Owners vs Players- Your Choice?

Clearly the Players, I feel for them, must be very though having all that God giving talent and not be able to make more money then the Owners....

players

Owners. Players should have their salaries cut in half. Owners should net 80 to 120 million per year on their franchises. Players get too big a slice of the pie

I am for the fans ... to hell with both of them

Actually I'm sick of billionaires arguing with millionaires about how to split up a ridiculously large sum of money. Nope I don't like D Smith, but I don't like Jerrurah Jones all that much either. As far as I'm concerned the owners put up the capital to make it happen and take the finacial risk. Clearly the players take a ridiculous amount of physical risk and there should be a cadillac of a healthplan given to these guys in perpetuity upon retirement. It should be in the deal for all these guys going forward. It has always been the players union who supplied it in the past but they have clearly not done enough. In my opinion that does not make them much different from the other side of the aisle. Both sides trying to maximize profit.

If I have to make a choice I'm siding with the owners, but by the slimmest of margins.

Neither. I choose the fans.

"Southbeach wrote:

It's difficult for me to take one side or the other in this dispute, as I see points on both sides.

For the owners, they made a bad deal on the last CBA, and are trying to rectify it. Al ot of how the NFL is structured is against anti-trust law, and the draft if flat out illegal. However, with a CBA they get away with it, as they should, and it has worked to the benefit of all for many years.

The owners have negotiated in good faith, to a degree, and have made concessions to try to get a deal done. I know they are hiding something by refusing to open their books. That is their right but, only if they do not ask for additional money for expenses.

The players are trying to keep the great deal Upshaw got for them, as well they should. They have the law on their side but, must understand that if they "Take It To The Limit," they will destroy the game as we now know it.

I do not believe the players have negotiated in good faith to the same extent as owners. As far as I know, they have made no concessions on anything other than the rookie wage scale. They have stated that the 18 game schedule is off the table, and have offered no more than about $140M for owner's additional expenses. They know it's a lot more than that.

I further believe that D. Smith was the wrong choice to represent the players. He has his own political agenda, and that does not help the players. JMO
Lastly, after the draft day abortion of asking kids not to attend, I think Smith & the players would be now conceding a popular vote election from fans. WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY THINKING?

Which side do you take or, like me, take none?

I think you are right in your synopsis here. One thing though, I just don't get the idea of the players insisting on the owners opening up the books...no company ever does that in negotiations and even if they did, and assuming the numbers would show a decline, probably due to the economy as much as anything else, the players would claim the numbers were doctored or that the ow2ners didn't know what they were doing and ignore any trends there might be....it's a no win situation for the owners in that regard....

"Larryfinfan wrote:

I think you are right in your synopsis here. One thing though, I just don't get the idea of the players insisting on the owners opening up the books...no company ever does that in negotiations and even if they did, and assuming the numbers would show a decline, probably due to the economy as much as anything else, the players would claim the numbers were doctored or that the ow2ners didn't know what they were doing and ignore any trends there might be....it's a no win situation for the owners in that regard....

They think they're partners. Of course without having to pony up a thing except for their own personal taxes.

Owners.
Why should they open books to a worker?
Can McDonald's employees make the owners open their books to decide how much money they have to share?
Players in NFL get paid very well if they are worth it, many to much. Wanting to stick your nose in a owners books is absurd.
Go back to college and get a office job for 75k a year.

Screw the Owners!!! You can't ask for an extra billion in profits right off the top and not want to give up the paperwork to show that is really what you need, or to show how much more of a profit that it would be for them.

Like somebody said before if somebody told me they were going to take $1 an hour off my raise this year so that this Million dollar company can make even more money, I'd say screw you and try and find a new job.

Players. Short careers, brutal game.

And the owners are very clearly lying through their teeth.

"xphinfanx wrote:

Owners.
Why should they open books to a worker?
Can McDonald's employees make the owners open their books to decide how much money they have to share?
Players in NFL get paid very well if they are worth it, many to much. Wanting to stick your nose in a owners books is absurd.
Go back to college and get a office job for 75k a year.

:lol:

At the fast food comparison......

I don't see why anyone needs to take a side. I have no sympathy for either side. The owners are largely responsible for this situation, but that the players are not without fault.

Pick a side though? Ludicrous imo.

"KingMotion wrote:

Underlined misinformed. Bolded flat-out wrong.

The owners never asked for a billion in profit. They called for another billion in revenues. Revenues that go toward mortgages on stadiums, maintenance, repairs, team gear, transport, food, coaches salaries, staff salaries, player healthcare etc. I bolded the off the top thing because profit is what is left AFTER expenses are paid.

If I go exactly on what you said, who would quite over a RAISE being $1 less than they thought it was. But listen, what you said, QUITTING, is making a case against the players. Rather than Quit, the players are pretending like they're investors in the NFL. You just basically said you'd do the opposite of what the players are doing.

You are correct, I did put profit when it is indeed revenues. If all that money is going towards those sorts of things, then why not open up the book and show that this is what its costing us and the first billion that we are taking off the top just isn't getting the job done??

On a side note you can't act like that money doesn't go towards the profit of the owners. Just for simple math we'll say its 10 Billion dollars. If the owners are taking 2 Billion off the top and splitting 60% players and 40% owners like it is now. The owners are walking away with 5.2 Billion dollars in which a portion of that is profits. The players are walking away with 4.8 Billion dollars. If everything were to stay the same and the owners only took a Billion off the players would make 5.4 Billion. Pretty big pay cut if you ask me, 600 Million dollars.

Either way, if you want to call it profits or not the owners slice of pie becomes bigger which also makes the profit slice of that bigger. If not the owners shouldn't have any problems showing where they really need that money to improve the operation.

The Owners, and why, because they have been willing to compromise plus it was not the owners who got up from the table to rushed to the Court House.

My hope is that this judge makes them revert back to the 2009 season and its CAP figure to make sure the players have to take a pay cut, it would be most fitting imho.

It's hard for me to pick a side when I feel both the players and the owners are moe concerned with money than the folks who pay their saleries.The whole thing just turns me off as we have seen this story before.

Normally I'm a management guy, but I'm largely with the players on this one.

The owners had no intention of negotiating until their $4 billion 'lockout insurance' was taken away by the courts.

IMO, their plan since they opted out was to hard-line, lock the players out and simply wait until they caved (and they would). Then the courts ruled and all of the sudden they make a bunch of concessions and we get close to an agreement.

The players aren't without fault. The decertification is indeed a sham. But again, ownership had little intention of getting anything done until they lost their leverage a month ago IMO.

No matter how you slice or dice this, it is a partnership, and has nothing whatsoever to do with employer-employee deals. An employer "tells" an employee what he will pay him, and if he does not accept, he hires someone else. No comparison to this dispute.

The owners are "asking" their partners (players) for a billion dollars, or whatever, for additional expenses. Their partners (players) are saying that they know expenses have increased but, need to know how much. The only way to know that is by opening the books. This makes perfect sense to me.

Owners do not have to open the books, as long as they don't ask for additional money, off the top, for something which is not known.

"Muck wrote:

Normally I'm a management guy, but I'm largely with the players on this one.

The owners had no intention of negotiating until their $4 billion 'lockout insurance' was taken away by the courts.

IMO, their plan since they opted out was to hard-line, lock the players out and simply wait until they caved (and they would). Then the courts ruled and all of the sudden they make a bunch of concessions and we get close to an agreement.

The players aren't without fault. The decertification is indeed a sham. But again, ownership had little intention of getting anything done until they lost their leverage a month ago IMO.

Good point but, at least the owners did make concessions after that. I saw nothing from the players.

Players.

"Southbeach wrote:

Good point but, at least the owners did make concessions after that. I saw nothing from the players.

Rookie wage scale.

"Hurricane wrote:

Cool, bro.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=U.S._Marine_Corps/Salary

http://www.indeed.com/salary/q-Police-Officer-l-Florida.html

why are you comparing nfl players wages (who make billions for their company) to some jobs where you dont even need an education to do? You do realize nfl is entertainment? Actors make 7 million a movie, for pretending to be characters......but the movies they make, make BILLIONS so they make a huge amount of money for it. Comparing it to teachers salaries, or random professions is pointless and apples to oranges.

"Hurricane wrote:

How is it, in any way, a partnership?

Do you know what an owner is?

Yes, I do have a fair comprehension of the English language. LOL Do you understand what a partnership is?

Under their current anti-trust status, the owners, and football, now survive but, ONLY with a CBA. Without an agreement between both sides, there is no NFL as we now know it. The league would revert to Baseball guidelines with individual teams doing what they want.

As such, this is most definitely a partnership. One cannot function without the other. How can you, or anyone, dispute this? This is why both sides are asking for things, as opposed to dictating them.

"Two Tacos wrote:

Rookie wage scale.

Yeah, that's about it, and this was something everyone has been in agreement on for years. Not very impressive in trying to get a deal done.

"Two Tacos wrote:

Rookie wage scale.

Is that really a concession? I thought the current players (vets) were for that. Pretending to conceed something that is a benefit for nearly all players is kinda laughable to me.