PDA

View Full Version : NFL CBA Discussion



Sea Ray
02-11-2011, 01:06 PM
According to ESPN talks have broken off between the owners and players and the issue is how to set the salary cap. Apparently there is about $9billion in revenue and the players want the cap set at 50% of that or $140mill per team. The owners want a $2B exemption and then divide the remaining $7mill at 50% which leads to $109mill per team. The cap was $130m in 2009.

No way in hell the players will go from a $130mill cap in 2009 to a $109mill cap in 2011. Sounds like the owners are really playing hardball here.

Mort this morning on ESPN said that the owners have an incentive to carry this beyond March 4th when the CBA expires. Apparently if that happens, the federal judge will lose his jurisdiction of this case and he has given some rulings unfavorable to the owners thus they'd like to take their chances with someone else.

If this is really where this thing stands, it's plain to see that it's going to take a long time to iron this out. I will say this, the owners aren't going through the trouble to re-open this CBA to only get the same deal as last year. I think we can count on the $130M cap going down in 2011.

Oxblood
02-11-2011, 01:13 PM
I will be rooting for a lockout, the greed displayed here is sickening.

bucksfan2
02-11-2011, 01:30 PM
It seems to me that it would be in the owners benefit to allow the contract to expire before they begin to negotiate. You won't have any roster bonuses or new contracts handed out which would eliminate any money going to the players during the lockout. I know there are players who can financially withstand a lockout, but I would bet the vast majority of players in today's NFL live paycheck to paycheck. An extend lockout would give the owners more barraging power.

That said here are some of my thoughts and hopes for the new agreement.
-I am usually pro ownership anti-union. That said I don't see how any sports union reflects the real world. I do know that in any privately held business ownership does reap a large amount of the profit and it should. They take all the risk and should factor into the reward (if there is one). I think eventually the Owners get at least 51% of the revenue.

-I am for an 18 game schedule. I have season tickets and nothing is worse than paying full price for a practice game. Take away 2 preseason games and make them regular season games and I am happy.

-Slotting system for the NFL draft. It doesn't make sense that guys like Matt Ryan, Sam Bradford, and Matt Stafford make more than most of the current NFL QB's without throwing a pass. Setting a scale and eliminating holdouts is good for everyone (except the rookies). The fans and ownership get their draft picks in camp and the vets get more money in their pockets.

-Eliminate the blackout rule. Don't know if they can even do this in a collective bargaining agreement. Its archaic and hurts the fans. Nothing makes less sense to me than having a fan shell out a couple hundred for NFL ticket only to be blacked out. And it hurts the young fans who want to watch their team play. "Hey daddy can I have $80 to go to the Bengals game because it won't be on TV".

-Relocating Pittsburgh to Siberia. I think that should be self explanatory. In reality I have no other big issues with the NFL. It is a well oiled machine that is showing no signs of slowing down. That could be changed with a long period without football.

reds1869
02-11-2011, 02:11 PM
That said here are some of my thoughts and hopes for the new agreement.
-I am usually pro ownership anti-union. That said I don't see how any sports union reflects the real world. I do know that in any privately held business ownership does reap a large amount of the profit and it should. They take all the risk and should factor into the reward (if there is one). I think eventually the Owners get at least 51% of the revenue.

Yes, because clearly being born into a life of privilege like Mikey Boy's is riskier than being a player with ungodly natural talent who's earning ability could end on the next snap.

Oxblood
02-11-2011, 02:39 PM
^ Damn cool avatar

reds1869
02-11-2011, 02:40 PM
^ Damn cool avatar

Have to give credit to Reds1 for that one. He was using it on another site and graciously agreed to let me use it here. It is pretty sweet, eh?

Kingspoint
02-11-2011, 02:50 PM
The players need to be reigned in. They have too much control of the league. The owners have done a poor job by giving them too much control.

Attendance is poor in the NBA and has been for years. They have major problems as an organization and are heading for disaster like the NHL if they don't make drastic changes.

It has to begin with a new CBA, and if the players don't like it, then too bad. They can go play in Europe where nobody cares and nobody will watch them, and their fragile egos won't be able to handle that. They would all drift back to the NBA begging for a job.

The owners need to stand their ground even if it means no NBA season for next year. I hope, though, that they would schedule the games anyway, and use whatever players they can get to play. It would probably be better basketball anyway, as the Coaches would all be here and they are the best Coaches in the World. They'll turn whatever players they have into decent teams with probably a better style of play, as in an up-tempo style where the "iso" play will be less seen.

The problem is that too many of these owners are greedy and are too willing to fork out the money to go after an asset (one of the "Star" players).

It will be interesting to watch.

Baseball will be the only sport left that won't be having labor problems over the next 8 months. Baseball attendance should sore. Heck, soccer might even see a surge in attendance.

It wouldn't be the end of the world, though if Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League all went belly-up. There's plenty of other things to do in this life. We'd all get over it, except for the workers at the stadiums and buildings, whom I'd feel the worst for.

reds1869
02-11-2011, 02:55 PM
Baseball will be the only sport left that won't be having labor problems over the next 8 months. Baseball attendance should sore. Heck, soccer might even see a surge in attendance.

I think minor league and college sports will also see an amazing boost in viewership/attendance should the NFL and NBA cancel any part of their seasons.

Oxblood
02-11-2011, 03:06 PM
Have to give credit to Reds1 for that one. He was using it on another site and graciously agreed to let me use it here. It is pretty sweet, eh?

Indeed.

Caveat Emperor
02-11-2011, 03:31 PM
I will be rooting for a lockout, the greed displayed here is sickening.

Not me. Tampa Bay has a young team with lots of great young stars -- they need time on the field whenever possible and as many organized team activities as they can squeeze in to get ready for next year. I want Josh Freeman at One Buc Place watching film all year, throwing to Mike Williams and the receivers. I want Arrelious Benn and Gerald McCoy using team facilities to rehab injuries. Lockouts do no fan any good.

I wouldn't read into much at this stage. It's bargaining -- and, right now, the players have a lot more to lose than the owners. Owners have a slush fund building up and will still get TV money (which, admittedly, they'll be forced to pay back in future years). How many players in the league can go a full year without a paycheck? Even the wealthy ones have mortgages that come due on multi-million dollar properties, notes on garages full of expensive sports cars, etc. The smart ones are also thinking about life after football and probably don't want to eat into savings to make ends meet during a lockout.

Owners can also be owners until they drop dead -- players have a short shelf life and a brief window where their physical peak allows them to play football at a competitive level and earn money doing so. Lose a year to a lockout, and players will not only come back older, but they will also have to contend with TWO rookie classes coming into the league at low salary that can take their jobs.

There may be a "lockout" that wipes off-season activities or training camp stuff, but I'd be shocked if any games are missed. There's simply too much money involved for everyone to say "Nah, we'd rather stand on principle and let it all go to seed."

WVRed
02-11-2011, 11:33 PM
The players need to be reigned in. They have too much control of the league. The owners have done a poor job by giving them too much control.

Attendance is poor in the NBA and has been for years. They have major problems as an organization and are heading for disaster like the NHL if they don't make drastic changes.

It has to begin with a new CBA, and if the players don't like it, then too bad. They can go play in Europe where nobody cares and nobody will watch them, and their fragile egos won't be able to handle that. They would all drift back to the NBA begging for a job.

The owners need to stand their ground even if it means no NBA season for next year. I hope, though, that they would schedule the games anyway, and use whatever players they can get to play. It would probably be better basketball anyway, as the Coaches would all be here and they are the best Coaches in the World. They'll turn whatever players they have into decent teams with probably a better style of play, as in an up-tempo style where the "iso" play will be less seen.

The problem is that too many of these owners are greedy and are too willing to fork out the money to go after an asset (one of the "Star" players).

It will be interesting to watch.

Baseball will be the only sport left that won't be having labor problems over the next 8 months. Baseball attendance should sore. Heck, soccer might even see a surge in attendance.

It wouldn't be the end of the world, though if Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League, and the National Hockey League all went belly-up. There's plenty of other things to do in this life. We'd all get over it, except for the workers at the stadiums and buildings, whom I'd feel the worst for.

Problem is, most of the people who would watch were probably turned off by the MLB strike during the 90's.

Whats really sad about the NBA is what is happening in Utah right now. Jerry Sloan, who has coached for 23 years, resigned and cited burnout as the reason. Deron Williams, the face of the franchise and a soon to be free agent, clashed with Sloan and that is fueling a lot of the speculation into Sloan's job. You look at longtime coaches such as Jerry Sloan in the NBA or Jeff Fisher in the NFL and how they have been forced out because of player issues and it is pretty sad how much players have control.

MLB is by far and away the most corrupt of all three major sports. At least the NFL and NBA have a salary cap in place. The NBA as a whole is unwatchable because of the "stars" and the lack of fundamental basketball that is being played. The NFL needs work, especially in slotting draft picks, but I really fear that Roger Goodell is going to ruin the best professional sports league by trying to get more games played without offering any incentive to the players.

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 02:01 AM
The only thing special about the NFL is the product on the field. It's an industry where 100% of the value is brought by labor. 100%. People pay the sky high prices because they are seeing the best in the world.

There is zero risk in being an NFL owner. Anyone arguing differently is either lying or insane. If there was risk I'm sure these guys could put their money in something else; there's no shortage of fat, rich white dudes who want to own an NFL team.

Meanwhile you have players being called greedy, despite the fact the average career is five years, and they are literally putting their health on the line. Most all of these guys have lifelong health problems, including head injuries, meanwhile they are done earning, on average, by the age of 27. And the NFL only pays out health benefits for five years after you're out of the league. One of the points of contention here is players wanting that bumped to ten years.

George Will, one of the most famous conservative columnists in the country, once wrote that when it came to sports he's a Marxist. I simply can't understand how anyone ever sides with ownership in these cases.

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 02:03 AM
Nobody ever paid money to see an owner.

In a perfect world all sports franchises would be owned by the community, like the Green Bay Packers instead of rich guys who contribute nothing, at best, and at worst suck money out of the community like leeches.

You'd think people in Cincinnati, of all places after the hosing you all got with the two new stadiums, would get that.

Boston Red
02-12-2011, 02:26 AM
I'm with the fat rich white dudes. I've got a lot in common with them (other than the rich part).

The Operator
02-12-2011, 04:34 AM
Yea, I'm not gonna shed a ton of tears for the owners. As redsfaithful said, there is really zero risk and all reward in owning an NFL team. When a guy like Mike Brown can be the slowest owner to 100 wins and the fastest owner to 200 losses and STILL take in tons of profit, that tells me being an owner is a pretty sweet gig.

Caveat Emperor
02-12-2011, 04:53 AM
The only thing special about the NFL is the product on the field. It's an industry where 100% of the value is brought by labor. 100%. People pay the sky high prices because they are seeing the best in the world.

That's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 0 value without the ownership:

1. Providing a venue for him to play.
2. Providing a conduit (via media contracts) for people to see him play.
3. Providing a governing body to ensure orderly competition
4. Providing a stream of opposition for him

WVRed
02-12-2011, 11:40 AM
That's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 0 value without the ownership:

1. Providing a venue for him to play.
2. Providing a conduit (via media contracts) for people to see him play.
3. Providing a governing body to ensure orderly competition
4. Providing a stream of opposition for him

Obviously, but even then, point being that Peyton Manning could have went the direction of Ryan Leaf and the Colts would still be turning a profit. There is zero risk involved in owning a NFL franchise.

reds1869
02-12-2011, 11:53 AM
Obviously, but even then, point being that Peyton Manning could have went the direction of Ryan Leaf and the Colts would still be turning a profit. There is zero risk involved in owning a NFL franchise.

See: Brown, Mike.

Sea Ray
02-12-2011, 12:21 PM
George Will, one of the most famous conservative columnists in the country, once wrote that when it came to sports he's a Marxist. I simply can't understand how anyone ever sides with ownership in these cases.

If that's the case then he ought to support the MLB owners. They wanted socialism whereas the players wanted a free market system

Sea Ray
02-12-2011, 12:27 PM
Obviously, but even then, point being that Peyton Manning could have went the direction of Ryan Leaf and the Colts would still be turning a profit. There is zero risk involved in owning a NFL franchise.

Easy to say that at this point. This is after the product that NFL owners have created. They've had to fight off challenges from other leagues such as the USFL, they merged the AFL and NFL, they set up a wonderful system where markets like Pittsburgh and Green Bay have as good a chance as NY and Chicago and finally it's the owners who have negotiated these lucrative contracts with the networks.

Sure, the owners have little risk at this point but it's not because of the players; it's because of the system they set up. The USFL had star players like Steve Young and Herschel Walker but they failed. The owners deserve to benefit from the system they've worked hard to put in place

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 05:11 PM
That's simply not true. Peyton Manning has 0 value without the ownership:

1. Providing a venue for him to play.
2. Providing a conduit (via media contracts) for people to see him play.
3. Providing a governing body to ensure orderly competition
4. Providing a stream of opposition for him

Even ignoring number one which is pretty debatable, literally anyone could own the Colts and Peyton would still be provided all of these things.

Let's replace all the NFL owners with different rich guys and see what changes. You think attendance or audience would go down?

Now let's replace all the NFL players with UFL caliber guys. I think that might hurt revenue just a tad.

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 05:17 PM
Sea Ray, that's actually a fair point about the USFL. They failed because of dumb ownership, so I guess there's a bare minimum intelligence level to owning a team that some people might not be able to meet (Donald Trump).

kaldaniels
02-12-2011, 05:37 PM
The only thing special about the NFL is the product on the field. It's an industry where 100% of the value is brought by labor. 100%. People pay the sky high prices because they are seeing the best in the world.

There is zero risk in being an NFL owner. Anyone arguing differently is either lying or insane. If there was risk I'm sure these guys could put their money in something else; there's no shortage of fat, rich white dudes who want to own an NFL team.

Meanwhile you have players being called greedy, despite the fact the average career is five years, and they are literally putting their health on the line. Most all of these guys have lifelong health problems, including head injuries, meanwhile they are done earning, on average, by the age of 27. And the NFL only pays out health benefits for five years after you're out of the league. One of the points of contention here is players wanting that bumped to ten years.

George Will, one of the most famous conservative columnists in the country, once wrote that when it came to sports he's a Marxist. I simply can't understand how anyone ever sides with ownership in these cases.

If I saw correctly last week, Jon Bon Jovi is trying to put up 150 Million to buy 10 percent of the Falcons. Call me old-fashioned, but I gotta think there is some risk to that.

Sea Ray
02-12-2011, 05:51 PM
Sea Ray, that's actually a fair point about the USFL. They failed because of dumb ownership, so I guess there's a bare minimum intelligence level to owning a team that some people might not be able to meet (Donald Trump).

The USFL is just one of many failed attempts to compete with the NFL. There are others:

1) AAFC
2) WFL
3) XFL
4) UFL-present

The issue isn't who has the most risk, Peyton Manning or Mike Brown...It's where else can Peyton Manning make $30mill a year? If football leagues are such a sure thing, why hasn't another league taken off?

The answer is: to do what the NFL has done is not easy. It takes a lot of years and a lot of good decisions need to be made

Yachtzee
02-12-2011, 06:17 PM
There's plenty of risk in being an NFL owner, or owner of any professional sports franchise. History is filled with failed professional sports teams and leagues. Just because the current structure of the NFL allows owners to make money doesn't mean it will always be that way. I'm sure if the Jerry Jones and Dan Snyders had their way, we'd probably see some teams like Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo and the Bengals fold. In fact, with simple change in how revenue is divided, we could see a team like the Colts have a couple bad seasons and end up in danger.

I'm all for players receiving fair payment for their contribution to the success of the league. The problem, as I see it, is that much of the money flows to high-risk "glory boys" at so-called skill positions (QB, WR, RB, Defensive pass rushers) in the draft, whereas many talented players who play less high-profile positions make closer to the league minimum, and those are the guys more likely to lose their career on a single play. The salary cap helps with that somewhat by keeping a lid on the salaries of the top guys. Without the salary cap and a slotting system in the draft, I would expect more money would flow to the big-name players, more teams operating at the edge of their margins, and not a lot of improvement for the grunts who are often just as important to the success of a team as the stars.

Instead of trotting out the old labor mantra of "let the bosses take the losses," the players and owners should be working out a way to ensure owners can make money for their investment and compensate the players in a way that ensures that everyone benefits, a win-win situation. They also need to work harder to educate players on how to save that money they're making now so that they'll have something left when they retire. Seriously, give me a three year contract making the league minimum and I could take care of my family for quite some time.

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 07:17 PM
Really? You could take care of your family for a long, long time on $900k?

Except it's not $900k of course, it's more like $450k-$500k after taxes. And it's not really $450k-$500k, because you owe your agent $90k. And you have a lawyer who probably gets 5%. And you're 22 years old and probably dumb and think you're going to play 15 years so it's not like you're living in a one bedroom apartment and eating ramen.

So now you have like $300k to last you the rest of your life, you probably have friends and family hounding you for money because they think you're rich. And there's a good chance you have head injuries that will plague you for the rest of your life. What a deal.

Meanwhile an NFL owner's risk is ... people might stop watching football as much and the tv money might lessen? Who think's that's going to happen?

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 07:19 PM
The USFL is just one of many failed attempts to compete with the NFL. There are others:

1) AAFC
2) WFL
3) XFL
4) UFL-present



None of those four were anything like the USFL, because none of them went after NFL level talent, which is what a serious attempt at competing with the NFL would entail. Because the talent is what matters.

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 07:24 PM
I'm sure if the Jerry Jones and Dan Snyders had their way, we'd probably see some teams like Jacksonville, Tennessee, Buffalo and the Bengals fold.


To illustrate how much risk there is to owning an NFL team, the Jacksonville franchise could be considered a failure, and the price of failing there might be having to move the team to LA. How tragic for Wayne Weaver.

Chip R
02-12-2011, 07:26 PM
There were 2 problems that led to the downfall of the USFL. One was their decision to play in the fall rather than the spring and then the decision to pay huge salaries they couldn't afford to talent. If they had decided to continue to play in the spring and had more financial common sense, they still may be playing today.

Revering4Blue
02-12-2011, 07:37 PM
There were 2 problems that led to the downfall of the USFL. One was their decision to play in the fall rather than the spring and then the decision to pay huge salaries they couldn't afford to talent. If they had decided to continue to play in the spring and had more financial common sense, they still may be playing today.

You beat me to it, Chip.


While the USFL, if it hadn't folded, most likely would be unable to poach star players away form NFL franchises, the USL teams would easily be able to accumulate decent talent for one reason:

The NFL salary cap creates the ability for a USFL franchise to sign at least mid-round draft picks.

I'm a much, much bigger College Football fan than NFL fan, so maybe this clouds my judgement.;)

Redsfaithful
02-12-2011, 08:22 PM
The 30 for 30 documentary on the USFL was really enlightening. They had a lot going for them, and I agree with Chip that they might still be around if they'd stuck to spring.

Football is so massively popular in this country that I think a spring league could still be successful if done right.

Revering4Blue
02-12-2011, 08:46 PM
The USFL also over-expanded too quickly, which is a common mistake for fledgling leagues. Several teams folded/merged following the second season, leaving no teams in the Midwest, IIRC.

kaldaniels
02-12-2011, 09:19 PM
Here's a question (theorhetical) I'm been thinking about. Not really important to the discussion, but the discussion led to this in my mind.

Lets say there are 1000 players that compose the NFL today. Lets assume they are the best in the world. Now tomorrow all 1000 of those guys disappear off the face of the earth, and are replaced in the NFL by the next 1000 best guys (guys ranked 1001-2000) in the world. Yeah their names and faces would be unfamiliar, but how much dropoff would we see in the on-field action? They wouldn't be as fast or hit as hard, the quarterbacks wouldn't have the strongest arms,...so how different would the on-field action be to the naked eye?

Sea Ray
02-12-2011, 09:56 PM
None of those four were anything like the USFL, because none of them went after NFL level talent, which is what a serious attempt at competing with the NFL would entail. Because the talent is what matters.

Your making my point. My point is that no other venue can pay these players as much as the NFL does. For that reason they eventually have to accept whatever they can get from these owners. These owners have set up this winning system for longer than any of these players have been alive.

Sea Ray
02-12-2011, 10:02 PM
Here's a question (theorhetical) I'm been thinking about. Not really important to the discussion, but the discussion led to this in my mind.

Lets say there are 1000 players that compose the NFL today. Lets assume they are the best in the world. Now tomorrow all 1000 of those guys disappear off the face of the earth, and are replaced in the NFL by the next 1000 best guys (guys ranked 1001-2000) in the world. Yeah their names and faces would be unfamiliar, but how much dropoff would we see in the on-field action? They wouldn't be as fast or hit as hard, the quarterbacks wouldn't have the strongest arms,...so how different would the on-field action be to the naked eye?

What you're describing is scab football and we saw that in the 80s during the players' strike. It wasn't pretty. Stadiums would not sellout for that kind of football

kaldaniels
02-12-2011, 10:48 PM
What you're describing is scab football and we saw that in the 80s during the players' strike. It wasn't pretty. Stadiums would not sellout for that kind of football

Pretend we don't know it is scab football. How different would the on-field action look, given the players have adequate time to practice together and acclimate themselves to the teams.

Scab football was slopped together and we knew what it was. That will never look good.

What if we never knew otherwise?

westofyou
02-13-2011, 01:02 AM
You're the cattle, we're the ranchers.

Tex Schramm to Gene Upshaw 1987

Yachtzee
02-13-2011, 04:07 AM
Really? You could take care of your family for a long, long time on $900k?

Except it's not $900k of course, it's more like $450k-$500k after taxes. And it's not really $450k-$500k, because you owe your agent $90k. And you have a lawyer who probably gets 5%. And you're 22 years old and probably dumb and think you're going to play 15 years so it's not like you're living in a one bedroom apartment and eating ramen.

So now you have like $300k to last you the rest of your life, you probably have friends and family hounding you for money because they think you're rich. And there's a good chance you have head injuries that will plague you for the rest of your life. What a deal.

Meanwhile an NFL owner's risk is ... people might stop watching football as much and the tv money might lessen? Who think's that's going to happen?

I said quite some time, not the rest of my life and I said that if these players got some guidance on how to spend their money wisely, they could do well enough to take care of themselves and their family for quite some time. That also assumes they got their college degree or are working toward it and seek work after their playing days are over. With that kind of money, I'd have no debt, a house bought and paid for (at least in my neck of the woods), and enough money to sock away either for a nest egg or to pay for my kids' education and maybe even have enough left over for a rainy day fund. On top of that, if nothing else I could probably get a gig coaching high school football so that when I retire, I could receive both my NFL pension as well as a teacher's pension.

Trust me, owners do take a lot of risk. I suspect many NFL owners didn't just have a few hundred million in cash laying around to buy a team. They may be worth quite a bit of money, but that doesn't mean they have that laying around in liquid assets. So they probably had to take out loans to finance a significant portion of the purchase price, as well as bring in additional investors. So whatever revenues they take in have to first go to team operations, then you've got taxes, loan payments, and cuts for the minority shareholders. Even if the team makes an operating profit, it doesn't mean the owner gets to take all that profit, throw it in his tub at home and take a money bath. There are a lot of places that money goes, and that is why there are so few professional sports owners who run a franchise as their only business.

Caveat Emperor
02-13-2011, 05:46 AM
Really? You could take care of your family for a long, long time on $900k?

Except it's not $900k of course, it's more like $450k-$500k after taxes. And it's not really $450k-$500k, because you owe your agent $90k. And you have a lawyer who probably gets 5%. And you're 22 years old and probably dumb and think you're going to play 15 years so it's not like you're living in a one bedroom apartment and eating ramen.

So now you have like $300k to last you the rest of your life, you probably have friends and family hounding you for money because they think you're rich. And there's a good chance you have head injuries that will plague you for the rest of your life. What a deal.

Meanwhile an NFL owner's risk is ... people might stop watching football as much and the tv money might lessen? Who think's that's going to happen?

So it's the NFL owners' problems that the players they employ have absolutely no financial sense and decide to blow their money?

Eric_the_Red
02-13-2011, 09:40 AM
What I don't understand is how, when the NFL is clearly at it's height in popularity and revenue, the owners can then justify wanting to take $1 billion off the table from the start?

Also, if Goodell and the owners are so concerned about the players health with concussions and illegal hits, etc., then why do they want to move to an 18 game schedule and haven't increased health care benefits to former players?

kaldaniels
02-13-2011, 12:23 PM
What I don't understand is how, when the NFL is clearly at it's height in popularity and revenue, the owners can then justify wanting to take $1 billion off the table from the start?

Also, if Goodell and the owners are so concerned about the players health with concussions and illegal hits, etc., then why do they want to move to an 18 game schedule and haven't increased health care benefits to former players?

It is all speculation, but I've been led to believe the 18 game schedule is currently just a bargaining chip, to be removed late in the game in return for concessions from the players.

Redsfaithful
02-13-2011, 02:35 PM
So it's the NFL owners' problems that the players they employ have absolutely no financial sense and decide to blow their money?

That has absolutely nothing to do with players getting their fair share of revenue. I was discussing risk profiles, you're conflating that with discussion of revenue split.

JeremiahHorsley
02-14-2011, 02:03 AM
If there are replacement players like I'm hearing. I'm going down to try out for the Bengals lol.

bucksfan2
02-14-2011, 09:42 AM
Really? You could take care of your family for a long, long time on $900k?

Except it's not $900k of course, it's more like $450k-$500k after taxes. And it's not really $450k-$500k, because you owe your agent $90k. And you have a lawyer who probably gets 5%. And you're 22 years old and probably dumb and think you're going to play 15 years so it's not like you're living in a one bedroom apartment and eating ramen.

So now you have like $300k to last you the rest of your life, you probably have friends and family hounding you for money because they think you're rich. And there's a good chance you have head injuries that will plague you for the rest of your life. What a deal.

Meanwhile an NFL owner's risk is ... people might stop watching football as much and the tv money might lessen? Who think's that's going to happen?

And I make $50,000 a year, taxes take around 33% of my money. I have a mortgage to pay and insurance to pay and all kinds of costs that pop up over the course of a year. If something happens to me or I spend some money I don't have its on me! Its not on my boss or the owners of my company.

Comments like this create a society of entitlement. I would be thrilled to make $900,000 and pay 33% in taxes because that would mean I take home a lot of money over the course of a year.

Razor Shines
02-14-2011, 12:22 PM
And I make $50,000 a year, taxes take around 33% of my money. I have a mortgage to pay and insurance to pay and all kinds of costs that pop up over the course of a year. If something happens to me or I spend some money I don't have its on me! Its not on my boss or the owners of my company.

Comments like this create a society of entitlement. I would be thrilled to make $900,000 and pay 33% in taxes because that would mean I take home a lot of money over the course of a year.

Completely agree.

Sea Ray
02-14-2011, 01:03 PM
What I don't understand is how, when the NFL is clearly at it's height in popularity and revenue, the owners can then justify wanting to take $1 billion off the table from the start?

Also, if Goodell and the owners are so concerned about the players health with concussions and illegal hits, etc., then why do they want to move to an 18 game schedule and haven't increased health care benefits to former players?

It's my understanding that they took $1B off the top in 2009 so that's nothing new, but the players got 60% of what was left.

Sea Ray
02-14-2011, 01:05 PM
Nobody has said that a player making $300K for three years is set for life. I can think of almost no jobs that will do that.

Eric_the_Red
02-14-2011, 01:08 PM
It's my understanding that they took $1B off the top in 2009 so that's nothing new, but the players got 60% of what was left.

Yes that is true, but now the owners want to take $2B off the top and renegotiate the percentage that the players get.

Sea Ray
02-14-2011, 02:46 PM
Yes that is true, but now the owners want to take $2B off the top and renegotiate the percentage that the players get.

That is correct. You didn't think they were going to go through the trouble to re-open this and come out with the same deal, did you?

Eric_the_Red
02-14-2011, 04:01 PM
That is correct. You didn't think they were going to go through the trouble to re-open this and come out with the same deal, did you?

No, but $2B off the top plus a larger percentage is a lot of money. I wonder what the total "pie" really is.

If I were the players I would say take the other billion but put it in writing that it has to go to improving the game and/or health benefits for retired players.

Joseph
02-14-2011, 05:00 PM
Cut ticket prices for me. I'm the one who needs the money, not these whiney silver spoon people.

Unions and owners are terrible IMO.

Redsfaithful
02-14-2011, 09:26 PM
And I make $50,000 a year, taxes take around 33% of my money. I have a mortgage to pay and insurance to pay and all kinds of costs that pop up over the course of a year. If something happens to me or I spend some money I don't have its on me! Its not on my boss or the owners of my company.

Comments like this create a society of entitlement. I would be thrilled to make $900,000 and pay 33% in taxes because that would mean I take home a lot of money over the course of a year.

You're not contradicting anything I wrote, although your tone makes it sound like you think you are.

Joseph: the market bears the higher ticket prices. That's not going to change no matter how unions and owners divvy up the money.

I don't know why anyone cares about high NFL ticket prices anyway, the game's better on tv nowadays with HD.

bucksfan2
02-15-2011, 09:56 AM
It's my understanding that they took $1B off the top in 2009 so that's nothing new, but the players got 60% of what was left.

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that $1B apparently the money set aside for expenses? I know $1B is a lot of money but expenses for a NFL team will be huge. And if I were in the situation of the owners I wouldn't want to open up my books for the players to see.

Sea Ray
02-15-2011, 10:07 AM
No, but $2B off the top plus a larger percentage is a lot of money. I wonder what the total "pie" really is.

If I were the players I would say take the other billion but put it in writing that it has to go to improving the game and/or health benefits for retired players.

It sure is a lot of money. Like I said, I think the owners are going for it all this time around. They want a lot more of the pie than they've gotten in the past. They're not going through all this trouble just to come out of it like they were before.

The total "pie" was reported as $9B

Sea Ray
02-15-2011, 10:09 AM
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that $1B apparently the money set aside for expenses? I know $1B is a lot of money but expenses for a NFL team will be huge. And if I were in the situation of the owners I wouldn't want to open up my books for the players to see.

I don't know what the justification is for the $1B. The biggest expense is player payroll.

bucksfan2
02-15-2011, 10:34 AM
I don't know what the justification is for the $1B. The biggest expense is player payroll.

The payroll far exceeds 1B. The cap is somewhere around $110M and that payroll is the amount of money that is being disputed. I thought the $1B has more to do with the day to day expenses of the football team. The equipment, the travel, the perks the players get, etc.

Sea Ray
02-15-2011, 10:56 AM
The payroll far exceeds 1B. The cap is somewhere around $110M and that payroll is the amount of money that is being disputed. I thought the $1B has more to do with the day to day expenses of the football team. The equipment, the travel, the perks the players get, etc.

Of course. The payroll part of this is the biggest part. In 2009 the cap was $130B per team. Looks like the owners want that reduced to about $110B. I don't think that'll happen without a long lockout.

Eric_the_Red
02-15-2011, 11:30 AM
Perhaps it is time I learn about this "hockey" game others speak of. I don't think NFL football will be played much in 2011.

reds1869
02-15-2011, 01:13 PM
Perhaps it is time I learn about this "hockey" game others speak of. I don't think NFL football will be played much in 2011.

The NHL--owners and union--was smart after their last disaster. If a new CBA isn't agreed upon by the end of the 2011-2012 season, the old CBA will be grandfathered in until a resolution of the dispute. Thus there will be no league killing work stoppage, one which the NHL probably couldn't recover from this time.

Mario-Rijo
02-15-2011, 06:59 PM
All I know is if I owned a lemonade stand I'd want to be making a profit and the bigger part of the profit, let alone a multi billion dollar corporation. It is up to me to pay labor according to the service I expect in return. If I want the best damn lemonade salesmen on the planet it is gonna cost me a good chunk but until that guy makes enough to buy his own lemonade stand (and BTW why would I want to pay my employees so well that they become my competition) he shouldn't be making what I make off the profit, not anywhere close. It is my vision, it was my hard work that got it started, I provide all the resources for it to happen and continue happening, why is it ok that someone else gets a similar percentage of the pie as I do? If any person here owned such a business would they feel any different than I?

Hey I'm all for giving someone a fair (and even more than fair) paycheck and overall compensation package but taking 2 Billion off the table out of 9 billion from the start doesn't seem greedy to me, it seems fairly reasonable.

westofyou
02-15-2011, 08:40 PM
The NHL--owners and union--was smart after their last disaster. If a new CBA isn't agreed upon by the end of the 2011-2012 season, the old CBA will be grandfathered in until a resolution of the dispute. Thus there will be no league killing work stoppage, one which the NHL probably couldn't recover from this time.
They could recover, and they'd probably shoot out a better product. What would happen is they would lose in-beweeners like Columbus, Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta and other sun belt teams.

That IMO would make the game on the ice better, deeper lines across the league, it would likely reduce injuries as well with the decreased ice time.

That said, the strike sucked for the real fans and it stopped moronic growth in the game, a game that couldn't handle it.

Now football is a making money like sunshine in Florida, the owners just want more, the players have smaller windows to make money and the massive amount of role players make the base of their union less likely to want to toss away salary. Add in the fact that of all the sports the team sport of football generates players who have been "coached" all their life, they have been a pawn in many game plans, they as a group are more apt to accept authority and deal with the division of power.

Plus the NFL ate the unions lunch in 87, they won and have had the upper hand in labor negotiations for years, when you are the winner you try and gain ground, you don't concede.

It should be interesting to see what happens once summer rolls around, deadlines won't begin to count until training camp, until then it will be a lot of big talk.

Sea Ray
02-16-2011, 10:13 AM
Hey I'm all for giving someone a fair (and even more than fair) paycheck and overall compensation package but taking 2 Billion off the table out of 9 billion from the start doesn't seem greedy to me, it seems fairly reasonable.

I really don't think the $2B is a big deal. It's about what's left. If the owners want to take $2B off the top then the players will obviously counter that they want a bigger percentage.

Here's a real world example:
It's like you are paid on commission. Some companies pay based on production while others pay based on collection. One's not necessarily better than the other because by nature the collection business would demand a higher percentage commission.

If I'm the players, I don't get too hung up on how much is taken off the top. I just negotiate a larger percentage to compensate. At the end of the day it all comes down to the cap number regardless of the formula used to reach it.

WVRed
02-18-2011, 11:08 AM
New video game coming out this fall: Madden Mediation 2012 starring Roger Goodell.

Basically, you sit in front of a computer and once a week get asked "Do you wish to give up millions of dollars?" and continually respond "No".

It's the only pro football that will be on next season.

Chip R
02-18-2011, 11:38 AM
There is a little good news on the situation. Both sides have agreed to federal mediation. However all this does is get the two sides talking and nothing necessarily has to be agreed on.

Hoosier Red
02-18-2011, 12:27 PM
All I know is if I owned a lemonade stand I'd want to be making a profit and the bigger part of the profit, let alone a multi billion dollar corporation. It is up to me to pay labor according to the service I expect in return. If I want the best damn lemonade salesmen on the planet it is gonna cost me a good chunk but until that guy makes enough to buy his own lemonade stand (and BTW why would I want to pay my employees so well that they become my competition) he shouldn't be making what I make off the profit, not anywhere close. It is my vision, it was my hard work that got it started, I provide all the resources for it to happen and continue happening, why is it ok that someone else gets a similar percentage of the pie as I do? If any person here owned such a business would they feel any different than I?

Hey I'm all for giving someone a fair (and even more than fair) paycheck and overall compensation package but taking 2 Billion off the table out of 9 billion from the start doesn't seem greedy to me, it seems fairly reasonable.

I think sometimes people get too hung up on "right" and "wrong"
Sure you'd want to take the $2 Billion off the top, and the players wish to be paid as much as possible. I don't think either side has a "right" to the money, it's all about what they can negotiate, and both sides understand that negotiations won't matter until there's an actual threat of loss.

Football isn't a necessary enterprise, so if the players refuse to play for less than they deserve, that's their right. If the owners refuse to pay what the players want, and decide to lock out the players in order to prevent workplace mishaps before an agreement can be reached that's their right.

IslandRed
02-18-2011, 03:20 PM
If I'm the players, I don't get too hung up on how much is taken off the top. I just negotiate a larger percentage to compensate. At the end of the day it all comes down to the cap number regardless of the formula used to reach it.

Yep. Parse the numbers however we want, all the roads lead here:

The owners want to spend less money on football players and pocket the difference. The players don't want that.

bucksfan2
02-18-2011, 03:36 PM
Yep. Parse the numbers however we want, all the roads lead here:

The owners want to spend less money on football players and pocket the difference. The players don't want that.

Every business in the country wants this. They want to cut costs but keep production, quality, distribution, etc. the same. This isn't anything groundbreaking.

Sea Ray
02-18-2011, 10:43 PM
There is a little good news on the situation. Both sides have agreed to federal mediation. However all this does is get the two sides talking and nothing necessarily has to be agreed on.

I'm a little surprised the owners agreed to this. My guess is they're doing it for PR. All the mediator will do is attempt to get the sides to come to a compromise something I think the owners have no intention of doing. If they are in the mood for a compromise then I think they could get a deal done w/o involving a mediator

WVRed
03-11-2011, 07:52 PM
The union has officially decertified as of 5 PM.

Looks like I need to reserve my copy of Madden Mediation 2011.

Joseph
03-11-2011, 08:00 PM
So this opens the door for players who are released to sue? It also opens the door to scabs/replacement players.

With no union, how many will cross the line though? More than a few I'd think.

SeeinRed
03-11-2011, 08:08 PM
The union has officially decertified as of 5 PM.

Looks like I need to reserve my copy of Madden Mediation 2011.


Madden Mediation didn't make it into production. The game designers felt mediation was a hopless endevour since the financial reports released by the company were insufficient, so they decided to go in a new direction with it. It is now Madden Litigation 2011. It won't be as user friendly as Mediation, but hopfully it will get the results the designers are looking for. Word is that the production company is not happy with the new direction and felt the financial reports were not as bad as designers claim.

WVRed
03-11-2011, 08:12 PM
So this opens the door for players who are released to sue? It also opens the door to scabs/replacement players.

With no union, how many will cross the line though? More than a few I'd think.

There is a difference between a strike and a lockout. Basically the union has disbanded. Instead of suing under labor laws, the NFL players are now suing the owners under antitrust.

From the looks of it, the players union left a pretty good deal on the table:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936


It said the offer included splitting the difference in the dispute over how much money owners should be given off the top of the league's revenues. Under the expiring CBA, the owners immediately got about $1 billion before dividing the remainder with the players; the owners originally were asking to roughly double that by getting an additional $1 billion up front.

Also in the NFL's offer, according to the league:

• Maintaining the 16 regular-season games and four preseason games for at least two years, with any changes negotiable.

• Instituting a rookie wage scale through which money saved would be paid to veterans and retired players.

• Creating new year-round health and safety rules.

• Establishing a fund for retired players, with $82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years.

• Financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs. That was proposed by the NFL this week, and rejected by the union, which began insisting in May 2009 for a complete look at the books of all 32 clubs.

Caveat Emperor
03-11-2011, 10:36 PM
The union left a very fair deal on the table. Right now, it seems very clear that the NFLPA feels empowered by the recent federal court ruling that smacked down the owners on their TV deal. The union sees an opportunity, via litigation, to really win big.

Sea Ray
03-11-2011, 11:35 PM
There is a difference between a strike and a lockout. Basically the union has disbanded. Instead of suing under labor laws, the NFL players are now suing the owners under antitrust.

From the looks of it, the players union left a pretty good deal on the table:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6205936

There's not enough detail in that report to know how good the deal was. It says "dividing the remaining revenue with the players"...what percentage? That's the whole ballgame.

Sea Ray
03-11-2011, 11:38 PM
The union left a very fair deal on the table. Right now, it seems very clear that the NFLPA feels empowered by the recent federal court ruling that smacked down the owners on their TV deal. The union sees an opportunity, via litigation, to really win big.

I wish the courts would stay out of it but now it's clear this will be settled in a courtroom, not a board room. I'd be very surprised if the players win anything really big. The owners have good lawyers too and their first order of business is to get things out of Mr Doty's courtroom. This does look to be long and drawn out just like I figured it would be

Caveat Emperor
03-12-2011, 03:26 AM
There's not enough detail in that report to know how good the deal was. It says "dividing the remaining revenue with the players"...what percentage? That's the whole ballgame.

A good deal is a good deal. If someone offered me $5 million to do my job, I wouldn't respond with "well, let's see your books to see if you can offer me more."

It isn't enough for the NFLPA to get a good deal, they are now driven to make sure the owners lose in the process.

Sea Ray
03-12-2011, 09:03 AM
A good deal is a good deal. If someone offered me $5 million to do my job, I wouldn't respond with "well, let's see your books to see if you can offer me more."

It isn't enough for the NFLPA to get a good deal, they are now driven to make sure the owners lose in the process.

My point was more specific. Of the $8bill on the table, do the players get 50%? 60%? What is it? If they got 50% then the cap would be $125mill per team. It was $130 mill in 2009.

If they got 60% then obviously the numbers change a great deal and it's another story

IslandRed
03-12-2011, 12:34 PM
A good deal is a good deal. If someone offered me $5 million to do my job, I wouldn't respond with "well, let's see your books to see if you can offer me more."

It isn't enough for the NFLPA to get a good deal, they are now driven to make sure the owners lose in the process.

Counter-argument: If you've already been making $5 million to do that job and they're telling you to take a pay cut -- and the whole point of this from the owner's perspective is to take a bigger pie slice at the players' expense -- you're going to resist. And if they say it's necessary, "prove it" is a reasonable response to that.

I agree with Sea Ray, without knowing what revenue percentage was tied to the rest of the offer (which did include some concessions), it's impossible to say how good the offer was.

Caveat Emperor
03-12-2011, 11:15 PM
My point was more specific. Of the $8bill on the table, do the players get 50%? 60%? What is it? If they got 50% then the cap would be $125mill per team. It was $130 mill in 2009.

If they got 60% then obviously the numbers change a great deal and it's another story

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb9907/article/league-releases-details-of-proposal-that-union-didnt-accept?module=HP_headlines

According to what the league released, they were increasing the cap number for 2011, with a cap number set in 2014 at $161m. I'm guessing what that means is that they would escalate the cap progressively to reach the number the players union wanted ($161) instead of starting at that point immediately (which makes sense, since it allows clubs to plan for a greater financial outlay).

So, work backwards -- 161m x 32 = 5.15b in total revenue going to players. That's a 57% cut of going to the players, assuming a $9b revenue stream, and a 64% cut going to the players for an $8b.

The players union also got the owners to back off on the 18 game schedule, reduce the number of OTAs, and got the concessions for care of older and retired players that they wanted.

I agree with the owners -- the union feels it has a friendly ear in Federal Court, and they decided they can really soak their bosses this time in court.

IslandRed
03-13-2011, 12:49 AM
Note that it said "increasing our proposed cap for 2011", not "increasing the cap for 2011."

Translated, it means they offered to not cut it as much as they initially planned.

Keep in mind, the players would have been perfectly happy continuing under the old deal and the owners are prepared for a lockout to get a better deal. Whatever they put on paper that makes it sound like they were offering the players a better deal than they already had, you know that isn't really the case.

Caveat Emperor
03-13-2011, 04:27 AM
Keep in mind, the players would have been perfectly happy continuing under the old deal and the owners are prepared for a lockout to get a better deal. Whatever they put on paper that makes it sound like they were offering the players a better deal than they already had, you know that isn't really the case.

I seriously doubt the players would've agreed to another year without a salary floor. I read that as more of a negotiation tactic ("see, we're reasonable, we'll take the same 2010 rules for next season) than anything else.

IslandRed
03-13-2011, 10:25 AM
Sorry, you're right, I meant the CBA as it existed for many years before the 2010 uncapped season.

Sea Ray
03-14-2011, 10:55 AM
I found the following to be interesting. Lester Munson is reporting that the owners have an 8 game schedule in their hip pocket for 2011:


Eight-Game Schedule: No, not an 18-game schedule, which was one of the bargaining issues. (The NFL wants it; the union doesn't.) This is an eight-game schedule, and the league has prepared it for this fall. So if the lockout continues into the season, the owners are ready. The last eight-game season was in 1982, after the players staged a successful strike that resulted in winning them a share of the league's gross revenues. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6207587

Still another sign that this will be a long process and that it's unlikely that the season will start on time. The only way I see a full season happening is if the courts force it

Redsfaithful
03-14-2011, 02:42 PM
An 8 game season would be incredibly lame.

Chip R
03-14-2011, 02:59 PM
I'm certainly not going to worry about this in March. Come August, and there's still no agreement, I will be worried.

Sea Ray
03-14-2011, 03:28 PM
I'm certainly not going to worry about this in March. Come August, and there's still no agreement, I will be worried.

Most years I'd be right there with you but being a Bengal fan and all the disarray they're facing, I'm good with all or most of 2011 getting knocked out.

Sad I know, but true...:p:

WVRed
03-16-2011, 08:30 AM
I'm certainly not going to worry about this in March. Come August, and there's still no agreement, I will be worried.

As Rick Reilly said, the Bengals fans are the winners in all of this. The only thing worse than not getting to watch the Bengals on Sundays is having to watch the Bengals.

Chip R
03-16-2011, 09:51 AM
I think a lot of this hysteria is being pushed by the sports media. They are panicking because come September there may not be a season to cover. That would be a shame but there's just a little less than half a year until the first regular season game is scheduled. A lot can happen by then and perhaps the players and the owners will come to an agreement and there will be football played in 2011. Perhaps there won't be mini-camps but life will go on. Until it's time to get worried I'm going to enjoy watching baseball.

bucksfan2
03-16-2011, 10:04 AM
My first comment on this matter is that no privately held company is going to open their books up to their employees. It's just not going to happen. It is one of the benefits of being the owner of a privately held company. The Green Bay Packers are a publicly held company and their books are open. They should have given the players a good baseline to go off of.

I have a feeling that every passing day the players keep doing stupid things. The former NFLPA suggesting that players who aren't in the former union skip the draft. Then Adrian Peterson opens up his mouth and says he is a slave. Classy Adrian. You make $10M per season and you decide to call yourself a slave while another country is going through a tsunami and nuclear disaster.

I have a feeling that you continue to put a mic or twitter or anything in front of these players and they will continue to say dumb things in public. This will play into the hands of the owners.

Slyder
03-16-2011, 10:08 AM
I have a feeling that you continue to put a mic or twitter or anything in front of these players and they will continue to say dumb things in public. This will play into the hands of the owners.

I dont care how stupid stuff gets coming out of the mouths of the players, no one is ever going to feel bad for the multi billioniares that consist of most of the NFL teams. You are right though they will never show the books because a good accountant can make them read anyway they want with some of the accounting tricks.

Only things coming out of the players mouth should be 1) No pension, 2) Helping the players who came before, 3) average career length and the health problems (bad knees, bad backs, etc) that they have to deal with the rest of their lives while the owners sit in the owner's box make money hand over fist for doing nothing.

Hoosier Red
03-16-2011, 10:14 AM
I wish the courts would stay out of it but now it's clear this will be settled in a courtroom, not a board room. I'd be very surprised if the players win anything really big. The owners have good lawyers too and their first order of business is to get things out of Mr Doty's courtroom. This does look to be long and drawn out just like I figured it would be

I don't think the courts have a choice, it's not like the players file suit and the courts can say, "Nah, I'm busy. You two figure this out on your own."

-One thing that I think was a big thorn in terms of transparency is with all the family owned teams, what was being expensed and what was being taken as profit. The owners offered to allow the players to see bottom line profits from the past 5 years I think.
But for a team like the Bengals that's meaningless. The Bengals could pay Mike Brown, Paul Brown Jr, Pete Brown, Katie Blackburn and Troy Blackburn an extra $1 million in bonuses, and all of a sudden they have been "losing money."

They could do this in a number of ways more and less dishonest than what I described.

I think more than anything, that's why the players wanted to push to litigation. If in the course of litigation, the owners are shown to have reduced profits through means like this, and were trying to take extra money from the players, they're setting themselves up for a big loss.

Sea Ray
03-16-2011, 11:15 AM
I don't think the courts have a choice, it's not like the players file suit and the courts can say, "Nah, I'm busy. You two figure this out on your own."

-One thing that I think was a big thorn in terms of transparency is with all the family owned teams, what was being expensed and what was being taken as profit. The owners offered to allow the players to see bottom line profits from the past 5 years I think.
But for a team like the Bengals that's meaningless. The Bengals could pay Mike Brown, Paul Brown Jr, Pete Brown, Katie Blackburn and Troy Blackburn an extra $1 million in bonuses, and all of a sudden they have been "losing money."

They could do this in a number of ways more and less dishonest than what I described.

I think more than anything, that's why the players wanted to push to litigation. If in the course of litigation, the owners are shown to have reduced profits through means like this, and were trying to take extra money from the players, they're setting themselves up for a big loss.

If someone breaks the law then the courts should determine damages and order the guilty party to pay up but they should not force the owners to end their lockout, force them to play 2011 under 2010 terms or force the players to end a strike if it ever came to that.

I agree with you on the books. Opening the books does nothing. Then it just becomes an argument of how much an owner deserves to make. Of course Bengal fans don't think Mike Brown deserves much and that's fine but let's look at a guy like Redskins owner Dan Snyder who bought his team for $800mill. Wiki says the following:


In May 1999, Snyder purchased the Redskins and Jack Kent Cooke Stadium for $800 million following the death of previous owner Jack Kent Cooke. At the time, it was the most expensive transaction in sporting history. The deal was financed largely through borrowed money, including $340 million borrowed from Société Générale and $155 million debt assumed on the stadium. Annual loan servicing costs are an estimated $50 million.

How much does he deserve to make on his investment? Obviously he's got a lot of overhead that doesn't include player salaries.

For me I don't care how much they do or don't make. Ditto for the players. I just want them to agree to the terms w/o a court interfering

bucksfan2
03-16-2011, 04:39 PM
I don't think the courts have a choice, it's not like the players file suit and the courts can say, "Nah, I'm busy. You two figure this out on your own."

-One thing that I think was a big thorn in terms of transparency is with all the family owned teams, what was being expensed and what was being taken as profit. The owners offered to allow the players to see bottom line profits from the past 5 years I think.
But for a team like the Bengals that's meaningless. The Bengals could pay Mike Brown, Paul Brown Jr, Pete Brown, Katie Blackburn and Troy Blackburn an extra $1 million in bonuses, and all of a sudden they have been "losing money."

They could do this in a number of ways more and less dishonest than what I described.

I think more than anything, that's why the players wanted to push to litigation. If in the course of litigation, the owners are shown to have reduced profits through means like this, and were trying to take extra money from the players, they're setting themselves up for a big loss.

The issue with paying the family members bonuses is that it always isn't smart business. Don't get me wrong it would be great to get a $1M bonus but I am not a multi-millionaire. The thing the Browns would be most concerned is with increasing their overall worth. Paying themselves 1M bonus (just using that figure) is taxed at a high rate. They are going to look for other ways to make that money go to work for them.

Brutus
03-16-2011, 05:39 PM
If someone breaks the law then the courts should determine damages and order the guilty party to pay up but they should not force the owners to end their lockout, force them to play 2011 under 2010 terms or force the players to end a strike if it ever came to that.

I agree with you on the books. Opening the books does nothing. Then it just becomes an argument of how much an owner deserves to make. Of course Bengal fans don't think Mike Brown deserves much and that's fine but let's look at a guy like Redskins owner Dan Snyder who bought his team for $800mill. Wiki says the following:



How much does he deserve to make on his investment? Obviously he's got a lot of overhead that doesn't include player salaries.

For me I don't care how much they do or don't make. Ditto for the players. I just want them to agree to the terms w/o a court interfering

I agree with all of this.

For starters, I don't think it's the players prerogative to determine how much an owner should deserve to make from their own business. If anyone is unhappy with the terms of their pay arrangement, the beauty of this country is that you can go out and start your own business in attempts of setting the parameters. Nothing is precluding anyone from going out and running their own business.

But I agree with you especially on the courts. I don't think the courts have the jurisdiction to tell the owners they can't lock out the players. The issue is whether or not they could rule that it was in violation of antitrust laws, and they could be liable for damages, which might be worth the value of the contracts they would have made otherwise.

One that that I don't think should fly is this idea that, despite decertification, the players' union is still urging draft prospects not to show up to the draft. If the players union is no longer in existence legally, they should not be having any say in this matter going forward. That decertification is looking like a total sham right now.

Caveat Emperor
03-17-2011, 10:07 AM
For starters, I don't think it's the players prerogative to determine how much an owner should deserve to make from their own business. If anyone is unhappy with the terms of their pay arrangement, the beauty of this country is that you can go out and start your own business in attempts of setting the parameters. Nothing is precluding anyone from going out and running their own business.

Or, in the alternative, choosing another to play another sport that compensates players differently.

I have an EXTREMELY hard time working up an ounce of sympathy for players in a league where minimum salary is roughly $325,000 per year. Even if the average career for an NFL player is 3.5 years, that will still allow a player to earn -- at minimum -- $1.1 million dollars in compensation.

Average household income for males in the United States with some college education (not necessarily graduated) is a little over $39,000. It would take that person 29 working years to earn what an average NFL player makes in his short career.

Now make no mistake, I don't have any sympathy for the owners either. I just think both sides are being incredibly greedy and completely tone deaf to the realities in the outside, non-sports world. Real people are struggling to survive in Japan, American families are struggling to pay mortgages and send their kids to college. Both sides in this debate can shove off if they can't agree on how to split $8 billion dollars.

IslandRed
03-17-2011, 12:33 PM
For starters, I don't think it's the players prerogative to determine how much an owner should deserve to make from their own business. If anyone is unhappy with the terms of their pay arrangement, the beauty of this country is that you can go out and start your own business in attempts of setting the parameters. Nothing is precluding anyone from going out and running their own business.

The beauty of this country also includes the option to quit and go to work for a company in your field that isn't colluding with your current employer on pay arrangements. At least, for most everyone it does.

In theory, I agree that it's not the employee's business what the owner's profit margin is. But in theory, it's also none of the Eagles' business what the Cowboys' pay scale is. Yet there's a salary cap.

Just a couple of reasons why the whole thing's so tricky from a labor law/collective bargaining/antitrust perspective.

Brutus
03-17-2011, 01:22 PM
The beauty of this country also includes the option to quit and go to work for a company in your field that isn't colluding with your current employer on pay arrangements. At least, for most everyone it does.

In theory, I agree that it's not the employee's business what the owner's profit margin is. But in theory, it's also none of the Eagles' business what the Cowboys' pay scale is. Yet there's a salary cap.

Just a couple of reasons why the whole thing's so tricky from a labor law/collective bargaining/antitrust perspective.

You bring up some excellent points, but if you think of it as a whole and the NFL as the brand, individual franchises, colluding on pay arrangements isn't necessarily a foreign concept. Granted, companies like McDonalds and Dominoes don't generally care what you pay employees, but they do set many parameters for operation and control, sometimes, personnel criteria.

I suppose looking at it from that standpoint, I could justify the owners colluding because there's nothing stopping these guys from playing football in another league. But your points have a lot of merit and it's not an open/shut case.

Redsfaithful
03-17-2011, 03:00 PM
Some owners are now asking coaching staff and office employees to take paycuts. Even though it was their choice to lock the players out.

And all this in largely taxpayer funded stadiums that they are now choosing not to use.

Being an NFL owner seems like a pretty sweet gig.

Caveat Emperor
03-17-2011, 03:14 PM
Some owners are now asking coaching staff and office employees to take paycuts. Even though it was their choice to lock the players out.

And all this in largely taxpayer funded stadiums that they are now choosing not to use.

Being an NFL owner seems like a pretty sweet gig.

1. Every coach and office employee in the NFL knew this was coming -- many had lockout/strike provisions written into their contracts. It's not like this was news to anyone in the NFL.

2. What NFL owners are doing is no worse than goes on in the corporate world every single day even when there is labor/workforce peace.

Redsfaithful
03-17-2011, 05:17 PM
I don't disagree on either count.

Hoosier Red
03-17-2011, 05:37 PM
If someone breaks the law then the courts should determine damages and order the guilty party to pay up but they should not force the owners to end their lockout, force them to play 2011 under 2010 terms or force the players to end a strike if it ever came to that.

I agree with you on the books. Opening the books does nothing. Then it just becomes an argument of how much an owner deserves to make. Of course Bengal fans don't think Mike Brown deserves much and that's fine but let's look at a guy like Redskins owner Dan Snyder who bought his team for $800mill. Wiki says the following:



How much does he deserve to make on his investment? Obviously he's got a lot of overhead that doesn't include player salaries.

For me I don't care how much they do or don't make. Ditto for the players. I just want them to agree to the terms w/o a court interfering

The courts have always existed to settle civil disputes. That's what this is.
Despite popular opinion, the lawsuit wasn't invented in 1980.

In the end, I agree, it's not so much right and wrong as it is each side using whatever leverage it holds to obtain the best possible deal.

How much does an owner deserve to make on his investment? How much does a player deserve to be paid? Neither side is arguing an inherent right to that money.
No one has a "right" to the money. You get what you negotiate for.

IslandRed
03-18-2011, 11:36 AM
You bring up some excellent points, but if you think of it as a whole and the NFL as the brand, individual franchises, colluding on pay arrangements isn't necessarily a foreign concept. Granted, companies like McDonalds and Dominoes don't generally care what you pay employees, but they do set many parameters for operation and control, sometimes, personnel criteria.

I suppose looking at it from that standpoint, I could justify the owners colluding because there's nothing stopping these guys from playing football in another league. But your points have a lot of merit and it's not an open/shut case.

Truth is, the way pro sports leagues operate is exactly the kind of thing antitrust law exists to prevent. That's why MLB guards its antitrust exemption tooth and nail, and why the other leagues that don't have it are vulnerable to the decertifying maneuver as both the NBA and NFL players have done. The league is allowed to negotiate things via collective bargaining that they can't legally get away with in its absence.

I mean, think about the draft for a second. Whatever line of work we're in, the companies in that industry aren't getting together and telling us which of those companies we have to work for, and if we don't like it, find another profession. They couldn't even begin to impose that without the courts handing them their heads on a platter.

(The exception to that is Major League Soccer -- they have a single-entity structure where the league owns the teams. The team "owners" are league shareholders and team managers, but the teams do not exist as businesses independent of MLS. Legally, that makes all the difference versus having individually owned businesses that happen to belong to an association.)

You were correct in an earlier post about the decertification process being a bit of a farce, however. Once a deal gets done, the NFLPA will magically reform down the road.

Sea Ray
03-19-2011, 11:22 AM
You were correct in an earlier post about the decertification process being a bit of a farce, however. Once a deal gets done, the NFLPA will magically reform down the road.

Which is exactly why (the owners will argue) that it's an illegal tactic. Either you're going to be a Union or you're not and we'll then proceed accordingly but this bit about de-certifying just to get an anti-trust judgement only to re-form down the road is bunk.

All along the owners have proceeded as if there is a Union. They can't change the rules now and expect to get a judgement like they've never been a union

Caveat Emperor
04-27-2011, 11:17 PM
The NFL is in a real mess of it right now:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-labor-20110428,0,7936513.story

In another setback for NFL owners, the federal judge who ordered them to lift the lockout denied their request to push the pause button on her ruling.

The league wanted U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson to keep the lockout in place while it appealed her ruling, but Nelson wrote late Wednesday that the NFL "has not met its burden for a stay pending appeal, expedited or otherwise."

Nelson wrote: "In short, the world of 'chaos' the NFL claims it has been thrust into — essentially the 'free-market' system this nation otherwise willfully operates under — is not compelled by this court's order."

The NFL has received some pretty crap legal advice on this whole process, and now they're stuck with a Federal Judge's order requiring them to return to work on one side, and a league rulebook that's filled with potential anti-trust lawsuit worthy provisions on the other side.

Roy Tucker
04-27-2011, 11:22 PM
http://joeposnanski.si.com/2011/04/26/goodell-to-the-last-drop/

bucksfan2
04-28-2011, 08:46 AM
The NFL has received some pretty crap legal advice on this whole process, and now they're stuck with a Federal Judge's order requiring them to return to work on one side, and a league rulebook that's filled with potential anti-trust lawsuit worthy provisions on the other side.

Not necessarily. I just scanned the Judge's wikipedia page and found this little diddy important.


Nelson was recommended to President Barack Obama for a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota by U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar on November 3, 2009. On April 21, 2010, Obama nominated Nelson to the court, for the seat vacated by James M. Rosenbaum. Judge Nelson was confirmed by the Senate with unanimous consent on December 17, 2010 at 11:00pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Richard_Nelson

There is a reason that the players took their case to her court. Your going to take it to a liberal judge who is pro-labor. Now the owners will probably take the case to a more conservative judge who is pro-business.

The one thing I don't understand is why DeMaurice Smith is still involved in talks. Since the NFLPA de-certified it would appear to me that Smith should be out of a job.

JaxRed
04-28-2011, 09:59 AM
Since the players are the ones that filed, they file in the place where they KNOW they are going to get a favorable ruling. The next level is where things get interesting.

Caveat Emperor
04-28-2011, 11:45 AM
Now the owners will probably take the case to a more conservative judge who is pro-business.

Pro-labor, pro-business -- they're guessing games. You guess that a judge is pro-labor because they were appointed by a democrat or pro-business because they were appointed by a republican, but appointments to the bench are made on the idea of judicial philosphy not stances on issues. For these purposes, attitude towards business isn't as rigidly alligned with party affiliation as it would be for someone running for elected office.

Plus, what is the "pro-business" stance in this case? I'd argue that the most pro-business stance is the one that gets the NFL back to playing football immediately. Billions of dollars, bound up in everything from TV deals to sponsorship agreements to tax revenue from hotels and restaurants in NFL cities, are at stake here if games start being missed. This isn't a traditional labor-management fight -- this is millionaires vs. millionaires, and I don't think you can quickly tab the right side of the fight to be on politically.

And the bigger issue is that we've shifted the game, legally, away from a court of first impression to a reviewing court. The reviewing court doesn't look at the case anew, the reviewing court looks with an abuse of discretion standard. At this stage, the "conservative" appellate court cannot substitute their judgment on the merits of the case for those of the trial court -- they can only look to see if the law was properly applied regarding the denial of a stay. The judge makes some very good points (the NFL suffers no harm from continuing to operate while the case is ongoing -- as can be seen from the fact that they're holding select league events and preparing a schedule) and has well-sourced her opinion. I don't see a reviewing court saying her decision is an abuse of her discretion as a trial court judge.

bucksfan2
04-28-2011, 12:24 PM
Pro-labor, pro-business -- they're guessing games. You guess that a judge is pro-labor because they were appointed by a democrat or pro-business because they were appointed by a republican, but appointments to the bench are made on the idea of judicial philosphy not stances on issues. For these purposes, attitude towards business isn't as rigidly alligned with party affiliation as it would be for someone running for elected office.

I disagree with this 100%. While you are appointed upon your judicial history, it is a political position that you are appointed to. And the players knew exactly whose court they were going into. It could have been based upon post cases or opinions written by the judge. Its all about your interpretation of the law as well as sympathies to a certain group of people. Make no mistake the NFL went to her court because they knew they would get a favorable ruling.



Plus, what is the "pro-business" stance in this case? I'd argue that the most pro-business stance is the one that gets the NFL back to playing football immediately. Billions of dollars, bound up in everything from TV deals to sponsorship agreements to tax revenue from hotels and restaurants in NFL cities, are at stake here if games start being missed. This isn't a traditional labor-management fight -- this is millionaires vs. millionaires, and I don't think you can quickly tab the right side of the fight to be on politically.

And the bigger issue is that we've shifted the game, legally, away from a court of first impression to a reviewing court. The reviewing court doesn't look at the case anew, the reviewing court looks with an abuse of discretion standard. At this stage, the "conservative" appellate court cannot substitute their judgment on the merits of the case for those of the trial court -- they can only look to see if the law was properly applied regarding the denial of a stay. The judge makes some very good points (the NFL suffers no harm from continuing to operate while the case is ongoing -- as can be seen from the fact that they're holding select league events and preparing a schedule) and has well-sourced her opinion. I don't see a reviewing court saying her decision is an abuse of her discretion as a trial court judge.

When I say pro-business its basically saying pro-ownership. They side with management on issues. They do not side with the unions. These judges are all over the place as well. If the judge who they were going to appeal to made no difference then why didn't they stay in the same district or circuit and use that appellate court? Why are they going to appeal to a Judge in St. Louis (I believe)?

I don't know all the ins and outs of appellate court and do realize that it is more difficult and more tricky to overturn a judgment against you. But I also realize that the NFL Owners aren't a bunch of idiots and there is a reason that they are applying to the court they are. I expect to see a ruling in their favor and more legal battles going forward.

I do find this interesting. President Obama's latest appointment to the Supreme Court, Sotomayor was instrumental in ending the baseball strike back and now a judge he appointed may be instrumental in ending the football lockout.

Caveat Emperor
04-28-2011, 01:03 PM
I disagree with this 100%. While you are appointed upon your judicial history, it is a political position that you are appointed to. And the players knew exactly whose court they were going into. It could have been based upon post cases or opinions written by the judge. Its all about your interpretation of the law as well as sympathies to a certain group of people. Make no mistake the NFL went to her court because they knew they would get a favorable ruling.

They knew they had a better chance of a favorable ruling based on past precedent. What I'm saying is that just because a judge is appointed by a politician from a particular party bears little on how that judge will rule on individual issues (beyond a couple of the "hot button" issues like abortion). Judges are picked for jurisprudential theory more than political ideology or stance on issues.


When I say pro-business its basically saying pro-ownership. They side with management on issues. They do not side with the unions. These judges are all over the place as well. If the judge who they were going to appeal to made no difference then why didn't they stay in the same district or circuit and use that appellate court? Why are they going to appeal to a Judge in St. Louis (I believe)?

I don't know all the ins and outs of appellate court and do realize that it is more difficult and more tricky to overturn a judgment against you. But I also realize that the NFL Owners aren't a bunch of idiots and there is a reason that they are applying to the court they are. I expect to see a ruling in their favor and more legal battles going forward.

The NFL has no decision on which Appellate Court will hear the case -- they must appeal to the the Circuit Court that covers the particular district the trial court is based in. For Minnesota Federal District Court, that Appellate Court is the 8th Circuit based in St. Louis (just as any case heard in the 6th Circuit would have an appeal heard here in Cincinnati). They're stuck with the 8th based on the initial filing location.

And yes, the NFL Owners *are* playing this entire stiuation extremely poorly. They're being advised by the guy who busted the NHLPA (at the cost of an entire season of games) and it's 100% transparent that the goal of the NFL is to simply starve the players into accepting their terms (see: the 2011 Schedule, which employs all manners of tomfoolery to make cancelling games easier). Meanwhile, they cry foul to a federal judge when asked how starting a football season (a season which, by any acceptable measure, will stuff more profit into the pockets of all 32 owners) prejudices them in any way.

They're playing the court system (funded by us taxpayers, mind you) for a fool, and whoever is advising them to do so is borderline negligent in counseling them to continue.

IslandRed
04-28-2011, 07:39 PM
The NFL and NFLPA had previously agreed to use the Minnesota federal court district as the venue for disputes, so the NFLPA is doing nothing new. The only difference is that Susan Nelson and not David Doty is hearing the case. Which happens; you can file a case in a specific court, but unless there's only one judge on that beat, you're not entitled to demand a specific judge, so far as I know.

Redsfaithful
04-29-2011, 04:47 AM
But I also realize that the NFL Owners aren't a bunch of idiots

They look like a bunch of idiots right now.

LoganBuck
04-29-2011, 02:14 PM
Lockout back on, do the owners know they look like a bunch of greedy fools yet? Fans get a glimmer of hope that there will be football, and then wham.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/report-owners-get-stay-of-injunction-lockout-back-on/

Hoosier Red
04-29-2011, 02:29 PM
Which is exactly why (the owners will argue) that it's an illegal tactic. Either you're going to be a Union or you're not and we'll then proceed accordingly but this bit about de-certifying just to get an anti-trust judgement only to re-form down the road is bunk.

All along the owners have proceeded as if there is a Union. They can't change the rules now and expect to get a judgement like they've never been a union

Sea Ray, you made this post more than a month ago and I meant to reply at the time. Here's my problem with your logic; The players aren't acting as if there's never been a union.
They're acting like there is no union now. They don't begrudge the owners for only negotiating with the union in the past, but once the collective bargaining agreement is over(or opted out of) and there is no longer a union negotiating, the owners can't simply declare a lock out without violating anti-trust laws. They knew this going in.


The owners desperately want there to be a union, aside from all the anti-trust nastiness it prevents, it's easier to deal with one union as opposed to 2,240 individual players.

But nowhere is it required that the players participate in a union. Simple free market logic dictates that you negotiate with whatever provides you the most leverage. If the players decide as a collective unit that they'll have better luck negotiating as individuals rather than as a union, you certainly wouldn't begrudge them that right would you?

So now, the NFL owners have two options; 1) Negotiate every contract term with every player on an individual basis. 2) Negotiate a deal with the head of the players union and hope that whatever deal you agree to will be good enough to entice the players to join in.

Obviously the players decertifying the union was a bargaining tactic, but what's wrong with bargaining tactics? The point to a union is provide a better bargaining position for the players. If the way to create the best bargaining position for the players is to decertify this union, I'm not sure what the problem is.

LoganBuck
04-29-2011, 02:40 PM
Story Retracted
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/29/temporary-stay-expected-espn-retracts-report-that-stay-was-granted/

Yachtzee
05-03-2011, 10:52 PM
The players, owners and agents have caused me to lose so much interest in the NFL over the years that I am completely indifferent as to whether they play the 2011 season. I'm really tired of all the off-the-field shenanigans that go on. If I could go a year without hearing about BS like "T-Ocho" and what Carson Palmer is going to do, what Steelers player will get arrested but receive a slap on the wrist from the NFL, or how some mediocrity is the next great hope for the Browns, I can live with that.

Roy Tucker
05-04-2011, 01:01 PM
The players, owners and agents have caused me to lose so much interest in the NFL over the years that I am completely indifferent as to whether they play the 2011 season. I'm really tired of all the off-the-field shenanigans that go on. If I could go a year without hearing about BS like "T-Ocho" and what Carson Palmer is going to do, what Steelers player will get arrested but receive a slap on the wrist from the NFL, or how some mediocrity is the next great hope for the Browns, I can live with that.

Amen.

They are trying their darndest to kill the golden goose. I continue to be amazed that the NFL as a whole, owners, players, agents, Goodell, the whole damn foolish mess of them, are willingly trying to kill the sport.

Whenever a story or video comes on about this, I switch the channel and mutter a spectacular string of foul words that describe how I feel about this.

But having said that, I saw where the NFL draft got the highest ratings ever. I live in a world of morons, fools, and idiots.

Bah. Get off my lawn.

Sea Ray
05-17-2011, 11:29 AM
As a fan I'm greatly disappointed in how the media, and let's face it, in sports the media is ESPN, has reported on this. Us fans don't know how to sort out this legal mumbo jumbo so we rely on so called experts like Lester Munson to make some sense of it. Just a few weeks ago he was reporting that the owners had little chance of overturning Judge Nelson's decision because she wrote such a thorough 89 page report that essentially made it appeal proof.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=munson/110428

Now all ESPN seems to have forgotten all that and they're now leading us to believe the 8th Circuit court is in the bag for the owners.

I have no legal training by I found it odd that a Judge could make an employer open his doors. It seems that the 8th Circuit agrees with me. Who needs guys like Munson if they can't give us better insight than that?

Sea Ray
05-17-2011, 11:31 AM
So now, the NFL owners have two options; 1) Negotiate every contract term with every player on an individual basis. 2) Negotiate a deal with the head of the players union and hope that whatever deal you agree to will be good enough to entice the players to join in.



Or lock them out until they get hungry

Caveat Emperor
05-17-2011, 02:43 PM
I have no legal training by I found it odd that a Judge could make an employer open his doors. It seems that the 8th Circuit agrees with me. Who needs guys like Munson if they can't give us better insight than that?

Antitrust law & Labor/Employment law is diffuclt to understand, even for those who do have legal training. Most people who don't can only pick at the outsides of the knot with no real hope of ever unraveling it.

Sea Ray
06-21-2011, 10:34 PM
This is where the numbers stand as of today:


Players will receive 48 percent of all revenues, without the owners taking a $1 billion cut off the top of a $9 billion revenue model. The players' share will never dip below 46.5 percent. Under the old CBA, the players received 60 percent, not including a $1 billion "expense credit" for the owners off the top.

Read more: http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-06-21/nfl-owners-reportedly-willing-to-offer-48-percent-revenue-share-to-players?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main-n%7Cdl4%7Csec3_lnk2%7C216615#ixzz1Py3V9CR2

Here's the math:

Under this CBA, owners payout 48% of $9Bill= $4.32Bill...divided by 32 teams equals a salary cap of $135M per team.

Under the old CBA, the owners took $1B off the top leaving a pool of $8B x 60%= $4.8B...divided by 32 teams= salary cap of $150M.

So each team is saving $15M per year under this plan. Will that be enough for the owners? I also have read that the salary floor will be quite high, like maybe 90% of the cap which will piss off owners like Mike Brown

Chip R
06-21-2011, 10:39 PM
So, if everyone agrees on a new CBA within the next couple of weeks, will you, as a fan, have any hard feelings towards the owners and/or players? There have been no games lost exhibition or otherwise, no training camp lost and the draft wasn't affected.

Captain Hook
06-21-2011, 10:55 PM
So, if everyone agrees on a new CBA within the next couple of weeks, will you, as a fan, have any hard feelings towards the owners and/or players? There have been no games lost exhibition or otherwise, no training camp lost and the draft wasn't affected.

No.I just want some NFL football this fall.

IslandRed
06-22-2011, 01:42 AM
So, if everyone agrees on a new CBA within the next couple of weeks, will you, as a fan, have any hard feelings towards the owners and/or players? There have been no games lost exhibition or otherwise, no training camp lost and the draft wasn't affected.

Not me. A certain amount of business conflict is inevitable at a table with nine billion dollars on it. I've been following along, but until all of this takes away actual entertainment product -- and no, I don't count OTAs -- then it's no harm, no foul.

Sea Ray
06-22-2011, 11:06 AM
So, if everyone agrees on a new CBA within the next couple of weeks, will you, as a fan, have any hard feelings towards the owners and/or players? There have been no games lost exhibition or otherwise, no training camp lost and the draft wasn't affected.

No hard feelings at all. It's all part of business

JaxRed
06-22-2011, 11:24 AM
If this is the deal, and they don't go to 18 games, I'm all for it. Although they didn't mention the revenue sharing on non-tv revenue, but I guess maybe that's only an internal thing with owners. And they should fight for stronger rookie salaries limit which helps veterans because they are required to spend the money based on the salary floor.

Roy Tucker
06-22-2011, 11:33 AM
No hard feelings. Just continued cynical and jaded thoughts.

Its always all about the green.

Redsfaithful
06-22-2011, 12:49 PM
I also have read that the salary floor will be quite high, like maybe 90% of the cap which will piss off owners like Mike Brown

As a Bengals fan, I have to say this would be awesome. Not that they'll be better, I'm sure they'll just waste the money on Antonio Bryants, but still.

KoryMac5
06-22-2011, 02:13 PM
As a Bengals fan, I have to say this would be awesome. Not that they'll be better, I'm sure they'll just waste the money on Antonio Bryants, but still.

Brown will just find other areas to skimp on.

Caveat Emperor
06-22-2011, 02:22 PM
So, if everyone agrees on a new CBA within the next couple of weeks, will you, as a fan, have any hard feelings towards the owners and/or players? There have been no games lost exhibition or otherwise, no training camp lost and the draft wasn't affected.

Nope. Just get Josh Freeman, LeGarrette Blount and Mike Williams back on the field in Tampa.

bucksfan2
06-23-2011, 09:06 AM
Im hoping this drags on for a few more weeks and the Bengals lost 1 home preseason game. I despise paying full ticket price for a home preseason game. Heck I am beginning to regret renewing my tickets this season.

Eric_the_Red
06-23-2011, 06:17 PM
Im hoping this drags on for a few more weeks and the Bengals lost 1 home preseason game. I despise paying full ticket price for a home preseason game. Heck I am beginning to regret renewing my tickets this season.


Just beginning to regret Bengals season tickets? :eek: ;)

Sea Ray
07-19-2011, 04:38 PM
According to ESPN talks have broken off between the owners and players and the issue is how to set the salary cap. Apparently there is about $9billion in revenue and the players want the cap set at 50% of that or $140mill per team. The owners want a $2B exemption and then divide the remaining $7mill at 50% which leads to $109mill per team. The cap was $130m in 2009.

No way in hell the players will go from a $130mill cap in 2009 to a $109mill cap in 2011. Sounds like the owners are really playing hardball here.

Mort this morning on ESPN said that the owners have an incentive to carry this beyond March 4th when the CBA expires. Apparently if that happens, the federal judge will lose his jurisdiction of this case and he has given some rulings unfavorable to the owners thus they'd like to take their chances with someone else.

If this is really where this thing stands, it's plain to see that it's going to take a long time to iron this out. I will say this, the owners aren't going through the trouble to re-open this CBA to only get the same deal as last year. I think we can count on the $130M cap going down in 2011.

Let's take this thread full circle. My original thoughts have proven to be right on the money:


A 2011 salary cap of $120 million and a rookie wage system, which was seen by sources familiar with the process as the last remaining major hurdle to a deal, have both been agreed to, sources told ESPN.

Compromises to the proposed $120 million salary cap have been made to help teams who have lower revenue streams, according to sources.

The NFL and its players agreed on Thursday night to a $120 million cap with players agreeing to a team minimum cash payroll of 89 percent of the cap as long as the league-wide cash guarantee is 99 percent of the cap, sources said. For example, the Cincinnati Bengals, Buffalo Bills or Jacksonville Jaguars would be required to have a minimum cash payroll of $106.8 million in 2011. If they fail to reach that level by the end of the season, they would distribute the difference to the players on team at the end of the season.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6773711/talks-recessed-owners-give-free-agency


They screwed around up until the 11th hour but in the end the owners got what they wanted. The salary cap will be less this year than it was two yrs ago and no games will likely be lost. Let's play some football

Caveat Emperor
07-21-2011, 02:04 PM
Deal now being stalled by a few factors -- not the least of which is a cash grab by Logan Mankins and Vincent Jackson (two of the named plaintiffs in the anti-trust lawsuit) who feel they're somehow entitled to a little bit off the top in exchange for signing a few court papers on behalf of the NFLPA.

Reds Fanatic
07-21-2011, 10:27 PM
Apparently this is not quite over. The owners voted 31-0 to approve the new agreement (Oakland substained). But the players apparently still don't like parts of the deal and so far have not voted for it.