Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[CosmicBills]

And remember, we wouldn't be in this situation if the players hadn't decertified. They fired the first shot.

That's revisionist history at its worst.

 

We wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't opted out of the CBA. Or, if you wish to go back further, we wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't rushed to get a bad CBA done and signed before realizing its flaws.

 

So ... to sum up, we wouldn't be in this position if the Owners didn't want us to be in this position.

[Orton's Arm]

The Packers are a NPO, the goal isnt to make as much $$ as possible. For example, """ Volunteers work concessions, with sixty per cent of the proceeds going to local charities. Even the beer is cheaper than at a typical N.F.L. stadium."""

 

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2011/01/those-non-profit-packers.html#ixzz1PB7sKFmf

 

 

 

The packers are not a good example but i realize they are the only team for which we have google-able info.

 

While you say the players should get less to increase parity, isnt it just as easy to say the owners should share more? make the league more equitable between the haves and have nots.

 

I mean you are arguing that the players should get less of a smaller pie.

 

The players share of revenues has not gone up. The problem for small market teams isnt the players its the unshared revenue that continues to grow.

I agree that unshared revenues are increasing at a much faster pace than shared revenues, and that this creates problems for the league and for parity. On the other hand, if you owned (and had paid for) a 12 unit apartment complex, and someone else had spent 1/3 as much to purchase a 4 unit rental property, you might not be all that eager to engage in 100% revenue sharing with that other person. There are limits to the amount of revenue sharing the owners of large market teams are willing to accept.

 

Thanks for the link to the article about the Packers. It was a good article, and reinforced the idea that more NFL teams should be run on the Packers' model. They almost certainly receive less concessions revenues than most other small market teams. However, those concessions people work on a volunteer basis, as do their snow removal people. More importantly, if some hypothetical group borrowed $800 million to buy the Bills, then even at %5 interest they'd be paying $40 million a year on interest. The Packers don't have that expense. Also, their waiting list for season tickets is a mile long, which isn't something a lot of other small market teams can say.

 

The most highly compensated CEO of 2009 was Lawrence Culp. His total compensation for the year was $141 million, almost all of which came from stock options and vested stock awards. The company he ran--Danaher--made $1.1 billion in 2009, which means Culp's compensation was about 13% of profits.

 

As I'd mentioned previously, Jamarcus Russell was paid $32 million in guaranteed money during his three years with the Raiders, or over $10 million a year in guaranteed money alone. If the Packers were to extend a Jamarcus Russell-type contract to some hypothetical player, that player's compensation would be over 100% of team profits, in guaranteed money alone! On a percentage of profits basis, that player would be receiving nearly eight times as much compensation as the most highly paid CEO of 2009! If the owners aren't bothered by this, they very well should be!!

[syhuang]

That's revisionist history at its worst.

 

We wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't opted out of the CBA. Or, if you wish to go back further, we wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't rushed to get a bad CBA done and signed before realizing its flaws.

 

So ... to sum up, we wouldn't be in this position if the Owners didn't want us to be in this position.

 

The same can be said to players threatening a strike which lead to owners accepting a bad CBA in 2006. The bottom line is that both sides are responsible for the current lockout.

Edited June 13, 2011 by syhuang

[Doc]

I felt Ralph should contribute something to a new stadium (years ago) or at least to it's upkeep. The people of Arlignton voted to finance the stadium with new usage taxes (that would not much affect them. I don't recall the Erie citizens being given that option of not allowing Ralph to pay anything for his place of business to be refurbished.

Erie citizens had the same option as Arlington citizens did: either fund it or see the team go elsewhere. Why you can't see this point is anyone's guess. And Ralph doesn't need to pay for, much less own, the stadium, any more than you don't pay for, much less own, any OR in which you make your living.

As for the Giants stadium, you are wrong again: http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/8922174?f=related

Doesn't matter one way or the other. That's just 2 more teams, which brings the grand total of teams who spent the majority of the cost of a their new stadiums to 5 (barely since Gillette was half paid-for by the NFL's G3 program). Out of 32 teams. And in the case of Jones and the NY owners, they're going to take major baths on them.

As for Ralph's claim that he didn't understand the CBA, or didn't have time to, the unions position didn't change as far as the 60%--every single owner was well aware of this. Someone in the Bills organization knew, Ralph was clueless. The sticking point was the revenue sharing--that's what the holdup was--and Jones was the one who needed to be convinced by Kraft and Rooney, etc.

Okay, Ralph was clueless and the other owners (except for Brown) were stupid. Fair enough. At least Ralph had the good sense to vote "no." What was the other owners' excuse?

It's not patently obvious why a lockout then would be better than a lockout now. A deal is in the works as we speak, "taste" or no taste.

I'd say a lockout before shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars more (over the last 5 years) would be better. So would most other people.

Yes, GB, Pitt, and NO have a national fanbase as do the Skins, the Cowboys anf the Pats--you left them off your list. Benson is as "new guard" as Jones, doc.

Benson joined the club in 1985 and didn't make waves like Jones did. Jones is the first true new guard owner. And many teams have national fanbases, doc. Even the Bills. But since it doesn't fit your viewpoint, it's better to pretend otherwise. I get it.

Edited June 13, 2011 by Doc

[Ramius]

That's revisionist history at its worst.

 

We wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't opted out of the CBA. Or, if you wish to go back further, we wouldn't be in this situation if the Owners hadn't rushed to get a bad CBA done and signed before realizing its flaws.

 

So ... to sum up, we wouldn't be in this position if the Owners didn't want us to be in this position.

 

The owners opted out and tried to negotiate a new deal, to which de smith stonewalled them. The players had the same contractual right.

 

Prior to the expiration of the CBA, the players decertified while the owners were still trying to negotiate. There's no revisionist history anywhere. Thats simply what happened.

[K Gun Special]

I agree that unshared revenues are increasing at a much faster pace than shared revenues, and that this creates problems for the league and for parity. On the other hand, if you owned (and had paid for) a 12 unit apartment complex, and someone else had spent 1/3 as much to purchase a 4 unit rental property, you might not be all that eager to engage in 100% revenue sharing with that other person. There are limits to the amount of revenue sharing the owners of large market teams are willing to accept.

 

Thanks for the link to the article about the Packers. It was a good article, and reinforced the idea that more NFL teams should be run on the Packers' model. They almost certainly receive less concessions revenues than most other small market teams. However, those concessions people work on a volunteer basis, as do their snow removal people. More importantly, if some hypothetical group borrowed $800 million to buy the Bills, then even at %5 interest they'd be paying $40 million a year on interest. The Packers don't have that expense. Also, their waiting list for season tickets is a mile long, which isn't something a lot of other small market teams can say.

 

The most highly compensated CEO of 2009 was Lawrence Culp. His total compensation for the year was $141 million, almost all of which came from stock options and vested stock awards. The company he ran--Danaher--made $1.1 billion in 2009, which means Culp's compensation was about 13% of profits.

 

As I'd mentioned previously, Jamarcus Russell was paid $32 million in guaranteed money during his three years with the Raiders, or over $10 million a year in guaranteed money alone. If the Packers were to extend a Jamarcus Russell-type contract to some hypothetical player, that player's compensation would be over 100% of team profits, in guaranteed money alone! On a percentage of profits basis, that player would be receiving nearly eight times as much compensation as the most highly paid CEO of 2009! If the owners aren't bothered by this, they very well should be!!

 

 

I see where you are going. But its not analogous. in the NFL the players are the product and nearly all of the employment costs, so the costs are going to be higher because of that. So take all of Danaher's costs for those items and then maybe you can begin to compare.

 

Start comparing it fairly, find a business where the employees are the product.

[Malazan]

The league isnt in danger, reducing the players share isnt going to change the viability of the league all that much.

 

Your statement has to be premised on the supposed fact that teams are losing money. There is nothing to support that notion.

 

If you just dont like unions thats fine.

 

I think you misunderstand the financial issues involved and why the league is seeking the changes it wants.

 

If Joe wants to sell you his Hot Dog Cart for $800 and he tells you that it makes a profit after paying all the costs (Employees, hot dogs, taxes, etc) of $3o a year, does that seem like a good business deal to you?

 

It's making a profit! You don't have to do anything, but put up the initial $800 and collect $30/year! In only, 27 years you would make your money back!

 

 

 

Now, let's say you don't have the $800 and need to get the loan from a bank. You tell the bank that you would like a loan of $800 and will pay it back in 30 years (10% interest on the $800 makes for $880 which would be 29 1/3rd years). The bank is going to ask if that is feasible and how do you guarantee profit for 30 years? *keep in mind, all profit would be paying back the loan*

 

So you say, well, the value will go up. I'll operate it for five years and then sell it for $1000!

 

 

Great Plan. Well, you think so. The Bank...not so much. They're gonna ask you, who can afford your stand without needing a loan and given that your profits don't hold up as having a great chance of paying back the loan, why would someone take a loan to buy it? They are the only bank, so they'd be lending the money to this new buyer and while they would make some short term profit from the interest, they'd be resetting the 30 year clock to pay off the loan.

 

Of course, that money could keep being 'lent' and accruing interest for the bank, but they're not going to be able to indefinitely loan out money for that hot dog stand. Banks actually did/do this. We see how that worked out for the economy.

 

 

In short, NFL teams are over-valued. They need to bolster the profit to make it easier to pretend that a team could 'pay for itself' without being sold again. They need to sure up this bottom line to maintain the values of their teams.

 

 

 

Again, it should never have come to this point, but the owners AND players BOTH jumped merrily on the tracks for a few short term dollars without looking at the train coming down the tracks. They're joined at the hip and neither one wants to jump off before the train hits them.

 

The players were greedy and now it's bit them in the arse. They could have made the CBA about 'issues', but they went for the dollar bills so pacman could make it rain in a club and RELIED on the owners to take care of everything. Now the dues demand payment.

[Orton's Arm]

I see where you are going. But its not analogous. in the NFL the players are the product and nearly all of the employment costs, so the costs are going to be higher because of that. So take all of Danaher's costs for those items and then maybe you can begin to compare.

 

Start comparing it fairly, find a business where the employees are the product.

In most companies, the most highly paid employee is the CEO. The most highly paid CEO of 2009 made about 13% of corporate profits. In my mind, that 13% of profits should be about the upper limit that any one employee earns. I'm not aware of very many reasonably profitable firms which dramatically exceed that limit.

 

It is true that there are a number of companies in labor-intensive industries in which employees represent the bulk of expenses. In a reasonably large, reasonably profitable labor-intensive company, it is exceedingly rare for any one employee to earn above that 13% limit I mentioned, even if collectively the employees represent the biggest single expense. Jamarcus Russell is not "the employees." He's just one guy. For Jamarcus Russell-style contracts to result in individual players receiving eight times as much, on a percentage of profits basis, as the most highly paid CEO of 2009 demonstrates that something is out of whack.

[Sisyphean Bills]

In most companies, the most highly paid employee is the CEO. The most highly paid CEO of 2009 made about 13% of corporate profits. In my mind, that 13% of profits should be about the upper limit that any one employee earns. I'm not aware of very many reasonably profitable firms which dramatically exceed that limit.

 

It is true that there are a number of companies in labor-intensive industries in which employees represent the bulk of expenses. In a reasonably large, reasonably profitable labor-intensive company, it is exceedingly rare for any one employee to earn above that 13% limit I mentioned, even if collectively the employees represent the biggest single expense. Jamarcus Russell is not "the employees." He's just one guy. For Jamarcus Russell-style contracts to result in individual players receiving eight times as much, on a percentage of profits basis, as the most highly paid CEO of 2009 demonstrates that something is out of whack.

But, nobody would come to the games if JaMarcus Russell didn't play. Oh wait...

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In most companies, the most highly paid employee is the CEO. The most highly paid CEO of 2009 made about 13% of corporate profits. In my mind, that 13% of profits should be about the upper limit that any one employee earns. I'm not aware of very many reasonably profitable firms which dramatically exceed that limit.

 

It is true that there are a number of companies in labor-intensive industries in which employees represent the bulk of expenses. In a reasonably large, reasonably profitable labor-intensive company, it is exceedingly rare for any one employee to earn above that 13% limit I mentioned, even if collectively the employees represent the biggest single expense. Jamarcus Russell is not "the employees." He's just one guy. For Jamarcus Russell-style contracts to result in individual players receiving eight times as much, on a percentage of profits basis, as the most highly paid CEO of 2009 demonstrates that something is out of whack.

This isn't a bad start but ultimately it's not very relevant.

 

You have to compare the NFL to similar industries… baseball, basketball, hockey…

 

Those are the only relevant comparables… unless your argument is that ALL pro sports are out of kilter… in which case we have a different discussion.

 

 

[Orton's Arm]

This isn't a bad start but ultimately it's not very relevant.

 

You have to compare the NFL to similar industries… baseball, basketball, hockey…

 

Those are the only relevant comparables… unless your argument is that ALL pro sports are out of kilter… in which case we have a different discussion.

My sense is that player salaries are out of control for all four major professional sports, not just football. I certainly see no reason why any pro athlete should earn a higher percentage of profits than the most highly paid CEO.

[K Gun Special]

I think you misunderstand the financial issues involved and why the league is seeking the changes it wants.

 

If Joe wants to sell you his Hot Dog Cart for $800 and he tells you that it makes a profit after paying all the costs (Employees, hot dogs, taxes, etc) of $3o a year, does that seem like a good business deal to you?

 

It's making a profit! You don't have to do anything, but put up the initial $800 and collect $30/year! In only, 27 years you would make your money back!

 

 

 

Now, let's say you don't have the $800 and need to get the loan from a bank. You tell the bank that you would like a loan of $800 and will pay it back in 30 years (10% interest on the $800 makes for $880 which would be 29 1/3rd years). The bank is going to ask if that is feasible and how do you guarantee profit for 30 years? *keep in mind, all profit would be paying back the loan*

 

So you say, well, the value will go up. I'll operate it for five years and then sell it for $1000!

 

 

Great Plan. Well, you think so. The Bank...not so much. They're gonna ask you, who can afford your stand without needing a loan and given that your profits don't hold up as having a great chance of paying back the loan, why would someone take a loan to buy it? They are the only bank, so they'd be lending the money to this new buyer and while they would make some short term profit from the interest, they'd be resetting the 30 year clock to pay off the loan.

 

Of course, that money could keep being 'lent' and accruing interest for the bank, but they're not going to be able to indefinitely loan out money for that hot dog stand. Banks actually did/do this. We see how that worked out for the economy.

 

 

In short, NFL teams are over-valued. They need to bolster the profit to make it easier to pretend that a team could 'pay for itself' without being sold again. They need to sure up this bottom line to maintain the values of their teams.

 

 

 

Again, it should never have come to this point, but the owners AND players BOTH jumped merrily on the tracks for a few short term dollars without looking at the train coming down the tracks. They're joined at the hip and neither one wants to jump off before the train hits them.

 

The players were greedy and now it's bit them in the arse. They could have made the CBA about 'issues', but they went for the dollar bills so pacman could make it rain in a club and RELIED on the owners to take care of everything. Now the dues demand payment.

 

 

I fully understand the issues and the financials. Ive actually helped draft player contracts in professional sports. I know what im talking about. You and others are basing your arguments in part based on the only not for profit teams 2009 operating income number. The packers goal is not to generate the most profit, unlike some CEO. i mean cmon?

 

The fundamental problem is that people keep comparing professional sports to other industries. Professional sports is not the same. The financials interactions arent the same, the court and legal system do not treat them the same.

 

It really doesn't matter how much a CEO at publicly traded company makes, who is beholden to shareholders, in comparison to the 1st round draft pick of the Raiders. Its beyond silly to compare the same.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Start comparing it fairly, find a business where the employees are the product.

It's an entertainment business. The players are not the product. They are employees that are a part of producing the entertainment.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

It's an entertainment business. The players are not the product. They are employees that are a part of producing the entertainment.

Just to clarify, if the players are not the NFL product, then what is the product?

[Doc]

Just to clarify, if the players are not the NFL product, then what is the product?

The game is. Doesn't matter who specifically plays it.

 

The caveat being that it's the best of the best. And the players are free to pursue careers in other professional leagues.

[Ramius]

But, nobody would come to the games if JaMarcus Russell didn't play. Oh wait...

 

Jamarcus could be a principal owner of a franchise in the NewFL. Get him on the phone!

[Mr. WEO]

Erie citizens had the same option as Arlington citizens did: either fund it or see the team go elsewhere. Why you can't see this point is anyone's guess. And Ralph doesn't need to pay for, much less own, the stadium, any more than you don't pay for, much less own, any OR in which you make your living.

 

No doc, the citizens of Erie, especially the non football fans, did not have an opportunity to voice their choice on whether their money would go towards "Ralph Wilson Stadium"--they were given no "option". The citizens of Arlington actually voted on the issue. That's a fundamental difference that renders your point senseless.

 

As for the OR, perhaps I can expect the hospital to rename it "Mr. WEO OR" then, eh?

 

 

Doesn't matter one way or the other. That's just 2 more teams, which brings the grand total of teams who spent the majority of the cost of a their new stadiums to 5 (barely since Gillette was half paid-for by the NFL's G3 program). Out of 32 teams. And in the case of Jones and the NY owners, they're going to take major baths on them.

Ooops--guess it doesn't now, huh! Not much else you can say, perhaps, once you get the facts straight. Anyway, the G3 program was available to Ralph at any time to use to defray the costs of renovation to the "Ralph Wilson Stadium" and to bring relief to the economically suffering fans of Erie County.

 

Okay, Ralph was clueless and the other owners (except for Brown) were stupid. Fair enough. At least Ralph had the good sense to vote "no." What was the other owners' excuse?

 

I'd say a lockout before shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars more (over the last 5 years) would be better. So would most other people.

We've been over this. The majority of owners felt it was best not to stop football (there is no question there would have been a decert/lockout, doc) in 2006. The 30-2 vote should make this obvious to you. The owners knew they could opt out soon if they wished and they would structure the upcoming TV contract renewals to benefit them in case there was a work stoppage in 2011. In business, it takes a couple hundred million to make an extra billion. If there were missed games in 2007 or 2008, the TV contract renewals would have been worth far less than they are now.

 

 

Benson joined the club in 1985 and didn't make waves like Jones did. Jones is the first true new guard owner. And many teams have national fanbases, doc. Even the Bills. But since it doesn't fit your viewpoint, it's better to pretend otherwise. I get it.

Benson threatened to move his team to San Antonio as bloated corpses were floating through New Orleans! DOes that make him "old guard" or New guard"?

 

And yes, if your point is now reduced to "all teams have some fans everywhere in the country", I guess I can give you that.

 

Just to clarify, if the players are not the NFL product, then what is the product?

 

What is the product?? Why, it's the game, of course. It is hard to believe so many have lost sight of this. Players come and go. Fans don't follow star players who leave their team.

[Hplarrm]

Jamarcus could be a principal owner of a franchise in the NewFL. Get him on the phone!

Actually the current owners of the NFL teams are pretty much the equivalent of JaMarcus Russell. He did great work earlier in his career, but really adds nothing to the game now which cannot be better provided by someone else at a significantly lower cost.

 

The current NFL team owners also did very impressive things in the past. Folks like Mr. Ralph risked their money to buy teams like the Bills when other sources of capital would not. Folks like George Halas lived and understood the game and provided good management.

 

However, like JaMarcus who despite a promising start provides little or nothing to the game today despite his lofty profits, there are also ample sources of capital due to the promising start the current team owners gave the NFL and as shown by the Packers it is possible to manage a team with far greater economic efficiency (volunteers doing the concessions because the volunteers see themselves as part of the municipal ownership of a team which is there to provide value to the municipality rather than for some individual.

 

The thing you have all wrong is that you do not seem to know which owner is JaMarcus Russell in the analogy.

 

In my fantasizing about the NewFL, the owners are Brady, et al (though by plan they will be replaced by whoever is the new flavor of the next few years when these players get old and move on.

 

In the reality of the current NFL team owners are folks like Mr. Ralph who were gutsy in their day, but seem to hang on and on and on.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Just to clarify, if the players are not the NFL product, then what is the product?

 

The game is. Doesn't matter who specifically plays it.

 

The caveat being that it's the best of the best. And the players are free to pursue careers in other professional leagues.

 

What is the product?? Why, it's the game, of course. It is hard to believe so many have lost sight of this. Players come and go. Fans don't follow star players who leave their team.

Okay.

 

So how much is it worth that for the most part, the best players are in the NFL?

 

What value does that add to the league as far as ratings and attendance and paid interest?

 

What if the game/product was played by a group of 1800 inferior players than the ones playing now?

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

Okay.

 

So how much is it worth that for the most part, the best players are in the NFL?

 

What value does that add to the league as far as ratings and attendance and paid interest?

 

What if the game/product was played by a group of 1800 inferior players than the ones playing now?

Not sure what your point is. Of course the best players want only to play in the NFL--it's where they will find fame and wealth. When they can no longer play, they are very easily replaced as there is, literally, an endless supply of NFL caliber players. The highest level of play continues, no matter the names of the players.