PDA

View Full Version : The lockout



rcsodak
10-12-2010, 09:03 AM
Ok. Maybe we should start talking about the "what if's" and the ancilliarys that might accompany it.

Peter King, on Sirius had some interesting things to say.
1. There WILL still be a draft.
2. Players won't be signed for some time.
3. Free agency will be non existant.
4. Any season that occurs will be consequently shortened.

Of course, this is just his opinion.

He also said this is another reason why players such as champ won't be traded before the deadline next week.
Lots on the table. Cap? Profit split? Free agency (yrs)? Tags? Rookie salaries? TV? Retirees?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Thnikkaman
10-12-2010, 10:07 AM
There will also be an exciting NHL season to watch, Baseball Playoffs, the NBA season, and the UFL to distract us.

The Players and Owners stand to lose a ton of money by locking out next season, and with the way this season is going, they stand to lose a ton of fans as well.

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 10:09 AM
The owners don't really lose. They still make the majority of their money from TV contracts that aren't happening, and they don't have player/facility expenses.

IMHO a lockout will be the best thing for Denver in terms of giving them time to figure out what exactly they have to do to fix their roster. It will force them to hopefully address the lack of grooming dline, along with giving the oline some time. This is all assuming McDaniels does know what he's doing and is the right man for the job.

BroncoWave
10-12-2010, 10:10 AM
I don't know how I'd feel without an NFL season next year. It would be really bizarre. I guess I would get way more into college football (which is fine because Mississippi State is on the upswing). I'm sure I'll be able to live without it, but it will still be really weird.

GEM
10-12-2010, 10:14 AM
Let's go High School Football and Wrestling!!

Rah Rah will be me without no season next year.

I will go out and catch some high school games that I normally wouldn't have. Go check out a Mullen, AWest or Pomona game. Maybe make a weekend of it and go check out a Steamboat game.

:shrugs: Blah...don't even want to think of it.

OrangeHoof
10-12-2010, 10:18 AM
Back in 1987, the players struck and the owners fielded "replacement" teams but once they got a few stars, like Joe Montana, to cross the picket lines, the NFLPA could not hold out much longer. The dam broke, as it were, and the players returned to work.

This time around, it may last longer however the shelf life of the typical NFL player is not long so there will be pressure to settle and, again, it is far more likely that the union will cave to the owners.

One must give a tip of the cap to Gene Upshaw who, at some level, understood this and managed to keep the players on the field instead of on the picket lines.

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 10:19 AM
Just out of curiousity, with the continuation of all these teams that are decertifying with the unin, what does that mean exactly in relation to the lockout?

Denver Native (Carol)
10-12-2010, 10:21 AM
Although the owners will still be receiving money from tv contracts, I can't believe they are not considering that if the lock out does happen, they stand the chance to lose many fans - and some teams can not afford that. There have already been games this year, which were not broadcast locally, because they were not sold out.

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 10:24 AM
Although the owners will still be receiving money from tv contracts, I can't believe they are not considering that if the lock out does happen, they stand the chance to lose many fans - and some teams can not afford that. There have already been games this year, which were not broadcast locally, because they were not sold out.

There's no doubt the owners are concerned about the immediate future of their business if a lockout does happen.

I can't see the NFL suffering though. It's got to be so big throughout the years, and it's such a tv friendly sport, there's no way IMHO that a lockout is going to affect the popularity of it. With the NFL gone for a year, people are going to be salivating like crazy for the return of it.

Thnikkaman
10-12-2010, 10:26 AM
You have storied franchises like the Raiders who have been blacked out for the last 30+ games. Imagine this happening in Pitt, Dallas, New York, etc...(No, I don't think it will happen in New York, but I digress)

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 10:29 AM
You have storied franchises like the Raiders who have been blacked out for the last 30+ games. Imagine this happening in Pitt, Dallas, New York, etc...(No, I don't think it will happen in New York, but I digress)

IMHO, that's do to a poorly run franchise who isn't winning and a show of frustration from the fanbase. People in Oakland are tired of the lack of success, and more importantly fed up with terrible decisions from general management and moreso Al Davis. The community journalist and writers have even attacked Al Davis for his decisions in the last few years.

NightTrainLayne
10-12-2010, 10:40 AM
Just out of curiousity, with the continuation of all these teams that are decertifying with the unin, what does that mean exactly in relation to the lockout?

It changes their status and standing for future law-suits. The Union sees it as an advantage in the court system. If memory serves, I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that they did this last time.

Of course, they run the risk that the court won't recognize the decertification. . .it's playing both sides of the fence to only be certified when there's no dispute, and then decertify to take advantage of the legal system when you get in a spat with the owners.

Thnikkaman
10-12-2010, 10:48 AM
IMHO, that's do to a poorly run franchise who isn't winning and a show of frustration from the fanbase. People in Oakland are tired of the lack of success, and more importantly fed up with terrible decisions from general management and moreso Al Davis. The community journalist and writers have even attacked Al Davis for his decisions in the last few years.

So what are San Diego and Jaxonville's excuses?

I'm not arguing against your point. Pittsburgh is the type of city in which if they were an expansion team that went 2-14 for 3 seasons, they would sell out every game. Hell, look at the Pirates, they have been horrible for years and still get good fan support.

But on the other side of that coin, couldn't the potential lockout be seen as horrible management by the collective ownership of the NFL? Baseball's strike did not kill the game, but its fanbase suffered for years, and still doesn't seem to care about its fans (that all being said as I have become a fan of the MLB after the strike).

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 10:59 AM
So what are San Diego and Jaxonville's excuses?

I'm not arguing against your point. Pittsburgh is the type of city in which if they were an expansion team that went 2-14 for 3 seasons, they would sell out every game. Hell, look at the Pirates, they have been horrible for years and still get good fan support.

But on the other side of that coin, couldn't the potential lockout be seen as horrible management by the collective ownership of the NFL? Baseball's strike did not kill the game, but its fanbase suffered for years, and still doesn't seem to care about its fans (that all being said as I have become a fan of the MLB after the strike).

Jacksonville and SD have never been cities that sold out. It's just simply 2 down football markets. There are markets that don't sell out in every major professional league, regardless of how popular the league is. It's one of the reasons why owners allow teams to relocate and put it up for a vote.

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 11:04 AM
On the flip side, stadiums in general are suffering because of the down economy, along with football being a victim of it's own success. With HD, 10+ cameras in a football stadium getting all kinds of angles of the play, and the ability of cameras to expand their vision allowing all 22 players on the field in vision, it's only continued to increase the poplarity because it's so TV friendly, and TV contracts continue to increase and increase becausse sponsors want in with the viewership.

The NFL will never have a problem making money off viewership, because the demand is so high. IMHO that will not change with a locklout.

Baseball has virtually not changed over the course of decades, which gives its fanbase a stale product. The people that are not diehard baseball fans left after the strike.

Hockey, same issue.

Denver Native (Carol)
10-12-2010, 11:07 AM
http://technorati.com/business/article/an-nfl-lockout-may-have-longlasting/

The start of National Football League (NFL) season is an exciting time for fans, but with the current collective bargaining disagreement, many fans are worried that there might not be another season come next year. As the likelihood of a labor stalemate increases, IBISWorld identifies just who stands to lose the most from a potential lockout next season.

The NFL is expected to account for 40 percent of the $20.3 billion sports franchising industry in 2010, reaching $8.2 billion. Having experienced tremendous growth over the past five years, increasing at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent since 2005, the league would suffer a colossal revenue loss of roughly $7.6 billion if a lockout occurred; however, IBISWorld projects that long-term repercussions would be minimal.

“The MLB and NBA suffered considerable lags in recovering attendance following their lockouts, dropping 20 percent and 2.5 percent, respectively in subsequent years,” explained Dmitry Kopylovsky, sports franchise analyst with IBISWorld. “The NFL, however, would have minimal, if any, effect from viewership recovery because of the sport’s vast popularity with Americans.”

The players on the other hand stand to lose an estimated 30 percent of their potential NFL careers, considering that the average career length for this sport is only 3.3 years with a median salary of $770,000 (2009). Furthermore, the player pool will increase considerably next season as another class of NCAA players turns pro, severely intensifying player competition for a spot on a team.

“Fans have grown accustomed to player holdouts and similar compensation standoffs across all sports leagues,” said Kopylovsky. “The business aspect of sports has become increasingly branded into the minds and hearts of most sports fans, which is why the league would be less damaged than the individual players if a lockout occurred.”

The league and its players are not the only ones who would be negatively impacted by a NFL lockout, however. Such an occurrence would result in revenue losses for a myriad of industries:

* Television Broadcasting – The NFL has long-term contracts in place with major networks, totaling roughly $4 billion per year. NBC stands to lose the most since it is scheduled to host the Super Bowl in February 2012, an event that typically generates more than $200 million in ad revenue for the network. IBISWorld estimates that an NFL lockout would decrease total industry revenue by 0.4 percent or $145 million.
* Celebrity and Sports Agents – Agents of NFL players could lose more than $100 million or about 1.6 percent of total industry revenue in 2011.
* Live Music, Sports and Event Promotion – The NFL has contracts with companies like Ticketmaster and Stubhub. In the event of a lockout, IBISWorld estimates that this industry stands to lose about $50 million or 0.2 percent of total revenue in 2011.
* Food Service Contractors - Companies that serve professional sports stadiums, such as Centerplate, Aramark, Levy Restaurants and Legends Hospitality Management LLC, are sure to see a decline without the NFL’s 256 regular season games and 11 playoff games.
* Sporting Goods Stores - Retailers of these items, such as Sports Authority and Dick’s Sporting Goods, stand to lose a small chunk of their revenue in the event of a lockout.
* Advertising Agencies - The NFL generates $860 million per year in advertising revenue. Companies that paid or were in line to purchase these advertisements in 2011 would be largely exempt or withdraw. As a result, ad agencies would experience a loss.
* Drinking Establishments – Sundays, Mondays and some Thursdays, are popular times for fans to patron local sports bars to watch NFL games. Without a 2011 season, the bar crowd would largely cease, dropping revenue for the industry as a whole.

“The league and the NFL Players Association certainly have their work cut out for them,” said Kopylovsky. “A stoppage of play could prove irreparable for the careers of many NFL players and cause significant damage for several associated businesses.”

pnbronco
10-12-2010, 11:08 AM
So what is on the table to force a lockout? The only thing I remember reading is the Rookie Contracts being like the NHL and NBA where you get X where your drafted. Which actually seems like a good concept.

When I read the article on Champ my first thought is this is going to happen and the owners are preparing for it. Thanks for any info.

Lonestar
10-12-2010, 11:13 AM
Coming from a managers POV. They signed a bad contract last time giving 60% of the revenue to the players. That does not include all the taxes on those salaries. Unless they are considered independent contractors that means fica on a 120 mil each year IIRC.

Not to mention all of the other salaries they pay to keep the doors open from owner, CEO, HC, other coaches, trainers to sales clerks in the team store. I suspect those are some huge numbers also.

In the businesses I have managed and owned the rule of thumb was personel costs had to be under 60-62% to be viable. Becuse in most cases there are about 30-36% worth of other costs in utilities, rent,debt payments, etc. That have to be paid also.

Now your saying that is not 100% of the income.

Why would an investor (owner) want to make 1-5% return on their investment of in some cases $2 billion, when they could park that money in CD's, government bond (tax free) that could earn a guaranteed 3-8%.

The players are greedy want more and more. Sure their playing time is short. But for the most part if it was not for football the vast majority would be from janitors to drug dealers. As the vast majority of them would not have gone to college let alone finished high school.
Sorry but I stand firmly on the side of the owners on this. They have to have a better deal than they currently have. I'm guessing they will settle somewhere between 52-55% for the players and a few % for the retirees fund.

Rookie salaries should be an easy fix for the players to give up on as they already have their money and they all know that the money that is given to a kid that has never played a down is NUTS. They also know that what they sell the rookies out for will wind up in their pockets. Or at worst in the retirees fund.

There is more to say. But this will get you started.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
10-12-2010, 11:13 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-frederick/looming-nfl-lockout-roote_b_749925.html

In case you weren't aware -- and far too many people are -- there's a strong chance there won't be an NFL season next year. The wheels were set in motion on May 21, 2008, when the NFL decided not to renew its collective bargaining agreement with the players. NFL owners felt that players were getting too high a percentage of overall revenues under the existing agreement.

Among other things, the owners claim that the lavish new stadiums they have built -- or demanded be built -- are too expensive. "We are facing different economic realities than we have in prior years," said Greg Aiello, an N.F.L. spokesman, adding, "For the most part, these new realities reflect a significant increase in costs, including the cost of building, maintaining and operating stadiums."

They have only themselves to blame.

Since 1990, 28 of the 32 NFL teams have either opened a new stadium, done major renovations to an existing stadium, or are currently in the planning and negotiation stages for a new stadium.

Were all of these lavish new stadiums necessary? No. Take Denver, for instance. Completed in 2001, Invesco Field at Mile High wound up costing taxpayers nearly $400 million. Nevermind that Mile High Stadium was popular with fans -- it was consistently sold out -- and in fine shape. In fact, in order to build the new stadium, the city of Denver actually had to release the Broncos from their lease with Mile High Stadium which was not set to expire until 2018. So not only did the owner of the Broncos swindle Colorado taxpayers into building him a new stadium, he actually convinced them to break one of the strongest lease agreements in professional sports.

Here's how Field of Schemes author Neil deMause describes what happened:

Next door to the Nuggets, Denver Broncos owner Pat Bowlen chimed in that his football's home, Mile High Stadium, was rusting and might fall down. "This is a serious, serious question," said Bowlen in asking for $180 million in state money toward a new stadium. "Where do we play in 1998 or 1999 if that stadium is condemned?" As in Detroit, independent engineers countered that Mile High was in fine shape; one declared that the stadium could "last indefinitely" if properly maintained. What was not in perfect shape, it turned out, was Bowlen's bank account -- the owner had sold the rights to Mile High's luxury boxes some years earlier to raise some quick cash, and hoped that a new stadium would restored the millions a year in luxury-box revenue that he had sold off.

And Bowlen wasn't even demanding the city fully pay for his stadium as other owners have done. At least 10 NFL stadiums are 100% publicly financed and at least 19 are 75% publicly financed.

By investing in these stadiums, taxpayers have shown their loyalty to their teams -- and the owners. To then turn around and use the cost of these stadiums as an excuse for plunging everyone into an ugly labor battle is an insult to NFL fans everywhere.

At the very least, the owners argument should effectively put the quash on any plans for Minneapolis' new stadium. Despite Minnesota's $6 billion -- with a capital B -- budget shortfall, the Vikings are pushing for the public to pay at least $500 million of a proposed $800 million stadium.

"Why not? The Vikings are a public asset," said Lester Bagley, the Vikings' vice president in charge of stadium development. "This is going to create an economic boost."

Consider the implications of Bagley's comments. If the Vikings are indeed a public asset, is he saying that the public has some ownership of the Vikings? That they should have some say over whether the Vikings can leave town? Because elsewhere Bagley has said this: "The clock is ticking, and the lease is coming due. The state can't afford to have us become free agents."

In other words, give us a lavish new stadium, but nevermind that we may not have a 2011 season because of how expensive new stadiums are. And the Vikings are a public asset, but nevermind that 65% of Minnesotans don't want public funding for a new stadium.

The owners of the Vikings want the people of Minnesota to continue with stadium financing as though it's all business as usual even as the league threatens put an end to next year's season. The people of Minnesota should join together to say that no to any stadium proposal at least until there's a guarantee there will actually be NFL games played in it.

jhildebrand
10-12-2010, 11:23 AM
I don't think King is correct on the idea that there would be a draft. I am sure the owners will try to keep a draft but the players association would ultimately make it clear to the college players that that would not be a good idea.

I know I have read somewhere several times that there would be no draft and every college player would be a free agent.

rcsodak
10-12-2010, 03:40 PM
I don't think King is correct on the idea that there would be a draft. I am sure the owners will try to keep a draft but the players association would ultimately make it clear to the college players that that would not be a good idea.

I know I have read somewhere several times that there would be no draft and every college player would be a free agent.
Theyve already said there WILL be a draft. Thats not part of any discussion.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

BORDERLINE
10-12-2010, 04:35 PM
damn aside from playoff basketball & the world cup ,the NFL is what i'm plugged into. I am not a die-hard anything of any other team i have tried but only the Broncos stay atop the list. maybe this changes when my sons joins a pee-wee football team , but that's years down the line. Till then i don't even want to think about a lockout

spikerman
10-12-2010, 05:51 PM
There will also be an exciting NHL season to watch, Baseball Playoffs, the NBA season, and the UFL to distract us.

The Players and Owners stand to lose a ton of money by locking out next season, and with the way this season is going, they stand to lose a ton of fans as well.

Sigh, unfortunately for me, I'd rather watch my neighbor paint his house than an NBA game.

jhildebrand
10-12-2010, 06:59 PM
Theyve already said there WILL be a draft. Thats not part of any discussion.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Well since you have been a bastion of credibility not to mention truth/accuracy, I am sure you could provide a link or an article to back it up.

Please do! If you know anything about the CBA, you know that the CBA GOVERNS the draft. With no CBA how could there be a draft?

I'll wait for your links and or articles.

I hope they address the union's current effort to decertify and then challenge the NFL's antitrust exemption. Unless the draft takes place in the NFL's fiscal season, then I would bet good money there is no draft!

Medford Bronco
10-12-2010, 07:00 PM
The owners are making so much $$. Why would they want this?

Even more greed. It is sad for the best sport really.

Nomad
10-12-2010, 07:41 PM
NFL who????? College football will always be around plus my sons will be playing jr high and starting high school! and hunting!!

Nomad
10-12-2010, 07:42 PM
Sigh, unfortunately for me, I'd rather watch my neighbor paint his house than an NBA game.

True dat!! Or MLB, NHL, or UFL!!!

spikerman
10-12-2010, 08:26 PM
True dat!! Or MLB, NHL, or UFL!!!

:laugh: I actually like MLB and playoff hockey.

OrangeHoof
10-12-2010, 09:03 PM
Sigh, unfortunately for me, I'd rather watch my neighbor paint his house than an NBA game.

I'd rather watch someone detonate their house than watch an NBA game.

spikerman
10-12-2010, 09:08 PM
I'd rather watch someone detonate their house than watch an NBA game.

Well, yeah, that goes without saying. It's sad, I used to really like the NBA back when it was a team game and not 10 guys playing one on one.

rcsodak
10-12-2010, 10:25 PM
Well since you have been a bastion of credibility not to mention truth/accuracy, I am sure you could provide a link or an article to back it up.

Please do! If you know anything about the CBA, you know that the CBA GOVERNS the draft. With no CBA how could there be a draft?

I'll wait for your links and or articles.

I hope they address the union's current effort to decertify and then challenge the NFL's antitrust exemption. Unless the draft takes place in the NFL's fiscal season, then I would bet good money there is no draft!

How about you getting off my ass with your BASELESS ACCUSATIONS of lying.

You first, sparky. :coffee:

jhildebrand
10-12-2010, 10:34 PM
How about you getting off my ass with your BASELESS ACCUSATIONS of lying.

You first, sparky. :coffee:

You have been consistently called out by several posters for simply making up ish! This is another instance. :coffee: Nothing in my post is baseless.

You made a clear statement with regard to the draft and stated it NOT ONLY AS FACT but a foregone conclusion.

All I wanted, which was apparently too much, was for you to cite some source for your "fact."

Your refusal to oblige speaks volumes! Go on being the :elefant:

silkamilkamonico
10-12-2010, 10:45 PM
I certainly do not know for fact, but I'm pretty sure there will be a draft regardless.

The rules of the draft will apply, where if the draft picks aren't signed by a certain date they re-enter the draft the following year. The draft would take place as an assumption that the CBA would eventually get worked out, and it would protect the players that are eligible for the draft and choose to enter (mainly the seniors who have no more college eligibility). If there is no CBA in place by the time the window closes to sign the players (they cannot sign without a CBA I believe), all the drafted players simply re-enter the draft the following year.

I don't know how much of this is true, but I was listening to an NFL "lawyer" on Colin Cowerd in the summer time who was on talking about the possible lockout next year, and he was going into detail the possibilities of what would happen with a lockout, and every indication I got from him was there would be a draft regardless.

jhildebrand
10-12-2010, 11:16 PM
With a complete decertification by the players union/association the draft, salary cap, possible rookie contract caps would all violate the Sherman Antitrust act and the NFL's antitrust exemption and the NFL would be subject to treble damages (triple).

sneakers
10-12-2010, 11:19 PM
There will be no NFL football until the year 2023.

CHARLIEADAMSFAN
10-13-2010, 01:23 AM
There will be no NFL football until the year 2023.

Dear god I hope not

Thnikkaman
10-13-2010, 08:26 AM
Really, the NBA was beginning to draw my interest, then Carmello Anthony reminded me why I didn't care before.

In other news, the Avs beat the Red Wings last night. All is right with the world.

Day1BroncoFan
10-13-2010, 12:57 PM
If there is no NFL season next year I'll just add Sunday's to my other activities.

Not that I won't miss it but, oh well... it is what it is.

Lonestar
10-13-2010, 01:19 PM
I'm not all that sure if the union decerifies that is an automatice violation of the sherman act.

Iirc they did this once before and nothing like that happened.

I believe the union which there won't be one would have to sue the NFL. And since congress granted them an exemption when they merged I do not think even that would work.

IMO there will be a draft with the players needing to be signed by a certain date or they fall back into the pool.

Most likely to be drafted by mainly the same teams the next
year. At least the top 10 or so would unless they get arrested for drug dealing or something.

There is going to be increbile pressure from the players that are not getting paid to get something done. The cards are stacked against them.

BTW iirc it would take another act of congress to remove their anto trust exemption.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

TXBRONC
10-13-2010, 01:20 PM
There will also be an exciting NHL season to watch, Baseball Playoffs, the NBA season, and the UFL to distract us.

The Players and Owners stand to lose a ton of money by locking out next season, and with the way this season is going, they stand to lose a ton of fans as well.

True there are other sports to watch but it's still not the same. I would probably pay more attention to college football and baseball but it still can't completely replace watching the Broncos.

That being said, I still think they will get a deal worked out, but I think it will come alway down to zero hour.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

jhildebrand
10-13-2010, 01:21 PM
Pulled my info from Street and Smith's Sports Business.

jhns
10-13-2010, 01:29 PM
There will also be an exciting NHL season to watch, Baseball Playoffs, the NBA season, and the UFL to distract us.


I hated the idea of a lockout until my home town Omaha got a UFL team. Now I'd kind of like to see one for a couple selfish reasons.

1) We may get better players for a year.

2) It could draw some interest to the UFL and allow it to survive. These new football leagues never survive and I have my doubts about the UFL. A lockout may be their one chance to actually draw some interest to a new league.

rcsodak
10-13-2010, 02:06 PM
You have been consistently called out by several posters for simply making up ish! This is another instance. :coffee: Nothing in my post is baseless.

You made a clear statement with regard to the draft and stated it NOT ONLY AS FACT but a foregone conclusion.

All I wanted, which was apparently too much, was for you to cite some source for your "fact."

Your refusal to oblige speaks volumes! Go on being the :elefant:
STILL nothing from you. :yawn:
I mentioned Peter King. Also, Pat Kirwin. I'd say thats more than you've provided. I listen to Sirius NFL everyday and have never heard the opposite.
The ONLY draft in question is 2012 and beyond, from what I've found on opinion-laden-only blogs.

Why dont you say who has said otherwise. That's usually how a discussion goes instead of throwing accusations/attacks.
:coffee:

ps. Just saw your info. Couldn't have just posted that initially? Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

rcsodak
10-13-2010, 02:15 PM
I hated the idea of a lockout until my home town Omaha got a UFL team. Now I'd kind of like to see one for a couple selfish reasons.

1) We may get better players for a year.

2) It could draw some interest to the UFL and allow it to survive. These new football leagues never survive and I have my doubts about the UFL. A lockout may be their one chance to actually draw some interest to a new league.
our team SHOULD rock.....its full of ex-Broncos. Lol
And if I'm not mistaken, wasnt the lockout part of the reasoning for the UFL?
On a funny note, the team's owners are talking about the need for a bigger stadium (vs Rosenblatt Stadium).
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Denver Native (Carol)
10-13-2010, 07:42 PM
http://twitter.com/VicLombardi/statuses/27289824938

According to reports, the NFL could lose $1billion if there's a lockout. Oh yeah, the owners have the players right where they want 'em.

I Eat Staples
10-13-2010, 08:11 PM
Okay I don't understand all the legal aspects and I don't care to, all I know is I wait long enough for football to start every offseason, I don't need to go an extra year without it!

HORSEPOWER 56
10-13-2010, 08:26 PM
The owners don't really lose. They still make the majority of their money from TV contracts that aren't happening, and they don't have player/facility expenses.

IMHO a lockout will be the best thing for Denver in terms of giving them time to figure out what exactly they have to do to fix their roster. It will force them to hopefully address the lack of grooming dline, along with giving the oline some time. This is all assuming McDaniels does know what he's doing and is the right man for the job.

Make money now, lose money later. The owners will still get ~ $4 Billion from the TV contracts next year whether there is a season or not... but, they'll have to repay all of that money the following year after bringing in ZERO revenue in the 2011 season meaning they'll start the season heavily in the red.

Not to mention, look at how long it took for MLB and the NHL (still hasn't regained the popularity it had prior to their lock-out) to recover after they took a year off. I think the NFL would take a major hit in popularity and, if nothing else, in merchandise sales if the season doesn't happen. Seriously, how many Jerseys does the NFL sell each year based on big-name FA moves and the draft alone?

Honestly, nobody benefits from a lockout. The Owners have made preparations so they won't go bankrupt if it happens, but they'll never make the money they would've back if they lock out the players.

It's like quitting your job for a year and just living off credit cards with no income coming in. Sooner or later, you've got to pay the bills and you'll never get that year's worth of salary back.

Lonestar
10-13-2010, 08:50 PM
http://twitter.com/VicLombardi/statuses/27289824938

According to reports, the NFL could lose $1billion if there's a lockout. Oh yeah, the owners have the players right where they want 'em.

They get paid from the networks the player do not get paid.

Who flinches first.

If they do not get their costs under cotrol they ultimately lose more than a billion.

Pay me now or pay me later.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

spikerman
10-13-2010, 09:16 PM
Hopefully the players cave. I'm almost always on the side of ownership in these things. Rich guys arguing with other rich guys, but since the owners are the ones with the financial investment and the players make a ton of money to play a game, I hope the players see the light. Either way though, I just hope they get it solved. I have a feeling we Broncos' fans are not going to want this season to be our lasting memory in the event of a long work stoppage.

silkamilkamonico
10-13-2010, 09:25 PM
Make money now, lose money later. The owners will still get ~ $4 Billion from the TV contracts next year whether there is a season or not... but, they'll have to repay all of that money the following year after bringing in ZERO revenue in the 2011 season meaning they'll start the season heavily in the red.

Not to mention, look at how long it took for MLB and the NHL (still hasn't regained the popularity it had prior to their lock-out) to recover after they took a year off. I think the NFL would take a major hit in popularity and, if nothing else, in merchandise sales if the season doesn't happen. Seriously, how many Jerseys does the NFL sell each year based on big-name FA moves and the draft alone?

Honestly, nobody benefits from a lockout. The Owners have made preparations so they won't go bankrupt if it happens, but they'll never make the money they would've back if they lock out the players.

It's like quitting your job for a year and just living off credit cards with no income coming in. Sooner or later, you've got to pay the bills and you'll never get that year's worth of salary back.

Yea I see that now.

I still think if there is a lockout, the NFL will not lose its fanbase. I could be wrong, but it's by far our popular sport, and not because it has tradition or history, but because it just simply kicks ass.

TXBRONC
10-13-2010, 09:35 PM
Hopefully the players cave. I'm almost always on the side of ownership in these things. Rich guys arguing with other rich guys, but since the owners are the ones with the financial investment and the players make a ton of money to play a game, I hope the players see the light. Either way though, I just hope they get it solved. I have a feeling we Broncos' fans are not going to want this season to be our lasting memory in the event of a long work stoppage.

I hope they can find an equitable deal that both sides can live with.

Lonestar
10-14-2010, 01:21 AM
Make money now, lose money later. The owners will still get ~ $4 Billion from the TV contracts next year whether there is a season or not... but, they'll have to repay all of that money the following year after bringing in ZERO revenue in the 2011 season meaning they'll start the season heavily in the red.

Not to mention, look at how long it took for MLB and the NHL (still hasn't regained the popularity it had prior to their lock-out) to recover after they took a year off. I think the NFL would take a major hit in popularity and, if nothing else, in merchandise sales if the season doesn't happen. Seriously, how many Jerseys does the NFL sell each year based on big-name FA moves and the draft alone?

Honestly, nobody benefits from a lockout. The Owners have made preparations so they won't go bankrupt if it happens, but they'll never make the money they would've back if they lock out the players.

It's like quitting your job for a year and just living off credit cards with no income coming in. Sooner or later, you've got to pay the bills and you'll never get that year's worth of salary back.

Just guesssing you have never met a payroll as an owner of a business.

If they do no get control of the salaries paid out they will indeed go bankrupt.

The biggest expense now is 60% salary to the players. They have to reduce that by 4-8% to remain in business long term.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums