Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[Turbosrrgood]

Kurt Warner is dead on. The players got beyond a fair deal last time around, with many owners saying they reluctantly agreed to the last CBA, in order to avoid a work stoppage (Ralph Wilson was against the deal). The bottom line is the players don't have much leverage, and have even less to complain about...Even the lowest paid players get salaries most Americans can't even dream of, while working half a year. Like it or not, the owners are the OWNERS. The multi-million dollar salaries players receive are not "slave labor" as some confused players have said.

 

To continue refusing their employers offers will hurt the players FAR more than it will hurt the owners. With relatively short careers, these players will lose more in game checks lost then they could hope to recover in bigger (or the same size) future contracts.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[K Gun Special]

Kurt Warner is dead on. The players got beyond a fair deal last time around, with many owners saying they reluctantly agreed to the last CBA, in order to avoid a work stoppage (Ralph Wilson was against the deal). The bottom line is the players don't have much leverage, and have even less to complain about...Even the lowest paid players get salaries most Americans can't even dream of, while working half a year. Like it or not, the owners are the OWNERS. The multi-million dollar salaries players receive are not "slave labor" as some confused players have said.

 

To continue refusing their employers offers will hurt the players FAR more than it will hurt the owners. With relatively short careers, these players will lose more in game checks lost then they could hope to recover in bigger (or the same size) future contracts.

 

 

The issue isnt about what the average American receives as a salary. The average American is not an integral part of a product generating billions of dollars in revenue. This is not a typical employer employee relationship.

THe owners cannot simply replace their employees easily or they would have by now. Hence the standoff.

 

You see part of the reason the sides don't agree is because they to gain more benefits BECAUSE their careers are short.

 

 

And to say they work half the year is absurd. I mean we have threads on here talking about unofficial OTAs.

 

 

And you know, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to suggest the league is losing money.

[CosmicBills]

...

 

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.

The NBA and NFL situations are totally different, thus it's silly to compare the two. One has nothing to do with the other. In the case of the NBA, they have over expanded their league for years, resulting in a watered down product that is failing to drive fans to the games. They cannot sustain 30 NBA teams in this economy. Realistically they need to contract 2 to 4 teams to become what they once were -- if its even possible to get back there.

 

As such, the NBA players HAVE to take a pay cut. They will put up a fight because they cannot just roll over, but the owners in the NBA are locking out the players (or will be) for just cause and the players know it. They have shown proof -- though to be fair all you really needed to do to prove it is point to the half empty stadiums in over half the league for 82 games. The NFL on the other hand is making money hand over fist. Despite a "bad" CBA, despite a horrid economy, the league, owners AND players have all generated record levels of revenue. No one disputes this. The owners made this move out of greed, not necessity. The owners know it. The players know it. And so do most reasonable fans. Comparing the NBA and the NFL is not apples and oranges, it's apples and atom bombs.

 

The only way you can really compare the NBA and the NFL is if you were to use the NBA as a divining rod for the NFL. The NBA's last major work stoppage forced the league into a tailspin for over a decade (the NBA owners exacerbated this nose dive through poorly planned expansion). The NBA used to be one of the most dominate sports leagues in this country but they still haven't recovered from the unnecessary work stoppage (caused by the players) in the 90s. The NFL owners have locked themselves into a foolish and dangerous game of chicken by forcing the issue at this juncture. It was a bad business move, a bad PR move, and could potentially harm the long term future of the league itself. It's not much of a stretch to imagine the NFL suffering the same sort of fall out the NBA has endured if this lock out takes away the 2011 season.

 

Just my two cents.

[Orton's Arm]

Kurt Warner is dead on. The players got beyond a fair deal last time around, with many owners saying they reluctantly agreed to the last CBA, in order to avoid a work stoppage (Ralph Wilson was against the deal). The bottom line is the players don't have much leverage, and have even less to complain about...Even the lowest paid players get salaries most Americans can't even dream of, while working half a year. Like it or not, the owners are the OWNERS. The multi-million dollar salaries players receive are not "slave labor" as some confused players have said.

 

To continue refusing their employers offers will hurt the players FAR more than it will hurt the owners. With relatively short careers, these players will lose more in game checks lost then they could hope to recover in bigger (or the same size) future contracts.

You (and Warner) are exactly right. The players have been receiving a progressively higher share of the overall pie. That's not good for the league, and is especially not good for smaller market, lower revenue teams like the Bills! From the article: "[Warner] recognizes that the players got a really good financial deal in the last agreement and says the players need to realize that 'the salaries went crazy.' "

 

I fully agree with Warner's idea that the players should accept a lower percentage of revenues in exchange for concessions in other areas (potentially including more roster spots, a higher minimum salary level, better benefits for retired players, etc.) But you won't hear that from Tom Brady or Drew Brees. A high salary cap benefits players like that the most, which means they'd also be hurt the most by a salary cap reduction. Doing more for the lowest paid players in the league (more roster spots, higher minimum salaries, etc.) would also hurt Brees and Brady, because every extra dollar earned by a backup is one less dollar available for Brees or Brady.

[Turbosrrgood]

The issue isnt about what the average American receives as a salary. The average American is not an integral part of a product generating billions of dollars in revenue. This is not a typical employer employee relationship.

THe owners cannot simply replace their employees easily or they would have by now. Hence the standoff.

 

You see part of the reason the sides don't agree is because they to gain more benefits BECAUSE their careers are short.

 

 

And to say they work half the year is absurd. I mean we have threads on here talking about unofficial OTAs.

 

 

And you know, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to suggest the league is losing money.

 

Actually the average American is a VERY integral part of this product...considering we account for almost all of the revenue.

 

Why is it "absurd" to mention that some guys make several million dollars in a few months? Just because you think so?

 

Evidence that someone is losing money has nothing to do with it, this is a negotiation. The OWNERS are saying they will only offer so much, the players are saying they will only accept so much...While evidence would help, it is completely unnecessary.

 

The players have been receiving a progressively higher share of the overall pie. That's not good for the league, and is especially not good for smaller market, lower revenue teams like the Bills!

 

Exactly, many people in the country may not care about this...But Bills fans should be siding with owners if you want the Bills to remain in Buffalo... Not that we can have any effect on it...

Edited June 9, 2011 by Turbosrrgood

[ganesh]

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.

 

NBA cashed in on the Jordan-Johnson era and doled out guaranteed contracts that were huge at that time. Once the product got diluted due to the fading of their super stars of the 90s (Jordan, Pippen, Ewing, Miller, Stockton, Malone etc), the stadiums stopped filling up and the bloated contracts given to people like Alan Houston, Howard (Washington, Orlando) killed the sport. Sure the Lakers won 3 more championships, but without the rivalry in Chicago, New York and Houston, the NBA suffered @ the big markets.

 

The NBA has realized (and Baseball will too) that you need to maintain salary balance for the sport to succeed. The NFL had done the right thing and had it going (except for a lack of hard-salary cap for rookies). The NHL went through this a few years ago and the players realized that the teams were just not making enough money to pay them the huge salaries....And look what happened....The NHL is enjoyed some of its best years with a salary cap and the super stars are coming out...and the good teams like the Penguins know how to win consistently.

[Mr. WEO]

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.

 

One of the silliest arguments repeated in this place is that, since the labor costs in the NFL are (at most and in theory, not in paractice) 60% of revenue, this somehow makes the players "partners" with the owners. Makes no sense at all. Tom Golisano pays about 60% of his revenue to his employess, but I would bet he never considered them (nor they considered themselves) as "partners" in Paychecks. That's what it costs to staff a billion dollar non-manufacturing business.

 

"Business partners" share in the financial risk of the company, not just the profits. The players share zero financial risk with the owners-they cannot be partners in the way that you fantasize, Sr. Guevara.

 

The issue isnt about what the average American receives as a salary. The average American is not an integral part of a product generating billions of dollars in revenue. This is not a typical employer employee relationship.

THe owners cannot simply replace their employees easily or they would have by now. Hence the standoff.

 

You see part of the reason the sides don't agree is because they to gain more benefits BECAUSE their careers are short.

 

 

And to say they work half the year is absurd. I mean we have threads on here talking about unofficial OTAs.

 

 

And you know, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere to suggest the league is losing money.

 

Golisano couldn't simply replace his workforce either--there is a huge expense in training and retention of skilled employees.

 

And why should a coropration wait until they are "losing money", if they can negotiate a business plan that might......prevent them from losing money? In the late 80's and 90's, no one thought the NBA would have a bunch of teams (and the League itself) hemorrhaging money within 20 years?

 

The NBA is a league drowning in the guaranteed contracts they have agrred to with their players. If they had no guaranteed contracts, like the NFL, they would all be making a huge pile. If they had the opportunity to eliminate of these contracts in previous CBAs they would have been unwise to take it?--even if it cost them a lockout?

 

Interesting business sense.

[bigc14120]

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....

Yes, they voted for the last CBA, which had an "opt out" clause...which they chose to exercise. Nothing there that isn't above board and straight forward. As for opening the books, I would NOT in their case. The league books are intertwined with each owners personal finicial situation. None of the players business. This will come down to play on owners terms, its their football . (just like kids, only this time they will make it stick)

 

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.

Actually, I used that alternate form of business only as an example , I agee, that form is not likely. But, there are a multitude of other forms that would eliminate antitrust and labor laws mute. (For example, have third party employers, and make the players contract employees, not direct employees) I don't think that will happen either, but there are MANY alternate structure that may be considered here. Take a year to get to put together, but that initiative starts the day the season is canceled.

[CosmicBills]

 

And why should a coropration wait until they are "losing money", if they can negotiate a business plan that might......prevent them from losing money? In the late 80's and 90's, no one thought the NBA would have a bunch of teams (and the League itself) hemorrhaging money within 20 years?

 

It's about necessary risks versus unnecessary risks. The NFL Owners are taking an unnecessary risk right now. They are in no financial jeopardy (as your yourself indicate), the league is more popular and making more money for everyone than ever before despite a horrific economy and a "bad" CBA. The future outlook for the league is brighter than it ever has been before. Yet, the Owners, ruled by greed and arrogance, are willing to risk all of that to put more money in their pockets.

 

Is it their right? Absolutely. Is it good business? Nope.

 

Best case scenario for the Owners is if the players crumble and sign a new CBA that gives the Owners an extra couple million. The worst case scenario is the 2011 season is lost, the federal court system takes control of the NFL's business model and forces them to change it causing irreparable damage to the league's financial future which could cost them billions of dollars in future revenues.

 

Does that sound like a good risk to you?

 

Of course not. It's a stupid risk to take by a bunch of greedy, white, uber-rich men -- the majority of whom did NOTHING to build the league and instead have jumped on the backs of the men who built the league and now are demanding more. That's all this is. You can celebrate it all you want as some sort of capitalistic vs socialist enterprise -- but that just shows how ignorant and senseless your opinions are on this matter because it's not that simple.

 

The NBA owners on the other hand have no choice in the matter. Their business is failing. It's failing in part because the owners overestimated their ability to expand the league. It's also failing because the league never recovered from the fan revolt it suffered when the players forced an unnecessary strike that resulted in a shortened NBA season. Both the players and owners dug their own graves in the NBA. The only way to fix it now is to not only re-do the CBA, but contract 2 to 4 teams.

 

The NFL Owners are risking the future of the league unnecessarily. The NBA Owners are doing what is necessary to survive.

 

There's a difference.

Edited June 9, 2011 by tgreg99

[Turbosrrgood]

Wow, I thought this was going to be one of those threads that people glance at and move on. Kind of surprised to see heated discussions and opinionated essays...Good reading...

[Hplarrm]

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)

While I do not subscribe to the argument style of others that claims you totally do not understand the nature of this business, I think that your (and my since none of us has perfect knowledge of all this stuff) thinking would profit from looking at this in a couple of different ways:

 

1. What selling a service or product generally is about is the market. The customer is always right business truism comes from understanding and applying this concept. One mistake I think many make in analyzing this is that they seem to assume that the customer is the individual municipal market. It is true this used to be the case and it is true that the local market is a significant income center.

 

However, a key to understanding this business situation from my perspective is to recognize that the real customer by far are the TV networks and the 100s of millions of eyeballs that the networks can sell commercials to see. Folks are correct that the NFL is always about the cash. The cash produced by ticket sales, advertising, parking, stadium beer etc simply pales next to the billions produced by the networks. The town of Buffalo and regional affiliations is a small market compared to NYC or LA. However, the market that produces the money is all the eyeballs nationwide (and based on the NFLs plans- worldwide.

 

The Buffalo Bills provide two assets to selling to the real customers A. They are an original AFC team and as long as we are around then new eyeballs in Mexico City, Toronto. Tokyo, Beijing or wherever are joining into the NFL tradition. The relatively small marginal benefits of setting up a new franchise in even a huge market like LA pales in comparison to the advantages of letting new eyeballs be part of the NFL tradition. New franchise fees amount to 1/31st of a few million $. Expanding into new eyeballs of consumers is billions of dollars. If folks want to do real analysis of what is going on here they need to get over this small market 20th century thinking.

 

B. What the league is actually now making money hand over fist is telling a story. Bills fans are so rabid they help tell and exciting story. Quite frankly, when the Bills build their new stadium, it works fine for the real customers of the Bills, the TV networks if the attendance size of the new stadium is at most 60,000 and likely 50K or maybe even 40.

 

A stadium this size would leave money on the table as we already have a 45.000 season ticket base and can sale out most games with our 70+ plus thousand seat arena.

 

However, though a 50K arena would not even serve all the demands of the local fan base it would guarantee scarcity and sellouts in perpetuity. The rabid fans led by Elvis and post commercial shots of Niagara Falls as though it was downtown would be great storytelling for the several million NFL fans who are the real market and the real source of network income which makes local small market sales look like chump change. In fact, the smaller stadium makes the loss of the Northern ON market to the new NFL team easily dealt with and invigorates the new Buffalo/Toronto football rivalry.

 

One need only add onto this intelligent business approach that America is based on checks and balances and democratic freedom. The current NFL structure and its long reliance on a social compact rather than a free market as a means of doing business will simply force the courts to rule in favor of the individual like the plaintiffs in Brady et al over the more socialistic current NFL proposal.

 

Get ready for the NewFL because it is coming.

[thebandit27]

It's about necessary risks versus unnecessary risks. The NFL Owners are taking an unnecessary risk right now. They are in no financial jeopardy (as your yourself indicate), the league is more popular and making more money for everyone than ever before despite a horrific economy and a "bad" CBA. The future outlook for the league is brighter than it ever has been before. Yet, the Owners, ruled by greed and arrogance, are willing to risk all of that to put more money in their pockets.

 

Is it their right? Absolutely. Is it good business? Nope.

 

Best case scenario for the Owners is if the players crumble and sign a new CBA that gives the Owners an extra couple million. The worst case scenario is the 2011 season is lost, the federal court system takes control of the NFL's business model and forces them to change it causing irreparable damage to the league's financial future which could cost them billions of dollars in future revenues.

 

Does that sound like a good risk to you?

 

Of course not. It's a stupid risk to take by a bunch of greedy, white, uber-rich men -- the majority of whom did NOTHING to build the league and instead have jumped on the backs of the men who built the league and now are demanding more. That's all this is. You can celebrate it all you want as some sort of capitalistic vs socialist enterprise -- but that just shows how ignorant and senseless your opinions are on this matter because it's not that simple.

 

The NBA owners on the other hand have no choice in the matter. Their business is failing. It's failing in part because the owners overestimated their ability to expand the league. It's also failing because the league never recovered from the fan revolt it suffered when the players forced an unnecessary strike that resulted in a shortened NBA season. Both the players and owners dug their own graves in the NBA. The only way to fix it now is to not only re-do the CBA, but contract 2 to 4 teams.

 

The NFL Owners are risking the future of the league unnecessarily. The NBA Owners are doing what is necessary to survive.

 

There's a difference.

 

As I've mentioned several times on this board, and nobody seems to ever address, the NFL isn't exactly facing zero financial jeopardy. As recently as 2009, the NFL reported a debt load that had exceeded $9 billion. For 2010, teams like the Jets and Giants hovered around $750 million in debt (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/08/25/2010-08-25_forbes_debt_a_concern_for_giants_jets.html). For an organization that is--by your own commentary--comprised of a bunch of greedy, white (I really don't see why race matters, by the way), uber-rich men, that doesn't exactly reek of a positive business model.

 

You seem to have a lot of scorn for NFL ownership, and I'm not sure it's entirely warranted. You know, the players did agree to the previous CBA, which included a provision for either side to opt out. If it was such a deplorable business practice, why would they agree to such a deal? I can only think of 2 reasons: (1) they didn't understand that such a provision was included, which I highly doubt; or (2) they knew what a great deal they were getting, and signed it as quickly as possible. If the latter is the case, how could they possibly expect the owners not to opt out?

 

I also find it a bit dubious that you credit current NFL ownership for the labor mess, but insinuate that they bare zero responsibility for the current state of NFL popularity or profitability. Do you honestly think that the Rooneys, Krafts, Joneses, Snyders, etc. did NOTHING but stand on the shoulders of previous owners? Robert Kraft, like him or not, bought a team that was literally weeks away from relocating and brought it from 19,000 season ticket holders to an organization that now has a years-long waiting list for season tickets. The Rooney family? Do you have any idea how much they've contributed to the game? The Hunt family? Al Davis? Ralph Wilson? Their collective vision brought the AFL from also-ran to merger-worthy. Half of the NFL wouldn't exist without these guys.

 

The bottom line here is that this is a labor disagreement. Both sides hastily agreed to a deal in 2006, and both sides had the option to get out of it. One side opted to, and now the two sides need to seek a new deal. Both sides have issues on which they've been totally unreasonable, and both sides need to move a bit for things to work out in everyone's best interest.

 

Make no mistake, both sides are necessary for the NFL to function as it is today. Railroading ownership for protecting the long-term interest of their businesses is, in my mind, short-sighted. It's okay that these guys don't want to pay an unproven rookie $50M in guaranteed money. It's okay that they don't think they should get a smaller portion of revenue when their costs continue to increase annually. Similarly, it's okay for the players to think that they shouldn't have to play 18 games or participate in a million offseason workouts.

 

What's not okay, in my opinion, is for either side to misrepresent the facts. Even if the owners got the financial package they wanted, not one single player in the NFL would be taking a pay cut. They'd still get a greater dollar amount each year; the only thing that would change is the rate at which it increases. Similarly, it's not okay for the owners to make a last-minute pitch to the players union and then try to appeal to fans that they at least made an offer; that's not how good-faith negotiations take place.

 

For every comment you make that the owners are rich and greedy and should be happy with their billions (despite the gigantic debt load that each team faces), it makes at least as much sense for players to just buck up and accept their $250k minimum salary (for a rookie, 7th round draft pick that may never contribute) and zero debt load without demanding more. I'm not saying that you've overlooked this fact, but your posts seem to indicate it.

 

In short, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. In the end, they'll get a deal done because it's what's best for the game, and both sides know it.

[tennesseeboy]

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 kind of think that if the teams were in such fiscal stress more than a few of them would be up for sale. The treams have too much money and the players have too much money and they are fighting over how to split up even more too much money. Kind of hard to feel sorry for either side.

[CosmicBills]

As I've mentioned several times on this board, and nobody seems to ever address, the NFL isn't exactly facing zero financial jeopardy. As recently as 2009, the NFL reported a debt load that had exceeded $9 billion. For 2010, teams like the Jets and Giants hovered around $750 million in debt (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2010/08/25/2010-08-25_forbes_debt_a_concern_for_giants_jets.html). For an organization that is--by your own commentary--comprised of a bunch of greedy, white (I really don't see why race matters, by the way), uber-rich men, that doesn't exactly reek of a positive business model.

 

You seem to have a lot of scorn for NFL ownership, and I'm not sure it's entirely warranted. You know, the players did agree to the previous CBA, which included a provision for either side to opt out. If it was such a deplorable business practice, why would they agree to such a deal? I can only think of 2 reasons: (1) they didn't understand that such a provision was included, which I highly doubt; or (2) they knew what a great deal they were getting, and signed it as quickly as possible. If the latter is the case, how could they possibly expect the owners not to opt out?

 

I also find it a bit dubious that you credit current NFL ownership for the labor mess, but insinuate that they bare zero responsibility for the current state of NFL popularity or profitability. Do you honestly think that the Rooneys, Krafts, Joneses, Snyders, etc. did NOTHING but stand on the shoulders of previous owners? Robert Kraft, like him or not, bought a team that was literally weeks away from relocating and brought it from 19,000 season ticket holders to an organization that now has a years-long waiting list for season tickets. The Rooney family? Do you have any idea how much they've contributed to the game? The Hunt family? Al Davis? Ralph Wilson? Their collective vision brought the AFL from also-ran to merger-worthy. Half of the NFL wouldn't exist without these guys.

 

The bottom line here is that this is a labor disagreement. Both sides hastily agreed to a deal in 2006, and both sides had the option to get out of it. One side opted to, and now the two sides need to seek a new deal. Both sides have issues on which they've been totally unreasonable, and both sides need to move a bit for things to work out in everyone's best interest.

 

Make no mistake, both sides are necessary for the NFL to function as it is today. Railroading ownership for protecting the long-term interest of their businesses is, in my mind, short-sighted. It's okay that these guys don't want to pay an unproven rookie $50M in guaranteed money. It's okay that they don't think they should get a smaller portion of revenue when their costs continue to increase annually. Similarly, it's okay for the players to think that they shouldn't have to play 18 games or participate in a million offseason workouts.

 

What's not okay, in my opinion, is for either side to misrepresent the facts. Even if the owners got the financial package they wanted, not one single player in the NFL would be taking a pay cut. They'd still get a greater dollar amount each year; the only thing that would change is the rate at which it increases. Similarly, it's not okay for the owners to make a last-minute pitch to the players union and then try to appeal to fans that they at least made an offer; that's not how good-faith negotiations take place.

 

For every comment you make that the owners are rich and greedy and should be happy with their billions (despite the gigantic debt load that each team faces), it makes at least as much sense for players to just buck up and accept their $250k minimum salary (for a rookie, 7th round draft pick that may never contribute) and zero debt load without demanding more. I'm not saying that you've overlooked this fact, but your posts seem to indicate it.

 

In short, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. In the end, they'll get a deal done because it's what's best for the game, and both sides know it.

Apparently you didn't understand my post ... the Hunts, Wilsons and Rooneys were not included for a reason. Those men did risk their own financial futures to build the league into what it was. But they are the minority. The majority of NFL owners bought into the league in the late 80s, early 90s when the NFL was already the biggest thing in the entire entertainment business (ie: as close to risk free as a 300-600m investment can be).

 

The stadium debt load is just that. A load. It's a bull **** scare tactic at best considering the rate of return on an individual NFL franchise more than covers that debt over the life of the franchise regardless of the CBA. Those owners secured the funding for those stadiums and calculated the debt load under the "bad" CBA -- and even with that deal in place there was more than enough profitability within each franchise to nullify that debt load. If you read that article you cite, it makes that point crystal clear. The only way that debt load becomes an issue (and a hypothetical one at that posed by Forbes) is if there's a work stoppage. Which, guess what, there is. Thanks to the Owners.

 

In other words, the "proof" you're offering for the need for the owners to cause a work stoppage is actually proof of the opposite. It's proof that what they are doing is an unnecessary risk. Or, in simpler terms, a stupid risk. Are the odds in their favor? Sure. But look at the downside. What if the courts decide to intervene in their business? No one has more to lose in that scenario than the Owners themselves. The decision to lock the players out at this juncture is nothing more than a stupid business decision driven by pure greed and arrogance on the part of 31 very rich, very white, very out of touch men. At best they get a couple more million for themselves. At worse they cost the league billions in future revenues.

 

That's not smart business. Yet there are so many people here who are determined to make this some sort of battleground for capitalism over socialism. They celebrate the Owner's right to operate their business as they see fit without thinking whether or not it's the SMART move.

 

It's not.

 

I've NEVER said the players are blameless in how they've handled the lock out. But at the end of the day, the players want to play the owners don't. If the players had their way, there'd be football in 2011 and beyond. As a fan, that's all I care about.

Edited June 9, 2011 by tgreg99

[Hplarrm]

 

 

In short, both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. In the end, they'll get a deal done because it's what's best for the game, and both sides know it.

I think the issue here is not one of either side being right or wrong (from my view both hold their own interests as their primary goal and this means that the fans interests which are related to but not the same as the team owners or players interests are dealt with as by-product by both players and owners).

 

The debate here is actually one about economic efficiency and the team owners were essential in the old days as a source of capital and for management of the team,

 

However, times have changed and there are ample and better sources of capital out there and also better systems for managing the team,

 

The team owners are an economic drag on the product. It won't happen this way because the players will take 100% of the receipts if they can, but I think a far better world would be if the owners 39.5% of the total receipts were divided between the players and the fans in lower ticket prices.

 

The owners really add very little to the quality of the product and the main reason why they get anything is that they used to own it all and its hard to confiscate wealth from rich people in this society.

 

The good news for the fans and the players is that the owners appear to have once again overplayed their hand. Just as the owners used tactical advantage to kick the butt of the old AFL-CIO style NFLPA led by Ed Garvey, they allowed for the talented tenth of players led by Gene Upshaw to sell the decert strategy. Incredibly rather than compete in a free market, the owners agreed to a CBA which established the players as their partners. The last CBA awarded the players with the majority of total assets making them the majority partner.

 

This current decert has opened the way for Beady et al. to sue the owners demanding a real free market. I doubt the players will win that but nay see a system which eliminate the economic drag of the owners.

 

It was the owners after all who recognized their right to opt out and they made this bed. So if the NFLPA shows the same cajones it showed when it first decerted, they could bring about a situation where we get replacement owners.

 

I doubt the NFLPA does this because they want to weaken the owners but not kill them because they sign the checks. However, if the owners went away the game could easily continue on its merry way and the players and fans can split the owners share without much loss to the game.

[Jauronimo]

The owners really add very little to the quality of the product and the main reason why they get anything is that they used to own it all and its hard to confiscate wealth from rich people in this society.

Yes, it is time for wealth redistribution. I have a series of 5 year plans designed to bring this country into the modern age. Everything old will be forbidden. Land owners are the enemy of the state, and their wealth will be shared among the working class. I'll hand out the little red books this weekend. Portraits of Hplarrm will be hung in every household.

[Hplarrm]

Yes, it is time for wealth redistribution. I have a series of 5 year plans designed to bring this country into the modern age. Everything old will be forbidden. Land owners are the enemy of the state, and their wealth will be shared among the working class. I'll hand out the little red books this weekend. Portraits of Hplarrm will be hung in every household.

Who do you think is advocating a free market approach here and who do you think prefers a more socialist approach based on a compact of a group.

 

It is the players who if they win the lawsuit the game continues as it is for us fans.

 

If the owners instead prevail in the court case it means a truncated season if not a couple of years where the action is in the courts and not on the field.

 

You do understand this don't you?

 

As a by-product of the lockout, individual players in Brady et al have filed suit and demanded that the NFL team owners use a free market approach and sign individual personal services contracts.

 

One of the faults I find with the NFLPA is that they have colluded with the team owners to completely abridge the rights of individual players to live where they choose to live and instead they are forced by the NFL draft to negotiate with one and only one team.

 

For those who want to uphold individual rights over forced negotiations created by the team owners simply begging the NFLPA to come back after the last lockout if you are worried about individuals being told what to do then opposing the owners is where you should be.

[tonyd19]

I always find it funny when fans side with either the players or the owners in situations like this. No matter what, the only people who get screwed by these types of "labor negotiations" are the fans. If the team isn't making enough to pay the absurd salaries, well, they'll just raise ticket prices, or parking fees, or make a soda $10.00 instead of $8.00 etc. etc. If the players take a salary cut, do you think the owners will reduce revenue by cutting ticket prices, parking, concessions, in order to pay back their loyal fans? Nope.

 

It's kind of like when the governemnt comes in and says "X company is making too much money, were going to punish them by making them pay more in taxes...that will teach them!"

 

Then all that happens is company X raises it's prices, the government gets thier vig and the consumer takes the hit.

 

Same principle here. The only people that get bent over in these situations are the fans.

[thebandit27]

Apparently you didn't understand my post ... the Hunts, Wilsons and Rooneys were not included for a reason. Those men did risk their own financial futures to build the league into what it was. But they are the minority. The majority of NFL owners bought into the league in the late 80s, early 90s when the NFL was already the biggest thing in the entire entertainment business (ie: as close to risk free as a 300-600m investment can be).

 

The stadium debt load is just that. A load. It's a bull **** scare tactic at best considering the rate of return on an individual NFL franchise more than covers that debt over the life of the franchise regardless of the CBA. Those owners secured the funding for those stadiums and calculated the debt load under the "bad" CBA -- and even with that deal in place there was more than enough profitability within each franchise to nullify that debt load. If you read that article you cite, it makes that point crystal clear. The only way that debt load becomes an issue (and a hypothetical one at that posed by Forbes) is if there's a work stoppage. Which, guess what, there is. Thanks to the Owners.

 

In other words, the "proof" you're offering for the need for the owners to cause a work stoppage is actually proof of the opposite. It's proof that what they are doing is an unnecessary risk. Or, in simpler terms, a stupid risk. Are the odds in their favor? Sure. But look at the downside. What if the courts decide to intervene in their business? No one has more to lose in that scenario than the Owners themselves. The decision to lock the players out at this juncture is nothing more than a stupid business decision driven by pure greed and arrogance on the part of 31 very rich, very white, very out of touch men. At best they get a couple more million for themselves. At worse they cost the league billions in future revenues.

 

That's not smart business. Yet there are so many people here who are determined to make this some sort of battleground for capitalism over socialism. They celebrate the Owner's right to operate their business as they see fit without thinking whether or not it's the SMART move.

 

It's not.

 

I've NEVER said the players are blameless in how they've handled the lock out. But at the end of the day, the players want to play the owners don't. If the players had their way, there'd be football in 2011 and beyond. As a fan, that's all I care about.

 

I don't buy that at all. If the players just wanted to play, they'd sign whatever CBA the owners already offered and go play. They obviously don't just want to play, or they at least would have made some kind of counter-offer; they didn't. Or they could have stayed at the negotiating table without decertifying; they didn't. As I'm sure you're aware, the owners didn't lock the players out until after they decertified their union.

 

As for stadium debt, it makes up approximately half of the total NFL debt load (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080317/This-Weeks-News/Court-Filing-NFL-Carrying-$9B-Of-Debt.aspx), so while it's a significant portion, it's not the only contributing factor. And yes, if their investments are getting bigger, then the owners do deserve a greater portion of the profits. I've yet to see an argument that validates the players making a bigger investment in the game. If anything, their investment will decrease with fewer minicamps, better health plans, and greater safety measures.

 

Lastly, this is now the 2nd time in this thread that you've brought race into the discussion...it makes me curious as to why? It has zero to do with this topic.

Edited June 9, 2011 by thebandit27

[Malazan]

I kind of think that if the teams were in such fiscal stress more than a few of them would be up for sale. The treams have too much money and the players have too much money and they are fighting over how to split up even more too much money. Kind of hard to feel sorry for either side.

 

My post wasn't about feeling 'sorry' for anyone. I'm of the mind this should be prolonged and rectify the amounts of money being funneled into the NFL and players.

 

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.

 

The Superbowl Champion Packers made less than 10 million (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5379673). We can go back and forth that somehow, some way they are hiding money, but we can also discuss the moon landing being faked. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but the information that is accepted and available has an NFL team valued at 1 billion dollars makes 10 million dollars a year. That's a problem regardless of how you feel about the owners and the three specific owners who caused this problem.

 

The reality is that the players and owners are in this reality and adjustments have to be made.