**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!**

[PhinBeck]

Geez fellas, I'd jump in but its hard to tell what you are talking about. Salaries going up or down??

Looks like there's already one CPA here. Two of us and we'll start a FIFO/LIFO discussion.

I still blame Covington & Burling for this entire mess. The CBA is a legal rubix cube.

Your forgot avg cost method

 

[nopony]

I think you opnion on PFT is fairly common, but what do you think of the points in the article?

Does this mean you think the union is doing a good job of representing what the players want to a bad job? In your opinion, would the NFL be able to put out a better product with no salary cap, and therefore more poeple would watch and there would be more revenue, or do you think the product would become less popular in a less competive environment, and therefore fewer people would watch so NFL revenue would go down, but somehow player salaries would still go up??

You only have to look as far as baseball to see what would happen.

Say the product doesn't get better or worse, we're just arguing the economics... giving a perpetual "go to the highest bidder" system, the players will always win. Because there will always be someone willing to pay a premium to get the best.

That's why A-Rod got a quarter of a BILLION dollar contract from a team in a less popular sport.

You don't think Snyder would pay through the roof to get all the best players he could?

And that's really the point... the owners know that with no cap their payroll costs would skyrocket... (short of collusion, which puts them in whole different bind). So if, as everyone but PFT knows, they would pay more without a cap... why are they fighting so hard about paying more and keeping the cap?

And the answer is... they aren't really. This was and is always more about the owner/owner squabbles than the owner/player squabbles.



As I've said before, I am horrified by the idea of no cap. I want nothing to do with it.

But to suggest that the owners should get the advantages of the free market and the players shouldn't is hypocritical.

 

[greatwade]

Jerry Jones is teh ring leader of the new owners out for themselves first then the league. I always hated that idiot.

Wayne can't stand him either. And he loathes Al Davis. Sad to report, his best friend among the other owners is Bob Kraft.

 

[Surferosa]

Before I start, Geauxfins, I think youre missing a fundamental element in these negotiations. This is not so much Players VS Owners as it is "Rich" Owners vs "Small" Owners. The media usually portrays stories to the lowest common denominator, but theres a lot more going on than a typical epmployer-employee squabble.

Ok, here goes,
I have only worked with one union in my career. And they worked very closely with mgmt. Certainly as close as the NFLPA and the owners. The only real difference I saw (again, only one data point, so this is just anecdotal evidence, but it's all I have to comapre to), is that the Union I worked with kept their members informed and did what the members asked, very much unlike the NFLPA. Don't most unions say they have many of the same interests as mgmt. It hasn't worked in the airline industry to well, but in many other cases it has.

Ok.

I think unions play a roll in reducing or eliminating unsafe working conditions and getting members a fair/reasonable wage, but I don't see either of those issues here. I think union's should represent their members, but I sure don't see any evidence of that here (if you do, please point me to the link).

On the contrary, I dont see what YOU mean. DIdnt the Union renegotatie the last CBA. Isnt the union fighting for more revenues to be shared with the players? Arent they fighting for imporved health insurance, 401 plans, etc? Isnt that representing their members? Matt Birk and Kevin Carter showing frustration that a deal cant be reached doesnt mean theyre not representing the players.

I strongly disagree that the salary cap is bad for the players. The salary cap keeps the league competitive, and keeps teams from dumping players all the time like they do in baseball. The players get a % of league revenue. A salary cap keeps the league competitive and 'good', so that drives up fan interest and therefore revenue. That leads to players getting more money, so that is a good thing for the players. Now, I do believe that for a small percentage of the players, they will get a lot more money in an 'uncapped' environment, but, as we have seen in MLB it would also result in many teams spending much less on players, would result in an lesser product and so overall, I think it would result in less money (due to lower revenues) for the players and owners.

I stressed the "No Cap" issue to make a point: a League with no Cap would clearly hurt the owners more than the players - especially the weak owners that are causing such a stir now. They simply wouldnt be able to compete with the Dan Snyders (and Wayne Huzienga's) of the World. On the flip side, according to estimates Players would take in ~70% of League revenues in an uncapped market - 10% MORE than the current deal being offered. Sure there is downside for Players - an uncapped league also bears the consequence of no Salary "Ceiling", reduced player benefits (no 401K, health, etc) as well as longer periods before becoming an FA. So sure, the possibility of "NO CAP" is dangerous for Players, but not nearly as dangerous as it is for owners.

I do not at all agree that the current CBA favors the owners over the players. And if it does, why is it that the only players we have heard from in this mess are opposed to what Upshaw is doing?? Have I just not heard (it's certainly possible), from all of the players calling for more money?? What does career length have to do with anything? Are you saying if the careers are longer (or shorter) that would be a good thing or bad thing?? You say the players deserve better...why?? Why do they 'deserve' anything other than their paychecks? I don't understand what makes them deserving of something?? Are they risking their lives for others? Are they making the world a better place (well, beside's Sunday's)?? They are entertainers and athletes....why does that make them more deserving of something than the owners??

So many questions, and I think my argument is pretty clear. The NFL players make less money than their colleagues from MLB and the NBA. They have shorter careers. Their contracts are not guaranteed (unlike Baseball and Basketball), despite a much greater risk of injury. This despite the fact that Football has a higher mrket share than any other sport in the country. In the world of business, that constitutes as a poor deal for the players. Feel free to rebut, but not with "I dont Understand".

How is upshaw the 'good guy' in all of this? He doesn't seem to be representing what the players want (again, I could be wrong here, I just haven't seen or heard any players saying give me my 60%!!), he continues to spew rhetoric (I won't take anything less than 60%, I won't delay the start of FA, etc) he doesn't mean, and he is risking the NFL we know and love. What is the goodness in this??

Because he is a Labor Chief that has already made enormnous player concessions for the sake of the League (I just listed some of them in the previous paragraph). And despite his obligation to represent the Players at all costs, he often sides with the League at the expense of his own players - in order to help get a deal done.

As for the greedy 'leveraged' owners you are referring to...well I just don't understand your point. Are they greedy because they want to make a profit?? Are they greedy because they want to maximize the profit? What corporation doesn't want to do this (and if you know of any, and own stock in it, I would recommend you sell as quickly as possible). When you say the owners want their cake and eat it to what are you referring to? That the owners want to own a team AND make a profit?? Is that a bad thing?? A really big profit?? Is that a bad thing? That they want to keep labor costs down so they can make a profit?? Is that the bad thing?? When you say the owners want to keep player salaries down (is Shaun Alexander lumped in there??) and prevent rich owners from overspending (thereby maintaining the competitive balance), what is wrong with that?? Are you saying that if player salaries go up and some teams are allowed to 'overspend' that is a good thing??

A small bloc of 10-12 Owners want a level playing field with the Big owners. That means they want a "No Cash Over Cap" policy. But "No Cash Over Cap" means that theres less money for the players. In this scenario, the Players will require a greater percentage of Revenues to make up the difference. The Large owners understand this. But the Small Owners ALSO dont want to give up more of the League revenues to the Players. Do you see what I mean? They dont want to capitualte to the players salary demands, but they dont want to lose the competitve battle with rich owners, because theyre afraid they will be outspent b. Thats what I mean by having your cake and eating it too. Its like going to a high-stakes poker table and then complaining the ante is too high.

Bottom line, Hopefully the owners and players will work this out to keep the NFL as the greatest entertainment going. Maybe the owners will cave and give upshaw what he wants, or maybe the players will get to upshaw and tell him to backoff, or maybe the owners and union will reach some happy medium and upshaw can say he won, but we will continue to get our great entertainment. Any of those are fine with me, as long as they manage to get it done...Anyway, it's been fun arguing socialism vs capitalism with ya'll as part of this whole CBA thing, I can't wait until we go back to talking Drew Bree's draft picks and football though....

As I menetiond, at this stage its not so much Players VS Owners as it is "Rich" Owners vs "Small" Owners. I recommend more reading on the revenue battle between the big and small team owners (and markets) and youd have a better understanding of this debate.

 

[greatwade]

You only have to look as far as baseball to see what would happen.

Say the product doesn't get better or worse, we're just arguing the economics... giving a perpetual "go to the highest bidder" system, the players will always win. Because there will always be someone willing to pay a premium to get the best.

That's why A-Rod got a quarter of a BILLION dollar contract from a team in a less popular sport.

You don't think Snyder would pay through the roof to get all the best players he could?

And that's really the point... the owners know that with no cap their payroll costs would skyrocket... (short of collusion, which puts them in whole different bind). So if, as everyone but PFT knows, they would pay more without a cap... why are they fighting so hard about paying more and keeping the cap?

And the answer is... they aren't really. This was and is always more about the owner/owner squabbles than the owner/player squabbles.



As I've said before, I am horrified by the idea of no cap. I want nothing to do with it.

But to suggest that the owners should get the advantages of the free market and the players shouldn't is hypocritical.

Pony, you've said this a dozen times (A Rod's $250 mil contract). It doesn't hold water.

1) Its over 10+ years >>>>> this wouldn't make sense in football, injuries are 10 times the factor they are in baseball
2) With the exception of Peyton Manning and maybe Tom Brady, who do you think Snyder would even give $150 million too???

 

[Shamboubou]

really wow. i didn't notice her in that outfit + hair.

Yeah thats kinda why I liked this pic, she looks like her but doesn't really look like her.

 

[nopony]

If you dont factor costs into pricing you are gonna go out of business. You dont limit your rpicing at costs, that is your break even point, you thn add markup, which is your profit margin. But to ignore costs in your pricing model is dangerous.

Again, charging less than your costs is a whole different thing... that's not about price point, that's about finding a new line of work.

Let's simplify this. If you have an expert cigar roller rolling cigars for you that you turn around and sell for ten bucks... and he wants a raise to ten bucks a cigar... so you raise your price to twenty dollars each, but then you fire yourself, because if people were wiling to pay twenty dollars per cigar why were you charging ten to begin with???

The owners aren't stupid. They are charging what people will pay. That's it.

 

[PhinBeck]

You only have to look as far as baseball to see what would happen.

Say the product doesn't get better or worse, we're just arguing the economics... giving a perpetual "go to the highest bidder" system, the players will always win. Because there will always be someone willing to pay a premium to get the best.

That's why A-Rod got a quarter of a BILLION dollar contract from a team in a less popular sport.

You don't think Snyder would pay through the roof to get all the best players he could?

And that's really the point... the owners know that with no cap their payroll costs would skyrocket... (short of collusion, which puts them in whole different bind). So if, as everyone but PFT knows, they would pay more without a cap... why are they fighting so hard about paying more and keeping the cap?

And the answer is... they aren't really. This was and is always more about the owner/owner squabbles than the owner/player squabbles.



As I've said before, I am horrified by the idea of no cap. I want nothing to do with it.

But to suggest that the owners should get the advantages of the free market and the players shouldn't is hypocritical.

I agree withh this, especially after 2007. But there are still rules in the uncapped year in 2007 such as the limit of 30% over previous year and spreading the guarenteed over 4 not 7 years. Snyder has a ton of money but his spending would b thwarted by this, yeah he still increases spending but not as much as he would. Also there is only a few owners that can speend like that, many others would actually decrease their spending, if for the only reason, they cant compte and attract players. so is the increase by the feww who could afford substantial increases offset the decrease by those that cant?

Now I do agree that overrall actual spending decreasing is not likely. Just dont see overall league wide it increasing in 2007 as much as many think it will, it will increase IMO, but not to the extent that many think it will.

 

[Surferosa]

while I agree with you overall i do disagree on some points. I will not dbate them as to me they are irrrelvant to overall argument.

When you hve a labor dispute an there are 3 sides not two, you are doomed. It just wont work. There is another sid poking its head out aa litlle and thats the actual players some who are upst at the union itself, it isnt a big thing now, nor will it surly be, but there are grumblings. Just cant solvee the issues if there are so many that conflict with each other that you cant separate them and resolve them. When a 2 sided fight becomes a 3 or 4 sided fight, it sets up automatic failure. Unless the owners get on thee same page, no deal will get done.

Upshaw is not without blame here at all. At this point throwing ultimatums and absolutes would bee a concern if I were on the opposite side. Like there will never be a cap again. Then the league counters with well then the player pool drops below 50%, and then a huge stoppage occurs and everyone loses. That kessler guy for the union? who is this guy? He looks and sounds like that kid who was picked on all his life and now fels he is a big bad tough guy and is flexing his "muscle" to show look at m look at me. Yeah I know not relevant just an observation. But most of it is posturing to being used to pressure the owners to get the deal done.

in a nutshell, the players came in and negotiated in good faith but the owners cant agree among themwsleves and so cant agree on a deal. Jerry Jones is teh ring leader of the new owners out for themselves first then the league. I always hated that idiot.

Good post, man.

 

[nopony]

Pony, you've said this a dozen times (A Rod's $250 mil contract). It doesn't hold water.

1) Its over 10+ years >>>>> this wouldn't make sense in football, injuries are 10 times the factor they are in baseball
2) With the exception of Peyton Manning and maybe Tom Brady, who do you think Snyder would even give $150 million too???

Huh? Who said anything about someone getting 250? I am using it as an example of the premium people will pay to get the best talent.

But think of what you just said... do you know how huge a leap 150 million is to Tom and Peyton?

No one in football (with the exception of the column for PFT, which was apparently written by Vince Young) has any doubt that payroll would skyrocket without a cap.

Why do you think we are all so terrified of losing the cap? Because all players would go to the highest bidder and teams would have to enormously increase payroll just to stay competitive.

 

[nopony]

I agree withh this, especially after 2007. But there are still rules in the uncapped year in 2007 such as the limit of 30% over previous year and spreading the guarenteed over 4 not 7 years. Snyder has a ton of money but his spending would b thwarted by this, yeah he still increases spending but not as much as he would. Also there is only a few owners that can speend like that, many others would actually decrease their spending, if for the only reason, they cant compte and attract players. so is the increase by the feww who could afford substantial increases offset the decrease by those that cant?

Now I do agree that overrall actual spending decreasing is not likely. Just dont see overall league wide it increasing in 2007 as much as many think it will, it will increase IMO, but not to the extent that many think it will.

Completely fair.

 

[Surferosa]

Pony, you've said this a dozen times (A Rod's $250 mil contract). It doesn't hold water.

1) Its over 10+ years >>>>> this wouldn't make sense in football, injuries are 10 times the factor they are in baseball
2) With the exception of Peyton Manning and maybe Tom Brady, who do you think Snyder would even give $150 million too???

From various websites Ive seen on the web:

MEDIAN Player salaries in the MLB is $2.3 Million
MEDIAN Player salaries in the NFL is $600-800K

So thats not exactly true. Even without the A-ROD contracts, Baseball players seem to make significantly more than NFL players.

 

[PhinBeck]

Again, charging less than your costs is a whole different thing... that's not about price point, that's about finding a new line of work.

Let's simplify this. If you have an expert cigar roller rolling cigars for you that you turn around and sell for ten bucks... and he wants a raise to ten bucks a cigar... so you raise your price to twenty dollars each, but then you fire yourself, because if people were wiling to pay twenty dollars per cigar why were you charging ten to begin with???

The owners aren't stupid. They are charging what people will pay. That's it.

You contradict yourself. Yees you are right but in your example you consider pricing. Yeap if he could have got 20 he should be looking in the mirror. But if your costs are ten dollars from th expert, you dont leave th pric at ten, you factor in the cost of ten and add tn for your profit and sell it at 20. Now if the market would bear 20, owners will sell at 17 or 18 trying to gain a larger share of the m,arket over th competitors. Adding sign volume makes up for the loweer price. If you and you competitor sell the same quality and brand cigar, then it becomes convenience where you buy it or loyalty. If I can go 1 mile and geet the exact same cigar I can get 20 miles away at the same cost, I go 1 mile. Now this doesnt necessarily translate to the NFL, they dont have outside competition so there is no undercutting competitors.

Anyway, your own example factors in costs. so we agree.

 

[nopony]

You contradict yourself. Yees you are right but in your example you consider pricing. Yeap if he could have got 20 he should be looking in the mirror. But if your costs are ten dollars from th expert, you dont leave th pric at ten, you factor in the cost of ten and add tn for your profit and sell it at 20. Now if the market would bear 20, owners will sell at 17 or 18 trying to gain a larger share of the m,arket over th competitors. Adding sign volume makes up for the loweer price. If you and you competitor sell the same quality and brand cigar, then it becomes convenience where you buy it or loyalty. If I can go 1 mile and geet the exact same cigar I can get 20 miles away at the same cost, I go 1 mile. Now this doesnt necessarily translate to the NFL, they dont have outside competition so there is no undercutting competitors.

Anyway, your own example factors in costs. so we agree.

My own example was saying that if you let costs determine your price point, you are being stupid... and the owners aren't stupid.

(edit to say that I don't mean YOU are being stupid, I mean the owners, if that wasn't clear.)

 

[PhinBeck]

From various websites Ive seen on the web:

MEDIAN Player salaries in the MLB is $2.3 Million
MEDIAN Player salaries in the NFL is $600-800K

So thats not exactly true. Even without the A-ROD contracts, Baseball players seem to make significantly more than NFL players.

Yes but there are also 162 games from which revenue is generated to pay these salaries vs 16 in the NFL. look at it from a per game perspeective.