San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 CBA wasn't reopened. It expired. Wrong. The owners opted out two years early.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 As long as we're comparing Commissioners, here's a piece by Bill Simmons on the plight of the Sacramento Kings (small market team) and the hands-off approach of NBA Czar David Stern. The article contrasts Stern to…Bud Selig. Like with Goodell, Selig comes out of the discussion looking rather good. I know it's apples to oranges but that doesn't mean that there's no validity to the comparisons. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110425&sportCat=nba
Orton's Arm Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/04/26/goodell-to-the-last-drop/ I wasn't too impressed with the article myself. It seemed like a standard-issue pro-players, anti-owners propaganda piece to me. I don't think it added anything particularly new or insightful to the overall discussion.
Buftex Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I'm starting to get worried that this is all some grand master plan by the large market owners to knock the parity board over and go to an MLB-style free-for-all without being blamed directly for doing so ("wasn't us, it was the evil union that broke the revenue sharing system"). I mean, they couldn't have been this dumb, could they? It's either that or they're morons for so badly misreading the situation and their chances..... Or just a potent combo of greed and arrogance. However, I had the same thought...I can see some of the newer blood owners, like Dan Schneider and Jerry Jones, wondering why they should be held back, and taking less money for teams like Buffalo, Cincinnati, etc... why not just roll the dice and hope that the NFL's protected illegal monopoly is busted up, so they can make more money for themselves, individually. If small market teams fall by the way side, so be it. They will blame it on the players. I think the judge in this case was very wise, and the owners have been very disingenuous about their motives. They may love the game of football, but they love money more...Goodells' Wall Street Journal piece was unbelievable. I never thought I would ever be on the verge of just hating the NFL...its' been such a huge part of my life, for as long as I can remember... CBA wasn't reopened. It expired. Sorry dayman, your wrong. Don't quit your night job! They have only been talking about this for two years now... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596
Hplarrm Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I wasn't too impressed with the article myself. It seemed like a standard-issue pro-players, anti-owners propaganda piece to me. I don't think it added anything particularly new or insightful to the overall discussion. It added to my thinking in that the comparison of MLB commissioner with the NFL commissioner (an odd and offpoint comparison) got me to think about comparing this NFL commissioner with the last NFL commissioner Tagliaboo-boo, This is a more relevant comparison because the final actions of the old commissioner compare to the new commissioner to show why Goodell was hired by the owners. In essence the old commissioner joined with the players in making a last ditch case to the owners that they needed to accept the CBA which did away with the designated gross concept (and idea which for example saw Mr. Ralph eliminate several thousand general admission seats that he has to split the take with the players and instead add a few hundred "heated premium seats" because he did not have to split the take with the players. Not only did NFLPA head Gene Upshaw declare that the final deal was going to get rid of the designation but declared the players cap total would need to start with a 6. On paper the final deal actually awarded the salary cap 60.5% of the total receipts, The reality was it awarded the players well over 50% (arguably making not only partners with the owners as the late 80s CBA did as the owners were forced by the decert threat to run kicking and screaming from actually competing in a free market). In the development of the last CBA the irony is that the commissioner actually ended up playing a role which helped the NFLPA. When it got to crunch time it was the Commissioner's office which argued that the owners should accept the deal because it was clear on the face of it that the individual teams would make a lot more money with the deal than without it. There were holdouts (like Mr. Ralph who was one of two votes against the deal) but in the end the Commissioner's office sided with the players. I think this pissed Mr. Ralph off. In the light of what has happened, it now appears clear to me that part of the rationale for hiring Goodell was that he committed to fight for the owners' interest and not be swayed by the NFLPA's interests. To some extent this is too bad as the owners have taken a stance which mandates there is no NFL football for you and me unless the players cave. The players generally are testosterone and steroid induced competitors. They are not gonna cave. Goodell was hired to fight for the owner's positions. He was not hired to compromise and solve the problem. This is a lot clearer to me after reading this article so for me it added to my knowledge.
dayman Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Well I stand corrected I supposed. They were always going to opt out after they rushed to have the ****ty deal as far as I'm concerned that was the end no matter what. Had literally been the end for years anyway. It added to my thinking in that the comparison of MLB commissioner with the NFL commissioner (an odd and offpoint comparison) got me to think about comparing this NFL commissioner with the last NFL commissioner Tagliaboo-boo, This is a more relevant comparison because the final actions of the old commissioner compare to the new commissioner to show why Goodell was hired by the owners. In essence the old commissioner joined with the players in making a last ditch case to the owners that they needed to accept the CBA which did away with the designated gross concept (and idea which for example saw Mr. Ralph eliminate several thousand general admission seats that he has to split the take with the players and instead add a few hundred "heated premium seats" because he did not have to split the take with the players. Not only did NFLPA head Gene Upshaw declare that the final deal was going to get rid of the designation but declared the players cap total would need to start with a 6. On paper the final deal actually awarded the salary cap 60.5% of the total receipts, The reality was it awarded the players well over 50% (arguably making not only partners with the owners as the late 80s CBA did as the owners were forced by the decert threat to run kicking and screaming from actually competing in a free market). In the development of the last CBA the irony is that the commissioner actually ended up playing a role which helped the NFLPA. When it got to crunch time it was the Commissioner's office which argued that the owners should accept the deal because it was clear on the face of it that the individual teams would make a lot more money with the deal than without it. There were holdouts (like Mr. Ralph who was one of two votes against the deal) but in the end the Commissioner's office sided with the players. I think this pissed Mr. Ralph off. In the light of what has happened, it now appears clear to me that part of the rationale for hiring Goodell was that he committed to fight for the owners' interest and not be swayed by the NFLPA's interests. To some extent this is too bad as the owners have taken a stance which mandates there is no NFL football for you and me unless the players cave. The players generally are testosterone and steroid induced competitors. They are not gonna cave. Goodell was hired to fight for the owner's positions. He was not hired to compromise and solve the problem. This is a lot clearer to me after reading this article so for me it added to my knowledge. More so than in the past Goddell has thrown away the illusion of his role as serving both management and labor...being a kind of buffer between the two in areas of dispute...seeking to represent the interests of both tor each mutual benefit....but c'mon now...all commissioners are selected, paid and retained by management. When **** hits the fan any other commissioner would be fighting for the owners position just as much. Truth is 1) Tagliabue had the luxury of dealing w/ Upshaw and 2) Goodell was involved big time in the last CBA anyway. Besides the last CBA went off like Hitler being appointed chancellor. Nobody really gave a **** at the time (except good old "crazy" Ralph and Mike Brown). Nobody had to sell the owners on much on anything, at least not remotely close to the way it is now. It's not fair to sit there and blast Goodell when the situation is completely different.
dave mcbride Posted April 28, 2011 Author Posted April 28, 2011 I still have no idea why people on this board consider the last deal a bad one. As far as I can tell, the NFL has boomed since then, and everyone's making a lot of money. As for Ralph, please, let's not lionize his opposition to the 06 deal. He said at the time that the reason he voted against it was because he felt he didn't understand it because it had been railroaded through. It wasn't an argument based on principle. As for Mike Brown, he's arguably one of the worst owners in professional sports.
dayman Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) I still have no idea why people on this board consider the last deal a bad one. As far as I can tell, the NFL has boomed since then, and everyone's making a lot of money. As for Ralph, please, let's not lionize his opposition to the 06 deal. He said at the time that the reason he voted against it was because he felt he didn't understand it because it had been railroaded through. It wasn't an argument based on principle. As for Mike Brown, he's arguably one of the worst owners in professional sports. LOL. That's true. Haha. On both counts w/ regards to the owners. But that doesn't mean they weren't voting right. The mere fact that we are where we are suggests the last CBA was less than optimal. Edited April 28, 2011 by dayman
Buftex Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) I still have no idea why people on this board consider the last deal a bad one. As far as I can tell, the NFL has boomed since then, and everyone's making a lot of money. As for Ralph, please, let's not lionize his opposition to the 06 deal. He said at the time that the reason he voted against it was because he felt he didn't understand it because it had been railroaded through. It wasn't an argument based on principle. As for Mike Brown, he's arguably one of the worst owners in professional sports. Because, people on this board, for the most part (not all) automatically think ownership/managment is right, and athletes/labor are wrong. The reason the deal is considred a "bad one" by so many, and the owners, is because the players, collectively, are getting more money than they are accustomed to. They will argue (as I have seen here) that the players make millions to play a kids game, and are too stupid, for the most part, to invest and save, and end up broke. So, of course, it is better for the owners to keep more money...that is the kind of logic that exists here. Edited April 28, 2011 by Buftex
Mr. WEO Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 I still have no idea why people on this board consider the last deal a bad one. As far as I can tell, the NFL has boomed since then, and everyone's making a lot of money. As for Ralph, please, let's not lionize his opposition to the 06 deal. He said at the time that the reason he voted against it was because he felt he didn't understand it because it had been railroaded through. It wasn't an argument based on principle. As for Mike Brown, he's arguably one of the worst owners in professional sports. Times (globally) were pretty flush in '06. That deal was more about revenue sharing amongst owners that it was about "59.5%". Also, the TV deals were fairly fresh. I think they all thought a work stoppage was the worst choice at that time. They made a deal out of expedience to keep football going. So it wasn't a "bad deal". Everyone at the time-including Upshaw and Tags knew this. They knew this contract would never reach maturity and that the owners would likely opt out as soon as they could. 3 years ago, when they executed their opt out clause, the economic climate was different and several owners were planning new construction (not just Jones). They bailed out. People who say the owners made a "bad deal" in '06 are the same ones who mock them for trying to get a better deal now. Go figure.
dave mcbride Posted April 28, 2011 Author Posted April 28, 2011 Times (globally) were pretty flush in '06. That deal was more about revenue sharing amongst owners that it was about "59.5%". Also, the TV deals were fairly fresh. I think they all thought a work stoppage was the worst choice at that time. They made a deal out of expedience to keep football going. So it wasn't a "bad deal". Everyone at the time-including Upshaw and Tags knew this. They knew this contract would never reach maturity and that the owners would likely opt out as soon as they could. 3 years ago, when they executed their opt out clause, the economic climate was different and several owners were planning new construction (not just Jones). They bailed out. People who say the owners made a "bad deal" in '06 are the same ones who mock them for trying to get a better deal now. Go figure. But didn't the league have its best year ever in 2010, revenue wise? The recession appears to have had no impact on the NFL.
CosmicBills Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) But didn't the league have its best year ever in 2010, revenue wise? The recession appears to have had no impact on the NFL. Shhh ... Youre wasting your breath. WEO doesn't care about little things like "facts" or "logic" ... He is a blowhard who offers nothing to this conversation or any other conversation from what I can tell. People who say the owners made a "bad deal" in '06 are the same ones who mock them for trying to get a better deal now. Go figure. ha! Do you ever think about what you're posting? The people who feel the NFL made a bad deal in '06 are the OWNERS -- you know, the ones youre blindly trumpeting day in and day out here. The players and most everyone else realizes that the league and everyone in it made more money than ever before in its history under the old deal. That's kind of the whole point of the debate ... there was no reason for the Owners to cry poor and cause a work stoppage over the deal because, in reality, EVERYONE was making more money than they ever had before. So to recap you are now arguing with yourself (and making fun of yourself apparently) in this post. F$@?ing hilarious. Edited April 28, 2011 by tgreg99
dayman Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 Anyone actually know where they stand now? Have a link to what the key differences are and what each side wants?
Mr. WEO Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 But didn't the league have its best year ever in 2010, revenue wise? The recession appears to have had no impact on the NFL. They made the decision to opt out 3 years ago. The rest of '08 and '09 made them glad they did, no doubt. Times are better now, but I think they saw themselves financially exposed with a perpetually fixed total revenue % going to players. They want that out of the next deal. Most posters here apparently aren't familiar with the league's final offer to the players before NFLPA ran out of the bargaining room to file their decert papers before the county clerk's office closed. Some of th people here are still actually talking about a "pay cut" demanded by the owners. Shhh ... Youre wasting your breath. WEO doesn't care about little things like "facts" or "logic" ... He is a blowhard who offers nothing to this conversation or any other conversation from what I can tell. ha! Do you ever think about what you're posting? The people who feel the NFL made a bad deal in '06 are the OWNERS -- you know, the ones youre blindly trumpeting day in and day out here. The players and most everyone else realizes that the league and everyone in it made more money than ever before in its history under the old deal. That's kind of the whole point of the debate ... there was no reason for the Owners to cry poor and cause a work stoppage over the deal because, in reality, EVERYONE was making more money than they ever had before. So to recap you are now arguing with yourself (and making fun of yourself apparently) in this post. F$@?ing hilarious. Go back the folding table in the kitchen. The adults are having a conversation.
CosmicBills Posted April 28, 2011 Posted April 28, 2011 (edited) They made the decision to opt out 3 years ago. The rest of '08 and '09 made them glad they did, no doubt. ...Some of th people here are still actually talking about a "pay cut" demanded by the owners. Go back the folding table in the kitchen. The adults are having a conversation. Wait ... so they're happy they opted out of a deal that made them more money than they ever have before DESPITE revenue sharing? Even now when so far they have lost every battle they've fought so far and there is a looming threat that a federal court will decide how they run their own league? That makes TOTAL sense. Good grief. THINK about what you write before you write it. Please please please! And the Owners ARE still talking about a pay cut. They're talking about taking an extra billion off the top before revenue sharing. That's a pay cut -- no matter how you define it, my friend. The players are a group, just like the owners, a group comprised of individual members. While the individual members may have contracts that aren't immediately affected by losing 1 BILLION dollars off the top, taking money from the group is a pay cut. It's certainly not a raise ... Even if you believe the numbers the NFL released in their alleged 12th hour offer, it was still a 325 million dollar cut (roughly). But, as anyone who understand negotiating can tell you, NEITHER side negotiated in good faith prior to the decert AND the Judge's ruling. Just like no one will negotiate in good faith until St.Louis makes their ruling. Why? Because there's no reason to do so before then. Which means, any number you throw out that was allegedly offered by the NFL wasn't a real offer. The players know it. The owners know it. And so do the fans. It's all posturing. Why is that so difficult for you to grasp? Oh, right ... because you don't care about facts. You just like hard line stances and refuse to engage in a real conversation where (gasp) you might have to admit you don't know everything. Edited April 28, 2011 by tgreg99
Recommended Posts