|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Everything I've read tells me that we'll be lucky to see real football before October.
Hope I'm wrong. But I don't have a good feeling that I am.......
It is beginning to look as though the owners want a lock out.
Also, Goodell is beginning to sound foolish, appearing to be pushing for more talks between the two sides while attempting to reframe the owners actions, walking out of the negotiations, as mischaracterized.
The owners won't open their books and walk out of the negotiations...imo, it is obvious that the owners want a lock out.
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147 |
Another article concerning contract negotiations...
League claims it didn’t abandon CBA talks last week, even though the facts suggest otherwise
February 13, 2011
Last Thursday, ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported that Wednesday’s collapse of the labor talks occurred after the union proposed a 50-50 split of all revenues and the owners stormed out. The NFL never directly disputed Mort’s report, issuing instead a statement that hinted that the league could dispute the report, but that the league was opting to be discreet out of deference to its partner-turned-enemy.
“Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday’s meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side’s proposals or the meeting process,” the league said Thursday.
“Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal.”
Now, via on-the-record and apparent off-the-record disclosures to Mort and his business-suits-and-barstools partner Adam Schefter, the league seems to be trying to create the impression that management didn’t ditch the session after the union proposed a 50-50 share of all cash that rings through the register.
Specifically, Mort and Schefter report citing unnamed sources (i.e., management-side sources, in our assessment) that the league pulled the plug after the NFLPA characterized documents labeled “NFLPA Proposal” as something other than a collective bargaining proposal.
“As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told Mort and/or Schefter. “The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union.”
That reference to “abandoning the process” comes from the criticism the league has endured in the wake of the perception, based on Mort’s report, the NFL took their bat and ball and went home after the union made a reasonable opening proposal for sharing all money earned by the sport.
But the reality is that the NFL did abandon the process of bargaining. Having a conference call with the 32 clubs and convening internal meetings of the labor executive committee and negotiating team don’t constitute bargaining. The league and the union planned to meet for nine hours Wednesday and five hours Thursday, and at some point on Wednesday the league called the whole thing off.
No matter how the league spins it now, that constitutes abandoning the process.
Indeed, nothing contained in Sunday’s report amounts to a retraction of Mort’s Thursday report. (We’ve sent Mort an e-mail seeking clarification that his Thursday report still stands.) Thus, the fact remains that the NFLPA made a reasonable opening offer and the league opted not to respond to it. Now, the league adroitly is trying to chalk the whole thing up to a misunderstanding.
A misunderstanding that prompted the NFL to abandon the process.
The good news is that the two sides plan to meet again this week. But with only 18 days to go until the current labor deal expires, nothing short of a “sustained and disciplined commitment and round-the-clock talks” will get this done. We know that because Commissioner Roger Goodell called for a “sustained and disciplined commitment and round-the-clock talks” on ESPN’s Jim Rome is Burning, way back on January 21. And then when the parties were finally starting what could have become a “sustained and disciplined commitment and round-the-clock talks,” the NFL got its nose out of joint and walked out.
As a result, it’s reasonable to question whether the NFL truly wants to do a fair deal, or whether the NFL will only do a deal on its skewed and one-sided terms. As time passes, we’re starting to wonder whether, at the core, this fight isn’t about revenue sharing or the players getting a “such a great deal” in 2006 or an unsustainable model that generated $9 billion in a bad economy. We’re starting to suspect that the enormous financial success of the league has left the owners believing that the players are simply making too much money, and that the owners want to take some of it back.
Sometimes, the simplest explanation is the accurate one. And with the league unwilling to provide hard evidence to support changing a system to which 30 of 32 owners agreed five years ago, it’s hard not to think that this is all about the owners realizing that the players are getting paid more than the owners think they should, that the owners have the leverage to squeeze them into giving a chunk of it back, and that they’ve decided to squeeze.
web page
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147 |
This story is not good news folks...
Jay Feely says Jerry Richardson talked down to Peyton Manning
2/13/2011
Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post reports Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely disclosed an interesting anecdote about a recent bargaining session in Dallas between the NFL and the NFL Players Association.
He revealed that Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson talked down to Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees during the negotiation.
“Jerry Richardson, he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?” Feely said during an appearance on the Michael Kay Show on ESPN Radio. “And sit there and say dismissively to Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you understand how to read that?’ That doesn't help us get a deal done."
Richardson is regarded as a hard-liner.
Editors Note: Richardson is the only owner who is a former NFL player. My guess is he wants the players to make what he did back in the old days.
web page
Let's see Goodell explain this behavior by the owners... 
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,426 |
This is only going to get worse. Better start preparing for a year with no NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763 |
Like anything, context is everything. No doubt that what Richardson said was tactless, but they also completely left out the context in which he said it. Were Manning & Brees being obtuse when discussing revenues? We don't know.
As an aside: I'm hoping the owners end up with the upper hand in this, and I'm perfectly Ok with a lockout and no 2011 season. Hell, it's not like Cleveland was going to do anything, anyway.
In my opinion, the players earn plenty and the player's union - like most unions - has grown far too big for its britches.
When you've got a Peyton Manning earning $100 Million - with 1/3rd of that up front in cash - I really find it tough to feel sorry for the players. It tells me that there is PLENTY of cash out there for the players. It also tells me that the player's union has PLENTY coming to it and it should take it upon itself to take care of the former players; that isn't the owner's job. If the union isn't going to do it, what the heck good is the union?
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Like anything, context is everything. No doubt that what Richardson said was tactless, but they also completely left out the context in which he said it. Were Manning & Brees being obtuse when discussing revenues? We don't know.
prp...ahhh, yea...they took Richardson's comments out of context...
Nice try but that it the oldest excuse in the book for bad behavior and ill advised comments...Palin would say Richardson just had a wtf moment.
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
I disagree with you on unions, but I won't get into that in this forum.
I will say that I side with the players on this (surprise, right?). I'm not saying they're not at fault. Not one bit. They certainly have to give up some of the things they're arguing for (or at least be more willing to compromise).
But, I just have a tough time siding with the owners. Just as many say that the players "chose" to go into this line of work, it isn't like the owners were forced to do what they do.
I have a tough time believing that the owners are really hurting for cash.
In the end, I can see points from both sides, but my natural bias just pits me against the owners.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
Quote:
Like anything, context is everything. No doubt that what Richardson said was tactless, but they also completely left out the context in which he said it. Were Manning & Brees being obtuse when discussing revenues? We don't know.
prp...ahhh, yea...they took Richardson's comments out of context...
Nice try but that it the oldest excuse in the book for bad behavior and ill advised comments...Palin would say Richardson just had a wtf moment.
Then, since you obviously know the context it was said in, explain to all of us the precise context in which it was stated.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
I have a tough time believing that the owners are really hurting for cash
The way I see it, I don't see how it matters if they are hurting or not. It is THEIR league. Those are THEIR teams.
Between a mere 32 organizations, they have an annual payroll in the neighborhood of $4 Billion that gets divided up between 1,696 players.
At a cap of $120 million per team, the payroll would be $3.84 Billion, or $2,264,150.94 per player per year.
There is no way you can convince me that they are not well enough compensated.
If anything, the union should impose rules upon itself for a more fair distribution of the wealth they are already receiving instead of trying to demand more that isn't theirs.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Well, if those numbers are representative, then I think it's important to remember that the owners are trying to take a billion more dollars off the table before the share is divvied. If there were a 50/50 split of "all football revenue" (not the "all revenue") then this would decrease the players by 13%. And that's before agreeing to whatever percentage decrease the owners are pulling for. I think I need Richardson to tell me how to read the revenue chart. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
What makes you think the owners want a lockout.
Everyone seems to blame the owners.
The owners have an obligation to it's fans, to ensure that the League stays strong and will continue to be profitable for everyone, including that there is a NFL for our future generations of fans and players alike.
I think that the players have a good beef about their retired players being more properly compensated.
I don't feel sorry for them for the money that they (employees) already receive these days.
As an employee I think that one should wish their company is making profits, because end the end that will have a big effect on their earnings and job security.
We all know what happens to a company who pays their CEO's bonuses at the expense of the stock holders beyond their means.
Players will come and go.
The integrity of the League is far more important.
One only has to look as far as MLB for proof.
Players in this League are more then well compensated,
(especially the Rookies) given the numbers employed and amount of work they actually perform.
--Message--To Players.....STOP! your CRYING and be thankful for your talents, for [you] could be one of the millions unemployed in this country wondering where you next meal will come from.
Your Government is proposing tax cuts that will greatly effect those whom are already asked to make sacrifices
(The poor and unemployed).
There are many who have made the ultimate sacrifice to their Country and Communities.
What sacrifices have/will you made/make for your generation ?
--Message--To both sides.....Think what a lockout would mean to our Service men and women serving over sea's.
Having a formation of jet fighters fly across the sky is not honoring them.
Give them football....that's how you can honor them.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,504 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
He revealed that Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson talked down to Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees during the negotiation.
“Jerry Richardson, he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?” Feely said during an appearance on the Michael Kay Show on ESPN Radio. “And sit there and say dismissively to Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you understand how to read that?’ That doesn't help us get a deal done."
Since the New Orleans Saints are in the same division as the Panthers, it looks like Drew Brees will get two opportunities to convince Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson that he does understand "revenue charts".
...those Panthers revenue charts can "go south" in a hurry when your team gets the crap beat out of them (x2) by the Saints. Maybe the 2011 schedule will have the Colts on it so Manning gets his opportunity to teach Jerry Richardson a thing or two about intelligence. 
...with a big mouth, disrespectful owner like Jerry Richardson, Ron Rivera, the Panthers new HC, doesn't need any enemies.
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,647 Likes: 5
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,647 Likes: 5 |
Quote:
As an aside: I'm hoping the owners end up with the upper hand in this,
I really do think they have the upper hand already. Ultimately, even if they choose to hire replacement players, the games can go on. Sooner or later players will begin to cross. I think the owners have the leverage of time on their hands. Most will be owners longer than a player's career length.
For me, the bottom line is this: If I own a business, my employees do not dictate what I pay them. I offer a wage, and they can choose to work for me or not. I understand that I need to pay them competitively or I'll have no one left to work for me, but I don't think there will be any shortage of players if the NFL wants to keep playing games even without this union. Players crying poor just doesn't elicit one bit of sympathy from me.
I will say this, now would be the time for someone with the assets and foresight to begin a rival fall league. If something like that could gain any momentum at all, the league might be more likely to give in on some things.
There may be people who have more talent than you, but there's no excuse for anyone to work harder than you do.
-Derek Jeter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
When was the last time you went to a boss and told him "You make a lot of money, you should share it with me?"
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,601 Likes: 816
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,601 Likes: 816 |
Quote:
I disagree with you on unions, but I won't get into that in this forum.
I will say that I side with the players on this (surprise, right?). I'm not saying they're not at fault. Not one bit. They certainly have to give up some of the things they're arguing for (or at least be more willing to compromise).
But, I just have a tough time siding with the owners. Just as many say that the players "chose" to go into this line of work, it isn't like the owners were forced to do what they do.
I have a tough time believing that the owners are really hurting for cash.
In the end, I can see points from both sides, but my natural bias just pits me against the owners.
JMHO
The Packers numbers are known.
http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/a...de-384c565d01fb
One would assume they are one of the better franchises when it comes to fan loyalty, so these numbers would generally be viewed as good numbers as compared to some other teams profit numbers.
The league shares almost all revenue, so it isn't a stretch to think most teams in a similar situation would reflect similar numbers.
Stadium sizes are fairly equal. Ticket prices are comparable for the bulk of the seats....I am not talking skyboxes etc.
read the article. it's the best I have seen at explaining the state of the NFL owner.
The average income for the teams is $1.3 billion...you can look that up, it is a number that stuck with me.
The packers profit % is now under 10%.
The dollars don't matter.
Any business plan that doesn't allow for a 10% plus profit margin is a failed outfit.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
When was the last time you went to a boss and told him "You make a lot of money, you should share it with me?"
Reminds me of a situation I had with a classmate/friend years ago.
He was a new father at the time who had just moved back to Ohio after not doing so well in Texas and was in bad need of a job.
I gave him one even though he knew very little at the time and for a time not worth the money he was making.
The short of it is that he approached me with an ultimatum after a whole three months on the job, that he thought we should be partners and split the profits down the middle  never mind the companies expenses/accounts and finding and getting the jobs that was all on my shoulders.
Never mind that it was my business that I built.
We didn't talk for twenty years after I told him he was off his rocker.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 02/14/11 01:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
Quote:
When was the last time you went to a boss and told him "You make a lot of money, you should share it with me?"
Not just "with me" but with all the employees; even the ones getting DUI's, arrested for assault, the ones who can't show up for work because they crashed their motor cycle that they agreed not to ride. Give a raise to the employees that don't try very hard, run their mouth, make comments degrading your organization, and annually refuse to work for their current contract wage that they agreed to - but still want more.
I'm so sick of hearing the players union talk about the integrity of the game. Where were they every year when draft picks were holding out? When players were making a mockery of the team and fans?
If it isn't about money, why don't the players just offer to reduce the schedule to 2 preseason and 16 regular season and take a correstponding pay cut so that loyal season ticket holders aren't getting ripped off paying for preseason games?
The players union is a joke. They have almost no leverage.
Consider what a year without football would mean to the players that were fighting for a spot on the back end of a roster, players 40-53. Most would never play again.
Consider what an off year would mean to any player 30+. Likely 75% of them would never make another team.
Combined those groups make up about 40% of the players union.
Consider players that were later round picks that might have a career but have been playing for modest contracts and simply don't have the money to take a year + off without a job. Assuming they got a degree in college, ehich many did, how do they go to an interview and say "I'd like to be your accountant (or whatever field) but I'm going to quit as soon as the strike is over". Who's going to hire them??
Add it all together and that's 50%-60% of the players union that can't afford a missed season.
Who does that leave? Do superstars like Manning and Brady really need to worry about getting paid enough? Does Ochocinco need more money for what he actually contributes? Even a class act like Joe Thomas can't benifit from a lock out, because he'll never recoup the money he lossed by missing a year.
So what do the owners have to gain? An 18 game season makes ticket holders happier. A rookie pay scale will help bottom tier teams avoid cap problems from rookie busts like Russell or Brown. A "tuned up union" will spend it's time managing their own instead of defending idiots like 85, KW2, and Stallworth.
And all the owners have to do is wait.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,951 Likes: 763 |
Quote:
then I think it's important to remember that the owners are trying to take a billion more dollars off the table before the share is divvied.
The way I see it, it is THEIR business, THEIR money... it's their RIGHT to do so.
When they reach a level where not enough people are willing to do the work for the amount offered, the job has found its true market value. Where it is at now is most certainly a bubble.
Quote:
then this would decrease the players by 13%.
Which now puts the average per player at $1,969,811.32 per year.
That means that the average game check is $123,113.21.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
prp...ahhh, yea...they took Richardson's comments out of context...
Nice try but that it the oldest excuse in the book for bad behavior and ill advised comments...Palin would say Richardson just had a wtf moment.
DYK that Richardson is one of the few owners who actually played in the NFL. I am not saying that he couldn't have used better tact, but imagine having to explain to two of the richest players in the League a revenue cart to see if they are getting their fair share.
I think I would be a little sarcastic as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Wasn't that long ago, actually. Though I didn't use those words exactly, that's pretty much what I said.
And it worked. Because I'm a good employee, I make our business a lot of money, so I felt I should share in it. Luckily, my boss saw it the same way.
I don't have a problem that he makes a lot more than I do still. I just wanted to make sure I got my fair share.
And, someday, when I'm in charge of the business, I will do the same thing.
But, I'm not the kind of person who has to make a lot of money. I want to make what I deserve and what I earn. And if one of my employees deserves it, and it "hurts" me by cutting my pay, I will do it.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
But you admit you didn't show him his pay and say "I deserve this % of that".
Nothing wrong with asking for a raise, based on your perceived value. But then if they tell you no, would you hire a lawyer and fight for a raise or profit sharing?
In the end, it's the business owners investment and money at stake, and the market sets it's value. Much like the auto industry the union had it's purpose but it eventually get bloated and becomes more of a hindrance in negotiation than a help.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
j/c
I read a lot of comments and think some are forgetting that the players never really asked for more money. It was the owners who wanted to implement an 18 game season while cutting the player's money by 18%.
That's how I remember it going down in the first place. The players gripe was, "They want us to play two extra games and take less money." That seems to be a reasonable gripe.
Now, unless I'm reading it wrong, the NFLPA makes a proposition that would net them 13% less than they get now and the owners walk out on the negotiations.
And now I hear some of you talking like the players are complaining that they don't make enough money. It never started out with that and still doesn't seem to be there.
How badly am I mistaken on this?
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
No, you're right, I didn't ask for a %. But, that doesn't mean it would have been improper for me to do so. I just approached it differently.
And, if he had denied me, I wouldn't have hired a lawyer to pursue it because my skills are transferable enough that I could have just quit and either joined another business or started my own. Can't say that for the NFL Players (heck, most of the people who have played for the Browns these past few years don't have any skills, let alone transferable ones).
I do believe the players deserve a %. I'm not sure what I feel would be fair. If it wasn't for the owners, there wouldn't be an NFL. But, if it wasn't for the players, the league wouldn't be making as much money as it has been.
I guess my biggest problem is I see the jackasses like Jerry Jones, and I just really have a tough time coming down on their side. He builds this ridiculous stadium, then he whines that he's not making enough money.
I mean, it's tough for me to totally sympathize with the players, either. Now, not everyone makes Manning's salary, but they still get paid pretty well.
In the end, both sides have good points, and both sides have bad points. I don't think the problems are as dire as both sides are making them. There HAS to be a middle ground for these guys.
Hell, some of the suggestions by people on this board sound perfectly legit and sensible.
But, the owners are greedy, and, yes, the union is greedy, too. I just happen to agree with the union side of things a little more.
JMHO
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
j/c
I read a lot of comments and think some are forgetting that the players never really asked for more money. It was the owners who wanted to implement an 18 game season while cutting the player's money by 18%.
That's how I remember it going down in the first place. The players gripe was, "They want us to play two extra games and take less money." That seems to be a reasonable gripe.
Now, unless I'm reading it wrong, the NFLPA makes a proposition that would net them 13% less than they get now and the owners walk out on the negotiations.
And now I hear some of you talking like the players are complaining that they don't make enough money. It never started out with that and still doesn't seem to be there.
How badly am I mistaken on this?
You're right....I think the true details of a labor issue that involves a professional sports league end up getting lost and becomming a "billionaires fighting millionaries" argument. People pick sides and then go at it. I'm not saying anyone in this thread is wrong or wasting time....but you're right. The owners want to convert 2 pre-season games into regular season games, reduce salaries, implement a rookie wage scale, AND not add to the player pension program.
The owners aren't stupid, they know they're asking for the world right now and they only end up with two of those four anyway.
But yes, the owners are "the jerks" right now. But it's their league...so they can be that way if they want. It comes down to how much the players want to go without paychecks.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Prp, totally a valid point of view. It IS their business and they do have the right to change the numbers. My comment was re: this part Quote:
There is no way you can convince me that they are not well enough compensated.
If anything, the union should impose rules upon itself for a more fair distribution of the wealth they are already receiving instead of trying to demand more that isn't theirs.
It seemed like you were saying the players were demanding more cash, when in fact their opening position (with implied and explicit intent to decrease and meet the owners) was actually below where they had been getting. They aren't demanding more, they're demanding less less than the owners are offering.
Also, remember since the courts have declared that the NFL teams aren't subject to monopoly laws due to the CBA, then there's no such thing as fair market value.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
I read a lot of comments and think some are forgetting that the players never really asked for more money.
Did the players not just last week say that they wanted 50% of (all) revenues.
Have they not said that they won't agree to a rookie wage scale?
Or am I miss spoken?
As far as an 18 game schedule is concerned if you subtract two meaningless pre-season games, then there is really no difference in the amount of games played.
If the 18 game schedule brings in more revenue, then the players will also benefit from that down the road as the League grows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Did the players not just last week say that they wanted 50% of (all) revenues.
Which is right around what they're getting now...If not less...
Quote:
Have they not said that they won't agree to a rookie wage scale?
They want the Rookie money to go to veterans, and I guess the Owners just want it back, I think Not sure...
Quote:
As far as an 18 game schedule is concerned if you subtract two meaningless pre-season games, then there is really no difference in the amount of games played.
Not EXACTLY... Seeing as noones going FULL speed, and starters never play the Fourth game anyways...
Quote:
If the 18 game schedule brings in more revenue, then the players will also benefit from that down the road as the League grows.
Yeah, when they and the owners argue over the next CBA... Yay....
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
Not EXACTLY... Seeing as noones going FULL speed, and starters never play the Fourth game anyways...
Fist off that was not always the case
and secondly that's not what fans care to see... Players not 'playing'.
Quote:
Which is right around what they're getting now...If not less...
Or more
And it is beyond what they should be earning and it needs to be put into check for the integrity of the game.
Do the players have operating cost? No! that is supplied by the Team and the League.
50% of the revenues and they do not put back into the business is highway robbery imo.
No business will survive under those circumstances.
Edit: Did the players union negotiate the media contracts ?
Did they do the work that's been done to make this League a profitable one?
They are gladiators of the world, because there is a NFL.
Last edited by FL_Dawg; 02/14/11 03:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 Likes: 1 |
I'm just saying, just because you're still playing 20 games, doesn't mean it's the same thing...
I'd rather they cut one preseason game, bump the regular season to 17, and have everyone play a nuetral site game...
Noone loses a home game going to London, places that don't have NFL teams can have a game, etc...
Might give LA a reason to actually build their stadium...
But i'm fine with staying at 16. More isn't always better...
18 games, and just about every record will be gone...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
I'm just saying, just because you're still playing 20 games, doesn't mean it's the same thing...
I'd rather they cut one preseason game, bump the regular season to 17, and have everyone play a nuetral site game...
Noone loses a home game going to London, places that don't have NFL teams can have a game, etc...
Might give LA a reason to actually build their stadium...
But i'm fine with staying at 16. More isn't always better...
18 games, and just about every record will be gone...
That's natural progression.
It's happened in the past as the League grew.
It doesn't diminish what records have been set in the past. It's simply a new era.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 Likes: 147 |
Quote:
Do the players have operating cost? No! that is supplied by the Team and the League.
50% of the revenues and they do not put back into the business is highway robbery imo.
No business will survive under those circumstances.
Exactly.
The players take their 50% to the bank and buy women, cars, booze and jewelry (not necessarily in that order).
The owners take their 50% and pay the coaches, the assistants, the grounds crews, the taxes, the maintenance, the marketing, the insurance, investments into new ideas/promotions, etc.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,416 Likes: 447
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,416 Likes: 447 |
j/c
Bottom line for me is the players are free to pursue other employment. If they feel they don't make enough, find another job.
See, that's the real world.........but too many of them don't live in it. They make exorbitant amounts of money, and they seem to feel they are entitled to it. There isn't one nfl player that is not free to get a different job. End of story.
If and when the league short changes the players enough that the league suffers, things will change.
As it is, I support the owners and the league. If you don't like their rules, don't play their game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,857 Likes: 955
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 18,857 Likes: 955 |
Quote:
Aaron Wilson of the National Football Post reports Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely disclosed an interesting anecdote about a recent bargaining session in Dallas between the NFL and the NFL Players Association.
He revealed that Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson talked down to Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees during the negotiation.
“Jerry Richardson, he’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?” Feely said during an appearance on the Michael Kay Show on ESPN Radio. “And sit there and say dismissively to Manning, ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you understand how to read that?’ That doesn't help us get a deal done."
Richardson is regarded as a hard-liner.
Editors Note: Richardson is the only owner who is a former NFL player. My guess is he wants the players to make what he did back in the old days.
Classic case of a writer trying to stir the pot. We don't know the entire exchange. Maybe Manning and Brees were blowing off or mocking statistics presented to them? They're both highly competitive, cocky individuals who hate to lose....and they have enough money to bet the pot to win.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 Likes: 1
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 Likes: 1 |
j/c
I have some questions
I am not overly familiar with the business side of the NFL so I am hoping for some education here.
Why would the owners push for a lockout as some here are thinking may occur? Would that not be financially detrimental to them as opposed to playing a season giving in to players' demands? Making something is better than nothing right?
(I am not taking the players' side, If I had my way there would be a more stringent pay scale, no artificial turf and no dome stadiums and players would have to wear all safety gear provided--including knee pads.)
If a lockout were to occur, what are the chances of seeing scabs play? What would be the odds of a UFL/CFL teams/players filling out the roster?
Also, as for the Richardson/Brees verbal thing . . . I am sure Drew tossed some his way. After all, New Orleans was the team that started the season off by showing unity before the start of the game. I am sure that didn't get forgotten.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,601 Likes: 816
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 38,601 Likes: 816 |
Quote:
j/c
I have some questions
I am not overly familiar with the business side of the NFL so I am hoping for some education here.
Why would the owners push for a lockout as some here are thinking may occur? Would that not be financially detrimental to them as opposed to playing a season giving in to players' demands? Making something is better than nothing right?
(I am not taking the players' side, If I had my way there would be a more stringent pay scale, no artificial turf and no dome stadiums and players would have to wear all safety gear provided--including knee pads.)
If a lockout were to occur, what are the chances of seeing scabs play? What would be the odds of a UFL/CFL teams/players filling out the roster?
Also, as for the Richardson/Brees verbal thing . . . I am sure Drew tossed some his way. After all, New Orleans was the team that started the season off by showing unity before the start of the game. I am sure that didn't get forgotten.
They have to look at the long term health of the company.
It is a company.
Players aren't partners....they are employees.
Partners lose money if the company loses money.
No doubt, owners aren't losing....or many that is, some may be, but the packers are seeing their margins being erased at a rapid pace.
You don't react after the fact.....it's too late then.
Bottom line is the players slice of the pie has grown too large.
It can continue and suck the NFL out of business the way the autoworkers sucked the blood out of GM, or you stop it now.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 Likes: 87 |
Quote:
Bottom line is the players slice of the pie has grown too large.
It can continue and suck the NFL out of business the way the autoworkers sucked the blood out of GM, or you stop it now.
I almost stated some thing similar in an earlier post here, but did not want to turn this thread into a 'Union' pissing contest.
But it's the truth, that they were their own worst enemies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
Players aren't partners....they are employees.
True... they aren't partners. However, the players are much more than just the labor. They ARE the product. That's what makes this complicated. Without the players, the owners have nothing to sell (which they learned the hard way when they attempted to sell replacement players as legitimate professional players -- it was pitiful).
I think the owners have the leverage they need to get a lot of the changes they are looking for. I'm guessing they may be able to skim another $500-750 million off the top of the total revenues in the end. They may also be able to get some sort of rookie scale. However, I'd be surprised if an 18-game schedule will come to pass and I think the additional money will come at the expense of more guaranteed money in contracts going forward. If the players are going to be compelled to allow their slice of the pie to shrink, they should certainly expect some additional security behind the money they do actually end up signing to play for. If I were a player, I'd be willing to sign for less if my contract was guaranteed. I don't think the owners can have it both ways any longer.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575 Likes: 37
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,575 Likes: 37 |
My confidence level that we have a timely resolution to this is heading down the drain and is rapidly approaching the river and moving downstream.
Most of my thoughts right now are with the idea of what happens to my ticket monies, the loss of interest and opportunity and how I should best plan to make the best of this situation.
This just sucks.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030 |
I still think a deal will be reached around June/July. The owners are playing hard ball right now, because they have the players over a barrel. For every Manning there are 100 Eric Wright's out there who are making a few hundred grand (nothing to sneeze at, but not enough to miss a significant amount of work). The owners planned this with the TV deal, and the union knows it...........the owners make money this year regardless, because of the TV revenues. The players on the other hand (well about 90% of them anyway) simply cannot afford to lose a year worth of paychecks. I expect the players union to cave on alot of this stuff (something like 1.7 billion off the top with a 50-50 split), but as someone else said I don't think you'll see the owners get the 18 game schedule..........hell I don't think they really want it as it would create more jobs in this "tough" NFL business climate...lol.  I also think you will see a rookie cap put in place with a compromise of some of the money going to the retired vets, and the owners pocketing some. In the end the union just doesn't have the will to compete, because they haven't adequately prepared for a work stoppage. Heck look at what the MLB union does when they know a labor dispute is in the works...........they hoard up money in the coffers so that all the "little" people aren't sucking hind tit when the lockout/strike hits. The NFL union has always got their butt handed to them by the owners because of this, and they will this time as well.
Against logic,the most effective armor is willful ignorance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
NFL says players' union is 'surface bargaining' so it can file suit
By Jason La Canfora NFL Network
NFL Network Insider
Published: Feb. 14, 2011 at 03:53 p.m. Updated: Feb. 14, 2011 at 06:42 p.m.
The NFL confirmed that it filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board against the NFL Players Association on Monday.
The charge states that the players' union has failed to bargain in good faith as a result of its strategy to "disclaim interest" (or "decertify") and file antitrust litigation against the NFL following expiration of the collective bargaining agreement March 3.
The NLRB is an independent federal agency, based in Washington D.C., that enforces the nation's labor laws and referees labor-management disputes.
The league made the filing as a proactive measure to protect against possible decertification by the players' union.
The filing itself is a public document, in which the NFL claims the NFLPA has engaged in "surface bargaining" and tactics designed to avoid reaching an agreement before the CBA expires so the union can file antitrust litigation against the league.
NFLPA officials met with every team during the course of the season to vote on possible decertification in the event of a lockout or labor impasse, and the measure passed.
The NFLPA has rejected the claim against it and once again pointed out that league owners opted out of the current CBA. The union has previously said it expects the owners to lock out players.
The league's filing Monday stated that measures taken by the union, coupled with what would be widely expected to follow decertification -- an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL by an individual player or groups of players -- aren't aimed at reaching a new agreement.
The filing referred to this strategy as "a ploy and an unlawful subversion of the collective bargaining process, there being no evidence whatsoever of any (let alone widespread) disaffection with the union by its members. It is both the reason for and proof of the NFLPA's failure to approach these negotiations with a sincere desire to reach a new agreement at the bargaining table as opposed to the courthouse.
"The NFLPA's statements and conduct over the course of the last 20 months plainly establish that it does not intend to engage in good faith collective bargaining with the NFL after the CBA expires or otherwise meet its obligations under Section 8(d) of the Act, and that it instead will pursue its goals on behalf of the players by pretending to disclaim interest as their Section 9(a) representative and then sue the NFL under the antitrust laws. The union's strategy amounts to an unlawful anticipatory refusal to bargain."
The NFLPA decertified in 1989, then returned as a union in 1993, when a contract that provided for free agency was reached with the league. That landmark CBA was renewed or restructured several times since 1993, including in 2006. The owners opted out of that most recent deal in 2008.
The league's complaint refers to the NFLPA's past use of decertification and the fact that the union later reformed. To that end, the complaint states: "The NFLPA's threat to use a sham disclaimer of interest after expiration of the CBA is the same tactic that it employed in 1989 when its representatives falsely swore that its disclaimer was 'permanent.'
"The union's purpose in doing so is to evade its collective bargaining obligations under the National Labor Relations Act, to seek to use antitrust litigation to enjoin a lawful lockout, and once again attempt to achieve its bargaining objectives under the coercive guise of an antitrust settlement. This plan by the union has produced 20 months of surface bargaining as the union has run out the clock in order to disclaim interest after expiration of the CBA."
Relive the NFL season in HD with NFL Game Rewind. Sign up now to get full access to the season archives.
Under the heading "Basis of the Charge," the NFL said in the filing that during current negotiations, the union delayed the scheduling of bargaining sessions, failed to "respond in a timely and/or meaningful manner" to owners' contract proposals and insisted on "disclosure of financial data to which the NFLPA has no legal right and then suspending negotiations unless and until such data is produced."
The NFLPA issued the following statement after the NFL filed its claim: "The players didn't walk out and the players can't lock out. Players want a fair, new and long-term deal. We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised. This claim has absolutely no merit."
The NFL hasn't missed games because of labor strife since 1987, when the players went on strike and the owners continued the season with replacement players.
The biggest issue separating the sides now is how to divide about $9 billion in annual revenues; under the old deal, the owners receive $1 billion off the top, and they want to increase that to $2 billion before players are given their share.
Among the other significant points in negotiations: the owners' push to expand the regular season from 16 games to 18 while reducing the preseason by two games, a rookie wage scale and benefits for retired players.
The NFL and union went more than two months without holding any formal bargaining sessions, until a meeting Feb. 5, the day before the Super Bowl. The sides met again once last week but called off a second meeting that had been scheduled for the following day.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum 18 Game Schedule/Collective
Bargaining Update
|
|
