syhuang Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 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 factor as a simile does not apply. Using a common stock holder in a publicly traded company is a closer likeness to NFL "owners". Right, when there is a CBA, salary is fixed and owners can't change it. However, when there is no CBA, owners can pursue the total expense they want to spend on players in CBA negotiation. Do you say that because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue that in CBA talks to increase their revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) Right, when there is a CBA, salary is fixed and owners can't change it. However, when there is no CBA, owners can pursue the total expense they want to spend on players in CBA negotiation. Do you say that because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue that in CBA talks to increase their revenue? You do not increase revenue by decreasing expenses. I don't think you understand the financial terms you're using. So I'm going to just leave this alone. My point is that NFL "Owners" are "owners" in name only. They're more like common stock shareholders that are Area VPs in a publicly traded company. Some may understand that, some may not. They're not like Mr. Slate, Mr Spacely or Mr. Burns as some people seem to think. I don't know why I mistakingly posted anything. Continue on . . . Edited May 23, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) You do not increase revenue by decreasing expenses. I don't think you understand the financial terms you're using. So I'm going to just leave this alone. My bad, I should have said profit. It doesn't change the point of my question: Do you say that because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue that in CBA talks to increase their profit? My point is that NFL "Owners" are "owners" in name only. They're more like common stock shareholders that Area VPs in a publicly traded company. Some may understand that, some may not. They're not like Mr. Slate, Mr Spacely or Mr. Burns as some people seem to think. In this case, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Owners are the ones looking at their profit and decide whether it's enough or not. When they don't like their profit, they make the decisions to increase it, either increase their income or reduce their expense. BTW, last time I checked, owners still "own" their teams or at least majority of the shares. They are not just minority shareholders. Owners are the ones having final says of executive decisions. Edited May 23, 2011 by syhuang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 (edited) My bad, I should have said profit. It doesn't change the point of my question: Do you say that because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue that in CBA talks to increase their profit? The NFL Owners can negotiate whatever they like with whomever they like. If they were serious though they would have tried to negotiate in March of 2009 not June of 2011. They also may not be shocked when the NFLPA is not psyched that want to change a 60/40 split to 49.5/50.5 with no real reason or leverage besides, "well because I want to make more money." In this case, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Owners are the ones looking at their profit and decide whether it's enough or not. When they don't like their profit, they make the decisions to increase it, either increase their income or reduce their expense. You have perfectly summarized the naive and silly sentiment that many fans have. Thank you. Edited May 23, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 The NFL Owners can negotiate whatever they like with whomever they like. If they were serious though they would have tried to negotiate in March of 2009 not June of 2011. They also may not be shocked when the NFLPA is not psyched that want to change a 60/40 split to 49.5/50.5 with no real reason or leverage besides, "well because I want to make more money." It's not a secret that NFL owners have been prepared for the long time. But why does it have anything to do with your claim that, because owners aren't the ones negotiating each individual contract, they can't pursue total expenses to playersin CBA talks to increase their profit? You have perfectly summarized the naive and silly sentiment that many fans have. Thank you. Ha Ha, making personal attack only makes you look bad and less credit. I guess you don't like people disagree with you. Let me say it again: Owners are the ones looking at their profit and decide whether it's enough or not. When they don't like their profit, they make the decisions to increase it, either increase their income or reduce their expense. Last time I checked, owners still "own" their teams or at least majority of the shares. They are not just minority shareholders. Owners are the ones having final says of executive decisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted May 23, 2011 Share Posted May 23, 2011 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/ If there is no CBA, the players should declare the draft null and void. It is an illegal activity, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Ha Ha, making personal attack only makes you look bad and less credit. I guess you don't like people disagree with you. Not personal to you. Just sayin' it's a little simplistic view. It's a bit more complicated than you may realize. Sorry if seemed that way. Go Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Not personal to you. Just sayin' it's a little simplistic view. It's a bit more complicated than you may realize. Sorry if seemed that way. Go Bills. Apology accepted. And it may actually be more complicated than you realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Gun Special Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 I havent seen anyone discuss the fact that owners are screwing their employees, i mean front office people. They have cut their pay and many, including Ralph said they will not get backpay when the season resumes. Talk about greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) You do not increase revenue by decreasing expenses. I don't think you understand the financial terms you're using. So I'm going to just leave this alone. My point is that NFL "Owners" are "owners" in name only. They're more like common stock shareholders that are Area VPs in a publicly traded company. Some may understand that, some may not. They're not like Mr. Slate, Mr Spacely or Mr. Burns as some people seem to think. I don't know why I mistakingly posted anything. Continue on . . . No they're not. If they were, they would all have equal shares and would own 1/32 of the league, which, of course, is not true. The only thing the owners share equally is TV money and non luxury box seat money. The NFL is nothing like a publicly traded company. If there is no CBA, the players should declare the draft null and void. It is an illegal activity, after all No it's not. Anyway, the players have played (and participated in the draft) without a CBA in the past. Edited May 24, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) No they're not. If they were, they would all have equal shares and would own 1/32 of the league, which, of course, is not true. The only thing the owners share equally is TV money and non luxury box seat money. The NFL is nothing like a publicly traded company. The juxtaposition is the fact that "owners" have very little autonomy like common stock holder. Not sure where the 1/32nd statement comes from. Clearly not all owners are equal as some owners have seemed to have almost nothing to do with the lockout. Edited May 25, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The juxtaposition is the fact that "owners" have very little autonomy like common stock holder. This is incorrect. Owners may hire people to handle different stuff so they don't need to do every little thing themselves, but owners also have final say of executive decisions, including looking at profit report and decide what direction the team should go or what changes needed to be made etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The juxtaposition is the fact that "owners" have very little autonomy like common stock holder. Not sure where the 1/32nd statement comes from. Clearly not all owners are equal as some owners have seemed to have almost nothing to do with the lockout. The owners individually run the business of their teams. They hire, fire staff and players, they have unique marketing strategies. They build stadiums or not. They are free to raise revenue in many ways that is not shared. They have much autonomy, yet they all operate under a set of rules or agreements that they have agreed upon. Really, it's nothing like being a corproate shareholder. "It's a bit more complicated than you may realize." All 32 owners agreed to the lockout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) The owners individually run the business of their teams. They hire, fire staff and players, they have unique marketing strategies. They build stadiums or not. They are free to raise revenue in many ways that is not shared. They have much autonomy, yet they all operate under a set of rules or agreements that they have agreed upon. Really, it's nothing like being a corproate shareholder. "It's a bit more complicated than you may realize." All 32 owners agreed to the lockout. Read the whole sentence silly. Not just the part you highlighted. Edited May 25, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Read the whole sentence silly. Not just the part you highlighted. The juxtaposition is the fact that "owners" have very little autonomy like common stock holder. You are saying the owners are like common stock holders--very little autonomy. Not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 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...) Gimmie a break. The union hasn't done anything in 'good faith' either. They are just as disinterested in a reasonable negotiation as are the owners. Both sides want an overwhelming, complete and crushing victory and so far neither is willing to settle for less. We'll just have to see who cracks first, which is why this isn't getting settled anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 You are saying the owners are like common stock holders--very little autonomy. Not true. Try Again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Try Again No problem. You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 (edited) No problem. You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize. Since like usual, you're having problems with reading comprehension. Here is what I actually wrote: They're more like common stock shareholders that are Area VPs in a publicly traded company. Some may understand that, some may not. They're not like Mr. Slate, Mr Spacely or Mr. Burns as some people seem to think. Edited May 25, 2011 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Gimmie a break. The union hasn't done anything in 'good faith' either. They are just as disinterested in a reasonable negotiation as are the owners. Both sides want an overwhelming, complete and crushing victory and so far neither is willing to settle for less. We'll just have to see who cracks first, which is why this isn't getting settled anytime soon. Exactly. Union spends too much time in media to complain about owners and play victim role. For example, In February, Union claimed they made a so called 50-50 split proposal but owners rejected it. They then made it sound like owners were so greedy that even union reduced their share from 59% to 50%, owners didn't take it. This is not the fact at all. In last CBA, owners take 1 billion first and then players take 59%. In this NFLPA proposal, players would take 50% without owners taking any penny beforehand. Union just plays numbers games and tries to fool fans to stand by their side. What is the difference between these two in what players actually take? Very little. NFL's profit is 7 billion according Smith himself (link). Players previously took (7-1) * 59% = 3.54 billion in last CBA. In their so called 50-50 split proposal, players would take 7*50% = 3.5 billion. The difference is only (3.54-3.5)/3.54 = 1.1%, much less than what NFLPA made it sound like. The difference is so small that union knew owners would reject it. But then they could claim they sacrifice a lot in this so called 50-50 split proposal when they actually do not. This is one of the tricks union used so they can play victim role in media. Since like usual, you're having problems with reading comprehension. Here is what I actually wrote: See, you really like to make personal attack when people don't agree with you. I guess you just can't stand people have different opinion as yours and like to call other opinions silly or call others having problems with reading comprehension. I understand what you said perfectly but don't agree with you. Let me say it again: You are wrong. Owners have more control of their teams than you realize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts