Freeman: Owners are back to their old tricks

Posts removed.

No politics in the main forum please.

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.

"jdang307 wrote:

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

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.

"ckparrothead wrote:

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.

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..

"Muck wrote:

For the same reason people report crimes anonymously.

Not everyone is ok with putting their name on the record. And if a reporter named his source, I'm pretty sure he'd cease being a reporter. That's a betrayal of trust. And the flow of information as we know it would cease to exist.

Your issue is more of an ethical one. Should these people be talking out of turn. Where is the line. And is it right for the purveyor of information (Freeman) to report it.

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

"steveincolorado wrote:

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.

:confused:

Are you bothered because there's an opposite viewpoint on the media issue, or because we don't allow politics in the main forum?

If you wish to talk politics, we have a forum for that.

"Ozzy wrote:

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 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.

"ckparrothead wrote:

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.

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.

"Silverphin wrote:

You know, while I always sided with the players, I understood why people sided with the owners. Now, I don't see how.

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.

"ckparrothead wrote:

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.

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?

"Southbeach wrote:

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.

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.

"Southbeach wrote:

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

"ckparrothead wrote:

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.

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

"rafael wrote:

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

"Ozzy wrote:

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.

"ckparrothead wrote:

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

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.

"rafael wrote:

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.

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

"Ozzy wrote:

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.