Outline of the proposal rejected by the NFLPA

No sympathy for the players one bit.

 

I'm more for the players then the owners.

 

"Then" the owners what?

 

If you really haven't been following this, you're just naturally a lot smarter than most people here because you're spot on.

 

Doesn't matter now, there is both a dissolved Union, and a Lockout, as well as several lawsuits and a case in Judge Doty's court involving TV contracts..the lawyers will make out like bandits.

I am generally in favor of the Union as Ownership has not bargained in Good Faith, however both had a hand in this and hopefully a disinterested 3rd party will impose a solution on two recalcitrant factions.

The law is a club, not a scapel, so to me they would have been better off working things out amongst themselves.

 

If I own a business and want to pay my workers minimum wage I can legally pay them minimum wage. Now, I may lose out on some talent, but it's my decision. I don't have to give my employee's any share of my profits.

 

Of course, now what happens when you have contracts with those employees, but tell them not to come to work and that you are not going to pay them per your agreement?

 

See, you have missed what has happened, KM, with the NFLPA dissolving the Owners are not locking out the "union" they now are locking out all of the players they have contracts with, that is why they decertified.

Players will now take owners to court seeking to have their contracts enforced, when there was a union the owners could simply say "we are not locking out players, we are locking out their Collective Bargaining Organization because we have no contract with them".

 

The owners should have to show their books, I don't know why that is so difficult for them if they've negotiated in good faith. Their reluctance indicates to me that they haven't.

As for the players, I like to think I understand a little bit. They literally lay their lives on the line each week, some of them will have permanent brain damage from playing in the league. That would increase with an 18 game schedule. Those are substantial risks, financial and otherwise, as far as I'm concerned.

One solution is to have player salaries be negotiated as a % of the cap which is, in turn, tied to league profits with another portion set aside for post-NFL health insurance. They would potentially absorb financial risks that way. But, again, the owners would have to provide transparent accounting, which they're unwilling to do.

 

Exactly, how can you talk poor, then not back it up?

Here I disagree, to me the players have gotten contented with the status quo, the owners should try to make more money and removing two preseason games for 2 regular seasons games is a move they should make, in my view what it boils down to is the players simply do not want to work more.

CFL has played 18 games for 25 yrs, NFLers to me are coming off as spoiled.

 

Well, the NFL is more brutal than the CFL. 18 games fine with me, I love watching football, and preseason football is way overpriced as it is. But I think you have to expand the rosters from 53 to 60, add another bye, and increase salaries by 12.5% (2/16), at least veteran salaries. Those would have to be the starting points to the negotiation, and I'm not sure it ever got that far.

 

i sympathize with the NFL players more than any other professional sports league because of the shorter length of career compared to NBA and MLB players, and the lack of guaranteed contracts.

But why should the owners HAVE to show the players their books? What other business has to do that? And NFL players enter into their CHOSEN profession understanding their are serious health risks involved. One can say that the risk of concussions and permanent brain damage is still being studied, and not completely understood. That is true and not to be discounted, but the risk of permanent paralysis is well known among players from several examples, so it is not as though players are in the dark that their lives can be altered on any play.

the players have shot themselves in the foot in a few ways IMHO, and i heard these same sentiments echoed by average fans i talked to friday and saturday nights;

while i understand it is oversimplifying things a bit to state that the players had a union, didn't get their way via collective bargaining, then decertified so they could sue the league, that is the way it comes off to the average observer. it looks like they are wanting to have it both ways. when all is said and done and they reform their union, the players will come off looking even worse to the average fan.

Demaurice Smith is no Gene Upshaw. Upshaw garnered alot of respect from the league, and among the people i talked to. Smith does not to put it kindly. he was being ridiculed by the guys i was talking to and their perception is he is way out of his depth.

having Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees be the plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit will bite the players in the ***, in the court of public opinion. they are three of the highest paid players in the NFL. while they are popular, even the average fan knows they are not only set for life, but have generational wealth, provided by the NFL. that is not going to draw sympathy from the average fan.


PS to Poco; i really like your offseason in your sig... though i want Tory Gurley of South Carolina as our late round flyer on a WR. i am a bit partial, but he is a good character guy, good hands, and good size.

 

Well, when the players main complaint is it will shorten their careers, how is that the owners' concern? They put the product out, if a player last or does not that is on the player, it is not the owners' job to "make sure so and so can play another 2 yrs".

A guy lasts, or he doesn't.

That is not to say I want guys to be injured or have shortened careers, but look at all of the teams who have made the playoffs in consecutive yrs, the Pats, Colts, Eagles etc, none of those players are complaining about playing those extra games over the yrs and yet because the starting RG on the Lions thinks 2 more games, or about 100 plays, will shorten their career the season should not expand?

 

Yeah man, I don't undertand how no one is talking about Quinton Carter at all. He's a nice FS prospect, and judging by how we've whored ourselves out for FS the last couple years, he has to be on the rader. Seems like the consensus is that default trade back guy would be Pouncey.

As for the players, I don't sympathize too much. Even the shortest career for a high round draft pick (probably a 3 year contract) would net millions. That should be enough to last a lifetime. But if the owners want to claim money troubles, they have to show evidence of money troubles. I think everything stays deadlocked until that point.

 

Obviously they don't HAVE to show their books.

But in a world where the Marlins got hundreds of millions of dollars in tax payer money while claiming losses when they were really making bank, and in a world where the league is making money hand over fist with record viewership and TV deals, they damn well better be ready to prove financial hardship if they're going to ask their employees union to take a smaller cut of the lie.

And just for the record, I kind of stand with the owners on this issue. IF Green Bay is indeed an indicator of the profit that the rest of the teams in the league are seeing, then I agree heartily with the owners that they're running too big of a risk, and need a bigger slice of the pie.

But I have a hard time trusting billionaires who are crying poor while the sport is at an all time high in popularity.

Just my .02


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I have no sympathy for the players at this point. The rookies' wage scale is out of control as well. I far as I am concerned, the owners should not have to open their books for the players or the union. They both are making what they are making because of the clubs. If they don't like what they have now then they can take their skills and degrees (or lack thereof) and search for a new career that will pay them what they currently make.

I would agree that both sides are being greedy. I would also agree that the league has not negotiated in good faith over the past couple of years preparing for the possibility of a lockout. However, the players are doing pretty well for themselves and I don't want to hear any mumbo-jumbo about their safety. They know the potential threats of their career choice and they have all made a decision to take the clear risks which they are taking every play of every game in return for the inflated salary and fame they receive for doing so.

If I were the mediator I would say the main points here are the 18 schedule, rookie wage scale and retirement benefits. Everyone needs to shut up and realize that the owners are the owners and they don't answer to the players or the union. If the players don't like it they can go search for a new job period. Otherwise, they can accept an 18 game schedule, dramatically reduced rookie wage scale and take the profits from those two decisions an apply it to a benefit package for injured and retired players. Personally, I would implement a wage scale for all players to the point where no player could make more than $8 - $10 million a year. This would allow any additional saving to be applied towards retirement benefits as well. I think that $10 million is more than enough per year for the best of the best players, don't you?

 

Do you mean like when a player signs a contract *Cough*Revis*Cough* and then decides that he wants more money so he just stops playing?

 

If you go into work tomorrow and your boss tells you he wants to see all of your financial information so he can make sure that you're not making too much money, will you show it to him? If I owned a business and the employee's demanded to see my "books", I'd laugh in their face and have them escorted out of the building.


No, the owner of a business doesn't have to give anything to his employees except what is federally and state mandated.


Cops, military service members, firefighters, etc etc (and the list is VERY long), put their lives on the line. Football players play a children's game for millions and millions of dollars. The "they put their lives on the line" is a BS argument. They are paid and paid very well for any risk they VOLUNTEER for.

 

Hmm, and there are 32 teams with 53 players, and one holds out and of course that is the rule, not the exception.

The Jets did not have to pay his salary and could have fined him.

 

Why would the owners show thier books to the players when they do not show them to one another. It is a ridicilous request. Why dont all the players volunterr all thier tax returns for the last 10 years so we can see if they really need more money. When put that way it sounds kind of dumb dont it.

 

If you are crying poor and asking ( at least initially) for a $1 billion back, then showing your books doesn't sound too unreasonable.

The NFL is a monopoly. This is not a normal business where the workers can just go "find a another job" in the industry. The NFL owners get substantial benefits from their position, and therefor may have have extra burdens that a normal business would not have. ie if you are going to collectively bargain with your workers in order to continue to enjoy your monopolistic industry, then showing the books doesn't seem too bad....unless they do not show that you are really in such dire financial straits.

 

I am on the owners' side here. I can not feel sorry for people that can make up to twenty million dollars per season to play the game they have loved their whole life and get six months off every year.

Why shouldn't the owners make a lot of money? It is their billion+ dollar franchise. I would like to see at least one hundred million dollars in profit per year on an investment like that.

Even the average players make a million plus per season. The players can go cry me a river for all I care. They deserve no more than what they had before (and I think less).

 

You would rather feel sorry for billion dollar owners who won't bat an eye to sue a 73 year old grandmother like Chainsaw Dan did? Maybe you can feel sorry when Paul Allen's 80 foot yacht breaks down. Oop, not worry, he has a backup! Eh, have fun living with your choices.

Personally I don't feel sorry for either side - they both make more than I will probably ever see, though I think it is rather obvious that the owners brought this situation on themselves.

 

What you are saying is not true at all. There are several other professional leagues a player is free to play in if they do not like the deal the NFL offers them if they are fortunate enough to be offered a deal at all. The NFL is not a monopoly and the NFL does not prevent players from seeking other revenue while being employed by the NFL. They also do not ask for any of the money the player receives from these alternate incomes that result from their affiliation in the league.

The real legitimate gripe these players have is how contracts are not grunted in the NFL. If that is what they were arguing for I would have a different opinion. What happens if next year the league only collects 8 billion instead of 9 are the players going to take a 600 million cut to balance the percentages out? I doubt that.

Further more as much right as players have to ask for more money the owners have the right to offer less. The owners have the right to cut every player on the team if they choose to. The owners also have the right to lower the salary cap if they choose too. When the players start paying their own salaries then they can decide how money they are entitled too. If they do not like the deal on the table I encourage Peyton Manning and the rest of them to go apply for a job in arena football and see if they can negotiate over 60% of that leagues profits away from the owners.

The owners do not like the deal they agreed to and under the agreement they are legally opting out of it. There is nothing in the agreement that says they can only renegotiate a new deal if they are willing to open their books up. The guy who use to run the now nonexistent nflpa is an idiot. He negotiated himself right out of a job. The players have offered nothing to the owners to make them budge from their position. If the players don't come back, sure it will set the league back but it will rebound as the new players gain experience. The only reason 1987 was such a disaster was because they were all rookies so it was sloppy but time would of fixed that problem.

 

who says what the owners didnt show enough? the players? same people that need you to believe tye r just?

 

They want the billion because as it was, the players were making almost 700 million more than the owners during the last agreement. I hate both sides right now but no way I'm siding with these players. The owners have tons and tons of expences and they pay health care for the players. The players? They pay taxes....

 

Well, no, that is not what happened Ozman, the owners took 1 billion off of the table before a dime goes to the players, then they pocketed another 1 billion via the negation of FA for 4th and 5th yr players, then they tried to take out a 4 billion dollar payment/loan from the TV Networks.

Now I do think D Smith is a newb at this and it hurt the process of negotiating a new CBA, however the owners themselves wanted this as well, that is why they voided the CBA 2 yrs ago.

How is D smith supposed to negotiate a deal that not only represents a step back for money available to players, but to do so during boom times for the NFL itself? There is really no way he could do so without overwhelming proof that the NFL was actually losing money and would lose even more money if the status quo remained in place.

That has never been shown to have happened or is likely to happen unless the ownership gives far more insight into their finances.

 

It is exactly what's happened.

Under the old CBA, the NFL grossed approximately $9 billion annually. Of that, $1 billion is given to the owners off the top for expenses. After that, the remaining $8 billion is split with 60 percent ($4.8 billion) going to the players and 40 percent (another $3.2 billion for a total of $4.2 billion) going to owners.

That's over a half a billion dollars more going to the players.

NOW the owners wanted an extra billion dollars off the top. That would have put the players making 400 million less after getting nearly 60 percent of the pot all these years.

Screw D Smith and what the players want. They get all that EXTRA while the owners pay their health care, pay the mortgages on stadiums and practice facilties, transportation and hotels, electricity bills, coaches salaries, assistants, film room personel, trainers and I could go on and on and on. All the while the only thing they see is their teams value go up. Of which how many times to we see teams actually sold? The only thing they can do is borrow money against their teams value and make money elsewhere.

Meanwhile...

The players pay their own taxes and that's it.

 

Now think about that for a moment, "1 billion off of the top for expenses" inow their bills are all prepaid, in essence they are not bearing risk per se on the 8 billion leftover.

Poor dears, how will they manage on a mere 7.5 billion in cash?

An additional 1 billion for 2 billion off of the top, that is 4x the amount of payrolls currently or 64 million per team in guaranteed cash.

This with 6.5 billion still just floating around "somewhere".

Recall that 1 billion for expenses off of the top?

And their health, when the owners are having their bills prepaid I find the "oh, they bare the risk!" a bit absurd bro, they bare no risk at all, their biggest risk is maybe new stadium construction..but wait...owners want taxpayers to foot the bill for those as well.

I do think the owners have every right to a 18 game regular season and the players are having sandy manginis gains no sympathy from me, the financial stuff the owners are claiming on it's face is laughable, basically the expenses are prepaid, even at 32 teams x 118 million in payroll that still leaves 4 billion or so floating around the NFL or 128 million per team and that does not include additional stadium revenues from non NFL events.

 

Get the facts straight...

Some owners would like to change the Team Revenue Sharing System arguing the system doesn't take expenses into account when revenue is shared.

As it was, the players got almost 54 percent.

Now the owners want 54 percent.


Good for them! They deserve it 1000000000 percent.

 

Hmm, then explain the fact that there is 1 billion taken off of the top to pay those expenses? Does that magically not count?

 

I just did the math for it. The players actually get almost 60 percent. After all is said and done the players still get 54 percent.

 

Well using your logic, the players have expenses..too..mortgages and what have you do not go away because you play football.

54%, 63%, 42%, whatever, why should that matter? 50-50 looks nice but means nothing.

BTW, I'm not really going to pick a side in all of this, put it this way, Vontae Davis is flying to Uganda today, think he cares a bit about it?

Then why should anyone?

 

That's not my logic. That's what it is and we're talking about football operations, not personal. The owners have that as well. As a matter of fact if not for the money these owners made before they bought their teams, we might not have football...

 

"I own a NFL team because I like Charity"

Come on man..

Bottom line is, there are reasons why NFL teams rarely come up for sale, and when they are sold they make fortunes for the seller, that is when the B$ stops and the books are trotted out, last couple of teams sold went for over 1 billion and where typically bought in the low 150 million, or less, range.

 

The players make the nfl. These are special humans. They are the reason that no other league has succeeded. There aren't that many humans that can do what Henne can, let alone a Manning or a Brees.


The salary cap is for smaller market teams. Some of you guys are asking to name another business were employees get to see the bosses books, well name another business were there is a formal salary restriction that every business in the industry adheres to.



Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk

 

Charity is played by the players not the owners...

If you own something the only one who needs to know exactly what you made is the IRS. The rest deserve nothing and who cares if they make a killing once they sell it after 20 years? The Bungaloes owner would be the only deserving to lose money...