PDA

View Full Version : Football Players response to Goodell in a letter: Your statements are false


Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 11:39 AM
The letter criticized ownership for not having owners present during the majority of negotiations. The players listed a number of facts according to the players with the preface to Goodell: “Your statements are false.”

The letter itself is in 4 jpegs that Rosenthal links to in the piece.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/19/nflpa-responds-to-goodell-letter-your-statements-are-false/

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 11:59 AM
The text of the letter is now available

Dear Roger,

This responds to the letter you sent all NFL players on March 17.

We start by reminding you that we were there at the negotiations and know the truth about what happened, which ultimately led the players to renounce the NFLPA’s status as the collective bargaining representative of NFL players. The players took this step only as a last resort, and only after two years of trying to reach a reasonable collective bargaining agreement and three weeks of mediation with George Cohen of FMCS. At all times during the mediation session we had representatives at the table with the authority to make a deal. The NFL representatives at the mediation did not, and the owners were mostly absent.

The mediation was at the end of a two-year process started on May 18, 2009, when our Executive Director sent you a letter requesting audited financial statements to justify your opting out of the CBA (letter attached).

The NFLPA did all it could to reach a fair collective bargaining agreement and made numerous proposals to address the concerns raised by the owners. In response, the owners never justified their demands for a massive give-back which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major league pro sports.

That is why we were very troubled to see your letter, and repeated press reports by yourself, Jeff Pash, and the owners, which claim that the owners met the players halfway in negotiations, and that the owners offered a fair deal to the players.

Your statements are false.

We will let the facts speak for themselves.

* The proposal by the NFL was not an “a la carte” proposal. The changes in offseason workouts and other benefits to players were conditioned upon the players accepting an economic framework that was unjustified and unfair.

* Your proposal called for a pegged amount for the salary cap plus benefits starting at 141M in 2011 and increasing to 161M in 2014, regardless of NFL revenues. These amounts by themselves would have set the players back years, and were based on unrealistically low revenue projections. Your proposal also would have given the owners 100% of all revenues above the low projections, including the first year of new TV contracts in 2014. Your offer did NOT meet the players halfway when it would have given 100% of the additional revenues to the owners.

* As a result, the players’ share of NFL revenues would have suffered a massive decrease. This is clear by comparing your proposal to what the players would receive under the 50% share of all revenues they have had for the past 20 years.

* If NFL revenues grow at 8% over the next four years (consistent with Moody’s projections), which is the same growth rate it has been for the past decade, then the cap plus benefits with our historical share would be 159M in 2011 (18M more per team than your 141M proposal) and grow to 201M per team in 2014 (40M more per team than your 161M proposal).

* Your proposal would have resulted in a league-wide giveback by the players of 576M in 2011 increasing to 1.2 BILLION in 2014, for a total of more than 3.6 BILLION for just the first four years. Even if revenues increased at a slower rate of only 5%, the players would still have lost over 2 BILLION over the next four years. These amounts would be even higher if your stadium deductions apply to the first four years (your proposal did not note any such limits on these deductions).

* We believe these massive givebacks were not justified at all by the owners, especially given recent projections by Moody’s that NFL media revenues are expected to double to about 8 BILLION per year during the next TV deal.

* Given that you have repeatedly admitted that your clubs are not losing money, the billions of dollars in givebacks you proposed would have gone directly into the owners’ pockets. We understand why the owners would want to keep 100% of this additional money, but trying to sell it as a fair deal to the players is not truthful.

* You proposed a CBA term of ten years. But you did not include any proposal on the players’ share of revenues after the first four years, which left open entirely how much more the owners would have taken from the players.

* The owners continued to refuse any financial justification for these massive givebacks. Our auditors and bankers told us the extremely limited information you offered just a few days before the mediation ended would be meaningless.

* Your rookie compensation proposal went far beyond addressing any problem of rookie “busts” and amounted to severely restricting veteran salaries for all or most of their careers, since most players play less than 4 years. What your letter doesn’t say is that you proposed to limit compensation long after rookies become veterans – into players’ fourth and fifth years. As our player leadership told you and the owners time and time again during the negotiations, the current players would not sell out their future teammates who will be veterans in a few short years.

* Your proposal did not offer to return the 320M taken from players by the elimination of certain benefits in 2010. It also did not offer to compensate over 200 players who were adversely affected in 2010 by a change in the free agency rules. Your letter did not even address a finding by a federal judge that you orchestrated new television contracts to benefit the NFL during the lockout that you imposed.

* You continue to ask for an 18 game season, offering to delay it for only one more year (you earlier said it could not be implemented in 2011 no matter what doe to logistical issues). This was so even though the players and our medical experts warned you many times that increasing the season would increase the risk of player injury and shorten their careers.

* All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of 50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980’s, which would have given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations more than 20 years ago.

* The cap system for the past twenty years has always been one in which the players were guaranteed to share in revenue growth as partners. Your proposal would have shifted to a system in which players are told how much they will get, instead of knowing their share will grow with revenues, and end the partnership.

You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal. That proposal did not come until 12:30 on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation. At that point it became clear to everyone that the NFL had no intention to make a good faith effort to resolve these issues in collective bargaining and the owners were determined to carry out the lockout strategy they decided on in 2007.

We thus had no choice except to conclude that it was in the best interests of all NFL players to renounce collective bargaining so the players could pursue their antitrust rights to stop the lockout. We no longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of NFL players, and are supporting the players who are asserting their antitrust rights with the Brady litigation. We have heard that you have offered to have discussions with representatives of the players. As you know, the players are represented by class counsel in the Brady litigation, with the NFLPA and its Executive Committee serving as an advisor to any such settlement discussions. If you have any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues in that case, you should contact Class Counsel.

Sincerely,

Kevin Mawae
Charlie Batch
Drew Brees
Brian Dawkins
Dominique Foxworth
Scott Fujita
Sean Morey
Tony Richardson
Jeff Saturday
Mike Vrabel
Brian Waters

Rausch
03-19-2011, 11:59 AM
Goodell is an uber-hardass.

Thinking you could take this to the table and outlast/beat/bluff him is fucking stupid.

Okie_Apparition
03-19-2011, 12:04 PM
4 of the 11 players have ties to the Chiefs & the Chiefs are now screwed/someone claim this

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 12:05 PM
DeMaurice Smith is nothing more than Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton with a law degree:rolleyes::shake:

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 12:11 PM
Demaurice Smith the "community organizer" or should I say "NFL agitator"? Demaurice has learned very well from our POTUS how to "agitate", whoops, I mean "organize" now that our POTUS has graduated from the levels of "community" to "country" and now "global agitator".

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 12:18 PM
Demaurice Smith the "community organizer" or should I say "NFL agitator"? Demaurice has learned very well from our POTUS how to "agitate", whoops, I mean "organize" now that our POTUS has graduated from the levels of "community" to "country" and now "global agitator".

WTF are you talking about? This is a response to Goodell's letter. It's not a march in Alabama, for crying out loud.

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 12:25 PM
WTF are you talking about? This is a response to Goodell's letter. It's not a march in Alabama, for crying out loud.

Who represents the players? Who wrote this letter? Sure the players approved it but Demaurice will play hardball much more than Upshaw ever would.

Just sit back and watch and get educated on who Demaurice Smith is and look all around the country with what's going on with all these "communist union ****tards. Then you will see how Smith differs from Upshaw and where Smith wants to take the players union for the long term.:thumb:

See the big picture:thumb:

Frazod
03-19-2011, 12:26 PM
Those poor slaves. How do they bear it?

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 12:31 PM
Those poor slaves. How do they bear it?

No sh**:huh::LOL:

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 12:35 PM
Who represents the players? Who wrote this letter? Sure the players approved it but Demaurice will play hardball much more than Upshaw ever would.

Just sit back and watch and get educated on who Demaurice Smith is and look all around the country with what's going on with all these "communist union ****tards. Then you will see how Smith differs from Upshaw and where Smith wants to take the players union for the long term.:thumb:

See the big picture:thumb:

This thread was about the response from the players to Goodell. It wasn't a call to arms.

See the big picture :thumb:

bowener
03-19-2011, 01:32 PM
Demaurice Smith the "community organizer" or should I say "NFL agitator"? Demaurice has learned very well from our POTUS how to "agitate", whoops, I mean "organize" now that our POTUS has graduated from the levels of "community" to "country" and now "global agitator".

God damn, son. You are an idiot. Keep your bullshit in DC.

For others that want to discuss the NFL and not US politics, this letter, if mostly accurate, is interesting to say the least. I realize a lot of people are automatically against the players because of the dreaded "union" label, but if what they say in this letter is true, then it seems to show that the owners never intended to make a deal in time for the deadline, which is funny since the owners were claiming the players had intended to go the litigious route all along. Again, if this letter gives legit numbers, the owners proposal was shit, even if it looked nice on the surface to all of us.

I don't know much about any of this, but what do most of you think the court will decide, and what exactly will that do for the negotiations?

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 01:59 PM
Why would the proposal be a la carte?

You have to give to get.

I also can see theplayers beef with the hard line growth percentage and overage going to owners and not split.

Split ALL income whatever% that is agreed on.
Posted via Mobile Device

Just Passin' By
03-19-2011, 02:11 PM
Pash has replied. He's not denying any of the claims made by the players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/19/pash-responds-to-nflpa-letter/

kstater
03-19-2011, 02:14 PM
Pash has replied. He's not denying any of the claims made by the players.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/19/pash-responds-to-nflpa-letter/

Jeeze, the owners are raping the players in PR like a pedophile.

We are pleased now to have received a reply to the comprehensive proposal that we made eight days ago,” Pash says. “The points made in the players’ letter are precisely the kind of points that collective bargaining is intended to address. Debating the merits of the offer in this fashion is what collective bargaining is all about.


This letter again proves that the most sensible step for everyone is to get back to bargaining. So we again accept Mike Vrabel’s suggestion that the union’s executive committee meet with our negotiating team, including Jerry Richardson, Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones, to resume bargaining. If Mike will let us know when and where he and his colleagues would like to meet, we will be there. We are ready.

scott free
03-19-2011, 02:19 PM
In the absence of football this fall, i must express my heartfelt wish that more people here accuse each other of being kiddie touching sapling pluckers... we're going to have to start manufacturing replacement drama people!

I'll start... hey Bowser, you f*cking Queen, did your dog get into it last night or just lay there like a cold fish?

vailpass
03-19-2011, 02:20 PM
The players are looking very much the bad guys.

Rausch
03-19-2011, 02:22 PM
The players are looking very much the bad guys.

I don't see it that way.

I see greedy players and super-pr!ck-cog-suggers.

I can't see the "good guy."

scott free
03-19-2011, 02:25 PM
The players are looking very much the bad guys.

On a different note, i'm of the opinion that if you want a hot right winger chick for your av... Palin has nothing on Michelle Bachman.

Rausch
03-19-2011, 02:28 PM
On a different note, i'm of the opinion that if you want a hot right winger chick for your av... Palin has nothing on Michelle Bachman.

Whut?

http://indiedesign.typepad.com/inspire_political_discour/2008images-idp/dailypolimages/bachman.jpg

Shaid
03-19-2011, 02:44 PM
Demaurice Smith the "community organizer" or should I say "NFL agitator"? Demaurice has learned very well from our POTUS how to "agitate", whoops, I mean "organize" now that our POTUS has graduated from the levels of "community" to "country" and now "global agitator".

Thanks for bringing dumbass political shit into this.

Ugly Duck
03-19-2011, 02:50 PM
4 of the 11 players have ties to the Chiefs & the Chiefs are now screwed

Let the yellow flags fly against the evil Chiefs.... let them fly

vailpass
03-19-2011, 02:52 PM
On a different note, i'm of the opinion that if you want a hot right winger chick for your av... Palin has nothing on Michelle Bachman.

*shudder* to each his own I guess.

Pitt Gorilla
03-19-2011, 02:53 PM
The players are looking very much the bad guys.Actually, it's pretty much the opposite. I started out pretty firmly on the owners' side, but their positions haven't made a whole lot of sense.

JASONSAUTO
03-19-2011, 02:55 PM
I also like how this proves that I was right about the owners not actually losing money.

The owners have said repeatedly publicly they aren't.

Its said right in that letter.

Why in the fuck did dane have to go today?
I want him to see this.


Dane DANE DANE COME BACK MOTHERFUCKER

YOU WERE WRONG COME BACK
Posted via Mobile Device

Ugly Duck
03-19-2011, 02:58 PM
On a different note, i'm of the opinion that if you want a hot right winger chick for your av... Palin has nothing on Michelle Bachman.

Ohhhh BABY!

http://www.csindy.com/images/blogimages/2011/01/28/1296251097-bachmann-crazy.jpeg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vgm2b6JDAko/SsVkoYNB-QI/AAAAAAAABFg/qhsrYlA2pdA/s400/michele_bachmann_crazy_eyes.jpg http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal01/2010/4/12/13/enhanced-buzz-6526-1271093915-7.jpg

Rausch
03-19-2011, 03:00 PM
I see over 3 decades of failure.

I don't see any give-a-fuck, care, desire, or absolute-must-win in the team.

That team that probably won't play next year.

There is absolutely no excuse for not competing for a SB by year 3.

None.

If it has not worked it will not work.

Cut bait, start over, FIND A FUCKING WAY TO WIN....

Rausch
03-19-2011, 03:01 PM
I see over 3 decades of failure.

I don't see any give-a-****, care, desire, or absolute-must-win in the team.

That team that probably won't play next year.

There is absolutely no excuse for not competing for a SB by year 3.

None.

If it has not worked it will not work.

Cut bait, start over, FIND A ****ING WAY TO WIN....

My bad, thread shifted to ratty looking women.

Ugh....I.......yuck.

Just as nasty an idea...

jspchief
03-19-2011, 04:14 PM
So the players expect the revenue stream to continue to increase at a rate of 8%...

Wonder who's going to be the source of that money? Fans.

scott free
03-19-2011, 06:51 PM
Whut?

http://indiedesign.typepad.com/inspire_political_discour/2008images-idp/dailypolimages/bachman.jpg

You & ugly duck chose the worst pics you could find.

She's much more attractive & while she's also prone to sticking her foot in mouth, i believe that she's a lot smarter than Palin as well.

HMc
03-19-2011, 09:19 PM
that woman is perhaps the dumbest one i've ever seen interviewed.

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 09:34 PM
God damn, son. You are an idiot. Keep your bullshit in DC.

For others that want to discuss the NFL and not US politics, this letter, if mostly accurate, is interesting to say the least. I realize a lot of people are automatically against the players because of the dreaded "union" label, but if what they say in this letter is true, then it seems to show that the owners never intended to make a deal in time for the deadline, which is funny since the owners were claiming the players had intended to go the litigious route all along. Again, if this letter gives legit numbers, the owners proposal was shit, even if it looked nice on the surface to all of us.

I don't know much about any of this, but what do most of you think the court will decide, and what exactly will that do for the negotiations?

Damn Son, See the big picture here. :thumb:

I do respect the boundaries of politics and sports on this board, but this is a situation where you are potentially seeing the crossover between Pro Sports and politics(a la Fed Govt). Understand that "Uncle Sam"(specifically Dems) have wanted some type of involvement in Pro Sports(a la control regulation wise which would mean more taxes) for decades. They have none presently but because Smith is a Pro Govt Evil Capitalists kinda guy he would love nothing more than to turn the NFLPU from a "private sector union" to a "Public Sector Union" which now the Govt would have their hands involved which would not be good.

Do your homework on Demaurice Smith. He is not a Gene Upshaw type. He will take this to the Nth degree I assure you:thumb:

milkman
03-19-2011, 09:46 PM
Damn Son, See the big picture here. :thumb:

I do respect the boundaries of politics and sports on this board, but this is a situation where you are potentially seeing the crossover between Pro Sports and politics(a la Fed Govt). Understand that "Uncle Sam"(specifically Dems) have wanted some type of involvement in Pro Sports(a la control regulation wise which would mean more taxes) for decades. They have none presently but because Smith is a Pro Govt Evil Capitalists kinda guy he would love nothing more than to turn the NFLPU from a "private sector union" to a "Public Sector Union" which now the Govt would have their hands involved which would not be good.

Do your homework on Demaurice Smith. He is not a Gene Upshaw type. He will take this to the Nth degree I assure you:thumb:

No one gives a damn.

Chiefshrink
03-19-2011, 09:52 PM
No one gives a damn.

Oh but they will in due time:thumb:

Slainte
03-19-2011, 10:04 PM
She's much more attractive & while she's also prone to sticking her foot in mouth, i believe that she's a lot smarter than Palin as well.

And I bet she's *stronger*, too!

scott free
03-19-2011, 10:38 PM
And I bet she's *stronger*, too!

Well i'm not sure about all of that, but i do know that i need to go rinse my eyes after seeing your av.

orange
03-19-2011, 11:11 PM
Jeeze, the owners are raping the players in PR like a audiophile.

This letter again proves that the most sensible step for everyone is to get back to bargaining. So we again accept Mike Vrabel’s suggestion that the union’s executive committee meet with our negotiating team, including Jerry Richardson, Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones, to resume bargaining. If Mike will let us know when and where he and his colleagues would like to meet, we will be there. We are ready.

Players' completely predictable response will be:

"We're not a union. See you in court."

veist
03-19-2011, 11:26 PM
Damn Son, See the big picture here. :thumb:

I do respect the boundaries of politics and sports on this board, but this is a situation where you are potentially seeing the crossover between Pro Sports and politics(a la Fed Govt). Understand that "Uncle Sam"(specifically Dems) have wanted some type of involvement in Pro Sports(a la control regulation wise which would mean more taxes) for decades. They have none presently but because Smith is a Pro Govt Evil Capitalists kinda guy he would love nothing more than to turn the NFLPU from a "private sector union" to a "Public Sector Union" which now the Govt would have their hands involved which would not be good.

Do your homework on Demaurice Smith. He is not a Gene Upshaw type. He will take this to the Nth degree I assure you:thumb:

You realize this literally has nothing to do with that, right? FFS Robert Kraft is a huge democrat. The whole thing is about money and picking sides in fight between two rich groups fighting over who gets to get richer is retarded.

J Diddy
03-20-2011, 08:34 AM
This is sad. I equate this to a husband and wife airing their grievances in front of the children and asking them to pick sides.

milkman
03-20-2011, 08:37 AM
You realize this literally has nothing to do with that, right? FFS Robert Kraft is a huge democrat. The whole thing is about money and picking sides in fight between two rich groups fighting over who gets to get richer is retarded.

The only thing sportsshrink realizes is.....is.......is........



Hell, not a damn thing.

He's the most clueless fucker banging mindlessly at a keyboard.

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 10:01 AM
The debate is pretty simple.

The game is growing at an unbelievably fast pace, is killing with TV/stadium/merchandise revenues and the owners are pocketing almost all of that money. That includes proactive owners like Jerry Jones who are committed to football, and also to hands off owners like the Hunts and the Ford family. I'm sorry, but GMs/Presidents and NFL Front Office are the business guys making the game grow, not the owners. The owners are just investors.

So let that sink in for a little bit. If the NFL is growing at a rate of 8% who do you think deserves more of that money? The Ford family? Or Calvin Johnson?

The fans side with the owners because they always do. They're jealous because they can't fathom why oh why a player who does something for fun should be allowed to get paid. Nevermind that these specific players are the ones that are giving the owners a license to charge extremely high prices.

Goodell and company side with the owners because he's a shitty commissioner and, by the way, a lot of commissioners tend to side with owners.

I don't usually side with employees in union disputes. But this to me is a ridiculously easy example where greedy owners are being allowed to stomp all over the players. If we can get over our jealousy of rich athletes, it becomes clear as day.

vailpass
03-20-2011, 11:12 AM
The debate is pretty simple.

The game is growing at an unbelievably fast pace, is killing with TV/stadium/merchandise revenues and the owners are pocketing almost all of that money. That includes proactive owners like Jerry Jones who are committed to football, and also to hands off owners like the Hunts and the Ford family. I'm sorry, but GMs/Presidents and NFL Front Office are the business guys making the game grow, not the owners. The owners are just investors.

So let that sink in for a little bit. If the NFL is growing at a rate of 8% who do you think deserves more of that money? The Ford family? Or Calvin Johnson?

The fans side with the owners because they always do. They're jealous because they can't fathom why oh why a player who does something for fun should be allowed to get paid. Nevermind that these specific players are the ones that are giving the owners a license to charge extremely high prices.

Goodell and company side with the owners because he's a shitty commissioner and, by the way, a lot of commissioners tend to side with owners.

I don't usually side with employees in union disputes. But this to me is a ridiculously easy example where greedy owners are being allowed to stomp all over the players. If we can get over our jealousy of rich athletes, it becomes clear as day.

Who hires/pays the GMs/Presidents/Front Office people you say are responsible for growing the game?

Please tell me you were joking here:
"Goodell and company side with the owners because he's a shitty commissioner and, by the way, a lot of commissioners tend to side with owners."

loochy
03-20-2011, 11:22 AM
So let that sink in for a little bit. If the NFL is growing at a rate of 8% who do you think deserves more of that money? The Ford family? Or Calvin Johnson?

Ford deserves the money. He is the owner. Calvin Johnson is not the owner. If he wants to make more money, then he can buy a team and make some money. Or, he can play better and work for a better contract. Or he can come back and earn a real living like the rest of us.

jAZ
03-20-2011, 11:35 AM
The fans side with the owners because they always do.
People side with the owners because owners are a proxy for the team itself. And of course fans side with their teams.

jAZ
03-20-2011, 11:39 AM
Ford deserves the money. He is the owner. Calvin Johnson is not the owner. If he wants to make more money, then he can buy a team and make some money. Or, he can play better and work for a better contract. Or he can come back and earn a real living like the rest of us.

Or he can withhold his services if he's not offered a contract worthy of his talent, IHO. And when all the players do that, the teams become a crappy shell of their former selves. And the owners will offer more money.

That's a lot more legitimate suggestion for how to make more money as "buying a team". In fact, that suggestion is just ignorant if it's not ideological.

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 02:17 PM
Ford deserves the money. He is the owner. Calvin Johnson is not the owner. If he wants to make more money, then he can buy a team and make some money. Or, he can play better and work for a better contract. Or he can come back and earn a real living like the rest of us.

The Ford Family deserves a fair return on his investment. It's bullshit that he is reaping bajillions of dollars in return and not returning that back to the employees (players/owners/etc...) who are making that money for them. Sorry, but that's backwards. This isn't a corporation where an Executive works 100-hour weeks and is accountable for the success of their corporation. This isn't like investing in the stock market where the downside risk is often higher than the upside gain. This is a bunch of rich people who throw money at a team and are getting ungodly richer, even if they don't do a damn thing all year long.

And there's your bias ringing clear and strong at the end. So the owner earns a real living "like the rest of us" and so he deserves to get paid an unproportionately high return on his investment (nevermind that many of them just play with their dicks all day), while the players that are busting their ass all season long to be the best at their craft, those guys deserve a lot less?

Let's face it. Fans don't side with players because they're jealous. That's funny, because those same fans typically complain about their jobs, their salaries, and when the man keeps them down.

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 02:24 PM
Who hires/pays the GMs/Presidents/Front Office people you say are responsible for growing the game?

Please tell me you were joking here:
"Goodell and company side with the owners because he's a shitty commissioner and, by the way, a lot of commissioners tend to side with owners."

Wow. That sounds like really, really, really hard work. That must be really challenging that my only job is to hire a few good people, who then go on and hire the rest of the staff. You're right, they definitely deserve the lion's share of the profits.

I can understand if Scott Pioli is complaining about not getting paid. He bleeds football 90% of his waking hours, including the weekends. But we're talking about a guy like Clark Hunt complaining that the players are tapping into his profits (I"m not saying he's doing it, just using that as an example). That job is so hard that he even has the time to run the MLS, run a few MLS franchises, and be a CEO of an investment firm. You're right--THIS is the guy that deserves extra money.

And yes, Goodell is a shitty, shitty commissioner. What has he done besides ride Tagliabue's coat tails? His handling of the labor situation has been embarrassing--he's shown clear favoritism to one side, has posted several very questionable statements at poorly-timed times, he's been a ridiculously inconsistent judge of suspensions/penalties/fines, he's made a mockery of celebration rules... what has Goodell done except take over a great ship? I really doubt that the labor negotiations would have been nearly this rocky if Tagliabue was in charge.

scott free
03-20-2011, 02:41 PM
Wow. That sounds like really, really, really hard work. That must be really challenging that my only job is to hire a few good people, who then go on and hire the rest of the staff. You're right, they definitely deserve the lion's share of the profits.

I can understand if Scott Pioli is complaining about not getting paid. He bleeds football 90% of his waking hours, including the weekends. But we're talking about a guy like Clark Hunt complaining that the players are tapping into his profits (I"m not saying he's doing it, just using that as an example). That job is so hard that he even has the time to run the MLS, run a few MLS franchises, and be a CEO of an investment firm. You're right--THIS is the guy that deserves extra money.

And yes, Goodell is a shitty, shitty commissioner. What has he done besides ride Tagliabue's coat tails? His handling of the labor situation has been embarrassing--he's shown clear favoritism to one side, has posted several very questionable statements at poorly-timed times, he's been a ridiculously inconsistent judge of suspensions/penalties/fines, he's made a mockery of celebration rules... what has Goodell done except take over a great ship? I really doubt that the labor negotiations would have been nearly this rocky if Tagliabue was in charge.

WINNING

Valiant
03-20-2011, 02:42 PM
Or he can withhold his services if he's not offered a contract worthy of his talent, IHO. And when all the players do that, the teams become a crappy shell of their former selves. And the owners will offer more money.

That's a lot more legitimate suggestion for how to make more money as "buying a team". In fact, that suggestion is just ignorant if it's not ideological.

No they wont, they will just get new players.. These college players will play for less.. If they don't they are sacking groceries because most waste their college education chance..

The only way players do not buckle is if there is a rival league that will pay competitively... It is not out there yet..

So no, the players will not hold out for long.. They have too many bills to pay..

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 04:37 PM
No they wont, they will just get new players.. These college players will play for less.. If they don't they are sacking groceries because most waste their college education chance..

The only way players do not buckle is if there is a rival league that will pay competitively... It is not out there yet..

So no, the players will not hold out for long.. They have too many bills to pay..

Nobody will watch a game that features a 4th string QB as a starter. And they sure as hell aren't paying $75 a ticket. We're not even talking about a 2nd string QB. Not even a third string QB. We're talking about Casey Printers. We're talking about Jamarcus Russell.

Oh yeah, I remember that game but I think I hated the first time... when they called it the Arena League. They're practically giving tickets away for free and they can't sell even the first row of seats.

Mr. Plow
03-20-2011, 04:47 PM
The players are looking very much the bad guys.


I'm not sure there is a "good guy" in this one.

jAZ
03-20-2011, 05:31 PM
No they wont, they will just get new players.. These college players will play for less.. If they don't they are sacking groceries because most waste their college education chance..

The only way players do not buckle is if there is a rival league that will pay competitively... It is not out there yet..

So no, the players will not hold out for long.. They have too many bills to pay..

The players might very well not have the financial resources to hold out as long as the owners. Such is the nature of a fight between millionaires and billionaires.

But my point remains.

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 05:55 PM
The players might very well not have the financial resources to hold out as long as the owners. Such is the nature of a fight between millionaires and billionaires.

But my point remains.

I think yes and no. We've seen players hold out for half a season or so. I'm sure the union has instructed them since last year to put money aside.

Meanwhile, think about how financially devastating that is to owners and the NFL to not have any games going. Think about all the lost TV revenue. Potentially NFL draft coverage. Advanced season ticket sales. Stadium sponsorship agreements. Granted, the owners have more than enough money to cover their losses, but they're going to take a meteoric hit to their finances if they don't resolve soon.

I think the answer is that both sides have enormous incentive to resolve soon.

WV
03-20-2011, 05:58 PM
I have no idea what to think without Dane telling me what is right.

kstater
03-20-2011, 06:01 PM
I'm not sure there is a "good guy" in this one.

No, but the players are getting killed in the PR department.

Chiefshrink
03-20-2011, 06:22 PM
It's the owner's and fan's sand box plain and simple. Yes, the player's are the product but it's the owner's and fan's $$ paying them. If they don't like the sand box the players should create their own and see how they would fare then.

vailpass
03-20-2011, 06:59 PM
Wow. That sounds like really, really, really hard work. That must be really challenging that my only job is to hire a few good people, who then go on and hire the rest of the staff. You're right, they definitely deserve the lion's share of the profits.

I can understand if Scott Pioli is complaining about not getting paid. He bleeds football 90% of his waking hours, including the weekends. But we're talking about a guy like Clark Hunt complaining that the players are tapping into his profits (I"m not saying he's doing it, just using that as an example). That job is so hard that he even has the time to run the MLS, run a few MLS franchises, and be a CEO of an investment firm. You're right--THIS is the guy that deserves extra money.

And yes, Goodell is a shitty, shitty commissioner. What has he done besides ride Tagliabue's coat tails? His handling of the labor situation has been embarrassing--he's shown clear favoritism to one side, has posted several very questionable statements at poorly-timed times, he's been a ridiculously inconsistent judge of suspensions/penalties/fines, he's made a mockery of celebration rules... what has Goodell done except take over a great ship? I really doubt that the labor negotiations would have been nearly this rocky if Tagliabue was in charge.

Absolutely without any idea of how things work aren't you?

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 07:16 PM
It's the owner's and fan's sand box plain and simple. Yes, the player's are the product but it's the owner's and fan's $$ paying them. If they don't like the sand box the players should create their own and see how they would fare then.

Bull. Shit.

In most businesses that require union-type labor, you have replaceable workers. If you have a machinist who wants to complain about work, there are thousands of people living in your area who could easily take your job and probably do as good of a job as you can.

In sports, the players are irreplaceable. You can't replace Peyton Manning with Casey Printers (and the rest of the 53 man roster with C-league players) and expect to charge $75 per ticket. Hell, good luck selling tickets for $5.

The players make this game. Not the owners. I don't pay for my Superfan package to watch Clark Hunt eat nachos. I pay to watch teams built out of what are supposed to be the best 1,500 players in the league compete. The best of the best.

As I've said before, there are millions of people who could do an owner's job. The only competency is that you have to be rich. But take away the players, and guess what... there is no NFL. So the players have the leverage, not the owners.

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 07:28 PM
Absolutely without any idea of how things work aren't you?

Obviously an oversimplification. There are some really good owners out there who are trying really hard to invest in new stadiums, new property, etc... And then there are a good chunk (cough cough... Mike Brown) who are cutting costs so that he can pocket a bunch of the proceeds. But let's face it... CEOs do hard work. Owners' primary responsibility is to hire his top dogs. Do you really think that Hunt could possibly own three franchise and be CEO of a firm if the Chiefs' ownership job was at all demanding?

I fully understand the role of the commissioner. Paul Tagliabue built a reputation for representing the owners, but also trying to keep a peaceful relationship with the player's union. Roger Goodell is trying to take a hardline stance on every issue and has, from most reports I've heard, been accused by players of being non-responsive and releasing ill-timed, provoking statements.

chiefzilla1501
03-20-2011, 07:37 PM
It's the owner's and fan's sand box plain and simple. Yes, the player's are the product but it's the owner's and fan's $$ paying them. If they don't like the sand box the players should create their own and see how they would fare then.

Also, very important to note that the NFL is a monopoly. The players don't have much of a choice. In the free market, if you're an outstanding nuclear scientist and your job isn't giving you just compensation, you can go out and do that same job elsewhere for someone who will pay.

The NFL isn't like that. The NFL is an industry and they are restricting the earnings of their employees. NFL players COULD make a shitload more money if they allowed the free market to operate, but they get paid less because of cap restrictions (and I'm sorry, most of those cap restrictions are in place so that cheapskate owners can compete with the big boys). If Peyton Manning wanted to in a free market, he could easily go to Dan Snyder who will pay him out the ears to play on his team.

In other words, in order to create fairness among owners, they are underpaying players. Okay, that's fine, but if you're going to restrict salaries, then don't skimp on the cap number and let owners pocket more of the proceeds, when players aren't paid market value.

Marcellus
03-20-2011, 07:55 PM
The Ford Family deserves a fair return on his investment. It's bullshit that he is reaping bajillions of dollars in return and not returning that back to the employees (players/owners/etc...) who are making that money for them. Sorry, but that's backwards. This isn't a corporation where an Executive works 100-hour weeks and is accountable for the success of their corporation. This isn't like investing in the stock market where the downside risk is often higher than the upside gain. This is a bunch of rich people who throw money at a team and are getting ungodly richer, even if they don't do a damn thing all year long.

And there's your bias ringing clear and strong at the end. So the owner earns a real living "like the rest of us" and so he deserves to get paid an unproportionately high return on his investment (nevermind that many of them just play with their dicks all day), while the players that are busting their ass all season long to be the best at their craft, those guys deserve a lot less?

Let's face it. Fans don't side with players because they're jealous. That's funny, because those same fans typically complain about their jobs, their salaries, and when the man keeps them down.

Me and my brother were talking a few years ago about work and $.

My brother does collision repair. He can take a 2 wrecked cars and cut them in half and make a new car that looks brand new and you would never know. It's amazing to see some of the stuff these guys can do.
He not only can do it but he can do it damn fast which is how he make pretty good money.

We were talking about my job managing a manufacturing plant and started talking $. I told him about what I made and he was giving me shit about how he couldn't believe it and how easy it is to hire and fire and tell people what to do. Like that's even 20% of my job anyways.

Bottom line I told him I can't do what you do and I don't pretend to be able to. You can't do what I do so don't pretend to know.

That's why I crack up when people talk about how easy it would be to do someone's job.

Walk a mile in their shoes before you make assumptions.

You couldn't do Clark Hunt's job. I assure you. Neither could I. Dude has been groomed for it since birth. He is a smart Mofo, but go on and kid yourself if you want.

el borracho
03-20-2011, 08:21 PM
The players make the game! Ha! How long would it take to replace all 1500 NFL players with players of equal talent? 4 years? 5years? If the salary cap were cut in half, college players would still be lining up for the draft. The NFL doesn't have to worry about pissing off the players; the NFL only has to worry about pissing off the fans.

WV
03-20-2011, 08:24 PM
Me and my brother were talking a few years ago about work and $.

My brother does collision repair. He can take a 2 wrecked cars and cut them in half and make a new car that looks brand new and you would never know. It's amazing to see some of the stuff these guys can do.
He not only can do it but he can do it damn fast which is how he make pretty good money.

We were talking about my job managing a manufacturing plant and started talking $. I told him about what I made and he was giving me shit about how he couldn't believe it and how easy it is to hire and fire and tell people what to do. Like that's even 20% of my job anyways.

Bottom line I told him I can't do what you do and I don't pretend to be able to. You can't do what I do so don't pretend to know.

That's why I crack up when people talk about how easy it would be to do someone's job.

Walk a mile in their shoes before you make assumptions.

You couldn't do Clark Hunt's job. I assure you. Neither could I. Dude has been groomed for it since birth. He is a smart Mofo, but go on and kid yourself if you want.

Don't you see his point of view??

Punish the highly successful business man because he isn't on the field "busting his ass" like the players. Twisted point of view but I guess it is one.

milkman
03-20-2011, 08:29 PM
Don't you see his point of view??

Punish the highly successful business man because he isn't on the field "busting his ass" like the players. Twisted point of view but I guess it is one.

I don't think you undrstand his point of view at all.

I don't entirely agree with his point of view.

I think most owners are more involved in day to day operations that we might realize, but the fact is, they do hire people to do the heavy lifting, so to speak.

WV
03-20-2011, 08:36 PM
I don't think you undrstand his point of view at all.

I don't entirely agree with his point of view.

I think most owners are more involved in day to day operations that we might realize, but the fact is, they do hire people to do the heavy lifting, so to speak.

I get it and don't agree with it, but he's basically saying the owners should be willing to give up more simply because they don't do enough in his mind. By his logic the Head Coach shouldn't make anything either.

Marcellus
03-20-2011, 08:37 PM
Don't you see his point of view??

Punish the highly successful business man because he isn't on the field "busting his ass" like the players. Twisted point of view but I guess it is one.

What I see is it is nuts to talk about "how hard can it be to do this and this and make uber $$$$$" when you don't have a fucking clue what that person does on a daily basis.

I get pissed at Clark the Chiefs, Pioli, etc....as well but I don't pretend to act like what they do is easy and any moron could do it which is what many people seem to think.

I am not happy about the lockout or any of the other BS. Both sides are dumb asses.

Think of it like your job and most people's job's. There are politics involved that make things ridiculously complicated whether you are are trashman or an NFL owner.

It's dumb and it's a waste of time but those politics are dealt with on their own level regardless of status.

People that think they could just change that system are naive.

Clark Hunt is not just the Chief's owner, he is 1 of 32 NFL owners as well as part of Hunt Oil and I am sure many other business ventures.

milkman
03-20-2011, 08:42 PM
I get it and don't agree with it, but he's basically saying the owners should be willing to give up more simply because they don't do enough in his mind. By his logic the Head Coach shouldn't make anything either.

I think his logic goes more along the lines that he believes the owners need to reconsider just what they think is a fair offer because it's the talent of the players that have grown this game into what it has become.

I also think he believes the HC, or any part of teh staff, is more important than you believe he does.

WV
03-20-2011, 09:16 PM
I think his logic goes more along the lines that he believes the owners need to reconsider just what they think is a fair offer because it's the talent of the players that have grown this game into what it has become.

I also think he believes the HC, or any part of teh staff, is more important than you believe he does.

I don't totally disagree, but just have an issue with his logic. The HC was just an example of someone who also hires someone else to do their heavy work, I have no clue how he feels about them.

Bottom line is both sides need to re-evaluate their perceived self worth and come up with some reasonable accomodation that both sides can live with.

My support leans more towards the owners purely from a business standpoint, but admittedly both sides are coming off looking bad in their own ways.

Trevo_410
03-20-2011, 11:06 PM
i dont give a shit what the nfl does next year...

im now no longer a fan of the nfl itself,,, ill continue to root on my chiefs but eventually some day, im switch over to the dark side and become a full head on SPORTING KC fan... specially if ochocinco makes the tryouts... football will always be here... i just think at the rate soccer is growing in the us... it would be better to jump on the bandwagon now and claim it before everyone else does...

just sayin ._.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 11:31 AM
Obviously an oversimplification. There are some really good owners out there who are trying really hard to invest in new stadiums, new property, etc... And then there are a good chunk (cough cough... Mike Brown) who are cutting costs so that he can pocket a bunch of the proceeds. But let's face it... CEOs do hard work. Owners' primary responsibility is to hire his top dogs. Do you really think that Hunt could possibly own three franchise and be CEO of a firm if the Chiefs' ownership job was at all demanding?

I fully understand the role of the commissioner. Paul Tagliabue built a reputation for representing the owners, but also trying to keep a peaceful relationship with the player's union. Roger Goodell is trying to take a hardline stance on every issue and has, from most reports I've heard, been accused by players of being non-responsive and releasing ill-timed, provoking statements.

Thanks for clarrifying. Originally it seemed as though you didn't know the commish works for the owners.

Have you considered the fact that without owners there would be no CEOs and no players?

Players are much more replaceable than owners. For example, how many players have come and gone for the Steelers since their beginning? How many owners have they had?

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 12:55 PM
Thanks for clarrifying. Originally it seemed as though you didn't know the commish works for the owners.

Have you considered the fact that without owners there would be no CEOs and no players?

Players are much more replaceable than owners. For example, how many players have come and gone for the Steelers since their beginning? How many owners have they had?

Your argument depends entirely upon how you are using the word "replaceable".

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 03:11 PM
I get it and don't agree with it, but he's basically saying the owners should be willing to give up more simply because they don't do enough in his mind. By his logic the Head Coach shouldn't make anything either.

No, I'm not saying that.

I'm saying that if the league is growing by 8% and the players are taking a paycut, while the owners are getting 7-8% of that cut, that's grossly unfair. The players and the NFL Execs are the most responsible for making the league marketable, not the owners.

The owners deserve a fair return on their investment. But the fact that they are reaping an obscene amount of the proceeds while players' salaries are only increasing with the cost of inflation? That shit's not right.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 03:13 PM
The players make the game! Ha! How long would it take to replace all 1500 NFL players with players of equal talent? 4 years? 5years? If the salary cap were cut in half, college players would still be lining up for the draft. The NFL doesn't have to worry about pissing off the players; the NFL only has to worry about pissing off the fans.

Okay... so you're talking about BLEEDING money for 4-5 years and suffering monumental losses, so that 5 years later you can build up a new class of football players who will be half as marketable as guys like Peyton Manning, Ochocinco, etc....

That's the suggestion?

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:16 PM
Your argument depends entirely upon how you are using the word "replaceable".

A business owner has the right to run his business how he sees fit. Any son of a bitch that tells his boss how to run his business is replaceable.LMAO

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 03:18 PM
A business owner has the right to run his business how he sees fit.

This is not true in any advanced western nation. There are rules business owners have to play by. In the case of the NFL, those rules include coming to an agreement with the players or following the labor laws in the absence thereof.


Any son of a bitch that tells his boss how to run his business is replaceable.LMAO

Bullshit.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 03:19 PM
Thanks for clarrifying. Originally it seemed as though you didn't know the commish works for the owners.

Have you considered the fact that without owners there would be no CEOs and no players?

Players are much more replaceable than owners. For example, how many players have come and gone for the Steelers since their beginning? How many owners have they had?

Do the Detroit Lions still have a team? Would you say that's a team that hires smart front office guys? Would you say the Ford Family is an ownership that invests proactively in their team? My guess is no on both fronts. Yes, I am guessing, but my understanding is that in most sports, there are a good chunk of owners who are EXTREMELY hands off in ownership.

So if the assumption is that a team can still stay afloat despite poor CEO/GM hires and despite doing relatively little in terms of micromanaging the team, isn't it a safe bet to say that an NFL team (especially with the backing of a very good NFL Front Office, which has grown this game) pretty much sells itself? And that the owner's primary responsibility is basically to just have money?

Yes, I agree that a good owner accelerates your chances of fielding a good organization. But a team can make money even if an owner does relatively little.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:20 PM
This is not true in any advanced western nation. There are rules business owners have to play by.




Bullshit.

Do you work for yourself or for someone else?

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 03:21 PM
Do you work for yourself or for someone else?

I've worked for businesses, and I've owned businesses.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:24 PM
I've worked for businesses, and I've owned businesses.

then you understand the difference between employee and employer.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:29 PM
Do the Detroit Lions still have a team? Would you say that's a team that hires smart front office guys? Would you say the Ford Family is an ownership that invests proactively in their team? My guess is no on both fronts. Yes, I am guessing, but my understanding is that in most sports, there are a good chunk of owners who are EXTREMELY hands off in ownership.

So if the assumption is that a team can still stay afloat despite poor CEO/GM hires and despite doing relatively little in terms of micromanaging the team, isn't it a safe bet to say that an NFL team (especially with the backing of a very good NFL Front Office, which has grown this game) pretty much sells itself? And that the owner's primary responsibility is basically to just have money?

Yes, I agree that a good owner accelerates your chances of fielding a good organization. But a team can make money even if an owner does relatively little.

How does any of this give anyone the right to tell an owner how to run HIS business? Do you think NFL owners are unique in that they BOUGHT a business because it "pretty much sells itself"?

"And that the owner's primary responsibility is basically to just have money?"
Why do you act like this is some sort of bad thing, that it gives you the right to tell an owner what he can/can't do with his business. No shit the owner has the money, that's why he gets to make the rules.

mikey23545
03-21-2011, 03:29 PM
then you understand the difference between employee and employer.

Obviously not.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:30 PM
Obviously not.

So it would appear.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 03:31 PM
Obviously not.

Vailpass' arguments are stupid enough without your encouragement.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 03:32 PM
then you understand the difference between employee and employer.

There are CEOs of businesses who are hands on and are accountable for every single decision made. The less they know about what's going on at the ground level, the harder it is to be successful. They have to be in the loop.

This is not one of those cases. The owner is typically not micro-managing the organization. They are merely investors. I imagine Scott Pioli has 100% license to do whatever he thinks it takes to run the organization well. The Chiefs' President gets to do whatever it takes to run the operation well. Hunt will react if the Chiefs continue to lose or if he sees major hits to his investment. But for the most part, I doubt he gets deep into what his guys are doing unless there are legitimate concerns about whether the GM or President is the wrong hire and it's hurting his investment.

Look at Carl Peterson. He did whatever he wanted. And he was on staff for a million years because he was making money for the team. As long as he made money, Lamar really didn't care what CP did.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:33 PM
Vailpass' arguments are stupid enough without your encouragement.

Can you be more specific in your critique?

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:35 PM
There are CEOs of businesses who are hands on and are accountable for every single decision made. The less they know about what's going on at the ground level, the harder it is to be successful. They have to be in the loop.

This is not one of those cases. The owner is typically not micro-managing the organization. They are merely investors. I imagine Scott Pioli has 100% license to do whatever he thinks it takes to run the organization well. The Chiefs' President gets to do whatever it takes to run the operation well. Hunt will react if the Chiefs continue to lose or if he sees major hits to his investment. But for the most part, I doubt he gets deep into what his guys are doing unless there are legitimate concerns about whether the GM or President is the wrong hire and it's hurting his investment.

Look at Carl Peterson. He did whatever he wanted. And he was on staff for a million years because he was making money for the team. As long as he made money, Lamar really didn't care what CP did.

1. Your suppositions about owner involvement are erroneous.

2. Even if everything you say here is completely correct the question remains: so what? If an owner wants to buy a team then never go to a practice or a game, never even check on the scores, so what? It's his team, he OWNS it.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 03:39 PM
Can you be more specific in your critique?

A business owner has the right to run his business how he sees fit.

Any son of a bitch that tells his boss how to run his business is replaceable.

Have you considered the fact that without owners there would be no CEOs and no players?

Players are much more replaceable than owners.

All three of the above statements are either obviously wrong, or completely subjective and wrong when taken from alternative perspectives.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 03:42 PM
Me and my brother were talking a few years ago about work and $.

My brother does collision repair. He can take a 2 wrecked cars and cut them in half and make a new car that looks brand new and you would never know. It's amazing to see some of the stuff these guys can do.
He not only can do it but he can do it damn fast which is how he make pretty good money.

We were talking about my job managing a manufacturing plant and started talking $. I told him about what I made and he was giving me shit about how he couldn't believe it and how easy it is to hire and fire and tell people what to do. Like that's even 20% of my job anyways.

Bottom line I told him I can't do what you do and I don't pretend to be able to. You can't do what I do so don't pretend to know.

That's why I crack up when people talk about how easy it would be to do someone's job.

Walk a mile in their shoes before you make assumptions.

You couldn't do Clark Hunt's job. I assure you. Neither could I. Dude has been groomed for it since birth. He is a smart Mofo, but go on and kid yourself if you want.

I probably exaggerated by saying an owner's job is "easy." But is it more than fair to say that there are many owners who simply don't give a shit or are really bad at what they do, and still make money or stay afloat because the NFL is just that marketable?

What your brother does is amazing stuff. I bet there are millions of Americans who can do the same thing (and yes, millions of people who cannot). That's not a knock on your brother. That's just stating the point that in the vast majority of professions in America, there are usually millions who could do the same exact job as you do equally well. I think what I do at my job is somewhat hard, but there are millions who could step into my job and probably do it just as well too.

The NFL is different because it selectively chooses the best of the best. There are less than 10 QBs in the NFL who can do anything close to what Peyton Manning does. And when you compare the 100th best QB to Peyton Manning, the gap is ENORMOUS.

Meanwhile, let me ask you this. How many small business owners are capable of running an NFL franchise? (especially if you already have a good GM and President in place, and since the NFL Front Office is pretty much driving operations for the entire NFL). I would venture to guess there are millions who could be successful at it. And there are millions more who would do it averagely, but do it well enough to keep the team afloat. The only obstacle is money. When money is the main reason you're in the game, and not performance on the job, then that tells you that your team is more of an investor than they are a guy actually physically running a business.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 03:51 PM
1. Your suppositions about owner involvement are erroneous.

2. Even if everything you say here is completely correct the question remains: so what? If an owner wants to buy a team then never go to a practice or a game, never even check on the scores, so what? It's his team, he OWNS it.


It's completely different. If this were a small business, you don't have the power to cap wages and salaries. You know why? Because if you underpay Joe, he can leave at any time and go to someone who can pay more.

The NFL caps wages and salaries. If there was no salary cap, Peyton Manning would make a shitload of money playing for an owner like Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder.

If this were the real world, and you had multiple businesses within the same industry purposely cutting wages so that employees have no incentive to switch to a different job, that would be highly illegal. In the NFL, it's part of the CBA, which is fine because the intent is to promote fair competition. But if the players are sacrificing free market salaries in the spirit of the game, then yes, they have every right to be pissed the fuck off when the game grows at an astronomical rate and the players are seeing very little of those proceeds. When the league grows, the players deserve a much better share of that growth.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 03:59 PM
All three of the above statements are either obviously wrong, or completely subjective and wrong when taken from alternative perspectives.

Powerfully crafted argument brimming with supportive facts that completely refute my statements. Impressive.And here I thought you were just some noob that wore a paper hat at work.

Ultra Peanut
03-21-2011, 04:22 PM
I love that most football fans have given a pass to the multi-billionaires trying to squeeze more money out of the system at the expense of the people whose hard, potentially crippling work brings in enormous profits for them. No, instead they've decided to be angry at these employees -- whose work has improved the lives of owners and fans alike -- because they dare oppose the owners' attempts to increase their workload while diminishing their collective pay and continuing to ignore the health issues faced by their employees for decades after they retire.

It's basically America.txt.

William Ford is more replaceable than Tyler fucking Thigpen. "My grandfather made cars! I'm so awesome!"

vailpass
03-21-2011, 04:42 PM
It's completely different. If this were a small business, you don't have the power to cap wages and salaries. You know why? Because if you underpay Joe, he can leave at any time and go to someone who can pay more.

The NFL caps wages and salaries. If there was no salary cap, Peyton Manning would make a shitload of money playing for an owner like Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder.

If this were the real world, and you had multiple businesses within the same industry purposely cutting wages so that employees have no incentive to switch to a different job, that would be highly illegal. In the NFL, it's part of the CBA, which is fine because the intent is to promote fair competition. But if the players are sacrificing free market salaries in the spirit of the game, then yes, they have every right to be pissed the **** off when the game grows at an astronomical rate and the players are seeing very little of those proceeds. When the league grows, the players deserve a much better share of that growth.

Deserve?

vailpass
03-21-2011, 04:43 PM
I love that most football fans have given a pass to the multi-billionaires trying to squeeze more money out of the system at the expense of the people whose hard, potentially crippling work brings in enormous profits for them. No, instead they've decided to be angry at these employees -- whose work has improved the lives of owners and fans alike -- because they dare oppose the owners' attempts to increase their workload while diminishing their collective pay and continuing to ignore the health issues faced by their employees for decades after they retire.

It's basically America.txt.

William Ford is more replaceable than Tyler ****ing Thigpen. "My grandfather made cars! I'm so awesome!"

Would you disagree that, on the whole, the lives of players have been improved due to fans and owners several magnitudes of order more than the lives of owners and fans have been improved by the players?

Ultra Peanut
03-21-2011, 04:46 PM
Would you disagree that, on the whole, the lives of players have been improved due to fans and owners several magnitudes of order more than the lives of owners and fans have been improved by the players?I don't understand why they shouldn't see more benefits on the whole, considering the fact that they've devoted their entire lives to this one specific set of skills which happens to be very profitable for everyone involved. Unfortunately for the players, it's much less profitable than it is for the owners, and for a far shorter period of time.

Bearing that in mind, do you honestly want them see even less of the pie than they used to just so dipshits like Bob Kraft and Bill Ford can tuck the extra money into a savings account where it will never again see the light of day in any of our lifetimes?

One thing I'm curious about is if you're opposed to post-retirement health benefits for the players. I know it reeks of communism for anyone in America to receive health care, or whatever (my mom's probably going to die from cancer solely because she can't afford chemo/radiation, FUCK YEAH), but haven't they earned that? Would you rather see that money go to the owners (and not even have an effect on their lives)?

vailpass
03-21-2011, 04:51 PM
I don't understand why they shouldn't see more benefit on the whole, considering the fact that they've devoted their entire lives to this one specific thing that happens to be very profitable for everyone involved.

Do you honestly want the players to see even less of the pie than they used to just so dipshits like Bob Kraft and Bill Ford can tuck the extra money into a savings account where it will never see the light of day ever again?

I understand your point but it seems like you (not just you) discount the tremendous investment and inherent risk the owners undertake. If the NFL took a shit tomorrow, the stadiums were empty and all the ad revenue dried up would the players all pitch in their money to help rescue the owners?

Hell no.

Those who stand the risk reap the rewards; a principle some on this board don't seem to understand. Or maybe they just don't like it. I don't care what Kraft or Ford do with the money they earn from their investment, it's none of my business.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 04:56 PM
Powerfully crafted argument brimming with supportive facts that completely refute my statements. Impressive.And here I thought you were just some noob that wore a paper hat at work.

You asked a question. I gave you the answer. I'm not sure what more you expected at that point. When you stop making such obviously incorrect comments as

A business owner has the right to run his business how he sees fit.

you'll probably get more in depth responses from people.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 04:59 PM
From an AP story:

Figures obtained by The Associated Press underscore the substantial divide between the NFL and the locked-out players on a core issue: What portion of additional revenue goes to players.

Players' share of incremental increases to all revenues under the NFL's expired contract was about 53 percent from 2006-09, according to calculations by the accounting firm that audited the collective bargaining agreement for both sides.

The NFL has repeatedly said that 70 percent of extra revenue went to players, a main justification for changing the sport's economic system. The league's numbers remove the portion of revenues - about $1 billion a year - taken off the top for owners to spend on expenses.

Data prepared in 2010 by PricewaterhouseCoopers and obtained Monday by the AP show that about $3.8 billion of the $7.2 billion in incremental revenue over those four years - 52.9 percent - went toward players' salaries and benefits.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_NFL_LABOR_THE_NUMBERS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-21-12-19-36

Ultra Peanut
03-21-2011, 04:59 PM
Do you honestly think NFL teams have anything at all to do with most owners' personal fortunes? Malcolm Glazer's just gonna go work at a paper mill if the Bucs never play another game?

vailpass
03-21-2011, 05:03 PM
Do you honestly think NFL teams have anything at all to do with most owners' personal fortunes? Malcolm Glazer's just gonna go work at a paper mill if the Bucs never play another game?

Just because a business loss doesn't put you in the poorhouse does not mean that loss is not substantial or consequential.
"He's rich he can afford it" is a cop-out way of thinking generally undertaken by those who never need to worry about being in that position (not referring to you personally and certainly not implying that I would ever have to worry about it).

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 05:18 PM
Just because a business loss doesn't put you in the poorhouse does not mean that loss is not substantial or consequential.
"He's rich he can afford it" is a cop-out way of thinking generally undertaken by those who never need to worry about being in that position (not referring to you personally and certainly not implying that I would ever have to worry about it).

That's one of the arguments being made against the players. Maybe you've posted against it, but I've not seen you do so.

vailpass
03-21-2011, 05:23 PM
You asked a question. I gave you the answer. I'm not sure what more you expected at that point. When you stop making such obviously incorrect comments as



you'll probably get more in depth responses from people.

A business owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit. Absolutely. do you not agree comrade?

vailpass
03-21-2011, 05:35 PM
That's one of the arguments being made against the players. Maybe you've posted against it, but I've not seen you do so.

I fully support every individual's rights to earn as much compensation as he can in the free market system and begrudge nobody the money they earn.

teedubya
03-21-2011, 05:35 PM
None of this matters because KC may have the Lingerie football league coming!!!11

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 06:48 PM
I understand your point but it seems like you (not just you) discount the tremendous investment and inherent risk the owners undertake. If the NFL took a shit tomorrow, the stadiums were empty and all the ad revenue dried up would the players all pitch in their money to help rescue the owners?

Hell no.

Those who stand the risk reap the rewards; a principle some on this board don't seem to understand. Or maybe they just don't like it. I don't care what Kraft or Ford do with the money they earn from their investment, it's none of my business.

That's a good point. Which lets me counter with the obvious.

The owners aren't assuming risk in most of these cases. The taxpayers are. These stadiums are typically financed by taxpayer money. So... that sounds like a fair agreement that an owner who sinks nothing into the new stadium is allowed to reap all of the profits from being able to charge higher prices for parking, luxury boxes, season tickets, etc... for an investment they never paid for.

So if I'm a taxpayer and I want to be angry at somebody, doesn't it make sense to be angry at the guy who's making all the money off my taxpayer money?

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 06:49 PM
I fully support every individual's rights to earn as much compensation as he can in the free market system and begrudge nobody the money they earn.

Yet you fully support a cap system that limits players from making free market potential.

Peyton Manning could make a shitload more money in the free market that featured no salary cap. You know it. And I know it.

el borracho
03-21-2011, 07:12 PM
Okay... so you're talking about BLEEDING money for 4-5 years and suffering monumental losses, so that 5 years later you can build up a new class of football players who will be half as marketable as guys like Peyton Manning, Ochocinco, etc....

That's the suggestion?

1. I'm not sure how I'm "talking about bleeding money"
2. I don't think I made a suggestion in this thread. If I were to make a suggestion, I would suggest the players reconsider their value- they are all replaceable. In fact, they will all be replaced- it's just a matter of time. Really, what would these players do if there were no NFL?

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 07:26 PM
1. I'm not sure how I'm "talking about bleeding money"
2. I don't think I made a suggestion in this thread. If I were to make a suggestion, I would suggest the players reconsider their value- they are all replaceable. In fact, they will all be replaced- it's just a matter of time. Really, what would these players do if there were no NFL?

I'm saying they are replaceable if you assume that the owners/NFL could afford to go 4-5 years without them in order for the next batch to arrive.

Let's assume that hypothetically the players went on a 4-year strike and the NFL replaced the players with the next best 1,500 players. Could the NFL sustain the losses incurred for that transition to happen? Those losses would be gargantuan.

So no, NFL players are not replaceable because even if you lose them for one season, the losses would be remarkably huge.

el borracho
03-21-2011, 07:37 PM
Well, presumably, if you draft seven guys out of college and then hire forty-six guys off the street you will be paying them less than you would pay Brady or Rodgers or Manning. As to the "gargantuan losses", I'm thinking the owners would be just fine. You might not purchase an el borracho jersey, but you would probably still watch the games. Anyway, it's not what I am rooting for but, if I were an owner, it's what I would be thinking.

el borracho
03-21-2011, 07:39 PM
Oh, and some percentage of the current players would come back so, really, you would probably draft seven guys, have something like twenty guys come back at whatever price, and then have like twenty-six guys off the street.

Ultra Peanut
03-21-2011, 07:47 PM
Hmm yes, which of these is more common?

1. The absolute most amazing, well-known, and skilled athletes in their chosen sport by orders of magnitude over the next-best people who do what they do, some of whom have immensely marketable personalities

2. Old white guys who fleeced people in real estate or had grandparents who started car/oil companies or whatever and are otherwise dull, evil assholes

You really think the NFL gets out of telling Peyton Manning and Tom Brady to take a hike without suffering a huge, long-lasting blow to its popularity?

el borracho
03-21-2011, 07:59 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that the NFL tell anyone to "take a hike" (nice pun, btw). I am suggesting the NFL has a right to renegotiate a very old deal and I am suggesting that increasing the salary cap by 10 or 20 million dollars a year is a pretty good deal for the players.

el borracho
03-21-2011, 08:01 PM
Oh, and I don't know which is more common, overall. Certainly, in the NFL there are more players than team owners so I guess the players are more common.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 08:09 PM
Well, presumably, if you draft seven guys out of college and then hire forty-six guys off the street you will be paying them less than you would pay Brady or Rodgers or Manning. As to the "gargantuan losses", I'm thinking the owners would be just fine. You might not purchase an el borracho jersey, but you would probably still watch the games. Anyway, it's not what I am rooting for but, if I were an owner, it's what I would be thinking.

See, I disagree. I think you lose a shitload on merchandise sales. I think you struggle to fill stadiums and get half of your stadium, parking, and concessions revenue, not to mention probably charging much lower prices and taking a huge hit on season ticket sales. I think TV stations are going to back out and renegotiate a significantly lower one. And who knows if the NFL can ever regain its momentum. Not to mention stadium sponsors pulling out. And we're assuming that the fans wouldn't flat-out strike. If they knew there were replacement players, they could boycott games/leagues out of principal. There's so much money to be lost if you don't have original players on the field. Maybe in 4-5 years you can reinvent the league, but that's assuming the fans decide to come back.

chiefzilla1501
03-21-2011, 08:13 PM
Oh, I'm not suggesting that the NFL tell anyone to "take a hike" (nice pun, btw). I am suggesting the NFL has a right to renegotiate a very old deal and I am suggesting that increasing the salary cap by 10 or 20 million dollars a year is a pretty good deal for the players.

It's pretty so-so. It's WAY below market value, given the contracts you saw shelled out to veterans recently. And I think the players laid out a very fair argument about how salary cap increases should at least somewhat be in line with growth increases by the NFL.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 08:20 PM
A business owner has the right to run his business as he sees fit. Absolutely. do you not agree comrade?

No, I don't agree, and all the stupid "comrade" stuff won't give your point any validity. Laws, local, Federal and State, insure that you are wrong. Among those laws are labor laws and anti-trust laws, which are applicable here. Business owners must run their business in accordance with the laws of the land.

You may wish to pay your employees only a dime a week, but the law requires that you pay more.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 08:22 PM
I fully support every individual's rights to earn as much compensation as he can in the free market system and begrudge nobody the money they earn.

Pro Sports is not a free market system. You seem to keep on missing that.

el borracho
03-21-2011, 08:23 PM
Well, I'm not sure how you define market value outside of what the NFL owners are willing to pay. I don't believe the players would earn anything close to what they earn in the NFL doing anything else.

As to the contracts that have been "shelled out to veterans recently" I would guess that is, in large part, what inspired the owners to opt out of the old agreement. Someone with more time on their hands (and a whole lot more give-a-hoot than me) should put together a comparison of average player salaries at the start of the last agreement and at the end of the last agreement. Without doing any homework on it at all, I would bet that salaries have increased dramatically more than in other industries and particularly for the top earners.

Coach
03-21-2011, 08:29 PM
Well, another thing that sometimes owners need to realize that they don't need to build a Taj Mahal.

I mean, to build a stadium like in Dallas, and having to cite costs for stadium upkeep and such? The owners should have thought of that well before the stadium/measures were passed, or whatever.

While it is nice to have a very nice facitilies, sometimes I do wonder if they're really going overboard with that. I could give a shit what a stadium looks like, as long as there is a football game going on.

Just Passin' By
03-21-2011, 08:30 PM
In the past couple of days, we think we’ve finally identified (better never than late, or something) the heart of the dispute between the NFL and the players. The players have historically received roughly 50 percent of the gross revenues, and as the gross revenues continue to grow, the owners no longer want to stick with that model, because 50 percent of $10 billion is . . . abacus on . . . $5 billion.

We figured it out on Sunday, and NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith agreed with our assessment during an extended appearance on Monday’s PFT Live.

Dolphins owner Stephen Ross confirmed our suspicions on Monday...

...“Anybody who has been in business [knows] you don’t pay players the percentage of the gross,”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/21/stephen-ross-speaks-out-against-paying-players-a-percentage-of-the-gross/

How any of you can keep siding with the owners by using the "The Players are being greedy" argument is bewildering.

milkman
03-21-2011, 09:07 PM
i dont give a shit what the nfl does next year...

im now no longer a fan of the nfl itself,,, ill continue to root on my chiefs but eventually some day, im switch over to the dark side and become a full head on SPORTING KC fan... specially if ochocinco makes the tryouts... football will always be here... i just think at the rate soccer is growing in the us... it would be better to jump on the bandwagon now and claim it before everyone else does...

just sayin ._.

Just a couple of questions here.

Soccer is growing?
They've been saying that soccer is growing for the better part of 50 years, and maybe longer, but I wasn't around before then, and it still, to my knowledge, hasn't grown.

And what the hell kind of name is "Sporting Kansas City"?
Who the hell is the genius that came up with that stupid shit name?

I understand your point but it seems like you (not just you) discount the tremendous investment and inherent risk the owners undertake. If the NFL took a shit tomorrow, the stadiums were empty and all the ad revenue dried up would the players all pitch in their money to help rescue the owners?

Hell no.

Those who stand the risk reap the rewards; a principle some on this board don't seem to understand. Or maybe they just don't like it. I don't care what Kraft or Ford do with the money they earn from their investment, it's none of my business.

Under the previous CBA, and in teh next one,when they finally get one in place, should the NFL take a shit, player salaries would take a tremendous hit, because the cap is determined by revenues.

So, essentially, the players take the same inherent risk.

Nightfyre
03-22-2011, 03:00 PM
Under the previous CBA, and in teh next one,when they finally get one in place, should the NFL take a shit, player salaries would take a tremendous hit, because the cap is determined by revenues.

So, essentially, the players take the same inherent risk.

Yea the players and owners both have an income stream on the line, but the owners have a ton of equity on the line.

vailpass
03-22-2011, 03:03 PM
Yet you fully support a cap system that limits players from making free market potential.

Peyton Manning could make a shitload more money in the free market that featured no salary cap. You know it. And I know it.

You couldn't be more off base if you tried. Peyton Manning is certainly free to explore his non-NFL options.

vailpass
03-22-2011, 03:05 PM
That's a good point. Which lets me counter with the obvious.

The owners aren't assuming risk in most of these cases. The taxpayers are. These stadiums are typically financed by taxpayer money. So... that sounds like a fair agreement that an owner who sinks nothing into the new stadium is allowed to reap all of the profits from being able to charge higher prices for parking, luxury boxes, season tickets, etc... for an investment they never paid for.

So if I'm a taxpayer and I want to be angry at somebody, doesn't it make sense to be angry at the guy who's making all the money off my taxpayer money?

Anyone who owns a multimillion dollar business assumes risks every day. do you work for someone else or are you self employed?

vailpass
03-22-2011, 03:07 PM
Oh, and some percentage of the current players would come back so, really, you would probably draft seven guys, have something like twenty guys come back at whatever price, and then have like twenty-six guys off the street.

99% of the current players would be back in uniform next year. What the hell else are they going to do?

vailpass
03-22-2011, 03:11 PM
No, I don't agree, and all the stupid "comrade" stuff won't give your point any validity. Laws, local, Federal and State, insure that you are wrong. Among those laws are labor laws and anti-trust laws, which are applicable here. Business owners must run their business in accordance with the laws of the land.

You may wish to pay your employees only a dime a week, but the law requires that you pay more.

Seriously? I have to add the clause "so long as they comply with all applicable laws and regulations"? did you think I meant a man was free to keep slaves and grab ass in the secretarial pool so long as his business card said "Owner"?
The quality of n00bs on this board just keeps getting worse.

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2011, 03:24 PM
You couldn't be more off base if you tried. Peyton Manning is certainly free to explore his non-NFL options.

Don't be ridiculous.

If you have a mechanical engineer who is underpaid, in a free market, he can go and apply for a mechanical engineer job elsewhere and get more $'s. You know why? Because in the free market, you don't have wage caps.

You know why the NFL is capping wages? Because to promote fair competition for the collective whole, they want small teams to be able to compete with big teams. So they keep big spenders like Daniel Snyder from spending.

In the real world, if Google's got a star performer, they're going to pay that employee handsomely. It doesn't matter if that's unfair to a small business search engine who can't afford that performer's salary because it's "unfair."

So no, you are unbelievably wrong. In a free market, a GM like Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder would pay Peyton Manning the moon. They can't because they are restricted by a cap.

When one entity (the NFL) has a monopoly on the entire operation, that leaves no outside options for Peyton. It's ridiculous to say that Peyton should try to apply for a job at The Gap or the Arena Football League because he has outside options.

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2011, 03:31 PM
Well, I'm not sure how you define market value outside of what the NFL owners are willing to pay. I don't believe the players would earn anything close to what they earn in the NFL doing anything else.

As to the contracts that have been "shelled out to veterans recently" I would guess that is, in large part, what inspired the owners to opt out of the old agreement. Someone with more time on their hands (and a whole lot more give-a-hoot than me) should put together a comparison of average player salaries at the start of the last agreement and at the end of the last agreement. Without doing any homework on it at all, I would bet that salaries have increased dramatically more than in other industries and particularly for the top earners.

To me, the "fair market" value would be what the owners would be willing to pay if there weren't cap restrictions. Look at the Yankees. Look at the obscene amount of money they pay to guys like Sabathia and ARod. There is no way they'd make even close to that kind of money in a capped market.

To your second point, consider that the NFL has grown astronomically without adding headcount. When no headcount is added, that means there's a ton more money to spread around to the employees. I think when you compare player salary increases relative to that obscene growth, you'll find that the rich are getting astronomically richer while the players are becoming very marginally richer.

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2011, 03:34 PM
Anyone who owns a multimillion dollar business assumes risks every day. do you work for someone else or are you self employed?

I have done both. The big difference being that if I capped my best salesman's wages, he/she would go somewhere else to work. The wage cap makes any comparison to the real world apples to oranges.

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2011, 03:42 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/21/stephen-ross-speaks-out-against-paying-players-a-percentage-of-the-gross/

How any of you can keep siding with the owners by using the "The Players are being greedy" argument is bewildering.

Factor in that the reason the salary cap is in place is to promote fair competition between teams so that a smaller market team like the Browns can fairly compete with a mega-loaded team like the Dallas Cowboys. That's the ONLY reason it's in place.

If the game is growing, that means TV and merchandise revenues are growing astronomically. That's revenue that is shared and split between all the franchises in order to give all owners access to free spending money.

So... that's really shitty when the NFL is restricting salaries for players in order to allow small market teams to compete... yet, there's MORE than enough free spending money for those small teams to spend through fairly earned TV revenue.

What used to be an excuse for the salary cap is now very flimsy. Now the cap is only in place so the owners can become richer, while athletes are grossly underpaid (underpaid because they could earn a lot more if there was no cap). I still favor a salary cap. But if there's additional money coming in that was traditionally used to payrolls, then yes, absolutely that money should be invested in players so that they can earn closer to their free market value.

vailpass
03-22-2011, 03:44 PM
Don't be ridiculous.

If you have a mechanical engineer who is underpaid, in a free market, he can go and apply for a mechanical engineer job elsewhere and get more $'s. You know why? Because in the free market, you don't have wage caps.

You know why the NFL is capping wages? Because to promote fair competition for the collective whole, they want small teams to be able to compete with big teams. So they keep big spenders like Daniel Snyder from spending.

In the real world, if Google's got a star performer, they're going to pay that employee handsomely. It doesn't matter if that's unfair to a small business search engine who can't afford that performer's salary because it's "unfair."

So no, you are unbelievably wrong. In a free market, a GM like Jerry Jones or Daniel Snyder would pay Peyton Manning the moon. They can't because they are restricted by a cap.

When one entity (the NFL) has a monopoly on the entire operation, that leaves no outside options for Peyton. It's ridiculous to say that Peyton should try to apply for a job at The Gap or the Arena Football League because he has outside options.

You advocate the destruction of the NFL? No wage cap = no parity = loss of fan base= loss of ad revenue.
The NFL is not a free market, it is it's own market. There is no other way it can exist.
The NFL doesn't have a monopoly on the entire operation, the NFL IS the entire operation.
The NFL isn't the real world where a salesman's skills are transferable among employers and industries.
What about this do you not understand?

chiefzilla1501
03-22-2011, 03:51 PM
You advocate the destruction of the NFL? No wage cap = no parity = loss of fan base= loss of ad revenue.
The NFL is not a free market, it is it's own market. There is no other way it can exist.
The NFL doesn't have a monopoly on the entire operation, the NFL IS the entire operation.
The NFL isn't the real world where a salesman's skills are transferable among employers and industries.
What about this do you not understand?

Umm... saying the NFL IS the entire operation. That's a monopoly, buddy.

And give it a rest about the "destruction of the NFL." The NFL shares TV revenue so small markets like Kansas City can compete with large markets like Dallas. TV contracts have gone through the roof, and yet salary caps have increased slightly. What that tells you is that the NFL has MORE than enough money to spend on increasing payrolls and giving small teams more capability to spend more, but simply isn't. The parity excuse doesn't fly anymore.

You're right, this isn't the real world. Can you think of a real world owner who could get away with not disclosing his books? Can you think of a real world owner who would be allowed to compete with 31 other owners to purposely cap wages so that all employees within the industry are potentially restricted from making a fair market wage? The NFL isn't the real world and that's exactly why the players are upset.

And skills are transferrable. They're transferrable to 31 other teams who are all negotiating for him to potentially get paid more. But the industry has caps that restrict owners from negotiating to the player's full market potential, in many cases.

vailpass
03-22-2011, 04:01 PM
Umm... saying the NFL IS the entire operation. That's a monopoly, buddy.

And give it a rest about the "destruction of the NFL." The NFL shares TV revenue so small markets like Kansas City can compete with large markets like Dallas. TV contracts have gone through the roof, and yet salary caps have increased slightly. What that tells you is that the NFL has MORE than enough money to spend on increasing payrolls and giving small teams more capability to spend more, but simply isn't. The parity excuse doesn't fly anymore.

You're right, this isn't the real world. Can you think of a real world owner who could get away with not disclosing his books? Can you think of a real world owner who would be allowed to compete with 31 other owners to purposely cap wages so that all employees within the industry are potentially restricted from making a fair market wage? The NFL isn't the real world and that's exactly why the players are upset.

And skills are transferrable. They're transferrable to 31 other teams who are all negotiating for him to potentially get paid more. But the industry has caps that restrict owners from negotiating to the player's full market potential, in many cases.

*I'm all for the NFL being granted monopoly exemption.
*You telling me you know private business owners who have opened their books to their employees? I don't.
*You want all of the benefits from the owners but you aren't willing to accept any of the accompanying costs. There seem to be more and more of you in this great country of ours.