In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Kevin Mawae talks about the NFLPA and the CBA "We can get this done," Mawae said about the working relationship between owners and players. "But this isn't just about rookie salaries. For us it's about G-3 funding for stadiums, better benefits, retired guys, easier access to treatment for retirees, giving us an even bigger percentage of the total revenue, giving us more pensions, bigger salaries, guaranteed contracts. There is a lot to talk about. We have to talk about it all." I'm sure a lot of this is just bs, but scary if they really believe it. The owners wanna pay them way less and they want way more . It's gonna be a wild ride.
Steely Dan Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Kevin Mawae talks about the NFLPA and the CBA "We can get this done," Mawae said about the working relationship between owners and players. "But this isn't just about rookie salaries. For us it's about G-3 funding for stadiums, better benefits, retired guys, easier access to treatment for retirees, giving us an even bigger percentage of the total revenue, giving us more pensions, bigger salaries, guaranteed contracts. There is a lot to talk about. We have to talk about it all." I'm sure a lot of this is just bs, but scary if they really believe it. The owners wanna pay them way less and they want way more . It's gonna be a wild ride. It's like wage negotiations. Start with more than you want and then look like you're conceding when you come down to what you really want. Sometimes they'll give you more than you want. Also, they may contest the money numbers but cave on them in order to get something else.
Horus Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 sounds like they want the teams to take the money there spending on rookies and put that towards vets by lowering the rookie paycheck..so theyre not asking the team to lower the rookie salary and make more $, theyre asking the team to lower the rookie salary and make the vets more $...same payout bynthe team just devided different..I hope hes not saying that the teams should pay more of the % of earnings....cuz I know I work for a living and I get nowheres near what football players make as % of company earnings.
Steely Dan Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 sounds like they want the teams to take the money there spending on rookies and put that towards vets by lowering the rookie paycheck..so theyre not asking the team to lower the rookie salary and make more $, theyre asking the team to lower the rookie salary and make the vets more $...same payout bynthe team just devided different..I hope hes not saying that the teams should pay more of the % of earnings....cuz I know I work for a living and I get nowheres near what football players make as % of company earnings. Where does it stop? 100% of total revenues?
Pyrite Gal Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Where does it stop? 100% of total revenues? That actually would be fair for me as a fan. It would be amusing briefly to see Ralph in shoulder pads and the uni, it really is the player who I come to see. The players need management so significant compensation for the coaches makes sense as well. However, some Green Bay like system which essentially is owned by the public rather than an individual owner strikes me as a fine way to run the game. If the players got something approaching 100% with some relatively small # of the take removed to pay coaches and a GM who would essentially be the manager of the team, I am perfectly happy to see the outmoded role of the owner cut down to 0%.
Acantha Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 That actually would be fair for me as a fan. It would be amusing briefly to see Ralph in shoulder pads and the uni, it really is the player who I come to see. The players need management so significant compensation for the coaches makes sense as well. However, some Green Bay like system which essentially is owned by the public rather than an individual owner strikes me as a fine way to run the game. If the players got something approaching 100% with some relatively small # of the take removed to pay coaches and a GM who would essentially be the manager of the team, I am perfectly happy to see the outmoded role of the owner cut down to 0%. They should pay the coaches off jersey sales (whatever's left over after NFL gets their cut). Bet they'd give a sh-- about what our uniforms look like then.
plenzmd1 Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 .cuz I know I work for a living and I get nowheres near what football players make as % of company earnings. depends what you do.I would say that for the great majority of companies, employee costs are greater than 60%
BuffaloRebound Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 depends what you do.I would say that for the great majority of companies, employee costs are greater than 60% Maybe you can, but I can't think of one industry where employee costs average 60% or greater of gross revenues. The most I can think of is in the banking industry where employee costs approach 50% of net revenues.
Horus Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 depends what you do.I would say that for the great majority of companies, employee costs are greater than 60% Maybe you can, but I can't think of one industry where employee costs average 60% or greater of gross revenues. The most I can think of is in the banking industry where employee costs approach 50% of net revenues. yea you guys are probably right..I think I was just looking at my paycheck thinking "damn I could make more, i really could, and it wouldnt bother me either"..lol..so yea I guess with as little as I make times how many employees we have in a small company..probably 50% or more of profits are paychecks
keepthefaith Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 Where does it stop? 100% of total revenues? "F" the players IMO. If I were the owners I'd play hardball. Even at the risk of losing part of a season.
VOR Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 "F" the players IMO. If I were the owners I'd play hardball. Even at the risk of losing part of a season. Yep. They should threaten to go back to the days before unrestricted free agency, i.e. plan B free agency.
BuffaloRebound Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 yea you guys are probably right..I think I was just looking at my paycheck thinking "damn I could make more, i really could, and it wouldnt bother me either"..lol..so yea I guess with as little as I make times how many employees we have in a small company..probably 50% or more of profits are paychecks Also, that 60% going to the players doesn't include coaches, gm's, scouts, marketing. That's gotta be at least another 10-15%. So we are really talking about 70-75% of gross revenues going to employee costs. That is ridiculous. But it is the owner's fault for agreeing to that % in the first place. Then there are things like adjusting the rookie pay scale which everyone agrees with, but the players I'm sure will want something in return even though you'd be hard-pressed to find one veteran player who doesn't want the same thing. This has the makings of an ugly battle, but unlike hockey all teams are still making money, so you'd think they could agree to something.
1billsfan Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 For the most part, NFL players have a very short shelf life, are interchangeable and easily replaceable so any significant stoppage of play would not be tolerated by the vast majority (non-stars). There would be mass defections and the players (yes even the stars) would eventually cave. It's already happened before and it would happen again the same way if they took a hard line on things. Mawae has his money already and sounds like he's leveraging for a high position in the players association after football. Pay no heed to his empty blustering.
thebug Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 I think the rookies should make more Can you imagine that happening in any other business, say a law office?
JasoninMT Posted May 29, 2008 Posted May 29, 2008 The NFL really should find some way to pay for performance... Consistently... Every player should get paid X for being on the roster, Y for each down they play, and extra for each "success" for their participation... The X would be a sliding scale like the current League Minimums. Obviously the extra portion would be paid out based on weekly results and even season results. I think this was sort of what the XFL tried while they were around... This amount should equate to 40-50% of league revenue. They currently have a "league" bonus which is similar to this for players who earn the league minimums which is paid out each year. Also, every player should have some sort of guarantee or insurance which pays them for the life of the contract even if they get injured on the field or during a team activity. They should be offered some sort of retirement/pension program they can participate in. Most people have 401K's available to them now, I don't believe the NFL does... Maybe they could get some sort of Profit Sharing program if they invest a portion of their earnings into a retirement fund... They could still get a signing bonus... but as far as their games, they should make roughly the same based on performance.
Big Turk Posted May 30, 2008 Posted May 30, 2008 Kevin Mawae talks about the NFLPA and the CBA "We can get this done," Mawae said about the working relationship between owners and players. "But this isn't just about rookie salaries. For us it's about G-3 funding for stadiums, better benefits, retired guys, easier access to treatment for retirees, giving us an even bigger percentage of the total revenue, giving us more pensions, bigger salaries, guaranteed contracts. There is a lot to talk about. We have to talk about it all." I'm sure a lot of this is just bs, but scary if they really believe it. The owners wanna pay them way less and they want way more . It's gonna be a wild ride. At the end of the day, the players will cave like a house of cards because the owners make most of their money in other businesses and can afford to sit out a lot longer than the players, or hire replacement players... The players better get their heads out of the collective a**es and learn not to bite the hand that feeds them... Right now, they are mad because they are getting choice cuts of prime rib instead of filet mignoin when they used to be getting chopped liver... Most of these players are too young to remember that, but lets see how fast they would be begging to a scrap from the table if the owners decided to go back to giving them chopped liver again...
Recommended Posts