Orton's Arm Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 The players didn't really give back 10%. They're also changing the calculations. As a percentage of all revenue the players get between 50% and 52% most seasons. So at best, they're giving up a couple percentage points. That's still tens of millions of dollars, of course, but it's not a sweeping concession. Not that it's at all clear that it would be fair for the players to give back any of their share from the last deal. The league is still overwhelmingly profitable at the current rates. I disagree. The game does not punish men's bodies more, today, than it had 30 years ago. But in both nominal and real terms, players' salaries have skyrocketed during that time. Does it seem reasonable to you that Mike Williams got paid as much as he did? How about Nate Clements' big contract from San Francisco? To me, these are bad things in and of themselves, and only serve to drive up the NFL's costs of doing business. The higher those costs become, the more the NFL will do to try to offset them. That means more advertising, higher ticket prices, higher concession prices, and whatever else they can think of to extract yet more money from the fans. Not only that, but over the past several years the NFL's shared revenues have remained stagnant, while the salary cap has continued to increase. That puts pressure on small-market teams such as the Bills, because they find it increasingly painful to spend up to the cap. In the late '90s the Bills could (and did) spend over the cap by amortizing bonuses. There was once a time when this team was in cap trouble, as difficult as that may be to believe! I strongly doubt today's Bills team will come anywhere close to cap trouble, because the salary cap represents a much bigger chunk of shared revenues than it had in the past. A number of players are grossly overpaid. That's bad for the players themselves. Look at the arrogance of the (ridiculously overpaid) NBA players! I don't think many of us want to see NFL players develop those same attitudes. Overpaying players is bad for the fans, because it encourages the league to squeeze more money out of us. It's bad for the sport of football as a whole, by making it more financially difficult for teams like the Bills to compete, today, than it had been as recently as the late '90s. The players got way too much with the last deal. They need to give all of that back! I don't mind seeing them get more in other areas: healthcare for retired players, a higher minimum salary, etc. But the overall salary cap needs to be significantly reduced, and there should be a rookie wage scale! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacus Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 pure guesses: -- earliest this gets resolved: July. -- latest it gets resolved and there's still a season: Oct. 1. jw odds are that the best deal the union will get is if they agree before Mar 3. There will be pressure from players due roster bonus money to get something done. if there is a lockout, the owners are essentially going all-in and have the resources to hold out long enough to dictate the new terms. it will not be pretty for the players in any event, no deal will get done unless there is a perceived deadline on both sides. if it slides past March 3, any date in July is meaningless. the next date of importance will be the season opener when players will start to lose paychecks. Pressure will mount the longer the players go without money. It will really get ugly if the union de-certifies and the players litigate over anti-trust issues. The last time the case took 3 years to resolve while the league played under its rules imposed after impasse. not sure how the players can rely on an anti-trust victory 3 years in the future to save the day with no paychecks coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 But that's the rub ... and where you're off. If any owner left the league, 1000 others would be lining up to take their spot that would bring as much to the league in terms of quality as the current owners do. The same can NOT be said for the players. If the players leave, there would be 1000s willing to take their place. But the quality of their play and the entertainment value they bring to the fans would NOT be the same. Not true. If players en masse left and were replaced by scabs, it would hurt the product and many people would likely stop watching. However if say a team full of players across the league (equal to 1 owner, for this exercise) left, the product quality might suffer, but no one would stop watching. But the players will eventually return because there's nowhere else to play that's even close to the NFL. As I said earlier, in nearly every other labor dispute in the past few decades that I've been a fan, I've never been on the players' side. But this is different. People don't care because at the end of the day it's billionares fighting with millionares. They don't care about the fans (on either side). I get that. But that doesn't change the fact that the owners are capable of preventing a work stoppage if they really want to. But they don't. And that, as a fan, pisses me off. The owners prevented a work stoppage last time by giving the players what they wanted, to the tune of about $1B. Now they are asking for that $1B back. They messed up because they could have offered the players a "take it or leave it" small raise and the players couldn't have grumbled too much and wouldn't have struck. Now they're asking them for a pay cut, which is a huge difference, and the players are willing to dig their heels in. Like you said, this is all about greed. But the owners hold the cards. And the more the players get, the more the fans pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I love going to the games,and supporting the team. (This is my 23rd year as a season ticket holder) but I'm having a harder time with it as the years pass by. I stopped buying anything at the concessions inside the Stadium a long time ago. (nine bucks for a Heiniken? C'mon.) It's still a relatively expensive proposition to go and see the team with the cheapest seats in the league for an 'out of towner' like me. I'm on the side of the players, but that being said, I think the owners are right to pursue a rookie salary cap. Revenue sharing, and the salary cap as we all know will be essential to the survival of the Bills, and the other small market teams. I'm hoping against hope that that those items are on the CBA agenda for both sides. I don't want to see the entire NFL go to the Jerry Jones model of $80 pizzas,and outrageous ticket prices, but if it does, there are plenty of other things that I can do with my time on a sunday afternoon You don't need to buy anything inside 'cause we got it all @ Lot 1! Right?! Give Finne a hug for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 They met again this afternoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Blizzard Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 How much money is enough? Just a little more . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndirish1978 Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I don't care who gets what as long as there is football. Are the players getting paid? If so then I could care less about them getting health insurance after retiring. My job doesn't pay for it, why should theirs? And before you hit me with the "their job puts abuse on their bodies" I remind you that they get paid millions of dollars for that. Stop treating players like family members. They are tradeable commodities. Why do owners deserve more? Because they pay the bills. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts