Interesting point by Colin Cowherd

[fansince61]

Maybe the lack of spending is due to the lack of quality in the FA field.

 

I agree with this point. Also, if the league and union work out a deal by 3/2011 the following things will happen:

 

1. The RFA's from this year will be added to the 2011 UFA list and make for a much deeper talent pool

 

2. There will be a salary cap again

 

3. Teams that have overspent in 2010 will be wishing they had the cap room to sign someone from that deep free agency pool next year.

[bbb]

what... no

 

If you like someone who states their opinion 14 different times in one hour and constantly talks about things that don't have to do with sports and shouts down anyone who disagrees with him and craps on anything except LA or NYC or "good airport cities" then yeah I can see this

 

Agreed - Cowherd is the ultimate front runner. Football is great - all other sports suck. Big cities are great - all other places suck.

[Mr. WEO]

Almost as good as continuing to cling to the fantasy that that CBA was a good one, or that it wasn't bad because "it didn't hurt anyone." Or ensuring us that a lockout would never happen. Or that a lockout in 2011 is better than a lockout in 2008.

Here we go again!

 

Never ensured a lockout would never happen. Another in the army of straw men you have constructed to argue against.

 

The CBA was not bad for the--particularly the Bills, who were guaranteed more money from others. For the owners, it allowed 4 more years of uninterrupted football at a very small (or no) cost, which allowed them to, collectively, rake in billions of dollars as their sport's popularity reached its zenith.

 

 

That a lockout in 2011 is preferable to the owners than 2008 is self evident.

 

I've explained these simple points to you over and over. And yet all you have is the bizarre repetition of the fallacy that the players are getting 60% of all revenue.

 

I'll let you continue up that tree.

[spartacus]

Everywhere I've read about what happens with no cap in 2010 and a work stoppage in 2011 says that there will be a draft, with no mention of anyone suing to get it stopped. And what would be the point from the players' side?

 

all college players would be free to negotiate with all 32 teams

 

the draft is a serious restraint of trade and illegal without the anti-trust exemption the league enjoys.

 

without a CBA, that is all at risk

[HooperBills]

no strike will come, it will just be another band aid that pushes the current problems away for another few years.

[Doc]

Here we go again!

 

Never ensured a lockout would never happen. Another in the army of straw men you have constructed to argue against.

 

The CBA was not bad for the--particularly the Bills, who were guaranteed more money from others. For the owners, it allowed 4 more years of uninterrupted football at a very small (or no) cost, which allowed them to, collectively, rake in billions of dollars as their sport's popularity reached its zenith.

 

That a lockout in 2011 is preferable to the owners than 2008 is self evident.

 

I've explained these simple points to you over and over. And yet all you have is the bizarre repetition of the fallacy that the players are getting 60% of all revenue.

 

I'll let you continue up that tree.

That's not all that's self evident.

 

But please doc, regale us with why a lockout in 2011 is better than a lockout in 2008. And please, none of that wacky "war chest" stuff. The owners would have been better-served keeping a majority of that ~$578M more they paid-out in 2006 versus 2005, as part of the increase in player salaries by 5% (you got me, the players never got 59.5% of total revenue, just like they never got 54.5% under the old CBA, which BTW, worked just fine for everyone), and not giving it to the players for their own "war chest."

 

Come now, it's so "simple."

[Mr. WEO]

That's not all that's self evident.

 

But please doc, regale us with why a lockout in 2011 is better than a lockout in 2008. And please, none of that wacky "war chest" stuff. The owners would have been better-served keeping a majority of that ~$578M more they paid-out in 2006 versus 2005, as part of the increase in player salaries by 5% (you got me, the players never got 59.5% of total revenue, just like they never got 54.5% under the old CBA, which BTW, worked just fine for everyone), and not giving it to the players for their own "war chest."

 

Come now, it's so "simple."

The old "worked out fine for everyone"? That idiotic conclusion would have come as quite a surprise to the late Gene Upshaw. Besides, you forgot it was an expiring contract.

 

WOW---$578 million MORE spent as a result of the CBA in one year? Well, seeing as how the new CBA raised the cap by only 7.5 mil over what it would have been, your calculator should tell you that the most the teams, collectively, could have spent over the old cap for 2006 is 240 million. The cap was going up in 2006 anyway, chief.

 

Of course, and you should figure this out at some point, this is only if they all chose to spend to the actual cap---which they certainly did not.

 

As for the timing of a lockout, I've explained why the most influential owners (Jones and Kraft among them) would rather not have been looking at no football in 2008. You have painted yourself into another corner so you pretend not to believe it.

[Doc]

The old "worked out fine for everyone"? That idiotic conclusion would have come as quite a surprise to the late Gene Upshaw. Besides, you forgot it was an expiring contract.

 

WOW---$578 million MORE spent as a result of the CBA in one year? Well, seeing as how the new CBA raised the cap by only 7.5 mil over what it would have been, your calculator should tell you that the most the teams, collectively, could have spent over the old cap for 2006 is 240 million. The cap was going up in 2006 anyway, chief.

 

Of course, and you should figure this out at some point, this is only if they all chose to spend to the actual cap---which they certainly did not.

 

As for the timing of a lockout, I've explained why the most influential owners (Jones and Kraft among them) would rather not have been looking at no football in 2008. You have painted yourself into another corner so you pretend not to believe it.

The only thing you explained was that Jones and Kraft were selfish in not wanting a lockout in 2008, because they needed the money to build their Wally Worlds and didn't want to have to cut players. They put their needs ahead of the rest of the owners (shocking, I know!), while Snyder went along for the ride because he too didn't want to have to cut players. Pat Bowlen and Wayne Weaver said that the CBA was a bad deal for the owners, and the indisputable fact is that they blew it to hell just 2 years after signing it and are standing on the precipice of a lockout. Actions speak louder than words, chief. And even I buy your vapid "the situation changed" (which it hadn't when they opted-out, as I showed you), it doesn't alter the fact that it was a bad deal from the start, since a "changed situation" made it a bad deal. Get it? It's like when the Bills hired TD. It was considered a great move at the time. Five years later, it proved to be a failure. Did "the situation change" or was it bad from the start?

 

The players were doing more than fine under the old CBA (despite what the long-dead Gene Upshaw may have claimed). As were the owners. Truly "no one was getting hurt" and "it worked fine for everyone." Hence the reason there was "labor peace" for 13 years and unprecedented growth for the NFL. But when the old CBA was set to expire, the players saw that the owners as a whole were selfish, greedy, and disorganized. So they themselves got greedy and more importantly, got organized.

 

And you can plug numbers into a calculator just fine, but apparently you can't do much else with them. You see, the owners negotiated extensions to the TV deals by the end of 2004. The 6-year extensions were to start in 2006 and end in 2011 (hmmm). So the money was already guaranteed by the time negotiations for a new CBA started. The cap rose by "just" $5M between 2004 ($80.5M) and 2005 ($85.5M), but rose by $9M between 2005 and 2006 ($94.5M), reflecting "[t]he cap was going up in 2006 anyway, chief" as a result of the new TV contracts. The $7.5M/team and $240M increase you mentioned was the additional increase in the cap from the higher percentage of total revenue under the new CBA, and when added to the "going to increase anyway" $9M/team, gets you $528M. And as I showed you, the players actually got $578M more in 2006 than 2005, of which only $288M was from the "gonna increase anyway," meaning the other $290M was what they got from bending the owners over.

 

So you see, the players did get a large pay raise after the new CBA, which was something the owners didn't like, and as a result they scuttled it and are willing to incur a lockout. Like Ralph said back in 2006, "they got too much." "Harm" doesn't enter into the equation anywhere (at least on the players' side): this is purely about greed.

 

So finally, to answer my question (which was a trap for you that you so willingly entered), obviously a lockout midway through the TV extension is better than one at the end of the extension, when a new TV deal would need to be negotiated. Not that it would have happened in 2008 had the owners stood their ground. While now it seems like a foregone conclusion. But keep climbing up that tree and painting yourself into a corner.

[Mr. WEO]

The only thing you explained was that Jones and Kraft were selfish in not wanting a lockout in 2008, because they needed the money to build their Wally Worlds and didn't want to have to cut players. They put their needs ahead of the rest of the owners (shocking, I know!), while Snyder went along for the ride because he too didn't want to have to cut players. Pat Bowlen and Wayne Weaver said that the CBA was a bad deal for the owners, and the indisputable fact is that they blew it to hell just 2 years after signing it and are standing on the precipice of a lockout. Actions speak louder than words, chief. And even I buy your vapid "the situation changed" (which it hadn't when they opted-out, as I showed you), it doesn't alter the fact that it was a bad deal from the start, since a "changed situation" made it a bad deal. Get it? It's like when the Bills hired TD. It was considered a great move at the time. Five years later, it proved to be a failure. Did "the situation change" or was it bad from the start?

 

The players were doing more than fine under the old CBA (despite what the long-dead Gene Upshaw may have claimed). As were the owners. Truly "no one was getting hurt" and "it worked fine for everyone." Hence the reason there was "labor peace" for 13 years and unprecedented growth for the NFL. But when the old CBA was set to expire, the players saw that the owners as a whole were selfish, greedy, and disorganized. So they themselves got greedy and more importantly, got organized.

 

And you can plug numbers into a calculator just fine, but apparently you can't do much else with them. You see, the owners negotiated extensions to the TV deals by the end of 2004. The 6-year extensions were to start in 2006 and end in 2011 (hmmm). So the money was already guaranteed by the time negotiations for a new CBA started. The cap rose by "just" $5M between 2004 ($80.5M) and 2005 ($85.5M), but rose by $9M between 2005 and 2006 ($94.5M), reflecting "[t]he cap was going up in 2006 anyway, chief" as a result of the new TV contracts. The $7.5M/team and $240M increase you mentioned was the additional increase in the cap from the higher percentage of total revenue under the new CBA, and when added to the "going to increase anyway" $9M/team, gets you $528M. And as I showed you, the players actually got $578M more in 2006 than 2005, of which only $288M was from the "gonna increase anyway," meaning the other $290M was what they got from bending the owners over.

 

So you see, the players did get a large pay raise after the new CBA, which was something the owners didn't like, and as a result they scuttled it and are willing to incur a lockout. Like Ralph said back in 2006, "they got too much." "Harm" doesn't enter into the equation anywhere (at least on the players' side): this is purely about greed.

 

So finally, to answer my question (which was a trap for you that you so willingly entered), obviously a lockout midway through the TV extension is better than one at the end of the extension, when a new TV deal would need to be negotiated. Not that it would have happened in 2008 had the owners stood their ground. While now it seems like a foregone conclusion. But keep climbing up that tree and painting yourself into a corner.

 

As for TD, you would argue "the situation changed"--you loved the hiring. Same case here. I like the part when you say it was a bad deal, because future situations may have lead the owners to exit the contract (which includes a clause allowing them to do exactly that).

 

Also, you can't make an argument that the CBA caused an increase in salaries by 578 million and then say "well, half of that was going to happen anyway." And you didn't "show" me the salaries were $578 million.

 

And again and again, the increase in the cap is opnly significant for those teams tha spent that much money. You know they didn't all do this. They never all do. And you do seem to realize, the only real "extra" they could possibly have spent have spent in 2006 with the new cap was $240 mil. It takes money to make money, doc, and the return on that extra money they may have payed was an increase in revenues of $540 million over 2005. Two years later, they were taking in nearly $1.4 billion more in revenue annually than in 2005.

 

And logic should tell you that the the players certainly didn't think "they were doing fine". This is the silliest part of your yammering. If they were "doing fine" they would have made no demand for more money and the CBA would have been resigned as is. Do you really not understand this?

 

It is always amusing to see a guy like you continually bash these guys as stupid or naive victims of the union, when in fact they are rolling in a huge money bath, toying with the players ("maybe we will lock you out") and adding to their vast personal wealth.

[Doc]

As for TD, you would argue "the situation changed"--you loved the hiring. Same case here. I like the part when you say it was a bad deal, because future situations may have lead the owners to exit the contract (which includes a clause allowing them to do exactly that).

 

Also, you can't make an argument that the CBA caused an increase in salaries by 578 million and then say "well, half of that was going to happen anyway." And you didn't "show" me the salaries were $578 million.

 

And again and again, the increase in the cap is opnly significant for those teams tha spent that much money. You know they didn't all do this. They never all do. And you do seem to realize, the only real "extra" they could possibly have spent have spent in 2006 with the new cap was $240 mil. It takes money to make money, doc, and the return on that extra money they may have payed was an increase in revenues of $540 million over 2005. Two years later, they were taking in nearly $1.4 billion more in revenue annually than in 2005.

 

And logic should tell you that the the players certainly didn't think "they were doing fine". This is the silliest part of your yammering. If they were "doing fine" they would have made no demand for more money and the CBA would have been resigned as is. Do you really not understand this?

 

It is always amusing to see a guy like you continually bash these guys as stupid or naive victims of the union, when in fact they are rolling in a huge money bath, toying with the players ("maybe we will lock you out") and adding to their vast personal wealth.

No doc, after that 5-year period, hiring TD proved to be a bad move, regardless of the initial widespread acclaim it received. There can be no other conclusion. Why you can't accept the same conclusion WRT the CBA is something you'll have to work on. But I'm here to help.

 

As for the $578M more in TOTAL (meaning bonuses and salaries) money paid to players between 2005 and 2006, if you're having a problem with that number, you're free to figure it out yourself (go to USAToday.com's "NFL" section, look under "More Football," select "Salary Database," then "Season Summary" and choose the years 2005 and 2006 and add up the team payrolls. It only takes a couple minutes). If it's the exact breakdown of money from the TV contracts ($9M/team) versus the new CBA ($7.5M/team), because the cap could only rise by $288M and $240M respectively, fine. We can take 7.5 and divide it by 16.5 (9+7.5) and then multiply it by $578M to get $263M more that the owners paid the players as a result of the increase in total revenue percentage from the new CBA. Is that better? BTW, you can keep your pyrrhic victory of the players not getting 59.5%. Because $263M x 4 years is over $1B extra paid to the players.

 

And really doc! The players were harmed "because they asked for more money?" LMMFAO! Have any of your office staff every asked you for a raise? Where they being harmed by their previous salary? That's like me saying "well, the owners were harmed because they're asking for a good portion of that 5% increase they gave away, back."

[JohnC]

NKM, Since the signing of the last CBA how many teams made money and how many lost money?

[Doc]

NKM, Since the signing of the last CBA how many teams made money and how many lost money?

Probably the same percentage as players that made and lost money. Again JC, no one has been "harmed" on either side. This is purely about greed. The owners got taken by the players in the last CBA, and want to take back what was taken from them. Hence the reason we're now talking about a lockout, whereas before it was a joke ("like that'll ever happen!") to guys like WEO.

[JohnC]

Probably the same percentage as players that made and lost money. Again JC, no one has been "harmed" on either side. This is purely about greed. The owners got taken by the players in the last CBA, and want to take back what was taken from them. Hence the reason we're now talking about a lockout, whereas before it was a joke ("like that'll ever happen!") to guys like WEO.

 

If the owners are making more money than they have ever made then how have they been damaged?

 

You made the point that the owners want to take back what was taken from them. What does that mean? They negotiated the deal, didn't they? Under the present CBA the owners are making more money and the players are making more money, even in a very challenging economic environment.

 

If the owners were feeling a profitable squeeze because of a change in the economic environment (as an ex. a reduction in TV revenue) then I can understand their desire to reopen the CBA to adjust to the new economic reality. But why would a union, any union in any industry, be amenable to changing a labor contract when management is making greater profits.

 

In my view, the reopening of the CBA has as much to do with the issue of owners sharing revenue amongst themselves as it does with the amount shared with the players. It is the big market teams being less willing to share their revenues with the smaller market teams.

 

Where I agree with you is that the owners, especially the big market owners, are going to lock-out the players to force the players to succumb to their bargaining position.

[Ramius]

Nice to see that our resident idiot and pats* fan is still foolishly prattering away about how "good" CBA was. So good in fact, that the owners chose to ditch it after 2 years and it is universally accepted that the CBA was a horrible deal for the owners.

[Doc]

If the owners are making more money than they have ever made then how have they been damaged?

 

You made the point that the owners want to take back what was taken from them. What does that mean? They negotiated the deal, didn't they? Under the present CBA the owners are making more money and the players are making more money, even in a very challenging economic environment.

 

If the owners were feeling a profitable squeeze because of a change in the economic environment (as an ex. a reduction in TV revenue) then I can understand their desire to reopen the CBA to adjust to the new economic reality. But why would a union, any union in any industry, be amenable to changing a labor contract when management is making greater profits.

 

In my view, the reopening of the CBA has as much to do with the issue of owners sharing revenue amongst themselves as it does with the amount shared with the players. It is the big market teams being less willing to share their revenues with the smaller market teams.

 

Where I agree with you is that the owners, especially the big market owners, are going to lock-out the players to force the players to succumb to their bargaining position.

Correction JC: the owners are making more money because of the 2006 TV contracts, not because of the 2006 CBA. That's an important distinction. As I showed, they paid-out over a quarter million dollars more in 2006 versus 2005, and looking at the payrolls for years 2007-2009, likely paid-out more than $1B, as a result of the 2006 CBA.

 

Everyone was making money. Why someone has to be "damaged" or "harmed" for a deal to be "bad" for one side or another is anyone's guess. The owners simply felt (as Ralph presaged back in 2006, while everyone else was hooting and hollering and popping champagne) that the players "got too much." And as a result, they are where they are: with an uncapped season, many teams under the previous cap floor, and a looming lockout.

 

And why would the players give (at least some of) the money back? Because they're faced with a year without ANY salary, maybe longer.

[Doc]

Nice to see that our resident idiot and pats* fan is still foolishly prattering away about how "good" CBA was. So good in fact, that the owners chose to ditch it after 2 years and it is universally accepted that the CBA was a horrible deal for the owners.

The good doc can't admit he's wrong. Or he's a masochist. Or just slow. Take your pick. In any case, I enjoy playing the sadist.