PDA

View Full Version : Football Roger Goodell sends letter to players


Tribal Warfare
03-18-2011, 01:32 AM
Roger Goodell sends letter to players (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6229779)

ESPN.com news services

NEW YORK -- Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote NFL players Thursday, outlining the league's last proposal to the union and cautioning that "each passing day puts our game and our shared economics further at risk."

Goodell ended the letter by telling players: "I hope you will encourage your union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement."

Talks between the teams' owners and the NFL Players Association broke off last Friday, the 16th day of federal mediation in Washington. The union dissolved that afternoon, allowing players to file a class-action antitrust suit in federal court. Hours later, owners locked out the players, creating the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987.

"I've told my guys to take the letter and set it on fire. We're not that stupid," said Seattle Seahawks guard Chester Pitts, whose reaction was relayed by NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah.

Titans linebacker Will Witherspoon called it "very distasteful" for Goodell to send out such a letter.

"If we were in court, I would compare to a lawyer trying to lead a witness," Witherspoon texted the AP on Thursday night. "I duly object to the fact he has highlighted his highpoints but not given them any ground to stand on!"

Goodell wrote that the NFLPA "walked out of the federal mediator's offices ... and filed a lawsuit." He also said owners "are prepared to resume those negotiations at any time."

"We need to come together, and soon," Goodell wrote.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said Thursday there's no reason talks can't occur between the players and owners before the April 6 lockout injunction hearing, according to a report on ProFootballTalk.com.

"What came out of the Reggie White lawsuit?" Smith said during a Thursday interview with Mike Francesa of WFAN in New York. "A CBA that has done nothing but grow the game. We have lawyers and class counsel who are representing us. There's no reason why those lawyers and class counsel and lawyers for the league can't get together and talk and negotiate."

Despite the fact that both sides have said they are willing to meet, sources tell ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that they are not expected to meet until after the ruling on the preliminary injunction, which will be heard on April 6.

Goodell told players he wants them to "understand the offer that we made," a proposal put forth during the final day of negotiations.

"We believe the offer presented a strong and fair basis for continuing negotiations, allowing the new league year and free agency to begin, and growing our game in the years to come," Goodell said.

His letter goes point-by-point through 10 categories Goodell said were included in the NFL's last proposal. Among them:

• Salary and benefits would be $141 million per club in 2011, and rise to $161 million by 2014;

• Free agency after four seasons;

• Less offseason work and fewer padded practices in the preseason and regular season;

• Keeping a 16-game regular season for at least the next two seasons and not changing to 18 games without the union's agreement;

• Guaranteeing up to $1 million of a second year of a player's contract if he is injured and can't return to play;

• A new rookie compensation system;

• A jointly appointed neutral arbitrator for all drug and steroid appeals.

PDF Format: Goodell's Letter to the NFLPA (http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110317/letter_goodell_3_17_2011.pdf)

Saccopoo
03-18-2011, 01:58 AM
"I've told my guys to take the letter and set it on fire. We're not that stupid," said Seattle Seahawks guard Chester Pitts

Apparently you are Chester, apparently you are.

The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. The world is still in a shit hole recession with millions and millions of people out of work, Japan (and the rest of the world along with it) is going to be messing with massive radiation fallout, gasoline prices are at an all-time high, and you're worried about a rookie salary cap and your boss not sharing enough gross revenue with you above and beyond your millions of dollars contracts to play an hour long sporting event once a week?

When they cancel football in entirety, and your six Ferraris, the House on Puget Sound and your 17 Rolex's have been repo'd, and your making minimum wage bouncing in a titty bar, I hope you kept your contract to burn to keep you warm on some cold winter night.

HoneyBadger
03-18-2011, 03:08 AM
Apparently you are Chester, apparently you are.

The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. The world is still in a shit hole recession with millions and millions of people out of work, Japan (and the rest of the world along with it) is going to be messing with massive radiation fallout, gasoline prices are at an all-time high, and you're worried about a rookie salary cap and your boss not sharing enough gross revenue with you above and beyond your millions of dollars contracts to play an hour long sporting event once a week?

When they cancel football in entirety, and your six Ferraris, the House on Puget Sound and your 17 Rolex's have been repo'd, and your making minimum wage bouncing in a titty bar, I hope you kept your contract to burn to keep you warm on some cold winter night.

well said?

Bewbies
03-18-2011, 03:15 AM
Apparently you are Chester, apparently you are.

The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. The world is still in a shit hole recession with millions and millions of people out of work, Japan (and the rest of the world along with it) is going to be messing with massive radiation fallout, gasoline prices are at an all-time high, and you're worried about a rookie salary cap and your boss not sharing enough gross revenue with you above and beyond your millions of dollars contracts to play an hour long sporting event once a week?

When they cancel football in entirety, and your six Ferraris, the House on Puget Sound and your 17 Rolex's have been repo'd, and your making minimum wage bouncing in a titty bar, I hope you kept your contract to burn to keep you warm on some cold winter night.

:thumb:

DTLB58
03-18-2011, 03:45 AM
The bottom line is the money.

The players shouldn't have to give back anything in this since the Owners haven't lost anything since the last contract they signed but only gained, Billions of dollars!

It reminds me a lot of our last contract at my work. The rumor was we would have to start paying for our health care (we currently pay 0$ premiums). Well when the contract was up and negotiations began the Union said okay, this company has made record profits every quarter since the last contract and the last fisical year you made $1 Billion. And you want your employees to give back and start paying for their health care? I don't think so.

We didn't, plus we got raises and more benefits.

JOhn
03-18-2011, 04:04 AM
The bottom line is the money.

The players shouldn't have to give back anything in this since the Owners haven't lost anything since the last contract they signed but only gained, Billions of dollars!

It reminds me a lot of our last contract at my work. The rumor was we would have to start paying for our health care (we currently pay 0$ premiums). Well when the contract was up and negotiations began the Union said okay, this company has made record profits every quarter since the last contract and the last fisical year you made $1 Billion. And you want your employees to give back and start paying for their health care? I don't think so.

We didn't, plus we got raises and more benefits.
:spock:

What are they being asked to give back?

From all I've read they are gaining a lot, even if they only settle for what the owners are giving.

Besides your situation is far different than the players, well unless your making millions a year?

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 07:45 AM
The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. .

Actually, they gain a lot of leverage if they win the April 6th hearing.

philfree
03-18-2011, 08:52 AM
The first point is the key for me. I've been questioning if the players in the league would lose any income with the leagues offer. It seems the only players who take a pay cut are going to be the rookies and most people would agree that siruation needs to be changed.

What the players will lose is the ability to keep leveraging up compensation through huge rookie contracts.

Another thing is I doubt the current players give a rats ass about those 2,000 retired players getting 60% more money for their pensions.

PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 09:06 AM
The first point is the key for me. I've been questioning if the players in the league would lose any income with the leagues offer. It seems the only players who take a pay cut are going to be the rookies and most people would agree that siruation needs to be changed.

:

I too don't understand the claims that the players are being asked to take a salary cut.

"The National Football League announced on Thursday the 2009 salary cap will be set at $127 million, a $4 million increase from what was originally expected."

There was no cap for 2010.

The owners 2011 proposal is 141 million, or 14 million more than it was in 2009, the last capped year.

I don't see how this is a pay cut, unless the definition of the cap has been changed.

philfree
03-18-2011, 09:15 AM
I too don't understand the claims that the players are being asked to take a salary cut.

"The National Football League announced on Thursday the 2009 salary cap will be set at $127 million, a $4 million increase from what was originally expected."

There was no cap for 2010.

The owners 2011 proposal is 141 million, or 14 million more than it was in 2009, the last capped year.

I don't see how this is a pay cut, unless the definition of the cap has been changed.

The palyers are going Charlie Sheen and in their minds they're winning.

PhilFree:arrow:

milkman
03-18-2011, 09:19 AM
I too don't understand the claims that the players are being asked to take a salary cut.

"The National Football League announced on Thursday the 2009 salary cap will be set at $127 million, a $4 million increase from what was originally expected."

There was no cap for 2010.

The owners 2011 proposal is 141 million, or 14 million more than it was in 2009, the last capped year.

I don't see how this is a pay cut, unless the definition of the cap has been changed.

I may be wrong, but based on the 9 bil in revenues last year, the cap under the old agreement in 2011 should be 150 mil.

Groves
03-18-2011, 09:23 AM
It's two fat slobs splitting up a warehouse of cheesecake. Everyone knows that the fans lose if anyone does.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 09:32 AM
I may be wrong, but based on the 9 bil in revenues last year, the cap under the old agreement in 2011 should be 150 mil.

Okay, so what you are saying is that under the old CBA there was a formula that was used, based on revenue, to calculate the salary cap.

IF, and that's a big "if", the old CBA were in existence the salary cap would be higher than what the current proposal is.

If that is the case, it is a stretch to say the players are losing money, or are being asked to take cuts.

The old agreement/calculation does not exist anymore. They are still being offered a "raise" in cap.

philfree
03-18-2011, 09:40 AM
I may be wrong, but based on the 9 bil in revenues last year, the cap under the old agreement in 2011 should be 150 mil.

The cap will still be larger then it was and with the savings from a new rookie pay scale there should be plenty of money for the vets to make as much and more then they have been, have a better pension and available health insurance when they retire. All that coupled with less work.

Why is this bad deal for the players?

PhilFree:arrow:

AndChiefs
03-18-2011, 09:51 AM
The cap will still be larger then it was and with the savings from a new rookie pay scale there should be plenty of money for the vets to make as much and more then they have been, have a better pension and available health insurance when they retire. All that coupled with less work.

Why is this bad deal for the players?

PhilFree:arrow:

But how are they supposed to feed their families with so little salary?

milkman
03-18-2011, 10:14 AM
Okay, so what you are saying is that under the old CBA there was a formula that was used, based on revenue, to calculate the salary cap.

IF, and that's a big "if", the old CBA were in existence the salary cap would be higher than what the current proposal is.

If that is the case, it is a stretch to say the players are losing money, or are being asked to take cuts.

The old agreement/calculation does not exist anymore. They are still being offered a "raise" in cap.

The cap will still be larger then it was and with the savings from a new rookie pay scale there should be plenty of money for the vets to make as much and more then they have been, have a better pension and available health insurance when they retire. All that coupled with less work.

Why is this bad deal for the players?

PhilFree:arrow:

Let me preface this by saying, if I had any say, I would tell the players to sign the deal.

I think it's fair.

Let me also say that I am not certain that I am correct here.
This is far more complex than I'm really quailfied to discuss, so, in the end, I could very well be talking out of my ass.

A rookie wage scale would account for a fair portion of that extra 9 mil, so there would be minimum dollars left to pay more to vets.

And the fact is, the union recognizes that the cap at 141 mil is less than what it would be if the old CBA were still in effect, so at the end of the day, if they did agree to this deal, they would be effectively giving money back.

Dicky McElephant
03-18-2011, 10:28 AM
Roger Goodell sends letter to players

Dear NFL Players,

I'M MAKING A FUCKING $1 OVER HERE!!!!!

Sincerely,

Roger Goodell.


FYP

philfree
03-18-2011, 10:33 AM
Let me preface this by saying, if I had any say, I would tell the players to sign the deal.

I think it's fair.

Let me also say that I am not certain that I am correct here.
This is far more complex than I'm really quailfied to discuss, so, in the end, I could very well be talking out of my ass.

A rookie wage scale would account for a fair portion of that extra 9 mil, so there would be minimum dollars left to pay more to vets.

And the fact is, the union recognizes that the cap at 141 mil is less than what it would be if the old CBA were still in effect, so at the end of the day, if they did agree to this deal, they would be effectively giving money back.

They'll be getting paid the same and then more as time goes on and they will not be writing any checks back to the owners. So maybe they're giving money back on paper but in reality they're going to be making more dollars every year.

PhilFree:arrow:

Dave Lane
03-18-2011, 10:38 AM
Actually, they gain a lot of leverage if they win the April 6th hearing.

Yep. And for the slow and dull witted:

The league / owners are asking for a 15% CUT in Players salaries / Benefits.

The Players asked to see the books of the owners to see if it is true that they are making less money and have said if so we will accept a cut ourselves.

The Owners said no deal, we refuse to backup our claims.

SO in my mind until the owners show some proof of economic loss, I understand the player reluctance to take a pay cut. If they win April 6th and they probably will, the league will have to make even greater concessions to strike a deal. If I'm the players I'd take my chances in court. You can always take the deal thats on the table and go back to work shortly.

BigMeatballDave
03-18-2011, 10:39 AM
FYPROFL

Dave Lane
03-18-2011, 10:41 AM
And like Milkman I would at least try to get a little more from the owners and then sign the deal with the owners. Its generally fair to both sides but I am curious if profits are down for any of the owners at all.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 10:44 AM
Yep. And for the slow and dull witted:

The league / owners are asking for a 15% CUT in Players salaries / Benefits.

The Players asked to see the books of the owners to see if it is true that they are making less money and have said if so we will accept a cut ourselves.

The Owners said no deal, we refuse to backup our claims.

SO in my mind until the owners show some proof of economic loss, I understand the player reluctance to take a pay cut. If they win April 6th and they probably will, the league will have to make even greater concessions to strike a deal. If I'm the players I'd take my chances in court. You can always take the deal thats on the table and go back to work shortly.

It isn't really a 15% pay CUT. Its a smaller raise than what they received in the last 4 years.

IMHO, the owners aren't being very unreasonable.

If one or two teams actually did lose some money, or made less on average than what they did 4-5 years ago, would the players be okay with those teams having a smaller cap and an actual pay reduction?

Coogs
03-18-2011, 10:55 AM
Both groups... owners and players... make their football living on us. The 9 Billion they are haggling over is pretty much our money. The TV contracts pay most of that money. The TV in turn makes up their money from the advertising dollar. And the advertising dollar is paid by the companies that sell everyday products. And those everyday products are bought by us. And the price of those products goes up each time these billion dollar deals increase.

So even if you don't attend a game in person... and just watch it on your local TV station... these jokers are all still reaching deep into your pockets.

Nothing we can do about it, but you would think they should all keep that in mind while they are fighting about which side gets that extra billion.

milkman
03-18-2011, 10:56 AM
They'll be getting paid the same and then more as time goes on and they will not be writing any checks back to the owners. So maybe they're giving money back on paper but in reality they're going to be making more dollars every year.

PhilFree:arrow:

Under the old agreement the cap was raised by an average of nearly 10 mil per season.

Under this proposal, that number will be cut in half.

Blindside58
03-18-2011, 11:03 AM
It's two fat slobs splitting up a warehouse of cheesecake. Everyone knows that the fans lose if anyone does.

I am trying to figure out who the fans are in your scenario...Are we the Cheesecake ready to be eaten?.. or are we the Bakers that make the cheesecake?...or do we just pay to watch 2 fat slobs entrench themselves in the "Gluttony Bowl"? ........Hmmmm

The Mad Crapper
03-18-2011, 11:05 AM
Apparently you are Chester, apparently you are.

The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. The world is still in a shit hole recession with millions and millions of people out of work, Japan (and the rest of the world along with it) is going to be messing with massive radiation fallout, gasoline prices are at an all-time high, and you're worried about a rookie salary cap and your boss not sharing enough gross revenue with you above and beyond your millions of dollars contracts to play an hour long sporting event once a week?

When they cancel football in entirety, and your six Ferraris, the House on Puget Sound and your 17 Rolex's have been repo'd, and your making minimum wage bouncing in a titty bar, I hope you kept your contract to burn to keep you warm on some cold winter night.

:clap:

Sannyasi
03-18-2011, 11:08 AM
People posting from the perspective of the "fans" act like people watch the games and buy the apparel out of the kindness of their hearts. The owners and players don't owe you shit, and they will charge whatever the market will allow, the same as any other business.

ElGringo
03-18-2011, 11:08 AM
I really have tried to side with the players throughout the argument, but they are making it very difficult. No matter who I side with, I think whoever wins the hearing on April 6 (most likely the players) will hold the balance of power. That would make a good argument to hold out until that hearing is completed.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 11:14 AM
Dear Mr. Goodell,

You asked us to take a big pay cut, but refuse to show why the owners need us to give up some money. Until you open up your books, the answer is no. We'll see you in court.

Love, the players

philfree
03-18-2011, 11:16 AM
Under the old agreement the cap was raised by an average of nearly 10 mil per season.

Under this proposal, that number will be cut in half.

I thought I read that the owners would save about $300mil with the new rookie pay scale. I may be remembering wrong but what ever that figure is it's significant in the equation. It should offset the slower cap growth allowing for plenty of money to pay the vets.

If the players would have considered the propsal and kept negotiating this thing could have been over a lot sooner.


PhilFree:arrow:

alnorth
03-18-2011, 11:17 AM
I really have tried to side with the players throughout the argument, but they are making it very difficult. No matter who I side with, I think whoever wins the hearing on April 6 (most likely the players) will hold the balance of power. That would make a good argument to hold out until that hearing is completed.

I really don't see why it should be hard. The owners have asked the players to give up $600 million per year, but they refuse to prove through team-level audited financial records why the owners need that money. This isn't some bizarre new thing, the NFLPA wants the same information that MLB and the NBA gives to their player unions.

Until the owners stop being stupid and open their books to the players, then the players shouldn't have to just take their word for it that they have to give up some money.

milkman
03-18-2011, 11:17 AM
People posting from the perspective of the "fans" act like people watch the games and buy the apparel out of the kindness of their hearts. The owners and players don't owe you shit, and they will charge whatever the market will allow, the same as any other business.

The perspective of average fan has nothing to do with spending out of the kindness of heart.

As the costs continue to escalate, at some point, average joe is going to be priced out.

This is what the NFL has to consider, cause it's avarage joe that fuels the leage's popularity.

Brock
03-18-2011, 11:18 AM
I thought I read that the owners would save about $300mil with the new rookie pay scale. I may be remembering wrong but what ever that figure is it's significant in the equation. It should offset the slower cap growth allowing for plenty of money to pay the vets.

If the players would have considered the propsal and kept negotiating this thing could have been over a lot sooner.


PhilFree:arrow:

If the owners would have just extended the deal they had this thing would have been over before it started.

Chiefaholic
03-18-2011, 11:19 AM
Under the old agreement the cap was raised by an average of nearly 10 mil per season.

Under this proposal, that number will be cut in half.

And the players taking that hit will be the rookie class who haven't proven a damn thing yet. Take all the money back from the first round busts and give it to vets who've proven they belong in the NFL. Nothing irks me more than a damn rookie who believes he's worth the value of the top 5 guys who play the position already

tk13
03-18-2011, 11:22 AM
The perspective of average fan has nothing to do with spending out of the kindness of heart.

As the costs continue to escalate, at some point, average joe is going to be priced out.

This is what the NFL has to consider, cause it's avarage joe that fuels the leage's popularity.

Yeah and now the average joe is watching the game on TV, which leads to the billions in TV contracts they're haggling over.

That's the beauty of it. The owners charge exorbitant prices for everything, raise ticket prices, get new stadiums, luxury suites, get 30 and 40% increases in TV contract negotiations that equate to billions... pretty much milk it for money at every turn, price the average fan out of the game. And then they lock the players out saying they want more money, and then the average joe sides with the owner.

ElGringo
03-18-2011, 11:23 AM
And I believe I now disagree with using the term "pay cut" that should refer to a reduction in pay. The players are getting a smaller pay raise, but still a pay raise. I still believe the owners should open their books.

milkman
03-18-2011, 11:23 AM
And the players taking that hit will be the rookie class who haven't proven a damn thing yet. Take all the money back from the first round busts and give it to vets who've proven they belong in the NFL. Nothing irks me more than a damn rookie who believes he's worth the value of the top 5 guys who play the position already

Rookie wage scales aren't going to account for 25 mil.

alnorth
03-18-2011, 11:23 AM
And the players taking that hit will be the rookie class who haven't proven a damn thing yet. Take all the money back from the first round busts and give it to vets who've proven they belong in the NFL. Nothing irks me more than a damn rookie who believes he's worth the value of the top 5 guys who play the position already

This isn't about the rookies.

Under the current deal, the owners take the first billion and 40% of the rest. They now want the first 2 billion and 40% of the rest. Whether the player's share is divided so more goes to rookies or less goes to rookies, either way the owners wanted to reduce the players share by $600 million.

Well, if the owners are hurting or if profits are unacceptably low maybe thats a reasonable demand, but they refused to open their books to the players. They essentially said "trust us, we need the money". At the 11th hour they offered to take away a bit under $300 million instead of taking away $600 million from the players and acted as if that was a fair compromise. The amount doesn't matter, the owners should have to prove that ANYTHING should be taken away, just as the NBA and MLB shares all their financial data with their players.

milkman
03-18-2011, 11:24 AM
Yeah and now the average joe is watching the game on TV, which leads to the billions in TV contracts they're haggling over.

Those billions will be affected when average joe can no longer afford to foot the bill for NFL Sunday Ticket.

Sannyasi
03-18-2011, 11:36 AM
The perspective of average fan has nothing to do with spending out of the kindness of heart.

As the costs continue to escalate, at some point, average joe is going to be priced out.

This is what the NFL has to consider, cause it's avarage joe that fuels the leage's popularity.

And that is something the league has to think about carefully, especially if they do decide to pursue a pay-per-view model, which could be disastrous if not done with foresight.

This has nothing to do with the CBA situation, though. People talk about the "greed" of the owners and players, and "what about the fans!?" Its entirely the wrong perspective to view things through. This is an argument between owners and players, until the product actually is effected and games are missed, the fans have no involvement in these proceedings whatsoever. They simply don't factor into the equation.

ElGringo
03-18-2011, 11:44 AM
Question for those in the know. If the work stoppage continues, at what point does the "product" get affected (as in when do they start cancelling regular season games)?

milkman
03-18-2011, 11:45 AM
And that is something the league has to think about carefully, especially if they do decide to pursue a pay-per-view model, which could be disastrous if not done with foresight.

This has nothing to do with the CBA situation, though. People talk about the "greed" of the owners and players, and "what about the fans!?" Its entirely the wrong perspective to view things through. This is an argument between owners and players, until the product actually is effected and games are missed, the fans have no involvement in these proceedings whatsoever. They simply don't factor into the equation.

It does have something to do with this CBA.

As prices continue to escalate on everything from food to entertainment, average joe is going to have to think about where he's spending his money.

What they do now will affect where average joe decides to make his cuts on spending.

Reerun_KC
03-18-2011, 11:51 AM
People posting from the perspective of the "fans" act like people watch the games and buy the apparel out of the kindness of their hearts. The owners and players don't owe you shit, and they will charge whatever the market will allow, the same as any other business.

Lots of truth here...
Thats why the owners and the players can fuck themselves...


They are raping the fans and crying because they are slaved players and broke owners..


GMFB...

Deberg_1990
03-18-2011, 11:54 AM
Fans will come back no matter what happens...they always do, even in baseball. Heck, people still go to Royals games for some reason?
Posted via Mobile Device

milkman
03-18-2011, 11:58 AM
Fans will come back no matter what happens...they always do, even in baseball. Heck, people still go to Royals games for some reason?
Posted via Mobile Device

How many fans show up for Royals games?

I don't believe that baseball has ever really recovered.

BigMeatballDave
03-18-2011, 12:00 PM
How many fans show up for Royals games?

I don't believe that baseball has ever really recovered.They havent. Not completely, anyway.

I've tried for yrs to get back into baseball. Its tough.

Deberg_1990
03-18-2011, 12:03 PM
How many fans show up for Royals games?

I don't believe that baseball has ever really recovered.

Seriously?? Maybe not in KC, but baseball as a whole has recovered just fine.

I dont think as many people watch on TV though....i have no numbers though.

But even in KC, they turn a profit. But i guess thats why they have to build gimmicks like "Little K" and "Outfield Experience" to help keep fans entertained.

chopper
03-18-2011, 12:05 PM
How many fans show up for Royals games?

I don't believe that baseball has ever really recovered.

I know plenty of older guys who still bitch about the baseball strike....which was almost 20 years ago. If there are NFL games cancelled this year, God help me if I'm still bitter about it 20 years later. If they do miss games this year, but salvage a SB it might piss people off less I think.
Posted via Mobile Device

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:05 PM
Apparently you are Chester, apparently you are.

The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. The world is still in a shit hole recession with millions and millions of people out of work, Japan (and the rest of the world along with it) is going to be messing with massive radiation fallout, gasoline prices are at an all-time high, and you're worried about a rookie salary cap and your boss not sharing enough gross revenue with you above and beyond your millions of dollars contracts to play an hour long sporting event once a week?

When they cancel football in entirety, and your six Ferraris, the House on Puget Sound and your 17 Rolex's have been repo'd, and your making minimum wage bouncing in a titty bar, I hope you kept your contract to burn to keep you warm on some cold winter night.

LMAO

JFC, you people couldn't be further off base.

It's like a fucking comedy hour around here.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:06 PM
Okay, so what you are saying is that under the old CBA there was a formula that was used, based on revenue, to calculate the salary cap.

IF, and that's a big "if", the old CBA were in existence the salary cap would be higher than what the current proposal is.

If that is the case, it is a stretch to say the players are losing money, or are being asked to take cuts.

The old agreement/calculation does not exist anymore. They are still being offered a "raise" in cap.

The cap will still be larger then it was and with the savings from a new rookie pay scale there should be plenty of money for the vets to make as much and more then they have been, have a better pension and available health insurance when they retire. All that coupled with less work.

Why is this bad deal for the players?

PhilFree:arrow:

LMAO

This is NOT about the salary cap.

As a matter of fact, a cap may not even exist in the next CBA.

milkman
03-18-2011, 12:08 PM
Seriously?? Maybe not in KC, but baseball as a whole has recovered just fine.

I dont think as many people watch on TV though....i have no numbers though.

But even in KC, they turn a profit. But i guess thats why they have to build gimmicks like "Little K" and "Outfield Experience" to help keep fans entertained.

I've talked about this before.

The NFL's HoF game has gotten better TV ratings than MLB playoffs.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:08 PM
IMHO, the owners aren't being very unreasonable.



Yeah, it's not unreasonable for the NFL to take $1.5+ billion off the top before revenue sharing.

You know, because all of those owners have huge expenditures with stadium upkeep and renovations.

Oh, oops.

:rolleyes:

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 12:08 PM
LMAO

This is NOT about the salary cap.

As a matter of fact, a cap may not even exist in the next CBA.

Explain it then.

Brock
03-18-2011, 12:09 PM
I've talked about this before.

The NFL's HoF game has gotten better TV ratings than MLB playoffs.

I don't think it has anything to do with MLB's strike.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:09 PM
I thought I read that the owners would save about $300mil with the new rookie pay scale. I may be remembering wrong
PhilFree:arrow:

You are "remembering wrong".

Deberg_1990
03-18-2011, 12:11 PM
I've talked about this before.

The NFL's HoF game has gotten better TV ratings than MLB playoffs.

I wont doubt that. Doesnt shock me. But i remember reading that actual game attendence numbers accross the league are better than ever. They must be doing alright, because no teams have folded yet.

milkman
03-18-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't think it has anything to do with MLB's strike.

I don't believe that the strike is the primary reason, but I think it did have some affect.

I'm like BCD in that I have never gotten back into baseball they way I was before the strike.

And I know a lot of people here that are the same.


If they had a financial model similar to the NFL, or even the NBA, I think it's possible they could have fully recovered.

But because of the way it's structured, it never really had the chance.

Brock
03-18-2011, 12:16 PM
I don't believe that the strike is the primary reason, but I think it did have some affect.

I'm like BCD in that I have never gotten back into baseball they way I was before the strike.

And I know a lot of people here that are the same.


If they had a financial model similar to the NFL, or even the NBA, I think it's possible they could have fully recovered.

But because of the way it's structured, it never really had the chance.

Personally, I think it's because their talent pool is so watered down at this point. They had the right idea a few years ago, get rid of some of these teams.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:17 PM
Explain it then.

I've explained it ten million fucking times:

There are $9 BILLION dollars in guaranteed revenues for 2011. The owners have claimed that they cannot continue financially with the prior CBA in effect, that same CBA that provided each owner with $31,250,000.00 before revenue sharing.

In 2011, under owner's proposal, each team would have received more than $62 million dollars before revenue sharing and the remaining $7 billion would be split 50/50 with the players, not 60/40. The owners "claimed" that was the only way for them to remain profitable.

Any person with a financial background of any kind knows this is complete and utter bullshit, especially when 31 of 32 NFL stadiums are owned in whole or in part by the cities and states in which they reside and those said municipalities are responsible for maintenance and upgrades. Most NFL teams don't even pay a lease fee!

So, the NFLPA, knowing surely that the owners were "cooking the books" and said prove it: Show us your financial records. Before we agree to a decrease in salaries, prove to us that the NFL model has become unprofitable.

The owners said "No". The players said "See you in court".

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 12:20 PM
I've explained it ten million ****ing times:

There are $9 BILLION dollars in guaranteed revenues for 2011. The owners have claimed that they cannot continue financially with the prior CBA in effect, that same CBA that provided each owner with $31,250,000.00 before revenue sharing.

In 2011, under owner's proposal, each team would have received more than $62 million dollars before revenue sharing and the remaining $7 billion would be split 50/50 with the players, not 60/40. The owners "claimed" that was the only way for them to remain profitable.

Any person with a financial background of any kind knows this is complete and utter bullshit, especially when 31 of 32 NFL stadiums are owned in whole or in part by the cities and states in which they reside and those said municipalities are responsible for maintenance and upgrades. Most NFL teams don't even pay a lease fee!

So, the NFLPA, knowing surely that the owners were "cooking the books" and said prove it: Show us your financial records. Before we agree to a decrease in salaries, prove to us that the NFL model has become unprofitable.

The owners said "No". The players said "See you in court".

None of what you said changes the fact that the players are still getting raises under the owners proposals. They just want bigger raises. I haven't seen any proof that they are being asked to reduce existing salaries.

Short Leash Hootie
03-18-2011, 12:21 PM
it seems pretty clear to me that the owners only card is "these dumbass players are going to be so broke they'll have to cave"

sadly...if the owners remain stubborn enough long enough...it'll probably work

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:24 PM
None of what you said changes the fact that the players are still getting raises under the owners proposals. They just want bigger raises. I haven't seen any proof that they are being asked to reduce existing salaries.

That doesn't matter! They're being asked to take a reduction in profit sharing AFTER the owners take at least an additional $500 million off the top.

It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter.

JFC.

chopper
03-18-2011, 12:24 PM
Personally, I think it's because their talent pool is so watered down at this point. They had the right idea a few years ago, get rid of some of these teams.

This. Also, is the lack of a cap in MLB at the insistance of the MLBPU? Doesn't that seem shortsighted? Look at the nfl, much of its popularity is because of the parity that a salary cap brings, right? Kc averages more fans than they deserve for how terrible they've been for the last 20 years, if they weren't guaranteed to lose 100+ games a year they'd sell more tickets I think.
Posted via Mobile Device

Old Dog
03-18-2011, 12:28 PM
As a matter of fact, a cap may not even exist in the next CBA.

Would love to know where you pulled this from. There has been no talk of doing away with a cap that I've read about.

milkman
03-18-2011, 12:31 PM
Personally, I think it's because their talent pool is so watered down at this point. They had the right idea a few years ago, get rid of some of these teams.

There are 30 teams in MLB compared to 32 in the NFL.

Each MLB has 25 roster spots.
Each NFL team has 53 roster spots.

That's 750 roster spots compared to 1696.

When was the last time someone suggested contracting the NFL?

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 12:31 PM
That doesn't matter! They're being asked to take a reduction in profit sharing AFTER the owners take at least an additional $500 million off the top.

It's the PRINCIPLE of the matter.

JFC.

Then stop saying the players are being asked to take a pay cut. A raise is not a pay cut.

milkman
03-18-2011, 12:34 PM
Also, baseball, because it's a more international sport, has a larger talent pool to draw from than the NFL.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:36 PM
Would love to know where you pulled this from. There has been no talk of doing away with a cap that I've read about.

Uh, yes there has and it's been reported by several different sports writers.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:38 PM
Then stop saying the players are being asked to take a pay cut. A raise is not a pay cut.

You're as fucking clueless as Sauto.

The owners are taking an additional $500 million off the top. How is THAT not a pay cut? Doesn't that money exist?

Furthermore, the players were asked to reduce the revenue sharing from 60/40 to 50/50. How is THAT not a reduction?

:shake:

Old Dog
03-18-2011, 12:43 PM
Uh, yes there has and it's been reported by several different sports writers.

link?

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:46 PM
link?

www.google.com

milkman
03-18-2011, 12:46 PM
Uh, yes there has and it's been reported by several different sports writers.

link?

Actually what has been reported is the salary cap, among other things, is being challenged in court in the anti-trust suit against the league.

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/14/what-is-the-nfl-players-lawsuit-all-about/

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 12:47 PM
None of what you said changes the fact that the players are still getting raises under the owners proposals. They just want bigger raises. I haven't seen any proof that they are being asked to reduce existing salaries.

Let's try an example, with made up numbers and the assumption that teams will spend all the way to the cap:

The projected cap was $150 million

The new cap will be $140 million

That will leave the owners with $10 million dollars left to pay the players. Now, the veteran who was making $3 million dollars is going to be asked to take a pay cut, because the team needs the cap space and there are other players willing to do his job for less.

This happens even now, with the faster growing cap. You're out of your mind if you think it won't happen more often moving forward, with a lower cap that's increasing more slowly.

Peyton Manning's still going to make his money, as are players like Brady, Brees, Peppers, etc.... Minimum salary guys are still going to get minimum salary. It's the players in the middle who are going to get both actual pay cuts and fewer dollars on future contracts.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 12:54 PM
You're as ****ing clueless as Sauto.

The owners are taking an additional $500 million off the top. How is THAT not a pay cut? Doesn't that money exist?

Furthermore, the players were asked to reduce the revenue sharing from 60/40 to 50/50. How is THAT not a reduction?

:shake:

Is their 2011 paycheck going to be less than their 2010?

The salary cap (the money the players pocket) is increasing from 2009 to 2011, right?

The fact that the owners are bringing in more money and want to keep the "new" money, doesn't mean the players are taking home less. They want to share in the "new" revenue.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 12:55 PM
Let's try an example, with made up numbers and the assumption that teams will spend all the way to the cap:

The projected cap was $150 million

The new cap will be $140 million

That will leave the owners with $10 million dollars left to pay the players. Now, the veteran who was making $3 million dollars is going to be asked to take a pay cut, because the team needs the cap space and there are other players willing to do his job for less.

This happens even now, with the faster growing cap. You're out of your mind if you think it won't happen more often moving forward, with a lower cap that's increasing more slowly.

Peyton Manning's still going to make his money, as are players like Brady, Brees, Peppers, etc.... Minimum salary guys are still going to get minimum salary. It's the players in the middle who are going to get both actual pay cuts and fewer dollars on future contracts.

The "projected" cap was monopoly money. It doesn't exist. The agreement doesn't exist. It's like year 7 of a 7 year NFL contract that is backloaded.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 12:58 PM
Is their 2011 paycheck going to be less than their 2010?

That's irrelevant.

The salary cap (the money the players pocket) is increasing from 2009 to 2011, right?

Again, you're confusing a salary cap with available revenues.

They're mutually exclusive.

The fact that the owners are bringing in more money and want to keep the "new" money, doesn't mean the players are taking home less. They want to share in the "new" revenue.

It's not "new" revenue. It's not like the Producers Guild versus the Writers Guild, where the Writers wanted a share of "New Media Revenues", i.e. the internet, streaming, etc.

It's EXISTING revenues in the form of renegotiated television contracts, with ESPN alone paying $2 BILLION per 16 game season.

Please, explain to us all why the players shouldn't be allowed to share in that revenue.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 12:58 PM
Is their 2011 paycheck going to be less than their 2010?

The salary cap (the money the players pocket) is increasing from 2009 to 2011, right?

The fact that the owners are bringing in more money and want to keep the "new" money, doesn't mean the players are taking home less. They want to share in the "new" revenue.

If your boss comes to you and tells you that the contractual pay raise you normally get will not be happening, you're not going to tell people that you took a decrease in your raise. You're going to tell people that you took a pay cut, because you're going to be getting less money than was already agreed upon. That money was yours, by contractual 'right' (it's in quotes, so don't get picky). The same thing is happening with the players, in the aggregate. You keep trying to attack your argument to individuals, but this is a CBA, and the cut is being taken overall.

Brock
03-18-2011, 12:58 PM
There are 30 teams in MLB compared to 32 in the NFL.

Each MLB has 25 roster spots.
Each NFL team has 53 roster spots.

That's 750 roster spots compared to 1696.

When was the last time someone suggested contracting the NFL?

Well, I'd suggest it. There are probably 3 or 4 too many teams in the NFL. The last two expansions never should have happened, unless they were going to put a team in LA.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 12:59 PM
The "projected" cap was monopoly money. It doesn't exist. The agreement doesn't exist. It's like year 7 of a 7 year NFL contract that is backloaded.

This is absolutely false.


Also, you completely ignored the point about veterans who'll end up taking exactly the sort of pay cuts that you're trying to claim won't be happening.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 01:04 PM
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1324178&format=&page=2&listingType=sco#articleFull

MARCO ISLAND, Fla. — In the end, the only number that mattered was 38.

After all the talk of $1 billion claw backs by owners and a supposed final difference of “only” $187.5 million a year between the NFL and its players, the number that drove the NFLPA to decertify and seek relief in federal court was the one at the end of the owners’ final offer.

According to sources familiar with that offer, the union’s projection was that the players would in four years have seen their share of total gross revenues tumble from the present 57 percent to 38 percent had they accepted the owners’ proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. In addition, each year would have seen that share reduced regardless of the size of the money pool.

“In their model the better the league did the worse the players did,” the source said. “At the 11th hour they completely changed the context of the negotiation.”

Early, the union proposed changing from the present formula, in which the sides would wait until the true revenue number was calculated, to what they called a “peg cap,” in which that number would be based on the league’s internal revenue projections with a “true it up” process when the real final numbers were known later.

Under that formula, if the actual gross revenues ran above the projected growth rate, the overage was to be split with the owners receiving the first 11⁄2 percent as incentive to reinvest in the game and the rest divided by a still-being-negotiated percentage likely to run somewhere between 55-45 and 50-50.

Despite the fact football revenues had grown an average of 71⁄2 percent during the last decade, the league projected future growth at 4 percent in 2011 and ’12, and only 21⁄2 percent in ’13 and ’14. The players were not concerned about that because if revenues came in higher they would have picked up the overage on the other end.

That was the case until that final offer showed up two hours before the deadline. In that offer to “split the difference” between the two sides (which was at the time $640 million), the owners agreed to move their peg cap but with one significant change — if total gross revenues exceeded the projected growth rate they would keep all the overage.

“They wanted to split the difference on the peg (cap), but now there would be no more true up,” the source explained. “If the union knew they were going to go there it would have pushed back on the league’s revenue projections earlier.

“It was their way of blowing up the deal. They made an offer that sounded fair and sounded like a compromise but upon further review the union couldn’t take it. They’ll argue they were responsible for any shortfall (if revenues came in under the projected growth rate the cap would be unchanged), but their projection was so low they’d never have a shortfall.’’

The league has been on a media blitzkrieg since the negotiations fell apart, and one thing it has argued is that both sides agreed on the same figure for salary cap plus benefits at the start and the end of the deal — $141 million next season and $161 million in 2014.

What it left out was that there would no longer be a true up that split any overage with its players.

“I’ve come to understand the business of the game doesn’t really necessarily represent the essence of the game, and it’s discouraging,’’ said former Patriots [team stats] player Sean Morey, who though retired is still on the executive committee. “(Cowboys owner) Jerry Jones sat across from us and said he’s a professional optimist. Damn right he is. He understands the league now is more profitable than ever, and the amount of money they’re able to make down the road is something I believe they don’t want to share.

“Really what the NFL (hopes to do) is privatize its profit and socialize its costs. The mediator did a good job to bring people together to have substantial dialogue, but at the end of the day our attempts to engage in honest discussion fell on deaf ears.

“The perception they’ve given us is that the league is using the economic distress of our nation, where people are struggling with their mortgages and to keep their jobs, to justify asking players to give back (a lot), the most significant give back in NFL history.”

Morey is among about 100 NFL players (retired and active) gathering for five days here to discuss their situation and where they are headed. Not among them is Tom Brady [stats], the lead plaintiff in the NFLPA suit, but Patriots player rep Matt Light [stats] is here and said yesterday, “They’re treating us like we’re children and they’re parents.

“Their problem economically is more about revenue sharing on their end,” Light said. “Some smaller market teams are spending a far larger share of their income on salaries and expenses than larger market teams. They should be working that out among themselves, but they know it’s easier to try and take it away from the players than to take it from each other.”

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 01:05 PM
Please, explain to us all why the players shouldn't be allowed to share in that revenue.

Employers generally make the rules as to what trickles down to employees.

milkman
03-18-2011, 01:06 PM
Well, I'd suggest it. There are probably 3 or 4 too many teams in the NFL. The last two expansions never should have happened, unless they were going to put a team in LA.

I won't argue that.
I'd agree.

But the main point is that no one really thinks about contraction in the NFL, even though the talent pool is stretched far more than baseball, because the salary cap and revenue sharing have created a system that spreads that talent pool more equitably.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:06 PM
On Sunday night, we explained in detail the financial divide between the NFL and the players, including the concept of the “true-up,” which the league curiously omitted from the offer made last Friday.

Since then, Packers president and CEO Mark Murphy conceded that the offer did not include a players’ cut of the money that exceeded the projected revenue growth (e.g., four percent in 2011).

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/18/nfl-players-dispute-the-true-up/

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 01:07 PM
If your boss comes to you and tells you that the contractual pay raise you normally get will not be happening, you're not going to tell people that you took a decrease in your raise. You're going to tell people that you took a pay cut, because you're going to be getting less money than was already agreed upon. That money was yours, by contractual 'right' (it's in quotes, so don't get picky). The same thing is happening with the players, in the aggregate. You keep trying to attack your argument to individuals, but this is a CBA, and the cut is being taken overall.

The money is not mine by contractual right, because it gave my boss an "opt out" that I agreed to. I knew there was a 99.9% chance my boss was going to opt out.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:07 PM
Employers generally make the rules as to what trickles down to employees.

This is a CBA, not a dictatorship.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:08 PM
The money is not mine by contractual right, because it gave my boss an "opt out" that I agreed to. I knew there was a 99.9% chance my boss was going to opt out.

I can smell the bullshit you're shoveling even through the computer.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 01:09 PM
I can smell the bullshit you're shoveling even through the computer.

Did the players union sign an agreement that gave the owners the right to opt out of the CBA this year? Yes, or no.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 01:10 PM
Employers generally make the rules as to what trickles down to employees.

And once again, your knowledge of this unique situation rivals Sauto's.

This is not a typical employee-employer situation and any comparison is invalid.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 01:11 PM
The money is not mine by contractual right, because it gave my boss an "opt out" that I agreed to. I knew there was a 99.9% chance my boss was going to opt out.

How would you know that?

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:11 PM
Did the players union sign an agreement that gave the owners the right to opt out of the CBA this year? Yes, or no.

Ask me another irrelevant question, FFS. Whether it was a "right" or not, you're still taking a pay cut.


Are you mentally challenged?

OnTheWarpath58
03-18-2011, 01:12 PM
Shocking.

Yet another CBA thread absolutely fucking owned by Dane, Milkman, Brock and JPB.

Good work, fellas.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 01:14 PM
Ask me another irrelevant question, FFS. Whether it was a "right" or not, you're still taking a pay cut.


Are you mentally challenged?

It's not a pay cut. To 99.999% of people a pay cut is taking home less money than you make now. A pay cut isn't being unhappy about getting a raise that is smaller than the raise you got last year.

milkman
03-18-2011, 01:15 PM
Shocking.

Yet another CBA thread absolutely ****ing owned by Dane, Milkman, Brock and JPB.

Good work, fellas.

On a side note I've mentioned before.

Can we rename JPB "Squatter"?

OnTheWarpath58
03-18-2011, 01:15 PM
On a side note I've mentioned before.

Can we rename JPB "Squatter"?

LMAO

Just Stickin' Around?

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 01:18 PM
It's not a pay cut. To 99.999% of people a pay cut is taking home less money than you make now. A pay cut isn't being unhappy about getting a raise that is smaller than the raise you got last year.

Really?

You should stop now. You're quickly entering the SAUTO Zone.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:20 PM
It's not a pay cut. To 99.999% of people a pay cut is taking home less money than you make now. A pay cut isn't being unhappy about getting a raise that is smaller than the raise you got last year.

A pay cut is a lessening of the agreed upon rate of pay (often called salary). If you have a 5 year contract that pays you 10,20,30,40 and 50 thousand, and you are forced to accept 10,19,29,39, and 49, you took a pay cut.

What you're trying to do is play semantics with "pay cut", as if it somehow makes the players wrong.

It doesn't.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:22 PM
On a side note I've mentioned before.

Can we rename JPB "Squatter"?

I'd change it if I could do it on my own, but I think that's a mod thing, and I'm not going to bother them about something that trivial.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 01:23 PM
A pay cut is a lessening of the agreed upon rate of pay (often called salary). If you have a 5 year contract that pays you 10,20,30,40 and 50 thousand, and you are forced to accept 10,19,29,39, and 49, you took a pay cut.

What you're trying to do is play semantics with "pay cut", as if it somehow makes the players wrong.

It doesn't.

There is no 5 year contract. It was a 3 year contract that was renewable at the discretion of the other party. They decided not to renew it. You knew it was likely.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 01:25 PM
There is no 5 year contract. It was a 3 year contract that was renewable at the discretion of the other party. They decided not to renew it. You knew it was likely.

Yeah, it was likely because the owners want to keep a bigger share of the revenues than they received under the prior CBA. They've claimed that they cannot continue under those terms and it's causing financial duress.

Proof?

Oh, no they can't show proof, silly! Trust the man!

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:27 PM
There is no 5 year contract. It was a 3 year contract that was renewable at the discretion of the other party. They decided not to renew it. You knew it was likely.

Your characterization of the CBA is incorrect. There was a deal. The owners had to actively opt out. It was not a decision not to renew.

milkman
03-18-2011, 01:29 PM
I'd change it if I could do it on my own, but I think that's a mod thing, and I'm not going to bother them about something that trivial.

Eh...it's just a joke anyway.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 01:30 PM
Your characterization of the CBA is incorrect. There was a deal. The owners had to actively opt out. It was not a decision not to renew.

It's the same thing for purposes of discussion. The parties knew the agreement wouldn't last the full length. It wasn't guaranteed to continue all of the years.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 01:31 PM
It's the same thing for purposes of discussion. The parties knew the agreement wouldn't last the full length. It wasn't guaranteed to continue all of the years.

You're pissing about the use of "pay cut" and you toss out this bullshit? STFU

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 01:34 PM
It's the same thing for purposes of discussion. The parties knew the agreement wouldn't last the full length. It wasn't guaranteed to continue all of the years.

LMAO

You still haven't explained to us how in an era of unprecedented and record revenues, why the owners need at least an additional $500 million before revenue sharing and a 7-19% reduction (if you'd read the article I linked you'd better understand those numbers) in revenue sharing with the players.

We're all anxiously awaiting your explanation. Thanks.

milkman
03-18-2011, 01:36 PM
This is more like sales.

If you work for a company that is making record profits and they come to you and say to you that they need to cut your commission, how are you going to respond?

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 02:00 PM
LMAO

You still haven't explained to us how in an era of unprecedented and record revenues, why the owners need at least an additional $500 million before revenue sharing and a 7-19% reduction (if you'd read the article I linked you'd better understand those numbers) in revenue sharing with the players.

We're all anxiously awaiting your explanation. Thanks.

Why they "need" more money?? What fairy tale land are you living in? Oh, that's right, Hollywood.

They are the owners. They want the most money they can make. They don't "need" 500 million more, just like I'm sure Peyton Manning doesn't "need" to collect an additional paycheck for the rest of his life. It's all about what they "want", not "need".

I'd bet a good percentage of owners lost a bit of money in their other ventures during the last 5 years when the economy was in the dumps and would like to use the NFL to gain back some lost millions. I'm sure the owners think they are responsible for the increase in revenue and believe they should keep it.

I take offense to the arguments that you and JPB make about "pay cuts", when millions of hard working Americans have actually had to take real pay cuts and lost real benefits, jobs, etc. It's insulting when multi-millionaires claim they are being asked to take a "pay cut" that is actually a hefty raise, just one that isn't big enough to make them happy.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 02:10 PM
Why they "need" more money?? What fairy tale land are you living in? Oh, that's right, Hollywood.

They are the owners. They want the most money they can make. They don't "need" 500 million more, just like I'm sure Peyton Manning doesn't "need" to collect an additional paycheck for the rest of his life. It's all about what they "want", not "need".

I'd bet a good percentage of owners lost a bit of money in their other ventures during the last 5 years when the economy was in the dumps and would like to use the NFL to gain back some lost millions. I'm sure the owners think they are responsible for the increase in revenue and believe they should keep it.

I take offense to the arguments that you and JPB make about "pay cuts", when millions of hard working Americans have actually had to take real pay cuts and lost real benefits, jobs, etc. It's insulting when multi-millionaires claim they are being asked to take a "pay cut" that is actually a hefty raise, just one that isn't big enough to make them happy.

You're completely clueless. Nice job.

Cave Johnson
03-18-2011, 02:32 PM
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1324178&format=&page=2&listingType=sco#articleFull

MARCO ISLAND, Fla. — In the end, the only number that mattered was 38.

After all the talk of $1 billion claw backs by owners and a supposed final difference of “only” $187.5 million a year between the NFL and its players, the number that drove the NFLPA to decertify and seek relief in federal court was the one at the end of the owners’ final offer.

According to sources familiar with that offer, the union’s projection was that the players would in four years have seen their share of total gross revenues tumble from the present 57 percent to 38 percent had they accepted the owners’ proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. In addition, each year would have seen that share reduced regardless of the size of the money pool.

“In their model the better the league did the worse the players did,” the source said. “At the 11th hour they completely changed the context of the negotiation.”

Early, the union proposed changing from the present formula, in which the sides would wait until the true revenue number was calculated, to what they called a “peg cap,” in which that number would be based on the league’s internal revenue projections with a “true it up” process when the real final numbers were known later.

Under that formula, if the actual gross revenues ran above the projected growth rate, the overage was to be split with the owners receiving the first 11⁄2 percent as incentive to reinvest in the game and the rest divided by a still-being-negotiated percentage likely to run somewhere between 55-45 and 50-50.

Despite the fact football revenues had grown an average of 71⁄2 percent during the last decade, the league projected future growth at 4 percent in 2011 and ’12, and only 21⁄2 percent in ’13 and ’14. The players were not concerned about that because if revenues came in higher they would have picked up the overage on the other end.

That was the case until that final offer showed up two hours before the deadline. In that offer to “split the difference” between the two sides (which was at the time $640 million), the owners agreed to move their peg cap but with one significant change — if total gross revenues exceeded the projected growth rate they would keep all the overage.

“They wanted to split the difference on the peg (cap), but now there would be no more true up,” the source explained. “If the union knew they were going to go there it would have pushed back on the league’s revenue projections earlier.

“It was their way of blowing up the deal. They made an offer that sounded fair and sounded like a compromise but upon further review the union couldn’t take it. They’ll argue they were responsible for any shortfall (if revenues came in under the projected growth rate the cap would be unchanged), but their projection was so low they’d never have a shortfall.’’

The league has been on a media blitzkrieg since the negotiations fell apart, and one thing it has argued is that both sides agreed on the same figure for salary cap plus benefits at the start and the end of the deal — $141 million next season and $161 million in 2014.

What it left out was that there would no longer be a true up that split any overage with its players.

“I’ve come to understand the business of the game doesn’t really necessarily represent the essence of the game, and it’s discouraging,’’ said former Patriots [team stats] player Sean Morey, who though retired is still on the executive committee. “(Cowboys owner) Jerry Jones sat across from us and said he’s a professional optimist. Damn right he is. He understands the league now is more profitable than ever, and the amount of money they’re able to make down the road is something I believe they don’t want to share.

“Really what the NFL (hopes to do) is privatize its profit and socialize its costs. The mediator did a good job to bring people together to have substantial dialogue, but at the end of the day our attempts to engage in honest discussion fell on deaf ears.

“The perception they’ve given us is that the league is using the economic distress of our nation, where people are struggling with their mortgages and to keep their jobs, to justify asking players to give back (a lot), the most significant give back in NFL history.”

Morey is among about 100 NFL players (retired and active) gathering for five days here to discuss their situation and where they are headed. Not among them is Tom Brady [stats], the lead plaintiff in the NFLPA suit, but Patriots player rep Matt Light [stats] is here and said yesterday, “They’re treating us like we’re children and they’re parents.

“Their problem economically is more about revenue sharing on their end,” Light said. “Some smaller market teams are spending a far larger share of their income on salaries and expenses than larger market teams. They should be working that out among themselves, but they know it’s easier to try and take it away from the players than to take it from each other.”

Nice find, Dane.

I was suspicious that the NFL's 11th hour proposal had significant caveats. Otherwise, it would have been introduced earlier in the negotiating process.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 02:42 PM
This is more like sales.

If you work for a company that is making record profits and they come to you and say to you that they need to cut your commission, how are you going to respond?

You decertify your union, and hope a judge can bail your ass out on April 6th by making a ruling that will lead you to argue the last contract you had remains in effect until a new agreement is reached. Otherwise, you are pretty much left with a long holdout in hopes that the owners want to share more.

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 02:59 PM
You decertify your union, and hope a judge can bail your ass out on April 6th by making a ruling that will lead you to argue the last contract you had remains in effect until a new agreement is reached. Otherwise, you are pretty much left with a long holdout in hopes that the owners want to share more.

There's a union for salesmen?

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 03:16 PM
There's a union for salesmen?

You're responding to a guy who says

It's insulting when multi-millionaires claim they are being asked to take a "pay cut" that is actually a hefty raise, just one that isn't big enough to make them happy.

but is defending the billionaires who opted out of a deal because their profit lines of millions wasn't high enough.

Are you really expecting sensible, rational replies?

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 03:21 PM
There's a union for salesmen?

Don't be a dumbass. You don't add anything of substance, just random insults and smilies.

You try to find a new job as a salesman. Since the NFL players know they have it well, and playing for the CFL or Arena league isn't all that appealing, and would result in a real pay-cut, they decertified. It's their best bet. Just don't come out with the BS that they didn't want to do it, etc. Of course they wanted to play their best card.

Demonpenz
03-18-2011, 03:22 PM
I've tried to give up sports, but at the end of the day my last couple hours of free time, when I am too tired to start any new work, after I have prayed and done my spiritual stuff, sports is more interesting than other TV.

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 03:22 PM
You're responding to a guy who says



but is defending the billionaires who opted out of a deal because their profit lines of millions wasn't high enough.

Are you really expecting sensible, rational replies?

It isn't a matter of defending billionaires. I'm trying to cut through the BS rhetoric of "they want us to take a pay cut. Poor us. Think of our children." They are all greedy SOB's who don't realize how well they have it.

philfree
03-18-2011, 03:24 PM
If the owners would have just extended the deal they had this thing would have been over before it started.

They had the right to opt out and that was in the last CBA for a reason. The owners in the end put a good offer on the table but the players didn't really look at it.

Both sides are responsible for the current status of the league.

Also I wouldn't give my books to my employees. That's nuts. Giving five years worth of records to a 3rd party should suffice.

A judge would be irresponsible to give the books to the players IMO. They'll be looking for any reason to manipulate/blackmail the owners that they can find. And it won't have to be anything about the revenue flow or expenses.

If you hate rich people so much how can you be for either side?


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 03:25 PM
Don't be a dumbass. You don't add anything of substance, just random insults and smilies.

LMAO

You try to find a new job as a salesman. Since the NFL players know they have it well, and playing for the CFL or Arena league isn't all that appealing, and would result in a real pay-cut, they decertified. It's their best bet. Just don't come out with the BS that they didn't want to do it, etc. Of course they wanted to play their best card.

Your ignorant responses are no longer worthy of my time.

Let us know when you pull your head out of your ass.

philfree
03-18-2011, 03:26 PM
I've tried to give up sports, but at the end of the day my last couple hours of free time, when I am too tired to start any new work, after I have prayed and done my spiritual stuff, sports is more interesting than other TV.

Sports is "real" Reality TV.


PhilFree:arrow:

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 03:28 PM
It isn't a matter of defending billionaires. I'm trying to cut through the BS rhetoric of "they want us to take a pay cut. Poor us. Think of our children." They are all greedy SOB's who don't realize how well they have it.

No, it's been a matter of defending billionaires. It's one or the other, because the money's a fixed thing. The question is who gets what, nothing more.

If you want to side with the owners, do it honestly and based upon sound reasoning. Don't spew the bullshit about how the players are insulting you because they don't want to lose income, when it was the owners who backed out of the deal because their profits were allegedly taking a hit.

Brock
03-18-2011, 03:31 PM
They had the right to opt out and that was in the last CBA for a reason. The owners in the end put a good offer on the table but the players didn't really look at it.

Both sides are responsible for the current status of the league.

Also I wouldn't give my books to my employees. That's nuts. Giving five years worth of records to a 3rd party should suffice.

A judge would be irresponsible to give the books to the players IMO. They'll be looking for any reason to manipulate/blackmail the owners that they can find. And it won't have to be anything about the revenue flow or expenses.

If you hate rich people so much how can you be for either side?


PhilFree:arrow:

I do not hate rich people. I don't particularly like it when rich, powerful people tell obvious lies and expect people to buy it. But then, you're buying it, so obviously on some level it's working.

philfree
03-18-2011, 03:46 PM
I do not hate rich people. I don't particularly like it when rich, powerful people tell obvious lies and expect people to buy it. But then, you're buying it, so obviously on some level it's working.


Obvious lies?

As far as what I'm buying I'm not. I'm watching reading and trying to understand. As a business owner though I've started out on the side of the owners. If I actually see them trying to screw somebody then I'll take that into consideration. I don't consider giving the players a sweet deal that allowed them to grow the salaries at a rapid pace for fives years and then trying to renegotiate a new deal trying to screw someone though. That's just business. Just like when a player holds out.

Looking at the information right now the players currently in the league aren't going to take a pay cut and they are still going to be able to grow the salaries every year. They'll have better benefits too so I really don't see the screwing.


PhilFree:arrow:

Chiefnj2
03-18-2011, 03:46 PM
No, it's been a matter of defending billionaires. It's one or the other, because the money's a fixed thing. The question is who gets what, nothing more.

If you want to side with the owners, do it honestly and based upon sound reasoning. Don't spew the bullshit about how the players are insulting you because they don't want to lose income, when it was the owners who backed out of the deal because their profits were allegedly taking a hit.

Nobody backed out. If a mistake was made, it was by the owners being overly generous in the last CBA. The players act like they have it hard. Hard was playing in the 60s.

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 03:51 PM
Nobody backed out. If a mistake was made, it was by the owners being overly generous in the last CBA. The players act like they have it hard. Hard was playing in the 60s.

The owners had to actively decide to opt out. They backed out, by definition. This is beyond questioning.

Definition of BACK OUT
intransitive verb
: to withdraw especially from a commitment or contest

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/backout

Brock
03-18-2011, 03:53 PM
Obvious lies?
:

Obvious lies. "Our profits are down". That's an obvious lie.

philfree
03-18-2011, 04:21 PM
Obvious lies. "Our profits are down". That's an obvious lie.

So you have all the info to back that up? Yeah, yeah I know $9billion dollars.....

I don't believe they would knowingly create this situation if there wasn't some truth to what they say. You have the best business in the world and it's going gangbusters so you throw a monkey wrench into it? That would make no sense at all and the owners aren't a bunch of idiots.


PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 04:27 PM
So you have all the info to back that up? Yeah, yeah I know $9billion dollars.....

I don't believe they would knowingly create this situation if there wasn't some truth to what they say. You have the best business in the world and it's going gangbusters so you throw a monkey wrench into it? That would make no sense at all and the owners aren't a bunch of idiots.


PhilFree:arrow:

:facepalm:

philfree
03-18-2011, 04:34 PM
:facepalm:


:facepalm:

:shrug:


PhilFree:arrow:

Just Passin' By
03-18-2011, 04:42 PM
:facepalm:

:shrug:


PhilFree:arrow:

football revenues had grown an average of 71⁄2 percent during the last decade

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1324178&format=&page=1&listingType=sco#articleFull

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 04:43 PM
:facepalm:

:shrug:


PhilFree:arrow:

1. You assume, incorrectly I might add, that capitalism is benign. It is not. I guarantee that if the NFL owners could negotiate a contract that gives the players 10% of the net revenues while keeping 90% for themselves, they would. Do you know anything about the history of professional sports?

2. I've already detailed the fact that the owners don't pay rent, don't pay for maintenance and upgrades to their stadiums, keep all of their concessions and parking in addition to receiving $31 million dollars above and beyond the point where revenue sharing kicks in. Each owner has, at minimum after paying admin and the players, $110 million dollars BEFORE concessions, parking, local TV revenue from preseason games, etc, so that number is closer to $140 million, net of player and admin costs.

There is absolutely NO WAY that it's possible that the owners are losing money, but that's their claim. The onus is now on the owners, not the players.

You must not be familiar with human history if you think that the owners are in any way, shape or form, a benign entity looking out for the greater good of their players.

Brock
03-18-2011, 04:49 PM
So you have all the info to back that up? Yeah, yeah I know $9billion dollars.....

I don't believe they would knowingly create this situation if there wasn't some truth to what they say. You have the best business in the world and it's going gangbusters so you throw a monkey wrench into it? That would make no sense at all and the owners aren't a bunch of idiots.


PhilFree:arrow:

They saw an opportunity to "take our league back" to quote one of them. Unfortunately, they thought the players would back down and they were wrong.

philfree
03-18-2011, 04:59 PM
They saw an opportunity to "take our league back" to quote one of them. Unfortunately, they thought the players would back down and they were wrong.

I don't think they ever thought the players would back down. This thing is probably going the course they thought it would. It's not like it's their first time around.


PhilFree:arrow:

Brock
03-18-2011, 05:00 PM
I don't think they ever thought the players would back down. This thing is probably going the course they thought it would. It's not like it's their first time around.


PhilFree:arrow:

Sure they did. Then when they saw they were in for a tougher fight than they thought, they kept trying to extend the deadline. Otherwise, they would have just locked them out when they said they were going to.

philfree
03-18-2011, 05:05 PM
1. You assume, incorrectly I might add, that capitalism is benign. It is not. I guarantee that if the NFL owners could negotiate a contract that gives the players 10% of the net revenues while keeping 90% for themselves, they would. Do you know anything about the history of professional sports?

2. I've already detailed the fact that the owners don't pay rent, don't pay for maintenance and upgrades to their stadiums, keep all of their concessions and parking in addition to receiving $31 million dollars above and beyond the point where revenue sharing kicks in. Each owner has, at minimum after paying admin and the players, $110 million dollars BEFORE concessions, parking, local TV revenue from preseason games, etc, so that number is closer to $140 million, net of player and admin costs.

There is absolutely NO WAY that it's possible that the owners are losing money, but that's their claim. The onus is now on the owners, not the players.

You must not be familiar with human history if you think that the owners are in any way, shape or form, a benign entity looking out for the greater good of their players.

Benign? You're really good at making up things people never really said.

PhilFree:arrow:

DaneMcCloud
03-18-2011, 05:20 PM
Benign? You're really good at making up things people never really said.

PhilFree:arrow:

And I guess you don't understand the implications, do you?

And thanks again for responding because your insight has been unparalleled in these discussions.

milkman
03-18-2011, 05:38 PM
They saw an opportunity to "take our league back" to quote one of them. Unfortunately, they thought the players would back down and they were wrong.

The owners thought they had a huge advantage, with 4 bil to fall back on if the players dug in.

When Judge Doty ruled they coudn't use those funds as a war chest in the battle against the players, they lost the advantage they thought they had.

JASONSAUTO
03-18-2011, 05:52 PM
Obvious lies. "Our profits are down". That's an obvious lie.

An owner said that?

I have said the issue isn't losing money.

Its that profits are down.

Hell dane says a couple of posts down from this one that the owners say they are losing money.

which is it?
Posted via Mobile Device

JASONSAUTO
03-18-2011, 05:55 PM
And I will give dane props for that article he posted. It gave a lot of insight.


And its the first one that I have seen that actually mentioned expenses above salaries.
Posted via Mobile Device

Over-Head
03-18-2011, 06:00 PM
Apparently you are Chester, apparently you are.

The players are losing any dry ground that they have remaining rather rapidly. The world is still in a shit hole recession with millions and millions of people out of work, Japan (and the rest of the world along with it) is going to be messing with massive radiation fallout, gasoline prices are at an all-time high, and you're worried about a rookie salary cap and your boss not sharing enough gross revenue with you above and beyond your millions of dollars contracts to play an hour long sporting event once a week?

When they cancel football in entirety, and your six Ferraris, the House on Puget Sound and your 17 Rolex's have been repo'd, and your making minimum wage bouncing in a titty bar, I hope you kept your contract to burn to keep you warm on some cold winter night.

THIS...well said sir!