Is it too late to start a baseketball league?

 

Anyone know how many there normally are?

 

What may be even more surprising is that with all the uncertainty circulating about next season a record 56 underclassmen declared for the draft this year.

 

They'll play this year.

 

they should do away with free agency. the league was better when there was more stability on rosters. Teams were able to build dynasties and keep them. We havent had a great team in the league since the Joe Montana 49ers. Government screwed this up by not affording the NFL anti trust protection

 

The Colts and Patriots haven adapted pretty well to the current NFL.

 

i'm not even sure if those teams make the playoffs back in the day

 

I blame the union as much as I blame the owners.

 

I'm a bit confused how everyone automatically points the finger at the owners. Owners like the players have a great deal of risk invested into their particular stake in the league. Its understandable that both sides want to get the most that they can out of the deal, but to mark the players as "innocent" in this entire debacle just seems ill-informed.

 

The owners:

-voided the final 3 yrs of the prior CBA
-refuse to open their books to back up their claims that they are losing money
-already have 1 Billion dollars to split 32 ways, now they want 2 billion
-have not bargained in good faith as the TV Contracts included pre payment clauses so they have revenues while they lockout the players
-have the power to call the lockout, the players have no interest in going on strike as long as there is a contract in place

To me it is crystal clear, ownership and Goodell are the party making demands of the players not the other way around.

As for 600 Free Agents, why should they sign them when they can be signed later at reduced contracts?

 

Personally I don't want dynasties. Currently there are still teams that rise to the top, and have won multiple championships. But todays parity gives everyone a better chance, and any team (including even the Dolphins) has a chance to go all the way.

 

"The players get 60 percent of the revenues and the owners assume 100 percent of the costs. Is that fair?

 

Untrue, the owners have reserved for themselves 1 billion dollars out of any configuration of the Salary Cap, they also use public monies to pay for stadiums, what costs are they assuming "100% of"?

 

In the last 10yrs there have been 10 different NFC representatives in the Super Bowl, in the last 10 yrs there has been 4 AFC teams in the Super Bowl, Patriots, Steelers, Raiders and Colts.

 

The money that the owners get from the TV revenues in the event that a lockout occurs has to get paid back to the companies. It's like a reverse mortgage or something. While the league will have sustainable revenues, its not just free money that they are getting.

If the players are going to continually demand more and more money from teams and owners or refuse to play....I don't see why when owners demand more money from the players, and threaten to not furnish the league, its a big deal. It's like the players want to play like the poor innocent victim, while steady putting their hands out. That money comes from the owners pockets. If I'm a million/billionaire and I'm owning a team, I'd want to draw the line somewhere too. Everything the players want costs money. The owners aren't the Federal Government. They are in this thing to make money. As great as the NFL is for players and fans, owners are in this thing to make money. If it don't make dollars it don't make sense.

 

Sure it is, they have massive, interest free loans that they can invest for a yr.

One can say that about Draft Choices, however with players in Free Agency that is completely different matter, the Owners themselves choose to pay off such demands, that is their choice, if they use a Franchise Tag they effectively lock a player into their organization for a fixed fee, if the player does not like it..to bad for them, the Owners are trying to have it both ways.

Not opening their finances to back up their claims should be the first clue that they are not dealing in good faith.

 

I'm also talking about guys who are under contract for 2 more years and decide they aren't going to come to camp or work out or even play part of the season because they think they should get more money.

Thats the thing about "good faith," its not mandatory. If it was, it wouldn't be called "good faith." I wouldn't expect the union to take that information and act maturely with it either. Just make more waves by saying the owners should be getting less than what they got in the first place.

 

I wish I had any interest in going to the Stadium on Sunday to watch the owners.

 

What are the players paying for?

 

exactly, the players really have no leverage here .... and by rights - they shouldn't, they make a lot of money to play a game .... yes, a 'game' that they pay 'a' price for for the rest of their lives - but still an incredible amount of $$$$ over a short period of time, that most of us never see in a decade of earnings. Outside of health issues on the back end, it's just hard to find a 'soft' spot for the players in any professional sports league.

 

How does the fact that football is a game mean that NFL players have no right?

 

to me, the owners have a legitimate right to earn approxiamtely ten percent return on their investments which means for a 1 billion dollar franchise like the Dolphins, Ross has a right to take 100 million off the top. i would bet owners make far less than that

 

10% a year?

 

well in the current economic environment probably about 5% but in more normal times 10%. you figure you can get a safe return with treasuries that are tax free. so there has to be a premium added for risk and effort. 10% in good times 5% in bad, otherwise why bother. your money would be better invested elsewhere

 

Does that mean just in revenue or does value of the franchise count in the 10%?

 

thats a good point. i guess you could consider it like real estate. i view it more as a bricks and mortar business

 

Trust me, all the owners make money, and lots of it. The NFL owners are in this to make money and they do very well.

 

Why is it that the owners always get the blame in a labor dispute ?? This mess, as you say, was caused by the players union and the owners together, not just the owners. I just read where Kevin Mawae is now a spokesman for us fans as well. He informed me, that us fans don't want an 18 game season?? I don't ever remember him or anyone else asking me that question, in fact I like the 18 game season !! These idiots (owners and players and union) need to sit down at a table and not get up until an agreement is reached. They need to shut the f___ up about what fans want and stick to what they and the owners need to do to make this happen.

Don't blame the owners solely on any of this. This mess was created by idiots who refuse to sit down, discuss and compromise until an agreement is reached...

 

jake, that's a really relative statement there. Certainly they are in it to make money. That's what free enterprise is all about. While naturally, I think they make 'lots of money', I'm not the ones who invested my money originally to make that 'lots of money'. There isn't anything wrong with that. What's wrong is that they (the owners and the players) seem to be determined to 'cook the goose that lays the golden eggs'. This formula has worked since the 80's...they need to just figure it out and keep it going, instead of being determined to destroy it....

 

i'm just saying when you get into a business you dont do it for 2% returns. most small to mid sized business are priced to get a 20% return on investment per year. if we consider an nfl team a large business then the return should be smaller but high enough that your money isnt better spent elsewhere. 10% would really be the bare minimum i believe of what an owner should expect. maybe 7% if you believe that the assets will appreciate quickly

 

Why? Most of the money they make on the team is when they sell it.

For instance Wayne bought 85% of the Dolphins for $140 million dollars in 1994. In 2010 when he sold the 50% to Ross he sold it for $550 million.

I am not a genius of finance, however I do think he made a pretty good return.

 

You have to. The situations is collectively bargained.

 

Many would argue that most of the profit owners make off of their investments should come from the appreciated value of the franchise when it gets sold.

 

If I own an asset...That I paid for, I should be able to collect what I can on it.......

That's just me though. I'm not about giving my money to other people unless I buy a good or service from them.

I find people figgureing out how much money I have a right to make obscene.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/28/mawae-says-players-got-such-a-great-deal-in-2006/

 

You don't wanna go back to the days without Free Agency, trust me. You think there's little parity in the league now? At least FA gives the bottom feeders a chance to improve. What if we couldn't sign Dansby or Marshall? (I understand Marshall was traded but it was because he wanted a new contract that he was available in the first place)

If you get rid of FA, you'll have NO parity.

 

Not to mention you limit how much a player can make. That's BS. I don't want anyone telling ME how
much I should make.

 

The real problem here is that NEITHER SIDE has been good about getting their message out to the public for us to accurately decide which side of public opinion to lean towards. Honestly, does anyone REALLY know what the specific conditions are that both sides want? At this point, the public knows that there could be a work stoppage, but over what? And honestly, we see millionaires fighting with billionaires and it all becomes very off putting to us regular folk.

The first group to step forward and explain exactly what it wants and why, will ultimately win in the court of public opinion. The owners will get their way regardless because the NFL Players Union is awful, but netting the fans on your side will help break the other side quicker, or, in the player's case, get the owners to come off their demands incrementally.

 

Which is sad, because we, as fans, should automatically take the players side. If you were going to sympathize with someone and your choices were a millionaire or a billionaire, who would you choose? And mind you, most guy's in the NFL are not millionaires.