I swear Gene Upshaw is retarded....

[Ramius]

Lets see, Upshaw the tard says he will not have the players go to a lower percentage of revenues that they currently are (which is just less than 60%). He says the players will not accept 57%, because it represents a decrease.

 

Now if Gene the 'tard new how to operate a calculator, the "lowering" of the players cut of revene actually gives the players 577 million more next season, and 1.5 billion more over the course of the CBA contract.

 

Way to go gene. Keep insisting that 57% of 20 is somehow less than 60% of 10, because its a lower percentage. Next time, the NFLPA ought to hire someone who has passed 4th grade math.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

[sfladave]

In late breaking news Drew Rosenhaus has agreed to represent Gene Upshaw next year to renegotiate a new contract with the NFLPA.

[Pyrite Gal]

Lets see, Upshaw the tard says he will not have the players go to a lower percentage of revenues that they currently are (which is just less than 60%). He says the players will not accept 57%, because it represents a decrease.

 

Now if Gene the 'tard new how to operate a calculator, the "lowering" of the players cut of revene actually gives the players 577 million more next season, and 1.5 billion more over the course of the CBA contract.

 

Way to go gene. Keep insisting that 57% of 20 is somehow less than 60% of 10, because its a lower percentage. Next time, the NFLPA ought to hire someone who has passed 4th grade math.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

618744[/snapback]

 

I think you need to get out your own calculator and refigure things based on two legitimate ways of calculating the same #s. I would neither take Upshaw's nor NFL buy Henderson's cut on the numbers as either a totally legitimate way of doing the calculation or even to be an honest cut since both are simply putting the same numbers in the best light for them.

 

If you want a real world sense of this that makes sense to most folks consider this the same as negotiations that go on with buying a car from a dealer. Us consumers often have to show a willingness to walk out the door before the dealer automagically comes back with a deal better than his rock bottom offer.

 

Take another look at this before getting your panties all up in a wad.

[toeknee24]

Lets see, Upshaw the tard says he will not have the players go to a lower percentage of revenues that they currently are (which is just less than 60%). He says the players will not accept 57%, because it represents a decrease.

 

Now if Gene the 'tard new how to operate a calculator, the "lowering" of the players cut of revene actually gives the players 577 million more next season, and 1.5 billion more over the course of the CBA contract.

 

Way to go gene. Keep insisting that 57% of 20 is somehow less than 60% of 10, because its a lower percentage. Next time, the NFLPA ought to hire someone who has passed 4th grade math.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

618744[/snapback]

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding something I actually agree with the players union. If you're currently getting x percentage of the pie & the pie is due to get larger why would you accept a smaller piece of the pie???

 

I understand it's more $$ but the owners will be pocketing even more since they're cut is going to grow by the percentage they take away from the players.

 

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong but if that's the way it is I see where the players are coming from.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I think you need to get out your own calculator and refigure things based on two legitimate ways of calculating the same #s.  I would neither take Upshaw's nor NFL buy Henderson's cut on the numbers as either a totally legitimate way of doing the calculation or even to be an honest cut since both are simply putting the same numbers in the best light for them.

 

If you want a real world sense of this that makes sense to most folks consider this the same as negotiations that go on with buying a car from a dealer. Us consumers often have to show a willingness to walk out the door before the dealer automagically comes back with a deal better than his rock bottom offer.

 

Take another look at this before getting your panties all up in a wad.

No, Ramius is right. The salary cap in 2006 without a new CBA is $94.5M (64.6% of DGR). With a new CBA at even the compromise number of 58% (of TOTAL revenue), it's $104M. So Upshaw is deceiving people when he's saying the NFL is asking them NFLPA to take a lower number, because the only lower number is the percentage, but it represents a higher amount of money for the players.

[mead107]

Union busting .

[stuckincincy]

Union busting .

618785[/snapback]

 

What's with the capital letter?

[mead107]

What's with the capital letter?

618793[/snapback]

finger went nuts .

[Fezmid]

Now if Gene the 'tard new how to operate a calculator,

Oh the irony of calling someone a retard, yet not using all of the words correctly yourself.

 

Or are you going to go with the lame, "It's a typo!" explanation?

CW

[Guest BackInDaDay]

No, Ramius is right.  The salary cap in 2006 without a new CBA is $94.5M (64.6% of DGR).  With a new CBA at even the compromise number of 58% (of TOTAL revenue), it's $104M.  So Upshaw is deceiving people when he's saying the NFL is asking them NFLPA to take a lower number, because the only lower number is the percentage, but it represents a higher amount of money for the players.

618781[/snapback]

 

I've read the NFL's proposed CBA lessens the minimum amount a franchise has to spend on player's salaries. So although the cap number increases, the CBA would include the backdoor necessary to insure that any loss of shared revenue, due to a future restructuring of league finances, can be somewhat recouped through payroll. This, coupled with a report that the league's proposal increases a player's tenure to FA from 4 to 6 years, and you have what the NFL considers a manageable position regarding personnel spenditures. This buys the league time to settle their internal differences without significantly hamstringing each other.

 

Tough to negotiate with moving target.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I've read the NFL's proposed CBA lessens the minimum amount a franchise has to spend on player's salaries.  So although the cap number increases, the CBA would include the backdoor necessary to insure that any loss of shared revenue, due to a future restructuring of league finances, can be somewhat recouped through payroll.  This, coupled with a report that the league's proposal increases a player's tenure to FA from 4 to 6 years, and you have what the NFL considers a manageable position regarding personnel spenditures.  This buys the league time to settle their internal differences without significantly hamstringing each other.

 

Tough to negotiate with moving target.

Well it's really more of a moving target for the owners. Players have a finite career length and taking less (and potentially a LOT less if there's a lockout or work stoppage in 2008) isn't smart when you're squabbling over what amounts to maybe $1M more per marquee player, which makes up a small percentage of the TOTAL number of players. Take a look at the NHL for an example of how it's going to hurt the players more than the owners.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Well it's really more of a moving target for the owners.  Players have a finite career length and taking less (and potentially a LOT less if there's a lockout or work stoppage in 2008) isn't smart when you're squabbling over what amounts to maybe $1M more per marquee player, which makes up a small percentage of the TOTAL number of players.  Take a look at the NHL for an example of how it's going to hurt the players more than the owners.

618825[/snapback]

 

How is the NFLPA's proposal a 'moving target'? Upshaw is attempting to negotiate a CBA advantageous to his membership. No surprise there. The NFL's doing well, money's streaming in, and he wants to get his guys a cut of the revenue that the league's bringing in from sources other than TV and tickets.

 

He knows that this source of revenue is in dispute amoung the owners. It's being targeted by some owners as the source for debt relief and other concessions which will be part of the league's restructuring. By sticking to his 60% of total revenue, he can trump any league action to minimize the players' piece of the pie. He doesn't care where the league gets the money, or how they decide to split it amoung themselves. His most secure position is to demand a straight percentage, and let the league owners figure out how they want to pay it out and where it's coming from.

 

For example, if it's determined that Ralph Wilson should pay a portion of his club's personal revenue (say 5%) to help offset Dan Snyder's debt, Upshaw doesn't want the Bills players to suffer for the arrangment. They'll receive their cut (say 5%), before Snyder gets his. This leaves Ralph shelling out 10% of his total revenues. With a minimal payroll in effect (55%) that takes their total piece of the pie to the target (60%). Ralph keeps 35% total revenue.

 

Conversely, the Redskins players get their 55% minimum plus Ralph's 5%. Snyder keeps 40% total revenue, giving him a boost in paying off the debt he took on making the Skins previous owner a very wealthy man.

 

This is what the owners have been fighting about for a year.

This is what they should have had figured out before negotiating a new CBA.

Like if Snyder was paying above the league minimum, say 60%, in payroll, then the amount other owners in better financial shape should have to kick in would be reduced. Bottom line - all the clubs should have the same amount of money to field a team. Over spending for personnel decreases your ability to relieve your own debt, it isn't fair to ask another club to subsidize that kind of foolish irresponsibility.

 

It's like giving a bum $10 for food, you know he's gonna drink it.

 

The point is, a good system allows all of the franchises to compete, maintaining league parity. Ralph's 5% is an investment in this successful league. When his heirs sell his Bills franchise for $800M, they'll toast the old man's good business sense.

 

Unfortunately, until Ralph, and most other legacy owners, receive a restructured revenue sharing plan that treats them fairly, the league will remain divided.

Hard to imagine this whole thing could have been avoided with some leadership from the commissioner.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I think we're in agreement mostly here. I just believe that Upshaw agreeing to 56.2%, or ven 58%, would help get a deal done immediately, whereas right now, it's not looking good. And if the owners don't agree, no new CBA, no additional money for the players, and possibly a work stoppage in 2008.

[Dawgg]

But why should Upshaw have to be the one that caves? That's ridiculous in my mind that just because the pot increases, the players' percentage should be lower. Afterall, it is due to THEIR efforts that the pot increased... they are contributing to a superior product and should be compensated for it with a consistent percentage, not one that moves based on the pot.

 

I think we're in agreement mostly here.  I just believe that Upshaw agreeing to 56.2%, or ven 58%, would help get a deal done immediately, whereas right now, it's not looking good.  And if the owners don't agree, no new CBA, no additional money for the players, and possibly a work stoppage in 2008.

619409[/snapback]

[2003Contenders]

One thing that I find amusing is the fussing and fighting over this percentage. This number is actually the MAXIMUM. It is not the guaranteed amount that the players will get. For example, under the current CBA, the cap is set at 64.5%, which breaks down to a little over $94.5 M per team. Yet, there are still several teams that are WAY under the cap. The Cardinals and Browns, for example, have a payroll that doesn't even come close to matching the cap.

 

This same principle leads me to wonder why the smaller market teams are so worried. Take the Bills, for example, one of the lower revenue generating teams in the league. Until recently, our cap number was right up against the $94.5 M figure. When you look at the "cash over cap" numbers, then you can be rest assured that the Bills total player salaries this year was right in line with most other competative teams.

 

The real key, the way I see it, is what kind of minimum salary we would be looking at. With the old (er, existing as of now) system, it was set at 56% of the DGR. If that number suddenly becomes wildly inflated, then I can see where the Arizona Cardinals and Cleveland Browns would start crying a fit.

[2003Contenders]

But why should Upshaw have to be the one that caves? That's ridiculous in my mind that just because the pot increases, the players' percentage should be lower.  Afterall, it is due to THEIR efforts that the pot increased... they are contributing to a superior product and should be compensated for it with a consistent percentage, not one that moves based on the pot.

619434[/snapback]

 

 

Ah, but it isn't the pot itself that has increased -- but the DEFINITION of the pot. Under the old CBA the pot was defined as Defined Gross Revenue (DGR), which consisted of national television, ticket sales, and NFL merchandise. The new system would call for a share of TOTAL revenue. The latest estimate that I heard was that the DGR was somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of the total league-wide revenue.

 

Thus, Upshaw is talking apples and oranges when he compares the old 64.5% of DGR to, say, 58% of total revenue. We've already seen where even the owners' low 56% of total revenue means about $7 to $8 M more than the 64.5% under the existing DGR system. Of course, kudos go to Upshaw for driving a hard bargain.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

This same principle leads me to wonder why the smaller market teams are so worried. Take the Bills, for example, one of the lower revenue generating teams in the league. Until recently, our cap number was right up against the $94.5 M figure. When you look at the "cash over cap" numbers, then you can be rest assured that the Bills total player salaries this year was right in line with most other competative teams.

619438[/snapback]

 

NFL teams and rankings according to revenue, etc

 

The Bills may be ranked 24th, but only 20 million separates them from #10. That ain't too bad...

[Dawgg]

Thanks for that clarification, I did not know that.

 

Ah, but it isn't the pot itself that has increased -- but the DEFINITION of the pot. Under the old CBA the pot was defined as Defined Gross Revenue (DGR), which consisted of national television, ticket sales, and NFL merchandise. The new system would call for a share of TOTAL revenue. The latest estimate that I heard was that the DGR was somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% of the total league-wide revenue.

 

Thus, Upshaw is talking apples and oranges when he compares the old 64.5% of DGR to, say, 58% of total revenue. We've already seen where even the owners' low 56% of total revenue means about $7 to $8 M more than the 64.5% under the existing DGR system. Of course, kudos go to Upshaw for driving a hard bargain.

619440[/snapback]

[JDG]

Lets see, Upshaw the tard says he will not have the players go to a lower percentage of revenues that they currently are (which is just less than 60%). He says the players will not accept 57%, because it represents a decrease.

 

Now if Gene the 'tard new how to operate a calculator, the "lowering" of the players cut of revene actually gives the players 577 million more next season, and 1.5 billion more over the course of the CBA contract.

 

Way to go gene. Keep insisting that 57% of 20 is somehow less than 60% of 10, because its a lower percentage. Next time, the NFLPA ought to hire someone who has passed 4th grade math.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2355190

618744[/snapback]

 

Let's see, Upshaw is a 'tard for trying to maximize the amount of money the players will receive under the new contract? What turnip truck did you just fall off?

[Ramius]

Let's see, Upshaw is a 'tard for trying to maximize the amount of money the players will receive under the new contract?    What turnip truck did you just fall off?

619451[/snapback]

 

No, he's a tard for comparing apples to oranges as a poster said a few posts ago, and not realizing that while the number of the percentage may be lower, the ACTUAL amount of money received by the players is much higher. The players are getting a smaller piece of a much bigger pie. But tardshaw cant see that and is causing a sticking point.

 

Think of it this way. We'll give you 64% of the average salary of a factory worker. I'll take 56% of the salary of a doctor. I'll get more money overall, but at least you can make fun of me because you are getting a higher percentage than i am.