thebandit27 Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Found this on PFT...well-written, lucid, intelligent, balanced, and interesting: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/david-cornwell-proposes-a-new-compensation-model/
Metal Man Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Found this on PFT...well-written, lucid, intelligent, balanced, and interesting: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/david-cornwell-proposes-a-new-compensation-model/ Excellent read. Thanks for sharing.
JohnC Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Found this on PFT...well-written, lucid, intelligent, balanced, and interesting: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/david-cornwell-proposes-a-new-compensation-model/ What the writer doesn't indicate is that by changing the nature of the business and how it is owned and pays out salaries you are changing the conceptual framework from which the current negotiations are based on. That would take years of reorienting both sides approach to the game and business model. How is that going to help resolve the currrent negotiation over what is now a relatively simple matter and concept, slicing up the revenue pie. If the owners are reluctant to open up their books for a reasonable examination then why would they want to include the players as shareholders? There is no chance that the owners would allow the players to buy shares or receive equity from their solely owned businesses. From a long term standpoint the players would benefit from the change in the business model. That is the primary reason why the owners who are now fighting to increase their portion of the revenue would never go for it. His concept is an interesting topic for a discussion in a business seminar; it has little to do with the reality of the NFL.
Orton's Arm Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) Found this on PFT...well-written, lucid, intelligent, balanced, and interesting: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/11/david-cornwell-proposes-a-new-compensation-model/ I agree the article is lucid, well-written, and interesting. Even thought-provoking. It is not, however, balanced. It was written by a man who'd apparently been in line for being the head of the NFLPA; and who at times sounded a lot like a spokesman for the players. The NFL players are employees. They typically arrive in the NFL with little or no money, are paid handsome salaries, and then retire. But to read Cornwell's article, you'd think the players were "investors" in the league. Consider the following sentence: "NFL players make a $596 million investment ($1 billion of current credits multiplied by 59.6%) in the business every year." Compare those words to the underlying reality that statement is intended to represent. The first $1 billion of annual revenues the NFL receives does not count towards the salary cap so that owners can pay for their non-player expenses. That is not an "investment" being made in the NFL by the players. Suppose a restaurant owner has ten employees, each of whom makes $25,000 a year. His annual revenues from the restaurant are $350,000 a year. The gap between his annual revenues (of $350K) and his annual employee expenses (of $250K) does not represent a $100K a year "investment" in the business by those ten employees. That $100K a year is money that the owner can use to pay non-employee expenses, invest in the business (advertising, building renovations, etc.), or keep for his own personal use. His argument that players are "partners" is similarly weak. He argues that NFL players are partners with the owners because of the NFL's strict off-field conduct policy. However, similar rules exist for other employees in other businesses, without those employees being designated partners. For example, winners of the Miss America pageant are asked to avoid embarrassing incidents, and are subjected to strict personal conduct rules. The existence of such rules does not make them "partners" with whoever it is that sponsors the Miss America pageant. If NFL cheerleaders were subjected to strict off-field conduct policies (which for all I know they are), no one could reasonably point to that as evidence they'd somehow become business partners with guys like Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft. Cornwell uses his argument that NFL players are partners and "investors" in the NFL as a springboard for his next suggestion: stock options for NFL players. This, despite the fact that he points out the following: "Delayed revenues, i.e., revenues generated by today’s investment but not realized within 3.5 years (the average length of an NFL player’s career), are not shared with some the NFL players who actually make the investment." Stock options are typically not given to employees who are only expected to be around 3.5 years. They make the most sense for young, quickly growing companies with a core of elite-level employees who could easily take their talents elsewhere. If a talented young programmer is deciding whether to work for Microsoft or a start-up, Microsoft may well be able to offer him a better salary. But the start-up's stock options will have the higher upside. There is also the problem of dilution. If Microsoft offers stock options to its employees the dilution effect is likely to be minimal, because there's already so much Microsoft stock in existence anyway. If the start-up offers stock options to its most critical employees, the dilution effect will be stronger. But that will presumably be more than balanced out by the fact that those stock options allow it to attract and retain a more talented group of employees than it otherwise could have. Cornwell's proposal would involve a considerable dilution effect. The NFL has a large number of players, and as he pointed out himself they come and go quickly. Think of the long-term effects of giving everyone like that stock options. Suppose you were to give all current players a 5% ownership share in the NFL. 5% ownership may not seem like much. But with the average player career being 3.5 years, that would mean that on average you'd have to give another 5% ownership share to the players every 3.5 years! That's a 28% share over the course of 20 years, and a 43% share over 30 years. Eventually, the NFL would be wholly owned by former players or their heirs. It is clearly not in NFL owners' long-term interests to do that. On the contrary: the NFL owners could cut the salary cap to 20% of shared revenues without the risk of losing very many players to other leagues. (Such as the CFL.) It's in the owners' interests to push as far as they can in that direction; rather than slowly giving away their ownership of the league to the players. Edited March 11, 2011 by Edwards' Arm
Kingfish Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) Wonderful. Edited March 11, 2011 by Kingfish
McBeane Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 This is incredibly frustrating and probably won't get any better for a while.
Bills(70) Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 Interesting. So, I wonder if the NFL owners plan on putting an entirely new product on the field.
bbb Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 It seems to me that if they decertify, then they shouldn't be able to recertify.
billsfaninvgs Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 This is the start of what will be a very long process..... This actually really sucks for us fans...
billsfan89 Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSxW6WtLYao Oh my God the NFL PA has Disbanded.
BuffaloBillsMagic1 Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 screw the rich idiots. wait until their mortgages and car loans r due. let them come back when brady's 36 yrs old and we keep drafting 3rd every year.
judman Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 It's official... the owners and players could f*ck up a wet dream.
CosmicBills Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 (edited) Whatever goodwill the Owners had left is now gone. Smith made a brilliant move by stating they'd take an extension if the owners were willing to submit 10 years of audited financial information along with the submission. The owners declined. That's on them. For the owners to let this thing go this far off track simply by being unwilling to open their books when they are partners with the players is totally absurd. What are they hiding? This is going to be ugly. If I'm the owners, I'm terrified right now because this will once again change how the league is run. Just like how Free Agency was forced upon them. It's going to get ugly. And now Judges are going to decide how the league will be run in the future. And the ridiculous statements made by the NFL after the decertification (that they agreed to meet all the NFLPA's numbers) is an outrageous, bold faced lie. The players are paid a percentage of revenue. Yet the owners are unwilling to show what that total revenue number ACTUALLY is. So, without showing what that number is, how can they agree to anything? Edited March 11, 2011 by tgreg99
1B4IDie Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 The way I see it: NFL Owners:I need you to take a pay cut, work more days, and we're not going to employ any more help. NFLPA: Why? NFL Owners: Because we're poor (while having their Harem feed them grapes and fan them.)
Kevin Posted March 11, 2011 Posted March 11, 2011 The way I see it. WE the fans are screwed out of a sport we love. Not the owners or players. Spare me the meet me half way, he said she said b.s.. The solution is simple. Do the right thing.
macaroni Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 What I don't understand ..... and excuse me if this is a stupid question ... But what the heck is the big deal with the union decertifying? Why is the next step an NFL lockout? It seems to me that the players have their contracts, they can either honor them or sit out ... just like normal players with out contracts are free agents ... pretty much just like normal As far as the players filing a class action suit .... what are they going to sue for???? As long as the league has rules that just effect the "fairness" of competition levied on the teams and not individual players, what's their beef????
Wing Man Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Don't freak out. This may actually move negotiations along since the owners won't likely approve of any decision the Federal judge makes.
bbb Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Decertifying then let's the players sue for anti-trust violations. The NFL would be in violation of anti-trust laws, but the players have collectively bargained that away....Now, that are decertifying, they are basically making a mess of the owners. I heard that this time they might not get away with this, because it's obviously not really dissolving the union. It's a sham, and they really are still a union and will be in the future.
Malazan Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Whatever goodwill the Owners had left is now gone. Smith made a brilliant move by stating they'd take an extension if the owners were willing to submit 10 years of audited financial information along with the submission. The owners declined. That's on them. For the owners to let this thing go this far off track simply by being unwilling to open their books when they are partners with the players is totally absurd. What are they hiding? This is going to be ugly. If I'm the owners, I'm terrified right now because this will once again change how the league is run. Just like how Free Agency was forced upon them. It's going to get ugly. And now Judges are going to decide how the league will be run in the future. And the ridiculous statements made by the NFL after the decertification (that they agreed to meet all the NFLPA's numbers) is an outrageous, bold faced lie. The players are paid a percentage of revenue. Yet the owners are unwilling to show what that total revenue number ACTUALLY is. So, without showing what that number is, how can they agree to anything? Can you stop your crusade? They're both at fault. Seriously, did all 32 NFL owners pee in your cheerios?
Recommended Posts