Players are right. The only problem I've from the player's side is rookie scale. Look, owners agreed to this deal, and have opted out of it before it expired. So, if there are missed games or no off-season TC and practices, I blame the owners.
Owners want to play 18 games, fix the rookie scale and want players to take a big pay cut. They can't have everything. They should open up their books, so the players can know how much money are they really making. The fact that they won't open up their books indicates that they will come off as greedy b***hes, and won't be able to force players to take cuts.
There are 502 users in the forums
CBA Thread
Feb 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM
- 4ML
- Veteran
- Posts: 53,551
- NFL Pick 'em
Feb 28, 2011 at 3:43 PM
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,995
sally jenkins: NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides
...That's really what this is all about. The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.
They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.
What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own.
They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.
What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own.
Feb 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM
- 9erReign
- StonksKing
- Posts: 49,922
at this becoming an Obama bashing thread. Any excuse huh?
Feb 28, 2011 at 3:48 PM
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,995
Originally posted by 9erReign:
seriously. watch out for the boogeyman!
Feb 28, 2011 at 3:58 PM
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,995
Forbes: Numbers show NFL's 'economic realities' for lockout unwarranted
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
Feb 28, 2011 at 10:15 PM
- pelos21
- Veteran
- Posts: 7,736
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Forbes: Numbers show NFL's 'economic realities' for lockout unwarranted
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
Are we one of them?
Feb 28, 2011 at 10:16 PM
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,995
Originally posted by pelos21:Originally posted by HessianDud:
Forbes: Numbers show NFL's 'economic realities' for lockout unwarranted
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
Are we one of them?
i doubt it.
Feb 28, 2011 at 10:25 PM
- pelos21
- Veteran
- Posts: 7,736
Originally posted by HessianDud:Originally posted by pelos21:Originally posted by HessianDud:
Forbes: Numbers show NFL's 'economic realities' for lockout unwarranted
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
Are we one of them?
i doubt it.
Nah were not, I just checked.
Mar 1, 2011 at 7:36 AM
- fryet
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,171
Originally posted by ghostrider:
Each side is right about some stuff and wrong about others. For example, the owners are right about the need for a rookie cap but they are wrong about the 18 game season.
I would agree with this. In fact, I wonder if the owners raised the 18 game schedule suggestion as something that they plan to give up in the negotiations. i.e. we will give up 18 game seasons if you give us more money.
I find it interesting in all of the pro-player articles, no one is talking about the fact that the owners want more money to build stadiums. That is the primary reason they want to change the contract, I believe.
Mar 1, 2011 at 7:46 AM
- lamontb
- Veteran
- Posts: 31,412
- NFL Pick 'em
Originally posted by HessianDud:
Forbes: Numbers show NFL's 'economic realities' for lockout unwarranted
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
Nice info. From what I understand the owners aren't currently losing money. there theory is if things continue as is that eventually down the road they won't turn a profit. The question really what do they consider down the road. If they don't fully open the books there really is no way to tell or project how the current model will hold up.
Mar 1, 2011 at 10:39 AM
- HessianDud
- Veteran
- Posts: 22,995
Originally posted by lamontb:Originally posted by HessianDud:
Forbes: Numbers show NFL's 'economic realities' for lockout unwarranted
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”
But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.
What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?
The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.
That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?
The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.
Is the NFL profitable by other measures?
According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”
The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.
lots of really interesting stuff in this article, including the fact that by one measure--their share of the salary cap--rookie wages have actually decreased.
Nice info. From what I understand the owners aren't currently losing money. there theory is if things continue as is that eventually down the road they won't turn a profit. The question really what do they consider down the road. If they don't fully open the books there really is no way to tell or project how the current model will hold up.
after reading this info, i firmly believe that the owners have to open up their books and explain, to the players and the fans, what the situation is and what they project it to be. Because they need to refute the idea that "they want guarantees that no other business has."--which is to continue making record profits during a huge recession. I think this article, and another one I posted in this thread, spells it out very well that the owners have a somewhat unrealistic idea of what their profits should be.
Mar 1, 2011 at 11:04 AM
- valrod33
- Hall of Small
- Posts: 138,020
- NFL Pick 'em
WASHINGTON -- New York Giants owner John Mara is part of the group representing the NFL as the league and the players' union have returned to mediation, with less than 60 hours until their labor contract expires.
There's no telling, of course, whether the sides will fare any better Tuesday than they did over seven consecutive days of talks that wrapped up last week -- and left the league's owners and the NFL Players Association far apart on the major issues.
The collective bargaining agreement runs out at midnight as Thursday becomes Friday on the East Coast, and the owners could lock out the players afterward. The union could also decertify -- essentially, declare itself out of the business of representing players -- and let the players take their chances in court.
There's no telling, of course, whether the sides will fare any better Tuesday than they did over seven consecutive days of talks that wrapped up last week -- and left the league's owners and the NFL Players Association far apart on the major issues.
The collective bargaining agreement runs out at midnight as Thursday becomes Friday on the East Coast, and the owners could lock out the players afterward. The union could also decertify -- essentially, declare itself out of the business of representing players -- and let the players take their chances in court.
Mar 1, 2011 at 11:14 AM
- mcbaes72
- Veteran
- Posts: 9,679
Wow, I'm surprised at the results so far on this poll. 27% owners, 23% players, 50% neither. From what I've read in PL threads, it seems most people are against union workers. I was certain the owners would be closer to 50% and neither would be at 27% instead. Seems to be a double-standard around here.
Mar 1, 2011 at 11:17 AM
- lamontb
- Veteran
- Posts: 31,412
- NFL Pick 'em
Originally posted by valrod33:
WASHINGTON -- New York Giants owner John Mara is part of the group representing the NFL as the league and the players' union have returned to mediation, with less than 60 hours until their labor contract expires.
There's no telling, of course, whether the sides will fare any better Tuesday than they did over seven consecutive days of talks that wrapped up last week -- and left the league's owners and the NFL Players Association far apart on the major issues.
The collective bargaining agreement runs out at midnight as Thursday becomes Friday on the East Coast, and the owners could lock out the players afterward. The union could also decertify -- essentially, declare itself out of the business of representing players -- and let the players take their chances in court.
these dudes don't even actually meet each other and talk. They just tell the mediator then the mediator goes back and forth between each group. they need to get a room together and bang these issues out.
Mar 1, 2011 at 11:30 AM
- fryet
- Veteran
- Posts: 3,171
Originally posted by mcbaes72:
Wow, I'm surprised at the results so far on this poll. 27% owners, 23% players, 50% neither. From what I've read in PL threads, it seems most people are against union workers. I was certain the owners would be closer to 50% and neither would be at 27% instead. Seems to be a double-standard around here.
Well, the choice "They are both greedy" is the easy one. If you take that out, you will see that owners get slightly more support than the players. IMO the owners are not going far enough. I think they should set aside 1 billion a year to pay for stadiums. 32 teams, each gets a billion dollars every 32 years to build a new stadium. That way they can stop asking tax payers to foot the bill for a new stadium.