**Official CBA Thread II - Update: Owners Approve CBA!** | Page 9 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

Geauxfins said:
..."Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 per cent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 per cent. ...[/SIZE][/FONT]
[/LEFT]
Click to expand...
Interesting. It's as if Upshaw doesn't even know what the actual figures are..."just less than 60 percent"... what is that? It definitely appears that he is way over his head. Hopefully, Troy Vincent will actually get to sit in on some of these meetings.

If I was an owner, there is no way on this green earth that I would connect a 60 percent skim off of gross revenues. Any locked in percentage would have to be in relationship to the NET profits.

Imagine how a simple change in tax policy could send the owners into an unproffitable deal.
 
Tags has the toughest road to hoe to convince this deal to get done.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095

"In 2004, Commissioner Tagliabue formed an owners' economic study committee, which so far has mostly just laid bare the economic fault lines among the owners. The committee is chaired by Texans owners Bob McNair, who is every bit the new-breed owner. He paid $700 million for his expansion franchise and must run it aggressively to make it pay off. On the other end of the spectrum is the Pittsburgh Steelers' Dan Rooney, whose father founded the team for a fee of $2,500 in 1933. They may play the same game, but it's almost as though they aren't in the same business.

It's not that most high-revenue teams are dead set against broadened revenue sharing. According to a league official, McNair's committee has been kicking around formulas calling for sharing anywhere from 20 percent to 34 percent of now unshared local revenues. But owners who have privately financed new stadiums want their debt and other expenses taken into account, not just their gross.

It takes a two-thirds vote of owners (24 of 32) to change the revenue-sharing formula, and that's tough enough. But it's harder still because nearly half of the NFL owners (14) are new since 1993. They bought their pricey franchises and built their costly stadiums under the assumptions and economics of the current system. It's hard to blame the New Guarders for resisting change, especially when the Old Guard's interests seemed so closely aligned with the union's. But the fact is that the NFL's foundation was laid, at key junctures, by owners who put the league's overall interests ahead of their own.

If Wellington Mara hadn't sacrificed his New York Giants' TV rights in order to allow Rozelle to sell a national network package to CBS, the league would never have enjoyed its first great growth spurt in the 1960s. Many billions of dollars later, this may be another key juncture.

"You've got institutional memory butting up against the realities of leveraged debt," says Michael MacCambridge, author of an authoritative NFL history, America's Game. "In the past, the people with institutional memory have held sway, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will be that way this time.""
 
Does anybody know how much we will be under cap is the CBA gets passed. I know that they had said that they were going to add about 10 million if it gets passed and it showed that we were 8+ million over cap. But I believe that the 8+ million we are over is including insentives and everything. If the CBA gets passed doesn't that stuff disappear and we will be pretty far under cap??
 
Shamboubou said:
Does anybody know how much we will be under cap is the CBA gets passed. I know that they had said that they were going to add about 10 million if it gets passed and it showed that we were 8+ million over cap. But I believe that the 8+ million we are over is including insentives and everything. If the CBA gets passed doesn't that stuff disappear and we will be pretty far under cap??
Click to expand...

so who is that girl in your avator?
 
I had heard that the new CBA would include caps on how much Rookies would make entering the league. This would be there in the hopes of ending the enivitiable holdout of the first round picks. I had only heard that this was an idea that they were kicking around. Has anyone heard anything like this?
 
I don't find any reason further to talk about this right now, the owners will meet tommorrow to vote on the new offer. if they accept it than it's a done deal. if they reject it than we could be looking at another extended deadline. they will get it done either way
 
Geauxfins said:
Great insight...care to elaborate?
Click to expand...

Er...I wrote a huge post explaining my view in the very next post. Care to rebut?
 
Heres a copy of my post for Geauxfins:

I laugh at the notion that people blame Gene Upshaw & the NFLPA. You wont find an example anywhere in the world of a Union that works so closely with its employer - and with the same interests - as the NFLPA over the last 20 years. Gene Upshaw, while fighting for player rights, ultimately has the Leagues best interests at heart. He is one of the silent heroes of the NFL, and one of the of the key protaganists for the leagues continued growth. And all he gets for it is grief.

A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years? Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.

Do you want to point the finger at someone? Look at the new, greedy, "leveraged" owners that purchased their Franchises in small markets for $500 million, and now have to do everythting imaginable to turn a profit and justify their investment. These are the people that are rocking the boat, not the NFLPA. They want to keep player salaries down AND prevent rich-owners from over-spending (cash over cap). Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They are the ones causing the problems here, not the union
 
Surferosa said:
Heres a copy of my post for Geauxfins:

I laugh at the notion that people blame Gene Upshaw & the NFLPA. You wont find an example anywhere in the world of a Union that works so closely with its employer - and with the same interests - as the NFLPA over the last 20 years. Gene Upshaw, while fighting for player rights, ultimately has the Leagues best interests at heart. He is one of the silent heroes of the NFL, and one of the of the key protaganists for the leagues continued growth. And all he gets for it is grief.

A salary cap is NOT in the players best interest, yet Upshaw goes along with it ONLY because its in the best interest of the League. As a result, he asks for a greater percentage of revenues for player salaries, even though its still less FAR LESS than players would earn in an uncapped NFL. The players DESERVE better. And the League knows it.

In addition, think about the current NFL labor deal and just how much it favors owners: The average NFL player career is only three years, shortest among all major American Sports. Yet player contracts are NOT garanteed, even though the succeptibility to injury is greater than in any other sport. Players get paid LESS than their peers from the NBA and MLB, even though Football is more popular and generates more revenues than other leagues. How can anyone point the finger at Upshaw when he has taken such a moderate stance against the owners over the years? Hes the good guy in all this, not the villain.

Do you want to point the finger at someone? Look at the new, greedy, "leveraged" owners that purchased their Franchises in small markets for $500 million, and now have to do everythting imaginable to turn a profit and justify their investment. These are the people that are rocking the boat, not the NFLPA. They want to keep player salaries down AND prevent rich-owners from over-spending (cash over cap). Essentially, they want to have their cake and eat it too. They are the ones causing the problems here, not the union
Click to expand...

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. 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).

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 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??

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??

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??

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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom