CosmicBills Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 As you and others have pointed out, I was incorrect in stating that the players are not looking for a raise. That being said, the owners are still in charge and don't have to open their books up. I still stand behind the owners 100%, and if the players don't like it, they can always walk away from football, put their 4 year degree to work, and there will be plenty of other players waiting for the chance to play at the NFL level. ... But then you, the fan, will get substandard football. Why would you ever want that?
LabattBlue Posted February 18, 2011 Author Posted February 18, 2011 ... But then you, the fan, will get substandard football. Why would you ever want that? Because sooner rather than later, the majority of the players would come back.
CosmicBills Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Because sooner rather than later, the majority of the players would come back. That's true. But at what cost? I think it'll really hurt the league if the labor strife is prolonged too long. The NBA and MLB still haven't recovered fully.
Mr. WEO Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 ... But then you, the fan, will get substandard football. Why would you ever want that? Substandard football? Hmm--how would we tell the difference?
San Jose Bills Fan Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Substandard football? Hmm--how would we tell the difference? Are you being serious?
UticaBill Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Substandard football? Hmm--how would we tell the difference? That's it in a nutshell.... there is so little "Team" focus amongst the players today. The "Teams" are the ones winning the SuperBowls....everyone else is a group of individuals playing substandard football anyways.... Let's get rid of contract and simply make the players employees and pay them a weekly wage instead.... Then the owners can simply dictate things like team incentives. Team based incentives protect players against season shortened by injuries so instead of RB getting $$ for a 1000yd season. It would be paid whenever the TEAM reached a given milestone. Each win would add to their bonuses, each playoff appearance, etc, etc. As for salaries? Standard base play as guaranteed. (use NFL minimum salary chart) and then the players agent would negotiate the incentives. The incentives would would be standardized across the league and only how much each play is paid per incentive would be negotiated. By using a standardize incentive salaries could be "moved" via trade more easily than it is now under current salary cap rules. - (one of main reasons trading players is virtually unheard of today.) Similar to many large corporations today, the league would also begin a profit sharing plan with the employees so they are encouraged to generate more revenue for the league. Further Certain of the team based incentives would be paid into an annuity for the player as a form of "self-imposed" retirement system along with 401K plans etc. Virtually nobody has pensions in private business anymore and the players should realize that. A small portion of the retirement fund would be used to generate small "Lifeline" annuities for ex-nfl players. This would at least guarantee those players with a decent middle class lifestyle for the rest of their lives. Player injuries? They are already protected under the team based incentives but what about career ending or lifetime debilitating stuff? Insurance policies..... of sorts. Basically an owner/player slush fund designed to generate revenue and payout on claims. My thinking is similar to the procedure the Army uses to evaluate you (and re-evaluate you) to determine disability. Any of these injuries or conditions recognized in the evaluations would be paid for life by the league. Once the league stops treating the players like a bunch of subcontractors and treats them as employees nearly all the grievances and monetary issues have been sorted out in modern unionized business. The owners got a raw deal in that they are only allowed a specific figure for operating costs, and since the owners do not wish to open their books, the only manner to resolve that is via the profit sharing, which would need an elected board to oversee and run for the league. Of course none of this settles the larger issue in the league that some of the owners are no longer wishing to share with the others. I personally think not sharing is a foolish path to take as it has ruined baseball and basketball still today as a result. However even this issue could be resolved IF the owners would stop their concept of individual ownership and joined together in common bond as league ownership. This way as the value of the LEAGUE expands all owners would get a bump in value, but it also encourages the new thinkers to get their ideas into more than just their OWN stadiums but ALL stadiums IF the owners vote the new money making scheme in or out or place on trail. But common sense never prevails in these sorts of things.
BillsfaninFl Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 It's the fans who should lock everyone out! Look at this way. If the owners can charge a person $100 to sit up in the nose bleed section and about $500 for other seats, then parking fees and not to mention anything else. This is how they can turn and pay a cb out of college better than all star pro bowl qb. No S^%$ the players want more money because the tv rights alone is unbilievable. Who do you think will pay for all this? It's the fans alone. The fans are the ones who should be demanding the owners keep each other in check. That idiot in dallas and in dc and atlanta should be fined for giving away stupid money to stupid players. Then we have the players like hayneworth who feel they should get paid to not play and demand to get traded and not pay back money? Get the f out of here with that. The fans need to step it up and demand it from Goodell that the owners need to tone down paying stupid money from the get go to show each other up. It's the fans who pay for it no one else, and who ever wins this pissing contest, like it or not your season tickets will be going up to pay for what? the contracts that are given out. I had enough of paying for anything like this about the game. I will never pay for tickets or the nfl game day to support this kind of behavior. I only wish half the fans could wake up and do the same thing so the nfl would get the hint. You are close to the heart of the matter. Years ago, players got six figure salaries and earned them by sacrificing their bodies for a few years (and in many cases suffering for the rest of their lives). A few owners got so greedy that they started crazy bidding wars for star players. The owners deserve what they got by letting things get out of hand. Yes, the players are super spoiled and think they are entitled to way more than they deserve. But they are going to get theirs, too. The fans are the only ones who pay the tab for both groups, but have no say in the matter. But eventually, more and more fans are going to say "enough." "I love the game but will not overpay for it any more." All good things come to an end and when the NFL goes into decline it will be because of mutual owner and player greed.
vincec Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 It's very hard to choose sides in a fight over money between millionaires and billionaires while I struggle on a monthly basis with basic expenses. F*** them both. The money's there so they can fight over it all they like, but it's not my money and they haven't gotten any of mine in a very long time.
BiggieScooby Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 As fans we are the one's to blame. We demand that we win now or else. We want this guy fired or that guy hired. We take no accountability in all this. We are the mob! The owners are & the players will both benefit. Beyond all their posturing to the media they are really driving up the cost of the street drug. We are are like an out of control drug addict. My advice? Don't renew your season tickets, cancel your Sunday Ticket, don't buy NFL apparel, boycott Madden starting today (yikes!), don't play fantasy football, don't go to www.twobillsdrive.com. The NFL is at an all-time high and the way I see it WE THE FANS have created this and we will end up paying more in the end. Sadly the increase in costs could spell the end of small market teams like our beloved Buffalo Bills.
GaryPinC Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 1. Because they are claiming they need more money because they are losing money. If that's true, prove it. Otherwise, it's difficult to believe that considering the record ratings the NFL has been generating and the enormous TV contracts it has handed out. 2. The players aren't controlling the league, but they want to be partners with ownership. And since the owners need the players to survive and visa versa, this isn't an unfair request. Don't forget, the players aren't asking for a wage increase. They're asking the owners to show them a justifiable reason for a pay CUT. 3. So ... you're in favor of a capitalistic system but are against players using their legal rights within that system as "Free" Agents (note the key word) to go where they wish? Gotcha. 4. That's a huge leap. If the owners could show a loss, they would. They can't. So they won't. If they did show a loss, they'd be waiving it to every camera they could, like the NBA owners are doing right now, because it would take away every bit of leverage the players have. Which isn't much to begin with. 5. That's absolutely true. And it'll be the owners' fault and it'll be the fans (you and me) that suffer. 1. I agree, but this can be shown without "opening your books". Of course it sounds like nothing will satisfy the players unless the owners do indeed open the books and that just isn't going to happen. Seems to me business owners only truly "open their books" to new potential owners. 2. I agree the players aren't controlling the league and the owners aim to keep it that way. Partnership means control, players are employees. Every company needs its employees but that doesn't mean they get to control the company. Define "justifiable" in a way everyone can agree on. That's at the crux of this disagreement, and neither side will fully agree. This league's been around quite a while and players are well paid. So why do they now need to become partners? 3. If the NBA is okay with players colluding to have their contracts expire at the same time so they can form their own "super" team that's fine. I don't agree with it and understand why the NFL does not want this to happen in their league. As I said in my first post corporations are not democracies. 4. You're making your own huge leap assuming the owners would be all over the press about losses/potential losses. What's worse than a bunch of millionares crying about money? A bunch of billionaires crying about money. Ever think maybe those billionaires realize this? 5. Nice. It'll be both sides' fault. You are close to the heart of the matter. Years ago, players got six figure salaries and earned them by sacrificing their bodies for a few years (and in many cases suffering for the rest of their lives). A few owners got so greedy that they started crazy bidding wars for star players. The owners deserve what they got by letting things get out of hand. Yes, the players are super spoiled and think they are entitled to way more than they deserve. But they are going to get theirs, too. The fans are the only ones who pay the tab for both groups, but have no say in the matter. But eventually, more and more fans are going to say "enough." "I love the game but will not overpay for it any more." All good things come to an end and when the NFL goes into decline it will be because of mutual owner and player greed. I've met a number of the Browns players and have a connection inside the facility. Most of the players are not super spoiled and are pretty normal people. Of course the spoiled ones make it a bad rap for everybody. Outside of the spoiled players, it's probably the union leaders who are delusional about what the players deserve.
spartacus Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 1. Because they are claiming they need more money because they are losing money. If that's true, prove it. Otherwise, it's difficult to believe that considering the record ratings the NFL has been generating and the enormous TV contracts it has handed out. all of your posturing hinges on your first point, which is grossly untrue. The owners are not claiming they are "losing" money. They are claiming the current structure is unsustainable and will severly impact fuiure growth. If the the owners showed their books, the NFLPA would cherry pick the most inflamatory info (all of the teams are not losing money) and then declare disbelief for the rest. There is no good that can come to the owners for opening their books. It boils down to whether the players want to play in the new NFL work environment. They don't need to know the owner' finances, they only need to know what their alternative employment options are.
JohnC Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 If the the owners showed their books, the NFLPA would cherry pick the most inflamatory info ( all of the teams are not losing money) and then declare disbelief for the rest. No teams are losing money. The Bills are categorized as a small market team. Yet, Ralph Wilson is making a hefty profit in what he describes as an impoverished market compared to the bigger markets. I challenge you to name a franchise that is losing money, big or small. There is no good that can come to the owners for opening their books. I agree with you. It would expose their phoney claim that they are facing some sort of imaginative financial peril. They don't need to know the owner' finances, they only need to know what their alternative employment options are. What do you think management/labor neogtiations are about? It's not about discussing the weather. They are not discussing foreign affairs. They are talking about the finances of the industry.
spartacus Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 No teams are losing money. The Bills are categorized as a small market team. Yet, Ralph Wilson is making a hefty profit in what he describes as an impoverished market compared to the bigger markets. I challenge you to name a franchise that is losing money, big or small. You make my point 1. I clearly state that no team is losing money. 2. I then state the NFLPA will cherry pick info and spin it to the fans - like the obvious - all the teams are not losing money 3. then you jump in, just as most NFLPA supporters would do, and over-react to the losing money comment why would the owners ever open their books?
Doc Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 No teams are losing money. The Bills are categorized as a small market team. Yet, Ralph Wilson is making a hefty profit in what he describes as an impoverished market compared to the bigger markets. I challenge you to name a franchise that is losing money, big or small. True, no teams are losing money. This is all about greed, the owners know they gave the players too much money last time, and they want it back. But Ralph's characterization of the Buffalo market it dead-on. It cannot afford the hundreds of millions for a new stadium and the higher prices that would accompany it, and are barely selling-out the stadium with the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. That's why the last CBA that had the salary cap based on total revenue and not just shared revenue was a bad one for the smaller markets.
Lv-Bills Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) True, no teams are losing money. This is all about greed, the owners know they gave the players too much money last time, and they want it back. But Ralph's characterization of the Buffalo market it dead-on. It cannot afford the hundreds of millions for a new stadium and the higher prices that would accompany it, and are barely selling-out the stadium with the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. That's why the last CBA that had the salary cap based on total revenue and not just shared revenue was a bad one for the smaller markets. Actually, they've sold out the majority of their games even though the management and the Bills product has been a joke for a very prolonged period of time. That's a testatment to how strong the NFL actually is. If Morton's Steak House started serving Golden Corral quality Friday Night Buffet Sirloin, they would go out of business. While the Bills prices are low, if they ever became competent, they could easily raise their prices to be AT LEAST to the middle of the pack in the NFL. A coherent owner, a professional caliber front office, and a few quality players would do wonders. I know I know, why set our standards so high, after all, we are Buffalo. Edited February 19, 2011 by Lv-Bills
JohnC Posted February 19, 2011 Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) You make my point 1. I clearly state that no team is losing money. 2. I then state the NFLPA will cherry pick info and spin it to the fans - like the obvious - all the teams are not losing money 3. then you jump in, just as most NFLPA supporters would do, and over-react to the losing money comment What is your point? The players are not asking for more money? They didn't opt out of the CBA. They are simply asking that the owners prove their claim (with facts and not bluster) that there was a need to re-open the CBA and change its terms. What if the facts reveal that not only are the owners maintaining their robust profit levels but they have dramatically gone up under the current CBA? What would be your response? 3. then you jump in, just as most NFLPA supporters would do, and over-react to the losing money comment You make the assumption that I am pro NFLPA. That is not the case. If there is a need to adjust the salary structure down to make the NFL financially viable I would advocate for that change. I strongly believe that the NBA has to rework their salary structure downward to make it viable. There are many NBA franchises that are currently in jeopardy. And how is it known? The owners and the commissioner in the league are revealing it with numbers for everyone to see. In other words they are making the case for a change in the terms of their current CBA. When the NHL shut the league down to establish a new financial system I was strongly in favor of the owners' side. Why? Because it was apparent that the financial viability was unsustainable under the old format. That is far from what is happening in the NFL. The owners are saying the situation is as they say it is. They are in essence saying that they have no obligation to prove anything to anyone. While you find blustering as a persuasive argument I much rather deal with facts. True, no teams are losing money. This is all about greed, There are not many times that I agree with you. This is one of the rare occasions. But Ralph's characterization of the Buffalo market it dead-on. It cannot afford the hundreds of millions for a new stadium and the higher prices that would accompany it, and are barely selling-out the stadium with the lowest ticket prices in the NFL. That's why the last CBA that had the salary cap based on total revenue and not just shared revenue was a bad one for the smaller markets. The reason why the Bills are losing paying customers is because for almost a generation the buffoon owner is incapable of putting a competitive and entertaining team on the field. Edited February 19, 2011 by JohnC
Recommended Posts