|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
(Previous thread lengthy and soon to experience a lockout)
NFL SCHEDULES 11TH HOUR MEETING
Updated Feb 16, 2011 12:59 AM ET
There was a sliver of good news Tuesday in the impasse between the NFL and its players union — even if it doesn't directly involve the latter group.
The NFL announced Tuesday that a special league meeting will be held March 3 in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. From a logistical standpoint, the assembly of owners and/or representatives from all 32 franchises could make it easier for a last-minute agreement before the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires at 11:59 p.m. that night.
There is little reason to believe a new labor pact can be reached before then — if at all in the immediate future. The NFL and NFLPA haven't held a face-to-face bargaining session since last Wednesday when talks broke off. The lack of progress is reflected by the fact the two sides have met in such a fashion only twice since late November.
Team ownership also met en masse in 2006 on the eve of the previous CBA's expiration. The league and union were close enough to a deal that a deadline extension was agreed upon. The CBA was approved the following week, although NFL owners have since decried the pact as being too lopsided financially for the players.
League and union officials will be in Indianapolis starting Feb. 23 for the NFL Scouting Combine. That raises hopes for a renewal of negotiations.
The NFL hasn't experienced a work stoppage since an in-season player strike in 1987.
On the heels of the combine, league owners are expected to begin gathering March 1 in Fort Lauderdale for subcommittee meetings and labor talks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I see this as the greatest likelihood--that they agree to extend the deadline past March 4th. They need to make it realistic, as in March 30th.
Then they need to get it done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
And for those confused about what it is all about.....it's about money. (of course) The NFL and the NFLPA can't agree on how to split approximately $9 billion in revenue. Players currently get around 58% percent of that total, but this comes AFTER the owners skim off $1 billion. Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion off the top, which figures to be an approximate 18 percent pay cut for the players. The players wanted to talk about a compromise last week but the owners took it as a proposal and walked out..............negotiating tactics.
The rookie wage scale and 18 game schedule are bargaining tools for the NFL but they are revenue increasing tools as well, and each side knows this. The 18 game schedule is pretty much a necessity to increase revenue as well as allow for each team to play outside a normal venue as is part of King Roger's master plan for increased league awareness world-wide and future expansion. (it isn't because they know the fans are tired of seeing and paying for crappy pre-season games, believe me!)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822 |
You may be right about playing games overseas, but I hope not.
For all intents and purposes a game in London as an example is an away game for both teams even though one will be designated the 'home" team.
Even if it isn't designated for scheduling purposes, it still leaves a imbalance where some teams will have a extra home game and some a extra away game.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
just clicking...
Roger Goodell Writes and Op-Ed on CBA Talks: Clear PR Move
February 15, 2011
In what could only be described as a strategic PR move, Roger Goodell wrote a op-ed about the current state of the NFL CBA talks. Goodell says he “cannot emphasize enough the importance of reaching agreement by then (March 4th)” and that the league and the players union need to start “serious negotiations” toward a new labor deal soon or else the season will be in jeopardy.
The complete column is below, clipped from NFLlabor.com:
THE TIME HAS COME TO MAKE A DEAL
By Roger Goodell
One of the best NFL seasons in history is now over. We salute NFL players for their extraordinary talent and we deeply appreciate the tremendous support of the fans.
The hard work to secure the next NFL season must now accelerate in earnest. We are just weeks from the expiration of our collective bargaining agreement. There has been enough rhetoric, litigation and other efforts beyond the negotiating table. It is time for serious negotiations.
The current agreement expires on March 4, and I cannot emphasize enough the importance of reaching agreement by then. If we as a league — the teams and players’ union — fail to fulfill our shared responsibility to the fans and game, everyone will be worse off — players, teams and fans — starting in March.
This is an opportunity to create a better future for the NFL, to improve the game for our fans, and to expand the economic benefits for the players and teams.
Staying with the status quo is not an option. The world has changed for everyone, including the NFL and our fans. We must get better in everything we do.
The union has repeatedly said that it hasn’t asked for anything more and literally wants to continue playing under the existing agreement. That clearly indicates the deal has moved too far in favor of one side. Even the union’s president knows this — as he said on national radio on January 27: “I think what really happened is in 2006 we got such a great deal. I mean, the players got a good deal and the owners felt they got it handed to them.”
We need an agreement that both sides can live with and obtain what they need, not simply what they want.
Today’s collective bargain agreement does not work as it should from the standpoint of the teams. If needed adjustments are made, the NFL will be better for everyone. The first step is making sure a new collective bargaining agreement is more balanced and supports innovation and growth.
The NFL clubs want to move forward, improve the system, and secure the future of the game for the benefit of players, fans and teams.
The status quo means no rookie wage scale and the continuation of outrageous sums paid to many unproven rookies. In 2009, for example, NFL clubs contracted $1.2 billion to 256 drafted rookies with $585 million guaranteed before they had stepped on an NFL field. Instead, we will shift significant parts of that money to proven veterans and retired players.
The status quo means 16 regular-season and four preseason games — even though fans have rejected and dismissed four preseason games at every opportunity. We need to deliver more value to our fans by giving them more of what they want at responsible prices. This can be achieved if we work together and focus on more ways to make the game safer and reduce unnecessary contact during the season and in the off-season.
The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home.
The status quo means players continuing to keep 60 percent of available revenue, in good years or bad, no matter how the national economy or the economics of the league have changed. From 2001 to 2009, player compensation doubled and the teams committed a total of $34 billion to player costs. The NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth.
Companies with far more revenue than the NFL have gone bankrupt because they mismanaged their costs and failed to address their problems before they became a crisis. The NFL has a track record over many decades of making good decisions that have led to unprecedented popularity. Negotiating a fair agreement will result in billions in pay and benefits to current players, improved benefits for retired players, and a sustainable business model for our teams.
The current deal does not secure the best possible future for the game, players, clubs and fans. The next few weeks must be used to negotiate with intensity and purpose so we can reach a fair agreement by March 4. If both sides compromise and give a little, everyone will get a lot, especially the fans.
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822 |
I wouldn't call it a pure PR move which tries to repair a image or pitch a angle.
I'd say it is a clear and concise message that is pretty much spot on.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
Wow.  All I know is that I sure hope that they have this crap settled by this fall.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
On Feb 4, 2011 during his annual state of the league address NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, in an hour-long question-and-answer session with the "media", said this...
"We are not going to negotiate this at a press conference."
Then on Feb 15, 2011, Goodell wrote an op-ed laying out the issues he says are unacceptable to the owners...essentially "negotiating in the media".
Roger Goodell is no Pete Rozelle or Paul Tagliabue..for sure.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,117
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,117 |
Thanks, Rog. And this is CERTAINLY negotiating in the media, despite his earlier distaste stated against the practice. For whom is this op-ed piece needed? How is it helping being publicly published? If intended for owners, memos can accomplish that. This posturing and just raw abuse like Mnning and Brees endured as reported in the previous thread (now locked), is about abusing players. Chances of owners sitting on him or barring that owner from the table are slim. This move doesn't help players, so it is catering to owners. I think an anti-trust ruling is in order if they strike again. The big issues here are blackmailing fans, players and cities out of new stadiums and markets. Need some mutual concern over the other side's position. Goodell saying players are too happy with current agreement and therefore it must be anti-owner biased is an easy to miss fallacy. It might be just fine, fair, and dandy. But his op ed piece places him squarely in the owners' venue. This is lame.  
"Every responsibility implies opportunity, and every opportunity implies responsibility." Otis Allen Glazebrook, 1880
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
From 2001 to 2009, player compensation doubled and the teams committed a total of $34 billion to player costs. The NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth.
I rest my case.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
Quote:
From 2001 to 2009, player compensation doubled and the teams committed a total of $34 billion to player costs. The NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth.
I rest my case.
Fl Dawg...you related to Florida fan?
From 2001 to 2009, how many NFL teams went out of business?
The owners signed those agreements that produced the compensation to the players.
There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained.
What you posted "may" be fact, but it is meaningless if the owners will not back up their claims with specific facts.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
From 2001 to 2009, player compensation doubled and the teams committed a total of $34 billion to player costs. The NFL is healthy in many respects, but we do not have a healthy business model that can sustain growth.
I rest my case.
Fl Dawg...you related to Florida fan?
To answer your question, no.
But what does that have to do with anything?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,358 |
Actually, they added a team in a very large market in that timespan.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
J/C
all I want for Labor Day is NFL football.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained.
I take it you say that, after spending hour after hour going over thier books right?
You cannot possible know if the business model is healthy and sustainable.. You have NO idea what costs they are anticapting in the future do you?
Once again mac., you are talkin out your butt...
So go ahead and ask me a dumb and/or leading question.. I dare ya 
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Fl Dawg...you related to Florida fan?
Why do you ask? What's the relevance to this debate?
Quote:
There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained.
What you posted "may" be fact, but it is meaningless if the owners will not back up their claims with specific facts.
The fact that the players income has doubled in this passed decade is proof enough in my book.
Further;
They have no right to ask the NFL to open their books.
Unless you're GB and IIRC they have, because they are a 'open' Public Market.
I doubt that there is a big variance with the other 31 teams in the League with their profit sharing.
Can someone please find me a precedence in where a 'closed' business has to open their books to their employees.
What makes them anymore the exception?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
j/c
I guess as I think about it, my final thought on the issue is: is there not a way that these dopes can figure out how to spread around $9,000,000,000????
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Just clicking... Quote:
The status quo means failing to recognize the many costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums. We need new stadiums in Los Angeles, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Oakland and San Diego; and the ability for more league investment in new technology to improve service to fans in stadiums and at home.
Serious question (because I don't know): what proportion of these costs actually fall on ownership? Seems to me that the metro areas these teams play in actually pay for most of this stuff (either through various taxes or PSL fees -- or both). What am I missing here?
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
J/C
all I want for Labor Day is NFL football.
X 2
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
Fl Dawg...you related to Florida fan?
Why do you ask? What's the relevance to this debate?
Quote:
There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained.
What you posted "may" be fact, but it is meaningless if the owners will not back up their claims with specific facts.
The fact that the players income has doubled in this passed decade is proof enough in my book.
Further;
They have no right to ask the NFL to open their books.
Unless you're GB and IIRC they have, because they are a 'open' Public Market.
I doubt that there is a big variance with the other 31 teams in the League with their profit sharing.
Can someone please find me a precedence in where a 'closed' business has to open their books to their employees.
What makes them anymore the exception?
The IRS has a right to call for an in depth audit, but the findings aren't made public. I don't think there is a precedence for a privately owned company to open thier books to employees.. None that I am aware of anyway.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
Serious question (because I don't know): what proportion of these costs actually fall on ownership? Seems to me that the metro areas these teams play in actually pay for most of this stuff (either through various taxes or PSL fees -- or both). What am I missing here?
They only subsidizes the NFL team.
Some more then others, but we had a say in that too. We voted and lobbied the NFL to bring back (our) Browns.
Think of what building a stadium can give a city in terms of Jobs and economic growth for the area.
It's an investment. The coast involved in build a stadium these days takes an investment from both the Owner of the Franchise and the people.
We the fans love are new state of the art stadiums. The owners love them because they no they can increase their revenue, because of modern building technologies and making efficient use of the space. The players love there new facilities. So it's a winn, winn situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,660 |
Quote:
The IRS has a right to call for an in depth audit, but the findings aren't made public. I don't think there is a precedence for a privately owned company to open thier books to employees.. None that I am aware of anyway.
Me either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
You cannot possible know if the business model is healthy and sustainable.. You have NO idea what costs they are anticapting in the future do you?
Daman...you do understand, your comment above is simply repeating what I stated?...
....There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained...
If the players union doesn't see the books, they won't know the income side and have no way of knowing how the bills relate to overall business model. It doesn't do much good to try to project the future trend on the negative side of the ledger if the players union can't see the positive side of the ledger and how the bills relate to the income.
The owners are simply saying "trust us"...
Daman...you do understand?... the owners simply "saying" their business model is not working and cannot be sustained..."that" does not constitute proof that their statement is true or factual !
If the owners are going to make such claims...it needs to be backed up with numbers, not words.
Trying to find evidence to back the owners claim is hard to find...not one team has gone out of business, there is no evidence that the NFL is losing money.
Daman...maybe you have some evidence to back up the owners claims...some numbers??
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,964 |
A lot of the City's "contribution" consists of Not Taking as much from generated revenues for 5-10 years, with less up-front money. A stadium is generally believed to generate significant revenues for the city in a variety of ways, some split ownership with the club and/or lease it to each other. It represents a major investment which can suffer major damage - New Orleans, Minnesota.
From the number of stories of former players going broke from bad investments, It would be my guess that the majority of NFL players would NOT be able to read and interpret a corporate balance sheet. Probably slightly worse than the general public.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822 |
MAC...I have posted the packers numbers and they are down significantly.
I know as a auto worker you feel it best for a company like GM to go broke before something is done, but really, that isn't the best way.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
From the number of stories of former players going broke from bad investments, It would be my guess that the majority of NFL players would NOT be able to read and interpret a corporate balance sheet. Probably slightly worse than the general public.
Which is not anyone's but their own fault, they have been coddled for years. Most were offered free education which they probably didn't partake in, and then collect large sums of money in the NFL.
THEN they cry that they it's not their fault they go broke, and that someone else should help fix it. Sound like much of America to me. I guess the NFL isn't all that different. 
These stories of NFL players wasting their earning are nothing new. And anyone with half a brain should know or know someone close enough to them that knows, you have to watch your own money, or someone will take a little here and there until it's all gone.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Quote:
You cannot possible know if the business model is healthy and sustainable.. You have NO idea what costs they are anticapting in the future do you?
Daman...you do understand, your comment above is simply repeating what I stated?...
....There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained...
If the players union doesn't see the books, they won't know the income side and have no way of knowing how the bills relate to overall business model. It doesn't do much good to try to project the future trend on the negative side of the ledger if the players union can't see the positive side of the ledger and how the bills relate to the income.
The owners are simply saying "trust us"...
Daman...you do understand?... the owners simply "saying" their business model is not working and cannot be sustained..."that" does not constitute proof that their statement is true or factual !
If the owners are going to make such claims...it needs to be backed up with numbers, not words.
Trying to find evidence to back the owners claim is hard to find...not one team has gone out of business, there is no evidence that the NFL is losing money.
Daman...maybe you have some evidence to back up the owners claims...some numbers??
Teams, like businesses, will make sure they don't lose money. With continually escalating cost, they will turn to raising ticket prices to maintain.
With raising ticket cost, some areas with a lesser fan base sell less tickets and even see blackouts. And I would assume with blackouts, comes a loss in revenue.
The players don't have a right to see team's books. Teams are their EMPLOYERS and are privately owned. They have no legal obligation to disclose their numbers.
I'm all for a fair deal but IMO, the players do have it too good. At the VERY least, they need to do something about the continual rise in rookie salaries. It's outrageous.
At the end of the day, I think the owners hold the cards and I hope that they don't cave to the players as it makes it worse for the fan in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
The owners are willing to lockout the players, seemingly for however long it takes, to get the deal they want. This is a given by everyone.
The owners and the players have roughly $9 billion to argue over. $1billion of which goes immediately to the owners before the players get their cut of the remaining money.
No team has gone under. Ever. Or ever even come close as far as we know.
But you expect us all to believe that the NFL is in dire financial straits and may go belly-up in the near future unless the players give back at least $1 billion to the owners?
Sorry. I was born at night. But it wasn't last night.
Do the owners deserve a better deal? Possibly, but it's hard to tell without a CPA to look over their books and decide what is real and what is phony in them. Which is the point the players are trying to make.
Seriously, in a business like the NFL, that gets huge breaks from each individual city/municipality that they are in, which means you and I are footing part of the bill even if we don't ever set foot in the stadium, what is the problem with showing your partner the books? Because no matter what some on here say the owners and the players are essentially partners in this endeavor. Whether you or Jerry Richardson like it or not.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,993 |
No way this gets done before a lockout.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,822 |
As I explained to mac...you don't wait to make changes until teams go under.
The packers showed a net profit of 9.8 million, year end 3/2010.
The problem is I would think we could all assume the Pack are a team that doesn't have trouble drawing fans.
They also don't have a owner who draws a salary of some sort. I would assume the owner would make, say what the back-up QB might make and draw a couple million a year.
So don't kid yourself, some teams are nearing the break even point. Maybe why Richardson is as stern in his comments
You do realize the profit the packers, or any team show isn't personal income for the owner, right??
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
...what is the problem with showing your partner the books? Because no matter what some on here say the owners and the players are essentially partners in this endeavor. Whether you or Jerry Richardson like it or not.
They aren't partners. They are the workforce and product. They aren't partners. That's not to say there isn't a partnership between the two sides, but make no mistake, they aren't partners.
It's the owners' league....so if they want to shrink the players piece of the pie, it's their right. And they don't have to show their books to prove anything.
The players can play in the CFL, another sport, or start their own league if they don't like it. Players come and go, the NFL will rebuild.
The owners aren't that stupid though. They know they need the players, but not as much as the players need them, their stadiums, and their TV contracts. The owners will figure out a new way to sell their product with different players.
![[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: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
The packers showed a net profit of 9.8 million, year end 3/2010.
Sam Bradford's contract, when evened out over the years, makes for $13 million a year. Granted, that's not net profit.... but seriously...
Employers should be profiting more than its employees.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
Quote:
Quote:
You cannot possible know if the business model is healthy and sustainable.. You have NO idea what costs they are anticapting in the future do you?
Daman...you do understand, your comment above is simply repeating what I stated?...
NO, we aren't agreeing,, not even a little..,do you have a reading comprehension issue?
....There is nothing to prove the NFL's business model is not healthy and cannot be sustained...
I can think of two things without even batting an Eye that can lead one to conclude that the leagues financial picture is gloomy going forward.. 1. The incredible increase over the last 10 years. Do you know something that would indicate that the cost of players will go down if the the NFL doesn't force it down?
2. There are most likely issues that we have no knowledge of, such as player healthcare costs, training facility and stadium facility operating costs, Travel costs, advertising costs, costs of goods such as the hats, shirts, and other gear they resell, costs of uniforms and other playing gear..
I expect all of these items and many more to increase over the next 10 years.. And that doesn't even account for the player salaries and bonuses.
If the players union doesn't see the books, they won't know the income side and have no way of knowing how the bills relate to overall business model. It doesn't do much good to try to project the future trend on the negative side of the ledger if the players union can't see the positive side of the ledger and how the bills relate to the income.
It's none of thier business.. they don't need to see the books of a PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.., They have NO RIGHT to those books. And whats worth, the Union knows that, but they are playing on the fan that will side with them and maybe make the NFL look like this big bad entity
The owners are simply saying "trust us"..
They don't even NEED to say that. They own the business.. it's thiers, and the Players have absolutly no right to the books... NONE .
Daman...you do understand?... the owners simply "saying" their business model is not working and cannot be sustained..."that" does not constitute proof that their statement is true or factual !
They don't owe the players proof.. NONE.. they own the business, the players are employees. Key employes I admit, but only employes and nothing more. The teams and the NFL can go out and hire scabs and play games,, What exactly will the players do if the owners, stand in picket lines?
Millionaires Picketing? man, that just sounds dumber than hell to me
If the owners are going to make such claims...it needs to be backed up with numbers, not words.
NO, they don't need backed up, it's not the employees business.. that's a union mentality talking Mac. Do you think for one second that GM or Ford or Chrysler would reveal thier revenues to the union if they didn't have to because they are publically held corporations? I guarantee you, the unions would be left out in the cold if those companies were privately owned as the NFL is.
Trying to find evidence to back the owners claim is hard to find...not one team has gone out of business, there is no evidence that the NFL is losing money.
The owners don't' need to back up thier claims,, You would have to be a complete idiot to reveal your income to your employees if you owned a business
Daman...maybe you have some evidence to back up the owners claims...some numbers??
Don't need to back anything up, your assertions that they NFL owes an explaination or back up evidence to the union is just dumb..
bottom line Mac, if you look above, you will see that you said the same thing 3 or 4 different ways as if repeating it makes it more true, and to prove the lunacy of your comments, I've answerer them 3 or 4 different ways..( i feel dirty for doing that, But I didn't want you saying I didn't respond)
But you won't understand it,, I don't know why, but I'm 100% sure you won't BUT you WILL, no doubt, come back with more of the same crap.
Let me cut to the chase for you Mac..
Private companies do NOT have to reveal thier profits to employees, Vendors, customers or anyone else. Other than the IRS of course.
Neither do Public companies unless employees are shareholders, but public companies are required to produce an annual report that is for public view and anyone, includiing employees can look it up.
There is NO VALUE to opening the books to the employees.. NONE.
If the owners of the business (NFL) are anticipating that increased costs or nshrinking revenues will negatively impact thier businesses, then they should make whatever changes and adjustments they need to to remain viable...
That's what I sense the NFL is doing.. Better to do it now then to act after they go down the tubes.
If you can't grasp that, then there isn't anything anyone can say to you... I'd tell you what that makes you, but I don't want to get banned.. although, I have to admit it, It might be worth it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
You do realize the profit the packers, or any team show isn't personal income for the owner, right??
So, pray tell, where does the profit go? After everyone is paid and all debts are settled the extra money goes.......?
I understand that the profits may go many places. But one of those places IS the owner's pocket.
C'mon, I can see you side with the owners and that's fine. But trying to get me to believe that these guys are just short of wondering where their next meal is coming from just isn't gonna fly.
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
C'mon, I can see you side with the owners and that's fine. But trying to get me to believe that these guys are just short of wondering where their next meal is coming from just isn't gonna fly.
The same can be said about the players.
So basically it's 2 spoiled brats arguing who has the nicest stuff on the playground.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
But one of them owns the playground and can choose who plays there or who can't.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,545 |
No, but look at a guy like Lerner, who spends his money to pay for practice facilities, and other such things to attract players. That stuff gets written off over years by the business side of things ..... but the owner still has to write the check in a given year.
Also, if GM (or another company) only profits as much as its highest employee "profits" .... then they won't be in business for long. In damn near every business I have been involved with, labor was between 15-25% of net income. (income after taxes) In many businesses, blowing that component by just 3 or 4% can be the difference between a location making a profit, or not. (after all expenses, including fees to maintain the main office, etc, are included) Getting back to GM ..... imagine if the most they "should" make was 3 or 4 times their highest employee's salary. Let's say that number is $1 .... just for grins. If GM "only" makes $3-4 million per year, their leadership won't be employed for long, because the cost of capital risk doesn't come near to rewarding that risk. Same for the NFL. There's less "risk" as far as losing money ..... unless you buy a franchise for $1 billion. The franchise costs are heading in that direction rapidly. Think that an owner can afford to buy a team for $1 billion when the reward is a minimal (by comparison) return on that investment?
I'm not saying that the owners are blameless, or that everything is perfect in the players world ...... but when you look at health risks, pay rates, and the entire package ..... NFL players have it one helluva lot better than say miners, or laborers, or sweat shop workers ..... etc. Plus, they can be set for life after just a 3-5 year career ..... if they are smart about it.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
It's the owners' league....so if they want to shrink the players piece of the pie, it's their right. And they don't have to show their books to prove anything.
Because of the anti-trust exemption that the NFL enjoys, do you know this to be true?
I have been accused of siding with the owners.. and on a couple issues I do. I think the owners need to make a decent profit, we all want to see them expand, offer new things at the stadium, provide top notch practice facilities to attract the best free agents.. all of that comes out of the operating budget and/or the profit...
I am the first to admit that other than that one Packers example that Peen posted, I have no idea how much teams make.. I would guess there is a pretty wide gap between some teams and others... and it would take a team of forensic accountants to figure it out.. I just know they should not be teetering on the edge of break even or making less in a year than any one player on the team...
But there are other issues where I side with the players...
Then there is the issue of former players who are suffering severe ill-effects of having played for many years and they need to be cared for.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Because of the anti-trust exemption that the NFL enjoys, do you know this to be true?
From everything I'd heard and/or read, the owners don't have to open their books at all. And there's nothing the players can do to make that change. I could be wrong, and often I am, but I think this point is quite secure.
Quote:
Then there is the issue of former players who are suffering severe ill-effects of having played for many years and they need to be cared for.
Sure, if the former players are dealing with ill-effects from their playing time, 100% coverage. I think that's the least the owners could handle for the life of the player. Although with current/recent players, if they were to reach a certain amount of career salary, say $10 million, the owners shouldn't have to support medical coverage for them (or maybe help pay a small portion). In some kind of rule like that, the players should have that covered on their own. Come on, if Peyton Manning's knee requires surgery in 20 years, do the owners have to pay that bill? He'll end up making $100+ million in his career...he can afford it. Now, a gunner on Special Teams that played 4 years for 3 teams and made $2 million total....I could understand making sure he gets special longterm coverage.
As far as just pension monies, I figure the guys that paved the way deserve support. But at some point, career earnings need to be a factor. Using Manning as an example again, he shouldn't be getting $10,000 or $10 monthly from the NFL when he retires. He cashed in and cashed in HUGE! If he blows it all, sorry man, you should have been better with your money. Using the gunner from above, half went to Uncle Sam, 5% went to his agent, and maybe he spent a lot of money in moving expenses for those three cities. I think it's fair to make sure he gets help.....not "living on a beach in the caribeen" help, but decent help.
Last edited by Punchsmack; 02/16/11 03:39 PM.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I struggle with this because while they were playing a lot of old timers still made decent money for their day, it just wasn't "lounge around and do nothing for the rest of your life" type money like some make today. But when they were done they couldn't get a job? Every single one of them went to college, I'm sorry if they squandered that opportunity too. I think it sucks if they were unable to scale back their standard of living once they retired but it seems like many just wanted to act like it was never going to end... So while I understand the physical toll on their bodies, I also don't understand how so many completely failed at readapting to life away from the sport.
As far as insurance, I don't care if Manning gets health insurance but for every Manning there are 200 other guys moving through the league.. I don't know how to structure it.. do you have to play 2 years to qualify? or 5 years? At what dollar amount do you out earn it (like social security)? I don't know the answers to any of those questions..
How many former players out there need health insurance? 1000? What I know is that the NFL could buy a decent health plan for 1000 former players and their families for $10 million a year assuming $800/month per family (... $10 million a year is about 1/10th of 1% of the $9 billion they take in a year... )
Why can't they do that?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement Part Deux
|
|
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
