|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the players are going to cry they deserve more, then they should all be willing to present their finances for audit as well.
florfan...OH WAIT...are the players crying they want more?
NOPE...NOT TRUE...
florfan...at least educate yourself on the basic issues.
ma... excuse me, you are correct I used incorrect verbiage. The players are crying they want more than the owners are offering.
Florfan...we do not know for sure what has been discussed. From the sound of reports, it does not seem the two sides have even gotten serious yet in their proposals.
It "seems" the owners are asking for "concessions" from the players...
...the players are happy to continue with the agreement the owners signed in 2006.
I find it kind of hard to justify concessions when the NFL is making some big bucks and looking to expand. You do not expand if the future is not bright and the present business model has not worked.
The owners are making a profit...and they are doing it during a historically bad economic period. The U.S. economy is emerging from the worst recession in our nation's history...yet the NFL is and has profited during this period and is looking to expand the league.
That does not mean that I agree with the way the players are slicing up the pie. There are changes that should be made, IMO, but that is up to the players and owners to hammer out.
I just find it hard to justify "concessions" at a time when the NFL is profitable and growing. Also, the future looks bright for the NFL as our nation continues to recover from this very long and deep recession.
...again..all jmho
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 |
Understandable...
And I guess I am looking at it from a different perspective.
In 2006 the cap was like 85 mil, in 2010 is was 126mil IIRC.
That's like a 50% increase in 4 years of player salaries. Hardly anything to shake a stick at. The blue collar workers didn't see a 50% increase in that same time frame.
Meanwhile overall revenue also increased, which of course helps out the owners. And this is where I think it turns off that straight path it appears it's on. The owners have more than likely seen office staff salaries rise as well, taxes, insurance, travel expenses, etc.
While the pot of money has increased and the players salaries increased the cost of maintaining the club has increased to the owners. So the true profit side of the team has decreased % wise most likely. (Hard to prove as we don't have all the numbers involved.)
Also, in my reading on all this I found that the 1 billion off the top of the 9 billion revenue goes to the NFL for whatever it is they do, and is does not goto the owners like the players have insinuated in a couple of the articles I have read.
What I can tell you is from all my reading is that both sides are doing a lot of posturing, and both sides are telling only half truths to the media to win fan approval. The true details of all of this will probably not be known until it's all done and signed.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
I'm not entirely sure what winning "fan approval" really does...
I never understood iNFLation when it came to the NFL, why exactly does the #1 overall pick get 10% more then last years? Whos idea was that?
Salaries are esculating to a point, anytime someone gets a new deal, they're the highest paid player ever...
Richard Seymore's the highest paid Defensive player ever... Until FA starts and Nnamdi Asamougha gets paid that is...
It's ridiculous...
But, if the owners are going to pay it... Why should the players stop them?
Here we go Lock Out, Here We Go... Just doesn't sound right...
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I don't think the fan approval thing has much clout, but neither side wants the fans to revolt or protest. It's would be an ugly PR situation that neither side would come out looking good in.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
I don't think the fan approval thing has much clout, but neither side wants the fans to revolt or protest. It's would be an ugly PR situation that neither side would come out looking good in.
Sure, they'll come out looking bad....right away. But over a short period of time, weeks or months, 95% of the fans will be back and forget this mess (happy that the new CBA will be for 7-10+ years).
![[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 |
It's very justifiable when some individual players are starting to make the same annual profit as some franchises.
Something has to be done to limit salary growth. If the cap is growing faster than profits, then you have an issue. You can't just say "Well, they're profiting now". You need to consider the future.
The owners will always adjust to make profit. If they can't control salary growth, they will raise prices of other things to compensate. Ticket prices go up, concessions go up, TV deals increase and more advertising is added in the midst of games.... All things that make it worse for fans.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
I completely agree with that. It won't even take that long, literally a day or 2 after an agreement is signed the fans will have all but forgotten it all.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950 |
Quote:
It's just a game, and can be played by countless others. I for one, will watch replacement players play it.
And the diffrence would be what from what we've been watching over the last 10 years ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
If the owners are not happy about the salaries players are making...they need to stand in front of mirror pointing their finger at the person in the mirror.
Horsehockey. You make it sound all soooooo simple, but it's not. The owners are REQUIRED to spend a certain percentage of the cap each year. The cap is based on revenue. The revenue has increased, ergo the cap has increased, ergo salaries have increased. It's not as if the owners have purposely driven salaries to these levels and have "themselves to blame."
You've told others in this thread to educate themselves on the issues, you need to do so as well!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
Salaries are esculating to a point, anytime someone gets a new deal, they're the highest paid player ever...
Richard Seymore's the highest paid Defensive player ever... Until FA starts and Nnamdi Asamougha gets paid that is...
It's ridiculous...
osu...think about this...who decided to pay Seymore that amount of money?
The union did not force the Raiders to pay that amount of money to Seymore...
I'm not totally against some kind of more reasonable wage scale but it's going to be tough to roll the wages back once the contracts have already be signed.
It's a tough issue to address, but the way I see it...should the players be telling the owners how much they can spend for the services of key players?
It seems that you are asking the players to protect the owners from themselves, when it comes to wages.
...jmho
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,847
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,847 |
Quote:
It seems that you are asking the players to protect the owners from themselves, when it comes to wages.
You don't make sense.
The owners are trying right now to protect themselves.
Someone said earlier - don't know who - that "yeah, the cba the owners agreed to last time was crazy."............the owners followed through on it, and now they are trying to change it. But people are upset at the owners for trying to fix the problem?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
Quote:
If the owners are not happy about the salaries players are making...they need to stand in front of mirror pointing their finger at the person in the mirror.
Horsehockey. You make it sound all soooooo simple, but it's not. The owners are REQUIRED to spend a certain percentage of the cap each year. The cap is based on revenue. The revenue has increased, ergo the cap has increased, ergo salaries have increased. It's not as if the owners have purposely driven salaries to these levels and have "themselves to blame."
You've told others in this thread to educate themselves on the issues, you need to do so as well!
shep...two different issues...the cap amount and the value of individual contracts.
I'm talking about individual contracts and who decides how much certain players will be paid.
IMO, free agency is largely responsible for the increase in size of contracts amounts as the franchises "bid up" the contracts of free agent players to retain them.
Richard Seymore's contract is the latest example of how high a franchise will go to retain a player who is a free agent. The Raiders made Richard Seymore the highest paid defensive player in the NFL...a two-year, potential worth $30 million which includes $22.5 million in guarantees.
Yes, all franchises have an established cap determined by a negotiated formula. How each franchise divides their cap between players is determined by the franchise/owners, in negotiations with the players and their agents.
Who bids up the free agent contracts?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830 |
Sides agree to federal mediation. A good sign. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6132690Some team may open the books to a mediator who can see if their story holds water or not....and I do think some might be willing to do that, at least in a limited way. The story line here isn't about the healthy clubs. It's about the unhealthy clubs. It also isn't about teams being mismanaged. It is about a system under which they can no longer operate. Losing 2-3 of the smaller market teams would be bad business....and it isn't as simple as saying teams should move. I wouldn't expect to hear any Browns fan talking like that.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,877 |
Quote:
The players now receive roughly 57% of the $8 billion left of the pie.
Quote:
Actually, they received 57% in the years 2006/2007.
In 2008/2009 they received 57.5%.
In 2010 they received 58% and would have as well this season had the CBA not been opted out of by the owners.
Well, that is roughly 57%..... 
btw, 1% of $1 billion is....drumroll......$10 million I believe. I think I could do quite nicely on that...... 
"People who drink light 'beer' don't like the taste of beer; they just like to pee a lot."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
General reply to anyone who complains the players make way too much money: If you think the beast is getting too big, stop feeding it with tv ratings and merchandise/ticket sales! Pretty simple math really, the more money the league makes the more money the players make. Don't like it, watch college ball instead. Only half of those players make NFL salaries 
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,030 |
Quote:
e owners are REQUIRED to spend a certain percentage of the cap each year. The cap is based on revenue. The revenue has increased, ergo the cap has increased, ergo salaries have increased. It's not as if the owners have purposely driven salaries to these levels and have "themselves to blame."
Good point. Here's what is confusing to me from the owners vantage point (and I do think nearly 60 percent of split revenue is too high for salary)..............if players salary is going up because of increased revenue then in theory shouldn't the owners revenue be going up as well?? It seems they would be happy if the cap was growing every year, because that means their take would be going up as well. This is why I have to call bull crap on the "owners are going out of business" argument. I wholeheartedly agree that it could be impacting what types of investments to further their product can be made, but the idea they are losing money because their revenue is going up just doesn't make economical sense to me.
Educate the ignorant if I am missing something here.
Oh well......good news on the mediator today. I don't think this thing will be done on March 4th, but I am more hopeful that we won't miss any "real" football games next year.
Again thanks for all the information shep. 
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 |
YW Yes, revenue has increased for the owners, but they realized soon after they signed the last CBA that they screwed up and gave the players more than they could have gotten away with so they opted out at the first chance to do so to re-negotiate. A few owners (at the time) tried to stop the CBA from going through this way but failed. As I alluded to earlier, the largest section of the CBA is in regard to compensation....and that's just not salary. There are a lot of other areas in there that the teams must contribute to on TOP of salary so we can't just look at the wages and think that's an accurate barometer for what teams must spend to exist in the NFL.....there is so much more, and some of that was added in to be effective in 2006 and 2007, and when the bills started coming in the owners said "whoa! what the hell is this?" (my speculation on their verbage) I dont' believe (IMO) that they are losing money by any stretch of the imagination.....but as a businessman if you see the league as a whole gaining revenue as it has but your bottom line is stagnant instead of increasing then you start to fret. MORE SPECULATION ONLY ON MY PART- They planned this during the last CBA deal to force the longer schedule and the rookie wage scale. (King Roger wants expansion and a world-wide presence, this is a fact)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
Sides agree to federal mediation.
A good sign.
This is a good sign...Even though it's not to the point to where this is "Binding Mediation"...It's still good...If and until it gets to "Binding Mediation"...This Mediator cannot impose a settlement...Only offer suggestions at this point...
I like that they've gone this route NOW versus waiting until September...
Quote:
Friday will be the first of seven straight scheduled days of negotiations between the league and the players' union.
The two sides agreed to meet twice a week two weeks ago, yet have met only once since.
Not waisting time here...It starts TODAY for 7 straight...They have 2 weeks till this expires...IF they continue with the Mediation after the CBA expires and keep going with a heavy meeting schedule...I think a deal will be done before the draft...All it takes is meeting consistently...
If they hault the mediation after the CBA expires???...This will go long into the season...
MY hope is it's done by April 1st and we fly right into Free Agency BEFORE the draft...
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830 |
I understand it isn't binding.
In many cases it takes a 3rd party to break the ice.
They also offer opinions to each side that maybe point out their sides position is a bit too hard line and the other side has a legit concern.
This keeps the talks going. When it is just 1 on 1, if a side hits a brickwall, they pack their things and leave.
Here, the talking continues even if just with the mediator...and both sides are going to be more likely to talk openly and honestly 1 on 1 with the mediator.
No side wants to go to the table and say OK...here is where we are willing to go....it puts you in a weak position, not knowing if you are giving too much.
The mediator starts to find the areas of common ground, and the process starts to roll.
Once each side starts to see some movement with the other, things usually work out.
Nobody wants a lockout. No body wants FA to be pushed back until after the draft. Nobody wants even a portion of the season in jeopardy.
Oh...and thanks for commenting....I thought it was important news.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,445 |
Quote:
I understand it isn't binding.
Lol...I know u knew that...Many don't though...
Go Browns!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830 |
But it could go that route if enough movement takes place that each side agrees...knowing they aren't going to be 100% happy....but happy enough....and really, that is usually the sign of a pretty fair deal.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's just a game, and can be played by countless others. I for one, will watch replacement players play it.
And the diffrence would be what from what we've been watching over the last 10 years ?
Exactly,...you have "professionals" that make the cash whether they perform or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
Sides agree to federal mediation.
A good sign.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6132690
peen..GOOD INFO...The story that goes with the link above...
NFL, NFLPA agree to enter mediation
February 18, 2011
NEW YORK -- Less than three weeks from the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the NFL and its players' union agreed Thursday to mediation in their labor dispute.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, an independent U.S. government agency, will oversee negotiations in Washington beginning Friday.
"Any time that both sides of negotiations can get together, whether through conventional means of bargaining or mediation, to come to an agreement that can benefit all parties, it is a good thing," NFLPA president Kevin Mawae told The Associated Press in an e-mail.
Friday will be the first of seven straight scheduled days of negotiations between the league and the players' union.
Meanwhile, the union is seeking to make details public from negotiations between the NFL and television networks that resulted in a deal that pays the owners $4 billion regardless of whether games are played in 2011, the St. Paul Pioneer-Press has reported.
A federal judge in Minneapolis will hear arguments next Thursday morning on a union appeal over a ruling that allows the league to retain the rights fees, according to the newspaper.
Attorneys for the NFLPA have also asked Judge David S. Doty to unseal 34 pages of case documents beforehand.
Arbitrator Stephen Burbank rejected a union complaint last month that alleged the NFL structured the contracts so it would be guaranteed money even if there were a lockout in 2011 -- while not maximizing revenue from other seasons when the league would have to share that income with players.
The union said that violated a 17-year-old agreement between the sides that stipulates the league must make good-faith efforts to maximize revenue for players.
The NFL and NFLPA agreed to meet twice a week two weeks ago, yet have met only once since.
"Personally, I would be surprised if they met more than two or three days in a row," one source familiar with the talks told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.
FMCS director George H. Cohen can make suggestions and recommendations, but he has no authority to impose settlements. Coming to an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement still will be up to the two parties.
"Our agency director will be working with the parties to assist them in reaching a voluntary, mutually acceptable agreement," FMCS public affairs director John Arnold said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
After holding separate discussions with representatives from the league and the union, Cohen said both sides accepted an invitation from his agency to get involved in the stalled negotiations.
"Due to the extreme sensitivity of these negotiations and consistent with the FMCS's long-standing practice, the agency will refrain from any public comment concerning the future schedule and/or the status of those negotiations until further notice," Cohen said.
The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players expires at 11:59 p.m. ET on March 3. Last week, talks broke down, leading to the cancellation of one planned session.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Associated Press in an e-mail: "We are now in mediation."
The league also switched an owners meeting from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., on March 3, to Chantilly, Va., on March 2-3.
In a statement, NFLPA spokesman George Atallah said: "The NFLPA has always focused on a fair collective bargaining agreement through negotiations. We hope that this renewed effort, through mediation, will help the players and owners reach a successful deal."
Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, an executive board member of the NFLPA, told ESPN's "NFL Live" on Thursday that he was "excited" about the prospect of entering mediation. "It can do nothing but help," Saturday said.
The biggest issue separating the owners and players 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 get 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 NFL filed an unfair labor practice charge against its players' union with the National Labor Relations Board on Monday.
The league's filing said the union "consistently has failed to confer in good faith" during negotiations for a new contract and the union's "conduct amounts to surface bargaining and an anticipatory refusal to bargain."
Aiello told the AP the mediation would not have an effect on the NLRB complaint.
Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay recalled the last CBA negotiations in 2006, which resulted in a deal that the owners opted out of in 2008.
"Since the last time, things have broken off and guys have gone their separate ways," Irsay said Thursday. "I remember that happened the last time and [then-commissioner] Paul Tagliabue ended up texting [union chief] Gene Upshaw and said, 'Why don't we get back together.' So you never know when something positive can happen and something good can get done.
"I don't have a strong anticipation something will get done before [March 3], but I think it's possible."
Player sources told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that last week's talks ended when owners walked away from the negotiating table when the NFLPA proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league.
However, other sources familiar with the talks told Mortensen and Schefter that the negotiations broke off when the union characterized its documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.
The FMCS website says it "provides free mediation services in contract negotiation disputes between employers and their unionized employees. All the parties have to do is make a request."
Cohen said in a statement that the negotiations will be conducted "under my auspices." He is no stranger to sports mediation. He was involved in Major League Soccer's talks with its players' union and a work stoppage was avoided last year.
Cohen also has worked with the players' associations for Major League Baseball and the NBA, and was an adviser to the NHL players' union before joining the FMCS.
The FMCS also became involved in negotiations during the 2004-05 NHL lockout, and a 2005 dispute between the U.S. Soccer Federation and its players.
"Our ultimate goal is a new CBA," Atallah wrote Thursday on his Twitter feed. "I will not discuss any details about the next set of negotiations. We are observing a strict media blackout."
Some players, however, were commenting moments after the announcement.
"NFL and NFLPA agreeing to meet with a federal mediator is a real positive step," Vikings tackle Bryant McKinnie said on his Twitter account. "Let's see if he can get them to make actual progress."
Added player agent Drew Rosenhaus: "Exciting news to see the NFLPA & the Owners talking again through the mediation process -- a productive step in the right direction!"
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
The idea of a mediator being involved gives the NFL fans some hope that this is going to get worked out...BUT...
...but my fear is this is simply a ploy by the owners after having a bad week of PR due to the info that has been leaked to the media about the conduct of the NFL owners (Jerry Richardson) during contract talks.
I believe the NFL owners have already decided to lock out the players and shut down negotiations hoping to get a better deal. The NFL set their strategy long ago and will stick to it, whether a mediator is involved or not.
I hope I'm wrong, but I believe the mediator idea will fail, according to the NFL's predetermined plan.
It appears that the head coaches know what the NFL's strategy is...read on..
John Harbaugh drops strongest hint yet that lockout is coming
February 16, 2011
At this point, everyone following the NFL expects the league to implement a lockout on March 4. The only question is whether the league has been engaging in a really, really good bluff.
If it’s a bluff, it has managed to fool the head coach of one of the 32 teams.
Addressing on Tuesday night the decision to apply the franchise tag to defensive tackle Haloti Ngata, Ravens coach John Harbaugh had this to say on WBAL, via the Baltimore Sun: “We’re on record and everybody knows that we want Haloti to be a Raven for life. I’m sure we’re going to get it done. There are some reasons why we can’t do it here before the lockout. It’s really unfortunate. Because if it was possible to do it, I’m pretty sure we’d have it done.”
Though he doesn’t say “there will be a lockout,” Harbaugh has provided the strongest indication yet from a team official that a lockout is looming.
And as to the “reasons why we can’t” sign Ngata to a long-term deal “before the lockout,” we’d love to know what they are. In some cases (i.e., the Eagles and Mike Vick), escalators triggered in 2010 supposedly make it impossible. For plenty of other players, it can be done — but the teams simply are choosing not to do it.
For nearly a year, some teams have been hiding behind the CBA uncertainty and the rules of the uncapped year to justify not signing their current veteran players to new deals. (Meanwhile, Tom Brady got his long-term extension from the Patriots, and the Colts tried to sign Peyton Manning.) Now, with the labor deal expiring in 16 days and some teams having in excess of 20 impending free agents, few if any extensions are being negotiated.
The union already has made a collusion claim based on the lack of interest in restricted free agents last March and April, and it looks like an even more potent (or, as the league would possibly put it, less impotent) claim for collusion could be made based on the unprecedented failure of so many teams to make an effort to sign their players who are scheduled to hit the market on March 4.
Every year at this time, teams are re-signing their veterans who otherwise would be hitting the market. This year, but for a few scattered deals, it’s simply not happening.
Frankly, it’s hard not to think that this is part of the broader game of leverage, with teams keeping money out of the hands of the 490 men who won’t become free agents on March 4, and thus could revolt against the NFLPA and force the players to do a deal on the owners’ terms at some point before the first day of Spring.
web page
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 |
jc..
I don't even know why this all gets brought to the media.
This is between the owners and the players and any contract they decide on should be mutual between them. If not for the media being involved, a lot of the hostility and such probably wouldn't be taking place, and they would be keep meeting until they hammered out a deal they both can live by for the next few years. And none of us would be the wiser.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It's just a game, and can be played by countless others. I for one, will watch replacement players play it.
And the diffrence would be what from what we've been watching over the last 10 years ?
Exactly,...you have "professionals" that make the cash whether they perform or not.
I'd watch for free on TV. However, as a season ticket holder, I wouldn't want to pay for it. As bad as the Browns have been, there are players I willingly pay to see (Joe T, Haden, Ward, Hillis, McCoy, etc). If I plunk down my cash for tickets and we get replacement players to watch come Week 1, I want my money back. Period. Thankfully, I doubt the ownership will go this far (particularly since the players aren't striking).
Nonetheless, it is fascinating watching these morons (players and ownership) play a high stakes game of chicken with the Golden Goose that has made both sides quite wealthy over the years. Amazing... 
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
I believe the NFL owners have already decided to lock out the players and shut down negotiations hoping to get a better deal. The NFL set their strategy long ago and will stick to it, whether a mediator is involved or not.
I hope I'm wrong, but I believe the mediator idea will fail, according to the NFL's predetermined plan.
Between this and the stuff you're throwing up in the Tailgate Lot, you're in rare conspiracy theory form....
There's a difference to being dedicated to a bottom line and predetermining there's going to be a lockout. The owners lose money as well if there's a lockout so its not in their best interests.
That being said, I think the owners will do it if the union doesn't give them what they need.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
I don't even know why this all gets brought to the media.
FlorFan...haven't you followed this thread for the last week or so?
Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson is one of the negotiators for the NFL and it seems he has copped a huge attitude toward the Union reps who are attempting to work out a deal.
I believe the Players Union had enough of the owner's insults and simply told the media how the owners were conducting themselves.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Do we know for sure that Peyton Manning does know how to read a corporate revenue chart? I mean he's a smart QB and he's very rich.. neither of which means he knows how to read a revenue chart.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,830 |
Quote:
Do we know for sure that Peyton Manning does know how to read a corporate revenue chart?
I mean he's a smart QB and he's very rich.. neither of which means he knows how to read a revenue chart.
It doesn't matter. Richardsons team is probably one of the teams who can't operate under the current system.
Some markets are better then others.
I am glad a guy like Richardson speaks his tongue even if it is a bit emotional.
If a team like Green Bay can only generate 9 mil in profit...and they don't have a included owner draw to lower the number even more.....I wonder what a team like Carolina, or Jacksonville, or Detroit, or maybe even Cleveland generate??
In the world of big money, there is big money, and REALLY big money.
I think both Lerner and Ford are leaning towards the REALLY big money, so the pressure isn't as great.
Richardson on the other hand did well as a player, maybe inherited a little, and put together a team of investors to buy that club. I am sure other owners are in the same boat.
They can't sustain continued losing years.
This worries the big guys because they know if even one team goes belly up, it's like real estate prices....have a home or two foreclosed in the neighborhood, the prices fall to the basement for everybody.
I don't know which clubs...we could probably guess....but there are probably 4-5 clubs that are currently operating at break even, and MAYBE even starting to post some losses.
Team valuation is where the owners stand to profit. It isn't X millions on the bottom line. As I explained earlier, most of that money stays inside the clubs bank account.
If you bought a club for 800 mil, and hope to get 1.3 billion, you better show a prospective buyer how he or she is going to profit 15 years down the road by letting go of a billion or so buckaroos today.
The players need to wise up...they make good money.
Lerner could close the doors in Berea, never to open again. Take the loss, maybe have to sell some holdings, but still have more than enough to make it just fine.....really fine instead of really, really fine. He might have to cut back and order a $90 bottle of wine with a nice dinner rather than a $300 bottle.
Can the players say the same???
Something tells me most would have drastically altered lifestyles.
Rather than 4 bottles of the $1000 Bordeaux for chicks, down to $4 MD 20/20 for a drinking buddy.
Owners aren't stupid, and one thing I have learned in life, you have to know when to cut bait.
A few owners might go under, but a good number are smart enough to know when to walk away.
This is a business to them....it isn't a hobby or passion as it is for us.
Sis Boom, Rah Rah, Boola Boola is all well and good, but when money is involved, you better not lose focus.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Quote:
Do we know for sure that Peyton Manning does know how to read a corporate revenue chart?
I mean he's a smart QB and he's very rich.. neither of which means he knows how to read a revenue chart.
Well, he was trying, but then the owners changed their formation, so he had to audible out.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
I don't even know why this all gets brought to the media.
FlorFan...haven't you followed this thread for the last week or so?
Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson is one of the negotiators for the NFL and it seems he has copped a huge attitude toward the Union reps who are attempting to work out a deal.
I believe the Players Union had enough of the owner's insults and simply told the media how the owners were conducting themselves.
That doesn't explain why it is all printed in the media. Are they asking for you or I to come and talk to Richardson? Negotiations are typically done behind closed doors with just the parties involved.
Now I understand this is the NFL, one of the biggest entities in the world, and THAT is why it all gets reported in the media, but that doesn't make it any more right.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
That doesn't explain why it is all printed in the media. Are they asking for you or I to come and talk to Richardson? Negotiations are typically done behind closed doors with just the parties involved.
florfan...there was no gag order when negotiations started and I don't believe there is one now. If Roger Goodell or an NFL owner wants to write an Op Ed or a story laying out the NFL's issues, he/they are free to do so...
Same with the Players Union and the individuals players involved in negotiations.
Now that a mediator is involved, as far as I know, there still is nothing to prevent anyone from talking to the media.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
There is nothing preventing the owners from walking away from the negotiations and running to a Comfort Inn in Toronto to hide either if they can't have what they want...  But negotiating through the media ranks just above running away when it comes to cowardly ways to conduct business.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,901 |
Quote:
But negotiating through the media ranks just above running away when it comes to cowardly ways to conduct business.
DC...have you written Roger to complain about his op/ed(s) and article(s) appearing in the media while negotiations were going on?
It is a great example of how Roger has been using the media to negotiate on behalf of the owners.
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:
That doesn't explain why it is all printed in the media. Are they asking for you or I to come and talk to Richardson? Negotiations are typically done behind closed doors with just the parties involved.
florfan...there was no gag order when negotiations started and I don't believe there is one now. If Roger Goodell or an NFL owner wants to write an Op Ed or a story laying out the NFL's issues, he/they are free to do so...
Same with the Players Union and the individuals players involved in negotiations.
Now that a mediator is involved, as far as I know, there still is nothing to prevent anyone from talking to the media.
Mac, you apparently don't understand anything I'm saying...
WHY is it even reported in the media? Is it in a contract that any negotiations must be relayed in the media?
THAT was my point. That truth be told the negotiations are not any of OUR business, and really should not even be reported until they are completed.
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 |
I've meant to but never did thank you for keeping up on this CBA issue. As someone said a while back, you've been on it for 2-1/2 years. After all that and these two threads on the issue I've come to this conclusion:
1) If the owners feel they want a better deal to suit their interests then that's ok. We all want something and it's ok. It doesn't necessarily mean they're being villainous in their wants.
2) If the players feel they are fine with the deal as it is then that's ok too. It doesn't necessarily mean they're breaking the bank and getting away like outlaws.
3) I'm glad they're in mediation. It may not come to any conclusion. I doubt it will. But it may help each side see the other side's concerns and that could go a long way toward a compromise going forward.
4) If we reach the point where Free Agency gets postponed I'll be seriously bumming. Our Browns need all the normalcy possible with this new coaching staff and roster moves coming up.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That doesn't explain why it is all printed in the media. Are they asking for you or I to come and talk to Richardson? Negotiations are typically done behind closed doors with just the parties involved.
florfan...there was no gag order when negotiations started and I don't believe there is one now. If Roger Goodell or an NFL owner wants to write an Op Ed or a story laying out the NFL's issues, he/they are free to do so...
Same with the Players Union and the individuals players involved in negotiations.
Now that a mediator is involved, as far as I know, there still is nothing to prevent anyone from talking to the media.
Mac, you apparently don't understand anything I'm saying...
WHY is it even reported in the media? Is it in a contract that any negotiations must be relayed in the media?
THAT was my point. That truth be told the negotiations are not any of OUR business, and really should not even be reported until they are completed.
Amen and henceforth the gag order that has been imposed on both sides during mediation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,718 |
Quote:
I've meant to but never did thank you for keeping up on this CBA issue. As someone said a while back, you've been on it for 2-1/2 years.
YW. It's important stuff.....not in the grand scheme of life, but it is why this place exists and we have formed a common bond with one another.
Quote:
1) If the owners feel they want a better deal to suit their interests then that's ok. We all want something and it's ok. It doesn't necessarily mean they're being villainous in their wants.
Yes. Businesses exist to make money. At times we forget it is a business. The owners want increased revenue in their pockets and the employees (players) want raises each year. Just like in any other business with any other product that has EVER been created.
Quote:
3) I'm glad they're in mediation. It may not come to any conclusion. I doubt it will. But it may help each side see the other side's concerns and that could go a long way toward a compromise going forward.
I actually think it will be fruitful. I don't have a crystal ball or anything like that of course, but it's a hunch. (not to be confused with a gut feeling)
Quote:
4) If we reach the point where Free Agency gets postponed I'll be seriously bumming.
I'm already bummed about it, just because it shouldn't have ever reached this point.....but it is what it is.
Quote:
Our Browns need all the normalcy possible with this new coaching staff and roster moves coming up.
Absolutely.....the other teams in our division are on a downturn while we should be on an upswing, and you have to jump through that window when it opens up. This would be a setback that may harm us, but again I think they get it resolved in a timely manner now that they have agreed to let a 3rd party intervene for assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,577 |
I wish I had your optimism. It's not a binding thing, I personally think it's more PR so that both can duck from the coming fan backlash. And believe me, thats gonna come in a big way.
We are just barely starting to come out of this recession and all the public is gonna see is billions vs millions. And they are going to look at the schedule and say WTF is the football??
I'll make you a side beer bet if there is a lockout / strike. I'll bet you Congressmen get involved, want hearings because their constituents are the ones suffering.. I'm talking the beer guys, the peanut vendors, the hotels, the parking guys.. you name it.
SaintDawg™
Football, baseball, basketball, wine, women, walleye
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining
Agreement Part Deux
|
|
