PDA

View Full Version : Who is in the Right?



broncoFan!
07-01-2011, 02:14 AM
I know that there have probablly been polls like this before on broncos forums before but I'm curious to see your opinion.

Who are you rooting for in this debate of epic proportions?

The owners orrrr........

The players?

claymore
07-01-2011, 02:51 AM
I dont care if the players make 50K a year. In fact, I prefer that scenario. I really dont see what leverage they have. Most of these jabronies cant do anything else.

sneakers
07-01-2011, 02:54 AM
I like baby ducks myself....they are cute and fuzzy


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3316/3645062036_47bae74ea1.jpg

Lonestar
07-01-2011, 08:55 AM
For the long term good of the league the owners who have invested millions have to get a good contract.

Buff
07-01-2011, 08:59 AM
Both sides are greedy and entitled. Both were extremely profitable prior to the lockout. Both deserve nothing but extreme animosity and disdain from fans.

Tned
07-01-2011, 09:31 AM
Well, based on those poll choices, it's tough to answer. Especially, since the thread title is "who is in the right" and then the question is "who do you side with." I think those are two very different questions.

Who is in the right, I think I would say neither. The way both sides are handling things is far from ideal.

Now, in terms of who do I side with? If I have to pick one, then I have to go with the owners.

First, they own the businesses. They should get the lion share of the profits. If the players feel they "are the league", then they have every right to go start their own league, just like people have tried to do in the past.

Second, my loyalty to the Broncos and the NFL extends past the current crop of players. In fact, the changes in terms of free agency has created more player turnover and has 'hurt' the league from a fan/team perspective. I fully understand it from a player's standpoint, and think the version of free agency we've had for a while (RFA's and UFA's) was a decent compromise. Still, the Tebow's, Clady's and Royals of the world will come and go, and while I like them, I will be rooting for the next generation of Broncos players 10 years from now.

Third and finally, I have a problem with the player's tactics. I think they made a bad choice in terms of De Smith and their other council (can't remember his name). Their inflammatory speak and use of the press has at least, speaking personally, damaged my view of the players and their position. From talking about the worst union deal ever, to the equivalent of slavery (more from player reps), to threatening to decertify (and then doing it after the lockout), and finally to threaten to go to court to find some of the most fundamental aspects of the game we love, like the draft or the ability to trade players, to be illegal.

So, while I think both sides are losing sight of the "golden egg", us or more accurately our money or money spent to get us to watch the networks, I can't put equal weight in terms of blame for where we are at. So, I have to lean towards siding with the owners.

NightTerror218
07-01-2011, 11:16 AM
I would have to say owners, since it is their business and they are the ones taking care of all expenses and costs to run the business. The players act like they are the whole reason there is a league. I bet there are hundreds of college players who are FA or never drafted that would play for 10% of what the league minimum is. They would be almost as exciting being replacement players.

Grover
07-01-2011, 11:40 AM
The whole reason we are in this situation is because the OWNERS opted out of the collective bargaining agreement and locked out the players.

Although I don't agree with some of the tactics used on either side, this is not a strike, this is the Owners saying they want a different method of paying their workers, and were willing to halt production until they get it.

That's why I voted for the Players in the poll. Probably my real feelings are that the players side is "more right" than the Owner's side. But what they need to do is figure out their differences and get an agreement done.

slim
07-01-2011, 11:44 AM
I hope they all get herpes.

Bunch of greedy effing chicken******s.

Buff
07-01-2011, 11:47 AM
The whole reason we are in this situation is because the OWNERS opted out of the collective bargaining agreement and locked out the players.

Although I don't agree with some of the tactics used on either side, this is not a strike, this is the Owners saying they want a different method of paying their workers, and were willing to halt production until they get it.

That's why I voted for the Players in the poll. Probably my real feelings are that the players side is "more right" than the Owner's side. But what they need to do is figure out their differences and get an agreement done.

But at the same time, if my employer said it was going to cut my pay I would take a paycut or be replaced. That's where I depart from the players. Who ever said they are entitled to these exorbitant salaries?

I think the owners are greedy for demanding more profits in an already profitable industry - but it's their right to do so... The players just feel like they are entitled to the money they've been making.

slim
07-01-2011, 11:50 AM
But at the same time, if my employer said it was going to cut my pay I would take a paycut or be replaced. That's where I depart from the players. Who ever said they are entitled to these exorbitant salaries?

I think the owners are greedy for demanding more profits in an already profitable industry - but it's their right to do so... The players just feel like they are entitled to the money they've been making.

That thought process is not limited to NFL players. Seems most everyone now feels they are entilited to something.

Tned
07-01-2011, 12:17 PM
But at the same time, if my employer said it was going to cut my pay I would take a paycut or be replaced. That's where I depart from the players. Who ever said they are entitled to these exorbitant salaries?

I think the owners are greedy for demanding more profits in an already profitable industry - but it's their right to do so... The players just feel like they are entitled to the money they've been making.

Yep, and hence they both have enough leverage that neither side has caved easily.

Denver Native (Carol)
07-01-2011, 12:29 PM
I side with the owners. I have posted the following before, where players commented on the great deal they got in 2006. There is definitely a totally different economy out there now, than there was in 2006. From what the players stated in regards to the 2006 CBA, it appears that the owners gave them everything they wanted. I believe the players should now be realistic in regards to this new CBA.


“We had a great deal,” Warner recently said, per Mike Sando of ESPN.com. “We had one of the best deals, in my opinion, of any of the pro sports when you talking about all of the things involved. Players knew that. We understood that. It afforded us lots of luxuries and making a lot of money.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/16/kurt-warner-echoes-kevin-mawaes-comments-about-quality-of-2006-cba/


Trent Dilfer echoes view that 2006 CBA was a great one for players

“I have talked to people on both sides,” Dilfer told ESPN 710 in Seattle. “I have always said from the get-go there had to be a lockout. We won the last Collective Bargaining Agreement by so much. I remember thinking when we actually signed the extension, ‘What are the owners doing? I mean we are killing them on this.’ I was playing at the time and I reaped all the benefits of it. I knew there had to be a lockout this time around. I knew there’d be a lot of drama surrounding it; a lot of conjecture; a lot of lawyering going on.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/23/trent-dilfer-echoes-view-that-2006-cba-was-a-great-one-for-players/

nevcraw
07-01-2011, 04:37 PM
The whole reason we are in this situation is because the OWNERS opted out of the collective bargaining agreement and locked out the players.

Although I don't agree with some of the tactics used on either side, this is not a strike, this is the Owners saying they want a different method of paying their workers, and were willing to halt production until they get it.

That's why I voted for the Players in the poll. Probably my real feelings are that the players side is "more right" than the Owner's side. But what they need to do is figure out their differences and get an agreement done.

spot on.

broncohead
07-01-2011, 06:30 PM
Why cant the nfl just come out with their own set of rules and if the players dont want to play they don't have to? Like say x% is for the players no negotiations you either play or you don't?

atwater27
07-01-2011, 07:13 PM
My dumb ass voted for the players. Oops. I meant to vote for the owners. Cuz I'm a corporate crony lovin anti-Union *******.

TXBRONC
07-02-2011, 10:26 PM
My dumb ass voted for the players. Oops. I meant to vote for the owners. Cuz I'm a corporate crony lovin anti-Union *******.

I figured you for a union nut buster. :D

horsepig
07-03-2011, 04:22 AM
Plane and simple, the owners carry all the maintenance costs, cheat locals out of tax dollars (that should be spent on education/infrastructure) and are getting richer than we dumbos can imagine.

Are the new stadiums worth the investment by the public? You tell me.

Bowlen took the greatest home field advantage in the NFL and turned it into a whine & cheese piece of shit. You cannot even leave your nosebleed seats (not exactly cheapos @ $75/per) and sit in the early leavers seats in the 4'th quarter's empty seats.

Do you know why?

Incestco @ mihi (cough, choke) has separated the upper decks ( seats) from the high and mighty 50 year season ticketholders on the 50 and in the lower levels.

I use the 50 year ticket holders as a joke, the best seats in that ******* mwhore house go to the whiners, or so it seems to me.

Screw'em, the stadium is a ******* public disgrace, and a complete failure as to keeping the faithful. Bowlen can take the ******* "skyboxes" and shove'em right up his lily white ass.

horsepig
07-03-2011, 04:43 AM
That being said, I do think the owners have the "rights" in this argument.

What do the players bring to the table that can't be pretty easily replaced by replaced players (pun intended)?

The players don't do anything outside the obvious, playing the snaps. It really comes down to will "we" as fans watch anything they put out?

Hell, the "Old Boys" don't want Tebow to succede. Why, because it bucks the comfortable norm, upon which we & they (the bastids) like to BET.

The next time I hear that a NFL franchiuse can't ******* possibly compete w/o a new (or maybe evewn newer) domed ******* stadium, I will just ******* yell Lambeau Field you stupid mother******s.

Lonestar
07-03-2011, 10:15 AM
Well HP tell us how you really feel


What I did not understand was this comment

"Hell, the "Old Boys" don't want Tebow to succede. Why, because it bucks the comfortable norm, upon which we & they (the bastids) like to BET."

Could someone explain it?

Canmore
07-05-2011, 01:11 AM
Well HP tell us how you really feel


What I did not understand was this comment

"Hell, the "Old Boys" don't want Tebow to succede. Why, because it bucks the comfortable norm, upon which we & they (the bastids) like to BET."

Could someone explain it?

Don't look at me. :rolleyes:

I said neither but the current buisness model does not appear sustainable for the owners and they opted out of the deal. The owners slice of the pie would appear to need to be bigger. I actually heard a number being bandied around that the players would get 48% and the owners 52% after 1 billion taken off the top for the owners. Thats quite a concession since the players are getting56% right now iirc, with the billion off of the top. :listen:

Lonestar
07-05-2011, 02:47 AM
Don't look at me. :rolleyes:

I said neither but the current buisness model does not appear sustainable for the owners and they opted out of the deal. The owners slice of the pie would appear to need to be bigger. I actually heard a number being bandied around that the players would get 48% and the owners 52% after 1 billio
n taken off the top for the owners. Thats quite a concession since the players are getting56% right now iirc, with the billion off of the top. :listen:

As faras I understood it the players were getting 60
Plus the billion off the top

Canmore
07-05-2011, 03:00 AM
As faras I understood it the players were getting 60
Plus the billion off the top

You may be right. I'm going from memory. I thought the owners got the first billion and The player 56% of what was left, but I could be wrong. It maybe 60%. Whatever it is , if Green Bay's books are indicative of the state of affairs it is not sustainable for the franchises to make money, or at least a reasonable return on their investment.

Canmore
07-05-2011, 03:03 AM
I looked it up, your right. The players are getting 60%. Don't know how I forgot that, oh well.

Npba900
07-05-2011, 11:39 AM
I'm on the players side for the CBA. The owners not so much. Here's why. The modern day owners of today and how the NFL is structured as a league and within the "Good Ole Boy System" are not in danger of ever losing their franchises. If you go back the last 30 years NFL owners have prospered and their franchises have increased in value. In other words NFL owners make their profits in the NFL over the long haul. Sure they have a lot of financial obligations and risk for feeding the monster called the NFL, but then again this is the nature of business's and environment they knew they were getting into.

As for the NFL players their ability to earn millions is a short term affair when one considers the violent physical demands and nature to play in the NFL. Now of course like the owners realized the financial risk, the players have also understood the physical risk of injuries ending their careers on a single play or within 4 years into their careers.

Despite the most violent professional sports in America, the players salary's/contracts are not guaranteed only the signing bonuses are guaranteed.

Last I checked, the fans do not go to the stadiums to watch the owners sit their luxury boxes like Roman Gladiator owners or VIP Guest. I have yet to witness owners throwing TD passes, or running for tough yardage, breaking off long runs from scrimmage, or sacking the QB, or catching the tough pass over the middle, or supplying the key block(s) for TD's, or kicking a FG to win a game, or returning punts and kickoffs for TD's. Fans go to the stadium(s) to watch highly skilled athletic NFL players to do all the aforementioned.

Without the players their isn't an NFL. Watching the NFL network what is promoted constantly? Its the players! Sure a little time is given to owners and such, but for the most part its the players who have made the NFL what it is today.

Juriga72
07-05-2011, 12:07 PM
I voted for the players....

In the "Old" CBA... that 1 billion is 31.25 MILLION each year/each team guaranteed. and THATS just TV money....
I'm sorry.. but when each team (Please show me where ONE NFL team lost money) MAKES money each year....and wants to make MORE money... I go with the workers.

Do I want to pay 75.00/seat to see D-III guys playing ( 1987 Strike/Scab players)....?

Sorry.... but if you want to put the bestest product out there Pat...pay the bestest....LMAO

Denver Native (Carol)
07-05-2011, 12:16 PM
I voted for the players....

In the "Old" CBA... that 1 billion is 31.25 MILLION each year/each team guaranteed. and THATS just TV money....
I'm sorry.. but when each team (Please show me where ONE NFL team lost money) MAKES money each year....and wants to make MORE money... I go with the workers.

Do I want to pay 75.00/seat to see D-III guys playing ( 1987 Strike/Scab players)....?

Sorry.... but if you want to put the bestest product out there Pat...pay the bestest....LMAO

Comments in regards to CBA which expired:


“We had a great deal,” Warner recently said, per Mike Sando of ESPN.com. “We had one of the best deals, in my opinion, of any of the pro sports when you talking about all of the things involved. Players knew that. We understood that. It afforded us lots of luxuries and making a lot of money.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...y-of-2006-cba/


Trent Dilfer echoes view that 2006 CBA was a great one for players

“I have talked to people on both sides,” Dilfer told ESPN 710 in Seattle. “I have always said from the get-go there had to be a lockout. We won the last Collective Bargaining Agreement by so much. I remember thinking when we actually signed the extension, ‘What are the owners doing? I mean we are killing them on this.’ I was playing at the time and I reaped all the benefits of it. I knew there had to be a lockout this time around. I knew there’d be a lot of drama surrounding it; a lot of conjecture; a lot of lawyering going on.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...e-for-players/

At that time, economy was great, and it appears that the players got EVERYTHING they wanted. The economy is ANYTHING but great now.

BroncoJoe
07-05-2011, 12:32 PM
Like I've said before - the owners would still be billionaires without the NFL.

The players? Anyone's guess.

LordTrychon
07-05-2011, 12:56 PM
This was my response to the 'is it possible some owners have lost money' question in another thread... posted originally on Mania, but reposted here, and if I did it right this time, the link to that discussion should work.



If you're not going to read this all, at least read the bold quote.

The majority of arguments against the Owner's stance that the current system is unsustainable seem to stem soley from the fact that revenues have increased and there's no way that profit could decrease in that case. No offense, but it seems to be based soley on personal opinion from that... and if you have the personal opinion that it is plausible that profits are declining, you must be naive.

I've posted articles before that showed that it was plausible indeed, but never really got responses. If I post another, with arguments from both sides, will someone respond? This is from Forbes... who knows more than any of us about the true nature of the NFL as a business.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html


Last year proved that even the blue chip National Football League has not been immune to the recession.

NFL team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop. (Note: Our valuations are enterprise values, and include revenue from stadiums but not the value of the real estate.) Team values slipped because the bad economy has reduced demand (there are fewer people with the cash to buy a team, and borrowing has become more difficult) and less nonbroadcasting revenue for many teams.

The article I previously posted had 8 teams dropping in value (the first time in the history of the tracking that any team had dropped in value). This was the first time the average value dropped. 21/32 teams seeing a drop in value... though admittedly partially due to demand.


But thanks to long-term television contracts negotiated before the recession, the NFL's profitability has never been stronger.

I don't exactly understand this when they go on to show profitability problems later... but there you have it. Forbes does think that the league has strong profitability.


The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

Other articles have shown the Packer's operating profit dropping from $30+ million in 2006 to just under $5 million last year.


The most valuable NFL team is the Dallas Cowboys: Its value increased a league high 9%, to $1.8 billion. The team, worth more than any other sports franchise in the world, save soccer club Manchester United ($1.84 billion), moved into its new $1.25 billion stadium last season and sold out every regular season game with the league's highest average ticket price, $160.

Obviously, nobody thinks that ALL the teams are hurting. We know that there are teams that are thriving. The article talks about the league becoming tiered. Yikes. So yes, there are definitely some teams that are doing very well for themselves. No doubt.

The problem is that even a few teams doing badly is bad for the entire league in the long run... unless you favor contraction.

The article gives more details about the Redskins and Patriots... the next best teams for profit.

Here's where it gets scary.

I've said all along, as have others that nobody is claiming that teams are losing money... just that the profit is trending down, and the owners are within their rights to try to protect themselves from getting to the point where they do in fact see losses.


At the other end of the scale, the NFL's low-revenue teams are struggling to keep pace with their big-market competition. The NFL's 10 least valuable teams all declined in value over the past year, led by the Jacksonville Jaguars, which fell 16% to $725 million. The Jags lost 17,000 season ticket holders following a disappointing 5-win, 11-loss season in 2008. The poor support forced the Jaguars to have all but one of its games blacked out locally on TV. The Jags boosted their season ticket base for the upcoming season, but did it with heavily discounted tickets.

Ok... that's a bit scary, but partially their own fault for sucking.... but moving on...


The Detroit Lions (owned by auto scion William Clay Ford) are one of only two teams to lose money ($2.9 million) last season on an operating basis (the Miami Dolphins lost $7.7 million). This marks the third time in four years the Lions have posted an operating loss.

:eek:

Is it still implausible that the owners have reason for seeing a new balance in the revenue sharing between clubs and teams? Am I out of mind for believing that?

Last note - regarding the talk about how teams don't even pay for the stadiums...


The team is burdened with a hefty debt load of $350 million thanks to the Lions' contribution to the $440 million Ford Field, which opened in 2002. The Lions have struggled to sell tickets since becoming the first NFL team to ever finish winless in a 16-game season in 2008. The Lions had half of its eight home games blacked out last year as it failed to sell out 72 hours before kickoff. The team cut ticket prices on 19,000 seats for this season in hopes of boosting attendance.

Juriga72
07-05-2011, 05:34 PM
EVERYTHING[/B] they wanted. The economy is ANYTHING but great now.

Good....

THEN Pat will be willing to lower beer to 3.50/each because "The economy is not doing well"....

Pat would also LOVE to lower ticket prices to 25.00/seat because also "The economy isn't doing well either"...

UNTIL Pat thinks about doing ANYTHING because the economy isn't doing well......

OH and "Because the economy isn't doing well...." The NEXT TV contract is reported to be about 11.5 Billion up from the LAST one of 8 billion.....


http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/06/expected_windfall_from_next_nf.html

BTW....Because of the fact that we are in a terrible economy... TV ratings continue to soar due to the fact that many more are sitting at home now. Unable to continue pricey season tickets, or even going to bars for the games.....

SO now the owners are even more disrespectful to those who CAN go to these games by making them pay more to make up for the sheer volume of sales lost to those who cannot attend games. Yet these same owners are getting MORE money due to higher TV ratings....

So in a nutshell its a vicious circle where if we don't go to the games, they make MORE money... and if we do go to the game...they make money anyways. Sorry... but unlike other sports where teams are losing money i have not a ounce of sympathy for them.......

Pat if you ARE looking for sympathy..... Its in the dictionary in between Sh** and Syphilis

Denver Native (Carol)
07-05-2011, 06:56 PM
Good....

THEN Pat will be willing to lower beer to 3.50/each because "The economy is not doing well"....

Pat would also LOVE to lower ticket prices to 25.00/seat because also "The economy isn't doing well either"...

UNTIL Pat thinks about doing ANYTHING because the economy isn't doing well......

OH and "Because the economy isn't doing well...." The NEXT TV contract is reported to be about 11.5 Billion up from the LAST one of 8 billion.....


http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2011/06/expected_windfall_from_next_nf.html

BTW....Because of the fact that we are in a terrible economy... TV ratings continue to soar due to the fact that many more are sitting at home now. Unable to continue pricey season tickets, or even going to bars for the games.....

SO now the owners are even more disrespectful to those who CAN go to these games by making them pay more to make up for the sheer volume of sales lost to those who cannot attend games. Yet these same owners are getting MORE money due to higher TV ratings....

So in a nutshell its a vicious circle where if we don't go to the games, they make MORE money... and if we do go to the game...they make money anyways. Sorry... but unlike other sports where teams are losing money i have not a ounce of sympathy for them.......

Pat if you ARE looking for sympathy..... Its in the dictionary in between Sh** and Syphilis

Invesco Field is owned/operated by:

INVESCO Field at Mile High
Stadium Management Company, LLC
1701 Bryant Street, Suite 700
Denver, Colorado 80204

Metropolitan Football Stadium District

INVESCO Field at Mile High is owned by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District (MFSD). MFSD is a corporate body and political subdivision of the State of Colorado.

And, in regards to concession stands, etc.

Concession Stands

Centerplate is the exclusive concessionaire for INVESCO Field at Mile High providing both traditional stadium cuisine and specialty concession stands that include the following fare. Please note that locations of all food and beverage stands are subject to change.

I would assume that Centerplate sets the prices.

http://www.invescofieldatmilehigh.com/index.php?section=contact_us&subsection=overview

NightTerror218
07-05-2011, 07:22 PM
I voted for the players....

In the "Old" CBA... that 1 billion is 31.25 MILLION each year/each team guaranteed. and THATS just TV money....
I'm sorry.. but when each team (Please show me where ONE NFL team lost money) MAKES money each year....and wants to make MORE money... I go with the workers.

Do I want to pay 75.00/seat to see D-III guys playing ( 1987 Strike/Scab players)....?

Sorry.... but if you want to put the bestest product out there Pat...pay the bestest....LMAO


DO you know the expense they each team has to pay? You think the stadium runs itself, bills pay them selves, stadium maintenance never happens, you think beers walk themselves into your hand (god I wish they did). They have over 100 employees to operate and maintain your clean stalls (some what clean). Between just employs that is a couple million dollars.

When the players start to pay for something I will go with them, but I go with the guys who pay to make sure we have the league. And i would take replacement players who were good college players and possible arena players over snobby players who are not happy with making millions every year. The NFL employees thousands of people, no including players. And through the NFL there are bars, merchandise supplies, and other businesses they benefit from the NFL. Without the billionaires there is no NFL, who can front the costs? Without the players we have replacements and would have the NFL players who actually love the game rather then the players who play for money.

Npba900
07-05-2011, 08:24 PM
Like I've said before - the owners would still be billionaires without the NFL.

The players? Anyone's guess.

So what are the corporate NFL owners locking out the players for? The owners are not in danger of going bankrupt due to how the players are paid!

The Corporate NFL owners have the same problem and illness that the rest of Corporate America has.....and its pure obscene Greed. Besides owner who own NFL teams today can be profitable for 40 years plus....and pass the franchise down to their children and wives. Whereas the avg NFL players only have a 4-10 year window to earn money in the NFL.

Npba900
07-05-2011, 08:53 PM
DO you know the expense they each team has to pay? You think the stadium runs itself, bills pay them selves, stadium maintenance never happens, you think beers walk themselves into your hand (god I wish they did). They have over 100 employees to operate and maintain your clean stalls (some what clean). Between just employs that is a couple million dollars.

When the players start to pay for something I will go with them, but I go with the guys who pay to make sure we have the league. And i would take replacement players who were good college players and possible arena players over snobby players who are not happy with making millions every year. The NFL employees thousands of people, no including players. And through the NFL there are bars, merchandise supplies, and other businesses they benefit from the NFL. Without the billionaires there is no NFL, who can front the costs? Without the players we have replacements and would have the NFL players who actually love the game rather then the players who play for money.

Lets not forget it was the owners that voted to opt out of the CBA that brought in $9 billion in revenues last year. I can’t wrap my head around that number......isn't that enough money???

Its the owners who have brought this on. The players were satisfied with the old contract - CBA.

Why would they do this when it seemed they’ve had such a good thing going? Its because they can. Football is so much a part of the social fabric of this country that it’s bulletproof. At least in the eyes of the GREEDY ROMAN GLADIATOR owners. I say thumbs down on the owners. BURN THE LUXURY BOXES.

Dzone
07-05-2011, 08:58 PM
I dont even follow it anymore. Reading the sports pages anymore is like reading the legal or business briefs...it totally sux...I know one thing, that Demarious Smith or whatever his name is who represents the players needs to ditch the STUPID LOOKING HAT OMG..Does he even realize what a total moron he looks like in that thing?

LordTrychon
07-05-2011, 09:16 PM
As usual, nobody on the players' side will respond to my breakdown or Carol's quotes.

Carol shows that the union knew they got an overly friendly deal last time. How did they do that? By threatening strike, just a few years back. 2006. So it's not like the owners are the only ones to play hard ball.

My article shows that the owners' grievances weren't without basis. At least two teams were losing money. The players got too much in the last deal. Rectifying the situation was necessary and will not be a pay cut for any player.

Players will see a decrease in future raises. Not a bad deal in an economy that has caused layoffs and pay freezes and cuts. Owners have seen a decrease in income. A decrease in pay raises for the players is fair.

Just figuring out the final numbers now.

TXBRONC
07-05-2011, 09:36 PM
Don't look at me. :rolleyes:

I said neither but the current buisness model does not appear sustainable for the owners and they opted out of the deal. The owners slice of the pie would appear to need to be bigger. I actually heard a number being bandied around that the players would get 48% and the owners 52% after 1 billion taken off the top for the owners. Thats quite a concession since the players are getting56% right now iirc, with the billion off of the top. :listen:

I thought I heard that it that split would be based off of all revenues and not revenues after the first billion is taken off the the top.

Denver Native (Carol)
07-05-2011, 09:39 PM
Lets not forget it was the owners that voted to opt out of the CBA that brought in $9 billion in revenues last year. I can’t wrap my head around that number......isn't that enough money???

Its the owners who have brought this on. The players were satisfied with the old contract - CBA.

Why would they do this when it seemed they’ve had such a good thing going? Its because they can. Football is so much a part of the social fabric of this country that it’s bulletproof. At least in the eyes of the GREEDY ROMAN GLADIATOR owners. I say thumbs down on the owners. BURN THE LUXURY BOXES.

I thought the, as you say, old CBA was up :confused: And of course the players were satisfied with the old contract - read my post #27 as to why they were satisfied - no, not satisfied - OVERJOYED - dancing and laughing all the way to the bank.

TXBRONC
07-05-2011, 09:41 PM
As usual, nobody on the players' side will respond to my breakdown or Carol's quotes.

Carol shows that the union knew they got an overly friendly deal last time. How did they do that? By threatening strike, just a few years back. 2006. So it's not like the owners are the only ones to play hard ball.

My article shows that the owners' grievances weren't without basis. At least two teams were losing money. The players got too much in the last deal. Rectifying the situation was necessary and will not be a pay cut for any player.

Players will see a decrease in future raises. Not a bad deal in an economy that has caused layoffs and pay freezes and cuts. Owners have seen a decrease in income. A decrease in pay raises for the players is fair.

Just figuring out the final numbers now.

The players wanted to keep the status quo. I don't think the players should get big of bite of the pie. Based it off of all revenues but should closer to a 50/50 split with the owners getting the bigger portion.

Canmore
07-05-2011, 09:41 PM
I thought I heard that it that split would be based off of all revenues and not revenues after the first billion is taken off the the top.

Parameters change so rapidly that it is hard to keep up and I try. I thought that the owners were getting one billion off of the top, but rumors may now include all revenue. I honestly don't know. Don't even know where to look. Lol.

TXBRONC
07-05-2011, 09:43 PM
Parameters change so rapidly that it is hard to keep up and I try. I thought that the owners were getting one billion off of the top, but rumors may now include all revenue. I honestly don't know. Don't even know where to look. Lol.

It sounds we might know for sure how it all shakes out by the end of the week.

Canmore
07-05-2011, 09:48 PM
It sounds we might know for sure how it all shakes out by the end of the week.

Looks like you are right. According to ESPN June 22, 2011


Among the details NFL commissioner Roger Goodell revealed to owners Tuesday at the league's meeting in Rosemont, Ill., is that in the next proposed agreement players will receive a 48 percent share of "all revenue," without the $1-billion-plus credit off the top that had been a point of contention in earlier negotiations, according to sources familiar with the presentation.

Rest at

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 06:48 AM
DO you know the expense they each team has to pay? You think the stadium runs itself, bills pay them selves, stadium maintenance never happens, you think beers walk themselves into your hand (god I wish they did). They have over 100 employees to operate and maintain your clean stalls (some what clean). Between just employs that is a couple million dollars.

When the players start to pay for something I will go with them, but I go with the guys who pay to make sure we have the league. And i would take replacement players who were good college players and possible arena players over snobby players who are not happy with making millions every year. The NFL employees thousands of people, no including players. And through the NFL there are bars, merchandise supplies, and other businesses they benefit from the NFL. Without the billionaires there is no NFL, who can front the costs? Without the players we have replacements and would have the NFL players who actually love the game rather then the players who play for money.

Ok.... Here's what the Green Bay Packers show ( ONLY team releasing ANY data- Publicly held)-

2009- (Last year released) took in 245 MILLION dollars

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5379673

Spent 113 million on salaries ( Same year we spent 101 million)

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team


JUST like Walmart.....The Denver Broncos "Need to cap salaries to show profits"??????

really?

Who had the #1 selling jeresy last year???? Oh yeah... we did

Guess what else.... Pat's luxury boxes.... THAT money goes right to him.

I too want my Denver Bronco QB to make 8.50/hr just like the checkout guy at Walmart.... And I expect the very same quality of service from him also.

LordTrychon
07-06-2011, 07:06 AM
Ok.... Here's what the Green Bay Packers show ( ONLY team releasing ANY data- Publicly held)-

2009- (Last year released) took in 245 MILLION dollars

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5379673

Spent 113 million on salaries ( Same year we spent 101 million)

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team


JUST like Walmart.....The Denver Broncos "Need to cap salaries to show profits"??????

really?

Who had the #1 selling jeresy last year???? Oh yeah... we did

Guess what else.... Pat's luxury boxes.... THAT money goes right to him.

I too want my Denver Bronco QB to make 8.50/hr just like the checkout guy at Walmart.... And I expect the very same quality of service from him also.

Still no response to my post showing financial woes in the league for some of the smaller markets?

Every team has capped salaries... wth are you talking about here?

HORSEPOWER 56
07-06-2011, 07:22 AM
For me, the bottom line is that without the owners there is no league. I realize that we cheer for players and buy their jerseys, but let's be honest - if all the teams dissolved their rosters and started from scratch would the majority of the fans just stop watching, even if the product was sub-par for a few years while they got back on their feet? Of course not, especially because the talent level across the league would be universal and there would still be parity.

Sure, the Broncos fanbase would lose some important members like Bullgator if we didn't have Tebow on the roster :D, but it's not like the majority of us would stop being fans just because the roster got revamped. Shit, McDaniels did that without a lockout (turned over all but 11 players on the roster during his 2 year tenure) and nobody left. Lots of fans complained, but nobody really abandoned the team.

We want football and will watch even if the talent pool takes a hit. It's no different than if your favorite college team has a shit coach or a couple bad years recruiting. Do fans just up and leave? No. Hell, Buff is still around and CU is a JOKE and has been for awhile now! :D ;)

My point is that the NFL is too big to fail at this point. The fans will root for whatever players are put on the field and it really is more important what name is on the front of the jersey than the back. The fans want Broncos football and even though some of us will debate what the best roster is and who we want to start and acquire, we'll root for whoever takes the field.

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 07:58 AM
Still no response to my post showing financial woes in the league for some of the smaller markets?

Every team has capped salaries... wth are you talking about here?

Uh.... Gooddell has ALREADY stated that each of the 32 teams MADE money last year.
See...... NO team other than the "Publicly held" Green Bay Packers have released any profit/loss statements. So at best your statement of "Financial woes" theory is just that...a theory.
The NFLPA wants the owners to show these statements.
Of course I can also show you "How GE made a billion dollars and paid no taxes" ....

So now some facts......

Per the NFL- "Each of our 32 teams have shown a profit this year, we need to prevent the decreasing trend of these profits"

"Smaller market struggling teams"????

Well... the Buffalo Bills were 20 MILLION under the salary cap... Gee.... who KEPT that money? Other "Bottom feeders"???

The News notes that many teams manipulate salary cap numbers through signing bonuses, even so the bottom teams in cap spending are Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Jacksonville, falling more than $27 million short of last year’s salary cap, a cap which would have increased in 2010. It has been predicted that several teams will spend less than $90 million on players this season.


http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=700:nfl-teams-making-money-by-not-spending-on-players&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61

Untill each and every NFL team shows its profit/loss statements and they are gone over... any claim of "Loss" is just that a "Claim". We are talking about guys who made billions, are now unable to make money while they are given hundreds of millions each year??
I know that if you spend LESS money, you make MORE money.... So 27 million UNDER what other teams pay, while getting the same amount from the NFL from TV contracts....

Face it, its greed pure and simple. "We are not making enough" Enough is the key word here.IMHO


BTW... How much did Pat pay out of HIS pocket for Invesco when it was built? Did Jerry Jones pay 1B for his stadium with a check? We taxpayers pay for that too....

TXBRONC
07-06-2011, 07:59 AM
As usual, nobody on the players' side will respond to my breakdown or Carol's quotes.

Carol shows that the union knew they got an overly friendly deal last time. How did they do that? By threatening strike, just a few years back. 2006. So it's not like the owners are the only ones to play hard ball.

My article shows that the owners' grievances weren't without basis. At least two teams were losing money. The players got too much in the last deal. Rectifying the situation was necessary and will not be a pay cut for any player.

Players will see a decrease in future raises. Not a bad deal in an economy that has caused layoffs and pay freezes and cuts. Owners have seen a decrease in income. A decrease in pay raises for the players is fair.

Just figuring out the final numbers now.

Yes they got a great deal back in '06 and they reason they were playing hardball is because they didn't want to give back the gains they made. They would have been happen to keep the status quo. Obviously that was unstainable path.

At the same time the owners are not pure in this either.

LordTrychon
07-06-2011, 08:26 AM
Uh.... Gooddell has ALREADY stated that each of the 32 teams MADE money last year.
See...... NO team other than the "Publicly held" Green Bay Packers have released any profit/loss statements. So at best your statement of "Financial woes" theory is just that...a theory.
The NFLPA wants the owners to show these statements.
Of course I can also show you "How GE made a billion dollars and paid no taxes" ....

So now some facts......

Per the NFL- "Each of our 32 teams have shown a profit this year, we need to prevent the decreasing trend of these profits"

"Smaller market struggling teams"????

Well... the Buffalo Bills were 20 MILLION under the salary cap... Gee.... who KEPT that money? Other "Bottom feeders"???

The News notes that many teams manipulate salary cap numbers through signing bonuses, even so the bottom teams in cap spending are Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Jacksonville, falling more than $27 million short of last year’s salary cap, a cap which would have increased in 2010. It has been predicted that several teams will spend less than $90 million on players this season.


http://bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=700:nfl-teams-making-money-by-not-spending-on-players&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61

Untill each and every NFL team shows its profit/loss statements and they are gone over... any claim of "Loss" is just that a "Claim". We are talking about guys who made billions, are now unable to make money while they are given hundreds of millions each year??
I know that if you spend LESS money, you make MORE money.... So 27 million UNDER what other teams pay, while getting the same amount from the NFL from TV contracts....

Face it, its greed pure and simple. "We are not making enough" Enough is the key word here.IMHO


BTW... How much did Pat pay out of HIS pocket for Invesco when it was built? Did Jerry Jones pay 1B for his stadium with a check? We taxpayers pay for that too....

The Players Union (er... whatever they are) hasn't denied the decreasing profits, having seen much more detailed numbers for the past 5 years than anyone has ever seen. As detailed as requested, but then the players wanted 10 years for some unexplainable reason.

Why didn't they come out and say that the numbers weren't what the owners claimed, if that was the case.

Of course Goodell isn't going to come out and say that there are teams losing money. That hurts the owners, if it becomes public, and hurts the value of every team.

Using the Packer's numbers though, the profit decreased from over $30million/year to $6million/year in the matter of 3-4 years... and they're estimated to be the 26th team or so in profits... meaning that 6 teams are doing worse.

As for the Stadium, not that it really impacts the discussion other than to show that the owners do have costs, and it's not all on the Taxpayer... The City took on 75% of the cost, minus naming rights money ($60 million)... leaving $100 million for Bowlen to pay.

Jerry Jones got $325million in help from the city... his stadium cost $1.1 Billion.

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 08:47 AM
I really think that Green Bay is worst case study here... Thats only a 100K town... And they did raise its salary by 30 million the last few years...Which will kill profits short term.

But of course it did get them a Super Bowl. :)

I really think that both sides should be beaten with aa ugly stick for fighting over all this
money....... Just sign a damned deal and lets play ball.

Lonestar
07-06-2011, 08:51 AM
Looks like the progressives want equallity for all and are jealous that hey have the money and want to keep it or make more in their investment.
Can't see the forest for the trees because of their blind hatred.

Juriga72
07-06-2011, 09:32 AM
Looks like the progressives want equallity for all and are jealous that hey have the money and want to keep it or make more in their investment.
Can't see the forest for the trees because of their blind hatred.

It looks like those conservitives want to "outsource" the NFL to D-III talent....

:coffee:

Npba900
07-06-2011, 07:44 PM
For me, the bottom line is that without the owners there is no league. I realize that we cheer for players and buy their jerseys, but let's be honest - if all the teams dissolved their rosters and started from scratch would the majority of the fans just stop watching, even if the product was sub-par for a few years while they got back on their feet? Of course not, especially because the talent level across the league would be universal and there would still be parity.

Sure, the Broncos fanbase would lose some important members like Bullgator if we didn't have Tebow on the roster :D, but it's not like the majority of us would stop being fans just because the roster got revamped. Shit, McDaniels did that without a lockout (turned over all but 11 players on the roster during his 2 year tenure) and nobody left. Lots of fans complained, but nobody really abandoned the team.

We want football and will watch even if the talent pool takes a hit. It's no different than if your favorite college team has a shit coach or a couple bad years recruiting. Do fans just up and leave? No. Hell, Buff is still around and CU is a JOKE and has been for awhile now! :D ;)

My point is that the NFL is too big to fail at this point. The fans will root for whatever players are put on the field and it really is more important what name is on the front of the jersey than the back. The fans want Broncos football and even though some of us will debate what the best roster is and who we want to start and acquire, we'll root for whoever takes the field.

What is not realized is its the players who have made the NFL what it is today starting in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's to the present. If you look at the films of the players who are inducted into the HOF you are looking at amazing athletes of which fans came to watch and love not because the owners built stadiums. The fans would have watched these players play bring their own lawn chairs. I have yet to see fans fill a stadium to go watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes.

When you watch NFL Films or the NFL network channel or ESPN showing films on all the Super Bowls and playoffs....Its the players they are showing its not the lives of the millionaire-billionaire football owners who have been owners for 20-40 years!!!

What would the ratings be if ESPN and the NFL Network for 24 hours 7 days a week for the next 6 months be if all they showed was the history of of NFL ownership and how they live elitist lives and lifestyles? I think the ratings would be appallingly low or it would about as exciting as wathing Corn Grow In Heartland America.

We've now arrived at the point on who lays the golden eggs! Is it the owners or the players. Truth be told the NFL needs both owners and players. Its the same analogy now which organ is most important in the human body...."Is It the Heart or Is It the Lungs".

Everyone will agree that the human body cannot survive without the Hearts and Lungs. The same holds true with the Owners and Players. They need each other and the fans need both if we are going to continue to see quality of performance we've grown accustomed to.

So Both Sides Need to COMPROMISE to where they can look at themselves in the mirror the next morning and smile to themselves they got a fair deal and players and owners respect each other going forward.

Canmore
07-06-2011, 08:41 PM
What is not realized is its the players who have made the NFL what it is today starting in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's to the present. If you look at the films of the players who are inducted into the HOF you are looking at amazing athletes of which fans came to watch and love not because the owners built stadiums. The fans would have watched these players play bring their own lawn chairs. I have yet to see fans fill a stadium to go watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes.

When you watch NFL Films or the NFL network channel or ESPN showing films on all the Super Bowls and playoffs....Its the players they are showing its not the lives of the millionaire-billionaire football owners who have been owners for 20-40 years!!!

What would the ratings be if ESPN and the NFL Network for 24 hours 7 days a week for the next 6 months be if all they showed was the history of of NFL ownership and how they live elitist lives and lifestyles? I think the ratings would be appallingly low or it would about as exciting as wathing Corn Grow In Heartland America.

We've now arrived at the point on who lays the golden eggs! Is it the owners or the players. Truth be told the NFL needs both owners and players. Its the same analogy now which organ is most important in the human body...."Is It the Heart or Is It the Lungs".

Everyone will agree that the human body cannot survive without the Hearts and Lungs. The same holds true with the Owners and Players. They need each other and the fans need both if we are going to continue to see quality of performance we've grown accustomed to.

So Both Sides Need to COMPROMISE to where they can look at themselves in the mirror the next morning and smile to themselves they got a fair deal and players and owners respect each other going forward.

This is how I feel. Well said. The players and owners need to reach some middle ground where the game can survive and thrive. Hopefully that happens in the next wekk or so. :salute:

HORSEPOWER 56
07-07-2011, 08:09 AM
What is not realized is its the players who have made the NFL what it is today starting in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's to the present. If you look at the films of the players who are inducted into the HOF you are looking at amazing athletes of which fans came to watch and love not because the owners built stadiums. The fans would have watched these players play bring their own lawn chairs. I have yet to see fans fill a stadium to go watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes.

When you watch NFL Films or the NFL network channel or ESPN showing films on all the Super Bowls and playoffs....Its the players they are showing its not the lives of the millionaire-billionaire football owners who have been owners for 20-40 years!!!

What would the ratings be if ESPN and the NFL Network for 24 hours 7 days a week for the next 6 months be if all they showed was the history of of NFL ownership and how they live elitist lives and lifestyles? I think the ratings would be appallingly low or it would about as exciting as wathing Corn Grow In Heartland America.

We've now arrived at the point on who lays the golden eggs! Is it the owners or the players. Truth be told the NFL needs both owners and players. Its the same analogy now which organ is most important in the human body...."Is It the Heart or Is It the Lungs".

Everyone will agree that the human body cannot survive without the Hearts and Lungs. The same holds true with the Owners and Players. They need each other and the fans need both if we are going to continue to see quality of performance we've grown accustomed to.

So Both Sides Need to COMPROMISE to where they can look at themselves in the mirror the next morning and smile to themselves they got a fair deal and players and owners respect each other going forward.

I understand what you're saying and I agree about compromise, but I really don't think the players make the game because of who they are. Sure, everyone has their favorite players, but it's been shown over and over that in this day and age of free agency that favorite players, even HOFers, come and go and move around and that the teams as a whole and fanbases just don't care.

Our starting QB was traded 2 years ago and almost 1/2 the fanbase applauded the move. Our current starter looks to be traded before the season and probably 3/4 of the fanbase SUPPORTS it. Had we not re-signed Champ or not signed Dumervil to a big contract extension and let him walk in FA, fans would've been pissed but we'd have gotten over it. The prospect of not having a season at all is way worse.

Now what would make you more upset, having a football season with replacement players and scrubs where the competition level is a little less than you're used to, or not having a season at all? I'd be willing to bet the fans would rather side with the owners and have football, even watered down, than side with the players and not have football at all.

As it stands, I honestly don't think the talent level between the NFL and things like the UFL and CFL is that much different. There are TONS of street FAs and players from other leagues that could come in and field a decent product for the fans.

For all their charisma, charm, and talent the players - every one of them - is replaceable. Just like the employees of any major company. Losing some of the top tier ones may make it difficult to achieve your goals, but I'd be willing to bet the NFL would do just fine if the top 50 paid players (who make up the majority of all NFL salary money) just up and vanished from the NFL. The guys who make less money would step in and still produce an adequate product.

What would be worse, slashing some of our big money players and their contracts or Pat Bowlen having to move the team to LA or sell the franchise outright to another person who then moves it to another city? Personally, I'd rather have a team of inferior talent to watch than no team at all.

Lonestar
07-07-2011, 02:46 PM
Great post HP with it the reality sets in.
"What would be worse, slashing some of our big money players and their contracts or Pat Bowlen having to move the team to LA or sell the franchise outright to another person who then moves it to another city? Personally, I'd rather have a team of inferior talent to watch than no team at all."
IF we cut players so will otter teams and yea some of that talent would go to a super team. But we all know go many egos on a team does not always win championships.
I'll take my chances on the owners any day over big labor.

Juriga72
07-07-2011, 03:01 PM
I understand what you're saying and I agree about compromise, but I really don't think the players make the game because of who they are. Sure, everyone has their favorite players, but it's been shown over and over that in this day and age of free agency that favorite players, even HOFers, come and go and move around and that the teams as a whole and fanbases just don't care.

Our starting QB was traded 2 years ago and almost 1/2 the fanbase applauded the move. Our current starter looks to be traded before the season and probably 3/4 of the fanbase SUPPORTS it. Had we not re-signed Champ or not signed Dumervil to a big contract extension and let him walk in FA, fans would've been pissed but we'd have gotten over it. The prospect of not having a season at all is way worse.

Now what would make you more upset, having a football season with replacement players and scrubs where the competition level is a little less than you're used to, or not having a season at all? I'd be willing to bet the fans would rather side with the owners and have football, even watered down, than side with the players and not have football at all.

As it stands, I honestly don't think the talent level between the NFL and things like the UFL and CFL is that much different. There are TONS of street FAs and players from other leagues that could come in and field a decent product for the fans.

For all their charisma, charm, and talent the players - every one of them - is replaceable. Just like the employees of any major company. Losing some of the top tier ones may make it difficult to achieve your goals, but I'd be willing to bet the NFL would do just fine if the top 50 paid players (who make up the majority of all NFL salary money) just up and vanished from the NFL. The guys who make less money would step in and still produce an adequate product.

What would be worse, slashing some of our big money players and their contracts or Pat Bowlen having to move the team to LA or sell the franchise outright to another person who then moves it to another city? Personally, I'd rather have a team of inferior talent to watch than no team at all.


Go ask Al Davis how his move went....

Seriously.... I too would rather watch Chuck Long than John Elway play for the LA Broncos.....

I would CHEER as loud as possible for the LA Broncos when they went 4-12 with their brand new HC..... Oh wait.

Lets think back to 1987 and how bad that was....... while we still pay 400.00 for the family seats

HORSEPOWER 56
07-07-2011, 06:20 PM
Go ask Al Davis how his move went....

Seriously.... I too would rather watch Chuck Long than John Elway play for the LA Broncos.....

I would CHEER as loud as possible for the LA Broncos when they went 4-12 with their brand new HC..... Oh wait.

Lets think back to 1987 and how bad that was....... while we still pay 400.00 for the family seats

This isn't about 1987 or things that happened 20 years ago. The times have changed and the rules have changed. Free Agency, Salary Caps, shared revenue, collective bargaining... all these things are much different than they were back when the evil owners cared more about profits and the players had to take summer jobs because they weren't paid enough and didn't get benefits from football.

Nowadays, the players are better represented and better compensated than ever before. Overcompensated many would say. Player salaries, especially guaranteed money for rookies who have never paid a down, is at an all time high. The fact that many of them earn enough to RETIRE FOR LIFE (make more money than you or I will make in our entire lives) off of just the signing bonus from their rookie contract before they've even played a snap should be a huge red flag. It doesn't end there, how about all those players that get HUGE deals and then never produce again, even are defiant toward their team and try to dictate terms (Haynesworth)?

This is the type of stuff that the league and players association must get a handle on. This is the reason that even though the league is prosperous as a whole, profits for the teams, even the big market ones, are down. In a bad economy where less fans are buying merchandise and attending games and less are paying big bucks for Sunday Ticket, the owners have seen their costs rise (players salaries) while profits fell (income from the fans).

The business model is currently unsustainable as is. The owners and even the players know this. Nobody wants to take a pay cut, but sometimes it's what is necessary to keep your job.

The point I was trying to make is this, I don't really think it would matter who the Broncos fielded on any given Sunday we, the fans, would still be here to watch and cheer. As long as parity is maintained throughout the league (salary cap/profit sharing) and one team can't gain a huge monetary advantage (like in baseball with the Yanks or Red Sox) over another, the competitive balance will be maintained no matter who is actually suiting up.

Npba900
07-07-2011, 06:55 PM
We can go round and round with our opinions and theories. However, in the end a "Compromise" between Owners and Players. Both the Egos of Players and Owners need to be set a side for the Good of The Game.

Now sure the Owners will win out in the end and the players will have no other choice but to return. However, what the players can do is "Shun" the owners in terms of not giving them respect in the media and ignoring the owner when the owner visit the locker room or the sidelines. Is that what the owners want?

The players can loathe the owners while not openly disrespecting the ownerd....but the key here is when the owner tries to address the team, the players in unison all turn their backs while the owner is speaking, and then eventually just walk of the practice field or vacate the locker room with the owners standing there looking stupid.

The players could also lock out the owners in terms of not allowing the owners to join the teams in celebrating playoff wins, conference titles, team records, and super bowl wins. Is this the type of environments the owners want?

When the owners come down to the sidelines and try to talk to players....the players put the owners on ignore and walk away from the owners. Hey who cares the strike is over, the fans have returned to sold out stadiums and the owners got their way during the CBA-Lockout, etc.

After all the NFL is a Business! Who says owners and players have to get along and join hands and sing Kum-bye-Ya!

This would be poetic justice in my opinion. The players can go back and play the game they love, while telling the owners to Go Screw Themselves and get their elitist pompous Azz's back up into the their Luxury Boxes.

Npba900
07-07-2011, 07:05 PM
This isn't about 1987 or things that happened 20 years ago. The times have changed and the rules have changed. Free Agency, Salary Caps, shared revenue, collective bargaining... all these things are much different than they were back when the evil owners cared more about profits and the players had to take summer jobs because they weren't paid enough and didn't get benefits from football.

Nowadays, the players are better represented and better compensated than ever before. Overcompensated many would say. Player salaries, especially guaranteed money for rookies who have never paid a down, is at an all time high. The fact that many of them earn enough to RETIRE FOR LIFE (make more money than you or I will make in our entire lives) off of just the signing bonus from their rookie contract before they've even played a snap should be a huge red flag. It doesn't end there, how about all those players that get HUGE deals and then never produce again, even are defiant toward their team and try to dictate terms (Haynesworth)?

This is the type of stuff that the league and players association must get a handle on. This is the reason that even though the league is prosperous as a whole, profits for the teams, even the big market ones, are down. In a bad economy where less fans are buying merchandise and attending games and less are paying big bucks for Sunday Ticket, the owners have seen their costs rise (players salaries) while profits fell (income from the fans).

The business model is currently unsustainable as is. The owners and even the players know this. Nobody wants to take a pay cut, but sometimes it's what is necessary to keep your job.

The point I was trying to make is this, I don't really think it would matter who the Broncos fielded on any given Sunday we, the fans, would still be here to watch and cheer. As long as parity is maintained throughout the league (salary cap/profit sharing) and one team can't gain a huge monetary advantage (like in baseball with the Yanks or Red Sox) over another, the competitive balance will be maintained no matter who is actually suiting up.

Why do the players need to take the pay cut inconjunction with having their playing careers cut short due to injuries. Meanwhile during this time frame the owners are yelling they are losing money but yet refuse to open their books. The owners know how much the players are earning....but no one knows how much the owners are making.

Meanwhile, the owners do not have to worry about they're ownership getting cut short! Hell owners in the NFL own their teams for decades w/o fear of competition coming in and taking their teams from even if they never produce a winning team!

The owners are worth $100's millions and billions of dollars b/c the key to their wealth, profits, and earnings all stem from long term growth through owning their teams for 30-50 years.

Meanwhile, the players careers and money making ability only last 4-10 years.

Denver Native (Carol)
07-07-2011, 07:07 PM
You are right - the players can act like a bunch of preschoolers if they so choose. :eek::eek:

Denver Native (Carol)
07-07-2011, 07:09 PM
Why do the players need to take the pay cut inconjunction with having their playing careers cut short due to injuries. Meanwhile during this time frame the owners are yelling they are losing money but yet refuse to open their books. The owners know how much the players are earning....but no one knows how much the owners are making.

Meanwhile, the owners do not have to worry about they're ownership getting cut short! Hell owners in the NFL own their teams for decades w/o fear of competition coming in and taking their teams from even if they never produce a winning team!

The owners are worth $100's millions and billions of dollars b/c the key to their wealth, profits, and earnings all stem from long term growth through owning their teams for 30-50 years.

Meanwhile, the players careers and money making ability only last 4-10 years.

Do you know how much the owner of your company is making????

atwater27
07-07-2011, 07:35 PM
Do you know how much the owner of your company is making????

Believe me... If he could successfully demand his company declare all their business info to him and fork over half of their profits to him, he would.

NightTerror218
07-07-2011, 07:38 PM
Why do the players need to take the pay cut inconjunction with having their playing careers cut short due to injuries. Meanwhile during this time frame the owners are yelling they are losing money but yet refuse to open their books. The owners know how much the players are earning....but no one knows how much the owners are making.

Meanwhile, the owners do not have to worry about they're ownership getting cut short! Hell owners in the NFL own their teams for decades w/o fear of competition coming in and taking their teams from even if they never produce a winning team!

The owners are worth $100's millions and billions of dollars b/c the key to their wealth, profits, and earnings all stem from long term growth through owning their teams for 30-50 years.

Meanwhile, the players careers and money making ability only last 4-10 years.


You are obviously not a business owner or anywhere close to dealing with costs and profits. The players started off make crap as college students and then get offered millions, hell half the players lower income families prior to football scholarships.

The incur all the costs for stadium, payroll, permits, utilities, football supplies, jerseys, and equipment. The players just roll in the money and become millionaires.

The owners are rich, yah so what, they always have been and always will but, but above all they are business men and when profits drop they fix it. Which means either they cut pay to players (CBA adjustment of profits), pay players less in deals and let they complain like kids on bench and not get pad (SD Jackson last year). They cut money to the community (I know they put on events for communities), stop donating to things and sponsoring. They will lay off the people that serve you beer while you sit on your fat ass at a game or the people who clean the stalls. I much rather see millionaires make several thousand less per then see people laid off, businesses suffer and whatnot.

Sports bars, football memorabilia, equipment supplies, all employees that work at stadiums will suffer due to owners cutting costs and not football.

I see it this way.....without the football players we have replacement players. Without the billionaire owners we have NOT FOOTBALL.


EDIT: BTW owners offered all the books from the time of the signing of the last CBA till now and the players rejected it.

Juriga72
07-08-2011, 08:41 AM
I see it this way.....without the football players we have replacement players. Without the billionaire owners we have NOT FOOTBALL.EDIT: BTW owners offered all the books from the time of the signing of the last CBA till now and the players rejected it.





Of course you could please show me ONE other business where you as a Owner are guaranteed money EVEN if you close your shop.

Please while you are at it, show me one business that makes NOTHING, builds NOTHING, and sells nothing except on a 16 days a year and shows millions of dollars of profits.

I go to see the greatest football players play, I don't want cheap imitations.
I would rather pay for a BMW than buy a Yugo. YOU might be happy with the Yugo..... not me. For the simple minded fans out there Yugo's are very nice cars, for people who actually understand football..... they laugh at those fools who drive a Yugo.

While you are driving your Yugo, you can also go the the eye clinic that advertises "Lasik surgery for 99.00/eye".... I bet many fans would just love how that works out also.

LordTrychon
07-08-2011, 10:36 AM
A decrease in future raises does not equal a paycut.

The argument that the players build the league's popularity is only true for a handful of superstars... how much do they make? Is Manning underpaid? Brady? Those are the guys you could argue really helped build the league into what it is today.

The guys who have 2-4 year careers are seldom due to injury. Usually it's due to the fact that they're practice squad/backup talent that gets replaced after a few years. Those poor players who were borderline talent and probably could have been replaced by other borderline talent that just didn't quite make it without the league skipping a beat... still make a decent penny.

League minimum for being a practice squad player (slight reduction in injury risk or long term damage risk, I would bet) is not a horrible deal.

Whatever the hell Manning is making while he sacrifices his body to an extent (he's had his share of surgeries, like so many others)... I would argue is probably worth it. Seems to be to him.

NightTerror218
07-08-2011, 11:41 AM
I see it this way.....without the football players we have replacement players. Without the billionaire owners we have NOT FOOTBALL.EDIT: BTW owners offered all the books from the time of the signing of the last CBA till now and the players rejected it.





Of course you could please show me ONE other business where you as a Owner are guaranteed money EVEN if you close your shop.

Please while you are at it, show me one business that makes NOTHING, builds NOTHING, and sells nothing except on a 16 days a year and shows millions of dollars of profits.

I go to see the greatest football players play, I don't want cheap imitations.
I would rather pay for a BMW than buy a Yugo. YOU might be happy with the Yugo..... not me. For the simple minded fans out there Yugo's are very nice cars, for people who actually understand football..... they laugh at those fools who drive a Yugo.

While you are driving your Yugo, you can also go the the eye clinic that advertises "Lasik surgery for 99.00/eye".... I bet many fans would just love how that works out also.



You made absolutely no point what so ever. I love watching college football and it is exciting. There are more then enough college players to fill up every NFL roster. YOu think that would be boring still?

Um entertainment business is not like a radioshack. Lets see Fox Studio, Universal Studios, any movie, or TV producing company dont build anything or produce anything.

Entertainment is what we watch football for. They players are similar to actors, they are paid for their abilities. If Fox was losing money they would not offer top end actors as much for a movie, but with NFL they players freak out and go on strike or we get a lock out like now.

horsepig
07-09-2011, 12:14 PM
Well HP tell us how you really feel


What I did not understand was this comment

"Hell, the "Old Boys" don't want Tebow to succede. Why, because it bucks the comfortable norm, upon which we & they (the bastids) like to BET."

Could someone explain it?

Sorry about that. I think I was a "little" in the cups there.

Lonestar
07-09-2011, 11:34 PM
This isn't about 1987 or things that happened 20 years ago. The times have changed and the rules have changed. Free Agency, Salary Caps, shared revenue, collective bargaining... all these things are much different than they were back when the evil owners cared more about profits and the players had to take summer jobs because they weren't paid enough and didn't get benefits from football.

Nowadays, the players are better represented and better compensated than ever before. Overcompensated many would say. Player salaries, especially guaranteed money for rookies who have never paid a down, is at an all time high. The fact that many of them earn enough to RETIRE FOR LIFE (make more money than you or I will make in our entire lives) off of just the signing bonus from their rookie contract before they've even played a snap should be a huge red flag. It doesn't end there, how about all those players that get HUGE deals and then never produce again, even are defiant toward their team and try to dictate terms (Haynesworth)?

This is the type of stuff that the league and players association must get a handle on. This is the reason that even though the league is prosperous as a whole, profits for the teams, even the big market ones, are down. In a bad economy where less fans are buying merchandise and attending games and less are paying big bucks for Sunday Ticket, the owners have seen their costs rise (players salaries) while profits fell (income from the fans).

The business model is currently unsustainable as is. The owners and even the players know this. Nobody wants to take a pay cut, but sometimes it's what is necessary to keep your job.

The point I was trying to make is this, I don't really think it would matter who the Broncos fielded on any given Sunday we, the fans, would still be here to watch and cheer. As long as parity is maintained throughout the league (salary cap/profit sharing) and one team can't gain a huge monetary advantage (like in baseball with the Yanks or Red Sox) over another, the competitive balance will be maintained no matter who is actually suiting up.

WHen I make 6 mil a year and are forced to take a roughly 10% cut I'd be pissed also..


great post..

Joel
07-10-2011, 10:14 AM
The only thing you can debate is who's most wrong. If I had to pick, I'd side with the players, but the arguments over things like a rookie cap and testing for growth hormones give the lie to claims the star players filing all the suits are just looking out for voiceless scrubs; their less talented teammates are every bit as much their adversaries as the owners are. The scrubs are pretty much screwed no matter who wins this argument. Most of them will end up with $150,000 for 2-3 years (most of which will go to agents, doctors and family) in exchange for serious life long injuries, whether there's a CBA or not. Look at the list of litigants in the ant-trust suit against the League: "Tom Brady and Logan Mankins of the New England Patriots, Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints, Vincent Jackson of the San Diego Chargers, Ben Leber and Brian Robison of the Minnesota Vikings, Peyton Manning of the Indianapolis Colts, Von Miller who was drafted by the Denver Broncos with the second pick overall, Osi Umenyiora of the New York Giants, Mike Vrabel of the Kansas City Chiefs, as well as several former NFL players including Priest Holmes of the Kansas City Chiefs." A bunch of Pro Bowlers and this years #2 overall draft pick; yeah, those guys really got a raw deal, and totally understand the problems of a Tatum Bell or Don Majkowski.

Casting this in political terms of labor vs. management or left vs. right is disingenuous and counterproductive; almost none of those factors apply and it only encourages people to align with one side or the other based on preexisting political prejudice rather than facts. A victory for the players is not a victory for working class unions and a victory for the owners is not a victory for productive free enterprise. The players don't get trapped in collapsed coal mines and the owners don't supply a product vital to American life. That said, the owners position has a number of significant weaknesses.

First and foremost, as others have noted, they prematurely terminated the previous legal agreement, which they did legally under its terms, but that definitively established who was dissatisfied with the status quo: The owners, not the players, are demanding fundamental change. If the owners were willing to let the League simply continue as it had, it would've; they aren't, and here we are. The truth of that is only further emphasized by the lockout, which presents us with the surreal scenario of players arriving at team facilities for workouts and training camp only to be locked out by the owners and denied any opportunity to prepare for the season. Regardless of how, when or even IF the labor dispute is resolved, if you're watching your favorite player in September and wondering why he looks like he hasn't been on a football field in six months, remember it's because he hasn't, because the owners terminated the CBA and locked out the players.

It's fair to ask whether that decision was justified, and that's also debatable. The owners and their defenders invariably point to the fact that, according to Wikipedia, the "last labor agreement gave players 57 percent of the league’s $9 billion in revenue" but equally invariably leave out the rest of that sentence: "after the owners took $1 billion for growth and development of the league." Of course, players have people promoting them to teams, advertisers and fans: They're called "agents", and their fees get paid by the individual players, not deducted from League revenue before owners OR players get paid. One thing that's not talked about much in all this is that a primary reason the owners wanted a new deal is all the wonderful new (and expensive) state of the art stadiums being built to increase owners revenue: They don't come cheap, and a new more preferential CBA is the owners answer to how to reduce those costs. This isn't about owners standing in line at soup kitchens while players loll on the Bahamian shore: Soft drink companies pay handsomely for both player endorsements and vending contracts with owner stadiums; the difference is only the latter think the whole industry should pay to make that possible rather than doing it themselves. If you think your favorite player should take a paycut to finance more skyboxes at his teams new stadium then the players are being very unreasonable. When the players want more money they pay out of their own pocket to make that case; when the owners want more money they apparently think the League should pay to make THEIR case, which, if you haven't noticed, is pretty much what's happening now. ;) Think of it this way: League revenue has NEVER been capped, but team salaries have been for two decades; do you really think the owners bottom line is being hurt more by players or by a "stadium bubble" of their own making? I hear a lot of people relating to the owners as business owners, so I have to ask: As a business owner, if you were losing money hand over fist would you sink hundreds of millions into a new factory producing high end products in a down economy, and finance it with an employee pay cut? If you did, would you expect the courts to bailout you out of the labor dispute with your union that would inevitably result?

As a side note, the existence of things like the draft, trades and revenue sharing should clarify whether this is just a typical labor vs. management industrial disease: It's not. No court in the Western world tolerate the notion that a company can require workers accept a job at the salary they name or leave the industry, that they can summarily trade an employee to a competitor across the country without that employees consent or even against their will, or that all companies within an industry pool and then equally divide their profits--except in professional sports, where such things are common (except for revenue sharing; for good or ill, that's pretty much unique to the NFL). Anywhere else most of the professional sports leagues would be egregiously in violation of laws against restraint of trade and collusion, but sports is a different place. In a lot of ways the 32 NFL teams function a lot more like a single business than many--but of course the Atlanta Falcons aren't legally liable if the NY Giants violate a contract with a player, coach, broadcaster, advertiser or government.

There are no good guys here; both players and owners are, IMHO, a bunch of greedy arrogant ungrateful snots who don't deserve what in most cases amounts to no more than winning the genetic lottery. They're both right that the other side is being compensated at least an order of magnitude more than they contribute (though I would be remiss not to note the fact that NFL salaries are dwarfed by salaries in nearly every other sport, most of which are far less physically gruelling). Neither one of them is proposing that excess be stripped from their adversaries and donated to charity, taxed or returned to fans; they both want to stick money neither of them deserve in their own pockets, and that makes it nigh impossible to "defend" the indefensible position of both. However, one side is saying it's unfair they don't get a bigger share of what's left after they take >10% of League revenue (not profits) off the top for promotion, while the other is simply saying things should remain as they are. The system's already very generous to owners AND players as it stands, and nothing's likely to change that, but the owners argument their demands will make that inherently unfair system less so don't hold much water; they're both trying to screw each other, and the only thing on which they agree is that they'll keep screwing the fans and communities regardless. I don't have a dog in this fight (and neither does anyone else here, whether they know it or not) but if I had to pick one I'd take the players; I don't have much sympathy for them, but no more for the owners, so let's just go with what we've got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_NFL_lockout#Labor_dispute

Joel
07-10-2011, 10:53 AM
As usual, nobody on the players' side will respond to my breakdown or Carol's quotes.

Carol shows that the union knew they got an overly friendly deal last time. How did they do that? By threatening strike, just a few years back. 2006. So it's not like the owners are the only ones to play hard ball.

My article shows that the owners' grievances weren't without basis. At least two teams were losing money. The players got too much in the last deal. Rectifying the situation was necessary and will not be a pay cut for any player.

Players will see a decrease in future raises. Not a bad deal in an economy that has caused layoffs and pay freezes and cuts. Owners have seen a decrease in income. A decrease in pay raises for the players is fair.

Just figuring out the final numbers now.
Two teams had an "operational loss"; in the world of NFL revenue sharing that doesn't necessarily translate into losing money. A "decrease in income" is not, in itself, "a loss". A lot of people have had their incomes decreased by this economy, but if the argument is which side should have its income decreased to prevent it for the other in a down economy I'm again forced to say: They're both wrong. If the players had jeopardized the season for greed in '06 I'd have objected just as strongly as I do to the owners doing it now, but that didn't happen, did it? Posturing at the bargaining table is one thing, and typical of this process in all sports; we're less than two months from Opening Day and still waiting for training camp to start. It's already going to hurt the teams performance next season; all we can hope at this point is that hurts us less than others.

As far as the stats Carol cited, just because the owners finally figured out they made a bad deal (according to Trent Dilfer, who's not exactly a genius by any other NFL standard) and want to renege is no reason to let them hold the 2011 season hostage to that. That's no less disgusting than when the players pulled it in '87. Beyond that all I can say of the stats she cited is that it's a little naïve to reference the Denver ownership of Mile High and the "exclusive provider" of its concessions as proof Pat's not making any money off either. It didn't take long to find this article: http://extras.denverpost.com/news/stadium/stad0829.htm from when plans for Invesco were first discussed that details trivial facts like "By law, the Broncos are required to pay a quarter of the total cost of the stadium" that almost certainly sells more Broncos merchandise than any other location in the country. If Pat paid at least 25% of the construction costs for a place he leases the right to use yet gets no share of its exclusive concession contracts maybe a new CBA won't really help him maintain profitability. Regardless, pointing to how much local communities pay for expensive new stadiums with exclusive concession contracts and owner leased skyboxes only helps prove the point that the only thing owners want more desperately than new stadiums with lots of expensive skyboxes is for someone else to foot the bill.

I hope the above mentioned talks about dumping the billion dollar promotional skim make it into the final agreement, if only so next time people don't refer to the players 57% of 89% of revenue as "60% of revenue". It's actually more like 50.73%, so if the players are going to get 48% instead it sounds like they're taking about a 2.5% pay cut, and the owners will get roughly 2% more of revenue than players instead of 0.5% less, or about $10.5 million per owner. They gambled a season worth nearly $10 billion to get 0.1% more of it apiece; again, maybe the players aren't the reason these guys are having financial problems (if they actually are; they won't show anyone the records).

Lonestar
07-10-2011, 12:26 PM
Joel please smaller readable paragraphs. Is a winner. That said

Your comment about it being a rep vs dem and falling on political lines was right on. Then you did it yourself.

BTW the players were getting 60% not 57. As anyone knows wiki is editable by anyone.

As far as the opt out it was indeed legal and necessary to be viable long term.

SErves no purpose to have weakened teams in the NFL and that was where it was going b

And frankly it was an issue for Pat or we would not have been cutting back the past few yeArs on major FA.

As my momma used to say "money did not grow on trees."

Got to have it to spend it.

The econOmy went into the crapper except for the millionaire players. They acknowledged the deal was unfair and they took advantage if it.

Now it us payback time.

Joel
07-10-2011, 04:26 PM
Joel please smaller readable paragraphs. Is a winner. That said

Your comment about it being a rep vs dem and falling on political lines was right on. Then you did it yourself.
Not intentionally. Part of the problem is it's easy to dismiss either side as greedy while ignoring the fact the other side is, too. It's ludicrous to suggest the NFL is "unfair" to either those paid paid millions to work two weeks a year or the owners paying them. I have no sympathy for people striking to IMPROVE lives the rest of us can't imagine. In the past that's usually been players; this time it happens to be owners, but that's the only difference.

BTW the players were getting 60% not 57. As anyone knows wiki is editable by anyone.
Yeah, but Bloomberg, which the Wikipedia statement clearly cites as its source, isn't: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/nfl-s-goodell-says-labor-dispute-already-affecting-league-income.html

The article says, "approximately 60 percent," but calling it 60% is fine; whether 57% of 89% of revenue or 60% of 89% of revenue it's a LONG way from 60% of revenue.

Owners voted in 2008 to shorten the collective bargaining agreement by two years through the end of this season, saying the share of revenue that players receive doesn’t account for costs such as those of building stadiums. The last labor agreement gave players about 60 percent of the league’s $8 billion in revenue.
Two notes:

1) When the owners left the CBA early (which was their right) they specifically said it was because players weren't helping pay for new stadiums. THAT'S their "decreased revenue": By the owners admission, the CBA was terminated and the season jeopardized because they want to pay less for new stadiums they threaten to move teams if they don't get. Were I a player I'd probably say, "Give me a share of skybox and concession revenue and I'll think about it."

2) The old CBA gave players "about 60 percent of the Leagues $8 billion in revenue." Except of course that the League had $9 billion in revenue last year, and the owners took a billion off the top, gave the players 57% (about 60%) of what was LEFT, and split the rest among themselves. Call it 60% of 89% and we're looking at 53% of the total. According to ESPN (in an article I believe quoted above about the 48% share for players on the table now) that's the number DeMaurice Smith cites:

In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received approximately 60 percent of "total revenue" but that did not include $1 billion that was designated as an expense credit off the top of the $9 billion revenue model. Owners initially were seeking another $1 billion in credit only to reduce that amount substantially before exercising the lockout on March 13.

Ultimately, the two sides have decided to simplify the formula, which will eliminate some tedious accounting audits of the credit the players have allowed in the previous deal. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485
In other words, times are tough: So the owners wanted to take TWO billion off the top then "equitably" split the REST between themselves and players. They came down a lot on how much extra they wanted off the top and locked out the players when they still said no.

As far as the opt out it was indeed legal and necessary to be viable long term.
Or maybe don't demand another billion dollar skybox filled stadium every 5-10 years. Remember, that's why owners STATED they left the CBA: Players don't help pay for those.

SErves no purpose to have weakened teams in the NFL and that was where it was going b
In the past generation two things have done more than anything else to weaken the League: High dollar free agency and stadium/city shopping. Free agency was addressed twenty years ago; stadium shopping/city is clearly a persistent problem no current or past negotiations address. Maybe if I hadn't grown up an Oilers fan I'd feel worse about how much new stadiums/cities are costing owners. ;)

And frankly it was an issue for Pat or we would not have been cutting back the past few yeArs on major FA.
The way I remember it was that the Broncos got tired of fines for cap violations.

As my momma used to say "money did not grow on trees."

Got to have it to spend it.

The econOmy went into the crapper except for the millionaire players. They acknowledged the deal was unfair and they took advantage if it.

Now it us payback time.
The economy went into the crapper, and owners decided to keep building billion dollar stadiums with skyboxes 95% of fans will never be able to afford. If those skyboxes aren't the cash cows owners thought that's not the players fault, and shutting down the League just to make them pay the cost anyway ridiculous. If profits are down maybe it's time to ask themselves just how much money those skyboxes are making. ;)

Lonestar
07-11-2011, 10:06 AM
Joel nice rebuttal.

But again it seems to be be along political lines.

The players admit that they got the best of the deal last time after a threatened strike.


The way I see it from someone that has been in management and then owning my own business for the past twenty years.

The owners have made a huge investment and deserve a fair return on that money whether it be 1930 or 2000 dollars.
With the possible Exception of jones and Snyder all of them have finite funds to give into the pot. Sure they are rich but most if themmown the teams for the love of the sport and it is not an ego thing.

The players are over paid and ticket prices are to high as well as everything that accompanies a game because of the pay scale.

It was the owners fault that they over paid for FA the snyders and jones had kore money than common sense Nd drove up those salaries.
However it was not the owners fault that the economy went into the crapper either the past 3 or so years.

The owners built in an escape route in the last contract as was their right for overpaying in that same contract. They also were smart in signing contracts with the networks and hiring an exprienced law firm for this contract negotiation. They were looking forward to a tuff riff.

It has always been my contention that they should be allowed affair return on their money. Let me say that again THEIR MONEY.

The players have nothing invested in the game save their bodies. Hard to quantify that value. But will know that the majority of these morons would be flipping burgers or selling drug in a gang if it were not for the NFL. Orr in jail.

Sorry but they know they were overpaid what is the issue?

Npba900
07-11-2011, 11:20 AM
Meh! Meanwhile the owners can own their teams for 30-50 years while risking no physical injury's while entertaining their wealthy elitist clients in their luxury boxes! Remember, owners earn their wealth over the long term appreciation/owner ship of their team(s).

Again, no star players the fans won't come to the stadiums, no star players.....no TV contracts, no star players......fans will not sell out stadiums.

Owners have never been in danger of going out of business due the cost of operating their franchise and paying player salaries.

Joel
07-12-2011, 01:14 PM
Joel nice rebuttal.

But again it seems to be be along political lines.

The players admit that they got the best of the deal last time after a threatened strike.

The way I see it from someone that has been in management and then owning my own business for the past twenty years.
No one put a gun to the owners heads, but I don't object to them opting out, as was their right, I object to their stated motive for doing so: Players don't share the cost of new stadiums. Again, I have no sympathy when people who became independently wealthy playing a game 60 hours a year threaten a strike to demand "better" pay. However, I have no more sympathy for even wealthier owners threatening to move teams to demand expensive new stadiums with lucrative skybox leases. It's asking too much to expect I'll feel sorry for them when they GET the stadiums (largely at taxpayer expense), find the skyboxes are less lucrative than expected, then threaten to cancel the season to make players help pay for them.

The owners have made a huge investment and deserve a fair return on that money whether it be 1930 or 2000 dollars.

With the possible Exception of jones and Snyder all of them have finite funds to give into the pot. Sure they are rich but most if themmown the teams for the love of the sport and it is not an ego thing.

The players are over paid and ticket prices are to high as well as everything that accompanies a game because of the pay scale.

It was the owners fault that they over paid for FA the snyders and jones had kore money than common sense Nd drove up those salaries.
However it was not the owners fault that the economy went into the crapper either the past 3 or so years.

The owners built in an escape route in the last contract as was their right for overpaying in that same contract. They also were smart in signing contracts with the networks and hiring an exprienced law firm for this contract negotiation. They were looking forward to a tuff riff.

It has always been my contention that they should be allowed affair return on their money. Let me say that again THEIR MONEY.

The players have nothing invested in the game save their bodies. Hard to quantify that value. But will know that the majority of these morons would be flipping burgers or selling drug in a gang if it were not for the NFL. Orr in jail.

Sorry but they know they were overpaid what is the issue?
No one is entitled to a return on an unprofitable investment, certainly not from people with no stake in it. I'm truly sorry owners routinely demand cities build expensive new stadiums or lose their teams, but if the investment they've insisted on for two decades hasn't produced the return they wanted the last two years, that's their fault and their responsibility. That it's THEIR money (never mind that they only pay 25% of stadium construction costs) is precisely the problem: They want it to be player money, too, but aren't offering a share of skybox leases and concession contracts any more than they offered them to host cities. All because something owners coerced a dozen or more cities into letting them do (mostly at city expense) to get more money didn't (they say) actually get more money.

They played musical cities with the Houston Oilers, Cleveland Browns, Oakland Raiders, L.A. Rams, Baltimore Colts and St. Louis Cardinals to name just the ones that didn't submit to extortion. Many other cities gave in to keep their teams, paying hundreds of millions for new skybox filled stadiums whose revenues the owners said up front was why they wanted them. That fuels high ticket prices at least as much as player salaries; again, the NFL caps salaries, not stadiums. Now the owners claim (but provide no evidence) they overpaid for stadiums they demanded, and demand players make up the difference. No one is obligated to guarantee someone else a return on a bad investment they insisted on making, to the point of coercing entire cities and counties into financing most of it. If they're having buyers remorse maybe they should've listened when fans, players and local government begged them not to buy.

They can't squeeze any more stadium construction costs out of cities so they want to squeeze them out of players: THAT'S the issue here. If it were simply a matter of the players being overpaid I wouldn't care, because they undeniably are. Owners trying to DOUBLE what they ALREADY took off the top before dividing the rest with players shows that's not the issue (as does owners admitting their motive is recouping stadium costs). Keep in mind that billion dollar pre-payroll skim equals most owners share of stadium construction in about 7 or 8 years; doubling it would, of course, cut that in half. The agreement they're discussing now makes far more sense in many different ways: Owners get more than players, but pay for "promotion and development" out of their share, not off the top.

Short form of the above: The owners didn't say they left the CBA because players are overpaid, but because new stadiums cost too much. No one told them to build those stadiums; in fact, everyone told them NOT to but they coerced local governments into helping them do it anyway, to increase their revenue. Now they say it REDUCED revenue (oops...) and want to lower player salaries to recover it. That's the point of contention here, not the (IMHO) overinflated earnings owners AND players get. Fans provide that money to see games so I'm against either side holding those games hostage to get more money from the other. This time it's owners; when it's players (as is more often the case) I object just as strongly.

atwater27
07-17-2011, 11:15 AM
Meh! Meanwhile the owners can own their teams for 30-50 years while risking no physical injury's while entertaining their wealthy elitist clients in their luxury boxes! Remember, owners earn their wealth over the long term appreciation/owner ship of their team(s).

Again, no star players the fans won't come to the stadiums, no star players.....no TV contracts, no star players......fans will not sell out stadiums.

Owners have never been in danger of going out of business due the cost of operating their franchise and paying player salaries.

So let's phase out the rich owners, seize their assetts and redistribute their wealth to the players. I am SURE the players will manage the business just as good if not better than the current rich elitist owners and all will be fair and well in the world.:laugh: