Dolfan5000
Mark my words, I'll get mine
What??? link???Finfang said:
**Official CBA Thread I**
- Thread starter Muck
- Start date
Its everywhere even on tv, where by the way Mort is dissing this out he says its just to give teams time to be cap compliant, not to strike a new deal, but I think thursday is a long time considering that some of the teams are already taking measures, I guess they will actually give it a last try.
Eshlemon
FinHeaven VIP
Mortenson on ESPNnews just said their is no plan for more owner-union discusions. But Tags told Upshaw that he wanted to delay free agencey to take the unions last offer to the owners for a vote on Teusday.
Flying Pencil
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
tylerdolphin said:
Upshaw is being disingenuous to say the least.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/030406dnsponfllede.2158a1a7.html
64.5% X 87% = 56.115% of the gross revenue goes to the players under the current CBA. Obviously, 56.2% is very slightly larger than 56.115%, not, as Upshaw claims, a reduction.
Jimmy James
You sit on a throne of lies!
Flying Pencil said:
Have you considered that perhaps he doesn't believe the owners when they give him those numbers that just so happen to work out to be so even? If it were you and it were your job to make a deal, would you be so trusting of the other side?
Flying Pencil
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 88
- Reaction score
- 0
Jimmy James said:
:shakeno: None of those numbers are a mystery. They've been a part of the formula since the formula was created. 56.2% was almost certainly chosen because it represented a flat transition from DGR to Total Revenue, with a tiny bit extra to show "good faith" :goof: .
Jimmy James
You sit on a throne of lies!
Flying Pencil said:
You're never negotiating anything for me with an attitude like that. It's the 87% that is problematic, and I defy you to find that for me in any deal. The deal spells out what the pie consists of, not that it's 87% of the earnings. I think the problem that you are conveniently overlooking is that the 13% portion of the pie can grow or shrink. The owners are changing the metric and feeding the union a line about how their proposal is more or less neutral. Nobody in their right mind would buy that bill of goods if it were their money on the line.
FinaciousOne
Practice Squad
Jimmy James said:
It simply depends on the definition of what qualifys as applicable revenue.
If currently the owners are generating a higher total revenue (including additional sources not included in the currently designated gross revenues) that = 100% and the prior defined designated gross revenues equals 87% of that 100% then by redefining the applicable revenues to include the additional sources and then adjusting the players % in order to remain revenue neutral they do indeed remain neutral. If the DGR were to be the same next year AND the additional revenue sources were to remain the same then the players share would be the same. The fact that the revenue figure can fluctuate (up and down) is inmaterial. It can fluctuate now. In fact since it involves less sources of revenue currently, it would be less stable now than if it included more sources of revenues. What if the networks decided that the high prices they are paying are unprofitable? (That's what ABC has already decided). With the current trend in media of cosolidation the time of juicy contracts could have peaked. That's the fairness of using a % to establish the players share. As the NFL grows or shrinks the players participate to the same proportion.
Jimmy James
You sit on a throne of lies!
I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm going to resort to numbers to see if we can agree:
Let's say that this year's numbers are as follows (for simplicity): the NFL makes $1 million. The players participate in $870,000 worth of that revenue at a rate of 65%. That's $565,500, which is 56.55% of the $1 million. Let's say the owners offer 56.6% and say that they're giving the players a little boost.
Let's say that the following year, the NFL makes $1.1 million. That is $622,600. Let's say that all of that increase was in the 87% part that the players used to participate in, though. That means that they would have gotten $630,500 under the old deals. The players therefore effectively lost money compared to what the old plan was -- they got $622,600 instead of $630,500. That's a difference of $7,900.
Let's say that this year's numbers are as follows (for simplicity): the NFL makes $1 million. The players participate in $870,000 worth of that revenue at a rate of 65%. That's $565,500, which is 56.55% of the $1 million. Let's say the owners offer 56.6% and say that they're giving the players a little boost.
Let's say that the following year, the NFL makes $1.1 million. That is $622,600. Let's say that all of that increase was in the 87% part that the players used to participate in, though. That means that they would have gotten $630,500 under the old deals. The players therefore effectively lost money compared to what the old plan was -- they got $622,600 instead of $630,500. That's a difference of $7,900.
FinaciousOne
Practice Squad
Jimmy James said:
Using your numbers assume the 2nd year was also $1 million. Then the players share would indeed be the same. Revenue neutral. If the players union doesn't believe the quality of the additional revenue sources are equal to the current revenues why include them at the same %. Simply try to tier the % to an appropriate level on the additional sources at a lower % commensurate with the lower quality. In fact they must value the additional revenue equally or they would not even consider one %. As I said before, more revenue sources (in which the owners are sharing and cultivating) generally means a more stable revenue stream over time.
It sounds like you think the players should be indemnified from revenue fluctuation. On what basis? Either you want to be my partner or you want to be my employee, which is it.
Jimmy James
You sit on a throne of lies!
FinaciousOne said:
Right. That's why I chose that number.
I think we're getting into issues regarding the negotiation that are well beyond the scope of my knowledge about this dispute. Who has proposed that the new contract work with the 100% pie instead of the 87% pie? I'm honestly not sure. It sounds like you're suggesting the players suggested it.
No, that's not what I'm trying to say at all. What I'm trying to say is that the league proposes the changeover as revenue neutral. Upshaw suggests it would result in the players losing money. I'm attempting to illustrate how Gene could be exactly right about that.
I think it's clear that the players want to be employees with the protection of a union.
FinaciousOne
Practice Squad
So then you agree that if the proportions of revenue types remain the same then the players proportional share remains the same.Jimmy James said:
Jimmy James said:
If neither party brought it up, then it wouldn't be an issue.
If the owners brought it up and the players don't like it because of the quality of the revenue then why wouldn't they simply decline and keep the status quo? Why would they feel entitled to a higher % on the current revenue types when they get an automatic increase when the current top line increases now. A reasonable person can't expect the % to keep being increased.
Most likely the players saw an additional revenue stream that wasn't significant when the last CBA was negotiated and they RIGHTFULLY (IMO) feel that it should be included in total revenues.
The question becomes at what %. The owners truthfully(IMO) contend that 64.5% is unreasonable because there are other costs associated with that revenue that aren't associated with the current designated revenues. Things like material cost of good for merchandise, cost of construction for sky booths etc. Also some of that revenue is providing stadium upgrades from which the players already benefit. It's a different class of revenue that has a higher cost basis. It should be tiered at least(IMO).
Jimmy James said:
It is revenue neutral provided the proportion remains the same. Who can foretell the future growth rate per revenue type?
Upshaw could be wrong too. NBC dropped out of bidding. ABC & ESPN merged. CBS and FOX say they lose slightly on football broadcast and use it to promote their other shows. TV revenue growth rate is vulnerable to say the least. Again, more revenue sources tends to add stability for the players.
Jimmy James said:
I don't think thats clear at all. Few Unions have gauranteed minimum pay based on gross revenue. That is more generally an attribute of partnerships or commissioned 1099 type relationships. That is a VERY strong benefit to the players.
Stop and think. If the "pie" were to decline due to economic changes, which party is more susceptble. The owners can't layoff to reduce the cost of labor %. It's fixed to be at least the minimum. While the players wouldn't like the reduction in cap, they don't have the level of fixed expenses that the owners do and could adjust. They would still be far better than ther predecessors.
Jimmy James
You sit on a throne of lies!
FinaciousOne said:
I think it is. They have a union and a union rep, after all.
I'm not so sure about that. The players could simply demand that the cap go up by 8% every year no matter what, and they'd have a lot more certainty than they do now. It seems to me that the choice of a percentage is a benefit to the players and the owners. It helps the players in time of expansion and protects the owners in time of decline.
The owners, of course. Assuming that risk is part of what they bring to the table. Actually, let's be honest here -- the owners have risk limited by their investment if they want it to be that way. They can incorporate or choose a LLC form for their company. In that case, the real risk is going to lie with the creditors of the venture.
That's true, but they can seek out the protection of the bankruptcy courts. They do have avenues of recourse.
Jimmy James
You sit on a throne of lies!
FinaciousOne said:
Actually, there is one more point I meant to address. I think that Upshaw is saying what he is saying because the increased TV money comes on the 87% side and will change that 87% number to something greater when that money starts coming in this fall. This is why he rejects the league's claims of revenue neutrality. TV revenue growth rate is not predictable over the long term, but we know what that revenue is going to be for 2006.