PromoTheRobot Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) "We signed a ^$%^% deal and we're going to take our league back!" Really Jerry? A #@%#&$ deal? I never heard that before? Also nice touch dissing Brees and Manning. PTR Edited February 14, 2011 by PromoTheRobot
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 He is the owner's hatchet man, for sure. A few interesting points…as was stated, he's the only NFL majority owner who is a former player. Makes the psychological aspect of the story quite fascinating. It's not too difficult to imagine the thoughts that Jerry Richardson harbors. The other interesting aspect is that the irascible and contentious Richardson is barely two years removed from a heart transplant…yes a heart transplant. Hope the negotiations don't get too heated.
JoeF Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The only crazy old man owner that should be in that room is our crazy old man owner. Our crazy old man warned the rest of them (with Mike Brown) that this was a bad deal for the owners. Maybe Manning needs to instruct Richardson on finances since the players ended up with the best deal last time. One thing I don't understand...the NFLPA's offer that was cause for the owners to walk away was 50% of all revenue with no hold backs. So 1/2 of $9B is $4.5B to the players. Even if Revenue grows to $11B -- the players offer was $5.5B. The current deal is the owner's get to hold back $1B and then give the players 60% of the rest. So on $9B - the players get 60% of $8B ($9B minus the $1B hold back) so the players get $4.8B. The players offer is actually an olive branch. On $11B in revenue the players would get 60% of $10B or $6B. The owners want to hold back $2B in revenue -- and still give the players 60% -- under $9B that would be $4.2B (of 60% of $7B) and under $11B that would be $5.4B to the players. The players offer on $9B is actually an olive branch that splits the difference. Does anyone in their right mind thing NFL revenue is going to go down.... If this becomes a protracted negotiation over 3% of the revenue the game generates...its a little ridiculous and not in the best interest of the game.
HARCO186 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 "We signed a ^$%^% deal and we're going to take our league back!" Really Jerry? A #@%#&$ deal? I never heard that before? Also nice touch dissing Brees and Manning. PTR The take I have on this is that I feel the players get overpaid way too much and have too much control. On the other hand, it's the owners like Jerry Jones and Atlanta's owner who offer way too much money to players to begin with. They should have had a salary cap on rookies from the get go, and then when a player retracts from a contract double his punishment. The end result, spoiled people wanting everything under the sun, and who wins? While they both will of course. Who pays? While the fans do of course. No matter how we look at it, the fans will feel the burden of this whole situation. I feel it should be the fans who lock out the stadiums and stop overpaying for a ticket. Buffalo is one of the only places in which a guy can reasonable take their kids to a game and not have to over pay. I refuse to go to any other games or even pay to watch the game because the owners have the ticket prices set so high, and the players want so much that they all are taking themselves out of the market. This is why they moved so much because they only want more out of their return, which I can understand, but if they out price themselves, then they will not have a city to go to because it would be too expensive for the area to go to. I know I will get bashed for this, but sit back and think of why they want to move back to LA after they had a team and left. It's only for market value. It's not a game, but a business that will only push as long as the fans allow. Stop going, and they move because they can. There is only so many cities that will deal with it. I say lock them out, and when they split the union, lock out the teams from the city. It will never happen because there is so many fans like the Jeryy jones who want to watch, and they will pay. Ask Jacksonville if it's worth it? Why watch the pro's when they have several colleges that they can go to.
The Wiz Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The only crazy old man owner that should be in that room is our crazy old man owner. Our crazy old man warned the rest of them (with Mike Brown) that this was a bad deal for the owners. Maybe Manning needs to instruct Richardson on finances since the players ended up with the best deal last time. One thing I don't understand...the NFLPA's offer that was cause for the owners to walk away was 50% of all revenue with no hold backs. So 1/2 of $9B is $4.5B to the players. Even if Revenue grows to $11B -- the players offer was $5.5B. The current deal is the owner's get to hold back $1B and then give the players 60% of the rest. So on $9B - the players get 60% of $8B ($9B minus the $1B hold back) so the players get $4.8B. The players offer is actually an olive branch. On $11B in revenue the players would get 60% of $10B or $6B. The owners want to hold back $2B in revenue -- and still give the players 60% -- under $9B that would be $4.2B (of 60% of $7B) and under $11B that would be $5.4B to the players. The players offer on $9B is actually an olive branch that splits the difference. Does anyone in their right mind thing NFL revenue is going to go down.... If this becomes a protracted negotiation over 3% of the revenue the game generates...its a little ridiculous and not in the best interest of the game. It's basically the rule when it comes to business. The only thing better than making money is finding a way to make more money. Do they need it, no. They are just as greedy as any other company that you hear about taking out the smaller guys so they can increase their total revenue. And in all honesty, I'm under the assumption that most of these owners don't know their @$$ from their elbow so an argument over 3% seems realistic to me.
Beerball Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Richardson, who is the only former NFL player to own a team, has been considered one of the staunchest proponents of hard-line tactics in the current negotiations. Last March, Richardson addressed the rest of the NFL owners at the league’s annual spring meeting with a fiery speech. Richardson said the owners had to “take back our league” during the negotiations with players. “We signed a [expletive] deal last time and we’re going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it,” Not the most well written article. So does this mean that Richardson made the comment a year ago & the new part is him being condescending towards Manning & Brees?
T master Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Wasn't there only 2 owners that didn't like the deal the last time this came up ?? those 2 owners being our own Ralph Wilson & Brown the Bengals owner if my memory serves me correctly ?? So that would mean that this JACK ASS was one of the others that voted for the last deal to be put in place . Along with other new age maverick owners such as Jerry Jones & Daniel Schneider . So i guess these guys aren't as smart as they think they are after all !!! Boy if this tells us anything it should scream out just how much trouble our favorite sport could have in the future , and with their type of maverick mentality how much the game will eventually suck if these guys are in charge !!! Ralph can be a dink at times but there's something to be said about the old school methods or ways of thinking on some subjects - GO RALPH show them how it should be done !!!! Well Maybe ????
Chandler#81 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 The only crazy old man owner that should be in that room is our crazy old man owner. Our crazy old man warned the rest of them (with Mike Brown) that this was a bad deal for the owners. Maybe Manning needs to instruct Richardson on finances since the players ended up with the best deal last time. One thing I don't understand...the NFLPA's offer that was cause for the owners to walk away was 50% of all revenue with no hold backs. So 1/2 of $9B is $4.5B to the players. Even if Revenue grows to $11B -- the players offer was $5.5B. The current deal is the owner's get to hold back $1B and then give the players 60% of the rest. So on $9B - the players get 60% of $8B ($9B minus the $1B hold back) so the players get $4.8B. The players offer is actually an olive branch. On $11B in revenue the players would get 60% of $10B or $6B. The owners want to hold back $2B in revenue -- and still give the players 60% -- under $9B that would be $4.2B (of 60% of $7B) and under $11B that would be $5.4B to the players. The players offer on $9B is actually an olive branch that splits the difference. Does anyone in their right mind thing NFL revenue is going to go down.... If this becomes a protracted negotiation over 3% of the revenue the game generates...its a little ridiculous and not in the best interest of the game. If I understand this and what's being reported correctly, the contention is over how to split the remaining $1B. IDK, seems simple enough to me..
JoeF Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) It's basically the rule when it comes to business. The only thing better than making money is finding a way to make more money. Do they need it, no. They are just as greedy as any other company that you hear about taking out the smaller guys so they can increase their total revenue. And in all honesty, I'm under the assumption that most of these owners don't know their @$$ from their elbow so an argument over 3% seems realistic to me. I hear you Wiz...the thing I never get is that both sides are willing to burn most of the 3% on legal fees just to say they won. I won't be brash and say that a protracted negotiation will kill the game--that's not even possible with the now Global appetite for this game. If this group can't get it done, the Fans (represented by 2 million or so season ticket holders) should take anti-trust action and also file civil suit. Try to void the league so we can start over. Ask for damages for pain and suffering on the civil side. I am sure a law firm would take the case based on the potential settlement income. File the suit the day the lockout is scheduled to begin. Deal with the owners and players in language they understand. Make Cromartie our spokesperson :-) Edited February 14, 2011 by JoeF
NoSaint Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Not the most well written article. So does this mean that Richardson made the comment a year ago & the new part is him being condescending towards Manning & Brees? Also, can I ask why he's condescending in going over the sheets with players? Is there something in reading a defense at an elite level that implies they can read P&L sheets as well as the owners can - you know the guys that specialize in that? It would be like drew walking Tom benson through coverages at practice. Maybe not the best plan but really? That's how tit for tat this is going to be? Blah. I'm tired of hearing about it already.
Mango Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 i will say the salary is getting a little out of control league wide, especialy for rookies. at the same time the league and owners need to do a better job with taking care of retired or older players. I would propose, taking a page from the NBA. Contracts are binding. If owners have to pay the remaining contracts of players they cut, you will see a decrease in contract value. At the same time players will be garunteed money. Also you would most likely see more incentive based contracts, thus upping play. With that there should be a greater investment in players of old. Garunteed health care for tenured NFL vets post playing days. Also some retiree's are getting as little as 15k per year post NFL. pay respects to the people that paved the way. In terms of protecting players, I would say Richardson has a good point(poor delivery). What does Manning know about player safety, QB's are treated like porcelain. With that I would say that other positions are left by the wayside. Why not make those concussion helmets mandatory, Aaron Rogers had 2 concussions in 1 season, Christ! The fact is with everyteam seeming to run some sort of spread offense, and the NFL becoming a pass happy league, you are going to see a high rate of injury. QB play needs to be less proficient to run, leading recievers into bad situations, as well as giving defenders a larger run at the reciever. Hell QB's dropping back 40-50 times a game sometimes, you are going to see them go down. As far as lengthening the season, I am unsure, I understand the importance of the preseason for guys at the bottom of the roster from a coaching standpoint, but also understand the wear and tear of a longer season. I am fine with it the way it is, of course I would like to see more games, but its not a make or break. If they go longer, they need to increase roster size. Extra One: I would like to see coaching staff included in a salary cap.
UConn James Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 If this becomes a protracted negotiation over 3% of the revenue the game generates...its a little ridiculous and not in the best interest of the game. My aunt (non-sanguine --- she's my dad's brother's wife) makes about $500K a year in stock dividends from a company that her family owned. She spent 4 hours haggling with a guy at a store about some $3 charge. Don't assume that the wealthy don't care about every nickel and dime, even when the actual/potential opportunity cost vastly outweighs the amount in dispute. The owners want to make a point --- that THEY control terms. And by and large, they do. But, as with the MLB lockout, owners sometimes come to find out the depth of their Pyrrhic victory.
MattM Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Wasn't there only 2 owners that didn't like the deal the last time this came up ?? those 2 owners being our own Ralph Wilson & Brown the Bengals owner if my memory serves me correctly ?? So that would mean that this JACK ASS was one of the others that voted for the last deal to be put in place . Along with other new age maverick owners such as Jerry Jones & Daniel Schneider . So i guess these guys aren't as smart as they think they are after all !!! Boy if this tells us anything it should scream out just how much trouble our favorite sport could have in the future , and with their type of maverick mentality how much the game will eventually suck if these guys are in charge !!! Ralph can be a dink at times but there's something to be said about the old school methods or ways of thinking on some subjects - GO RALPH show them how it should be done !!!! Well Maybe ???? If I recall correctly it was largely Kraft and Jones who were the big proponents of the last deal. If it was indeed the case and those two got hoodwinked or were not smart enough to get a good deal last time (as opposed to intentionally taking a bad deal and using that to torpedo the CBA two or three years in for some longer-term endgame), then if I were the owners I'd have those two as far away from the negotiating table as possible. Just basic sense, no? Instead, those two seem to be front and center again here. You draw your own conclusions from that.....
Bob in STL Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 "We signed a ^$%^% deal and we're going to take our league back!" Really Jerry? A #@%#&$ deal? I never heard that before? Also nice touch dissing Brees and Manning. PTR The owners signed a bad deal. Ralph Wilson knew it and they ignored him and listened to guys like Jones and Synder. Now they regret the deal. When Ralph told the media that they did not understand the deal he was right. They made it seem like Ralph was stupid. Guess not.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 The owners signed a bad deal. Ralph Wilson knew it and they ignored him and listened to guys like Jones and Synder. Now they regret the deal. When Ralph told the media that they did not understand the deal he was right. They made it seem like Ralph was stupid. Guess not. We about crucified ralph on the board and called him cheap after that deal was signed.
boyst Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 I was listening to NFLNetwork on Sirius and they were talking about the Franchise tag placed on Mankins today, as well. The debate was did it help the NFLPA or owners? It will agree to pay him 10mil but that is still not certain due to salary/contract limitations of palyers. They are saying that the idea of the contract might be to keep him a Patriot and after a new CBA is settled it could force a restructuring of the contract and/or franchise player tag. We may burn Ralph Wilson on here but he has proven to be a great business person with foresight. This deal was BS back then, designed by big market owners who knew they'd survive giving players everything and a handbag. Also, I do not know why but Promo most often engages some of the best discussion of all the members on the board. Not taking away from anyone else, but it always seems like the topics he starts are well discussed.
OCinBuffalo Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) This smells like: Source 1: Somebody who works for, or is, one of the lawyers representing the players, trying to selectively release info that only benefits the players. Source 2: Somebody who works for, or is, one of the lawyers representing the league, trying to selectively release info that only benefits the owners, or spin whatever Richardson said. In all cases, the players and the owners need to realize that attempting to negotiate this in the media will ultimately fail. The money they spend on the PR firms is wasted. It is wasted because they aren't going to get fans, or sponsors, on one side or the other, because we don't care about everything else if there aren't going to be any games. Well, we can assume there will be idiot fans who are duped by the "stories" from these "sources". And, there are sure to be talk radio hosts who are willing to operate on that assumption. But really a bunch of millionaires arguing with a bunch of billionaires over how to divide up $9 billion annually? Hardly the stuff of John Steinbeck. The only "Wrath" here will come from the consumers of football, if there is no season next year. Edited February 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo
Cash Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 So Richardson is trying to form an NFL-only Tea Party? I'm all for it. Right now it's just basic stuff like, "we need to take back our league," but pretty soon he'll be making up posters with a Hitler mustache drawn on Peyton Manning, comparing Drew Brees to Stalin, etc. Should be entertaining. The owners have more leverage, because they're better equipped to handle the loss of revenue a lockout brings, but I think they're overestimating how much leverage they have. I also think they're overestimating their ability to control the message. Most fans typically lean a little bit towards the owners in labor disputes (including me), but this one is different. For the first time in any sport, I'm squarely on the side of the players. They're willing to give up money to make a fair deal, but it's not enough for the owners. These guys are already filthy rich, making money hand over fist, but their greed apparently knows no bounds. Plus they keep claiming to have secret data that shows fans want an 18-game schedule, when every poll shows the opposite. Not to mention the base hypocrisy of claiming that head injuries/player safety is a major priority, but also we'd like to expose them to two additional weeks of vicious hits. Screw the owners. I can live without football for a while. I hope their hubris kills casual interest in the game, so I can get some cheap tickets in 2012.
....lybob Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 So Richardson is trying to form an NFL-only Tea Party? I'm all for it. Right now it's just basic stuff like, "we need to take back our league," but pretty soon he'll be making up posters with a Hitler mustache drawn on Peyton Manning, comparing Drew Brees to Stalin, etc. Should be entertaining. The owners have more leverage, because they're better equipped to handle the loss of revenue a lockout brings, but I think they're overestimating how much leverage they have. I also think they're overestimating their ability to control the message. Most fans typically lean a little bit towards the owners in labor disputes (including me), but this one is different. For the first time in any sport, I'm squarely on the side of the players. They're willing to give up money to make a fair deal, but it's not enough for the owners. These guys are already filthy rich, making money hand over fist, but their greed apparently knows no bounds. Plus they keep claiming to have secret data that shows fans want an 18-game schedule, when every poll shows the opposite. Not to mention the base hypocrisy of claiming that head injuries/player safety is a major priority, but also we'd like to expose them to two additional weeks of vicious hits. Screw the owners. I can live without football for a while. I hope their hubris kills casual interest in the game, so I can get some cheap tickets in 2012. If the owners force a lock out and the players union is decertified can the players break their contracts and play for another league?- I know it's unrealistic but nothing would be funnier to me than if another USFL attempt was made during this time of greed.
Damian Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 If the owners force a lock out and the players union is decertified can the players break their contracts and play for another league?- I know it's unrealistic but nothing would be funnier to me than if another USFL attempt was made during this time of greed. Or, If the players get forced to play the 18-game season, they all get on the field at game-time and have a sit-in.
Recommended Posts