Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[Hplarrm]

First I would like to compliment you on how well your article was written. Then I would like to say I completely disagree with you. The teams and the owners are the absolute back bone and foundation of the league. Players are transient members of the league. Teams and owners remain. If franchises are not healthy then the league is not successful. I personaly stand firmly with the owners on this. In my opinion the players are completely disillusioned to think they can continue to make the lions share of the money. It is not a business model that will last for very long. Just like most of there careers.

I agree that the teams (and the mostly men who have owned them) are the backbone of the history of the NFL.

 

No problem with us having a common vision of the past.

 

What I am saying is the current owners do not add much that cannot be replaced to the pro football business.

 

In that past history which the teams and the men who owned them were the backbone of, the owners added capital when other sources where not as smart or willing as folks like Mr. Ralph to risk their capital. In addition, folks like George Halas really understood the game and managed their teams.

 

However, in great part due to the great work of these NFL innovators and risk takers, it is now the case that there is no where near the risk of investing in the near money printing press of pro football. Thus, the owners have enjoyed the fact that far larger sources of capital in the form of the TV networks are now willing and able to provide billions of dollars for the game.

 

In addition, a professional cadre of functionaries, managers, and a history of operations have been created such that is now clear seeing ownership models such as the one employed by the Green Bay Packers that a successful economically and on the field team can be managed.

 

One other huge demographic impact of the choices made by the team owners is that rather than take the route used by other sports like MLB and the NHL. the NFL pulled off he neat subsidy of getting colleges (many of which are funded by our taxes) do the training and development of their athletes). These two other national sports leagues have to sign teens to speculative contracts which market forces bid up. The NFL not only has created a space where the colleges spend all the money needed to train prospects, but also the NFL and NFLPA collude to restrict even adults of 18 to 21 from signing contracts.

 

The courts even allow this abridgement of the rights of individual because the players are represented by the NFLPA. What strikes me as really outrageous about this infringement on the rights of adults is that the college players whose rights are blithely taken away are not even voting members of the NFLPA.

 

Some who foolishly view this merely as a fight between a labor union and the owners are not thinking this through to recognize that it is due the partnership between the team owners and the NFLPA that the US courts have allowed the rights of individuals to be ignored. There are some who maintain that the decert move is just a tactic when actually even before decert the rights of individuals to negotiate with whomever they can make a deal with or do something radical like live wherever they want. One reason I do not begrudge the high salaries players command (they have the desirable physical talent the market wants and you and I do not) is that actually NFL athletes are denied basic rights you and I take for granted if they can make the deal with an employer. Make no mistake about it there is no need to feel sorry for an NFL player, they make a bunch of money and many of them are idiots, but also understand that if one insists on making an argument about this based on your principles, one of the principles given up here is the American right to live wherever you can afford to live.

 

But back to the big picture the teams and the men who owned them are the backbone of the league not because of the personalities of the owners but merely because of the history.

 

However, if the players formed the NewFL and the players in it were the same players playing in the NFL now and in the same towns. I would tune into the game with the Tom Brady led NE Bats against the Ryan Fitzpatrick led Buffalo Thrills with the same feelings I have when the Bills play the Pats even if Mr. Ralph and Bob Kraft are playing down the road with UB Bulls level players vs. BC level players.

 

Perhaps you tune into the game because of the owners, or because of the stadiums, or because of the history (the history would be the thing I miss the most but I could not care less whether Mr. Ralph, Pegula, the City of Buffalo or whoever owns the team.

[Mr. WEO]

The league's popularity derived primarily from the salary cap and revenue sharing (thanks to Wellington Mara, as old guard as you can get) and the feeling that the playing field was level, with no team being able to outspend another, as had been the case beforehand. The explosion in TV money was due to that popularity and Fox entering the picture, which created a scarcity for the NFL product, which led to bidding wars in subsequent contract negotiations, which led to the league selling itself to the networks. This was set in motion mostly by the old guard of owners.

 

The teams/owners responsible for making the league popular were secondary, but if we are to talk about them, the early 90's Bills teams were immensely popular and had a large hand in the league's popularity, far more than you fancy the Patriots did in the mid-90's (by the time the Pats started winning SB's in the 2000's, the league had long-since been established as the premier pro sports league). The 49'ers were basically only good under Eddie DeBartolo, an old guard owner. And Jim Irsay essentially inherited the team from his billionaire dad, which makes him more old guard than new. The only true new guard owner whose team helped make the league popular (talking about the formative years) was Jones.

 

Yes, revenue sharing and the cap led to all teams having a theoretical shot at a championship, hence increasing popularity. But "popularity" for the sake of this discussion, essentially is measured in TV reating and therefore TV contracts. The value of the contracts showed exponential increase from 1990 on (the 1990 TV money, before the salary cap, was double the value of the previous contracts). It cracked the billion doallr mark in 1994 and then doubled just 4 years later. Another billion was added in 2006.

 

Fox had little to do with the contract value (9000 mil to 1.1 billion)--they simply replaced CBS. ABC/ESPN was the game changer.

 

The winningest team from 99 to 2005 was NE. The value of the contracts increased by 50% during this period.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about Irsay. He became owner in 97--the youngest owner in the league. He brought in Polian and drafted Manning and James. The rest was history. His old man had little success in Indy and that team was going nowhere before he stroked and boxed.

[Doc]

Yes, revenue sharing and the cap led to all teams having a theoretical shot at a championship, hence increasing popularity. But "popularity" for the sake of this discussion, essentially is measured in TV reating and therefore TV contracts. The value of the contracts showed exponential increase from 1990 on (the 1990 TV money, before the salary cap, was double the value of the previous contracts). It cracked the billion doallr mark in 1994 and then doubled just 4 years later. Another billion was added in 2006.

 

Fox had little to do with the contract value (9000 mil to 1.1 billion)--they simply replaced CBS. ABC/ESPN was the game changer.

 

The winningest team from 99 to 2005 was NE. The value of the contracts increased by 50% during this period.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about Irsay. He became owner in 97--the youngest owner in the league. He brought in Polian and drafted Manning and James. The rest was history. His old man had little success in Indy and that team was going nowhere before he stroked and boxed.

Actually what led to the huge increase in the 1990-1993 TV contracts was Ted Turner (who is faulted for being the one who began the inflation of salaries in MLB) entering the NFL picture, the 16-game NFL season being played-out over 17 weeks, and 2 additional teams being added to the playoffs from each conference, meaning 2 more playoff games. After that, regardless of the teams, the league sold itself. If you want to credit the popularity increase to a team, give it to the 49'ers of the 1980's.

 

And as for Junior Irsay, don't confuse "young owner" with "new guard." His dad was responsible for everything he has, and he lucked-into Manning. Once he's gone, the team will be back to the basement again.

[Mr. WEO]

Actually what led to the huge increase in the 1990-1993 TV contracts was Ted Turner (who is faulted for being the one who began the inflation of salaries in MLB) entering the NFL picture, the 16-game NFL season being played-out over 17 weeks, and 2 additional teams being added to the playoffs from each conference, meaning 2 more playoff games. After that, regardless of the teams, the league sold itself. If you want to credit the popularity increase to a team, give it to the 49'ers of the 1980's.

 

And as for Junior Irsay, don't confuse "young owner" with "new guard." His dad was responsible for everything he has, and he lucked-into Manning. Once he's gone, the team will be back to the basement again.

If you want to keep changing the reasons for the increase in popularity, be my guest. But the dynastic runs of the 49ers, cowboys and the pats had the biggest impact over those 3 decades. People love or hate a dynasty--but they do tune in.

 

DeBartolo's father bought the team and gave it to him. He only got it only 9 years before Jones bought the Cowboys.

 

Irsay was inherited the team from his father, who was elderly and running the team into the ground (you know...). This got him a top draft pick in 98 and he picked Manning. Nothing wrong with that. Owners do screw up top picks, you know. ANd he was wise enough to hire the guy Ralph let get away. Irsay was nothing like "old guard" (Wilson, Mara, Rooney, Halas)--absolutely not.

 

Maybe the Colts will suck after Manning is gone. Who knows?--but it's not much of a point to make.

[Doc]

If you want to keep changing the reasons for the increase in popularity, be my guest. But the dynastic runs of the 49ers, cowboys and the pats had the biggest impact over those 3 decades. People love or hate a dynasty--but they do tune in.

 

DeBartolo's father bought the team and gave it to him. He only got it only 9 years before Jones bought the Cowboys.

 

Irsay was inherited the team from his father, who was elderly and running the team into the ground (you know...). This got him a top draft pick in 98 and he picked Manning. Nothing wrong with that. Owners do screw up top picks, you know. ANd he was wise enough to hire the guy Ralph let get away. Irsay was nothing like "old guard" (Wilson, Mara, Rooney, Halas)--absolutely not.

 

Maybe the Colts will suck after Manning is gone. Who knows?--but it's not much of a point to make.

Look doc, I'm not the one claiming that the league's popularity/profits/whatever is mostly due to the new guard of owners. I mean, you even admitted that the TV contracts skyrocketed with the 1990-1993 contracts, whose negotiations predated Jerruh and his ilk. How can that be?

 

Moreover, where are the studies saying that dynasties primarily make the league popular versus rivalries? What about near-dynasties like the Broncos of the 80's, Bills of the 90's, and Chargers and to a degree, Colts, of the 00's?

 

And the point with guys like DeBartolo, Irsay, and Rooney, i.e. kids who inherited NFL teams from their super-rich dads and who did nothing to earn them, unlike Ralph, is that they were raised with old guard values.

[Mr. WEO]

Look doc, I'm not the one claiming that the league's popularity/profits/whatever is mostly due to the new guard of owners. I mean, you even admitted that the TV contracts skyrocketed with the 1990-1993 contracts, whose negotiations predated Jerruh and his ilk. How can that be?

 

Moreover, where are the studies saying that dynasties primarily make the league popular versus rivalries? What about near-dynasties like the Broncos of the 80's, Bills of the 90's, and Chargers and to a degree, Colts, of the 00's?

 

And the point with guys like DeBartolo, Irsay, and Rooney, i.e. kids who inherited NFL teams from their super-rich dads and who did nothing to earn them, unlike Ralph, is that they were raised with old guard values.

It took the "old guard" 20 years to get to a billion dollar TV deal. It took the old and new guard only 16 years to triple that.

 

The Bills, Chargers and the Colts are provincial teams with minimal national following.

 

What's "old guard" anyway? Squeezing the locals for half a billion for a new stadium? Sticking with a coach who couldn't build a SB dynasty from one of the most talented teams of the decade? OK, maybe Irsay IS old guard like that.

[Doc]

It took the "old guard" 20 years to get to a billion dollar TV deal. It took the old and new guard only 16 years to triple that.

Poppy rooster. TV money exploded for everyone around the late 80's. Look at the NBA (new guard owners there as well?) for proof of that. The new guard merely rode the coattails of what the old guard created and the game sells itself. They've done more to fracture the league, and foisted that 2006 CBA upon it.

The Bills, Chargers and the Colts are provincial teams with minimal national following.

This statement is so removed from reality that it doesn't need a response.

What's "old guard" anyway? Squeezing the locals for half a billion for a new stadium? Sticking with a coach who couldn't build a SB dynasty from one of the most talented teams of the decade? OK, maybe Irsay IS old guard like that.

How much did Jones squeeze Arlington for to get his palace built? What about McNair and Houston? Lerner and Cleveland? I think you fail to realize that outside of Kraft and Snyder, every other owner got a signicant contribution from his/her county for a new stadium, and they and Kraft got $150M in G3 money from the league.

[Sisyphean Bills]

TV money exploded for everyone around the late 80's.

A perfect storm situation for sports entertainment. Heck, even figure skating revenue exploded.

[Doc]

A perfect storm situation for sports entertainment. Heck, even figure skating revenue exploded.

I was looking at the numbers and asking myself "what happened around that time?" It was across the board.

[Mr. WEO]

Poppy rooster. TV money exploded for everyone around the late 80's. Look at the NBA (new guard owners there as well?) for proof of that. The new guard merely rode the coattails of what the old guard created and the game sells itself. They've done more to fracture the league, and foisted that 2006 CBA upon it.

 

This statement is so removed from reality that it doesn't need a response.

 

How much did Jones squeeze Arlington for to get his palace built? What about McNair and Houston? Lerner and Cleveland? I think you fail to realize that outside of Kraft and Snyder, every other owner got a signicant contribution from his/her county for a new stadium, and they and Kraft got $150M in G3 money from the league.

The TV money "exploded" in the late eighties, eh? To some degree maybe. But here we are in 2011 and the NFL contracts have tripled in value since then while the NBA is going broke and the NHL only recently signed a major (sort of) network contract for an anemic $200 million per year.

 

The Giants/Jets stadium, which is the League's most expensive, was privatey funded. The G3 money is a private loan. The people of Arlington chose to fund Cowboys stadium with an increase in the hotel tax and other fees.

 

Actually the 2006 was foisted on the league by the players--isn't that what you used to say, anyway?

 

 

The league didn't look too "fractured" the last few seasons. When the new CBA is signed, wen will all forget about all this ghanshing of teeth.

 

There are people all across the country who root for and buy the merchandise of the Packers, Raiders, Steelers, Bears, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, NE---despite never having lived in those areas. Except for expatriots, there is unlikely a similar number of fans outside of Buffalo, SD and Indy who root for these teams. I think you knew exactly what I meant, despite your dramatic dismissal of my statement.

[Doc]

The TV money "exploded" in the late eighties, eh? To some degree maybe. But here we are in 2011 and the NFL contracts have tripled in value since then while the NBA is going broke and the NHL only recently signed a major (sort of) network contract for an anemic $200 million per year.

 

The Giants/Jets stadium, which is the League's most expensive, was privatey funded. The G3 money is a private loan. The people of Arlington chose to fund Cowboys stadium with an increase in the hotel tax and other fees.

 

Actually the 2006 was foisted on the league by the players--isn't that what you used to say, anyway?

 

 

The league didn't look too "fractured" the last few seasons. When the new CBA is signed, wen will all forget about all this ghanshing of teeth.

 

There are people all across the country who root for and buy the merchandise of the Packers, Raiders, Steelers, Bears, Cowboys, Eagles, Redskins, NE---despite never having lived in those areas. Except for expatriots, there is unlikely a similar number of fans outside of Buffalo, SD and Indy who root for these teams. I think you knew exactly what I meant, despite your dramatic dismissal of my statement.

The NHL? LOL! The NBA TV contracts have increased at a large percentage since exploding in the late 80's. Sure it's not on the order of the NFL but it's sizable, and the owners losing money has to do with the lack of a hard cap and guaranteed contracts (wasteful spending), an image problem and a disturbing trend of top players moving to large markets (poor attendance). The NBA will have to adopt a system similar to what the NFL has or face harsh times.

 

It's true that the $1.6B New Meadowlands Stadium was built with private funds and $300M of G3 money. But how much did the owners of the Jets and Giants directly contribute? Who do you fancy would provide the private funds for a new stadium in Buffalo?

 

The league was far more unified in the days of the old guard. The original CBA, which worked great for 13 years, was crafted by the old guard. The new guard produced the 2006 debacle (and yes, it was foisted on the owners since the players weren't the ones voting to approve it). It wasn't even a few months before owners realized how bad a deal it was for them.

 

And my point was that the league is popular because of the "provincial teams" like the Colts and Chargers, as much as the big market teams. Attributing it solely to dynasties and/or the new guard is what I was dismissing.

Edited June 12, 2011 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

The NHL? LOL! The NBA TV contracts have increased at a large percentage since exploding in the late 80's. Sure it's not on the order of the NFL but it's sizable, and the owners losing money has to do with the lack of a hard cap and guaranteed contracts (wasteful spending), an image problem and a disturbing trend of top players moving to large markets (poor attendance). The NBA will have to adopt a system similar to what the NFL has or face harsh times.

 

It's true that the $1.6B New Meadowlands Stadium was built with private funds and $300M of G3 money. But how much did the owners of the Jets and Giants directly contribute? Who do you fancy would provide the private funds for a new stadium in Buffalo?

 

The league was far more unified in the days of the old guard. The original CBA, which worked great for 13 years, was crafted by the old guard. The new guard produced the 2006 debacle (and yes, it was foisted on the owners since the players weren't the ones voting to approve it). It wasn't even a few months before owners realized how bad a deal it was for them.

 

And my point was that the league is popular because of the "provincial teams" like the Colts and Chargers, as much as the big market teams. Attributing it solely to dynasties and/or the new guard is what I was dismissing.

 

Who knows how much the Giants and Jets personally contributed to the stadium, but I'm assuming the loan is in their corporate names, so what's your point?

 

The CBA was foisted on the owners by....the onwers? Gives new new meaning to the word, but.....anyway, you have said here that the owners should have simply "played hardball" with the union and Upshaw and given them a "take it or leave it offer". Upshaw was willing to decertify back then and wasn't going to settle for less than 60% of revenues and a more generous revenue sharing deal amongst the owners themselves. There would have been a decert and lockout then. The owners were well aware of the union's demands--all this "we had no time to read the CBA before we voted on it" is complete nonsense. There were over 300 hours of negotiations prior to the union walking out of the final negotiations. Then there was another 3 day period for the owners to consider the offer one more time (in order to advance the FA deadline) before they decided, 30-2, to extend labor peace--at least for a while--with fairly fresh TV contracts and a few more to be signed in the coming 3 years in the balance.

 

You are hooked on this "big market" concept. GB and Pitt, NO are not big market teams, yet they have national fans. SD and Indy don't.

[Doc]

Who knows how much the Giants and Jets personally contributed to the stadium, but I'm assuming the loan is in their corporate names, so what's your point?

 

The CBA was foisted on the owners by....the onwers? Gives new new meaning to the word, but.....anyway, you have said here that the owners should have simply "played hardball" with the union and Upshaw and given them a "take it or leave it offer". Upshaw was willing to decertify back then and wasn't going to settle for less than 60% of revenues and a more generous revenue sharing deal amongst the owners themselves. There would have been a decert and lockout then. The owners were well aware of the union's demands--all this "we had no time to read the CBA before we voted on it" is complete nonsense. There were over 300 hours of negotiations prior to the union walking out of the final negotiations. Then there was another 3 day period for the owners to consider the offer one more time (in order to advance the FA deadline) before they decided, 30-2, to extend labor peace--at least for a while--with fairly fresh TV contracts and a few more to be signed in the coming 3 years in the balance.

 

You are hooked on this "big market" concept. GB and Pitt, NO are not big market teams, yet they have national fans. SD and Indy don't.

Wait, didn't you say that Ralph should foot the bill for a new stadium and railed against him for asking Erie County to pay $2.8M a year for the upkeep of its stadium? Yet "the people of Arlington chose to fund Cowboys stadium" to the tune of $325M and Johnson/Mara/Tisch possibly not contributing much (since the stadium is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exhibition Authority) is okay? Typical.

 

Yes, I'd say "foist" is the proper word. I'm sure that a majority of the owners who voted for that 2006 CBA would say they were duped into agreeing to it, rather than admitting they were too stupid to understand what they were voting on, but went ahead and voted on it anyway. The best that could be said for it at the time is that it preserved labor peace. Well duh, if you give people what they want they'll be happy as clams. Yet a couple months later the owners all bemoaned it, 2 years later opted-out of it, and 5 years later locked-out the players. You really think they understood what they approved, despite all that time you claimed they had to read it? And don't give me "the situation changed." No owner has said AT ANY TIME that "it was a good deal...until the situation changed."

 

Yes playing hardball back then, before the players got a taste of 59.5% of total revenues, and before they got hundreds of millions of dollars more from the owners, would have been far better than doing it now. That is patently obvious.

 

SD and Indy don't have national fans? And non-new guard owned teams like GB, Pitt, and NO do, but it's the new guard that's reposonsible for the popularity/prosperity of the league? OK, doc, we're done here.

[Orton's Arm]

Wait, didn't you say that Ralph should foot the bill for a new stadium and railed against him for asking Erie County to pay $2.8M a year for the upkeep of its stadium? Yet "the people of Arlington chose to fund Cowboys stadium" to the tune of $325M and Johnson/Mara/Tisch possibly not contributing much (since the stadium is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exhibition Authority) is okay? Typical.

 

Yes, I'd say "foist" is the proper word. I'm sure that a majority of the owners who voted for that 2006 CBA would say they were duped into agreeing to it, rather than admitting they were too stupid to understand what they were voting on, but went ahead and voted on it anyway. The best that could be said for it at the time is that it preserved labor peace. Well duh, if you give people what they want they'll be happy as clams. Yet a couple months later the owners all bemoaned it, 2 years later opted-out of it, and 5 years later locked-out the players. You really think they understood what they approved, despite all that time you claimed they had to read it? And don't give me "the situation changed." No owner has said AT ANY TIME that "it was a good deal...until the situation changed."

 

Yes playing hardball back then, before the players got a taste of 59.5% of total revenues, and before they got hundreds of millions of dollars more from the owners, would have been far better than doing it now. That is patently obvious.

 

SD and Indy don't have national fans? And non-new guard owned teams like GB, Pitt, and NO do, but it's the new guard that's reposonsible for the popularity/prosperity of the league? OK, doc, we're done here.

I completely agree that the owners shouldn't have caved into the NFLPA back in 2006! The owners' failure to stand up to the union back then sowed the seeds for the negative things which have happened since. A reduction in players' share of the revenues is in the best long-term interests of the league and of the sport, and it's important for the owners to take a stand now to ensure the players' share is reduced.

[K Gun Special]

I completely agree that the owners shouldn't have caved into the NFLPA back in 2006! The owners' failure to stand up to the union back then sowed the seeds for the negative things which have happened since. A reduction in players' share of the revenues is in the best long-term interests of the league and of the sport, and it's important for the owners to take a stand now to ensure the players' share is reduced.

 

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.

[Ramius]

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.

 

The league doesn't have to be losing money to want to lower the players percentages. If they feel that costs will rise faster than revenues in the future, then they have every right to want to negotiate a lower % for the players.

[Mr. WEO]

Wait, didn't you say that Ralph should foot the bill for a new stadium and railed against him for asking Erie County to pay $2.8M a year for the upkeep of its stadium? Yet "the people of Arlington chose to fund Cowboys stadium" to the tune of $325M and Johnson/Mara/Tisch possibly not contributing much (since the stadium is owned by the New Jersey Sports and Exhibition Authority) is okay? Typical.

 

Yes, I'd say "foist" is the proper word. I'm sure that a majority of the owners who voted for that 2006 CBA would say they were duped into agreeing to it, rather than admitting they were too stupid to understand what they were voting on, but went ahead and voted on it anyway. The best that could be said for it at the time is that it preserved labor peace. Well duh, if you give people what they want they'll be happy as clams. Yet a couple months later the owners all bemoaned it, 2 years later opted-out of it, and 5 years later locked-out the players. You really think they understood what they approved, despite all that time you claimed they had to read it? And don't give me "the situation changed." No owner has said AT ANY TIME that "it was a good deal...until the situation changed."

 

Yes playing hardball back then, before the players got a taste of 59.5% of total revenues, and before they got hundreds of millions of dollars more from the owners, would have been far better than doing it now. That is patently obvious.

 

SD and Indy don't have national fans? And non-new guard owned teams like GB, Pitt, and NO do, but it's the new guard that's reposonsible for the popularity/prosperity of the league? OK, doc, we're done here.

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.

 

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

 

 

The National Football League has given permission for the New York Giants and New York Jets to borrow as much as $715 million toward building a shared stadium in New Jersey, Bloomberg reported.

The two teams will split the cost, estimated at $1.4 billion. The Jets plan to ''go long'' by issuing 40-year paper, Cross reportedly added: "It'll be bonds, some combination of floating and fixed. I don't think that's been decided yet."

Citigroup is reportedly handling financing for the Jets; Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers are working with the Giants.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[K Gun Special]

The league doesn't have to be losing money to want to lower the players percentages. If they feel that costs will rise faster than revenues in the future, then they have every right to want to negotiate a lower % for the players.

 

Thats different from what the other poster said and from what the owners' position has been. They said they are currently suffering from lower revenues. They certainly have the right to negotiate whatever they want.

 

Several TV contracts are up in a few years, and rating haven't been suffering. I think its safe to say they will be getting a serious influx of revenue when those deals go through, kinda like they did when the current deals were signed in 2006.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

The problem is that players' percentage of revenues has gone up, especially as a percentage of shared revenues. That's made it progressively more difficult for small market teams to spend up to the salary cap. The Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers made a profit of just $10 million this past season. Jamarcus Russell also received an average of $10 million per year in guaranteed money alone during his three years with the Raiders. There's clearly something wrong with this picture!

 

Players' share of revenues needs to be reduced to help increase parity. Even more importantly, the definition of "revenue" needs to be modified to mean "shared revenue only" and not "revenue that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder manage to milk from their fans which is unavailable to the Ralph Wilsons of the league."

[K Gun Special]

The problem is that players' percentage of revenues has gone up, especially as a percentage of shared revenues. That's made it progressively more difficult for small market teams to spend up to the salary cap. The Super Bowl champion Green Bay Packers made a profit of just $10 million this past season. Jamarcus Russell also received an average of $10 million per year in guaranteed money alone during his three years with the Raiders. There's clearly something wrong with this picture!

 

Players' share of revenues needs to be reduced to help increase parity. Even more importantly, the definition of "revenue" needs to be modified to mean "shared revenue only" and not "revenue that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder manage to milk from their fans which is unavailable to the Ralph Wilsons of the league."

 

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.