NFLPA to pay players from lockout fund

[Mr. Laz]

NFLPA to pay players from lockout fund starting April 15



http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/jason_lacanfora_HS_09_02_65x90.jpg
By Jason La Canfora NFL Network
NFL Network Insider
Published: <abbr id="article-time" class="value" title="2011-03-29T06:16:00-0700" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-variant: normal; ">March 29, 2011 at 09:16 a.m.</abbr>
Updated: <abbr id="article-updatedtime" class="value" title="2011-03-29T07:23:49-0700" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; font-variant: normal; ">March 29, 2011 at 10:23 a.m.</abbr>


The NFL Players Association this week began contacting players found eligible to receive payments from its lockout fund. Those payments will begin on April 15.

The NFLPA established a fund to help players in need, and the accounting department from the NFLPA has begun sending out notification letters and direct deposit slips to players who have been found eligible.

The letter and forms going out to players -- a copy of which was acquired by the NFL Network/NFL.com -- includes information on receiving payments, beginning on April 15 and spanning six payments or the duration of the lockout.

According to an NFLPA source, the maximum payments to an individual player would total $60,000, to be paid out this offseason during the lockout. The fund was created via player dues and right's fees during 2009 and 2010. If a player was on a 53-man roster for all 34 weeks of the regular season during those two years, then he would be eligible for that maximum, $60,000 payment, which would be distributed in six projected increments beginning April 15.

The e-mail to players reads as follows:

"We are e-mailing you to inform you that the NFLPA Board of Player Directors approved the payout from the Lockout Fund to begin on April 15, in six installments or until the lockout ends. In order to start receiving your payments, please fill out the attached direct deposit enrollment form and return it to us with a voided check from your checking account or bank letter verifying the account information. We will e-mail you at the address that you provide on the form when payments are sent to your bank account.

"Please note that any other future payments that you may receive from the NFLPA or NFL PLAYERS Inc (for example player marketing deals or royalty payments) will be deposited into this account and you will be notified via email of the deposit."
During a recent press briefing at the NFLPA annual meeting, executive director DeMaurice Smith acknowledged the organization had a fund established to help players in need but declined to divulge any details about specifics of how deep it is or how much individuals could receive from it.

While $60,000 is more than the yearly household income for many Americans, and, in this case, is meant to help locked out players make mortgage and car payments and provide a form of income at a time when they are not being paid, it pales in comparison to the level of compensation most players are accustomed to.

NFL minimum salaries -- paid over 17 game checks (and not including any bonuses or incentives) -- range from roughly $340,000 per season to just less than $900,000 per season. Many players earn substantially more than $1 million per season in annual compensation. The average NFL salary exceeds $2 million per season; a player making $2 million per season would receive nearly $118,000 before taxes, per game check, for example.

Hundreds of players would have been eligible for free agency in March, and many had significant roster bonuses and/or offseason workout bonuses due to them. Those bonuses can range from approximately $25,000 to several million dollars.
For the past two years NFLPA officials have been educating players on saving money for a lockout and stressing the importance of living on a budget and setting aside money to cover monthly living expenses for at least the spring and summer of 2011. Structuring short-term investments around the 2011 offseason was also a point of emphasis.

The lockout fund payments will help, but if a player has lived beyond his means, it certainly won't be a financial panacea in and of itself.

[ModSocks]

So they're acting as the NFLPA again, huh?

[chiefsnorth]

Good to hear the players won't be starving, the poor dears

[King_Chief_Fan]

So they're acting as the NFLPA again, huh?

my thoughts exactly

[-King-]

Good to hear the players won't be starving, the poor dears

Not all players are millionaires. PFT just ran a story about a player who gets 400 a week in the offseason. Now he gets 0 because of the lockout.
Posted via Mobile Device

[ModSocks]

Not all players are millionaires. PFT just ran a story about a player who gets 400 a week in the offseason. Now he gets 0 because of the lockout.
Posted via Mobile Device

And he'll likely get nothing from this reserve fund either.

[DMAC]

Not all players are millionaires. PFT just ran a story about a player who gets 400 a week in the offseason. Now he gets 0 because of the lockout.
Posted via Mobile Device

So go get a job.

[milkman]

I don't get what the issue is.

Part of union fees are supposed to be for just this purpose.

[chiefsnorth]

Not all players are millionaires. PFT just ran a story about a player who gets 400 a week in the offseason. Now he gets 0 because of the lockout.
Posted via Mobile Device

The league minimum salary is $285,000.

[Bugeater]

How the hell can they expect these guys to make it rain on only $60k?

[DMAC]

When I told myself, "someday I'm gonna make as much as a pro football player", this is not what I had in mind.

[Chiefnj2]

I don't get what the issue is.

Part of union fees are supposed to be for just this purpose.

There is no union.

[milkman]

There is no union.

There was when they were collecting fees.

[Chiefnj2]

There was when they were collecting fees.

Maybe the funds should be handed over to a third party who can return all the money immediately then.

[morphius]

There was when they were collecting fees.
But the players voted to disband it so they could sue the league owners. So pretty simply, they are either still a union or they can sue in courts, it is a cake and eat it too scenario. Especially dangerous with the league owners counter suing saying they really are still a union.

[kstater]

So it's ok for Players to set aside money for a lockout, but not the owners?

[milkman]

But the players voted to disband it so they could sue the league owners. So pretty simply, they are either still a union or they can sue in courts, it is a cake and eat it too scenario. Especially dangerous with the league owners counter suing saying they really are still a union.

They are still an association.

[milkman]

So it's ok for Players to set aside money for a lockout, but not the owners?

Owners didn't set aside money.

[Phobia]

Good to hear the players won't be starving, the poor dears

They can't eat on that. It's only $60k. That won't even cover jewelry.

[SAUTO]

Owners didn't set aside money.

they planned for the funds to be available. whats the difference?

[ElGringo]

Owners made contracts to profit in the event of a lockout, players put their money away (more or less a savings account) in the event of a lockout. It is not like the courts are going through the owners savings accounts and taking their money, they are just saying the league can not profit from a lockout.

This is just my understanding, but still interested in how this is not a "union" action.

[milkman]

they planned for the funds to be available. whats the difference?

You don't see the difference between using one's own money as opposed to using a thrid party's money?

[Hammock Parties]

The players get paid weekly checks during football season.

It's March.

Give me a break.

[BigMeatballDave]

I don't get what the issue is.

Part of union fees are supposed to be for just this purpose.This.

Haters gotta hate.

[BigMeatballDave]

So it's ok for Players to set aside money for a lockout, but not the owners?:spock:

[SAUTO]

You don't see the difference between using one's own money as opposed to using a thrid party's money?

Nope. it would have basically been a loan from what I have read.
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigMeatballDave]

I STILL do not get all the hate towards the players. Its a Lockout, not a Strike. The players didnt opt out of the contract.

[Chiefaholic]

Not all players are millionaires. PFT just ran a story about a player who gets 400 a week in the offseason. Now he gets 0 because of the lockout.
Posted via Mobile Device

They're hiring at my place of employment if he's truely willing to work for his money. I have a hard time feeling sorry for these poor 'ol overworked and underpaid NFL players.

[Marcellus]

I don't get what the issue is.

Part of union fees are supposed to be for just this purpose.


What union?

[Chiefaholic]

The players get paid weekly checks during football season.

It's March.

Give me a break.

With roster bonuses and workout bonuses being the exception.

[Chiefaholic]

I STILL do not get all the hate towards the players. Its a Lockout, not a Strike. The players didnt opt out of the contract.

The NFLPA knew in advance the owners would likely opt out of the contract on the prtevious CBA. The players short on cash are the dumbasses who'll likely be broke within 5 years of retirement.

[philfree]

Sounds like the players were never going to negotiate a new deal and planned to sue all along. The judge needs to send them back to the negotiating table.


PhilFree:arrow:

[Chiefnj2]

I STILL do not get all the hate towards the players. Its a Lockout, not a Strike. The players didnt opt out of the contract.

They decertified and sued.

[milkman]

What union?

The union decertified, but that doesn't exempt them from their obligation to follow through on their responsibility to give the players money that they took from them for just this scenario.

A homeowners association is not a union, yet they still collect fees, do they not?

[milkman]

Sounds like the players were never going to negotiate a new deal and planned to sue all along. The judge needs to send them back to the negotiating table.


PhilFree:arrow:

When you look at the gap between what the owners offered, and what the previous CBA entailed, it appears far more that the owners never intended to bargain in good faith.

When you also consider reports that getting owners involved in these negotiations was next to impossible, it's pretty clear they never intended to negotiate in good faith.

[milkman]

Nope. it would have basically been a loan from what I have read.
Posted via Mobile Device

An advance.

And there are no reports indicate how they were going to pay back that advance.

For all we know, it simply involves a discount on the next TV contracts

[philfree]

When you look at the gap between what the owners offered, and what the previous CBA entailed, it appears far more that the owners never intended to bargain in good faith.

When you also consider reports that getting owners involved in these negotiations was next to impossible, it's pretty clear they never intended to negotiate in good faith.

The owners put together a serious proposal instead of sitting around arguing with a bunch of players who aren't negotiaters. The players could have put together a counter proposal but they punted to the court instead.


PhilFree:arrow:

[milkman]

The owners put together a serious proposal instead of sitting around arguing with a bunch of players who aren't negotiaters. The players could have put together a counter proposal but they punted to the court instead.


PhilFree:arrow:

The owners put together a joke proposal, compared to the CBA they opted out of, at the last minute, and expected the players to simply take their word for it that the difference was a necessity for the owners.

[Brock]

Always a chuckle to read the armchair athletes telling us all what's fair for real athletes to earn. "Well I only earn 15.79 an hour, how is it fair these guys make millions to PLAY A GAME?????!!!" LOL

[philfree]

The owners put together a joke proposal, compared to the CBA they opted out of, at the last minute, and expected the players to simply take their word for it that the difference was a necessity for the owners.


I don't think they expected that at all. If they did then why would they tried to get revenue from the tv companys? They knew they'd be in for a fight all along.


PhilFree:arrow:

[petegz28]

Bring on the SCABS! I'm sick of this already. Fuckers get paid more moeny that most people will ever make in their lives. I am really bummed about this upcoming season but fuck the players. I just want to see football and I don't care if it's Tom Brady or Tom Smith.

[Brock]

Bring on the SCABS! I'm sick of this already. Fuckers get paid more moeny that most people will ever make in their lives. I am really bummed about this upcoming season but fuck the players. I just want to see football and I don't care if it's Tom Brady or Tom Smith.

It's a lockout, not a strike. There won't be scabs.

[milkman]

I don't think they expected that at all. If they did then why would they tried to get revenue from the tv companys? They knew they'd be in for a fight all along.


PhilFree:arrow:

The owners only began negotiating when the judge ruled against them the regarding that TV contract money, and even then they didn't show up to the bargaing table until the last minute.

They never had any intention of negotiating.

[Bewbies]

The owners only began negotiating when the judge ruled against them the regarding that TV contract money, and even then they didn't show up to the bargaing table until the last minute.

They never had any intention of negotiating.

The players clearly didn't either.

[chiefzilla1501]

Always a chuckle to read the armchair athletes telling us all what's fair for real athletes to earn. "Well I only earn 15.79 an hour, how is it fair these guys make millions to PLAY A GAME?????!!!" LOL

It doesn't matter how much they make.

They are making less than their market value. And the only reason they're making less is to promote fair competition between teams in terms of spending power, which is total bullshit, because the money they're raking in on TV revenue and merchandising, etc... is MORE than enough to split between owners who supposedly badly need money.

There isn't a single profession I can think of in the world where business owners are colluding with each other to keep all employees' salaries down.

It doesn't matter how much money they're making. They could easily make more if not for the salary cap. I don't blame them for being pissed.

[chiefzilla1501]

Bring on the SCABS! I'm sick of this already. ****ers get paid more moeny that most people will ever make in their lives. I am really bummed about this upcoming season but **** the players. I just want to see football and I don't care if it's Tom Brady or Tom Smith.

What do you mean fuck the players?

We have to get over our jealousy of how much money these guys make.

These guys are so good that 80,000 pay $75+ to watch these guys play and millions are buying jerseys and watching the TV that allows the NFL to charge networks to pay up the ass for TV rights. When you do that, you can start asking for a multi-million dollar contract too.

[BigMeatballDave]

Bring on the SCABS! I'm sick of this already. Fuckers get paid more moeny that most people will ever make in their lives. I am really bummed about this upcoming season but fuck the players. I just want to see football and I don't care if it's Tom Brady or Tom Smith.Scabs? ROFL Its a fucking lockout, not a strike.

[Bugeater]

I STILL do not get all the hate towards the players. Its a Lockout, not a Strike. The players didnt opt out of the contract.
I hate everyone involved. Is that better?



Always a chuckle to read the armchair athletes telling us all what's fair for real athletes to earn. "Well I only earn 15.79 an hour, how is it fair these guys make millions to PLAY A GAME?????!!!" LOL
Shit, I'd take that $15.79/hr right about now and not complain about it one bit.

[BigMeatballDave]

They decertified and sued.:spock: THE OWNERS LOCKED THEM OUT! Hello? McFly?

[-King-]

The league minimum salary is $285,000.

Offseason pay is 400 for Practice squad/bottom roster players
Posted via Mobile Device

[BigMeatballDave]

I hate everyone involved. Is that better?

Yeah, actually. I dont hate anyone. I'm not picking sides as much as some around here are hating on the players as if the Owners have done nothing wrong.

[milkman]

Yeah, actually. I dont hate anyone. I'm not picking sides as much as some around here are hating on the players as if the Owners have done nothing wrong.

That's kind of where I'm at.

The owners signed a bad deal for themselves when they agreed to the last CBA, but what they're asking for in return is ridiculous.

I don't believe they are hurting finanacially, but the argument that they have made the investment, thus bear the risk is a sensible one, but they have to come up with a more fair offer than they've put on the table.

[-King-]

Bring on the SCABS! I'm sick of this already. Fuckers get paid more moeny that most people will ever make in their lives. I am really bummed about this upcoming season but fuck the players. I just want to see football and I don't care if it's Tom Brady or Tom Smith.

Yeah sure you do. Why are you complaining about this then? There's still college football to watch. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be in this thread talking about how sick you are about the situation.
Posted via Mobile Device

[milkman]

Yeah sure you do. Why are you complaining about this then? There's still college football to watch. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be in this thread talking about how sick you are about the situation.
Posted via Mobile Device

I can't speak for Peter, but I while I enjoy college football, it is no substitute for NFL football.

Even when scabs played back in the day, I still enjoyed the NFL more than college.

[Chiefnj2]

That's kind of where I'm at.

The owners signed a bad deal for themselves when they agreed to the last CBA, but what they're asking for in return is ridiculous.

.

On the last offer the owners conceded a ton - no 18 game season, more guaranteed money as a result of injury, more money to retired players (IIRC).

The only thing they didn't concede was the % and sharing of revenue, but that's what negotiations are for. The owners gave up a bunch, it was time for the players to give a counter-offer giving up a little on their demands.

[milkman]

On the last offer the owners conceded a ton - no 18 game season, more guaranteed money as a result of injury, more money to retired players (IIRC).

The only thing they didn't concede was the % and sharing of revenue, but that's what negotiations are for. The owners gave up a bunch, it was time for the players to give a counter-offer giving up a little on their demands.

No 18 game schedule for at least two years.

But again, it was a last minute offer that set a salary cap that would have been 40 mil less than projected under the previous CBA figures.

That's a huge gap.

[philfree]

That's kind of where I'm at.

The owners signed a bad deal for themselves when they agreed to the last CBA, but what they're asking for in return is ridiculous.

I don't believe they are hurting finanacially, but the argument that they have made the investment, thus bear the risk is a sensible one, but they have to come up with a more fair offer than they've put on the table.

I own a business so I'm partial to the owners but I'm not happy with either side. That said the players should have countered the proposal. Then the ball would have been back in the owners court and they in turn would have made another proposal and the gap could have been closed a little. They should have been going back and forth till they could agree to a deal.


PhilFree:arrow:

[petegz28]

Yeah sure you do. Why are you complaining about this then? There's still college football to watch. If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't be in this thread talking about how sick you are about the situation.
Posted via Mobile Device

I'm not much on college football. And I am sick of this. What I care about is having football, I don't give a shit who plays.

[bowener]

This thread is full or retard.

If you hate what the players get paid, bitch at the fucking owners for paying them that much.

If you hate that there won't be a season next year, bitch at the fucking owners for having a LOCKOUT.

If, not matter what, you think the word union = evil, then bitch and sound like a rambling fucking idiot.

The owners laid out a piece of shit proposal that they knew would look good in the news paper or online when idiots like us read it. Bottom line is, the proposed deal was bullshit, and full of bullshit low-balled projections on future revenue. My ass or any other ass for that matter... the NFL is not going to have a lull in earnings... well now they might, but they weren't before they LOCKED OUT the players.

If you want this shit to end sooner, demand your season tickets be refunded, call your local politician and tell them you want them to demand the stadium/team owners to pay back what the city paid them to SHOW pro football, not an empty stadium.

[petegz28]

What do you mean **** the players?

We have to get over our jealousy of how much money these guys make.

These guys are so good that 80,000 pay $75+ to watch these guys play and millions are buying jerseys and watching the TV that allows the NFL to charge networks to pay up the ass for TV rights. When you do that, you can start asking for a multi-million dollar contract too.

Me get over my jealousy? How about they get over their jealousy of how much the owners make?

[Chiefnj2]

No 18 game schedule for at least two years.

But again, it was a last minute offer that set a salary cap that would have been 40 mil less than projected under the previous CBA figures.

That's a huge gap.

2 years and thereafter only if the NFLPA agreed.

40 mil under the old agreement that no longer exists. It's like the 7th year of a contract where the players base salary is 20 mil. It's magic money. It doesn't exist. It's a unicorn pooping platinum bars. Everyone knows that 7th year isn't going to get paid. Just like everyone knew the owners were going to opt out this year.

Again, if the owners gave up on the 18 game season, then it was up to the players to make a counter offer in good faith recognizing the owners made some movement.

[Brock]

2 years and thereafter only if the NFLPA agreed.

40 mil under the old agreement that no longer exists. It's like the 7th year of a contract where the players base salary is 20 mil. It's magic money. It doesn't exist. It's a unicorn pooping platinum bars. Everyone knows that 7th year isn't going to get paid. Just like everyone knew the owners were going to opt out this year.

Again, if the owners gave up on the 18 game season, then it was up to the players to make a counter offer in good faith recognizing the owners made some movement.

Didn't the players okay a rookie wage decrease?

[petegz28]

This thread is full or retard.

If you hate what the players get paid, bitch at the ****ing owners for paying them that much.

If you hate that there won't be a season next year, bitch at the ****ing owners for having a LOCKOUT.

If, not matter what, you think the word union = evil, then bitch and sound like a rambling ****ing idiot.

The owners laid out a piece of shit proposal that they knew would look good in the news paper or online when idiots like us read it. Bottom line is, the proposed deal was bullshit, and full of bullshit low-balled projections on future revenue. My ass or any other ass for that matter... the NFL is not going to have a lull in earnings... well now they might, but they weren't before they LOCKED OUT the players.

If you want this shit to end sooner, demand your season tickets be refunded, call your local politician and tell them you want them to demand the stadium/team owners to pay back what the city paid them to SHOW pro football, not an empty stadium.

Yeah, the players have it rough. I mean, like AP said, it's like modern-day slavery. It must suck to get paid millions of $'s and feel you aren't getting enough.

[bowener]

I own a business so I'm partial to the owners but I'm not happy with either side. That said the players should have countered the proposal. Then the ball would have been back in the owners court and they in turn would have made another proposal and the gap could have been closed a little. They should have been going back and forth till they could agree to a deal.


PhilFree:arrow:

My understanding is that the owners lobbed that pile of shit proposal to the players after they weren't that far apart supposedly... that last deal by the owners was apparently bad enough it looked like an insult. Possibly it was worse than their previous offer.

[Bugeater]

Me get over my jealousy? How about they get over their jealousy of how much the owners make?
Heh.

[bowener]

Yeah, the players have it rough. I mean, like AP said, it's like modern-day slavery. It must suck to get paid millions of $'s and feel you aren't getting enough.

Did I ever once say anything at all that resembles something that your post would make sense as a response? Nope.

I didn't say they get chump change or that they are rich bitch. I said if you want to bitch, bitch at the fucking idiot owners who PAY THEM THEIR CONTRACTS. Seems pretty simple. If the owners think they are paid too much, they should have thought of that.

[Chiefnj2]

Didn't the players okay a rookie wage decrease?

Yes and the owners offered free agency after 4 years, less offseason work, 1 mil guaranteed of a 2nd year players contract if injured, a neutral arbitrator for drug and steroid appeals, etc.

And it wasn't a stretch for the union to agree to a wage scale for people they don't represent yet.

[petegz28]

Did I ever once say anything at all that resembles something that your post would make sense as a response? Nope.

I didn't say they get chump change or that they are rich bitch. I said if you want to bitch, bitch at the ****ing idiot owners who PAY THEM THEIR CONTRACTS. Seems pretty simple. If the owners think they are paid too much, they should have thought of that.

So let me get this straight, the owners pay these guys millions of $'s, the players now want more and it is somehow the owner's fault for paying them that kind of money to begin with? What am I missing?

[philfree]

My understanding is that the owners lobbed that pile of shit proposal to the players after they weren't that far apart supposedly... that last deal by the owners was apparently bad enough it looked like an insult. Possibly it was worse than their previous offer.

I've never read or heard what the players want in the new CBA so I guess that means that they never made any proposal at all. I would like to see what they want?


PhilFree:arrow:

[petegz28]

I've never read or heard what the players want in the new CBA so I guess that means that they never made any proposal at all. I would like to see what they want?


PhilFree:arrow:

Perhaps I am in the dark on this too? All I kept hearing was the owners needed to open up their books. Which is pure BS, by the way.

[-King-]

So let me get this straight, the owners pay these guys millions of $'s, the players now want more and it is somehow the owner's fault for paying them that kind of money to begin with? What am I missing?

Once again...you don't know what you're talking about.

[BigMeatballDave]

So let me get this straight, the owners pay these guys millions of $'s, the players now want more and it is somehow the owner's fault for paying them that kind of money to begin with? What am I missing?Players want more? The Owners opted out of the CBA. I believe the players were happy with what they had.

[Brock]

Perhaps I am in the dark on this too? All I kept hearing was the owners needed to open up their books. Which is pure BS, by the way.

It isn't BS to expect that when the owners say they aren't making enough money. Prove it.

[petegz28]

It isn't BS to expect that when the owners say they aren't making enough money. Prove it.

Bullshit. Go to your boss and tell him that and let me know what he says?

[BigMeatballDave]

Perhaps I am in the dark on this too? All I kept hearing was the owners needed to open up their books. Which is pure BS, by the way.Not if they are TRUELY losing money. They should have to prove it.

[BigMeatballDave]

Bullshit. Go to your boss and tell him that and let me know what he says?The NFL is different. We are not the product on our jobs.

[petegz28]

Players want more? The Owners opted out of the CBA. I believe the players were happy with what they had.

Fair enough. That's not how I understood things, aside from them opting out but fair enough.

[bowener]

So let me get this straight, the owners pay these guys millions of $'s, the players now want more and it is somehow the owner's fault for paying them that kind of money to begin with? What am I missing?

Yes, the owners are at fault. They negotiated with the player/agent for what they considered a fair deal, and signed the contract. What am I missing?

Did the players refuse their offer? If yes, they went to another team and got a similar or BETTER more lucrative deal from another OWNER. If the first owner refused to sign a player for what they thought was a ridiculous sum, the player is free to walk to the next owner and get paid a fair deal from that owner. If they owners wanted to decrease contracts it seems like they could have discussed that amongst themselves and refused historic payouts. That might be collusion or something like that, but I'm sure it could be done.

In the end, the players did not opt out of the CBA. They didn't demand more money.

[petegz28]

The NFL is different. We are not the product on our jobs.

Actually, you are. I don't want to get all Marxist or anything but you are, just not in the same light. Either way, they don't own the team, they are not shareholders of the team and therefore I see no right to ask the owners to open up their books. If they want to go work like everyone else does, go for it.

[milkman]

Actually, you are. I don't want to get all Marxist or anything but you are, just not in the same light. Either way, they don't own the team, they are not shareholders of the team and therefore I see no right to ask the owners to open up their books. If they want to go work like everyone else does, go for it.

People keep drawing a comparison between thsi and other real life situations.

This is different than almost every other job.

The NFL is raking in the money.

It's flowing in like water through a broken dam, and they claim that they need more money to pay costs?

The owners may not be obligated to show them the books, but they are asking the players to give a lot on faith.

There aren't many people in real life situations that would simply take their company at their word in a similar situation.

In most cases, you'd find another job.

There aren't many places for these players to find another job in the ame field.

[bowener]

People keep drawing a comparison between thsi and other real life situations.

This is different than almost every other job.

The NFL is raking in the money.

It's flowing in like water through a broken dam, and they claim that they need more money to pay costs?

The owners may not be obligated to show them the books, but they are asking the players to give a lot on faith.

There aren't many people in real life situations that would simply take their company at their word in a similar situation.

In most cases, you'd find another job.

There aren't many places for these players to find another job in the ame field.

Mark Cuban needs to start courting some of the bigger named players. Hell, he should just offer to pay whole starting lineups to play together if there is no NFL season. Offer to pay the Patriots starting O $40 million total for one UFL season or something.

[SAUTO]

An advance.

And there are no reports indicate how they were going to pay back that advance.

For all we know, it simply involves a discount on the next TV contracts
Wouldn't that still be paying it back?
Posted via Mobile Device

[chiefzilla1501]

People keep drawing a comparison between thsi and other real life situations.

This is different than almost every other job.

The NFL is raking in the money.

It's flowing in like water through a broken dam, and they claim that they need more money to pay costs?

The owners may not be obligated to show them the books, but they are asking the players to give a lot on faith.

There aren't many people in real life situations that would simply take their company at their word in a similar situation.

In most cases, you'd find another job.

There aren't many places for these players to find another job in the ame field.

Not to mention that the NFL, unlike any industry in America, has owners colluding with each other to promote "fair competition" among all players in the industry.

Imagine if Ask.com wrote a letter to Google and told them "you're only allowed to pay your Executives a total salary cap of $10 million, because otherwise, it's not fair to us."

Their excuse for capping salaries is because they claim they are losing money and there is less money to go around. If this were any other industry, what owners in the NFL are doing is pretty much illegal. You can't collude with your competitors, especially if the intent is to keep salaries down.

[WV]

That's kind of where I'm at.

The owners signed a bad deal for themselves when they agreed to the last CBA, but what they're asking for in return is ridiculous.

I don't believe they are hurting finanacially, but the argument that they have made the investment, thus bear the risk is a sensible one, but they have to come up with a more fair offer than they've put on the table.

Nice response.

[-King-]

Not to mention that the NFL, unlike any industry in America, has owners colluding with each other to promote "fair competition" among all players in the industry.

Imagine if Ask.com wrote a letter to Google and told them "you're only allowed to pay your Executives a total salary cap of $10 million, because otherwise, it's not fair to us."

Their excuse for capping salaries is because they claim they are losing money and there is less money to go around. If this were any other industry, what owners in the NFL are doing is pretty much illegal. You can't collude with your competitors, especially if the intent is to keep salaries down.

Nice analogy. Rep.

[chiefzilla1501]

So let me get this straight, the owners pay these guys millions of $'s, the players now want more and it is somehow the owner's fault for paying them that kind of money to begin with? What am I missing?

In the real world, employees are paid a salary based on what the manager or owner is willing to pay. If Google wants to pay an executive $100 Trillion, that's their prerogative.

The owners pay these athletes that much money because they know how much value they bring to the organization. Bill Polian pays Peyton Manning $100M because he knows that Jerry Jones would offer him $150M. That salary is basically the cost of not losing your best player.

Make no freaking mistake: these players are paid the salary they are paid because they are worth every penny. And make no mistake that without a salary cap, they'd be paid even more because owners find them that valuable. I would be absolutely pissed if I worked for Google and they were willing to give me a promotion, but then learned that they weren't allowed to give me a payraise because Ask.com asked Google to cap my wages.

[WV]

Not to mention that the NFL, unlike any industry in America, has owners colluding with each other to promote "fair competition" among all players in the industry.

Imagine if Ask.com wrote a letter to Google and told them "you're only allowed to pay your Executives a total salary cap of $10 million, because otherwise, it's not fair to us."

Their excuse for capping salaries is because they claim they are losing money and there is less money to go around. If this were any other industry, what owners in the NFL are doing is pretty much illegal. You can't collude with your competitors, especially if the intent is to keep salaries down.

They all work for the same company essentially and their salaries come out of the revenues....All teams and owners have the same cap, where does the collusion come in?

[milkman]

Wouldn't that still be paying it back?
Posted via Mobile Device

Technically.

But it is not the same as seeing money taken from your check each week to pay dues.

[SAUTO]

Technically.

But it is not the same as seeing money taken from your check each week to pay dues.

True.
Posted via Mobile Device

[chiefzilla1501]

They all work for the same company essentially and their salaries come out of the revenues....All teams and owners have the same cap, where does the collusion come in?

Where it's different is that in the real world, an employee can be pissed about his salary and choose a similar profession within the same industry at a different company and get paid more. An Ask.com employee pissed about his salary can get the same job at Google and get paid a shitload more.

If you leave the NFL, there isn't a legit replacement option anywhere else. The NFL pretty much has a monopoly. And so players like Peyton Manning can become free agents and pursue the open market, but the market isn't truly open--Peyton can only shop in a market where the owners are restricted not by their own revenues or means, but by rules put in place to restrict spending to promote equal competition. When one company controls all the employment in the industry and they're purposely keeping wages lower to benefit the owners, then yeah, the employees have every right to be pissed and to withhold their services. Can you imagine if Tide was forced to have the same salary pool as, say, Gain Detergent? That would be nuts! Tide sells a shitload more product and so their employees should be paid more and they should be allowed more headcount.

The players, to my understanding, are saying that if NFL revenues increase 8%, their cap should increase proportionally. That's pretty fair, wouldn't you say?

[SAUTO]

What if revenues decrease? Are the players willing to take that risk?

And I don't believe they will decrease but who knows.
Posted via Mobile Device

[WV]

Where it's different is that in the real world, an employee can be pissed about his salary and choose a similar profession within the same industry at a different company and get paid more. An Ask.com employee pissed about his salary can get the same job at Google and get paid a shitload more.

If you leave the NFL, there isn't a legit replacement option anywhere else. The NFL pretty much has a monopoly. And so players like Peyton Manning can become free agents and pursue the open market, but the market isn't truly open--Peyton can only shop in a market where the owners are restricted not by their own revenues or means, but by rules put in place to restrict spending to promote equal competition. When one company controls all the employment in the industry and they're purposely keeping wages lower to benefit the owners, then yeah, the employees have every right to be pissed and to withhold their services. Can you imagine if Tide was forced to have the same salary pool as, say, Gain Detergent? That would be nuts! Tide sells a shitload more product and so their employees should be paid more and they should be allowed more headcount.

The players, to my understanding, are saying that if NFL revenues increase 8%, their cap should increase proportionally. That's pretty fair, wouldn't you say?

Under the old agreement their salaries did increase along with the salary cap, so they did essentially have that before. I see the point your trying to make with the collusion, I just think it's a stretch. As it's been mentioned the NFL is a unique deity in which it's difficult to draw comparisons.

I don't think any of us really know the true numbers behind all of this and having not seen any true figures from either side it's tough to support either fully. I tend to side with the owners, but I do get some of the players gripes. I totally disagree with the owners opening their books, but if the owners didn't want them to be seen they shouldn't have claimed revenue loss without expecting to have to prove it. I also don't agree with the sentiment that the players are going to get less. Yes the owners want to increase their cut before the split, but no where have I read that the players will actually see any net loss in salary or salary cap. It's basically the NFLPA wanting a larger portion of the revenue simply because more is being made (yes I know the owners are the ones who let the past agreement expire). I don't think it's the players inherent right to be entitled to the same portion of the revenue or even close to the share of the revenue as the owners.

[chiefzilla1501]

Under the old agreement their salaries did increase along with the salary cap, so they did essentially have that before. I see the point your trying to make with the collusion, I just think it's a stretch. As it's been mentioned the NFL is a unique deity in which it's difficult to draw comparisons.

I don't think any of us really know the true numbers behind all of this and having not seen any true figures from either side it's tough to support either fully. I tend to side with the owners, but I do get some of the players gripes. I totally disagree with the owners opening their books, but if the owners didn't want them to be seen they shouldn't have claimed revenue loss without expecting to have to prove it. I also don't agree with the sentiment that the players are going to get less. Yes the owners want to increase their cut before the split, but no where have I read that the players will actually see any net loss in salary or salary cap. It's basically the NFLPA wanting a larger portion of the revenue simply because more is being made (yes I know the owners are the ones who let the past agreement expire). I don't think it's the players inherent right to be entitled to the same portion of the revenue or even close to the share of the revenue as the owners.

Well, like any negotiation, the players are shooting for the moon in their demands by expecting proportional increases. I don't think they'll get that, especially since it's not like the league is going to grow exponentially forever. But still, you would expect there to be a compromise somewhere in between and the owners don't seem to be budging. I think it's reasonable for players to expect at least SOME share of the revenues they are helping to bring in.

As for opening up the books, I think it absolutely needs to happen. If I'm Jerry Jones, I would be PISSED that cheapskate Mike Brown is probably complaining about not having enough money and, so, he is keeping the cap down to create a fair advantage for himself. I'm pretty sure the majority of owners are making a killing off of the NFL. They won't open up their books because that everyone else will realize the same.

[ClevelandBronco]

Not to mention that the NFL, unlike any industry in America, has owners colluding with each other to promote "fair competition" among all players in the industry.

That's a little like saying that all McDonald's owners collude to decide which sandwiches are on the dollar menu. The owners aren't in competition with each other.

[bowener]

That's a little like saying that all McDonald's owners collude to decide which sandwiches are on the dollar menu. The owners aren't in competition with each other.
Wait, what? Are you saying that the NFL owners aren't in competition with each other?

[petegz28]

Wait, what? Are you saying that the NFL owners aren't in competition with each other?

Sure they are. And the salary cap is better for all of them in the long run. The more parity in the league the more overall revenues and more ticket sales.

[ClevelandBronco]

Wait, what? Are you saying that the NFL owners aren't in competition with each other?

Well, of course they aren't. I know. NFL 101. Forgive me.

[chiefzilla1501]

Sure they are. And the salary cap is better for all of them in the long run. The more parity in the league the more overall revenues and more ticket sales.

The salary cap is better for the league in the long run, but it should only apply when teams are actually hurting for the money to invest in players. There is more than enough TV revenue and merchandising revenue to share with all owners. You can raise the cap and the owner of the Panthers can just as easily afford it as the owner of the Cowboys can.

The problem is that the cap is now being used as an excuse for cheap-ass small owners to not spend money they're making. And it hurts owners like Jerry Jones / Daniel Snyder who, maybe not the best of owners, but are at least willing and able to pump money into new players for their team. Believe me, owners have money to spend and if they're complaining about not having it, then they either do a shitty job of running their team or more than likely are flat-out lying to you.

[chiefzilla1501]

That's a little like saying that all McDonald's owners collude to decide which sandwiches are on the dollar menu. The owners aren't in competition with each other.

Not apples to apples. If they're voting on a sandwich, it's because it benefits all McDonalds equally.

You can't tell me that Jerry Jones cares about making a small market team more competitive. He wants to win and beat the rest of the competition. One franchise isn't going to bend over backward to give the other franchise an opportunity to claw their way back into the mix. They're all self-interested.

[alnorth]

Until the owners open their books and show the players everything, just as MLB does for their players, just as the NBA does for their players, I'm with the players in this.

The owners need to prove they need the extra $600MM they asked for, and yes, since they are basically operating a monopoly that enjoys an antitrust exemption for their broadcasts, they sure as hell are obligated to open their books to the players to show they are acting in good faith.

[Brock]

Bullshit. Go to your boss and tell him that and let me know what he says?

My boss says go look at the prospectus.

[HMc]

The only "market" way out of this is to remove all the anti competitive behaviour (draft, salary cap) and negotiate individual contracts. Until they're prepared to do that, you have this issue of needing a CBA to maintain your anti-trust law exemption. Unfortunately, the parties can't agree to terms.

Comparisons like "GO SEE WHAT YOUR BOSS SAYS WHEN YOU ASK TO SEE THE BOOKS" are completey f$cking daft UNLESS you happen to work in another industry that is setup in the same manner as the market for professional football in the USA.

[HMc]

That's a little like saying that all McDonald's owners collude to decide which sandwiches are on the dollar menu. The owners aren't in competition with each other.

McDonalds is easily substituted with a whole array of other fast food. (a consumer competition issue)

NFL players CANNOT easily use their skillsets in another market. (a labor competition issue)

[HMc]

Not to mention that the NFL, unlike any industry in America, has owners colluding with each other to promote "fair competition" among all players in the industry.

Imagine if Ask.com wrote a letter to Google and told them "you're only allowed to pay your Executives a total salary cap of $10 million, because otherwise, it's not fair to us."

Their excuse for capping salaries is because they claim they are losing money and there is less money to go around. If this were any other industry, what owners in the NFL are doing is pretty much illegal. You can't collude with your competitors, especially if the intent is to keep salaries down.

It's obviously not illegal whilst they are exempt from the relevant anti trust laws. Yes, I know that expemtion is subject to a CBA being in place but lets not go acting like the NFL has been operating outside the law for the last 17 years, because it hasn't.

[chiefzilla1501]

It's obviously not illegal whilst they are exempt from the relevant anti trust laws. Yes, I know that expemtion is subject to a CBA being in place but lets not go acting like the NFL has been operating outside the law for the last 17 years, because it hasn't.

Sorry, not saying it's illegal. Just saying that their practice in most industries would be considered illegal. It's not illegal because the players agreed to make concessions for the betterment of the game (hence, the CBA). But we shouldn't forget that it's the players, not the owners, that have lost a lot through the CBA and I don't blame them one bit for wanting more of what should be their's.

[alnorth]

Comparisons like "GO SEE WHAT YOUR BOSS SAYS WHEN YOU ASK TO SEE THE BOOKS" are completey f$cking daft UNLESS you happen to work in another industry that is setup in the same manner as the market for professional football in the USA.

This sort of argument is particularly funny to me. I work in a deeply mistrusted hated industry where everyone assumes we are ripping people off. So, naturally the government requires our "books" to be a public record, filed every year.

If I ask my boss to see the books he'll look at me weird and ask "what... you mean you lost your bookmarks on your web browser? Here's the internet address, knock yourself out."

[el borracho]

The salary cap in 1994- $34.6 million
The salary cap in 2009- $128 million

That is somewhere just shy of a 400% increase in player salaries over the last 15 years. The owners last proposal included even more salary increases in the coming years (161 million in 2014); 82 million in 2011/2012 for former players' health concerns with the option to remain in the player medical plan for life; a shorter offseason.

Fifty-some guys to share 161 million a year on a reduced work schedule with additional health care options. I just don't see the complaint here.

[alnorth]

The salary cap in 1994- $34.6 million
The salary cap in 2009- $128 million

That is somewhere just shy of a 400% increase in player salaries over the last 15 years. The owners last proposal included even more salary increases in the coming years (161 million in 2014); 82 million in 2011/2012 for former players' health concerns with the option to remain in the player medical plan for life; a shorter offseason.

Fifty-some guys to share 161 million a year on a reduced work schedule with additional health care options. I just don't see the complaint here.

The owners are asking the players to give back $600MM dollars per year, every year in the contract, without even so much as explaining why they need it. The players are well within their rights to tell the owners to take a flying leap off a cliff.

[milkman]

What if revenues decrease? Are the players willing to take that risk?

And I don't believe they will decrease but who knows.
Posted via Mobile Device

It's revenue sharing.

Under the expired CBA, the players received a percentage of the revenue.

If revenues decreased, the amount the players received decreased.

[el borracho]

So in your mind a raise that is less than one hoped is synonymous to a give back?

[alnorth]

So in your mind a raise that is less than one hoped is synonymous to a give back?

yes. yes, it is.

The owners want the first 2 billion instead of the first 1 billion before sharing the rest. Which could be fine, if the owners would at least open their books and make the argument why they need the money.

Instead the owners said "we need another $600MM, and we don't have to tell you why. Sign the damned CBA and don't question us"

Until the owners open their books, f**k them.

[milkman]

The salary cap in 1994- $34.6 million
The salary cap in 2009- $128 million

That is somewhere just shy of a 400% increase in player salaries over the last 15 years. The owners last proposal included even more salary increases in the coming years (161 million in 2014); 82 million in 2011/2012 for former players' health concerns with the option to remain in the player medical plan for life; a shorter offseason.

Fifty-some guys to share 161 million a year on a reduced work schedule with additional health care options. I just don't see the complaint here.

According to the a report, owners expect revenues to increase 8% over the next 4 years, and under the terms of the expired CBA, the cap would have increased to $201 million in 2014.

That's a substantial amount of money the owners are asking the players to "give back".

[HMc]

Sorry, not saying it's illegal. Just saying that their practice in most industries would be considered illegal. It's not illegal because the players agreed to make concessions for the betterment of the game (hence, the CBA). But we shouldn't forget that it's the players, not the owners, that have lost a lot through the CBA and I don't blame them one bit for wanting more of what should be their's.

There seems to be a consensus that the salary cap has been a factor in the unprecedented popularity and therefore salary levels in the NFL over the last ~20 years.

Are you suggesting that player compensation would be higher now if the salary cap had not been implemented in 1993? Almost everything I've read suggests otherwise.

Sure, if you stripped away the cap NOW player compensation may see a temporary spike, but what about parity in the long term?

[el borracho]

Would have doesn't amount to a hill of beans since the owners are not (currently) obligated by any agreement or agency. Obviously, some people disagree but, in my mind, an offer to increase the salary cap is not synonymous with a give back.

[HMc]

According to the a report, owners expect revenues to increase 8% over the next 4 years, and under the terms of the expired CBA, the cap would have increased to $201 million in 2014.

That's a substantial amount of money the owners are asking the players to "give back".

Can't see how the expired CBA is relevant. If the players didn't forsee the the opt-out as a possibillity, why did they agree to those terms being in the document? Clearly, they got something out of the bargain, so they can't complain when the owners exercised a right that they gave them.

There's no "give back". The proposed cap in 2011 is higher than the one in 2009, compensation will increase.

[alnorth]

Would have doesn't amount to a hill of beans since the owners are not (currently) obligated by any agreement or agency. Obviously, some people disagree but, in my mind, an offer to increase the salary cap is not synonymous with a give back.

fine, the players are also not obligated to play.

If the owners want a CBA, they must open their books to the players and prove they need the money. No compromise, no excuses, period. If they cant do that, then they are the proud owners of huge piles of concrete filled with empty seats and a lot of debt.

[CoMoChief]

Only a ****ing moron would have a car/house payment making that kinda money.

[alnorth]

Can't see how the expired CBA is relevant. If the players didn't forsee the the opt-out as a possibillity, why did they agree to those terms being in the document? Clearly, they got something out of the bargain, so they can't complain when the owners exercised a right that they gave them.

There's no "give back". The proposed cap in 2011 is higher than the one in 2009, compensation will increase.

Of course the expired CBA is relevant. The fact that there was an opt-out, *THAT* is irrelevant. The owners want to renegotiate? OK, fine. Whatever, lets renegotiate. Step one is opening your books. If you cant or wont do that, then the players have no reason at all to give a god damned thing to the owners.

[chiefzilla1501]

There seems to be a consensus that the salary cap has been a factor in the unprecedented popularity and therefore salary levels in the NFL over the last ~20 years.

Are you suggesting that player compensation would be higher now if the salary cap had not been implemented in 1993? Almost everything I've read suggests otherwise.

Sure, if you stripped away the cap NOW player compensation may see a temporary spike, but what about parity in the long term?

The players AND the owners have both benefited. IMMENSELY. But in terms of distributing those earnings, the owners have taken the lion's share.

So the situation today is that players are underpaid (because they could earn more in a free market) while owners are making a killing. I get that the salary cap is going to limit a player's market potential and I'm okay with that, because it makes the game better. But if there is TV and merchandising revenue that can be spread around, and I guarantee there is, then the players deserve a share of that. Without a doubt.

[HMc]

I doubt any of the owners need $60k to tide them over until the resolution of this dispute.

[milkman]

There seems to be a consensus that the salary cap has been a factor in the unprecedented popularity and therefore salary levels in the NFL over the last ~20 years.

Are you suggesting that player compensation would be higher now if the salary cap had not been implemented in 1993? Almost everything I've read suggests otherwise.

Sure, if you stripped away the cap NOW player compensation may see a temporary spike, but what about parity in the long term?

The cap has created a competitive balance that would not be otherwise possible.

Large market teams would be spending money while small market teams would be constatntly restock8ing, retooling their rosters through the draft.

Now you would have a handful of small market teams that are well managed and with good talent evaluators that would be competitive on a fairly consisten basis, but you would have poorly managed teams would always be at the bottom.

Hamas argues that baseball has been more competitive because they've had differnt champions in each of the last 10 years, but the reality is,it is always the same 12-13 teams that are competing, while there's that group of small market teams that have been the dregs of the sport for 20-25 years.

Without the cap, which gives small market teams the chance to compete for some of the top tier free agents, football would be much like baseball, with the same group of teams always at the top, and the same group of teams always at the bottom.

I don't know about you, but I don't want the Chiefs to become the Royals of the NFL.

[alnorth]

I doubt any of the owners need $60k to tide them over until the resolution of this dispute.

The owners probably would like to not lose several billion when a season is lost.

Its not like a rich factory owner who wont be hurt if he waits out some striking workers a few years, the owners are looking at a whole hell of a lot of losses.

For what? Because they wont open their books? I have no sympathy for their stupid asses. They deserve to lose that money due to sheer stupidity, given that every other major sport does share all their financial information with their players.

[HMc]

The players AND the owners have both benefited. IMMENSELY. But in terms of distributing those earnings, the owners have taken the lion's share.

So the situation today is that players are underpaid (because they could earn more in a free market) while owners are making a killing. I get that the salary cap is going to limit a player's market potential and I'm okay with that, because it makes the game better. But if there is TV and merchandising revenue that can be spread around, and I guarantee there is, then the players deserve a share of that. Without a doubt.

The owners are also the equityholders in the game. Of course they've taken the lions share. What else would you expect?

[HMc]

The cap has created a competitive balance that would not be otherwise possible.

Large market teams would be spending money while small market teams would be constatntly restock8ing, retooling their rosters through the draft.

Now you would have a handful of small market teams that are well managed and with good talent evaluators that would be competitive on a fairly consisten basis, but you would have poorly managed teams would always be at the bottom.

Hamas argues that baseball has been more competitive because they've had differnt champions in each of the last 10 years, but the reality is,it is always the same 12-13 teams that are competing, while there's that group of small market teams that have been the dregs of the sport for 20-25 years.

Without the cap, which gives small market teams the chance to compete for some of the top tier free agents, football would be much like baseball, with the same group of teams always at the top, and the same group of teams always at the bottom.

I don't know about you, but I don't want the Chiefs to become the Royals of the NFL.

so...you agree?

[alnorth]

The owners are also the equityholders in the game. Of course they've taken the lions share. What else would you expect?

I expect that a virtual monopoly who enjoys an antitrust exemption would share their financial information with their players just like their peers in the MLB and the NBA. At a bare minimum, I expect that.

If they wont do that, then f**k the NFL owners.

[HMc]

The owners probably would like to not lose several billion when a season is lost.

Its not like a rich factory owner who wont be hurt if he waits out some striking workers a few years, the owners are looking at a whole hell of a lot of losses.

For what? Because they wont open their books? I have no sympathy for their stupid asses. They deserve to lose that money due to sheer stupidity, given that every other major sport does share all their financial information with their players.

There are 32 wealthy men (well, 31 + GB), most of whom crafted their own ridiculous wealth before they bought into the NFL. There are also ~1500 relatively easily replaceable predominantly black athletes, the vast majority of whom didn't graduate college.

I know who I'm backing in a drawn out dispute. If you seriously think the players are better equipped to handle this than the owners (who we know have an advance facility with the networks to cover their cash outlflows), I don't know what else to tell you.

[HMc]

I expect that a virtual monopoly who enjoys an antitrust exemption would share their financial information with their players just like their peers in the MLB and the NBA. At a bare minimum, I expect that.

If they wont do that, then f**k the NFL owners.

he says, whilst plowing untold sums of cash into the chiefs coffers by buying the latest jerseys, going to the games or getting DTV.

[chiefzilla1501]

The owners are also the equityholders in the game. Of course they've taken the lions share. What else would you expect?

It's a different story when you are capping wages on the claim that small teams are incapable of handling the salary load, if it turns out to be the case that they have more than enough money to cover more wages. And I would be shocked if that wasn't the case.

As I've said before, salary should be about market demand. If Jerry Jones is willing to pay Peyton $150M, that's Peyton's market price. When you have a "monopoly" on the employees within your system and they are all bound by this capped environment, then yes, I support any measure that's going to allow players to reach their full market value as long as teams can afford those increases.

And the only way you can do that is by opening your books. Sorry, the owners' reluctance makes it pretty clear to me that they're doing just fine.

[chiefzilla1501]

There are 32 wealthy men (well, 31 + GB), most of whom crafted their own ridiculous wealth before they bought into the NFL. There are also ~1500 relatively easily replaceable predominantly black athletes, the vast majority of whom didn't graduate college.

I know who I'm backing in a drawn out dispute. If you seriously think the players are better equipped to handle this than the owners (who we know have an advance facility with the networks to cover their cash outlflows), I don't know what else to tell you.

Those athletes are not "relatively easily replaceable." Where do people get this cracked out idea? No Top 1500 athletes, no NFL. Nobody's going to watch replacement football.

The owners have the smarts, but the players undoubtedly have the leverage. Like I've said many times before, it's one of the only industries in America where the employees are completely irreplaceable.

[HMc]

I support any measure that's going to allow players to reach their full market value as long as teams can afford those increases.

And the only way you can do that is by opening your books..

Sorry, but that part is factually innacurate.

The ONLY way to observe full market value is the Adam-Smith invisible hand ditch-the-salary-cap and draft and have every man for himself.

If you want collective bargaining and access to the books, you are by definition moving AWAY from the free market.

A question I have for you - is what is considered a "fair" profit margin for the owners?

[alnorth]

There are 32 wealthy men (well, 31 + GB), most of whom crafted their own ridiculous wealth before they bought into the NFL. There are also ~1500 relatively easily replaceable predominantly black athletes, the vast majority of whom didn't graduate college.

I know who I'm backing in a drawn out dispute. If you seriously think the players are better equipped to handle this than the owners (who we know have an advance facility with the networks to cover their cash outlflows), I don't know what else to tell you.

Well, on top of this, I'll throw in the fact that the players have an excellent chance to win in court, so there probably wont be any excessive "waiting it out".

Absent that though, I dont think the owners will hold. We're talking about a difference of a few percent. Its fine to talk tough now because no one has lost anything yet, but if the players hold firm, most of the owners don't have a lot of huge debt to be worried about.

The owners will break if it comes to it, a majority wont give up a ton of profit just to help out some other owners who leveraged themselves to the hilt with massive stadium debt.

[milkman]

Can't see how the expired CBA is relevant. If the players didn't forsee the the opt-out as a possibillity, why did they agree to those terms being in the document? Clearly, they got something out of the bargain, so they can't complain when the owners exercised a right that they gave them.

There's no "give back". The proposed cap in 2011 is higher than the one in 2009, compensation will increase.

The players recognize, even if you don't, that the proposed increased cap is far less that it would have been had teh agreement remained in palce.

Again, the difference is substantial.

Yes, they agreed to the opt out, but that doesn't mean that they had any intention of bending over and letting the owners fuck them in the ass.

If the owners had offered a fair propossal that wasn't so substantially smaller than the numbers that have been discussed, then it's likley that players would have continued to negotiate.

[HMc]

Those athletes are not "relatively easily replaceable." Where do people get this cracked out idea? No Top 1500 athletes, no NFL. Nobody's going to watch replacement football.

The owners have the smarts, but the players undoubtedly have the leverage. Like I've said many times before, it's one of the only industries in America where the employees are completely irreplaceable.

The employees are completely replaceable, yet the average NFL career lasts something like 3 years. Right.

shit: i meant "irreplaceable"

[alnorth]

he says, whilst plowing untold sums of cash into the chiefs coffers by buying the latest jerseys, going to the games or getting DTV.

nice non-sequitur. This "response" wasn't even remotely related to my post.

I'll respond to your non-sequitur with one of my own:

"Chili Cheese Fries are Yummy!"

Those words in quotes are my response.

[HMc]

The players recognize, even if you don't, that the proposed increased cap is far less that it would have been had teh agreement remained in palce.

Again, the difference is substantial.

Yes, they agreed to the opt out, but that doesn't mean that they had any intention of bending over and letting the owners **** them in the ass.

If the owners had offered a fair propossal that wasn't so substantially smaller than the numbers that have been discussed, then it's likley that players would have continued to negotiate.

Yes, because the whole purpose of an opt-out clause is so you can change the agreement "just a little bit" and not "substantially"

[HMc]

Well, on top of this, I'll throw in the fact that the players have an excellent chance to win in court, so there probably wont be any excessive "waiting it out".


Been reading anti-trust case law, have you?

[chiefzilla1501]

The employees are completely replaceable, yet the average NFL career lasts something like 3 years. Right.

Bullshit.

The top 1500 players give you license to charge a premium on everything you sell. And they are charging up the asshole. You lose the top 1500, then your average ticket price probably goes somewhere from $75 to $20. And your average attendance goes from sellouts at $75 to a ton of empty seats at $20 a pop. They are irreplaceable.

You're assuming that: 1) the owners can afford to bleed money for 3 years until big name players step up in 3 years; 2) That all players last only 3 years, nevermind that most of those guys are players who never made the grade. What is the average NFL career of a superstar? Much higher. For a QB, probably up to 10 years. 3) the new batch of players won't have the same labor dispute once they're big enough to start making money.

[milkman]

The employees are completely replaceable, yet the average NFL career lasts something like 3 years. Right.

His point is that you can't replace all 1500 players in the league in one fell swoop.

Most of the turnover from year to year is the bottom half of the talent pool.

You can't replace every star with some scrub from the UFL or CFL and expect Joe fan to pay money to watch that crap.

[alnorth]

Yes, because the whole purpose of an opt-out clause is so you can change the agreement "just a little bit" and not "substantially"

An opt-out doesn't mean:

"Let's start over from scratch! Forget the NFL ever existed, lets pretend I'm some bright young businessman who just thought of this new unproven idea of a "national football league" but I'm not sure if it'll work out or not, I'm not sure if anyone will buy tickets or buy broadcasting rights, and lets pretend you are an unemployed jock desperate for money."

In the real world, we know the NFL is wildly profitable, and any reasonable person working in the league would at least want the owner to prove it if they claim they cant earn an acceptable rate of return on their investment without another $600MM.

Heap on top of this mess the fact they have a virtual monopoly and a congressionally-granted antitrust exemption, and I'd say the owners, at a bare minimum, have an obligation to prove why they need more money when their product seems to be making a sh*tton of profit as it is under the existing CBA.

If they wont do that, then screw the owners.

[milkman]

Yes, because the whole purpose of an opt-out clause is so you can change the agreement "just a little bit" and not "substantially"

I think they expected the owners to try to get a substantial change, but to actually begin to negotiate a new deal before 4:30 pm on the last day when the deadline was 5:00 pm.

[alnorth]

Been reading anti-trust case law, have you?

nope. Been reading a lot of stories written by legal experts who basically conclude with "ummm, yeah. The players actually have a great case here"

[HMc]

An opt-out doesn't mean:

"Let's start over from scratch! Forget the NFL ever existed, lets pretend I'm some bright young businessman who just thought of this new unproven idea of a "national football league" but I'm not sure if it'll work out or not, I'm not sure if anyone will buy tickets or buy broadcasting rights, and lets pretend you are an unemployed jock desperate for money."

In the real world, we know the NFL is wildly profitable, and any reasonable person working in the league would at least want the owner to prove it if they claim they cant earn an acceptable rate of return on their investment without another $600MM.

Heap on top of this mess the fact they have a virtual monopoly and a congressionally-granted antitrust exemption, and I'd say the owners, at a bare minimum, have an obligation to prove why they need more money when their product seems to be making a sh*tton of profit as it is under the existing CBA.

If they wont do that, then screw the owners.

My point is that if the players U didn't forsee that an opt-out a full two years prior to the expiry date of the agreement could POSSIBLY mean that the owners were going to want a SUBSTANTIALLY different agreement - then they need to fire whomever was negotiating on their behalves. That's all really.

I don't disagree with the rest of it. But I disagreed with assertions (not yours) that salary cap has had a negative affect on player compensation, cos that's utter bullshit.

[chiefzilla1501]

Sorry, but that part is factually innacurate.

The ONLY way to observe full market value is the Adam-Smith invisible hand ditch-the-salary-cap and draft and have every man for himself.

If you want collective bargaining and access to the books, you are by definition moving AWAY from the free market.

A question I have for you - is what is considered a "fair" profit margin for the owners?

"Fair profit margin" would be that owners who actually care about their team and invest time and energy, and get a good product are rewarded with high returns. A shitty deal is when you have a shitty owner like the Ford Family or Mike Brown that invest shittily in their teams and still make money hand over fist. But that's getting off-topic.

If the owners are losing money, they'd have no concern over opening their books and proving they're not making a fair margin. Again, the fact that they're reluctant probably means that they're making a killing. I agree wholeheartedly with owners getting a return on their investment, but not if they're using "lost income" as an excuse to keep players' salaries down if in fact they're making more than enough money to cover those costs.

[HMc]

nope. Been reading a lot of stories written by legal experts who basically conclude with "ummm, yeah. The players actually have a great case here"

got some links?

[chiefzilla1501]

My point is that if the players U didn't forsee that an opt-out a full two years prior to the expiry date of the agreement could POSSIBLY mean that the owners were going to want a SUBSTANTIALLY different agreement - then they need to fire whomever was negotiating on their behalves. That's all really.

I don't disagree with the rest of it. But I disagreed with assertions (not yours) that salary cap has had a negative affect on player compensation, cos that's utter bullshit.

Let's assume the overall salary pie increases by 25%. If that pie increase leads to owners spending 25% more on salaries, then that means the players are grossly underpaid. The reality is, there's probably a tipping point where owners aren't going to spend beyond a certain level, even if they are allowed to. When you hit that point, THAT's when you hit fair market value for players. If players are getting paid less because a cap is too low, then yes, it has a negative effect on player compensation.

When owners are willing to spend but are limited because of artificial restrictions, then the players are underpaid.

[milkman]

My point is that if the players U didn't forsee that an opt-out a full two years prior to the expiry date of the agreement could POSSIBLY mean that the owners were going to want a SUBSTANTIALLY different agreement - then they need to fire whomever was negotiating on their behalves. That's all really.

I don't disagree with the rest of it. But I disagreed with assertions (not yours) that salary cap has had a negative affect on player compensation, cos that's utter bullshit.

Yeah.....Be kind of hard to fire Gene Upshaw now.

[HMc]

Let's assume the overall salary pie increases by 25%. If that pie increase leads to owners spending 25% more on salaries, then that means the players are grossly underpaid. The reality is, there's probably a tipping point where owners aren't going to spend beyond a certain level, even if they are allowed to. When you hit that point, THAT's when you hit fair market value for players. If players are getting paid less because a cap is too low, then yes, it has a negative effect on player compensation.

When owners are willing to spend but are limited because of artificial restrictions, then the players are underpaid.

True, though that analysis discounts the effect that the salary cap has had on parity and therefore increased salaries for ALL players. You can't just leave that out of your analysis because its convenient.

AGain, do you think salaries in 2009 would have been higher if the 1993 cap had never been implemented?

[milkman]

got some links?

I don't have a link, but I have heard legal analysts on ESPN radio talking about this, and they feel that the owners are playing a dangerous game, and think that they (the owners) have little to no chance to win in court.

[HMc]

Yeah.....Be kind of hard to fire Gene Upshaw now.

I would hope that NFLPA would have people more experienced and learned in negotation and contracts than a retired player figurehead. Maybe that's their problem, they actually don't know what they're doing.

[milkman]

True, though that analysis discounts the effect that the salary cap has had on parity and therefore increased salaries for ALL players. You can't just leave that out of your analysis because its convenient.

AGain, do you think salaries in 2009 would have been higher if the 1993 cap had never been implemented?

Salaries for QBs and pass rushers would be through the roof.

[milkman]

I would hope that NFLPA would have people more experienced and learned in negotation and contracts than a retired player figurehead. Maybe that's their problem, they actually don't know what they're doing.

It was a joke.

[alnorth]

My point is that if the players U didn't forsee that an opt-out a full two years prior to the expiry date of the agreement could POSSIBLY mean that the owners were going to want a SUBSTANTIALLY different agreement - then they need to fire whomever was negotiating on their behalves. That's all really.

I don't disagree with the rest of it. But I disagreed with assertions (not yours) that salary cap has had a negative affect on player compensation, cos that's utter bullshit.

You are being silly. An opt-out doesn't mean "owners will now get a huge bite out of the players' ass, and no other outcome is possible, at all"

The players could conceivably get MORE out of the new deal than the old CBA. ie, the opt-out could backfire. An opt-out means neither the owners ***NOR THE PLAYERS*** are bound to the old agreement.

If the owners want a better deal, then given that our f**kin congress gave them an antitrust exemption, they should prove that they need it. If they wont, then to hell with the owners, the players should play hardball.

[HMc]

I don't have a link, but I have heard legal analysts on ESPN radio talking about this, and they feel that the owners are playing a dangerous game, and think that they (the owners) have little to no chance to win in court.

Oh well I'm sold then, if you heard some guys on sportradio talking about it :rolleyes:

[HMc]

It was a joke.

I got it - he's dead. It was hilarious.

[chiefzilla1501]

True, though that analysis discounts the effect that the salary cap has had on parity and therefore increased salaries for ALL players. You can't just leave that out of your analysis because its convenient.

AGain, do you think salaries in 2009 would have been higher if the 1993 cap had never been implemented?

I've never said we should get rid of the cap.

I'm merely saying that the cap is in place to give small market teams a chance to compete with large market teams. They create parity by capping the payroll and by sharing TV/merchandise revenue. What happens when the small market team has more money to spend on payroll (largely because that shared TV revenue has gone through the roof)? Where's the excuse?

I'm not saying get rid of the cap or give any outrageous demands. I'm just saying that if that money is available, then I understand the players' insistence on continuing to push for more concessions. If the owners open up their books and prove that small market teams are making a poor margin because of payroll costs, fine. But it doesn't look like they can build that case. They likely have the money but instead of pushing wages closer to a fair market value, they get to pocket the majority of it.

[milkman]

Oh well I'm sold then, if you heard some guys on sportradio talking about it :rolleyes:

I'm just telling you what I heard, and these two guys have been a great source in the past when talking about legal matters.

[HMc]

edit: had enough.

[alnorth]

The funny thing here is that in any labor-ownership dispute, I'm almost always on the owners side. Its my default position, if I'm not aware of the details, I usually just lazily assume management is right and the workers are wrong.

In this case, to me, its obvious that management (in the NFL) is not bargaining in good faith, so to hell with them. MLB and NBA owners have opened their books to their players. If NFL owners refuse to do the same, then I am going to assume that they are just trying to cheat their players.