GaryPinC Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Very interesting read: http://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2011/5/27/2193897/nfl-lockout-news-kurt-warner-says-players-have-to-give-back-money In all the discussions about this topic I remember some posters saying the NFL needs to open the books and be more like the NBA. Well, in one sense, they've gotten their wish: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118032543 "National Basketball Players Assn. exec director Billy Hunter has said he's "99%" sure that a lockout will occur." "We need a system that provides all 30 teams, regardless of market size, an opportunity to compete for a championship and be profitable," NBA deputy commissioner Adam Silver says." Kind of like the NFL has? "According to Forbes, more than half the NBA's clubs (17 of 30) are losing money, with five teams facing deficits in the double-digit millions. Saying that the current system is completely broken, the league aims to cut player salaries by $700 million to $800 million annually -- a whopping reduction of 40% from what the players make now." Sounds like the NBA will have an NFL-style lockout and that at the end of the day they need to structure themselves more like the NFL. So much for opening the books. Shouldn't this mean the players will readily accept these salary reductions since they can look at the figures themselves? We'll see.
White Linen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Another retired player mumbling, LOL. You post like a 6 year old.
Mr. WEO Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Another retired player mumbling, LOL. Did you even read it before you started giggling? Why is his opinion less weighty than, say, yours?
White Linen Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Did you even read it before you started giggling? Why is his opinion less weighty than, say, yours? His/her posts are less than useless. My guess is Scrappy is a teenager without the necessary attention span to read an article like that.
Doc Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Warner is right. The players did get a really good financial deal the last time and need to pull back a little bit.
Malazan Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 The players are going to have face reality that while the owners are making profits, there are TEAMS making less profit in a year than some players. Outside of that absurdity, a team worth a billion dollars that only make 15 million a year is a tough sale when there's very few who have the assets to buy a team without a loan. Banks aren't exactly lining up to loan a billion dollars when a team would need to devote every bit of profit to pay them back in 30-40 years especially when there is such volatility. Add into that the rising cost of stadiums with less government money and it has to come from somewhere. It's only a matter of time until the players give in.
Scrappy Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Retired players complain about the amount that current players are receiving, he's mumbling about nothing that pertains to him. The current players ask for more, it's their business & not Warner's any longer. As per being a teenager, I would think about the real picture besides the one you paint for yourselves everyday.
Hplarrm Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Warner is right. The players did get a really good financial deal the last time and need to pull back a little bit. I think Warner is wrong. What do the team owners bring or add to the pro football product? It used to be that businessmen like Mr. Ralph were the only ones with either capital or the cajones to risk there money. They proved their point and were richly compensated for their original risk, In fact the last few years after the players forced the owners to essentially accept them as partners with the CBA forced upon the owners after the last lockout has brought them even more money. Warner us right that the players got a great deal in the last negotiation, they essentially not only were recognized as partners but arguably the majority partners as the deal gave them a majority of the total receipts. The owners caved rather than compete against each other in a free market. By locking out the players and being sued by Brady et al. the owners have allowed a lawsuit by individuals asserting that they be allowed to compete in the free market for personal service contracts. In general, I support free market approaches like this rather than the social compact of the team owners. I think by holding the free market line the players can force a reconfiguration of pro football which essentially cuts out the economic inefficiency and drag of the owners. Not only are their ample sources of capital from the networks, other rich investors (even lowly Buffalo has three options with the assets Pegula, Golisano, or the Jacobs family), municipal areas following the Packers model, perhaps the players themselves pooling assets or something else I have not thought of. The Packers model also demonstrates that the management of the team needed and provided by the Halas's, Mara's and Rooneys can also be replaced. I think the situation is clear, if the players were to win their lawsuit there is pro football again. If the owners win their lawsuit there is a lockout and labor struggle. How can any fan be against there being football beside some weird doctrinal beliefs which trumps their desire for the game. I think the players are moving slowly as they rather would not kill the teams writing them big checks. However, the team owners need to be replaced as they are not the product the players are the game.
The Helmet of Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 (edited) As per being a teenager, I would think about the real picture besides the one you paint for yourselves everyday. ??? That is an incoherent statement. And with respect to your first point: you're absolutely right. Retired football players shouldn't comment on the game. Once they are retired, football no longer concerns them. This is especially true for those former players who are paid as commentators & analysts... You, on the other hand, as someone who has never played in the league, should comment frequently on the current labor standoff, since you are in a much better position to offer insight.... Edited June 9, 2011 by applescruff
bladiebla Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Heh, if Kurt would have paid the NFL some of his 50+ million we could have kept NFL Europe...
davefan66 Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 The players are going to have face reality that while the owners are making profits, there are TEAMS making less profit in a year than some players. Outside of that absurdity, a team worth a billion dollars that only make 15 million a year is a tough sale when there's very few who have the assets to buy a team without a loan. Banks aren't exactly lining up to loan a billion dollars when a team would need to devote every bit of profit to pay them back in 30-40 years especially when there is such volatility. Add into that the rising cost of stadiums with less government money and it has to come from somewhere. It's only a matter of time until the players give in. I have a tough time believing any NFL team total profit is 15 Million. You can cook the books any way you want when you're a big corporation. Being involved in a labor dispute myself, it's the workers opinion that any give backs will never be recouped. Once you set a precedent, it's hard to get it back. I'm sure that's what they are feeling also. Anyway, the NFL is trying to lower player costs before they get out-of-hand. I just hope they don't follow the NHL model that you take away, get some much needed financial relief, then start handing out outrageous contracts a few years later.
Doc Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I think Warner is wrong. What do the team owners bring or add to the pro football product? It used to be that businessmen like Mr. Ralph were the only ones with either capital or the cajones to risk there money. They proved their point and were richly compensated for their original risk, In fact the last few years after the players forced the owners to essentially accept them as partners with the CBA forced upon the owners after the last lockout has brought them even more money. Warner us right that the players got a great deal in the last negotiation, they essentially not only were recognized as partners but arguably the majority partners as the deal gave them a majority of the total receipts. The owners caved rather than compete against each other in a free market. By locking out the players and being sued by Brady et al. the owners have allowed a lawsuit by individuals asserting that they be allowed to compete in the free market for personal service contracts. In general, I support free market approaches like this rather than the social compact of the team owners. I think by holding the free market line the players can force a reconfiguration of pro football which essentially cuts out the economic inefficiency and drag of the owners. Not only are their ample sources of capital from the networks, other rich investors (even lowly Buffalo has three options with the assets Pegula, Golisano, or the Jacobs family), municipal areas following the Packers model, perhaps the players themselves pooling assets or something else I have not thought of. The Packers model also demonstrates that the management of the team needed and provided by the Halas's, Mara's and Rooneys can also be replaced. I think the situation is clear, if the players were to win their lawsuit there is pro football again. If the owners win their lawsuit there is a lockout and labor struggle. How can any fan be against there being football beside some weird doctrinal beliefs which trumps their desire for the game. I think the players are moving slowly as they rather would not kill the teams writing them big checks. However, the team owners need to be replaced as they are not the product the players are the game. The reality is that the players are wholly replaceable. Players (great, good, mediocre, and bad) come and go, and the games still march on. And when you get down to it, fans ultimately want to see their team win, no matter how it happens and regardless of whether their superstar(s) play(s) well. Sure the league sells itself now and owners can be replaced, just like in other established businesses. But that's neither here nor there. And the players have other options to pursue to play professional football. There is the UFL. There is the CFL. There is even the AFL. At no time were players promised to only play for just the NFL, or even be guaranteed a certain level of compensation.
ALLEN1QB Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 His/her posts are less than useless. My guess is Scrappy is a teenager without the necessary attention span to read an article like that. Stop being so "RUFF" on Scrappy!!!
Hplarrm Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 The reality is that the players are wholly replaceable. Players (great, good, mediocre, and bad) come and go, and the games still march on. And when you get down to it, fans ultimately want to see their team win, no matter how it happens and regardless of whether their superstar(s) play(s) well. Sure the league sells itself now and owners can be replaced, just like in other established businesses. But that's neither here nor there. And the players have other options to pursue to play professional football. There is the UFL. There is the CFL. There is even the AFL. At no time were players promised to only play for just the NFL, or even be guaranteed a certain level of compensation. It is true for all of us that no one gets out of here alive. Are the players permanent? No. Are the owners permanent? No. Why would anyone claim they are and an argument which depends on either claim is foolish. The thing of this is that given the interest levels which a significant number of fans like you and me have that we are still willing to take time to post and read about this even during a work stoppage and the TV nets are queued up to ship billions for the product, any work stoppage starts out being stupid. The NFL amd NFLPA doing anything but reaching a cooperative agreement is stupid. On its face right now, if the NFLPA position prevails we get the product and the money is shipped to the owners and players to be split under an agreed upon CBA. If the owners prevail there is no agreement and no product. I simply see little justification for support of the owners position unless folks are less interested in seeing the product than on increasing the team owners take at the cost of providing the game to you and me. For me both sides are replaceable. However, I have yet to see anyone tell me: 1. They would pay their nickels to see the replaceable owners don shoulder pads. I will pay my nickels to see the current players and would pay fewer nickels for lesser players or if the current players formed their own league which competed with and imitated the NFL 2. That the team owners add any value to the product that cannot be reasonably replaced such as capital or management. Do you view things differently on these two points? If so what do you see as the great value team owners give the product which cannot be replaced? Would you want to watch lesser players when better players are available?
bigc14120 Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 I think Warner is wrong. What do the team owners bring or add to the pro football product? It used to be that businessmen like Mr. Ralph were the only ones with either capital or the cajones to risk there money. They proved their point and were richly compensated for their original risk, In fact the last few years after the players forced the owners to essentially accept them as partners with the CBA forced upon the owners after the last lockout has brought them even more money. Warner us right that the players got a great deal in the last negotiation, they essentially not only were recognized as partners but arguably the majority partners as the deal gave them a majority of the total receipts. The owners caved rather than compete against each other in a free market. By locking out the players and being sued by Brady et al. the owners have allowed a lawsuit by individuals asserting that they be allowed to compete in the free market for personal service contracts. In general, I support free market approaches like this rather than the social compact of the team owners. I think by holding the free market line the players can force a reconfiguration of pro football which essentially cuts out the economic inefficiency and drag of the owners. Not only are their ample sources of capital from the networks, other rich investors (even lowly Buffalo has three options with the assets Pegula, Golisano, or the Jacobs family), municipal areas following the Packers model, perhaps the players themselves pooling assets or something else I have not thought of. The Packers model also demonstrates that the management of the team needed and provided by the Halas's, Mara's and Rooneys can also be replaced. I think the situation is clear, if the players were to win their lawsuit there is pro football again. If the owners win their lawsuit there is a lockout and labor struggle. How can any fan be against there being football beside some weird doctrinal beliefs which trumps their desire for the game. I think the players are moving slowly as they rather would not kill the teams writing them big checks. However, the team owners need to be replaced as they are not the product the players are the game. Well written, but I disagree with much that was said. First of all, the NFL has adopted a rule that no more ownership groups ala Green Bay will be allowed. If the players want to start their own league, using that ownership form, they have the right, anytime. Raise capital, get media contracts etc etc....but, they won't be using the NFL brand names. Maybe the Bills players will man up and invest their money in a new league franchaise, and we can watch football in another stadium whenever they choose to play.(Right!) Bottom line here...a bil;ion dollar franchaise should make at least 10% a year to be a viable business that is worth 1 Billion. No return, price goes down. Anyhow, I expect the owners, who opted out of the former deal, to hold out until they get a better deal...one or two seasons lost or not. I also believe that there are discussions among the owners about a different form of business. I read on this board one form of bueiness....a single corporation, with the current owners being shareholders. NFL brands could continue and not only players talent leveled via a draft, but front office talent would also be leveled. Bottom line...the US labor laws and antitrust laws help make this current mess wrt the pro football game. (the owners insistent on the players organizing...looney tunes!) I also think that this is the last great fight to have small market teams stay viable. We could have league contraction if some of these weak sister small market teams fold. (If the Bills stay here, they ARE a candidate, but the owner would sell before that happens)
K Gun Special Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 Well written, but I disagree with much that was said. First of all, the NFL has adopted a rule that no more ownership groups ala Green Bay will be allowed. If the players want to start their own league, using that ownership form, they have the right, anytime. Raise capital, get media contracts etc etc....but, they won't be using the NFL brand names. Maybe the Bills players will man up and invest their money in a new league franchaise, and we can watch football in another stadium whenever they choose to play.(Right!) Bottom line here...a bil;ion dollar franchaise should make at least 10% a year to be a viable business that is worth 1 Billion. No return, price goes down. Anyhow, I expect the owners, who opted out of the former deal, to hold out until they get a better deal...one or two seasons lost or not. I also believe that there are discussions among the owners about a different form of business. I read on this board one form of bueiness....a single corporation, with the current owners being shareholders. NFL brands could continue and not only players talent leveled via a draft, but front office talent would also be leveled. Bottom line...the US labor laws and antitrust laws help make this current mess wrt the pro football game. (the owners insistent on the players organizing...looney tunes!) I also think that this is the last great fight to have small market teams stay viable. We could have league contraction if some of these weak sister small market teams fold. (If the Bills stay here, they ARE a candidate, but the owner would sell before that happens) You really dont understand the nature of the dispute by way of your bolded statement. If you think the NFL will move to a single corporation you are nuts. A few of the owners hate each other and would not in a million years cede control of their business to a NFL corporate board. ie J Jones, Snyder.
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 The reality is that the players are wholly replaceable. Players (great, good, mediocre, and bad) come and go, and the games still march on. And when you get down to it, fans ultimately want to see their team win, no matter how it happens and regardless of whether their superstar(s) play(s) well. Sure the league sells itself now and owners can be replaced, just like in other established businesses. But that's neither here nor there. And the players have other options to pursue to play professional football. There is the UFL. There is the CFL. There is even the AFL. At no time were players promised to only play for just the NFL, or even be guaranteed a certain level of compensation. Agreed, Doc. Some of my favorite players are long gone. But I still follow the sport of football. Unlike some, if Tom Brady (or some other star) never played another down, I wouldn't shed a tear and it wouldn't mean I'd no longer enjoy watching a good football game. In fact, if the NFL doesn't put on another game, there will still be football and most football fans will still get up every morning and put their pants on one leg at a time.
Snorom Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 screw the owners.... they voted 30-2 for the last CBA... they negotiated a shady behind the scenes TV deal to get paid billions while they locked out the players. they refuse to open the books. if the owners want money back from the last deal which they overwhelmingly voted 30-2 then they better open the books for all of us to see. Obviously they are hiding a lot of stuff.. .Not to mention how many times an owner held a city hostage for favorable tax and stadium deals. AND nobody twiusted an owners arm and told them to pay the salaries they have been so willing to pay over they years. They could of said no deal and walked away from many of these outrageous contracts Open the books or STFU....
Sisyphean Bills Posted June 9, 2011 Posted June 9, 2011 However, I have yet to see anyone tell me: 1. They would pay their nickels to see the replaceable owners don shoulder pads. I will pay my nickels to see the current players and would pay fewer nickels for lesser players or if the current players formed their own league which competed with and imitated the NFL 2. That the team owners add any value to the product that cannot be reasonably replaced such as capital or management. Do you view things differently on these two points? If so what do you see as the great value team owners give the product which cannot be replaced? Would you want to watch lesser players when better players are available? 1. is a ridiculous straw-man argument. Nobody goes to a football game for the satisfaction of knowing their money is helping an owner pay his bills and make a profit. 2. You haven't answered why you think billionaires are a dime a dozen or why you think the majority of this very small, very elite, very finite class of individuals would want to tie up some of their fortune in an NFL franchise when you simultaneously cry that they are so rich that they don't deserve to make a profit. But hey, there is always that other straw-man that the elite players can pool together a few of their millions and start a new league that would lose billions for years to come because people only want to see those individuals. How many people flocked to the WFL when Csonka, Warfield, and Kiick jumped ship again?
Recommended Posts