Players equally to blame in fiasco

[Northman]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Schrager-NFL-work-stoppage-players-partially-to-blame-fans-are-biggest-losers-030311


The owners aren’t looking to fund and build any new ones (and pay the massive mortgages on them) until the players agree to share a bit more of the financial return. Fans don’t want to hear about the financial minutiae of this “billionaires vs. millionaires” war, but the way the owners and players split the annual gross revenue ($9.3 billion is the expected figure from the 2010 season) heavily favors the players.


If the players don’t like the compromises the owners are asking them to make, they have every right to take the free college educations this game has earned them and find a job elsewhere in an entirely different line of work. No one is forcing them to play professional football.


I think a lot more NFL fans would tune in to a bunch of replacement players wearing NFL jerseys and playing in NFL stadiums than they would the NFL’s best players going at it in tank tops on a high school field.


Of course, both of those scenarios would be awful. My point, though, is that the players need the structure of the league, its teams and the NFL’s cache just as much as the league needs its players to score the touchdowns and make the tackles.


You can pin the blame on the owners if you’d like.


They're all big boys. They can take it. But they’ve got to protect their own financial interests, too.
It’s a two-way street.

[Traveler]

Owners agreed to a bad deal presented by Tagliabue & Upshaw. Now they want to balance the scale.

I understand the need for them to want to grow the game long term. But just saying this business model isn't working without explaining or providing data as to why doesn't make sense IMO.

Also, no one, to my knowledge, has yet to expalin where the billion dollar figure the owners requested off top came from. What criteria was used to arrive at that figure? Were they both negotiating off some arbitrary figure put out by the owners? Great negotiating tactic getting the Union to do so.

The NFL is a business model like no other. Nowhere in this country can a business restrict some of their employees movement with franchise tags, and RFA's. As a business, much of what the NFL does would be against the law if they didn't have the anti-trust exemption.

On the flip side, the Players Union is also partly to blame if it's true all 32 Owners offered to open their books for the last five years and were turned down.

I'm guessing by decertifying, the NLFPA is banking on Judge Doty to rule in their favor. They might be in for a rude awakening.

Billionaires vs. millionaires arguing over money most of us could only dream of making. Sad commentary for all concerned.

[BroncoJoe]

Owners agreed to a bad deal presented by Tagliabue & Upshaw. Now they want to balance the scale.

I understand the need for them to want to grow the game long term. But just saying this business model isn't working without explaining or providing data as to why doesn't make sense IMO.

Also, no one, to my knowledge, has yet to expalin where the billion dollar figure the owners requested off top came from. What criteria was used to arrive at that figure? Were they both negotiating off some arbitrary figure put out by the owners? Great negotiating tactic getting the Union to do so.

The NFL is a business model like no other. Nowhere in this country can a business restrict some of their employees movement with franchise tags, and RFA's. As a business, much of what the NFL does would be against the law if they didn't have the anti-trust exemption.

On the flip side, the Players Union is also partly to blame if it's true all 32 Owners offered to open their books for the last five years and were turned down.

I'm guessing by decertifying, the NLFPA is banking on Judge Doty to rule in their favor. They might be in for a rude awakening.

Billionaires vs. millionaires arguing over money most of us could only dream of making. Sad commentary for all concerned.

While I agree with much of what you said, there are a couple of points to make...

I think the billion originally offered was done so knowing they'd have to negotiate. Last I read, that figure was down to around $500M.

I've had several jobs where in order to work there and represent that company, I had to sign a "no compete" clause in my employment offer. I couldn't simply go to a competitor whenever I wanted. If I did, I would have to wait a specific amount of time, or risk being sued. It's not unheard of even in the corporate world.

I'm really starting to lean toward the owners side. Without the NFL, who knows what the players would be doing. I think we all know how the owners would be fairing.

[MileHighCrew]

I think the players are more than equally to blame. I don't know any other business where employees want owners to open their books. Seems like a completely unrealistic demand to me.

[Traveler]

While I agree with much of what you said, there are a couple of points to make...

I think the billion originally offered was done so knowing they'd have to negotiate. Last I read, that figure was down to around $500M.

I've had several jobs where in order to work there and represent that company, I had to sign a "no compete" clause in my employment offer. I couldn't simply go to a competitor whenever I wanted. If I did, I would have to wait a specific amount of time, or risk being sued. It's not unheard of even in the corporate world.

I'm really starting to lean toward the owners side. Without the NFL, who knows what the players would be doing. I think we all know how the owners would be fairing.

As I understand it, the billion they wanted was money on top of money gained/saved through the CB process. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1 billion or 500 million. Don't understand negotiating a give back when no justication is provided.

[rcsodak]

As I understand it, the billion they wanted was money on top of money gained/saved through the CB process. Correct me if I'm wrong.

1 billion or 500 million. Don't understand negotiating a give back when no justication is provided.

Just to help aleviate operating costs, stadiums, etx. Really, if the league is as vibrant and stable as the players seem to think it is, it wouldn't take that long to makeup for even the $1B. Right?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[BroncoStud]

The players are 75% to blame. They don't just want the cake, they want the bakery, and aren't willing to take any financial risk to buy it.

[Traveler]

Just to help aleviate operating costs, stadiums, etx. Really, if the league is as vibrant and stable as the players seem to think it is, it wouldn't take that long to makeup for even the $1B. Right?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Flip that argument to the owners. If the league owners are having such financial difficulty, where are the facts to justify their grievances?

No franchise is losing money, or at least no proof has been put forward.

Both sides are being greedy and unreasonable IMO.

[Poet]

I think the players are more than equally to blame. I don't know any other business where employees want owners to open their books. Seems like a completely unrealistic demand to me.

At this point I am on the owners side, but this is reasonable.

The system was set up that the players get a percentage of the profits. They are technically 'partners' in that regard. They have a right to see that they are getting their money.

To paraphrase Dreadnough "Temptation is too high when you're talking about billions of dollars."

I lost the players when they turned down the compromise the owners proposed. It was a very reasonable compromise for both sides.

The Drew Brees bit of them 'lying' about it does not work for me. If the owners were lying and then publish that proposal they would be HOSED if the union said that they withdrew it.

[TXBRONC]

I wasn't on the owner's side when it came to the $4 billion dollars they were going to get even if games were not played. But after they turned down what appears to be a very fair offer that soured me quite bit. In they are both blame equally.

[rcsodak]

Flip that argument to the owners. If the league owners are having such financial difficulty, where are the facts to justify their grievances?

No franchise is losing money, or at least no proof has been put forward.

Both sides are being greedy and unreasonable IMO.
Well, since most of the owners were already successful in the personal fields before buying the teams, I would imagine they know better than to WAIT to lose money before doing something about it. They've claimed they were seeing trends, and wanted to nip them in the bud BEFORE they get to that point.

They signed a player friendly contract in '06....by '08 they had decided they'd seen enough. They showed 1 team's profit shrinking by 50%.

I defer to the overtly compensator vs the overly compensated.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Traveler]

Well, since most of the owners were already successful in the personal fields before buying the teams, I would imagine they know better than to WAIT to lose money before doing something about it. They've claimed they were seeing trends, and wanted to nip them in the bud BEFORE they get to that point.

They signed a player friendly contract in '06....by '08 they had decided they'd seen enough. They showed 1 team's profit shrinking by 50%.

I defer to the overtly compensator vs the overly compensated.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Point taken. With them having run successful businesses, I don't think they are waiting for anything.

My issues are the owners have repeatedly said this bisness model is no longer sustainable for them, but have yet to show why and how it effects individual team operations and the NFL as a whole.

And I'm not referencing the issues of opening their individual financial records.

[rcsodak]

Point taken. With them having run successful businesses, I don't think they are waiting for anything.

My issues are the owners have repeatedly said this bisness model is no longer sustainable for them, but have yet to show why and how it effects individual team operations and the NFL as a whole.

And I'm not referencing the issues of opening their individual financial records.
Correct. They mentioned" trends" and 'future viability'.
Billick was on sirius nfl. He said the union can find most everything they need re each team through public records. That since most of the teams are family owned small businesses (80-120 emps), they sgouldnt have to show what they're doing with their profits any more than players should have to show what theyre spending their checks on.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Dirk]

I still don't get it. Seriously.

If my company hired a bunch of contractors (players are contracted not hired by the NFL) and then those contractors wanted 60% of the company's profits and wanted to see the companies books....we know they would be canned.

[rcsodak]

Is the nfl's antitrust exception gone along with the cba? Tagging? Free agency? Draft? (After this one) The whole kitnkaboodle?
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Poet]

I still don't get it. Seriously.

If my company hired a bunch of contractors (players are contracted not hired by the NFL) and then those contractors wanted 60% of the company's profits and wanted to see the companies books....we know they would be canned.

They're partners in terms of revenue. That's why it's inevitable that they see the books.

The 60% of the profits is ******* stupid.

[The Glue Factory]

They're partners in terms of revenue. That's why it's inevitable that they see the books.

The 60% of the profits is ******* stupid.

The owners called their bluff when they were offered the past 5 years and the PA declined the offer. I wonder whose "negotiations" have been "all show" at this point considering the PA has acted more like my 3 yr old having a meltdown than a party interested in negotiating a viable contract. The "My way or the highway" tactic rarely works in contract negotiations.

[Lonestar]

Sounds to me that the union made some promises that were unrealistic to a bunch of morons and now can't convince them they are not going to get it.

Unions are like that.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Poet]

The owners called their bluff when they were offered the past 5 years and the PA declined the offer. I wonder whose "negotiations" have been "all show" at this point considering the PA has acted more like my 3 yr old having a meltdown than a party interested in negotiating a viable contract. The "My way or the highway" tactic rarely works in contract negotiations.

There is a lot of truth in there.

What kills me is that the union should have taken that offer. They SHOULD have walked away feeling very smug about it.

At this point they're playing hardball with guys who are better equipped to deal with financial loss than they are.

[rcsodak]

Pash was on sirius nfl...laid out everything that was in the offer.

In one word....

WOW!

And all the union is going out there with is allegations/namecalling.

Or, a pillow in a gun fight.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Lonestar]

It has always been myexprience when dealing with unions that after a few weeks of NO income that the employees come back for LESS than our final offer was.

Not saying that it will happen with the millionaires but is suspect 95% of them spend it as fast as it hits the bank.

Not unlike Joe average.

Unless a court fubars it I suspect this will last until about week 3'of the season. When these morons are all tapped out or tired of "living" beneath their life styles.
No more clubbing, dropping big money in vegas. Etc. The house mortgage is due electricity is shut off they wil be eager to get a check and wil sign for less than the final offer.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Nomad]

Sounds to me that the union made some promises that were unrealistic to a bunch of morons and now can't convince them they are not going to get it.

Unions are like that.Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

With 12 yrs experience, I can agree with this statement of union's making promises they can't keep.

According to Foxworth, it sounds like many players are getting restless and I believe they'll cave in. Foxworth came out and said players are willing to play without being union.

[Northman]

Foxworth came out and said players are willing to play without being union.

And thats the rub for the players. Most of them dont make millions of dollars so they probably dont have a shitload of cash stashed for events like this. At some point they will need to work and make money, especially if their backup plan isnt working.

[Lonestar]

I suspect that even the millionaires have spent their money like drunken sailors in a brothel. Unless their agents stuck money away most of those working on their rookie contracts which is a huge number since the average life span in the NFL is like 4 something years.
That most if the players will be hurting IF they miss checks in sept.

The of the reasons that the PA was looking to block the TV money. Why they want a part of it so they can keep the strike going longer.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums