Cornelius Bennett offers his opinions on lockout

[Beerball]

link

[billsfan in n.h]

i agree,what would it hurt???

[Hapless Bills Fan]

link

 

Very articulate! June 3rd can't come soon enough for me

[Dr. Fong]

Very articulate! June 3rd can't come soon enough for me

 

 

Me neither. Heroes Con in Charlotte is going to be awesome....uh you weren't talking about that were you?

[spartacus]

i agree,what would it hurt???

the only thing missing from being able to negotiate is the players.

they have no union

 

D Smith has zero interest in negotiating, as evidenced by the players refusal to even respond to the last 2 owner offers

 

If the lockout is lifted, there will be zero incentive for the players to negotiate a new CBA until the anit-trust case is resolved in 3 or 4 years/

 

 

[Wayne Fontes]

I thought Bennett had no love for the Bills over the way he left. Never seemed to be in the alumni mix. Guess I was wrong.

[Spiderweb]

the only thing missing from being able to negotiate is the players.

they have no union

 

D Smith has zero interest in negotiating, as evidenced by the players refusal to even respond to the last 2 owner offers

 

If the lockout is lifted, there will be zero incentive for the players to negotiate a new CBA until the anit-trust case is resolved in 3 or 4 years/

 

 

 

Pretty hard to negotiate in good faith when the plan for a lockout was laid two plus years ago, and that even when initially ruled against, the owners sought and received a stay in the lifting of the lockout. Yeah, the players are dead wrong.....(heavy sarcasm...)

[syhuang]

The problem of NFLPA is that they are mainly fighting for star players. The current bottleneck in CBA negotiation is players' share percentage, which benefits star players much more than average and bottom players. Since last CBA, salary cap increases by roughly 50%, but medium salary only increases by 9.7%. Remember this is percentage increase and is a simple math to understand star players are affected much more by players' share change.

 

If NFLPA really cares about average and bottom players, they should ask for much higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contract, etc. But no, they are willing to face lockout to fight for players' share, which benefits star players much more than average and bottom players. These average and bottom players are suffering during lockout, but NFLPA is sacrificing them in order to fight for star players while telling them that they would benefits from it like star players. No it is not, it benefits star players much more. For average and bottom players, higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contracts are more important to them, which are not what prevents both sides to reach deal.

[Fixxxer]

The problem of NFLPA is that they are mainly fighting for star players. The current bottleneck in CBA negotiation is players' share percentage, which benefits star players much more than average and bottom players. Since last CBA, salary cap increases by roughly 50%, but medium salary only increases by 9.7%. Remember this is percentage increase and is a simple math to understand star players are affected much more by players' share change.

 

If NFLPA really cares about average and bottom players, they should ask for much higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contract, etc. But no, they are willing to face lockout to fight for players' share, which benefits star players much more than average and bottom players. These average and bottom players are suffering during lockout, but NFLPA is sacrificing them in order to fight for star players while telling them that they would benefits from it like star players. No it is not, it benefits star players much more. For average and bottom players, higher minimum salary and more guarantee money in small contracts are more important to them, which are not what prevents both sides to reach deal.

 

I've read this from another fan on today's ESPN article. It's a very interesting piece of information, where did you get those numbers, from the old CBA?

 

If this is true, the players on the upper echelon are no different than Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Fixxxer

[syhuang]

I've read this from another fan on today's ESPN article. It's a very interesting piece of information, where did you get those numbers, from the old CBA?

 

If this is true, the players on the upper echelon are no different than Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder.

 

Yes, I also posted the same thing there too. I see the median salary increase percentage few times in different articles. I just did a google search and the following are several links listed:

 

link 1

link 2

link3

 

The median NFL salary increase from 2006 to 2009 (last season with salary cap) is actually even lower at 9.4% (somehow I remember it at 9.7%). Anyway, it further confirms that star players benefit much more from players' share increase in last CBA.

 

NFLPA is basically fighting for star players while sacrificing average and bottom players consider players' share percentage affects star players much more while things (minimum salary, etc) benefit average and bottom players aren't what prevent both sides from reaching a new CBA.

[ARTnSocal]

No wonder Drew Brees is on TV saying they're happy with the prior CBA ... giving players & owners a 50/50 split.

 

He makes no mention as to how the players 50% is split amongst themselves ...

 

He's laughing all the way to the bank along with all the endorsement money he's able to make, that the lower echelon players have no chance of making.

 

I've lost alot of respect for him as this lockout has progressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 22, 2011 by ARTnSocal

[1B4IDie]

No wonder Drew Brees is on TV saying they're happy with the prior CBA ... giving players & owners a 50/50 split.

 

He makes no mention as to how the players 50% is split amongst themselves ...

 

He's laughing all the way to the bank along with all the endorsement money he's able to make, that the lower echelon players have no chance of making.

 

I've lost alot of respect for him as this lockout has progressed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why shouldn't Drew Brees make a ton more than Levi Brown? Seems fair to me.

 

Biscuit makes a good point. What's the point of a lockout? Just use the 2010 rules and negotiate in parallel.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[DC Grid]

Why shouldn't Drew Brees make a ton more than Levi Brown? Seems fair to me.

 

Biscuit makes a good point. What's the point of a lockout? Just use the 2010 rules and negotiate in parallel.

 

I think the issue is the players are arguing about "fairness" and how they bleed on the field but the owners want more than their "equal" share. This argument rings hollow when the players are so unequally / unfairly compensated amongst themselves. Levi doesn't deserve as much as Brees, but while 10% more in salary means nothing to a guy making as much as brees a similar % raise greatly helps Levi.

Now I'm not saying Brees should take less, I believe in the market deciding worth, but in any other market but sports the guys putting the capital on the line make all the rules. If Brees and the other top 10% of the players who are highly compensated want to argue about fairness and equality they better realise they might be arguing against their own compensation, or sound like hypocrites.

[1B4IDie]

I think the issue is the players are arguing about "fairness" and how they bleed on the field but the owners want more than their "equal" share. This argument rings hollow when the players are so unequally / unfairly compensated amongst themselves. Levi doesn't deserve as much as Brees, but while 10% more in salary means nothing to a guy making as much as brees a similar % raise greatly helps Levi.

Now I'm not saying Brees should take less, I believe in the market deciding worth, but in any other market but sports the guys putting the capital on the line make all the rules. If Brees and the other top 10% of the players who are highly compensated want to argue about fairness and equality they better realise they might be arguing against their own compensation, or sound like hypocrites.

The problem is, this isn't any other market. This is a tightly regulated monopoly.

On top of that most of the current owners have little to no risk and have done little to anything to improve the game.

What was the last significant improvement to the game, HD telecast? Owners had nothing to do with that.

The Owners are glorified common stock owners. They have no real control or decision making to do anything autonomous and have made no innovations to the game.

I own tons of stock, but I don't try to tell the companies how much to pay the employees.

 

Apply the commonly held belief that an "owner" should call the shots doesn't apply here. The "Owners" are owners in name only. Most of them look at the NFL franchise as nothing more than another investment vehicle and don't really know how to run a football franchise.

Look at one of the only owners that is a GM, Al Davis. Everyone thinks he off base.

If the GMs and players were patching this out, I'd have more faith than the "owners" being involved.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

The problem is, this isn't any other market. This is a tightly regulated monopoly.

On top of that most of the current owners have little to no risk and have done little to anything to improve the game.

What was the last significant improvement to the game, HD telecast? Owners had nothing to do with that.

The Owners are glorified common stock owners. They have no real control or decision making to do anything autonomous and have made no innovations to the game.

I own tons of stock, but I don't try to tell the companies how much to pay the employees.

 

Apply the commonly held belief that an "owner" should call the shots doesn't apply here. The "Owners" are owners in name only. Most of them look at the NFL franchise as nothing more than another investment vehicle and don't really know how to run a football franchise.

Look at one of the only owners that is a GM, Al Davis. Everyone thinks he off base.

If the GMs and players were patching this out, I'd have more faith than the "owners" being involved.

 

The owners feel differently, obviously. If you want to use the "but this is different" argument, than you have to acknowledge that the whole thing is different. Drew Brees is a heck of an athlete, but absent the infrastructure of the game he's not a multi-millionaire for tossing a ball to some other guy. they all benefit from the structure in some way, owners included. The difference is the owners have a tangible product that they ultimately control.

 

As far as playing while negotiating, that would seem to make little sense for the owners. Why continue business as usual if you think business as usual is bad for you? It's not unlike the union decertifying. That was a tactical move, nothing more, nothing less.

 

In the end, it's all about the business of football, not the emotional side it. Hopefully, one side or the other cracks and we get to refocus on the emotional side of it before too long.

[1B4IDie]

The owners feel differently, obviously. If you want to use the "but this is different" argument, than you have to acknowledge that the whole thing is different. Drew Brees is a heck of an athlete, but absent the infrastructure of the game he's not a multi-millionaire for tossing a ball to some other guy. they all benefit from the structure in some way, owners included. The difference is the owners have a tangible product that they ultimately control.

 

As far as playing while negotiating, that would seem to make little sense for the owners. Why continue business as usual if you think business as usual is bad for you? It's not unlike the union decertifying. That was a tactical move, nothing more, nothing less.

 

In the end, it's all about the business of football, not the emotional side it. Hopefully, one side or the other cracks and we get to refocus on the emotional side of it before too long.

What control do the owners have?

Can they change the team name if they wanted? No would take years and years to maybe get approved.

Can they change location the team plays in? No. Would take years to get approved and after the Cleveland fiasco the NFL is even more conservative.

Can the owner decide to pay a veteran player the same as rookie? No, 1 the owner probably has nothing to do with contract negotiatiation. 2 there is structure around veteran minimum.

If the NFL went away the owners would be in just as bad shape. Look at Ralph, he only has a 140 million outside of the Bills. Look at Snyder he only made a couple hundred million during the .com days and now they are both paper Billionaires because of the value of their franchise. Snyder is so over leveraged on finances and has so many bad investments (six flags, Johnny rockets, random radio stations) he couldnt get financed to bring an Arena League to the area.

If the NFL is "lockedout" for two years and the Redskins are no longer worth a Billion but worth a 500 million he is going to need a bailout.

 

Drew Brees is a talented athelete that spent his life working hard and training on a specialized skill because it pays very well.

But guess what there are other sports where athletes can get paid.

There aren't other sure thing, no risk investments that can take any idiot with a couple hundred milll and some financing and turn them into Billionaires over night.

If there is something legal like that let me know.

 

Yes Drew Brees would be screwed without football right now but Dan Snyder would be just another failed, bankrupt business man without the sure thing of the Redskins in his portfolio.

 

And BTW the next Drew Brees that is still in High School, the talented athletes that are coming up can focus on any other sport that will give them a free education and pay them nicely. If the NFL WRs played soccer their whole life the US would have the most devastating soccer team in the world and the TV and advertising money would follow.

If they focused on Hockey or Baseball both sports would be relevant again or wanted to be boxers or track stars.

Today's NFL represents many of the best atheletes the US has to offer. Most of the stars would have found away in life without football. As long as athletics are rewarded in this society these people will be just fine.

 

Don't be confused by the greater socio-economic issue that athelets make more than teachers. Without the NFL athletes still make more than teachers, a world without the NFL doesn't change the issue.

Fans will find some other spectacle to watch.

 

(BTW the owners like the 2010 rules, the players don't. No cap, no floor, no FAs until a player plays for 6 years. The CBA expired prior to the 2010 season when if the owners wanted to ensure the 2011 season they would have negotiated. They didn't want to because they planned for a lockout to squeeze the players and live off of TV money)

Edited May 23, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

What control do the owners have?

Can they change the team name if they wanted? No would take years and years to maybe get approved.

Can they change location the team plays in? No. Would take years to get approved and after the Cleveland fiasco the NFL is even more conservative.

Can the owner decide to pay a veteran player the same as rookie? No, 1 the owner probably has nothing to do with contract negotiatiation. 2 there is structure around veteran minimum.

If the NFL went away the owners would be in just as bad shape. Look at Ralph, he only has a 140 million outside of the Bills. Look at Snyder he only made a couple hundred million during the .com days and now they are both paper Billionaires because of the value of their franchise. Snyder is so over leveraged on finances and has so many bad investments (six flags, Johnny rockets, random radio stations) he couldnt get financed to bring an Arena League to the area.

If the NFL is "lockedout" for two years and the Redskins are no longer worth a Billion but worth a 500 million he is going to need a bailout.

 

Drew Brees is a talented athelete that spent his life working hard and training on a specialized skill because it pays very well.

But guess what there are other sports where athletes can get paid.

There aren't other sure thing, no risk investments that can take any idiot with a couple hundred milll and some financing and turn them into Billionaires over night.

If there is something legal like that let me know.

 

Yes Drew Brees would be screwed without football right now but Dan Snyder would be just another failed, bankrupt business man without the sure thing of the Redskins in his portfolio.

 

And BTW the next Drew Brees that is still in High School, the talented athletes that are coming up can focus on any other sport that will give them a free education and pay them nicely. If the NFL WRs played soccer their whole life the US would have the most devastating soccer team in the world and the TV and advertising money would follow.

If they focused on Hockey or Baseball both sports would be relevant again or wanted to be boxers or track stars.

Today's NFL represents many of the best atheletes the US has to offer. Most of the stars would have found away in life without football. As long as athletics are rewarded in this society these people will be just fine.

 

Don't be confused by the greater socio-economic issue that athelets make more than teachers. Without the NFL athletes still make more than teachers, a world without the NFL doesn't change the issue.

Fans will find some other spectacle to watch.

 

(BTW the owners like the 2010 rules, the players don't. No cap, no floor, no FAs until a player plays for 6 years. The CBA expired prior to the 2010 season when if the owners wanted to ensure the 2011 season they would have negotiated. They didn't want to because they planned for a lockout to squeeze the players and live off of TV money)

 

 

well, just for starters, the owners seem to have the ability to lockout the players and bring this thing to a screeching halt. as for the owner's not having control over team names and the like...was there a rush to change the NY Giants to the Greater Metro New York-New Jersey And Outlying Suburban Area Ramblers? Seems easier to just stick with "Giants". And correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a team decide to pay a veteran player nothing by not paying him anything?

 

i think you're all wrapped up in the emotion of the game, and that's fine. your thoughts on drew brees hi-lite that very point. he's a talented guy, granted. he's driven, granted. and perhaps he could have played pro baseball, or basketball, become an investment banker, a corportate litgator, or gone on to star in "Friends". my point was simply the business of football is beneficial for all involved, but the lockout/decert is just that---the business end of it all.

 

you're preaching to the wrong choir on the socio-economic issue referenced. i fully understand why tom brady makes $12mill and mother theresa lived in squalor. i don't spend much time worrying about that as it has nothing to do with me. but when i look at the whole picture, i don't see an issue with a minor player making $350k v. a mid-level player making $2 million to Brady/Brees/Manning making $10+mill to Ralph Wilson being owner of a $700,000,000 franchise. honestly, i find it a bit hyporcritical that brees/brady are lead plaintiffs in the anti-trust suit, i've said previously that in most industry guy making $10mill a year or more are the targets of animosity, not the victim. i understand tactically why it's done, but i find it distasteful.

 

i know this much for certain, the fan experience seems to be fairly low on the list of priorities for all the involved parties. i can live with that, it just is the way it is, but ralph wilson has been the owner of the bills for my entire life,and players have come and gone. what keeps the bills in wny is ultimately what's good for me. i'm looking for that solution, the rest is not my concern.

[1B4IDie]

well, just for starters, the owners seem to have the ability to lockout the players and bring this thing to a screeching halt. as for the owner's not having control over team names and the like...was there a rush to change the NY Giants to the Greater Metro New York-New Jersey And Outlying Suburban Area Ramblers? Seems easier to just stick with "Giants". And correct me if I'm wrong, but can't a team decide to pay a veteran player nothing by not paying him anything?

 

i think you're all wrapped up in the emotion of the game, and that's fine. your thoughts on drew brees hi-lite that very point. he's a talented guy, granted. he's driven, granted. and perhaps he could have played pro baseball, or basketball, become an investment banker, a corportate litgator, or gone on to star in "Friends". my point was simply the business of football is beneficial for all involved, but the lockout/decert is just that---the business end of it all.

 

you're preaching to the wrong choir on the socio-economic issue referenced. i fully understand why tom brady makes $12mill and mother theresa lived in squalor. i don't spend much time worrying about that as it has nothing to do with me. but when i look at the whole picture, i don't see an issue with a minor player making $350k v. a mid-level player making $2 million to Brady/Brees/Manning making $10+mill to Ralph Wilson being owner of a $700,000,000 franchise. honestly, i find it a bit hyporcritical that brees/brady are lead plaintiffs in the anti-trust suit, i've said previously that in most industry guy making $10mill a year or more are the targets of animosity, not the victim. i understand tactically why it's done, but i find it distasteful.

 

i know this much for certain, the fan experience seems to be fairly low on the list of priorities for all the involved parties. i can live with that, it just is the way it is, but ralph wilson has been the owner of the bills for my entire life,and players have come and gone. what keeps the bills in wny is ultimately what's good for me. i'm looking for that solution, the rest is not my concern.

I'm not really wrapped in the emotion. Just stating facts.

 

Like I said earlier the owners aren't likely making personnel decision so they're not choosing to cut a veteran, a GM is operating the franchises. The owners are sitting the owner box, giving the finger to Bills' fans.

 

I just find the commonly spewed sentiment that "the owners" should decide how much they pay the players, a little silly and naive.

 

This isn't flipping pizzas at LaNova this is the NFL.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[syhuang]

Like I said earlier the owners aren't likely making personnel decision so they're not choosing to cut a veteran, a GM is operating the franchises. The owners are sitting the owner box, giving the finger to Bills' fans.

 

I just find the commonly spewed sentiment that "the owners" should decide how much they pay the players, a little silly and naive.

 

I don't quite get your point, are you really saying that owners shouldn't decide how much they want to pay players because they are not the ones negotiating contracts with each player?

 

There are people hired by owners to handle different kinds of stuff, including negotiating players' contracts. However, when owners don't like their revenue, they make the decisions to either increase income or save money from different kind of places, including (pursuing) lower expenses to players.

 

It is just like other big companies where CEOs don't negotiate pay rate with each individual employee. But when a CEO feels his company spends too much on employees, he makes the decision to reduce personnel costs. Sometimes it is to lay off some employees, sometimes it is to make them take a pay cut, sometimes it's to move his factories to other countries with lower average salary, etc.

Edited May 23, 2011 by syhuang

[1B4IDie]

I don't quite get your point. There are people hired by owners to handle different kinds of stuff, including negotiating players' contracts. However, when owners don't like their revenue, they make the decisions to either increase income or save money from different kind of places, including (pursuing) lower expenses to players.

 

It is just like other big companies where CEOs don't negotiate pay rate with each individual employee. But when a CEO feels his company spends too much on employees, he makes the decision to reduce personnel costs. Sometimes it is to lay off some employees, sometimes it is to make them take a pay cut, sometimes it's to move his factories to other countries with lower average salary, etc.

It is not like that at all in the NFL. That is my point.

 

Salary's (under a CBA) are a fixed cost.

You have a minimum amount you have to spend, and there is a cap you can spend up to.

 

The owners so not have the option to move the team to costa rica and pick up local ticos to play offensive line.

 

The "owners" are little more than shareholders in a privately held corporation called the NFL. There is little they can do autonomously.

 

Using a factory owner as a simile does not apply.

 

In your example using a common stock holder in a publicly traded company is a closer likeness to NFL "owners". The GM is closer to the role the CEO plays. The CEO reports to the board of directors and in theory the stock holders.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Why So Serious?