owners voted unanimously to break off talks...

[Geauxfins]

Exactly!

Don't let their greed turn the NFL into the MLB. The owners have it MADE, now. Don't blow it.

hey pony, the owners don't want to change anything....the players do.

 

[nopony]

If you don't understand the difference between revenue and net then you shouldn't even be in this discussion. And franchise value going up doesn't actually produce any revenue until you sell.

What are you talking about. I said of course it's revenue. Whoever said it was net?
:shakeno:

 

[nopony]

hey pony, the owners don't want to change anything....the players do.

The players want to up their % to more accurately reflect the explosion of profit in the NFL. What's wrong with that?

They're not even asking ot lose the cap or to guarantee the contracts.

:shakeno:

The players can't win. They bend over backwards for the league, the weakest union in sports and least demanding and people STILL blame them.

No accounting for people, I guess.

 

[nopony]

they have those jobs because they have the money....that is why the have the cushiest ride in sports, is because they made money. Because they are smart. Because the work hard, because they don't play games for a living.....the union is screwing the players (see Sam Madison, Drew Bree's, etc, etc, etc). That is the problem.

:sidelol:

Yeah, that's the problem. The player's union is screwing the players.

The most generous union in sports and jealous armchair quarterbacks will still always blame them. Crazy.

 

[greatwade]

No accounting for people - of course there is!
jealous armchair quarterbacks - Damn skippy I'm jealous. But I consider myself more of an armchair strong safety!

You are one fierce player advocate. Have you thought about going into the agent business?

 

[Geauxfins]

The players want to up their % to more accurately reflect the explosion of profit in the NFL. What's wrong with that?

They're not even asking ot lose the cap or to guarantee the contracts.

:shakeno:

The players can't win. They bend over backwards for the league, the weakest union in sports and least demanding and people STILL blame them.

No accounting for people, I guess.

Wrong, the players $$ amount already goes up with the explosion of revenue in the NFL...Profit goes up for the owner (due to % though, it goes up more for the players) as the revenue goes up...so for $10 in revenue, the players currently get $5.62...the owners get (complete guess here, but something like) $0.50 (not a bad thing, that is reasonable profit), and the rest goes for expenses (did you watch the combine...that cost some real money to run). Ok, so now if the revenue and/or profit explodes, (doubles), so does the player money....so when the players ask for a bigger %, it either comes out of the owners pockets (profits), or the teams have to decrease operating costs. More revenue doesn't help that...make sense??

 

[rafael]

What are you talking about. I said of course it's revenue. Whoever said it was net?
:shakeno:

Net factors in costs. Ignoring net means that you're ignoring the costs associated with running a franchise. Those costs are borne by the owners. So if revenues are going up you have to consider how much costs are going up as well. If they are going up equally (in dollar amounts) then the owners are not making any more money. If reports that 4% means a difference
$4 billion then it's not hard to imagine that that could be the difference between a profitable and an unprofitable league.

 

[Geauxfins]

:sidelol:

Yeah, that's the problem. The player's union is screwing the players.

The most generous union in sports and jealous armchair quarterbacks will still always blame them. Crazy.

do you see a scenairo here where this is good for the players like Sam Madison and Drew Brees?? Perhaps I just don't understand.

 

[Geauxfins]

No accounting for people - of course there is!
jealous armchair quarterbacks - Damn skippy I'm jealous. But I consider myself more of an armchair strong safety!

You are one fierce player advocate. Have you thought about going into the agent business?

Armchair LB here....couldn't get that 6 on the wonderlick I need to be a QB...

 

[rafael]

The players want to up their % to more accurately reflect the explosion of profit in the NFL. What's wrong with that?

They're not even asking ot lose the cap or to guarantee the contracts.

How do you know that 60% more accurately reflects the increase in profits than 56%?

 

[keys_finfan]

God Bless those Unions! They sure ensure prosperity for their members. The UAW & Aviation Mechanics are so well represented. Maybe they'll do such a bang up job looking out for their members, we'll be watching Indian & Pakistani NFL players someday. Wouldn't that be sweet. Apu pitches to Patel...touchdown!!! :sidelol:

funny stuff

 

[nopony]

No accounting for people - of course there is!
jealous armchair quarterbacks - Damn skippy I'm jealous. But I consider myself more of an armchair strong safety!

You are one fierce player advocate. Have you thought about going into the agent business?

Heh... fine, fine, I'm done.

And, no about the agent business. But my agent would be proud.


I'll just leave people with this:

If the CBA just magically went away and teams didn't have to keep salary under the cap... do you think payroll would go up or down? Obviously anyone with two IQ points to rub together knows that salaries would go UP.

So if that's the case... then de facto the players are making less because of their own CBA!

So the owners have a choice... pay the players something a little closer to what their free market worth is... or lose the CBA and let the free market reign.

It's very simple... I KNOW the owners can pay more because they would in a nanosecond if there was no CBA. A LOT more.

If the players would be worth so much more with an open market... why on earth shouldn't they get a better CBA?

Anyway, nice talking to you, as usual. I too have to GBTW.

 

[NYCphan]

If the CBA just magically went away and teams didn't have to keep salary under the cap... do you think payroll would go up or down? Obviously anyone with two IQ points to rub together knows that salaries would go UP.

So if that's the case... then de facto the players are making less because of their own CBA!

So the owners have a choice... pay the players something a little closer to what their free market worth is... or lose the CBA and let the free market reign.

It's very simple... I KNOW the owners can pay more because they would in a nanosecond if there was no CBA. A LOT more.

If the players would be worth so much more with an open market... why on earth shouldn't they get a better CBA?

Your analysis is appealing in its common-sense simplicity. It's also flawed for the same reason.

What makes you think the owners would pay more - "a LOT more" - in player salaries if given the chance? No doubt some can and would, but on average, across all teams? Some don't spend the entire cap as it is. Some teams are well-positioned in lucrative markets, with good stadium deals, etc, to pay more. Many others aren't.

But let's say the overall amount does go up, at least somewhat. Anyone with those same two points of IQ to rub together, as you put it, would accept that it's not going to be an even rise across the league. OK, so what then? Never mind the first few seasons of this - look at it over 10 years. We're back to a minority of teams that are perpetual contenders, and another big batch that pretty much stink full-time. Revenue sharing among the franchises might prevent this from getting too ridiculous, but it's going to happen to one extent or another.

So what's the problem with that? Well, where does all this money come from to pay the players? From TV rights of course, for the most part. What do you suppose happens to the ratings, on average, over time, when a third of the teams have pretty much no chance at the playoffs from week 1? How about when these crazy Decembers in which seemingly half the league still has a playoff shot are just a fading memory?

The league and owners have been pretty clever in setting things up to please their #1 customer - the networks. The union has been smart enough to recognize the benefits, go along with this, and tie itself into most of the revenue that results. I don't know why they're getting so dopey about it now.

This is an entertainment business in which the players are the product. But it didn't become the money-making monster it is because of the players. They do what they've always done for decades: train and play. Not much has changed in what's expected of them over the years - they just make more money for it now than they used to. Good for them. But I can't sympathize with this idea that their huge share of an expanding pie isn't good enough; they want a larger share of the expanding pie.

 

[nopony]

Your analysis is appealing in its common-sense simplicity. It's also flawed for the same reason.

What makes you think the owners would pay more - "a LOT more" - in player salaries if given the chance? No doubt some can and would, but on average, across all teams? Some don't spend the entire cap as it is. Some teams are well-positioned in lucrative markets, with good stadium deals, etc, to pay more. Many others aren't.

But let's say the overall amount does go up, at least somewhat. Anyone with those same two points of IQ to rub together, as you put it, would accept that it's not going to be an even rise across the league. OK, so what then? Never mind the first few seasons of this - look at it over 10 years. We're back to a minority of teams that are perpetual contenders, and another big batch that pretty much stink full-time. Revenue sharing among the franchises might prevent this from getting too ridiculous, but it's going to happen to one extent or another.

So what's the problem with that? Well, where does all this money come from to pay the players? From TV rights of course, for the most part. What do you suppose happens to the ratings, on average, over time, when a third of the teams have pretty much no chance at the playoffs from week 1? How about when these crazy Decembers in which seemingly half the league still has a playoff shot are just a fading memory?

The league and owners have been pretty clever in setting things up to please their #1 customer - the networks. The union has been smart enough to recognize the benefits, go along with this, and tie itself into most of the revenue that results. I don't know why they're getting so dopey about it now.

This is an entertainment business in which the players are the product. But it didn't become the money-making monster it is because of the players. They do what they've always done for decades: train and play. Not much has changed in what's expected of them over the years - they just make more money for it now than they used to. Good for them. But I can't sympathize with this idea that their huge share of an expanding pie isn't good enough; they want a larger share of the expanding pie.

There isn't anything flawed about the statement.

Payroll would skyrocket. A few teams would pinch pennies like a few baseball teams do. But overall, salaries would be through the roof. I mean 20 teams are gutting themselves trying to get under the cap right now. You don't think they'd like some breathing room? Like to be able to keep all their studs?

You think Dan Snyder is going to hesitate if he could get Matt Leinart AND D'Brickshaw AND Reggie Bush if he just spends extra money? And you don't think his rival Jerry Jones would offer more to keep that from happening?

History shows that spending will expand. The NFL will continue to be more and more profitable, it is now America's sport.

Every single owner would agree with this statement: If there was no CBA at all, payroll as a whole would rise dramatically. Barring collusion, of course, which could ruin them all.