Freeman: Owners are back to their old tricks

I'm sure the owners have their reasons behind this, if indeed true. Most of them did not become multi million/billionaires overnight.

I side with the owners whereas there needs to be a rookie wage scale, and that the profits should be shared equally or in slight favor of the Owners. I don't see anything getting resolved like that but I surely hope that the owners get it closer to a 50/50 split.

So overall it means taking a paycut by the players but that scale can be divided up where players who play well get paid exceptionally. The unproven players, who hardly see the field get slightly less than they do now, and the average players get paid slightly less as well.

I don't care about the players accusing the owners of not showing all their profits. That's something that the players would like to prove and if they do or can get them to open their books I'm all for it. Split that up as well but until they can prove it, it is only accusations.

 

Not picking on you in particular in this thread but all too often I see this sentiment that financial might makes right. A lot of financial might is gained by stepping on people and through unfair practices. To me it seems like the owners are indeed trying to make more money the same way they've made their money up to now, and that's not a good thing.

The issue I see with this is, you say you're siding with the owners, but your description is very pro-player. It would be like me saying I plan to vote Republican in the next election because I feel like there's a wealth imbalance in this country and I would like to see an increase in the progressiveness of our tax system along with more social welfare programs. The two just don't fit. What I'm describing is more typically associated with the Democrats' stance.

As it pertains to the players/owners thing, there's been a longstanding 50/50 relationship on total revenue between players and owners. That is what was already in place. They accomplished this split in the last CBA by actually negotiating a salary cap of 59.6% of QUALIFIED revenue, which involved slicing a $1 billlion slice right off the top of total revenue and having that be kept by the owners regardless of whether they spend it on new stadiums or not. Also, the salary floor was about 85 to 90 percent of the salary cap. The net effect was about a 50/50 split of total revenue.

The owners are the ones trying to change it and up until very recently their proposals all pointed toward a 40/60 split. More recently, as per leaks that came from the owners meetings of July 21st, the owners approved a 48/52 split with the salary floor being right at the salary cap. But now, as per BOTH Michael Silver and Mike Freeman, the owners reneged on that 48 percent offer on total revenue, and their new offer is closer to 45 percent. I guess some people consider that just negotiation tactics. I consider it straight up reneging and unethical. To each his own.

You have to take account the nature of how this all came about. Like I said, it's the owners that want to change the long standing revenue split. They've been arguing that they're forced to, it's not about greed it's that the current business plan is broken and does not work. To me it's very simple, if that's your argument, just go ahead and lay out the numbers and prove your case. If you've got a case, the numbers will show it.

But in reality, the economic argument was a farse. It always was, and everyone should be able to see through it. They've enjoyed 8% annual growth the last decade and the most respected financial analysts expect them to continue enjoying close to that in the future, and yet the owners in their last proposal prior to the lockout tried to slip in growth projections that amount to 2.5% annual growth over the next 4 years. As a financial analyst myself, that's absurd. It requires explanation...explanation the owners really had no interest in giving.

The real problems are related to revenue-sharing between owners. Rather than fix that problem which could start much internal strife between owners and has the potential to get even uglier than this lockout business, the rich owners would rather draw the necessary relief for the poor owners from out of the players' share. That's why you have some of the richest owners like Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones leading the charge on the CBA negotiations.

Not trying to preach here, but I've done a lot of research over the months on what is going on in these negotiations, because they fascinate me. I know I don't come off "balanced" in my stance but I can say for sure that I came by my opinions honestly through research and analysis of the situation, just as I do with individual players. I think that certainly both sides are engaging in bad practices, but for every instance I hear about such as the NFLPA lawyers arguing (ridiculously) that "total revenue" should include sales tax paid by customers, I see at least three or four other ridiculous/unethic/unlawful tactics taken by the owners in a process that they started (they opted out of the old CBA and have been preparing for this lockout for two years).

 

If you're reading between the lines of the following update...the mediator appointed by the 8th Circuit does not approve of the "bait and switch" tactics of the owners, agreeing to a revenue split of 48 percent and then suddenly reneging and saying 45 percent.

In response to the owners' belief that having a "verbal handshake" on the issue of the revenue split is meaningless, with everything being negotiable until a deal is done...Boylan insisted that everyone stay locked up in the room last night until 1am, and even wanted them to stay locked up beyond that. Then he called for them to meet early this morning. In effect, Arthur Boylan held everyone hostage. As a result, the two sides made "major strides" on that very PRIMARY issue.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/01/major-strides-made-on-revenue-split/

Arthur Boylan should have a TV show.

 

Despite various accusations, pretty much everyone out there from Mike Freeman to Michael Silver, Albert Breer and Mike Florio are all acknowledging that the owners did in fact reneg on their 48 percent total revenue sharing offer and try and dial it down to 45 percent. The players cried foul, and the owners say hey all is fair in negotiations, nothing is agreed upon until we sign on the dotted line.

It's no wonder things threatened to break down. The revenue split is THE central issue in this new CBA. The other stuff like the legacy fund for retired players, rookie wage scale, etc...it's all ancillary to the revenue split issue. It's no wonder that a last minute reneg on the central issue of these negotiations caused grousing and the near-collapse of the process.

Arthur Boylan acted very strongly and prudently to stop it from going further, basically holding everyone hostage until they came to their senses. It seems everyone are taking a three day break from negotiations and then things will start hot and heavy again Tuesday. I think that'll be the critical week. Boylan seems prepared to press everyone hard to stop the mickey mouse stuff and get sh-t done. Don't be surprised if he flexes his muscles again and forces them to stay in negotiation close to round the clock.

 

Oh you know you and I can conversate well enough and disagree at the same time. I'd never think you'd pick on anyone persay. You're just someone who does his homework and stands by his thoughts.

I don't doubt one bit that the owners tried to resort back to something they tried in the past but we're only speculating on what it was that they actually resorted back to.

With that said, I'm sure the owners are pushing against the players to make more but I'm probably always going to lean towards them making more and more simply because I see so many players come and go on the Dolphins yet have only seen 3 owners thru all the years. The one thing I do not approve of is how the one billion off the top is spent. If they collectively sat down and chose one stadium at a time to renovate or help with the building of new stadiums, better tailgating areas and so on with ALL of that money, I'd feel much more comfortable with being on their side and it being close to a 50/50 split from there. To date we've only seen the NFL help with a handfull of stadiums (i believe it started with NE) but those seem to be loans!

I don't see how I'm pro player although I do want players to make good money, I want the owners making more.

This is how it's been reported over and over so I really don't see how it is a 50/50 split.

Currently, the NFL grosses 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.

I know it's like 59. something percent for the players but using 60 percent is easier to work with and will not make too much of a difference. Not enough to make up for the $600,000 extra that the players are getting by using it.

 

There are a few things you're not accounting for in there, one important one being the salary floor. That became a central issue in the negotiation of a 48 percent revenue share for the players. In years past the salary floor was only 85 to 90 percent of the salary cap, and there were very lax accounting rules in place that allowed teams like the Buccaneers to manipulate contract incentives to where they could inflate their salary cap number above the salary floor without actually having spent the money. Most teams in the NFL had been doing that for years by the time the uncapped(unfloored) season came about, and it's no wonder the owners opted out of the old CBA and forced the uncapped(unfloored) season to come about. You see the problem with that practice is that you have to keep doing it every year more and more and eventually you have to spend the money...UNLESS an uncapped(unfloored) season comes along and then you can flush all those accruals down the toilet. And that's exactly what various teams did.

The net effect of all this is while in your example the players should have gotten 53% in salary CAP while the owners get 47%, the reality was that due to the wiggle room between the salary cap and salary floor, as well as the absence of stringent accounting principles, the players were getting closer to 50%. This was not unintended. The players and owners have always had about a 50/50 revenue split in place.

Also keep in mind that the $1 Billion off the top constituted a larger percentage in years past. Revenue has been growing at 8% annually over the last decade. Just two years ago, the revenue would have been $7.7 Billion at that rate, and in that scenario the salary cap would be 59.6% of $6.6 Billion, which is about 51.9% of the total revenue. In that year, the owners could use the wiggle room between cap and floor to pay the players as little as 45.6% of total revenue, if they desired. In actuality, it was probably just barely south of 50%. And let's also keep in mind that the owners used this uncapped(unfloored) year to pocket a LOT of money. I'd be surprised if cash-based payroll constituted more than 42% of total revenues in 2010.

When I say that you're describing a pro-player stance, I do so because the stance you described is almost exactly the one the players are fighting for in the negotiating room. The owners HAD been arguing for a more uneven split, until very recently.

 

I don't think he makes anything, I think he's being fed propaganda.

 

This is nothing but an opinion piece backed by nothing but text messages from frustrated players because they aren't getting their way so they are lashing out with negative propaganda. As was mentioned in the piece, there is negotiating going on. Half these athletes probably haven't been told no for anything since they became identified as top athletes in High School.

I'm solidly in the owners camp personally.

 

Oh well, I guess we can't speak our minds anymore on here.

Same as I guess every reporter is always right, they are never wrong.

 

Fair enough. But that same propaganda has been fed to every major news man covering the negotiations and they're now all accepting it as fact, for better or worse.

 

Yes it did become the main point to which the players have thought hard about the new offer being a 48 percent take. The owners have been focusing on the 60 percent after the 1 billion, and the players main focus has been the actual 53 percent. So yes, it is a lot closer to a 50/50 split but I'd rather it end up in the owners favor, IF one of the sides is to have that edge.

I'd also like to be a little clearer about what I'd like to see. I'd still want the owners to get the 2 billion a year in upfront money. Then split the rest 50/50 or 51/49 or something where the players are not flat out being screwed. BUT I'd, and I know this is wishfull thinking, but I'd like that money to be divided like this. The 1st billion is for the owners costs to run daily buisiness. The 2nd billion would be overseen by both the players (union, or lawyers) and owners to go towards upgrades and or new stadiums across the NFL as needed. So that's how I feel I lean towards to owners but in truth it would benefit everyone involved! The owners keep their stadiums up to date. The players get to have a say as to where things such as upgrades are actually done, and the fans get to see and feel the upgrades as well. With the most important thing for the fans being the fact that teams MAY no longer have to ask the states or counties they play in to pay for any such upgrades or new facilities thru taxing us fans.

Yeah, I know I'm dreaming but one neva knows..

 

If a reporter names his source, he would no longer recieve a lick of information. Point blank

 

If that's what you want there's no denying you're firmly in the owners' camp. $2 billion off the top and THEN a 50/50 split? That leaves the players with 39% of total revenue. Given the longstanding history of a 50/50 split, to me that's absurd but I'm sure Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown would love to hear you say that.

 

Does everyone understand that the owners, amongst themselves, are not splitting all revenue? The big market guys are making a whole lot more than the small market guys. This has caused some problems between owners, having nothing to do with the players.

 

I've read up on this more than most, and expenses are very confusing. Some owners pay a lease to a city funded stadium. Others spend a ton of money to build a stadium. How are these separated as expenses?

For example, if players are helping to pay for a stadium, or just for renovations, are they not entitled to something from the additional revenue from that stadium, such as concerts and other special events?

It's a very complicated issue without knowing what expenses are. If you are paying for a part of them, you should be able to know what you're paying for. That's just common sense.

 

I was on the side of the players, know I am on no ones side. I've grown to despise Maurice Smith every time I hear him talk and believe he is part of the reason this is not getting done.

 

My source tells me that the Patriots are going to try to win the Super Bowl. I can't tell you who my source is though.
I should be a reporter, this is easy!!

 

I hate the 'some revenue counts and some revenue doesn't count' part of their past agreement. If I were mediating this, I would (based on the scant info I currently have) include all revenue, keep the $1 billion exemption for the owners, have the split around 48% - 50%, rookie salary cap to minimize money paid out to busts, peg FA at 4 years, raise the cap floor to about 90% to keep teams spending more evenly and keeping vet salaries higher. In addition of course to the part they've all agreed about taking care of the retired players.

 

I would focus on the following:

1. Convert the automatic $1 Billion slice into a pay-as-you-go expense credit for stadium improvements. If the NFL spends only $340 million improving a stadium this year, that's all that gets shaved off the top.

2. I would NOT "peg the cap", which forces you to get into complicated issues of growth projections, "true up" and "true down" issues, etc.

3. Rookie wage scale with 4 year contracts for 1st rounders and 3 year contracts for all other picks.

4. Eliminate likely-to-be-earned incentive cap credits. Raise the salary floor to 95% of the salary cap (it was already at 90%).

5. Legacy fund for retired players is funded 50/50 by players and owners.

6. 50/50 revenue split, with total revenue to include all revenues, including concert revenue at stadiums, etc.

 

Without having a clue on what owners claim as expenses, I would just split things 48-52, give $500M to owners for expenses, and let owners do what they want on other expenses.

 

Yeah, I've always been more pro owner but let me also add that I also would not mind a 55/45 (or around there) split in favor of the players after the off the top money is taken by the owners. Even slightly higher to make it closer if need be. Plus the 2 billion never increases thru the length of the new agreement. I've herd or read, forgot where, that the TV revenues will exceed the 9 billion over time. If true, that should go into the divided money.

So yeah, getting upgrades favor the owners in more ways than one. Their teams worth will constantly rise but that's not why I'm behind it. To me, It keeps the fans from constantly being asked to pay for it. Plus it is the fans that go to games so they're the ones who get to enjoy the upgrades as well. I also think that season tickets will increase and hold steady this way. Unless of course teams just flat out suck.

I would also like to see the floor become AT LEAST 95 percent or higher.

But like I stated! One can dream right?

 

Absolutely! I'm pretty sure that's why we've seen teams try and manipulate the bottom and top end of the cap with as much as they do.

 

I'd be down with them getting a small percentage but would want it sent to their retirement fund.

 

You make that a 52/48 split in favor of the owners and I'd think long and hard on this!

 

I'd sign right now if you raise the cap floor to 95/96 percent.

 

I don't know that it has to be that high. I think teams need a certain amount of leeway if a coveted FA is expected to come out next year. I think that too high of a floor results in too many situations where a team can't bring in FAs without cutting a bunch of other players.

 

Why would the owners turn tricks?

 

Players don't deserve nothing from concerts! Why should they get money from them?? That's fricking stupid.

 

But most stadiums are municipally owned. The owners in most places don't have that revenue to share. That is why potentially our owner can make more than other owners, and one reason I am betting the cost to buy the Dolphins & stadium was so high.

 

That's the thing. Nothing is guaranteed in the NFL. Teams can trim off money to sign a FA. However, I think I'm still dreaming to get it at 95.

I'm betting it ends up at 93

 

A 90% cash floor has been reported in negotiations. My understanding is that this would exclude things like unearned bonuses. This is fair. Remember that teams need a reserve to cover replacing injured players during the course of the season or a trade before the deadline, etc.

 

That's a good point. On the other side, some teams are just paying rent for games played, while others have huge payments in debt service. I recall reading where one team, i think it was Zona, was getting free rent for years, and then it went to like $6M for the season.

 

Because they agree to things like a draft, FA, and a salary cap. That's the point of collective bargaining.

 

I'm sure this thing is going to be resolved. I was hoping that we can then get back to football. I was not thinking about the time it will take once a deal is done.

The lawyers have to draw up the agreement, owners have to sign, players have to sign, and then all the courts involved in the legal battles have to sign off as well.

It could take two more weeks after a deal is reached.

Tick Tock, Tick Tock.

 

I'm still thinking it will be over 90... Not saying your wrong. It's just my estimate.

 

I don't doubt that it may end up over 90%. I'm just not sure it's the best decision for the reason that Southbeach mentioned.