CBA discussions

[JohnC]

Forgive me for lurking, gentlemen, but I just wanted to comment that this thread has produced some really provocative discussion.

 

The discussion is open for all to participate. The more the better.

 

As to this particular post, I'll just throw in that I think Timmo's point regarding Manning and Brady was that their contracts (and subsequent negotiations) are--rightfully so--aimed at making as much money as they possibly can, without regard to what of the Owners' limited resources will be available to their fellow union members. This, in and of itself, is perfectly acceptable as a negotiation tactic, and--to a greater extent--something I consider to be a responsibility incumbent upon them as elite performers in their industry. However, the rub lies in these same players (Manning and Brady) taking acception to the Owners following a similar mentality. While the situations are certainly different, all parties (in all cases) share the same directive of looking to maximize their earning potential based upon their contributions to the game...a common mindset if you will.

 

I'll respond to you the same way I responded to Timmo: Whatever the two qbs get they deserve. They are historically great players whose performances have propelled their teams to extraordinary success. The money they get is given within the cap system. The bottom line is that the two best players in the game are getting paid at a level commensurate to their contributions. Isn't that how the system should work?

 

Now I'll exit and leave you two to your discussion, as I stated my position on the matter several times (I have a beef with both sides, but generally side with ownership in the end).

 

Neither side is pure. Labor/management conflicts can sometimes be rough and tumble. My position on this matter isn't simply that one side is greedy and the other side is altruistic----although that is how it is being characterized. Trust me, I'm not predisposed to any one side. My argument is if you are the side initiating the re-opening of a CBA (which is allowed under the terms of the CBA) then make your case for the need to re-open the deal. I don't see that being done here.

Edited March 3, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

I'm not advocating any increase in revenue sharing. What I am advocating is going back to the pre-2006 model and having the same revenue shared and the cap based only on that, but giving the players a smaller percentage. IOW, make them take a paycut. That model worked fine for over a decade with little grumbling by the owners.

 

They can't decertify. Well, they can, but that would make their case against the owners WRT "lockout insurance" moot, and that's the biggest weapon they have in their arsenal.

The grumbling in 2006 was from the players, who were eying those juciy new TV contracts. You have stated in the past that the owners should have simply offered less to the players. Clearly the players were not interested in such an offer. The owners obviously thought 2006 was not the time to stop work. You can argue with that but it's obvious that's how they felt.

 

Since for almost all players, there was no "pay raise" (as you have acknowledged) the "pay cut" to them will not be painful. The salary cap will come down--but most of the cap is spent on a relativley few players and rookies on all teams.

 

The pre-2006 revenue sharing plan for the owners was FAR less generous. I don't think Ralph would go for such a deal.

 

The "lockout insurance" decision by the judge puts not one penny into the pockets of any player. It will be appealed anyway and unless the judge orders an injuction pending the appeal, the owners will get the money. Even if they don't get it, you have stated that the owners are in a better financial position without it anyway. So exactly what leverage is left for the union with this issue? Their only leverage is decertification and then a court challenge of a lockout (if there is one)---with the hope that there would be an injuction against the lockout pending the result of the legal challenge.

 

That's all they've got.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[CosmicBills]

 

I stand by my statements, son.

 

"if they decertify, they can challenge the antitrust status of the NFL, but the court has hinted that the union won't prevail. The lawsuit may allow an injunction against a lockout and allow games to be played--but that's assuming there will be a lockout. If the league simply tells these guys to show up to training camp under their current contracts, then the players will have to show up, sign a new CBA or strike."

 

I don't think it's in the best interest of the owners to lockout the players, so I think they won't. It would be better for them to let the players decide to not show up for work.

 

We'll find out tomorrow.

I have never seen a guy argue so much without really thinking about what he's saying or understanding the issues at hand. It's amazing. And I thank you for taking time out of what I assume is your incredibly busy schedule of yelling at the grass for growing too loudly to share your inane, completely vapid and totally ridiculous view points with the rest of the group. It's like watching someone's brain fall down a flight of stairs.

 

So thanks! I look forward to more wonderfully inept posts in the months to come.

 

By the way, the players won't decertify until there's a lockout. There's this thing called cause and effect. Look it up. But I forgot, you're right because you said so. Everyone else in the media, NFLPA, and ownership is wrong when they call this coming labor dispute a lockout.

[Mr. WEO]

I have never seen a guy argue so much without really thinking about what he's saying or understanding the issues at hand. It's amazing. And I thank you for taking time out of what I assume is your incredibly busy schedule of yelling at the grass for growing too loudly to share your inane, completely vapid and totally ridiculous view points with the rest of the group. It's like watching someone's brain fall down a flight of stairs.

 

So thanks! I look forward to more wonderfully inept posts in the months to come.

 

In high school, they taught us that this is irony. In fact, you may be joining the sig line below...

 

 

By the way, the players won't decertify until there's a lockout. There's this thing called cause and effect. Look it up. But I forgot, you're right because you said so. Everyone else in the media, NFLPA, and ownership is wrong when they call this coming labor dispute a lockout.

 

If you read what you quoted, you would see that the players would decertify to challege the lockout--so yes, it's clear that decertification would follow the lockout.

 

"This coming labor dispute beagn with the owners backing out of the CBA. The lockout, despite your insistence otherwise, has not yet happened. It may come tomorrow. It may not.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[CosmicBills]

 

If you read what you quoted, you would see that the players would decertify to challege the lockout--so yes, it's clear that decertification would follow the lockout.

 

"This coming labor dispute beagn with the owners backing out of the CBA. The lockout, despite your insistence otherwise, has not yet happened. It may come tomorrow. It may not.

You assured us there wouldn't be a lockout. I mean, you told everyone who said otherwise that this was not the owner's fault. This was the players going on strike. Not the owners locking the players out.

 

Isn't it time to admit that you were ... how do the Greeks put it? Oh yeah, wrong on pretty much every level?

 

[Mr. WEO]

You assured us there wouldn't be a lockout. I mean, you told everyone who said otherwise that this was not the owner's fault. This was the players going on strike. Not the owners locking the players out.

 

Isn't it time to admit that you were ... how do the Greeks put it? Oh yeah, wrong on pretty much every level?

 

I believe there will not be a lockout. Not sure how else to say it. I haven't assured you--any more than I can assure you it will not rain where you live tomorrow. Some may have been "assured" by my opinion--but I doubt it!

 

Anyway, I also mentioned that one outcome (the favorable one for the owners) is that the players strike.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

The discussion is open for all to participate. The more the better.

 

 

 

I'll respond to you the same way I responded to Timmo: Whatever the two qbs get they deserve. They are historically great players whose performances have propelled their teams to extraordinary success. The money they get is given within the cap system. The bottom line is that the two best players in the game are getting paid at a level commensurate to their contributions. Isn't that how the system should work?

 

 

 

Neither side is pure. Labor/management conflicts can sometimes be rough and tumble. My position on this matter isn't simply that one side is greedy and the other side is altruistic----although that is how it is being characterized. Trust me, I'm not predisposed to any one side. My argument is if you are the side initiating the re-opening of a CBA (which is allowed under the terms of the CBA) then make your case for the need to re-open the deal. I don't see that being done here.

 

 

John---thanks for replying to theB's note. It saves me the embarrassment of trying one of those multi-quote replies all you tech savvy folks apparently know how to do.

 

theB---you were 100% correct in your summary of my initial comments re: brady and manning. John, I don't have an issue with them getting what they can---none at all, in fact. I don't even get to the part where they "deserve" it because that's a whole 'nother debate---they work within the framework of the system, they signed the contract and that's all absolutely 100% ok as far as I'm concerned. Here's the issue though---in the two party system we currently have in the nfl, one party isn't happy with the system. they don't feel like it's a good deal for them~~~~and are legally opting out of the deal. put another way, if i was an owner and felt like i was getting the short end of the stick (and we all know different owners have different thoughts on how to run their franchise), why would i want to continue an arrangement that wasn't in my best interest when i wasn't contractually bound to do so? that goes for players as well, as free agency shows us every year.

 

Allow me to edit your last paragraph:

Whatever the owner's get they deserve. They are the financial engine that runs the league and on who's teams guys like brady and manning have experienced extraordinary success. The money everyone gets is the byproduct of their ownership. The bottom line is that the two best players in the game are rewarded handsomely not because of their inherent abilities, but because a mechanism exists that allows them to exploit their unique skill set. Isn't that how the system should work?

 

John, I think you're looking for justification of the owner's decision to opt out. I don't think they owe an explanation if they have the right to opt out. I see the conversation going as simply as this:

 

Owner: We want to excersize our option to opt out of the CBA.

Union: Why?

Owner: Because we want to.

Union: Why?

Owner: Because we can.

Union: But we like the deal.

Owner: Right, that's why we're worried.

 

From there, they have to figure it out. All the emotional b-s thereafter is irrelevant.

 

Perhaps you think I'm anti-union here, and I'm really not. Somewhere, somehow this will work out, or the NFL as we know it will cease to exist. I'd hate to see that happen, and I'd love for it all to work out one way or the other. I guess in the end my loyalty lies with the Buffalo Bills. Some players make boatloads of money. Some don't. Some come and stay. Some go because they can make more, or we don't offer them enough to stay, or they want a shot at a ring, or the tax rate is better in Florida so miraculously $5 million is much more money than $7 million.

 

Finally, one quick thought on decertifying. The players will decertify as a tactical ploy to get as much as they can. So, the union is only the union if they feel like they win, because one can only assume they would ultimately come to an agreement if they didn't decertify. Just like __****__ signs for as much money as he can regardless of where he plays, or how many bright-eyed kids bought his jersey in Cleveland or Boston or Buffalo. I simply don't see that as any different from what ownership is doing, for exactly the same reason. Maximize your take.

[Doc]

The grumbling in 2006 was from the players, who were eying those juciy new TV contracts. You have stated in the past that the owners should have simply offered less to the players. Clearly the players were not interested in such an offer. The owners obviously thought 2006 was not the time to stop work. You can argue with that but it's obvious that's how they felt.

 

Since for almost all players, there was no "pay raise" (as you have acknowledged) the "pay cut" to them will not be painful. The salary cap will come down--but most of the cap is spent on a relativley few players and rookies on all teams.

 

The pre-2006 revenue sharing plan for the owners was FAR less generous. I don't think Ralph would go for such a deal.

For the last time doc (and hopefully this 10th time will be the charm), I never said the players didn't get more money. They did. You see, that's why we're at where we're at right now. The owners and players aren't willing to game and network checks over some "paper increase;" it's a very real increase that the owners want to get back. What I did concede was that the players weren't getting 59.5% of revenues because every team wasn't spending to the cap limit. But that's immaterial since they never got 54.5% of revenues prior to 2006, as not every team spent to the cap limit then either. I know you consider it a victory for you, but it was a hollow one.

 

The owners should have told the players that the original CBA, which was working great for over a decade, was how things were going to be forever. The players got over half of the shared revenue and the money kept increasing because TV contracts kept increasing, so the percentage they got would be of a bigger pie annually. But the owners got stupid and agreed to make the cap based on total revenue AND increase the percentage. Now they're paying for it, literally and figuratively.

 

The "lockout insurance" decision by the judge puts not one penny into the pockets of any player. It will be appealed anyway and unless the judge orders an injuction pending the appeal, the owners will get the money. Even if they don't get it, you have stated that the owners are in a better financial position without it anyway. So exactly what leverage is left for the union with this issue? Their only leverage is decertification and then a court challenge of a lockout (if there is one)---with the hope that there would be an injuction against the lockout pending the result of the legal challenge.

 

That's all they've got.

That's a lot. Remember how you were talking about this "lockout insurance" as being their "war chest?" If there's an injunction, and likely there will be, the money is put in escrow and the owners don't see a penny of it. And for a guy like Jerruh, who has a lot of bills to pay for his gaudy shrine (mausoleum), that's gonna hurt.

[CosmicBills]

For the last time doc (and hopefully this 10th time will be the charm), I never said the players didn't get more money. They did. You see, that's why we're at where we're at right now. The owners and players aren't willing to game and network checks over some "paper increase;" it's a very real increase that the owners want to get back. What I did concede was that the players weren't getting 59.5% of revenues because every team wasn't spending to the cap limit. But that's immaterial since they never got 54.5% of revenues prior to 2006, as not every team spent to the cap limit then either. I know you consider it a victory for you, but it was a hollow one.

 

The owners should have told the players that the original CBA, which was working great for over a decade, was how things were going to be forever. The players got over half of the shared revenue and the money kept increasing because TV contracts kept increasing, so the percentage they got would be of a bigger pie annually. But the owners got stupid and agreed to make the cap based on total revenue AND increase the percentage. Now they're paying for it, literally and figuratively.

 

 

That's a lot. Remember how you were talking about this "lockout insurance" as being their "war chest?" If there's an injunction, and likely there will be, the money is put in escrow and the owners don't see a penny of it. And for a guy like Jerruh, who has a lot of bills to pay for his gaudy shrine (mausoleum), that's gonna hurt.

Let's not forget that the war chest, the TV Insurance fund was basically outright theft from the players. The owners got caught trying to steal (more) money from the players by essentially claiming income (of which 60% after the first billion is the players) as if it were a loan.

 

The Owners got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Kinda like this whole fiasco. The Owners are unconscionable. They really are.

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Let's get it on!"

[CosmicBills]

Great Rick Reilly article ...

"Their estimated combined net worth is well over $40 billion, which is more than the GNP of 150 nations. Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called "The Octopus" with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.

 

You're really worried about his wallet?

 

Yes, many of the players are diamond-coated knuckleheads. But have you ever met Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder? He's worth $1.1 billion and yet, two years ago, the Redskins sued a 73-year-old grandmother for not keeping up on her season-ticket package payments.

 

This man also got caught buying stale peanuts from a defunct airline and reselling them at games."

 

Awesome. Let's side with them here. They clearly have the fans' best interest at heart. At least the players perform a function for the fans (they perform ON THE FIELD). The owners just think of ways to screw us out of our money.

 

"For the owners to lock out the players at this time in American history is unconscionable. You don't like the players? Fine. There are still nearly 9 percent of Americans out of work. Think of the people who've lost their homes, lost their cars and can barely pay the rent. Watching an NFL game on a Sunday -- and getting ready for it all week -- is sometimes literally the only thing keeping them going.

 

Do you realize what having no NFL season would do to the economy? According to the NFLPA, it's estimated it would cost each NFL city $160 million and 3,000 jobs. That's 93,000 jobs nationwide. For what? Another Aspen chalet? "

 

Yes. The Owners are in the right here.

 

Read the article. It's scathing. The fans that are actually on the owner's side in this are out of their minds. Seriously.

Edited March 3, 2011 by tgreg99

[Orton's Arm]

As I see it there are a number of key issues here:

• Overall share of revenue to players
  
• Whether small market teams can be competitive
  
• Minimum wage NFL players versus highly paid players
  
• Rookies versus veterans versus retirees

 

Over the last several years, the salary cap has steadily increased even while revenues remained stagnant. That increase was both unnecessary and unjustified. It's bad for the league in two ways: you don't necessarily want a league's players to be overpaid, because then their attitudes might well become more like those of overpaid and arrogant NBA players with their strong sense of entitlement. Secondly, a salary cap that's high in relation to revenue (as the current one is) makes it harder for lower revenue, small market teams like the Bills to compete. Back in the late '90s, the Bills were in trouble with the real salary cap. One of TD's moves upon first arriving was to release some players to get the salary cap situation under control. Obviously, the ability to spend that close to the salary cap which had been a reality in the '90s has since become a distant dream for the Bills.

 

It's unlikely that the owners of larger revenue teams are going to want to do any more revenue sharing than they do now. If teams like the Bills are to be able to spend up to the salary cap, that cap needs to be reduced. Unfortunately, the owners of higher revenue teams may not necessarily want parity. A high salary cap gives the owners of higher revenue teams the chance to sign players that low revenue teams can't afford. That's why, the last time around, the owners of high revenue teams (such as Jerry Jones) accepted a very high salary cap. It was high revenue teams + players against low revenue teams, and the low revenue teams lost.

 

Jerry Jones has evidently realized he made a mistake. With the economy in a downturn and bills coming due, the last thing that man needs right now is a high salary cap! Other owners of high revenue teams find themselves in similar situations. This time around the owners are likely to reclaim a lot of the ground they lost the last time; because they are far less divided against each other than they'd been. That's a good thing for fans and for the NFL.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

Great Rick Reilly article ...

"Their estimated combined net worth is well over $40 billion, which is more than the GNP of 150 nations. Paul Allen, owner of the Seattle Seahawks, has a 414-foot yacht called "The Octopus" with two helicopters, two submarines, a swimming pool, a music studio and a basketball court. He also has two backup emergency yachts.

 

You're really worried about his wallet?

 

Yes, many of the players are diamond-coated knuckleheads. But have you ever met Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder? He's worth $1.1 billion and yet, two years ago, the Redskins sued a 73-year-old grandmother for not keeping up on her season-ticket package payments.

 

This man also got caught buying stale peanuts from a defunct airline and reselling them at games."

 

Awesome. Let's side with them here. They clearly have the fans' best interest at heart. At least the players perform a function for the fans (they perform ON THE FIELD). The owners just think of ways to screw us out of our money.

 

"For the owners to lock out the players at this time in American history is unconscionable. You don't like the players? Fine. There are still nearly 9 percent of Americans out of work. Think of the people who've lost their homes, lost their cars and can barely pay the rent. Watching an NFL game on a Sunday -- and getting ready for it all week -- is sometimes literally the only thing keeping them going.

 

Do you realize what having no NFL season would do to the economy? According to the NFLPA, it's estimated it would cost each NFL city $160 million and 3,000 jobs. That's 93,000 jobs nationwide. For what? Another Aspen chalet? "

 

Yes. The Owners are in the right here.

 

 

of all the arguments to make, this is the most pitiful. i generally enjoy reading reilly's pieces but this type of garbage is insulting. "sure, some players are rich beyond their wildest dreams---but paul allen calls his yacht the octopus! i find that incredibly insulting as a football fan. and the 73 years old grandmother's who own season tickets to the redskins are being put on the street! stale peanuts are served at games! think of the peanut alleriges!

 

and worst of all...the suicide approach! my goodness- the NFL is the only thing that keeps 'em going! If you really believe this, rick, why not get serious about the cause? Lobby for the NFL ownership group to donate one game per year, free of charge to all the redheaded 73 year old grandmother's who are out of work and can barely muster the strength to get out of bed and roll their walker(s) down the hall of their nursing home to flip on the television and adjust the rabbit ears so they can watch the people who actually earn their millions by tossing a football around.

 

what an idiot.

 

tgregg, i can understand differing points of view...but how do the owner's screw you out of money? other than the argument about taxpayer dollars going to support a team, i don't see how they could posssibly screw you. and, since you're here, i;m assuming you're a football fan and not a 37 year old single mom who doesn't want her tax dollars going to support pro football.

[thebandit27]

Read the article. It's scathing. The fans that are actually on the owner's side in this are out of their minds. Seriously.

 

Not exactly a fair assessment if you ask me. For every Dan Snyder that does the things Reilly mentions, there's 10 players like Johnny Jolley and Nick Kazcur that schill drugs, Pacman Jones and Brandon Underwood that assault women, and general morons like Byrant McKinnie that spent $100k on a bar tab with an impending lockout. Are we supposed to readily support these guys simply because they're the jerks with less money than the other supposed jerks?

 

Honestly, to call either side completely our of their minds is ridiculous. Both sides have gripes, and both sides have done things wrong. Again I'll point out that the players agreed to a CBA with a provision that allowed the owners to opt out. They had general counsel representing them that very clearly understood the implication of that clause, which means that they are just as responsible as the owners for the current state of the labor agreement.

 

For anyone to dismiss that fact and blame purely the owners is, in my mind, short-sighted at best.

[JohnC]

John---thanks for replying to theB's note. It saves me the embarrassment of trying one of those multi-quote replies all you tech savvy folks apparently know how to do.

 

Tech savvy? I have you fooled. I am a dinasaur drowning in a swamp of sneering technocrats.

 

 

Here's the issue though---in the two party system we currently have in the nfl, one party isn't happy with the system. they don't feel like it's a good deal for them~~~~and are legally opting out of the deal. put another way, if i was an owner and felt like i was getting the short end of the stick (and we all know different owners have different thoughts on how to run their franchise), why would i want to continue an arrangement that wasn't in my best interest when i wasn't contractually bound to do so? that goes for players as well, as free agency shows us every year.

 

In other words the owners are basically saying I don't feel that the deal was fair to me (although my profit margins have exponentially gone up) because I am not satisfied with that level of profit growth. Or they are simply saying I owe you no explanation because it is what I say it is. Being stronger does have its advantages when pursuing one's insatiable desires.

 

Allow me to edit your last paragraph:

Whatever the owner's get they deserve. They are the financial engine that runs the league and on who's teams guys like brady and manning have experienced extraordinary success. The money everyone gets is the byproduct of their ownership. The bottom line is that the two best players in the game are rewarded handsomely not because of their inherent abilities, but because a mechanism exists that allows them to exploit their unique skill set. Isn't that how the system should work?

 

You are describing a situation where the owners assumed the only risk and provided the resources that resulted in bountiful returns for all the parties. That is not the case. The owners are intoxicated with their own delusions of grandeur. The majority of stadiums, until recently, were publicly built. Even the Golden Palace built in Dallas had a significant portion payed by the local authorities. In NY, I meant Jersey, the stadium was payed for by the Giants and Jets with the help of tremendous amount of tax abatements from the state. New Jersey still has payments to make on the non-existent old stadium. In addition, all new stadiums have infrastructure requirements, which are very expensive and are payed for by the taxpayers.

 

My point is that their franchises' value and profit margin is exponentially increased by outside factors. They may act as the Captains of the Universe but there are a lot of foot soldiers who are propping them up.

 

John, I think you're looking for justification of the owner's decision to opt out. I don't think they owe an explanation if they have the right to opt out. I see the conversation going as simply as this:

 

Owner: We want to excersize our option to opt out of the CBA.

Union: Why?

Owner: Because we want to.

Union: Why?

Owner: Because we can.

Union: But we like the deal.

Owner: Right, that's why we're worried.

 

From there, they have to figure it out. All the emotional b-s thereafter is irrelevant.

 

You just described a level of insufferable arrogance that is breathless.

 

Perhaps you think I'm anti-union here, and I'm really not. Somewhere, somehow this will work out, or the NFL as we know it will cease to exist. I'd hate to see that happen, and I'd love for it all to work out one way or the other. I guess in the end my loyalty lies with the Buffalo Bills. Some players make boatloads of money. Some don't. Some come and stay. Some go because they can make more, or we don't offer them enough to stay, or they want a shot at a ring, or the tax rate is better in Florida so miraculously $5 million is much more money than $7 million.

 

There is no doubt that eventually a deal is going to be struck. My prediction is that it is going to be a protracted process. Sometimes a side can win and yet in the end lose. The product is getting very expensive, too expensive for the average family. The result is that fans are not going to tolerate the premium costs and will stay home to watch the games on their big ticket plazma TVs.

 

If prices continue to go up there will come a point where the overfed hog will simply keel over and become a stinking carcass.

 

As I stated in a prior posting I appreciate your well reasoned responses. Sometimes differences are not as great as they may seem.

Edited March 3, 2011 by JohnC

[CosmicBills]

Not exactly a fair assessment if you ask me.

Oh, I totally agree.

[Mr. WEO]

Tech savvy? I have you fooled. I am a dinasaur drowning in a swamp of sneering technocrats.

 

 

 

 

In other words the owners are basically saying I don't feel that the deal was fair to me (although my profit margins have exponentially gone up) because I am not satisfied with that level of profit growth. Or they are simply saying I owe you no explanation because it is what I say it is. Being stronger does have its advantages when pursuing one's desires.

 

 

 

You are describing a situation where the owners assumed the only risk and provided the resources that resulted in bountiful returns for all the parties. That is not the case. The owners are intoxicated with their own delusions of grandeur. The majority of stadiums, until recently, were publicly built. Even the Golden Palace built in Dallas had a significant portion payed by the local authorities. In NY, I meant Jersey, the stadium was payed for by the Giants and Jets with the help of tremendous amount of tax abatements from the state. New Jersey still has payments to make on the non-existent old stadium. In addition, all new stadiums have infrastructure requirements, which are very expensive and are payed for by the taxpayers.

 

My point is that their franchises' value and profit margin is exponentially increased by outside factors. They may act as the Captains of the Universe but there are a lot of foot soldiers who are propping them up.

 

 

 

You just described a level of insufferable arrogance that is breathless.

 

Perhaps you think I'm anti-union here, and I'm really not. Somewhere, somehow this will work out, or the NFL as we know it will cease to exist. I'd hate to see that happen, and I'd love for it all to work out one way or the other. I guess in the end my loyalty lies with the Buffalo Bills. Some players make boatloads of money. Some don't. Some come and stay. Some go because they can make more, or we don't offer them enough to stay, or they want a shot at a ring, or the tax rate is better in Florida so miraculously $5 million is much more money than $7 million. [/quote}

 

There is no doubt that eventually a deal is going to be struck. My prediction is that it is going to be a protracted process. Sometimes a side can win and yet in the end lose. The product is getting very expensive, too expensive for the average family. The result is that fans are not going to tolerate the premium costs and will stay home to watch the games on their big ticket plazma TVs.

 

If prices continue to go up there will come a point where the overfed hog will simply keel over and become a stinking carcass.

As I stated in a prior posting I appreciate your well reasoned responses. Sometimes differences are as great as they may seem.

Actually, they'll just lower prices. That's how the free market works.

[CosmicBills]

tgregg, i can understand differing points of view...but how do the owner's screw you out of money? other than the argument about taxpayer dollars going to support a team, i don't see how they could posssibly screw you. and, since you're here, i;m assuming you're a football fan and not a 37 year old single mom who doesn't want her tax dollars going to support pro football.

You're not really getting the point behind the article -- it's not just that the NFL owners have more money. It's that they are making money and claiming they need more because their model isn't sustainable. Which, they refuse to prove.

 

As for the above, every NFL fan is screwed by every owner. Every game. We still go because we don't have a choice. But from PSLs, to 10 dollar beers, to outrageous parking costs etc -- everything they do is designed to make the most money from the fans as possible. And that's their right (and job) as owners. That's what they should be doing. And it's working. It's far and away the most profitable sector of the entertainment industry. Moreso than movies, tv, music etc. Yet they want more.

 

That's not good business. That's greed. They run a zero risk business (yes, the NFL is zero risk and has been for two decades). Most of them did nothing to build the league, rather they stood on the shoulders of the men like Ralph who DID take risks to make the NFL what it is today and lined their pockets.

 

Now they want to stop the game to make even more. The players won't suffer. The fans will. So yes, the owners are screwing the fans by locking the players out. To see it otherwise is just silly in my opinion.

[JohnC]

Actually, they'll just lower prices. That's how the free market works.

 

Hogs can't control themselves. It in their nature.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

tgregg, i can understand differing points of view...but how do the owner's screw you out of money? other than the argument about taxpayer dollars going to support a team, i don't see how they could posssibly screw you. and, since you're here, i;m assuming you're a football fan and not a 37 year old single mom who doesn't want her tax dollars going to support pro football.

Hey Timmo. If you don't mind…

 

I wouldn't say the owners are out to "screw you out of money" so much as they are to maximize profits with absolutely no regard for the ticket paying customers on which the league was built.

 

The owners, motivated by the agreement that the home team keeps 60% of gate revenue for regular seating but 100% of gate revenue for preferred seating, has for decades transitioned to a stadium model which emphasizes preferred seating, which doesn't have to be shared with the other teams.

 

On top of creating inequities between NFL team revenues, this policy basically admits that the NFL is pursuing corporate customers and turning their backs on working class families. Because stadiums are apportioning a smaller percentage of seats for regular seating at a time when the popularity of the NFL is growing, the price of those seats has risen (at the same time that the middle class has shrunken). At a time when fewer people are holding more of the world's wealth than ever before and that more people percentage-wise are now poor, the NFL is catering to the corporations, rather than the paying public whose hard-earned money built the league (at a time when club seating and luxury boxes didn't even exist).

 

Then on top of this, you have ticket policies which include the still fairly new concept of Personal Seat Licenses which you need to purchase simply for the right to buy season tickets and you have a league which is utterly insensitive and uncaring for the average paying customer.

 

I do not begrudge the businessman the right to make profits and maximize those profits to a degree. But some businesses can reach the point where the only thing that matters is maximizing profits, to the utter disregard of every other factor. When it reaches that point, it goes too far, IMO.

 

When we talk about the concept of "screwing people out of money" it's really a discussion of greed. I don't think that there's any doubt whether the owners are greedy. The question is, "just how greedy are they?"