PDA

View Full Version : Football Union: NFL offer 'a front'; NFL fires back


Pages : [1] 2

Tribal Warfare
03-15-2011, 02:05 AM
<object width="384" height="216" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="ESPN_VIDEO" data="http://espn.go.com/videohub/player/embed.swf" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all"><param name="movie" value="http://espn.go.com/videohub/player/embed.swf" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="opaque"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="allowNetworking" value="all"/><param name="flashVars" value="id=6215147"/></object>

Union: NFL offer 'a front'; NFL fires back (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6217059)

WASHINGTON -- Had enough of the he-said, he-said rancor between the NFL and players? Don't expect it to go away anytime soon.

The outcome of the league's first work stoppage since 1987 could be decided in court; the first hearing on the players' request for an injunction to block the owners' lockout was scheduled for April 6. In the meantime, there probably will be more of the same as Monday, when Kevin Mawae -- president of the NFL Players Association, the now-dissolved union -- accused the league of spreading "complete falsehoods and complete lies."



"I think it was all a show, with no real intent to get a deal done, other than just to say they made a proposal -- that was no different than anything else that they proposed over the last couple years, couple months, couple weeks. ” -- Drew Brees on owners' final proposal

New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, on the same conference call as Mawae, said the owners' final offer Friday "was all a front."

"I think it was all a show, with no real intent to get a deal done, other than just to say they made a proposal -- that was no different than anything else that they proposed over the last couple years, couple months, couple weeks," said Brees, a named plaintiff in the players' antitrust lawsuit against the league.

Brees and Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, also a member of the players' executive committee, complained that the players were not given enough time to assess and ask questions about the proposal owners made Friday morning.

"It just seems odd you would wait until Friday to put out a 20-point proposal, when each point has a number of different details in it," Saturday said.

The NFL's lead labor negotiator, Jeff Pash, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that Friday's proposal contained various new provisions. He said owners offered a 10-year deal.

"I was frankly surprised that the [owners' labor] committee supported an offer as forthcoming as that was," Pash said.

He also said the league would have been willing to agree to a third extension to the collective bargaining agreement, which originally was due to expire at the end of March 3, before two delays. But another extension, he said, "wasn't really discussed in a serious way, because it was perfectly obvious they weren't interested."

By the end of Friday, talks broke off, the union announced it no longer would represent players, Brees and others filed suit, and the owners imposed a lockout at midnight.

"If they were saying they were not going to negotiate, under any circumstance, after 4 p.m. on Friday, don't you think you have to ask yourself: Who was it who was in Washington putting on a show?" Pash said.

"We answered all the questions they had at the time, and we never put a deadline on it. We're not the ones who were filing a lawsuit at 5 o'clock," Pash said.

For all the things the owners and players disagree on, the two main sticking points are clear: how much money owners would get up front before dividing the rest of $9 billion in annual revenues with players, and the union's demand for full financial disclosure.

"If we're going to talk about 'trust,' maybe you should ask the owners if they trust each other to see each others' books," Mawae said. "I think that's a greater issue than the players trusting the owners."

Under the old CBA, owners received more than $1 billion to cover certain operating expenses, before other money was split with players. When negotiations began on a new deal, the owners sought an additional $1 billion off the top. Both sides acknowledge there was movement in that area.

But as the NFLPA's lead spokesman, George Atallah, put it Monday: "The perception is that we were really, really close. The reality is we really, really weren't."



If they were saying they were not going to negotiate, under any circumstance, after 4 p.m. on Friday, don't you think you have to ask yourself: Who was it who was in Washington putting on a show?
” -- NFL general counsel Jeff Pash on NFLPA's intentions

Because the NFLPA says it no longer is a union, but rather a trade association -- a distinction the NFL calls a "sham" -- Atallah said any decision to return to negotiations would be up to the lawyers representing the players, rather than NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. Asked whether there would be talks before the April 6 hearing, Atallah replied: "As of now, no."

An NFLPA source seconded that notion to ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Monday afternoon. The source expects a ruling on the players' injunction request within a week of the hearing.

"No chance whatsoever," the source said when asked if a settlement was possible. "There is no union anymore so it is impossible for collective bargaining to occur and there will be no settlement or even the discussion of it before this injunction is ruled on."

The league, meanwhile, would prefer to return to the negotiating table. Starting Feb. 18, the sides met 16 times at federal mediator's office.

"We would get back together with them tomorrow if they wanted to. We're not the ones who walked out. We're not the ones who renounced our status. We're not the ones who filed litigation," Pash said. "So we would get back together with them tomorrow. And if they have questions about our proposal, we'd answer them. If they have alternatives they want us to consider, we'd consider them."

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 06:59 AM
I wish this shit would end already.
Either lock em out, or get em ready for spring camp.
But enough with the "we mean it, we won't play" bullshit already.

YOUR GOING TO BE REPLACED BY SCABS, WHO WILL PLAY FOR A HELL OF A LOT LESS MONEY, AND WILL LOVE EVERY BIT OF THEIR 15MINS IN THE SPOT LIGHT, A FEW OF THESE LUCKY INDIVIDUALS COULD VERY WELL END UP PLAYING IN THE NFL AT SOME LATER DATE......DEAL WITH IT YOU PATHETIC BITCHING MILLIONAIRE FUCKHEADS, OR GO GET REAL JOBS

Mile High Mania
03-15-2011, 07:06 AM
If I recall, they cannot use replacement players.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 07:07 AM
If I recall, they cannot use replacement players. Watchem.... they may not be able to replace their "team" as such, but no one can stop em from throwing a few football games in stadiums THEY own/manage with uniforms the OWNERS of the teams OWN the rights to ;)
These are not a bunch of stupid billionairs

MahiMike
03-15-2011, 07:09 AM
I wish this shit would end already.
Either lock em out, or get em ready for spring camp.
But enough with the "we mean it, we won't play" bullshit already.

YOUR GOING TO BE REPLACED BY SCABS, WHO WILL PLAY FOR A HELL OF A LOT LESS MONEY, AND WILL LOVE EVERY BIT OF THEIR 15MINS IN THE SPOT LIGHT, A FEW OF THESE LUCKY INDIVIDUALS COULD VERY WELL END UP PLAYING IN THE NFL AT SOME LATER DATE......DEAL WITH IT YOU PATHETIC BITCHING MILLIONAIRE ****HEADS, OR GO GET REAL JOBS

Woohoo! You go boy!

King_Chief_Fan
03-15-2011, 07:18 AM
If the union truly disolved, wouldn't that mean there is no agreement.
Without an agreement can't a buisness do what ever it needs to, to maintain the business without having to bargain. The union put the teams (companies) on notice that they do not represent the players any longer. If that is true decertification, the union can't reorganize for another year (I think). Plus, wouldn't the owners just require those under contract to get their assess to work?

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 07:21 AM
If the union truly disolved, wouldn't that mean there is no agreement.
Without an agreement can't a buisness do what ever it needs to, to maintain the business without having to bargain. The union put the teams (companies) on notice that they do not represent the players any longer. If that is true decertification, the union can't reorganize for another year (I think). Plus, wouldn't the owners just require those under contract to get their assess to work?
Works that way in the real world...but this isn't the real world, this is Pro Football where the employees tell the business owners how it's gonna be

milkman
03-15-2011, 07:29 AM
Works that way in the real world...but this isn't the real world, this is Pro Football where the employees tell the business owners how it's gonna be

Really?

The owners aren't the ones that implemented the lockout?

Amnorix
03-15-2011, 07:31 AM
In the real world, the NFL is a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which makes every other real world issue irrelevant.

Not that I support the players either, btw. But the monopoly problem is a very real problem for the NFL owners to deal with.

bowener
03-15-2011, 07:39 AM
Really?

The owners aren't the ones that implemented the lockout?

Shhh. Let's see how long this goes on.

bowener
03-15-2011, 07:42 AM
I have discovered through deep investigative techniques that this thread is actually a repost of a thread posted 20 minutes prior under a different title. However, both were started by Tribal Warfare... (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=242731)

King_Chief_Fan
03-15-2011, 07:52 AM
Really?

The owners aren't the ones that implemented the lockout?

and wasn't that after the union decertified and the players walked away from the table? The players...according to the report were filing a suit at 5:00 p.m.

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:02 AM
and wasn't that after the union decertified and the players walked away from the table? The players...according to the report were filing a suit at 5:00 p.m.

I don't believe either side came to these negotiations in good faith.

That being said, the players were not being given what they wanted, and the decertification was pro-active to the inevitable lockout.

King_Chief_Fan
03-15-2011, 08:05 AM
[quote=milkman;7491187]I don't believe either side came to these negotiations in good faith.

quote]

I think we have agreement on that

alnorth
03-15-2011, 08:09 AM
As long as the owners refuse to open their books to the union to explain why the players have to give up some money, I don't care about anything the owners may have to say right now.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:11 AM
Really?

The owners aren't the ones that implemented the lockout?

I didn't say that.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:18 AM
As long as the owners refuse to open their books to the union to explain why the players have to give up some money, I don't care about anything the owners may have to say right now.
They shouldn't have to, period end of story.
These players came to THEIR team after being drafted. NO oNE MADE THEM sign millionaire contracts.
They came in with teh attitude to play ball.
As a business owner i'd lock em out too. My damn team, my damn stadium, play or go back to McDonalds and make 3.2 mill a year with endorsment options wearing a big red and yellow suit, facepaint and over sized shoes whikle chasing a french fry thief.

I don't see the players so readily agreeing to cough up a percentage of their endorsment cash...I mean these guy's are known not only as football positoion player (insert name) but to which team they represent.
Shouldn't the Owners get a piece of that pie? I mean their endorsing the team as much as the product.

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 08:21 AM
As long as the owners refuse to open their books to the union to explain why the players have to give up some money, I don't care about anything the owners may have to say right now.

The main reason the owners don't want to open their books is because they don't want other owners seeing how they run their business. Snyder doesn't want Jones looking at his financials.

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:23 AM
I didn't say that.

Your mini rant in your initial response to this thread included the following:

But enough with the "we mean it, we won't play" bullshit already.


The players have not said they won't play.

The owners have locked the players out, not allowing them to play.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:24 AM
Your mini rant in your initial response to this thread included the following:




The players have not said they won't play.

The owners have locked the players out, not allowing them to play.
Because the players and or players union are unwilling to accecpt the new proposals

The oqwners opted for this new deal in the CBA. EVERYONE knew it was comming.
The owners are trying to gain control over their businesses again, nothing more nothing less. They like the players feel they should get a better deal.


http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810
Which side is forcing the issue?
The owners, particularly a faction of aggressive, entrepreneurial Goodell confidants (Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Pat Bowlen, Jerry Richardson) who want a CBA that accounts for the high-risk investments they’ve made on new stadiums and other capital expenditures. For the most part, the owners are unified in their belief that they agreed to a lousy deal when the current CBA was extended in 2006, and that the players currently receive too great a share of their adjusted gross revenues. At last March’s NFL owners meeting in Orlando, Fla., the Carolina Panthers (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/teams/car/)’ Richardson gave a fiery speech (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-ownerrankingsparttwo090310) in which he exhorted his peers to “take back our league” by forcing a more favorable deal down the throats of the players. This is likely to be accomplished in the form of a lockout, though it’s possible that the owners could opt for a milder approach: negotiating to impasse and imposing terms of their choosing, which might compel the players to strike. DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA’s executive director, is convinced that a lockout is coming, and a majority of his constituents – many of whom are more engaged and informed than is commonly perceived – share this belief.


Now,,,if players can refuse to go to training camp because they want a new deal, etc, etc, etc, and pull stuntys like this repeatedly even though their STILL UNDER CONTRACT , the very same one they hashed out several months and or years prior, each and every year, then why cant the owners pull the same shit.?
Not like Jerry can "refuse to show for camp" now can he

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:25 AM
They shouldn't have to, period end of story.
These players came to THEIR team after being drafted. NO oNE MADE THEM sign millionaire contracts.
They came in with teh attitude to play ball.
As a business owner i'd lock em out too. My damn team, my damn stadium, play or go back to McDonalds and make 3.2 mill a year with endorsment options wearing a big red and yellow suit, facepaint and over sized shoes whikle chasing a french fry thief.

I don't see the players so readily agreeing to cough up a percentage of their endorsment cash...I mean these guy's are known not only as football positoion player (insert name) but to which team they represent.
Shouldn't the Owners get a piece of that pie? I mean their endorsing the team as much as the product.

The owners are asking the players to give back money because of profitability issues, and expecting to simply do it on faith.

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:30 AM
Because the players and or players union are unwilling to accecpt the new proposals

The oqwners opted for this 2 years ago. EVERYONE knew it was comming.
The owners are trying to gain control over their businesses again, nothing more nothing less.

You think the owners don't have control?

NFL owners have more control of their product than any other pro sports league.

And neither side seemed to be in any hurry to work out a deal long before we reached this point.

Dave Lane
03-15-2011, 08:33 AM
As long as the owners refuse to open their books to the union to explain why the players have to give up some money, I don't care about anything the owners may have to say right now.

Totally this, show why you need financial relief or stick with the old agreement. Hell throw a rookie cap in there and call it good.

Los Pollos Hermanos
03-15-2011, 08:34 AM
I'll start showing sympathy for the owners when they stop letting the taxpayers build their stadiums.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:34 AM
You think the owners don't have control?

NFL owners have more control of their product than any other pro sports league.

And neither side seemed to be in any hurry to work out a deal long before we reached this point.

IMO it's simple business.
The owner wants a greater return, the worker figures he's worth more than his already over inflated salary.
Like it or not, the owners are the ones who are gonna win in the end. Even IF the NFL folds over this, you really think Jerry Jones or the other 31 team owners is gonna worry about his next meal?...Not like some of these pay cheque to paycheque players.

Dave Lane
03-15-2011, 08:35 AM
You think the owners don't have control?

NFL owners have more control of their product than any other pro sports league.

And neither side seemed to be in any hurry to work out a deal long before we reached this point.

He's a raiders fan. Expecting him to have any grasp of the facts is wildly optimistic.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:37 AM
He's a raiders fan. Expecting him to have any grasp of the facts is wildly optimistic.
Do you or Milkman own a company in which you have to deal with both a Union and the employee?

Reerun_KC
03-15-2011, 08:37 AM
You think the owners don't have control?

NFL owners have more control of their product than any other pro sports league.

And neither side seemed to be in any hurry to work out a deal long before we reached this point.

Actually who cares?

We still will have football NCAA style and I wouldnt be surprised if we dont see alot of those big time games filling the sunday time slots....

IF these crybabies want to go on a whine from both sides, then the NFL can go along the side of MLB where no one actually gives a shit whether or not MLB even exists...


I am sick and tired of hearing how the fans will be the ones hurt from this?

Really, your hurting me by forcing me to save money by not watching your product? LMAO

Yeah youre really hurting the fans NFL, you bullies...

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:39 AM
Totally this, show why you need financial relief or stick with the old agreement. .
Keep this in mind next time a vet boycotts the mandatory mini camp because he want;s a new contract to replace the one he's currantly working under which is still valid ;)

jjjayb
03-15-2011, 08:40 AM
In the real world, the NFL is a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which makes every other real world issue irrelevant.

Not that I support the players either, btw. But the monopoly problem is a very real problem for the NFL owners to deal with.

Are they really a Monopoly? They aren't excluding other companies from starting a football league. Just because nobody wants to watch other football leagues (arena, usfl) isn't the NFL's fault.

Dave Lane
03-15-2011, 08:41 AM
IMO it's simple business.
The owner wants a greater return, the worker figures he's worth more than his already over inflated salary.
Like it or not, the owners are the ones who are gonna win in the end. Even IF the NFL folds over this, you really think Jerry Jones or the other 31 team owners is gonna worry about his next meal?...Not like some of these pay cheque to paycheque players.

JFC are you that ignorant?
The owners want to cut the players salaries.
The players want to know why.
The owners won't tell or show them anything to back up their claim other than we need more money.

As much as you have whined on here about not getting paid for piddly little jobs and bitching, if you were told you would get 17,000 for a job and then had them tell you, you will only get 8,000 you probably would want more than audited financials to explain why this was. If they just said that's how it is be lucky you get that, you probably wouldn't keep working for them either.

alnorth
03-15-2011, 08:42 AM
They shouldn't have to, period end of story.

Since they are a monopoly that would normally be in violation of antitrust laws, yes they do, just as MLB and the NBA does for their unions, period, end of story.

Los Pollos Hermanos
03-15-2011, 08:42 AM
Keep this in mind next time a vet boycotts the mandatory mini camp because he want;s a new contract to replace the one he's currantly working under which is still valid ;)

You realize that contracts in the NFL are not guaranteed right? The owners can terminate a contract anytime they want, why shouldn't a player?

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:43 AM
IMO it's simple business.
The owner wants a greater return, the worker figures he's worth more than his already over inflated salary.
Like it or not, the owners are the ones who are gonna win in the end. Even IF the NFL folds over this, you really think Jerry Jones or the other 31 team owners is gonna worry about his next meal?...Not like some of these pay cheque to paycheque players.

Sure they want a greater return, but they are asking the players to give back.

If someone says to you they want more money and they need to take to from you, are you simply just going to give it to them?

alnorth
03-15-2011, 08:43 AM
The main reason the owners don't want to open their books is because they don't want other owners seeing how they run their business. Snyder doesn't want Jones looking at his financials.

Tough. Owners see each other's books in other sports, the NFL isn't special.

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:44 AM
Do you or Milkman own a company in which you have to deal with both a Union and the employee?

You're an independent contractor, aren't you?

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 08:45 AM
JFC are you that ignorant?
The owners want to cut the players salaries.
.

According to Kraft, the latest offer (made Friday) " offered a 14% increase in compensation, representing a total of $19-20 billion over the next four seasons."

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:46 AM
You're an independent contractor, aren't you?
Busines Owner sir.

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:48 AM
Busines Owner sir.

You didn't answer my question.

You're a business owner who does contract work in homes, aren't you?

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:48 AM
According to Kraft, the latest offer (made Friday) " offered a 14% increase in compensation, representing a total of $19-20 billion over the next four seasons."

shhhhh I'm the ignorant one remember for fucks sakes don't say anything that might make this bunch see the owners as anything other than what they are,,,business men....

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:50 AM
shhhhh I'm the ignorant one remember for ****s sakes don't say anything that might make this bunch see the owners as anything other than what they are,,,business men....

Both sides are going to make claims to try to paint a positive picture for their side.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:50 AM
You didn't answer my question.

You're a business owner who does contract work in homes, aren't you?

I didn't...go back a few posts.

I am a buisness owner who does both, contracts, and or provides contract work , PLUS fulfill contracts from other sources.

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 08:52 AM
Yes, Its the owners business and they should be able to run it as they see fit. However, the NFL isnt like other businesses. The product here is the players.

milkman
03-15-2011, 08:53 AM
I didn't...go back a few posts.

I am a buisness owner who does both, contracts, and or provides contract work , PLUS fulfill contracts from other sources.

So when you contract to do work for a homeowner, if he comes to you in the middle of the project and tells you he's losing money and that he needs to redo your agreement, you are simply going to take him at his word and do the work for less than the previously agreed upon figure, right?

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 08:55 AM
According to Kraft, the latest offer (made Friday) " offered a 14% increase in compensation, representing a total of $19-20 billion over the next four seasons."So, if the owners are offering an increase, why opt out of the CBA to begin with?

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 08:57 AM
So when you contract to do work for a homeowner, if he comes to you in the middle of the project and tells you he's losing money and that he needs to redo your agreement, you are simply going to take him at his word and do the work for less than the previously agreed upon figure, right?Wow, Milk. Excellent analogy.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 08:59 AM
So when you contract to do work for a homeowner, if he comes to you in the middle of the project and tells you he's losing money and that he needs to redo your agreement, you are simply going to take him at his word and do the work for less than the previously agreed upon figure, right?
If it's on paper, then thats it.
All depends on how greedy the home owner/builder is,but as a general rule NO.
but I also won't refuse to show up 3/4's of the way through when I think I got the bad end either....kinda like players and training camps.
I'm not saying the owners are spotless, but come on.How many of them made healines for police intervention last season?



Oh FTR there's only about 10% of any construction contractor I have ever run across who didn't bitch the blues half way through.
Some get what they want, most dont.
I'll abide by my contract if they abide by theirs...again....this has 3 sides to the total equation.
Me, person(s) involved, WTF is really taking place.
and
The players, the owners, wtf is really going on.

Were all just simply supporting our take on this whole thing with NO inside knowlage than whats been assertained through news media.

milkman
03-15-2011, 09:10 AM
If it's on paper, then thats it.
All depends on how greedy the home owner/builder is,but as a general rule NO.
but I also won't refuse to show up 3/4's of the way through when I think I got the bad end either....kinda like players and training camps.
I'm not saying the owners are spotless, but come on.How many of them made healines for police intervention last season?



Oh FTR there's only about 10% of any construction contractor I have ever run across who didn't bitch the blues half way through.
Some get what they want, most dont.
I'll abide by my contract if they abide by theirs...again....this has 3 sides to the total equation.
Me, person(s) involved, WTF is really taking place.
and
The players, the owners, wtf is really going on.

Were all just simply supporting our take on this whole thing with NO inside knowlage than whats been assertained through news media.

If it's on paper, then that's it?

And you're bitching about the players not wanting to give back money?

philfree
03-15-2011, 09:11 AM
Are they really a Monopoly? They aren't excluding other companies from starting a football league. Just because nobody wants to watch other football leagues (arena, usfl) isn't the NFL's fault.

I was just thinking the same thing. And the athletic abilities of the players can be used in other sports as well. There are plenty of places for them to ply their wares.

PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
03-15-2011, 09:18 AM
Yes, Its the owners business and they should be able to run it as they see fit. However, the NFL isnt like other businesses. The product here is the players.

I've seen this posted by others and it's not accurate. The product is the game/games.


PhilFree:arrow:

Dave Lane
03-15-2011, 09:21 AM
So when you contract to do work for a homeowner, if he comes to you in the middle of the project and tells you he's losing money and that he needs to redo your agreement, you are simply going to take him at his word and do the work for less than the previously agreed upon figure, right?

Repost. Well sorta, a much more concise version, good job.

Brock
03-15-2011, 09:22 AM
I've seen this posted by others and it's not accurate. The product is the game/games.


PhilFree:arrow:

The best product is made with the best players.

Dave Lane
03-15-2011, 09:23 AM
Do you or Milkman own a company in which you have to deal with both a Union and the employee?

Absolutely, I hire people like you all the time as I do real estate rehab. I'm going to cut all my workers pay 20% because of hard times and tell them to call you if they have an issue with it.

milkman
03-15-2011, 09:25 AM
I've seen this posted by others and it's not accurate. The product is the game/games.


PhilFree:arrow:

Without players there is no game.

Sure, you can play the game with Goodwill players, but it won't be the same product.

philfree
03-15-2011, 09:28 AM
The best product is made with the best players.

Uh...I wasn't really discussing replacements with that post. In was just noting that the players really aren't the product.


PhilFree:arrow:

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 09:30 AM
So when you contract to do work for a homeowner, if he comes to you in the middle of the project and tells you he's losing money and that he needs to redo your agreement, you are simply going to take him at his word and do the work for less than the previously agreed upon figure, right?

If you put an option in the contract, you can't complain when its exercised.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 09:30 AM
Absolutely, I hire people like you all the time as I do real estate rehab. I'm going to cut all my workers pay 20% because of hard times and tell them to call you if they have an issue with it.
And the way the American economy is tanking right now,,i'd say they'd be happy to keep their jobs.
Ask anyone on this board who's been out of work a while (now after the fact) if they would have kept their job's even if it ment losing 20%

as for your workers
Let em call me....numbers on my web site:thumb:

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 09:31 AM
If you put an option in the contract, you can't complain when its exercised. THANK YOU

milkman
03-15-2011, 09:33 AM
If you put an option in the contract, you can't complain when its exercised.

Who's complaining?

The players are simply telling the owners, since you opted out and are now trying to take a bigger piece of the pie, prove to us that you need it before we agree to a new contract that gives you that bigger piece of the pie.

philfree
03-15-2011, 09:34 AM
Without players there is no game.

Sure, you can play the game with Goodwill players, but it won't be the same product.

Without a factory workers there are no fan belts:shrug:

People need to quit comparing other industries to the NFL because they are not a like.


PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 09:35 AM
Other than PR purposes, why does the NFLPA use big name players in the negotiating process? Manning and Brees don't have to worry a lick about money. Can Manning really relate to the guy who scratches his way on a team for 2 years at minimum salary and doesn't get any endorsements?

milkman
03-15-2011, 09:41 AM
Without a factory workers there are no fan belts:shrug:

People need to quit comparing other industries to the NFL because they are not a like.


PhilFree:arrow:

Factory workers are a dime a dozen.

Can you say the same about NFL players?

WV
03-15-2011, 09:41 AM
Without a factory workers there are no fan belts:shrug:

People need to quit comparing other industries to the NFL because they are not a like.


PhilFree:arrow:

Thank you...and while I haven't read it in this thread I'm tired of seeing that BS about life threatening work too.

morphius
03-15-2011, 09:44 AM
Other than PR purposes, why does the NFLPA use big name players in the negotiating process? Manning and Brees don't have to worry a lick about money. Can Manning really relate to the guy who scratches his way on a team for 2 years at minimum salary and doesn't get any endorsements?
More than likely they are rep for their team, so they come to the meetings and pass the info down to their team. If you are going to a contract negotiation are you going to send rainman or googlegoogle?

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 09:48 AM
Who's complaining?

The players are simply telling the owners, since you opted out and are now trying to take a bigger piece of the pie, prove to us that you need it before we agree to a new contract that gives you that bigger piece of the pie.

The employees piece of the pie is typically a result of negotiations, not whatever the company makes. The players request is pretty unreasonable. They are being told that the owners want to exercise their option to negotiate changes to the agreement. The owners paid heavily for that option at the previous negotiation.

milkman
03-15-2011, 09:53 AM
The employees piece of the pie is typically a result of negotiations, not whatever the company makes. The players request is pretty unreasonable. They are being told that the owners want to exercise their option to negotiate changes to the agreement. The owners paid heavily for that option at the previous negotiation.

How did they pay heavily for that option?

philfree
03-15-2011, 09:53 AM
Factory workers are a dime a dozen.

Can you say the same about NFL players?

Like I said "People need to quit comparing other industries to the NFL because they are not a like."


PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
03-15-2011, 09:57 AM
Like I said "People need to quit comparing other industries to the NFL because they are not a like."


PhilFree:arrow:

Well, duh....

You're the one that made the factory worker analogy, so I responded.

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 09:57 AM
How did they pay heavily for that option?

The players didn't just concede that there would be an option. It was part of the package. Nothing is free in a negotiation. The players got terrific terms in the previous agreement, the owners got the option to change the deal after a few years.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 09:58 AM
Factory workers are a dime a dozen.

Can you say the same about NFL players?
How many didn't get drafted this year?
The Owners could probably field a team of 52 players, for about HALF or less than their spending on salary per year now.
Sure the end product may not be as enticing as whats on the field now...but by late Oct,,it'll look mighty entertaining.
Had Vince McMahn tried the XFL during a strike year, bet he would have lasted more then one season, and had even MORE teams by the end of the second year.

A true fan would love to see his /her teams colors playing, and there ain't one of you KC faithfull who wouldn't raise the roof if KC pounded Oakland 45-0 in Arrowhead during a season opener no matter who the **** was wearing the jerseys be it Cassell or some schmuck named John Smith.
You root for your team, not the players as such.

philfree
03-15-2011, 10:01 AM
Well, duh....

You're the one that made the factory worker analogy, so I responded.

That was a lead in to help make my point.

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:03 AM
The players didn't just concede that there would be an option. It was part of the package. Nothing is free in a negotiation. The players got terrific terms in the previous agreement, the owners got the option to change the deal after a few years.

So you are simply speculating that they paid heavily, without any actual knowledge of what was actaully paid in order to get that option.

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 10:03 AM
More than likely they are rep for their team, so they come to the meetings and pass the info down to their team. If you are going to a contract negotiation are you going to send rainman or googlegoogle?

If there is a contract negotiation, each side should nominate 2-3 people tops to be on a steering committee. More people = more problems.

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 10:06 AM
I've seen this posted by others and it's not accurate. The product is the game/games.


PhilFree:arrow:The players play the games. Otherwise we could just hire HS graduates to play.

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:07 AM
How many didn't get drafted this year?
The Owners could probably field a team of 52 players, for about HALF or less than their spending on salary per year now.
Sure the end product may not be as enticing as whats on the field now...but by late Oct,,it'll look mighty entertaining.
Had Vince McMahn tried the XFL during a strike year, bet he would have lasted more then one season, and had even MORE teams by the end of the second year.

A true fan would love to see his /her teams colors playing, and there ain't one of you KC faithfull who wouldn't raise the roof if KC pounded Oakland 45-0 in Arrowhead during a season opener no matter who the **** was wearing the jerseys be it Cassell or some schmuck named John Smith.
You root for your team, not the players as such.

Yeah, diehard fans are going to watch.

But the league is thriving because casual fans are watching.

If they play the game with replacements, casual fan is going to tune out, and it will take years, perhaps decades to bring casual fan back.

In the meantime, future TV contracts are going to suffer, and the money that the NFL makes in those are going to be a pittance compared to the money they are raking in now.

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 10:08 AM
So you are simply speculating that they paid heavily, without any actual knowledge of what was actaully paid in order to get that option.
Of course they paid for the option through other concessions. They would not have agreed to the previous cba without the opt out, which is well documented.

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:09 AM
The players play the games. Otherwise we could just hire HS graduates to play.

The product is the game and the players.

You won't buy a car if it has a lawnmower engine in it.

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:11 AM
Of course they paid for the option through other concessions. They would not have agreed to the previous cba without the opt out, which is well documented.

But you have no idea what those concessions might have been, so to suggest they paid "heavily" is nothing more than conjecture.

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 10:12 AM
I know lots of people view King as a shill for the owners, but he has a nice breakdown of items in the last owners' proposal:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/14/labor/index.html

WV
03-15-2011, 10:13 AM
The product is the game and the players.

You won't buy a car if it has a lawnmower engine in it.

Let's not get crazy and act they are not somewhat replaceable though. I'm relatively certain that any number of good college athletes that didn't get drafted would love to play the game for less money. Sure your not going to replace the Superstars, but just how many of them are there really? Let's not also act like those said stars make the team.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 10:17 AM
Let's not get crazy and act they are not somewhat replaceable though. I'm relatively certain that any number of good college athletes that didn't get drafted would love to play the game for less money. Sure your not going to replace the Superstars, but just how many of them are there really? Let's not also act like those said stars make the team. THIS times eleventy gazillion

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 10:18 AM
But you have no idea what those concessions might have been, so to suggest they paid "heavily" is nothing more than conjecture.

If you want to play that game. It doesn't matter. The owners negotiated for an option and they have a right to exercise it to renegotiate the deal. The players agreed to the deal with the option, and knew full well from day one the owners would exercise it. Now the players act all surprised,"why should we renegotiate?" Because that was the condition of the previous deal. I have zero sympathy for the players and owners. But the owners aren't wronging the players here as the players want to make it seem they are.

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:19 AM
Let's not get crazy and act they are not somewhat replaceable though. I'm relatively certain that any number of good college athletes that didn't get drafted would love to play the game for less money. Sure your not going to replace the Superstars, but just how many of them are there really? Let's not also act like those said stars make the team.

Like I said, if you play the game with replacement players, casual fan is going to tune out.

They'll get MLB type TV ratings, or worse.

Los Pollos Hermanos
03-15-2011, 10:19 AM
I won't watch replacement players. It'll be one more day of the week I can take my boat out to the lake.

Chief Faithful
03-15-2011, 10:20 AM
How many didn't get drafted this year?
A true fan would love to see his /her teams colors playing, and there ain't one of you KC faithfull who wouldn't raise the roof if KC pounded Oakland 45-0 in Arrowhead during a season opener no matter who the **** was wearing the jerseys be it Cassell or some schmuck named John Smith.
You root for your team, not the players as such.

I'm guilty.

I would watch the games with the same enthusiasm no matter who is wearing the colors. I'm a Chiefs fan not a NFLPA fan.

philfree
03-15-2011, 10:20 AM
But you have no idea what those concessions might have been, so to suggest they paid "heavily" is nothing more than conjecture.

60% of the revenue less the $bill. The owners had never given up that much before and they wouldn't have if they didn't have the opt out clause in the contracts.

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:25 AM
If you want to play that game. It doesn't matter. The owners negotiated for an option and they have a right to exercise it to renegotiate the deal. The players agreed to the deal with the option, and knew full well from day one the owners would exercise it. Now the players act all surprised,"why should we renegotiate?" Because that was the condition of the previous deal. I have zero sympathy for the players and owners. But the owners aren't wronging the players here as the players want to make it seem they are.

While the owners have no obligation to open their books, the players do have the right to ask the owners to show them proof that they are suffering some financial burden before agreeing to a new deal.

If the owners don't want to provide that proof, the players have a right to walk away from negotiations.

OnTheWarpath58
03-15-2011, 10:26 AM
Like I said, if you play the game with replacement players, casual fan is going to tune out.

They'll get MLB type TV ratings, or worse.

More than just casual fans will tune out, IMO.

If I want to watch subpar football, I can watch the college game on Saturdays, or catch the UFL or Arena League.

The NFL offers fans the opportunity to watch the best players in the world.

Without that, I have no interest in watching.

Bowser
03-15-2011, 10:27 AM
This is all bunk, anyway. Bottom line is that there is just way too much money to be lost by both sides if games don't get played this year. You watch - we'll listen to this horseshit all the way through July, and then lo and behold, they'll hammer out some agreement that will allow teams to get get to playing the games. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these greedy bastards don't want to lose the revenue stream that comes in even from a preseason game.

That is my prediction. Tons of back and forth crap through the year only to get something done in mid to late July so they can get every game possible in.

OnTheWarpath58
03-15-2011, 10:28 AM
This is all bunk, anyway. Bottom line is that there is just way too much money to be lost by both sides if games don't get played this year. You watch - we'll listen to this horseshit all the way through July, and then lo and behold, they'll hammer out some agreement that will allow teams to get get to playing the games. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these greedy bastards don't want to lose the revenue stream that comes in even from a preseason game.

That is my prediction. Tons of back and forth crap through the year only to getg something done in mid to late July so they can get every game possible in.

Agreed.

Brock
03-15-2011, 10:28 AM
This is all bunk, anyway. Bottom line is that there is just way too much money to be lost by both sides if games don't get played this year. You watch - we'll listen to this horseshit all the way through July, and then lo and behold, they'll hammer out some agreement that will allow teams to get get to playing the games. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these greedy bastards don't want to lose the revenue stream that comes in even from a preseason game.

That is my prediction. Tons of back and forth crap through the year only to getg something done in mid to late July so they can get every game possible in.

I hope you're right.

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 10:29 AM
While the owners have no obligation to open their books, the players do have the right to ask the owners to show them proof that they are suffering some financial burden before agreeing to a new deal.

If the owners don't want to provide that proof, the players have a right to walk away from negotiations.

They can ask. Its just unreasonable. If the condition is unacceptable to the owners, then goodbye players and good riddance. At this point they are just trying to air dirty laundry rather than negotiate. Its poor form in my opinion. What do you think the players would do with these fully audited financial statements? You sure as shit don't need them to tell you revenue is down and stadium costs are up.

Garcia Bronco
03-15-2011, 10:32 AM
In the real world, the NFL is a monopoly in violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which makes every other real world issue irrelevant.

Not that I support the players either, btw. But the monopoly problem is a very real problem for the NFL owners to deal with.

Please explain to me how the NFL violates the Sherman Anti-trust Act. How is it a monopoly on professional football when there are other professional leagues?

King_Chief_Fan
03-15-2011, 10:36 AM
While the owners have no obligation to open their books, the players do have the right to ask the owners to show them proof that they are suffering some financial burden before agreeing to a new deal.

If the owners don't want to provide that proof, the players have a right to walk away from negotiations.

Indeed they do. Wouldn't the owners have additional options? With the decertification and the possible failure by players union attempt to find the owners guilty of anti-trust, the owners sit in the drivers seat. You re-build the NFL with replacements and draft players out of college. Sure, it could be crappy football for a couple of years but what could it look like down the road? (minus the possible unionization of the new group) or could some players now say....F the union, they decertified, I am going to go play? The biggest losers are the stadium employees. How do they find remedy in all of this?

milkman
03-15-2011, 10:38 AM
They can ask. Its just unreasonable. If the condition is unacceptable to the owners, then goodbye players and good riddance. At this point they are just trying to air dirty laundry rather than negotiate. Its poor form in my opinion. What do you think the players would do with these fully audited financial statements? You sure as shit don't need them to tell you revenue is down and stadium costs are up.

Revenue is down?

Bowser
03-15-2011, 10:39 AM
Indeed they do. Wouldn't the owners have additional options? With the decertification and the possible failure by players union attempt to find the owners guilty of anti-trust, the owners sit in the drivers seat. You re-build the NFL with replacements and draft players out of college. Sure, it could be crappy football for a couple of years but what could it look like down the road? (minus the possible unionization of the new group) or could some players now say....F the union, they decertified, I am going to go play? The biggest losers are the stadium employees. How do they find remedy in all of this?

Explain to me why the fuck anyone would be willing to sit through that kind of league wide remodel? If they pull that kind of stupid shit, I'll probably send them a letter thanking them for allowing me to save thousands yearly, and giving me an extra day in the fall and winter to get stuff done.

Nightfyre
03-15-2011, 10:39 AM
Its one thing to debate and another to cater to obstinance.

philfree
03-15-2011, 10:43 AM
They can ask. Its just unreasonable. If the condition is unacceptable to the owners, then goodbye players and good riddance. At this point they are just trying to air dirty laundry rather than negotiate. Its poor form in my opinion. What do you think the players would do with these fully audited financial statements? You sure as shit don't need them to tell you revenue is down and stadium costs are up.

They'd find something that has nothing to do with the revenue vs expenses and use it to blackmail the league into giving them what they want. That's why it needs to go to a third party.


PhilFree:arrow:

King_Chief_Fan
03-15-2011, 10:45 AM
Explain to me why the **** anyone would be willing to sit through that kind of league wide remodel? If they pull that kind of stupid shit, I'll probably send them a letter thanking them for allowing me to save thousands yearly, and giving me an extra day in the fall and winter to get stuff done.

good question. Not sure anyone would want to. I am one of those who don't give a shit what they do......they can fail to exist for several seasons as far as I am concerned. I need to work more on my golf game.

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 10:55 AM
If I want to watch subpar football, I can watch the college game on Saturdays,

Blasphemy!

Bowser
03-15-2011, 10:56 AM
More than just casual fans will tune out, IMO.

If I want to watch subpar football, I can watch the college game on Saturdays, or catch the UFL or Arena League.

The NFL offers fans the opportunity to watch the best players in the world.

Without that, I have no interest in watching.

College football isn't a "real" sport. [/KU fan]

milkman
03-15-2011, 11:01 AM
College football isn't a "real" sport. [/KU fan]

I watch college football simply to watch NFL prospects.

I have no ties to any team, don't care who wins.

Objectively speaking, it is an inferior product.

OnTheWarpath58
03-15-2011, 11:02 AM
I watch college football simply to watch NFL prospects.

I have no ties to any team, don't care who wins.

Objectively speaking, it is an inferior product.

Same here.

Bowser
03-15-2011, 11:03 AM
I watch college football simply to watch NFL prospects.

I have no ties to any team, don't care who wins.

Objectively speaking, it is an inferior product.

See, to break down my sarcastic post with a well thought out and spoken response, well, it just makes me sad.

(And I think it was Wickedson that let that gem out one day, heh)

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 11:03 AM
I watch college football simply to watch NFL prospects.

I have no ties to any team, don't care who wins.

Objectively speaking, it is an inferior product.Pretty much the same, although It does has a high entertainment value for me. In some ways, though, it is more exciting than the NFL.

BigMeatballDave
03-15-2011, 11:05 AM
(And I think it was Wickedson that let that gem out one day, heh)It was him. Possibly the most idiotic post I've read here.

milkman
03-15-2011, 11:06 AM
See, to break down my sarcastic post with a well thought out and spoken response, well, it just makes me sad.

(And I think it was Wickedson that let that gem out one day, heh)

I got that your post was sarcasm.

It just seemed like a good starting point for my post.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 01:17 PM
The owners are asking the players to give back money because of profitability issues, and expecting to simply do it on faith.
complete and utter bullshit

it's the owner's money ... how can they be asking for it back? The prior CBA is just an contractual agreement between owner and employee that had expired, it's not a partnership.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 01:21 PM
monopoly

Definition
A situation in which a single company owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. This would happen in the case that there is a barrier to entry into the industry that allows the single company to operate without competition (for example, vast economies of scale, barriers to entry, or governmental regulation). In such an industry structure, the producer will often produce a volume that is less than the amount which would maximize social welfare.

----------------------------------------------------------

NFL
UFL
AFL

Not really a monopoly if the players have other options if they don't like the NFL.

philfree
03-15-2011, 01:41 PM
complete and utter bullshit

it's the owner's money ... how can they be asking for it back? The prior CBA is just an contractual agreement between owner and employee that had expired, it's not a partnership.

Player for player (except for the incoming rookies who weren't making anything.) they will make more dollars then they ever have as time goes on. They don't have to give back anything. The only thing I see the players giving up is the leverage to jack up player salaies with crazy rookie contracts.

PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 01:46 PM
Other than rookies, which players are being asked to take pay cuts?

philfree
03-15-2011, 01:55 PM
Other than rookies, which players are being asked to take pay cuts?

No, no, no! Every player is going to take a 20% pay cut....They're having their money taken away! Poor mistreated, disrespected wittle NFL pwayers...


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:09 PM
Uh...I wasn't really discussing replacements with that post. In was just noting that the players really aren't the product.


PhilFree:arrow:

This laughable.

Without "The Players", the NFL wouldn't have a product that commands $9 billion in revenues.

Without "The Players" in the NFL, there would BE no NFL.

Do you remember the USFL?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:10 PM
Other than rookies, which players are being asked to take pay cuts?

Everyone.

$2 billion off the top instead of one billion off the top.

That was reduced to $650 m.

But in a time of unparalleled economic prosperity, why should the players take a pay cut?

Los Pollos Hermanos
03-15-2011, 02:11 PM
What would happen if the players went to the UFL?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:13 PM
complete and utter bullshit

it's the owner's money ... how can they be asking for it back? The prior CBA is just an contractual agreement between owner and employee that had expired, it's not a partnership.

The owners don't have any "money" without the players.

Empty stadiums. No television contracts. No concessions. No parking.

Nothing.

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 02:13 PM
What would happen if the players went to the UFL?

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/O3ZOKDmorj0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:16 PM
What would happen if the players went to the UFL?

It would be a risky move but if the players signed a CBA with the UFL, the UFL would gain instant creditability in the eyes of the television networks and fans.

It would depend on how long that CBA with the UFL lasted but if it were at least five years (but better yet, a decade), the UFL would certainly be quickly on its way as the dominant American football league.

That said, it'll never happen.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:20 PM
Uh...I wasn't really discussing replacements with that post. In was just noting that the players really aren't the product.


PhilFree:arrow:

Unlike other fans of the Chiefs who wear the jersey of their favorite player, Phil has a Clark Hunt jersey he wears to Arrowhead.

philfree
03-15-2011, 02:22 PM
This laughable.

Without "The Players", the NFL wouldn't have a product that commands $9 billion in revenues.

Without "The Players" in the NFL, there would BE no NFL.

Do you remember the USFL?

4 years down the road the whole league would be retooled. It's just silly to think that the quality of play would be diminsihed forever. I think the players are more replacable than other people think. I'm not alone on that either. And FWIW with all the best coaches, trainers and facilities available the league would probably still be better then the USFL.


PhilFree:arrow:

philfree
03-15-2011, 02:29 PM
Unlike other fans of the Chiefs who wear the jersey of their favorite player, Phil has a Clark Hunt jersey he wears to Arrowhead.

That's stupid but it's amazing that I could even make out what you said at all with those jocks your sniffing hanging off your nose.

Honestly it took me a little bit of effort to be able to wear a shirt with another mans name on the back of it. Seemed kind of queer to me. I can easily wear a shirt that says Chiefs on it though.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:30 PM
4 years down the road the whole league would be retooled. It's just silly to think that the quality of play would be diminsihed forever. I think the players are more replacable than other people think. I'm not alone on that either. And FWIW with all the best coaches, trainers and facilities available the league would probably still be better then the USFL.


PhilFree:arrow:

Yeah, just look to the UFL and Arena League with their massive TV contracts and sold out stadiums across America as proof that the NFL doesn't have superior athletes that are easily replaceable.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 02:32 PM
That's stupid but it's amazing that I could even make out what you said at all with those jocks your sniffing hanging off your nose.

Oh, so now the little man results to insults?

Nice, Phil.

IF the owners have provided financial transparency and the union rejected a deal, I'd be more inclined to be on the of the owners.

I'll ask, once again and I'd like answer from you, instead of snide, out of context remark:

How, in a year on unparalleled economic prosperity and $9 billions in guaranteed revenues, can the owners demand a pay cut of any kind from the players?

Answer, please.

Brock
03-15-2011, 02:33 PM
That's stupid but it's amazing that I could even make out what you said at all with those jocks your sniffing hanging off your nose. :

That's a pretty funny sounding statement to make with Jerry Jones' balls on your chin.

philfree
03-15-2011, 02:50 PM
Oh, so now the little man results to insults?

Nice, Phil.

IF the owners have provided financial transparency and the union rejected a deal, I'd be more inclined to be on the of the owners.

I'll ask, once again and I'd like answer from you, instead of snide, out of context remark:

How, in a year on unparalleled economic prosperity and $9 billions in guaranteed revenues, can the owners demand a pay cut of any kind from the players?

Answer, please.

The owners will take the revenue and put it back into the league so they can grow the pie making everyone envolved richer. The players have never done a damn thing to grow the pie. They take their money and spend it else where. Meanwhile the NFL has taken strides to grow their league pie every year. The game for the most part will always remain the same but the names and players always change. Every great player that is supposedly so irreplacable to the league has been repalced. What makes people think that won't happen again....and again after that?

And again no player currently in the league is going to take a pay cut becuase of a new CBA. Two years from now they'll be making more dollars then they ever have.

PhilFree:arrow:

MahiMike
03-15-2011, 02:53 PM
As long as the owners refuse to open their books to the union to explain why the players have to give up some money, I don't care about anything the owners may have to say right now.

Say whu? How about you go to your boss and demand to see the books to determine how much of a raise you'd like to ask for.

MahiMike
03-15-2011, 02:56 PM
JFC are you that ignorant?
The owners want to cut the players salaries.
The players want to know why.
The owners won't tell or show them anything to back up their claim other than we need more money.

As much as you have whined on here about not getting paid for piddly little jobs and bitching, if you were told you would get 17,000 for a job and then had them tell you, you will only get 8,000 you probably would want more than audited financials to explain why this was. If they just said that's how it is be lucky you get that, you probably wouldn't keep working for them either.

You just described today's economy for all other occupations.

philfree
03-15-2011, 03:00 PM
That's a pretty funny sounding statement to make with Jerry Jones' balls on your chin.

Dane can fight his own battles I'm pretty sure. Tell me though does the New Under Armour atheltic supporter hold the scent better than the XO brand?:evil: Don't take it personal it's just a joke on a football forum.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 03:01 PM
You just described today's economy for all other occupations.

The NFL isn't the same, especially considering their Antitrust exemption.

It's a simple case of comparing apples to oranges.

Brock
03-15-2011, 03:02 PM
You just described today's economy for all other occupations.

It isn't any more right for any of those people either.

BigCatDaddy
03-15-2011, 03:04 PM
Educate me here guys. When the money is to be split with the players is that done like in the form of a salary floor + set beneifts or what?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 03:07 PM
The owners will take the revenue and put it back into the league so they can grow the pie making everyone envolved richer.

They're making "everyone richer" by asking the players to take a pay cut and exempt more than $1.5 billion of guaranteed revenues before sharing.

That's absurd.

The players have never done a damn thing to grow the pie.

Right.

The players didn't have perfect attendance in Kansas City's optional training sessions last year. Dwayne Bowe didn't work out with Larry Fitzgerald in order to improve his game. Matt Cassel didn't work long hours in the offseason with Charlie Weis.

And none of those things help to improve the game or sell jersey or increase viewership, right?

Meanwhile the NFL has taken strides to grow their league pie every year. The game for the most part will always remain the same but the names and players always change. Every great player that is supposedly so irreplacable to the league has been repalced. What makes people think that won't happen again....and again after that?

Sure, Elway has been replaced in Denver, as has Terrell Davis. Derrick Thomas has been replaced in Kansas City. Dan Marino in Miami. John Randle in Minnesota. Jim Plunkett in Oakland.

The list goes on and on and on. All of those guys have been replaced with equally talented players.


And again no player currently in the league is going to take a pay cut becuase of a new CBA. Two years from now they'll be making more dollars then they ever have.

PhilFree:arrow:

Yeah, the league revenues are growing so quickly that the $1.5 billion dollar exemption they're asking for will just be a pittance.

Swanman
03-15-2011, 03:18 PM
Educate me here guys. When the money is to be split with the players is that done like in the form of a salary floor + set beneifts or what?

In a basic sense, yes. Another piece of the puzzle is post-retirement benefits for players, which has become a big issue in recent years.

Swanman
03-15-2011, 03:20 PM
The owners will take the revenue and put it back into the league so they can grow the pie making everyone envolved richer.

When the taxpayers stop paying for most of the new stadiums and stadium additions, that point will have a lot more merit.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 03:21 PM
I'm guilty.

I would watch the games with the same enthusiasm no matter who is wearing the colors. I'm a Chiefs fan not a NFLPA fan.
:thumb::thumb:....the rest is all just matters of opnion between CP members posting what THEY believe is , has or will happen.

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 03:22 PM
Everyone.

$2 billion off the top instead of one billion off the top.

That was reduced to $650 m.

But in a time of unparalleled economic prosperity, why should the players take a pay cut?

Let me see if I understand this. The owners wanted an additional 1 billion off the top.

You mean to tell me that 1 billion dollars was going to be taken from the 1,700 players existing salaries? Each player was going to have take a 600k pay cut?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 03:32 PM
Let me see if I understand this. The owners wanted an additional 1 billion off the top.

You mean to tell me that 1 billion dollars was going to be taken from the 1,700 players existing salaries? Each player was going to have take a 600k pay cut?

If all players were created equal, then yes. But of course, you obviously know that isn't the case.

It also means that there would be $1 billion less of guaranteed revenues that would be shared with the players, whether they're active or retired.

Regardless, can you please explain to all of us why the owners need an additional $1 billion, bringing that total to $2 billion, before revenues are shared with the players?

Thanks in advance.

Chiefnj2
03-15-2011, 03:36 PM
If all players were created equal, then yes. But of course, you obviously know that isn't the case.

It also means that there would be $1 billion less of guaranteed revenues that would be shared with the players, whether they're active or retired.

Regardless, can you please explain to all of us why the owners need an additional $1 billion, bringing that total to $2 billion, before revenues are shared with the players?

Thanks in advance.

Don't the players have contracts? Were they going to redo all contracts to account for the $600k per player.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 03:42 PM
The owners don't have any "money" without the players.

Empty stadiums. No television contracts. No concessions. No parking.

Nothing.
And the players have even less.
At least the owners can opt for a *less money making* plan and replace their stars...what are the players gonna do?

It's a no win situation at best...but the fact is...it's players against BILLIONAIRS who can and probably could just close shop and live happy for the rest of their lives

Brock
03-15-2011, 03:44 PM
And the players have even less.
At least the owners can opt for a *less money making* plan and replace their stars...what are the players gonna do?

It's a no win situation at best...but the fact is...it's players against BILLIONAIRS who can and probably could just close shop and live happy for the rest of their lives

They tried "replacing their stars" before. It didn't go very well.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 03:45 PM
Don't the players have contracts? Were they going to redo all contracts to account for the $600k per player.

Are you asking this question as a serious question, or are you just being obtuse, as usual?

mikey23545
03-15-2011, 03:48 PM
I wonder if every player is going to open his financial records up to the owners so the owners can see if they really need a raise or not?

mikey23545
03-15-2011, 03:49 PM
They tried "replacing their stars" before. It didn't go very well.

The "stars" tried playing without the team names before.

Refresh my memory on how that went.

philfree
03-15-2011, 03:52 PM
They're making "everyone richer" by asking the players to take a pay cut and exempt more than $1.5 billion of guaranteed revenues before sharing.

That's absurd.



Right.

The players didn't have perfect attendance in Kansas City's optional training sessions last year. Dwayne Bowe didn't work out with Larry Fitzgerald in order to improve his game. Matt Cassel didn't work long hours in the offseason with Charlie Weis.

And none of those things help to improve the game or sell jersey or increase viewership, right?



Sure, Elway has been replaced in Denver, as has Terrell Davis. Derrick Thomas has been replaced in Kansas City. Dan Marino in Miami. John Randle in Minnesota. Jim Plunkett in Oakland.

The list goes on and on and on. All of those guys have been replaced with equally talented players.



Yeah, the league revenues are growing so quickly that the $1.5 billion dollar exemption they're asking for will just be a pittance.

Players salaries have grown every year since the CBA and that's not going to change with a new CBA. You don't think that salaries will continue to grow? You really think the salaries will get smaller as time goes on with the CBA the owners offered? I would find that type of thinking to be absurd.


You really think that Cassel and Bowe increased the number of viewers because of offseason workouts? If Tyler Palko was named the starter he wouldn't have sold as many jerseys as Cassel? Cassel being everyones All Amrican and all. Talk about laughable.


So in the coming years there will be no players coming out of college as talented as the ones already in the league? Really? If that's the case the league is already doomed.


So the 41.5bil off the top is only significant to the players? Really?


On the surface I can see how one could view things your way but with the big picture the players in the league will not be worse off. Individually the palyers in the league aren't going to make less money. And as the pie grows contracts will still grow every year. Is that really that hard to comprehend?


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
03-15-2011, 03:53 PM
The "stars" tried playing without the team names before.

Refresh my memory on how that went.

I guess I missed where I put forth that idea.

WV
03-15-2011, 03:54 PM
Regardless, can you please explain to all of us why the owners need an additional $1 billion, bringing that total to $2 billion, before revenues are shared with the players?

Thanks in advance.


The owners are planning ahead that's why. Here's just one reason...

A new NFL stadium hasn’t been approved since 2005.

That’s not some coincidence.

The owners aren’t looking to fund and build any new ones (and pay the massive mortgages on them) until the players agree to share a bit more of the financial return. Fans don’t want to hear about the financial minutiae of this “billionaires vs. millionaires” war, but the way the owners and players split the annual gross revenue ($9.3 billion is the expected figure from the 2010 season) heavily favors the players.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Schrager-NFL-work-stoppage-players-partially-to-blame-fans-are-biggest-losers-030311



I understand the articles intent, but you should read it to get another perspective.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 04:00 PM
They tried "replacing their stars" before. It didn't go very well.
But games were still played wern't they?
And in the end who really won? The STARS involved aren't even playing anymore, but yet the dumb ass owners remain......

Players like Howie Long crossed the lines after watching his half mill or so vanish in thin air the last time. Gonna happen this time as well if the lock out proceeds IMO

In the end as was already said They will more than likely crunch a deal in the 11th hour, that will see the players get a deal even worse then they wanted at the expence of all those contract cheques they WOULD have got over the previous few months.
Very much the same way Danny Williams had EVERY Union employee working in the public sector in the entire province standing around scratching their ass's for a month and a half, going broke screaming 'WERE NOT GONNA TAKE IT" louder then Dee Snyder ever thought of, then in the end, gave them 75% of what they wanted, right after he saved the Government enough coin to give it to them.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:02 PM
Players salaries have grown every year since the CBA and that's not going to change with a new CBA. You don't think that salaries will continue to grow? You really think the salaries will get smaller as time goes on with the CBA the owners offered? I would find that type of thinking to be absurd.

Salaries would grow due to increased revenues and ONLY if revenues increased. In the last CBA, the split was 60/40 in favor of the players but the owners wanted to decrease that as well.

So, tell us, oh wise one, if the owners want to lop off an additional $1 billion in revenues ($2 billion) AND want to reduce the percentage of revenues shared with the owners, how will salaries grow?

At what point does the law of diminishing returns come into play? Do you really believe that the networks will continue to offer more money for broadcast rights? Because essentially, that's the only way salaries will increase.

You really think that Cassel and Bowe increased the number of viewers because of offseason workouts? If Tyler Palko was named the starter he wouldn't have sold as many jerseys as Cassel? Cassel being everyones All Amrican and all. Talk about laughable.

Laughable, eh? Well, if Cassel and Bowe have a poor season and the Chiefs have a poor season overall, television ratings in the KC area diminish due to lack of interest.

The better the team and the players, the better the viewership. The better the viewership, the higher the ad rates and revenues. The higher the revenues and viewship, the larger the NFL contracts with the networks become.

To say it's "laughable" proves that you don't have a clear understanding of their revenue stream.

So in the coming years there will be no players coming out of college as talented as the ones already in the league? Really? If that's the case the league is already doomed.

That is clearly not the case or the point. The point is that the players, especially "Superstar" players are not readily replaceable.

If so, where's KC's latest version of Len Dawson?

On the surface I can see how one could view things your way but with the big picture the players in the league will not be worse off. Individually the palyers in the league aren't going to make less money. And as the pie grows contracts will still grow every year. Is that really that hard to comprehend? PhilFree:arrow:

Where are your guarantees that TV rights revenues will continue to ascend? At some point, it's going to become unaffordable, which is why most of the networks (save ESPN) renewed their rights contracts at the previous rate.

The NFL has tried to expand to Europe without much success. They don't have a team in Canada or Mexico or Asia. Expansion is tenuous at best.

Is THAT so difficult to comprehend?

philfree
03-15-2011, 04:02 PM
When the taxpayers stop paying for most of the new stadiums and stadium additions, that point will have a lot more merit.

At this point with the ecomony the way it is are the tax payers going to keep voting to pay for that stuff? And then in reagards to the Chiefs didn't Clark just pony up $150mil to help with the renovation of Arrowhead? That said your post illustrates who is really going to get screwed if they can't hash this thing out and play ball in 2011. And that's the fans.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:06 PM
The owners are planning ahead that's why. Here's just one reason...



I understand the articles intent, but you should read it to get another perspective.

Everyone is aware of their claim. The problem with that is that most stadiums are rarely privately financed, so it's a sham.

Did the Hunt family recently finance and pay for $250 million dollars in renovations to Arrowhead?

No, that would be the taxpayers of Jackson County.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:07 PM
At this point with the ecomony the way it is are the tax payers going to keep voting to pay for that stuff? And then in reagards to the Chiefs didn't Clark just pony up $150mil to help with the renovation of Arrowhead? That said your post illustrates who is really going to get screwed if they can't hash this thing out and play ball in 2011. And that's the fans.


PhilFree:arrow:

No, he didn't. The Hunt family "put up" $75 million, the taxpayers of Jackson County "put up" $250 million.

Yeah, that's fair.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:27 PM
The owners don't have any "money" without the players.

Empty stadiums. No television contracts. No concessions. No parking.

Nothing.
and McDonald's can't serve any customers with out people flipping burgers.

I have no idea what you do for a living...

but an employer comes to you and contract hires you to do a job for X amount of money. Job done and you get paid.

Same employer comes to you a year later and hires you to do the same job but says this time we are only going to play you Y amount(20% less). Says that the economy is worse and that is what they pay now.

That employer isn't taking money from you. Will you ask to see their books to prove that the economy is worse for them? Hell no, you either decide to do the job at the offered salary or you tell them no.

The Owners and employees of the NFL have no contract, have no jobs. They are negotiating the contract for the upcoming job. The only difference is that the players get to cry and run to the courts and ask them to force the owners to pay more because of the union/monopoly issue.

Even if you buy this union/monopoly bullshit, it's still nothing more than employees looking for a job.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 04:32 PM
I wonder if every player is going to open his financial records up to the owners so the owners can see if they really need a raise or not? Badda BING!!!!!!!!!!!LMAO

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:36 PM
Even if you buy this union/monopoly bullshit, it's still nothing more than employees looking for a job.

No, it's not.

The league doesn't exist without the players. The players have a specific skill that cannot be found throughout society.

There are more than 300 million people in the United States alone and nearly 7 billion in the entire world.

Yet only 1,700 are qualified to play in the NFL.

You do the math.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:37 PM
Badda BING!!!!!!!!!!!LMAO

No offense but you have absolutely no understanding of Antitrust exemptions.

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 04:37 PM
I wonder if every player is going to open his financial records up to the owners so the owners can see if they really need a raise or not?

The owners know exactly how much money the players are making, since they are the ones paying them. The players already have their 'books' open in that sense.

Also, the players aren't the ones asking for more money.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:38 PM
No, it's not.

The league doesn't exist without the players. The players have a specific skill that cannot be found throughout society.

There are more than 300 million people in the United States alone and nearly 7 billion in the entire world.

Yet only 1,700 are eligible to play in the NFL.

You do the math.when these players retire the league will still go on.

they are employees ... Famous employees.

philfree
03-15-2011, 04:40 PM
Salaries would grow due to increased revenues and ONLY if revenues increased. In the last CBA, the split was 60/40 in favor of the players but the owners wanted to decrease that as well.

So, tell us, oh wise one, if the owners want to lop off an additional $1 billion in revenues ($2 billion) AND want to reduce the percentage of revenues shared with the owners, how will salaries grow?

At what point does the law of diminishing returns come into play? Do you really believe that the networks will continue to offer more money for broadcast rights? Because essentially, that's the only way salaries will increase.



Laughable, eh? Well, if Cassel and Bowe have a poor season and the Chiefs have a poor season overall, television ratings in the KC area diminish due to lack of interest.

The better the team and the players, the better the viewership. The better the viewership, the higher the ad rates and revenues. The higher the revenues and viewship, the larger the NFL contracts with the networks become.

To say it's "laughable" proves that you don't have a clear understanding of their revenue stream.



That is clearly not the case or the point. The point is that the players, especially "Superstar" players are not readily replaceable.

If so, where's KC's latest version of Len Dawson?



Where are your guarantees that TV rights revenues will continue to ascend? At some point, it's going to become unaffordable, which is why most of the networks (save ESPN) renewed their rights contracts at the previous rate.

The NFL has tried to expand to Europe without much success. They don't have a team in Canada or Mexico or Asia. Expansion is tenuous at best.

Is THAT so difficult to comprehend?

I guess we'll see what happens to the flow of revenue. I predict it keeps going up.

I will say that if I were an owner and I thought the pie was going to quit growing I would make adjustments to my business so I could keep operating and making money. Also If my money's not guaranteed why would I be guaranting anyone elses? Especially when my other operating expenses keep going up.

I guess the NFL owners are so rich that they should just turn a blind eye and let their employees run their business. I mean hell they don't need the money.

I read where some player called it a partnership. Like if the team he plays for loses money he's going to lose money too. What a joke.

We could go on and on with this.

IMO what needs to happen is for the judge to tell both sides to get back to the mediation and negotiate a new deal. Of course i'll be watching very closey how each side does negotiate and if I think either side isn't giving it 100% I'm going to punish them. If I think both sides aren't giving it 100% I'm going to make you both pay dearly. Now get the fuck out of hear and don't comeback!

PhilFree:arrow:

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:40 PM
The owners know exactly how much money the players are making, since they are the ones paying them. The players already have their 'books' open in that sense.

Also, the players aren't the ones asking for more money.
the players have other income besides their salary... but at least you got one thing right, the owners play the employees.

the owners HAVE THE MONEY already ... it's their money. the players are the ones who are saying the last salary offer by their potential employer isn't enough.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:41 PM
when these players retire the league will still go on.

they are employees ... Famous employees.

That isn't the point.

The point is that at any given time, only 1,700 people are qualified to play in the NFL.

Can the same be said of McDonald's?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:42 PM
the players have other income besides their salary... but at least you got one thing right, the owners play the employees.

the owners HAVE THE MONEY already ... it's their money. the players are the ones who are saying the last salary offer by their potential employer isn't enough.

"Their money" is predicated on the fact that the finest football players in the world line up every Sunday for 16 regular season games.

Without those players, they're the UFL or Arena League, at best.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:43 PM
No offense but you have absolutely no understanding of Antitrust exemptions.
first the NFL doesn't fall under antitrust exemption the courts have just "ignored" making that decision.

secondly there are other places to play professional football (AFL,UFL) so there is question about whether the monopoly antitrust even is valid for the NFL.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:43 PM
"Their money" is predicated on the fact that the finest football players in the world line up every Sunday for 16 regular season games.

Without those players, they're the UFL or Arena League, at best.
yes, but it's the owners right to make that decision ... not the players.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 04:44 PM
No, it's not.

The league doesn't exist without the players. The players have a specific skill that cannot be found throughout society..

Try telling that to the fellas who DIDNT make the top 300 or so in the draft, or the ones who declined playing for other reasons.
How about the guy`s who just got cut from the practise squads...Im sure they would agree 110% wuith ya Dane...yep! No ****en doubt

Sure teh *cream of the crop* get drafted, but that don`t always mean shit...lest we NOT forget Jafatazz episode in Oakland.....and this kid entered the draft as the next ****en Montana

There are more than 300 million people in the United States alone and nearly 7 billion in the entire world.

Yet only 1,700 are qualified to play in the NFL.You do the math.

The we know of...watch and see just how fast the owners fill them positions :spock:

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 04:45 PM
the players have other income besides their salary... but at least you got one thing right, the owners play the employees.

the owners HAVE THE MONEY already ... it's their money. the players are the ones who are saying the last salary offer by their potential employer isn't enough.

You are as ignorant and foolish as it comes on this subject. It's embarrassing to even read your posts. Your inability to grasp the difference between Bob's Widget company and the NFL, with its anti-trust status and revenue sharing, should be criminalized. Nobody as clueless are you should be allowed to walk free, for their own good.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:46 PM
You are as ignorant and foolish as it comes on this subject. It's embarrassing to even read your posts. Your inability to grasp the difference between Bob's Widget company and the NFL, with its anti-trust status and revenue sharing, should be criminalized. Nobody as clueless are you should be allowed to walk free, for their own good.
oh go fuck yourself ... arrogant prick.

you inability to see the difference between partnership and employee is beyond stupidity.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:47 PM
first the NFL doesn't fall under antitrust exemption the courts have just "ignored" making that decision.

The NFL doesn't enjoy "BROAD" antitrust but they most certainly benefit from antitrust protection.

secondly there are other places to play professional football (AFL,UFL)

The UFL and AFL aren't considered to have the finest athletes in the world playing in their respective leagues, which can be easily proven considering their popularity and TV contracts.

so there is question about whether the monopoly antitrust even is valid for the NFL.

Since the players scuttled their union, the NFL no longer has antitrust exemptions and is being sued.

The case is called Brady vs. The NFL.

philfree
03-15-2011, 04:47 PM
No, he didn't. The Hunt family "put up" $75 million, the taxpayers of Jackson County "put up" $250 million.

Yeah, that's fair.

I thought it was more then $75mil but I could be wrong on that. I guess I could look it up to get the accurate figure but I won't. How much did the Chiefs players put in? No need to look that up.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:48 PM
yes, but it's the owners right to make that decision ... not the players.

Which is why they're being sued.

The players didn't like the owners offers. And the league only exists if the players play the game.

No more television revenue. No concessions. No parking.

No nothing.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:49 PM
I thought it was more then $75mil but I could be wrong on that. I guess I could look it up to get the accurate figure but I won't. How much did the Chiefs players put in? No need to look that up.

PhilFree:arrow:

Are the players now owners? I'm sure the players would love partial ownership.

Do you think that any of the owners are offering ownership to the players?

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 04:49 PM
first the NFL doesn't fall under antitrust exemption the courts have just "ignored" making that decision.

secondly there are other places to play professional football (AFL,UFL) so there is question about whether the monopoly antitrust even is valid for the NFL.

This is what I'm talking about with you. The NFL has an anti-trust exemption that is codified in U.S. law.

The antitrust laws, as defined in section 1 of the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended (38 Stat. 730) [15 U.S.C. 12], or in the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended (38 Stat. 717) [15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.], shall not apply to any joint agreement by or among persons engaging in or conducting the organized professional team sports of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, by which any league of clubs participating in professional football, baseball, basketball, or hockey contests sells or otherwise transfers all or any part of the rights of such league’s member clubs in the sponsored telecasting of the games of football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, as the case may be, engaged in or conducted by such clubs. In addition, such laws shall not apply to a joint agreement by which the member clubs of two or more professional football leagues, which are exempt from income tax under section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 [26 U.S.C. 501 (c)(6)], combine their operations in expanded single league so exempt from income tax, if such agreement increases rather than decreases the number of professional football clubs so operating, and the provisions of which are directly relevant thereto.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sup_01_15_10_32.html

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 04:50 PM
oh go **** yourself ... arrogant prick.

you inability to see the difference between partnership and employee is beyond stupidity.

And you continue to put your idiocy on display. I've never claimed there was a partnership, you dolt.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 04:52 PM
No offense but you have absolutely no understanding of Antitrust exemptions.

when did you ever give two flying fucks about offending someone :p

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 04:53 PM
when did you ever give two flying fucks about offending someone :p

LMAO

I'm trying to be as civil as possible in these ongoing discussion because I realize that it's a very difficult concept to understand and that most people aren't aware of the majority of underlying issues.

Fruit Ninja
03-15-2011, 04:54 PM
Actually who cares?

We still will have football NCAA style and I wouldnt be surprised if we dont see alot of those big time games filling the sunday time slots....

IF these crybabies want to go on a whine from both sides, then the NFL can go along the side of MLB where no one actually gives a shit whether or not MLB even exists...


I am sick and tired of hearing how the fans will be the ones hurt from this?

Really, your hurting me by forcing me to save money by not watching your product? LMAO

Yeah youre really hurting the fans NFL, you bullies...

Speak for yourself. I dont like NCAA football. I watch maybe 2-3 games a year and i am half paying attention to them as it is.

For me, if there is no football, fuck it. I am a huge NBA fan as well. I will just watch more basketball and i can enjoy it.

It will get done when it gets done. In the end, i really dont care who wins.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 04:57 PM
The point is that at any given time, only 1,700 people are qualified to play in the NFL.


Serious question...WHO qualifies the players Dane
Would it be the same people who Qualified these guys

http://football.about.com/od/nfldrafthistory/tp/topdraftbusts.htm

Yeah buddy...some stellar fucken dudes right there

milkman
03-15-2011, 04:58 PM
Don't the players have contracts? Were they going to redo all contracts to account for the $600k per player.

If the owners get the money they want in the new contract with the players, then the salary cap will be reduced, which will lead to player cuts that otherwise would not be made.

They'll replace those players on the back end of the roster with cheaper rookie free agents.

Some of those veteran players that get cut won't find another job.

The union is doing it's job, which is to protect those jobs.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 04:58 PM
The NFL doesn't enjoy "BROAD" antitrust but they most certainly benefit from antitrust protection.

The UFL and AFL aren't considered to have the finest athletes in the world playing in their respective leagues, which can be easily proven considering their popularity and TV contracts.

Since the players scuttled their union, the NFL no longer has antitrust exemptions and is being sued.

The case is called Brady vs. The NFL.
way to dance around the real issue

enjoy the benefits isn't the same as "having" which is what you said

who has the finest athletes is irrelevant ... the players have other job opportunities in their field. Which is what a monopoly is all about.

de-certifying the union is just another court trick by the union who will re-certify as soon as it's convenient for them to do so. Another example of of them being full of shit.

This entire argument is built on one issue ... are the players partners or employees. If you are stupid enough to think of them as partners then you buy into all this other bullshit.

No matter how you glorify them, they are still employees. Period. How valuable, how famous,how talented, how rare they are is irrelevant.

They are just employees who should either take their last salary offer or walk.

Mr. Laz
03-15-2011, 05:00 PM
LMAO

I'm trying to be as civil as possible in these ongoing discussion because I realize that it's a very difficult concept to understand and that most people aren't aware of the majority of underlying issues.
It can't just be a disagreement, every subject comes down you being smart and everyone else "just not understanding"

:facepalm:

philfree
03-15-2011, 05:02 PM
Are the players now owners? I'm sure the players would love partial ownership.

Do you think that any of the owners are offering ownership to the players?

I'm not the one who said they were partners it was a player. Mawe/however it's spelled. I was just commenting on it.

The players would have done spent their part of the bill money making it rain. So no the owners aren't/won't ever give their business to the players so they can default on the bills that need to be paid. And why would you give your business to an employee who's only going to be working for an avg of 3-5 years? Now if it were over 20 years of faithful/loyal employment then they could be deserving.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 05:07 PM
It can't just be a disagreement, every subject comes down you being smart and everyone else "just not understanding"

:facepalm:

Laz, you ARE wrong. You've been wrong repeatedly, yet for some reason, you continue to play this game of "Well, if it were McDonalds".

JPB offered a link with antitrust information, yet you ignored it.

Amnorix, a LAWYER, has stated that the NFL has antitrust exemptions.

Burying your head in the sand doesn't change anything.

Brock
03-15-2011, 05:07 PM
It can't just be a disagreement, every subject comes down you being smart and everyone else "just not understanding"

:facepalm:

To be fair, Laz, when you make statements about how ticket prices and TV deals are driven by player salaries and not the market for tickets and TV viewership, one does have to question whether you have a basic understanding of economics. Nothing personal.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 05:07 PM
I'm not the one who said they were partners it was a player. Mawe/however it's spelled. I was just commenting on it.

The players would have done spent their part of the bill money making it rain. So no the owners aren't/won't ever give their business to the players so they can default on the bills that need to be paid. And why would you give your business to an employee who's only going to be working for an avg of 3-5 years? Now if it were over 20 years of faithful/loyal employment then they could be deserving.


PhilFree:arrow:

JFC, give me a break.

mikey23545
03-15-2011, 05:11 PM
The owners know exactly how much money the players are making, since they are the ones paying them. The players already have their 'books' open in that sense.

Also, the players aren't the ones asking for more money.

The players aren't the ones who own the teams.

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 05:13 PM
The players aren't the ones who own the teams.

Thanks for reminding us all of that, in case someone here had forgotten. It has nothing to do with what you were posting, though.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 05:13 PM
To be fair, Laz, when you make statements about how ticket prices and TV deals are driven by player salaries and not the market for tickets and TV viewership, one does have to question whether you have a basic understanding of economics. Nothing personal.

Laz actually said that?

Owners to ESPN: Please, oh pretty please, can you give us $2 billion dollars annually to broadcast 16 Monday Night football games because the players are demanding such enormous salaries?

ESPN: Wow, those players are out of control! But if that's the price, sure, we'll pay!

Owners to ESPN: Oh, thank you, thank you! The players will be so happy now!

WV
03-15-2011, 05:39 PM
Bringing up players salaries poses and interesting solution. The owners need more money to run things and supposedly the players/NFLPA are the good guys in all of this. So why doesn't the owners just offer to forget taking more of the revenue, but they'll cut the salary cap along with players salaries to make up the difference.

It's happening all over the country, why not to the pampered NFL athlete.

JASONSAUTO
03-15-2011, 05:40 PM
Bringing up players salaries poses and interesting solution. The owners need more money to run things and supposedly the players/NFLPA are the good guys in all of this. So why doesn't the owners just offer to forget taking more of the revenue, but they'll cut the salary cap along with players salaries to make up the difference.

It's happening all over the country, why not to the pampered NFL athlete.

huh?

WV
03-15-2011, 05:43 PM
huh?

Leave everything the way is was, except reduce the salary cap and players salaries to make up for the extra revenue the NFLPA doesn't want to "give up".

milkman
03-15-2011, 05:48 PM
LMAO

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 05:49 PM
Bringing up players salaries poses and interesting solution. The owners need more money to run things and supposedly the players/NFLPA are the good guys in all of this. So why doesn't the owners just offer to forget taking more of the revenue, but they'll cut the salary cap along with players salaries to make up the difference.

It's happening all over the country, why not to the pampered NFL athlete.

Dude, the owners have deals in place now for $9 billion dollars in revenue which includes a new $2 billion per year deal with ESPN, the largest amount of revenue in league history.

Armed with the largest amount of revenues in league history, why are they asking the players to reduce their portion of the revenues?

JASONSAUTO
03-15-2011, 05:49 PM
Leave everything the way is was, except reduce the salary cap and players salaries to make up for the extra revenue the NFLPA doesn't want to "give up".

yeah again HUH?



sorry dude but that makes NO sense.



none



i expect an apology dane.

Chocolate Hog
03-15-2011, 05:59 PM
Dude, the owners have deals in place now for $9 billion dollars in revenue which includes a new $2 billion per year deal with ESPN, the largest amount of revenue in league history.

Armed with the largest amount of revenues in league history, why are they asking the players to reduce their portion of the revenues?


To make more money.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:01 PM
To make more money.

That is not their claim, which is why it's now in the hands of the legal system.

milkman
03-15-2011, 06:03 PM
Dude, the owners have deals in place now for $9 billion dollars in revenue which includes a new $2 billion per year deal with ESPN, the largest amount of revenue in league history.

Armed with the largest amount of revenues in league history, why are they asking the players to reduce their portion of the revenues?

What he fails to understand, and what makes his post so funny, is that the player's share of the revenue is what sets the cap.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:04 PM
Dude, the owners have deals in place now for $9 billion dollars in revenue which includes a new $2 billion per year deal with ESPN, the largest amount of revenue in league history.

Armed with the largest amount of revenues in league history, why are they asking the players to reduce their portion of the revenues?

Greed on both parts is the major issue. However, given that the NFL is a cash cow even in a down economy, the reduction in revenue for the NFLPA will likely be minimal because the revenue will continue to increase. The salary cap isn't going to go down from last year and players are well compensated already. Not to mention from a business perspective the owners are entitled to more of the revenue (not that many see it that way).

As I stated earlier the owners are planning more for the future of the league in general. The realized cost of stadium maintenance in the interim may not equate what they are asking for currently, but it's a tough sell to believe in this current economic climate that tax payers are going to continue to foot any of the bills. There hasn't been an new stadium approved since 2005 and unless we as the fans want to continually be on the receiving end of higher tickets, concessions, and everything else then perhaps we should support the owners more in wanting more revenue to plan ahead.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:08 PM
What he fails to understand, and what makes his post so funny, is that the player's share of the revenue is what sets the cap.

I did know that and while I didn't look at it that way the model could certainly change, or isn't that conducive to your argument?

Chocolate Hog
03-15-2011, 06:08 PM
That is not their claim, which is why it's now in the hands of the legal system.

And I doubt much happens the owners have the upperhand IMO. Most of them own other businesses so they can survive a % of the players are already broke and need to play to get paid. While I don't think the owners are being honest neither are the player reps like Drew Brees who was accused by Conrad Dobler of not giving a fuck about former players but now pretends to give a shit about them as a bargaining chip? Fuck him.

JASONSAUTO
03-15-2011, 06:10 PM
I did know that and while I didn't look at it that way the model could certainly change, or isn't that conducive to your argument?

that is the whole problem.


reduction of money available to the players.

whoaskew
03-15-2011, 06:11 PM
Yes, Its the owners business and they should be able to run it as they see fit. However, the NFL isnt like other businesses. The product here is the players.


That is something that always bugs me.

Who created the phrase - "the product is the players"?

And what is the logic that justifies it?


I don't hear the members of any other union claiming they are the product that the company sells to consumers. As far as I am concerned, the old saying still applies - "Same sh*t, different toilet."

Owners own the business, and employees do the work of the business.

What is so different about members of the NFL player's union? Because their paycheck is bigger?


McDonald's sells big macs.
GM sells cars.
NFL teams sell tickets.


Those are the products.

As I stated in another thread; burger flippers, machine operators, and pass catchers are not the product being sold, regardless of how entertaining it is to watch them do their "JOB."

WV
03-15-2011, 06:11 PM
that is the whole problem.


reduction of money available to the players.


I don't see this as a problem.

milkman
03-15-2011, 06:13 PM
I did know that and while I didn't look at it that way the model could certainly change, or isn't that conducive to your argument?

If you leave everything the way it is now, except you reduce the cap, what do you do with the revenue that doesn't go towards the cap?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:14 PM
I don't see this as a problem.

That's very nice of you.

Unfortunately, the players feel much differently.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:14 PM
That is something that always bugs me.

Who created the phrase - "the product is the players"?



Considering you don't even understand the most basic concepts, I'd recommend you educate yourself on the issues.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:15 PM
If you leave everything the way it is now, except you reduce the cap, what do you do with the revenue that doesn't go towards the cap?

That would go towards the additional revenue the Owners are requesting.

milkman
03-15-2011, 06:16 PM
That is something that always bugs me.

Who created the phrase - "the product is the players"?

And what is the logic that justifies it?


I don't hear the members of any other union claiming they are the product that the company sells to consumers. As far as I am concerned, the old saying still applies - "Same sh*t, different toilet."

Owners own the business, and employees do the work of the business.

What is so different about members of the NFL player's union? Because their paycheck is bigger?


McDonald's sells big macs.
GM sells cars.
NFL teams sell tickets.


Those are the products.

As I stated in another thread; burger flippers, machine operators, and pass catchers are not the product being sold, regardless of how entertaining it is to watch them do their "JOB."

People don't go to McDonald's to watch burger flippers.

No one buys a car to watch machine operators.

They watch the NFL to watch great players make great plays.

Chiefaholic
03-15-2011, 06:16 PM
Factory workers are a dime a dozen.

Can you say the same about NFL players?

That depends.... Are you referring to the Chiefs receiving core? I'm fairly sure there's some undrafted players who were better than what we currently have.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:16 PM
Greed on both parts is the major issue.

Bullshit.

The owners continue to make far more money than they pay any singular player, let alone an entire football team.


As I stated earlier the owners are planning more for the future of the league in general.

And that's more unjustified bullshit. The "owners' have continually held cities and municipalities hostage. The owners rarely finance their own stadiums.

This is utter nonsense.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:17 PM
That's very nice of you.

Unfortunately, the players feel much differently.

They can join the crowd with the rest of the country that's having their salaries reduced. It's comical to me the amount of backing the players are getting considering the amount of money they are paid to play a game.

milkman
03-15-2011, 06:18 PM
That would go towards the additional revenue the Owners are requesting.

You're not making any sense.

BigCatDaddy
03-15-2011, 06:21 PM
They can join the crowd with the rest of the country that's having their salaries reduced. It's comical to me the amount of backing the players are getting considering the amount of money they are paid to play a game.

Or in the owners case to sit on their asses and watch the dollars come rolling in.

milkman
03-15-2011, 06:21 PM
That depends.... Are you referring to the Chiefs receiving core? I'm fairly sure there's some undrafted players who were better than what we currently have.

The abilities of even the worst players in the NFL are superior.

They are always looking to find players to replace the bottom end of the league, which is why the average career is only 3 1/2 years.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:22 PM
Bullshit.

The owners continue to make far more money than they pay any singular player, let alone an entire football team.




And that's more unjustified bullshit. The "owners' have continually held cities and municipalities hostage. The owners rarely finance their own stadiums.

This is utter nonsense.

If you don't think the NFLPA isn't driven by some semblance of greed then your delusional. It is a Union afterall.

Also even if the owners don't finance their own stadiums? In the case of Arrowhead...who pays the lease each month to Jackson county?

whoaskew
03-15-2011, 06:22 PM
I've seen this posted by others and it's not accurate. The product is the game/games.


PhilFree:arrow:


I totally agree with you. I don't understand why other's disagree.



The best product is made with the best players.

I would say the best product is made with the best employees.



Absolutely, I hire people like you all the time as I do real estate rehab. I'm going to cut all my workers pay 20% because of hard times and tell them to call you if they have an issue with it.


Dave, you know that as a business owner, you don't have to call or answer to anybody but yourself.

If you want to cut your contractor expenses in your real estate business by 20%, then you do the same as I and everyone else in the country is doing, which is get competing bids and hire a cheaper worker to do the same job.


If you put an option in the contract, you can't complain when its exercised.


Agreed

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:22 PM
They can join the crowd with the rest of the country that's having their salaries reduced. It's comical to me the amount of backing the players are getting considering the amount of money they are paid to play a game.

DUDE

The NFL HAS NINE BILLION IN GUARANTEED REVENUES FOR 2011.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE PLAYERS NEED TO TAKE A PAY CUT WHEN THE LEAGUE IS EARNING MORE THAN EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JASONSAUTO
03-15-2011, 06:22 PM
I don't see this as a problem.

IF the owners profit margins have dropped i dont either

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:23 PM
If you don't think the NFLPA isn't driven by some semblance of greed then your delusional. It is a Union afterall.

Also even if the owners don't finance their own stadiums? In the case of Arrowhead...who pays the lease each month to Jackson county?

JFC.

The Hunt Family isn't paying $250 million dollars a year.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:23 PM
Or in the owners case to sit on their asses and watch the dollars come rolling in.

At least most of them are busniess men with something to fall back on. Some of these players would be landscapers without the NFL...that's not a bad thing, but certainly not the same as getting paid millions to play a game.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:24 PM
If you want to cut your contractor expenses in your real estate business by 20%, then you do the same as I and everyone else in the country is doing, which is get competing bids and hire a cheaper worker to do the same job.

Because there are only 1,700 players in any given calendar year that qualify to play in the NFL.

What is it about that concept you don't understand?

WV
03-15-2011, 06:24 PM
JFC.

The Hunt Family isn't paying $250 million dollars a year.

No one said they were...but they certainly aren't playing there for free. You didn't answer the question.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:26 PM
At least most of them are busniess men with something to fall back on. Some of these players would be landscapers without the NFL...that's not a bad thing, but certainly not the same as getting paid millions to play a game.

You don't seem to understand that billions of dollars in revenues exist because of the players.

Okie_Apparition
03-15-2011, 06:27 PM
How anybody can be on the owner's side. After the shit you know old players are going through with their health issues. The owner's raked it in and the retired players couldn't find an insurance carrier even if the could afford it.

That is an embarrassment that should haunt them, if they had souls.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:27 PM
No one said they were...but they certainly aren't playing there for free. You didn't answer the question.

And you didn't fuckin' answer the question, either.

Do you know how much the Hunt family pays the county to play 10 games a year at Arrowhead?

Do you?

WV
03-15-2011, 06:29 PM
DUDE

The NFL has NINE BILLION IN GUARANTEED REVENUES FOR 2011.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE PLAYER NEED TO TAKE A PAY CUT WHEN THE LEAGUE IS EARNING MORE THAN EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I tried already, but you already have your ideas firmly planted. Is it completely lost on you that this could have anything to do with planning ahead????

Chief fans were lucky that Jackson County agreed to pay for the majority of the renovations at Arrowhead, that doesn't happen in every city and isn't likely to in this current economy.

JASONSAUTO
03-15-2011, 06:31 PM
You don't seem to understand that billions of dollars in revenues exist because of the players.

thats a double edged sword.

the league exists because of the owners

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:32 PM
I tried already, but you already have your ideas firmly planted. Is it completely lost on you that this could have anything to do with planning ahead????

Chief fans were lucky that Jackson County agreed to pay for the majority of the renovations at Arrowhead, that doesn't happen in every city and isn't likely to in this current economy.

LMAO

Your points were completely and utterly invalid.

FURTHERMORE, the City of Kansas City PAYS $2 million per year in upgrades and maintenance for Arrowhead and The K.

So, again, how much do the Hunt family pay in rent?

WV
03-15-2011, 06:33 PM
And you didn't fuckin' answer the question, either.

Do you know how much the Hunt family pays the county to play 10 games a year at Arrowhead?

Do you?

I'm not privy to their lease payments obviously, but you act like there's little out of pocket for the Chiefs or the Owners. Here's what I do know.

The total cost of the renovation is $400 million. Of that amount, the Chiefs are funding $125 million, Jackson County is funding $212,500,000, and state tax credits provide $62,500,000. The Chiefs are responsible for any cost overruns in the stadium improvements.In addition to contributing to basic improvements to the County-owned stadium, the Chiefs are paying for new and remodeled suites, upgraded office and administrative spaces, and an all-new K.C. Football Museum, which will be open in time for the 2010 season opener. http://www.jacksongov.org/content/3275/4715/5401.aspx

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:35 PM
I'm not privy to their lease payments obviously, but you act like there's little out of pocket for the Chiefs or the Owners. Here's what I do know.

The total cost of the renovation is $400 million. Of that amount, the Chiefs are funding $125 million, Jackson County is funding $212,500,000, and state tax credits provide $62,500,000. The Chiefs are responsible for any cost overruns in the stadium improvements.In addition to contributing to basic improvements to the County-owned stadium, the Chiefs are paying for new and remodeled suites, upgraded office and administrative spaces, and an all-new K.C. Football Museum, which will be open in time for the 2010 season opener. http://www.jacksongov.org/content/3275/4715/5401.aspx

So, what's your point?

The Hunt family contributed about $125 million, the taxpayers contributed $250 million.

Guess who will earn their money back far more quickly because luxury box revenue isn't shared?

That's right.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:35 PM
LMAO

Your points were completely and utterly invalid.

FURTHERMORE, the City of Kansas City PAYS $2 million per year in upgrades and maintenance for Arrowhead and The K.
So, again, how much do the Hunt family pay in rent?

Not according to Jacksongov.org.....where's your support? :huh:

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:37 PM
Not according to Jacksongov.org.....where's your support? :huh:

KANSAS CITY, COUNTY DISCUSS STADIUM PAYMENTS
April 2, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures

Kansas City, Mo. - Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders made clear that he expected Kansas City to keep its $2 million pledge to the Truman Sports Complex.

In fact, he wants the city's continued funding commitment in writing.

Speaking to the Jackson County Legislature, Sanders said county and city officials worked cooperatively last week to come to agreements that would allow the city to continue to make a $2 million contribution to the stadiums' upkeep. The city, Jackson County and the state of Missouri contribute, collectively, $8.5 million each year to a special maintenance fund at the sports complex.

County officials had cautioned that if the city didn't make its $2 million contribution, it would break the lease that the county has with the Kansas City Royals and the Chiefs.

"We're going to want a (written council) resolution to permanently fix that amount" of $2 million, Sanders said. "Two million will be the commitment going forward."

Indeed, the city has annually given $2 million for the sports complex.

But this year, facing an $85 million budget shortfall, the city wavered. City Manager Wayne Cauthen proposed cutting it to $1.7 million, as he was reducing contributions to other regional amenities by 15 percent. Mayor Mark Funkhouser argued for cutting it entirely.

The budget approved last week set the city's contribution at $1.7 million. (Kansas City Star)



KANSAS CITY MAYOR WANTS TO CUT STADIUM PAYMENTS
February 18, 2010
Copyright 2010 MediaVentures

Kansas City, Mo. - Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser believes the $2 million the city contributes each year to the upkeep of Arrowhead Stadium and Kauffman Stadium could be better used elsewhere and he is recommending that it be cut from the budget. The city, Jackson County and state of Missouri contribute $8.5 million annually toward the stadium's upkeep and other costs.

ItÕs the second time heÕs sought to eliminate the payment. Last year it was not supported by the City Council.

The mayor said he wanted the stadium subsidy to go to such priorities as improving street maintenance, expanding automated trash collection for certain neighborhoods, enhancing code enforcement, boosting the 311 Action Center hotline, and funding a popular paint program and an innovative crime prevention program.

Although many local officials had expected the mayor to once again call for the stadium trim, reaction came swiftly from Jackson County officials upset with the mayor's "risky proposal."

Jim Rowland, executive director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, said the city is receiving much more in return for its $2 million annual payment.

The Truman Sports Complex, he said, has been "an economic engine during this time of recession," pointing to the $700 million renovation project at both Royals Stadium and Arrowhead Stadium. The construction project has employed some 6,000 workers. In addition, the city receives $5.6 million a year in direct taxes from the stadium complex.

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/KansasCityChiefs/newindex.htm

WV
03-15-2011, 06:40 PM
KANSAS CITY, COUNTY DISCUSS STADIUM PAYMENTS
April 2, 2009
Copyright 2009 MediaVentures

Kansas City, Mo. - Jackson County Executive Mike Sanders made clear that he expected Kansas City to keep its $2 million pledge to the Truman Sports Complex.

In fact, he wants the city's continued funding commitment in writing.

Speaking to the Jackson County Legislature, Sanders said county and city officials worked cooperatively last week to come to agreements that would allow the city to continue to make a $2 million contribution to the stadiums' upkeep. The city, Jackson County and the state of Missouri contribute, collectively, $8.5 million each year to a special maintenance fund at the sports complex.

County officials had cautioned that if the city didn't make its $2 million contribution, it would break the lease that the county has with the Kansas City Royals and the Chiefs.

"We're going to want a (written council) resolution to permanently fix that amount" of $2 million, Sanders said. "Two million will be the commitment going forward."

Indeed, the city has annually given $2 million for the sports complex.

But this year, facing an $85 million budget shortfall, the city wavered. City Manager Wayne Cauthen proposed cutting it to $1.7 million, as he was reducing contributions to other regional amenities by 15 percent. Mayor Mark Funkhouser argued for cutting it entirely.

The budget approved last week set the city's contribution at $1.7 million. (Kansas City Star)



KANSAS CITY MAYOR WANTS TO CUT STADIUM PAYMENTS
February 18, 2010
Copyright 2010 MediaVentures

Kansas City, Mo. - Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser believes the $2 million the city contributes each year to the upkeep of Arrowhead Stadium and Kauffman Stadium could be better used elsewhere and he is recommending that it be cut from the budget. The city, Jackson County and state of Missouri contribute $8.5 million annually toward the stadium's upkeep and other costs.

ItÕs the second time heÕs sought to eliminate the payment. Last year it was not supported by the City Council.

The mayor said he wanted the stadium subsidy to go to such priorities as improving street maintenance, expanding automated trash collection for certain neighborhoods, enhancing code enforcement, boosting the 311 Action Center hotline, and funding a popular paint program and an innovative crime prevention program.

Although many local officials had expected the mayor to once again call for the stadium trim, reaction came swiftly from Jackson County officials upset with the mayor's "risky proposal."

Jim Rowland, executive director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, said the city is receiving much more in return for its $2 million annual payment.

The Truman Sports Complex, he said, has been "an economic engine during this time of recession," pointing to the $700 million renovation project at both Royals Stadium and Arrowhead Stadium. The construction project has employed some 6,000 workers. In addition, the city receives $5.6 million a year in direct taxes from the stadium complex.

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/KansasCityChiefs/newindex.htm


So what's your point? Let them cut it. It's fair that the owners should pay it, but that 2 million goes to the Truman Sports Complex and not just Arrowhead. Not quite as gratifying to your argument.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:42 PM
So what's your point? Let them cut it. It's fair that the owners should pay it, but that 2 million goes to the Truman Sports Complex and not just Arrowhead. Not quite as gratifying to your argument.

What? So you think it's "okay" for the city to pay more than $1 million dollars per year for Arrowhead upkeep?

So please, tell us when the Chiefs obligations to the city kick in and WHY they need an additional $31,250 MILLION dollars in addition to the $31,250 MILLION dollars they already receive free and clear before revenue sharing kicks in.

Explain it.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:45 PM
So, what's your point?

The Hunt family contributed about $125 million, the taxpayers contributed $250 million.

Guess who will earn their money back far more quickly because luxury box revenue isn't shared?

That's right.

The point? How about that and NFL owner has more invested and more for lack of a better term bills than your average NFL athlete. As the owner they should be entitled to the lions share of the revenue. As you like to point out the players may be the product (merely a perspective) and without them the owners wouldn't make their money, well without the owners there would be no outlet for that product.

whoaskew
03-15-2011, 06:45 PM
Because there are only 1,700 players in any given calendar year that qualify to play in the NFL.

What is it about that concept you don't understand?



Dane honestly.

Just because they only "hire" enough people to fill 1700 positions, doesn't mean that there are only 1700 people per year who could possibly fill the job requirements.

That just means that they currently only have 1700 positions to fill.

WV
03-15-2011, 06:47 PM
What? So you think it's "okay" for the city to pay more than $1 million dollars per year for Arrowhead upkeep?

So please, tell us when the Chiefs obligations to the city kick in and WHY they need an additional $31,250 MILLION dollars in addition to the $31,250 MILLION dollars they already receive free and clear before revenue sharing kicks in.

Explain it.

No I said to cut it....I think it's absurd that the city gives them any money for the maintenance of the stadium. I'd venture to say this doesn't happen in every city though.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:51 PM
Dane honestly.

Just because they only "hire" enough people to fill 1700 positions, doesn't mean that there are only 1700 people per year who could possibly fill the job requirements.

That just means that they currently only have 1700 positions to fill.

LMAO

So, the NFL should expand?

Don't people complain that the talent pool is currently too shallow?

LMAO

You really don't understand, at all.

Brock
03-15-2011, 06:51 PM
How anybody can be on the owner's side. After the shit you know old players are going through with their health issues. The owner's raked it in and the retired players couldn't find an insurance carrier even if the could afford it.

That is an embarrassment that should haunt them, if they had souls.

To be fair, the union only recently started to give a shit about retired players too. To quote Gene Upshaw, "retired players don't hire me and they don't fire me".

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:52 PM
No I said to cut it....I think it's absurd that the city gives them any money for the maintenance of the stadium.

That plan was met with resistance and didn't pass.


I'd venture to say this doesn't happen in every city though.

And why would you make that assumption? What happened in Minnesota this past season?

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 06:53 PM
To be fair, the union only recently started to give a shit about retired players too. To quote Gene Upshaw, "retired players don't hire me and they don't fire me".

Yeah, I agree with that. I think the increase in brain damage and suicide began to freak these guys out and rightly so.

Just Passin' By
03-15-2011, 07:01 PM
Another tidbit from Florio:

“I don’t think we’ve got your attention,” Jones said, according to several players who spoke anonymously to Trotter. “You clearly don’t understand what we’re saying, and we’re not hearing what you’re saying. So I guess we’re going to have to show you to get your attention.”

Per Trotter, Jones then tapped his fists together. The players interpreted the gesture as a sign that a lockout was coming. (Maybe he was simply using Friends code for giving the finger.)

Jones then stood up and walked out. Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly prepared to leave as well, but Patriots owner Robert Kraft put a hand on Richardson’s forearm, prompting Richardson to stay put.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/

WV
03-15-2011, 07:02 PM
And why would you make that assumption? What happened in Minnesota this past season?

Basically because it doesn't make sense unless the city owns the stadium. The only city owned ones I know of are SF and GB. There are issues in SF with the city doing maintenance and of course Green Bay owns it all, but it's just not logical for the city to agree to provide the stadium maintenance when it doesn't own it.

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 07:02 PM
DUDE

The NFL HAS NINE BILLION IN GUARANTEED REVENUES FOR 2011.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE PLAYERS NEED TO TAKE A PAY CUT WHEN THE LEAGUE IS EARNING MORE THAN EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


DUDE PLEASE EXPLANE HOW 2 GUYS WITH MORE $$$ THAN GOD ( James and Larz) needed to shut down Napster ....

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 07:11 PM
LMAO

So, the NFL should expand?

Don't people complain that the talent pool is currently too shallow?

LMAO

You really don't understand, at all.
Serious question...WHO qualifies the players Dane
Who is it that says..These men, and ONLY these 1700 men deserve to be in teh NFL
Would it be the same people who Qualified these guys

http://football.about.com/od/nfldraf...draftbusts.htm (http://football.about.com/od/nfldrafthistory/tp/topdraftbusts.htm)

Yeah buddy...some stellar ****en dudes right there, along with the highly traind tallent scouts.....not to mention these higher than avg IQ folks who said they were qualified.

Sorry dude, were gonna have to agree to disagree on this one

whoaskew
03-15-2011, 07:12 PM
LMAO

So, the NFL should expand?

Don't people complain that the talent pool is currently too shallow?

LMAO

You really don't understand, at all.



That is definitely an option.

How many times has the 18 game season been proposed?

How many times has expanding the roster been proposed?

And while I am a fan of the current 32 team format, how many times has it been proposed that a new NFL team be considered in Los Angeles or Toronto?



People complain that the talent pool is shallow, but is that a subjective or an objective argument?


How do you quantify that?


Every year, records fall.

Every year, some undrafted free agent starts tearing the league up. (James Harrison, Arrian Foster)

Every year, some supposedly "irreplaceable" player who the team couldn't possibly do without either retires, is traded, or has a season ending injury, yet the team still prospers without him. (Brett Farve [GB and NYJ], Richard Seymour, Dallas Clark, Ryan Grant)


Hell, a few days ago Tiki Barber had to humble himself and come out of retirement.

He's the perfect example of how life in the NFL goes on without the spoiled players.

(And by the way, I like Tiki. I just bought his book for my sons at the book fair last week. But the truth is still the truth.)

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 07:13 PM
Basically because it doesn't make sense unless the city owns the stadium. The only city owned ones I know of are SF and GB. There are issues in SF with the city doing maintenance and of course Green Bay owns it all, but it's just not logical for the city to agree to provide the stadium maintenance when it doesn't own it.

You need to do more research because The Georgia Dome, Ford Field and the Metrodome are all publicly owned.

I'm sure there are at least a dozen more.

DaneMcCloud
03-15-2011, 07:15 PM
Serious question...WHO qualifies the players Dane
Who is it that says

The NFL and it's 32 teams.

If the NFL doesn't deem men worthy of the NFL, they're welcome to showcase their talent and worthiness in the CFL, UFL and Arena League.

The simple fact is that it's extremely rare that a player from the above mentioned leagues has the ability to play in the NFL.

vailpass
03-15-2011, 07:17 PM
Hilarious to see players talk like hey have the first clue as to the matters at hand. They are so far out of their depth compared to the owners. The owners are wearing crushed velvet smoking jackets and sporting monopoly guy monacles and top hats smoking $500 cigars just laughing their ass off as Drew Brees tries to comment on business matters.

Owners will come out on top in this one and make it look like it was a good deal for the players.

WV
03-15-2011, 07:20 PM
You need to do more research because The Georgia Dome, Ford Field and the Metrodome are all publicly owned.

I'm sure there are at least a dozen more.

How many of those cities pay or help pay for the maintenance though?

Over-Head
03-15-2011, 07:23 PM
The NFL and it's 32 teams.

If the NFL doesn't deem men worthy of the NFL, they're welcome to showcase their talent and worthiness in the CFL, UFL and Arena League.

The simple fact is that it's extremely rare that a player from the above mentioned leagues has the ability to play in the NFL.Not so much teh ability, as the chance to do so. Last time I checked, Canadian boys graduating from Acadia or St. Marys wernt eligable for the NFL draft.

I believe it was you (sorry if im wrong) who said not so long ago something along the lines of Success is when Talent meets opratunity.
...Where did Kurt Warner come from prior to handing the Rams a SB, how about Vince Papalia (sp) hell he got a starting spot from an OPEN try out.
ANY owner could fill a team with 52 spots from men they pick up OUTSIDE the draft (*** meaning none of teh guys taken in any of the rounds, but guys who were just outside the limit teams could take) or normal areas and field a competative team.
I emmean come on... the Lions went 0-16. And them ****ers WERE drafted

whoaskew
03-15-2011, 07:25 PM
The NFL and it's 32 teams.

If the NFL doesn't deem men worthy of the NFL, they're welcome to showcase their talent and worthiness in the CFL, UFL and Arena League.

The simple fact is that it's extremely rare that a player from the above mentioned leagues has the ability to play in the NFL.

So if you believe that it is the NFL and it's 32 teams who decide how many employees they will hire during a given year, wouldn't it also be their decision how much they will budget that year to pay those same employees?