts on for rookies. How can you watch so many former players squander their money and not do something to make sure you're not one of the next line of financial disaster stories? I forget what it's called, but everyone has that bias that leads them to think "oh, I'm different, that won't happen to me"; and you also have to remember that in, I think, MANY cases, players don't care about this stuff as much as fans do. It's just their job, they aren't worried about history or past players or whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted April 27, 2011 Share Posted April 27, 2011 I think, MANY cases, players don't care about this stuff as much as fans do. It's just their job, they aren't worried about history or past players or whatever. You just put forth the perfect rationale for why owners should control the way the NFL is run. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted April 28, 2011 Share Posted April 28, 2011 You just put forth the perfect rationale for why owners should control the way the NFL is run. I don't think the owners care all that much either. 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.