Jay Feeley on Sirius NFL Radio discussing CBA talks

fansince88 · February 16, 2011

Sounds good except that even if the owners keep the players in check, that still won't stop them from trying to squeeze every dollar they can out of the fans and lining their own pockets.

I do believe if I was an owner the goal that I would have as an owner is to line my pockets with money. I build custom furniture. I enjoy doing it and enjoy people enjoying the finished work. BUT I dont do it so that the people buying it from me can enjoy looking at it but to make a profit! Here is how it is:

1)Owners own the team and there #1 goal should be at the end of the day be richer than they started.They laid the money out to buy the team. That is there right!

2)Players work for the owners and there #1 goal should be to prosper their bosses in turn prosper themselves.

3)Us as fans pay to see these players perform to their top abilities and that is all we can get for our money.

Mickey · February 16, 2011

Your boss/owner of your company gives you a bonus/raise or you demand to see the books and then make your own determination what your raise/bonus should be?

Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for these guys at all. Because of their athletic talent, they received a 4 year degree at some of the best colleges in the country(If they didn't, shame on them), and are being paid a kings ransom to play a game they love.

F*** THEM.

One more point...

Without the owners, the NFL players would be no different than 99% of all NCAA athletes. Looking for a real job when their college days were over.

They just don't know how good they have it.

Ummm....you do realize that the players aren't asking for a raise, right? The owners are asking to reduce their take and are justifying it with the claim that the league isn't doing well. The players, whose own salaries are publicly known so that losers making a hundred times less can B word and moan about how overpaid they are, have simply asked the owners to prove their claim by opening the books.

In relation to what they are worth, they are not being paid a "kings ransom", they aren't even getting what the market would bear because they aren't free to sign with whoever wants to pay them the most. The league is playing with fire. If the union decertifies, the players then would have standing to go to court and try their hand at an anti-trust suit. That could end football as we know it and would certainly be the end of marginal franchises like the Bills.

Scraps · February 16, 2011

I do believe if I was an owner the goal that I would have as an owner is to line my pockets with money. I build custom furniture. I enjoy doing it and enjoy people enjoying the finished work. BUT I dont do it so that the people buying it from me can enjoy looking at it but to make a profit! Here is how it is:

1)Owners own the team and there #1 goal should be at the end of the day be richer than they started.They laid the money out to buy the team. That is there right!

2)Players work for the owners and there #1 goal should be to prosper their bosses in turn prosper themselves.

3)Us as fans pay to see these players perform to their top abilities and that is all we can get for our money.

Well there is a pretty big difference between you and an NFL franchise owner. You are in competition with others and really can't get away with gouging the consumers. The NFL owners are really partners in a monopoly and can and will gouge the consumer. I am not going to feel sorry for them unless they open up their books to prove they are losing money.

Both sides are greedy, and are trying to grab as much money as they can get.

However, of the two groups, the players are the more ignorant, and less deserving of the cash.

As people, the players are the ones who are coddled and given everything since their talent was discovered, they don't have normal lives, and they don't have the same reality as many of the owners who built their empires to get to the point of owning an NFL team. Sure, many owners are a-holes, but not much you can do about that. Overall, the players are the ones who don't have a clue, and should not be demanding more than they currently get. They already get paid too much. The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues.

More ignorant? Maybe. Less deserving? How do you figure that? We fans pay to see them play. We don't pay to see the owners strut about their luxury booth and rake in huge profits.

JohnC · February 16, 2011

Both sides are greedy, and are trying to grab as much money as they can get.

However, of the two groups, the players are the more ignorant, and less deserving of the cash.

As people, the players are the ones who are coddled and given everything since their talent was discovered, they don't have normal lives, and they don't have the same reality as many of the owners who built their empires to get to the point of owning an NFL team. Sure, many owners are a-holes, but not much you can do about that. Overall, the players are the ones who don't have a clue, and should not be demanding more than they currently get. They already get paid too much. The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues.

The players are not asking for more money. Their preference is to maintain what they have. They are making the point that if there was a necessity to re-open the CBA then demonstrate to them why that is the case. The owners are basically saying they don't have to prove anything to anyone. The owners are having the players negotiating in the blind when they are controlling the light switch.

Pine Barrens Mafia · February 16, 2011

Sounds good on paper but how much of the 1.5-2.0 mil to they actually pocket? How much goes to the government in taxes? How much goes to agents? How many of these guys learned anything useful in college to set them up for a real career?

Dude, stop. Just stop.

San Jose Bills Fan · February 16, 2011

Are all other professions going to threaten to holdout for things like this? I guess when you start making 6 figures as a 21-25 year old you don't really know how to manage your money….These guys that only last a year or two, unless you get hurt, you should have actually got a degree that would've been useful.

Oh boy. The players are not "holding out." In fact they are not going even on strike.

Short of an agreement, on March 4th, when the league year ends, THE OWNERS ARE INTENDING ON LOCKING OUT THE PLAYERS.

You don't even know what the situation is and you're commenting on it?

The players were content to work under the existing CBA which was to have continued until 2013. It was the owners who decided to start a fight with the players.

However, of the two groups, the players are the more ignorant, and less deserving of the cash.

As people, the players are the ones who are coddled and given everything since their talent was discovered, they don't have normal lives, and they don't have the same reality as many of the owners who built their empires to get to the point of owning an NFL team. Sure, many owners are a-holes, but not much you can do about that. Overall, the players are the ones who don't have a clue, and should not be demanding more than they currently get. They already get paid too much. The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues.

The players are "more ignorant and less deserving of cash?" Because…if you're ignorant you deserve less? Nonsensical statement number one.

The players are "coddled" by whom? Society? Why is that? Is that maybe because you and millions like you pay to watch them play, buy their jerseys, purchase DirecTV, and watch games on television all of which conspire to make the players (and don't forget the owners) very rich? Are they coddled because our society chooses (by voting with their dollars) to make players (and don't forget the owners) extremely wealthy? The players are coddled because we as a society (including people who post on message boards and talk about players) put the NFL and its players on a pedestal.

"Sure many owners are !@#$s but not much you can do about that" That's an interesting statement. We can't do anything about some owners being !@#$s but...we can call the players names? Nonsensical statement number two.

"The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues." Nonsensical statement number three.

If you were in their shoes, you would be any different? If you were switched at birth with an NFL player, you think that somehow you innately have greater character and would not be spoiled and have entitlement issues?

The players are a product of society. We are a part of that society. By judging the players negatively, you imply that you are a better person than they are.

From what you've written here, I have severe doubts about that suggestion.

Edited February 16, 2011 by San Jose Bills Fan

the_franchise · February 16, 2011

Oh boy. The players are not "holding out." In fact they are not going even on strike.

Short of an agreement, on March 4th, when the league year ends, THE OWNERS ARE INTENDING ON LOCKING OUT THE PLAYERS.

You don't even know what the situation is and you're commenting on it?

The players were content to work under the existing CBA which was to have continued until 2013. It was the owners who decided to start a fight with the players.

The players are "more ignorant and less deserving of cash?" Because…if you're ignorant you deserve less? Nonsensical statement number one.

The players are "coddled" by whom? Society? Why is that? Is that maybe because you and millions like you pay to watch them play, buy their jerseys, purchase DirecTV, and watch games on television all of which conspire to make the players (and don't forget the owners) very rich? Are they coddled because our society chooses (by voting with their dollars) to make players (and don't forget the owners) extremely wealthy? The players are coddled because we as a society (including people who post on message boards and talk about players) put the NFL and its players on a pedestal.

"Sure many owners are !@#$s but not much you can do about that" That's an interesting statement. We can't do anything about some owners being !@#$s but...we can call the players names? Nonsensical statement number two.

"The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues." Nonsensical statement number three.

If you were in their shoes, you would be any different? If you were switched at birth with an NFL player, you think that somehow you innately have greater character and would not be spoiled and have entitlement issues?

The players are a product of society. We are a part of that society. By judging the players negatively, you imply that you are a better person than they are.

From what you've written here, I have severe doubts about that suggestion.

My mistake slick, I had it backwards. I didn't care to read into during the season and from what I've read (very limited with the arrival of my son, :thumbsup: I digress) It seemed like it has been both sides having a pissing contest with each other. My opinion on the ordeal changes slightly now. If the agreement is good through 2013, what makes it legal for the owners to lockout the players? This isn't the same as the NHL lockout is it as their agreement did expire?

You don't have to yell either, the babys sleeping :nana:

Edited February 16, 2011 by the_franchise

thebandit27 · February 16, 2011

My mistake slick, I had it backwards. I didn't care to read into during the season and from what I've read (very limited with the arrival of my son, I digress) It seemed like it has been both sides having a pissing contest with each other. My opinion on the ordeal changes slightly now. If the agreement is good through 2013, what makes it legal for the owners to lockout the players? This isn't the same as the NHL lockout is it as their agreement did expire?

You don't have to yell either, the babys sleeping

Actually, it is the same.

When the current CBA extension was signed prior to the 2006-07 season, both sides knew it was being done in "band-aid" fashion. Neither side was ready to confront the possibility of either an uncapped year or a work stoppage, so they hastily threw together a deal at the last moment. The players got the upper hand in terms of the revenue division, which made them happy to sign the deal. The owners recognized this, and requested that a clause be added to the agreement that provided them an opt-out that they could exercise prior to the 2009 season; that way they could (1) prevent a work stoppage in the short-term, (2) further evaluate the ramifications of an uncapped season--which turned out to work in their favor as opposed to the players', and (3) get out of a "bad" deal in the event that their nest eggs took a hit in the coming seasons. They chose to opt-out prior to the 2009 season, which gave us 2 years of uncapped league operations prior to the early (by 2 years) expiration of the deal.

Now that the deal is expired (or rather, will expire on March 4th of this year), the Owners can lock out the players. Unless, of course, the union chooses to decertify, in which case there's no players union to lock out. Then, of course, the owners will further pursue their charges to the NLRB that the players' union had no intention of reaching a deal because they intended to fall back on decertification the entire time, and there will be a lawyer vs. lawyer pissing match for who knows how long...but, there would be football.

P.S. congrats on your new fatherhood

Edited February 16, 2011 by thebandit27

2003Contenders · February 16, 2011

Actually, it is the same.

When the current CBA extension was signed prior to the 2006-07 season, both sides knew it was being done in "band-aid" fashion. Neither side was ready to confront the possibility of either an uncapped year or a work stoppage, so they hastily threw together a deal at the last moment. The players got the upper hand in terms of the revenue division, which made them happy to sign the deal. The owners recognized this, and requested that a clause be added to the agreement that provided them an opt-out that they could exercise prior to the 2009 season; that way they could (1) prevent a work stoppage in the short-term, (2) further evaluate the ramifications of an uncapped season--which turned out to work in their favor as opposed to the players', and (3) get out of a "bad" deal in the event that their nest eggs took a hit in the coming seasons. They chose to opt-out prior to the 2009 season, which gave us 2 years of uncapped league operations prior to the early (by 2 years) expiration of the deal.

Now that the deal is expired (or rather, will expire on March 4th of this year), the Owners can lock out the players. Unless, of course, the union chooses to decertify, in which case there's no players union to lock out. Then, of course, the owners will further pursue their charges to the NLRB that the players' union had no intention of reaching a deal because they intended to fall back on decertification the entire time, and there will be a lawyer vs. lawyer pissing match for who knows how long...but, there would be football.

P.S. congrats on your new fatherhood

Nice summary. In my mind, the real culprit for this mess was Paul Tagliabu -- who strong-armed the owners into signing a deal that wasn't beneficial to them, just so that he could retire claiming to have left behind a legacy of labor peace. Ralph and Mike Brown were the only ones smart enough to have objected. In guaranteeing the players (who represent only a PORTION of labor costs) roughly 60% of gross revenue, I have no doubt that some of the smaller market teams may have indeed lost money. Remember that the revenue is defined in broad terms across all 32 teams and divided by 32 accordingly. Thus, a large market team like Dallas or Washington may only have to pay 40% of their revenue toward player salaries. Whereas, a smaller market team like Indy may be paying 70-80%. It is hard to stay in business when that much of your revenue (not profit) is dedicated to labor -- and not even TOTAL labor -- costs.

ETD66SS · February 16, 2011

Oh boy. The players are not "holding out." In fact they are not going even on strike.

Short of an agreement, on March 4th, when the league year ends, THE OWNERS ARE INTENDING ON LOCKING OUT THE PLAYERS.

You don't even know what the situation is and you're commenting on it?

The players were content to work under the existing CBA which was to have continued until 2013. It was the owners who decided to start a fight with the players.

The players are "more ignorant and less deserving of cash?" Because…if you're ignorant you deserve less? Nonsensical statement number one.

The players are "coddled" by whom? Society? Why is that? Is that maybe because you and millions like you pay to watch them play, buy their jerseys, purchase DirecTV, and watch games on television all of which conspire to make the players (and don't forget the owners) very rich? Are they coddled because our society chooses (by voting with their dollars) to make players (and don't forget the owners) extremely wealthy? The players are coddled because we as a society (including people who post on message boards and talk about players) put the NFL and its players on a pedestal.

"Sure many owners are !@#$s but not much you can do about that" That's an interesting statement. We can't do anything about some owners being !@#$s but...we can call the players names? Nonsensical statement number two.

"The players are basically spoiled children with entitlement issues." Nonsensical statement number three.

If you were in their shoes, you would be any different? If you were switched at birth with an NFL player, you think that somehow you innately have greater character and would not be spoiled and have entitlement issues?

The players are a product of society. We are a part of that society. By judging the players negatively, you imply that you are a better person than they are.

From what you've written here, I have severe doubts about that suggestion.

I'd rather see no football, than to see players salaries continue to climb in some new CBA that favors the players, and the status quo does just that.

Stating that the players are ignorant is not calling names, it's just stating fact. I don't think many of them could build and operate an NFL organization. In any company, usually the employees who think they could run the show, are the ones most ill-equipped to do so.

There is really nothing you can do in this situation as a fan but pick one side or the other, I choose to side with the owners. I suppose the third option is not to care at all, which many fans may choose, as they can no longer afford to buy tickets to go see their team anyways. And in cities like Buffalo, where most ppl can still afford it, we are laughed at by the rest of the league because of it. Our stadium is a rat hole, and our team sucks, because we're all poor. Jerry and co. would like nothing more than to put us out of our misery. He is an enabler of the entitlement issues players display these days.

"The players are a product of society. We are a part of that society. By judging the players negatively, you imply that you are a better person than they are." -I think a lot of NFL players are delusional folk. Much like the Hollywood/Political elite, they live far from reality.

It's unfortunate that owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Schneider exist, they are turning a sport into a 100% entertainment industry, which always lose touch with the populace at some point. I for one hope the whole thing crashes, and they have to reboot the NFL, and guys like Jerry Jones will be in the poorhouse once again having nightmares about his 1 billion dollar stadium.

The NFL needs to get back to reality, and maybe a lockout would do some good.

Siding with the owners is not much better than siding with the players, but just like a US presidential election, if you want to have a say in anything, you have to choose.

I don't see how a CBA favoring the players changes the direction of the leauge at all. (Not that favoring the owners will change the direction either, but it's the lesser of the two evils)

K-9 · February 16, 2011

Nice summary. In my mind, the real culprit for this mess was Paul Tagliabu -- who strong-armed the owners into signing a deal that wasn't beneficial to them, just so that he could retire claiming to have left behind a legacy of labor peace. Ralph and Mike Brown were the only ones smart enough to have objected. In guaranteeing the players (who represent only a PORTION of labor costs) roughly 60% of gross revenue, I have no doubt that some of the smaller market teams may have indeed lost money. Remember that the revenue is defined in broad terms across all 32 teams and divided by 32 accordingly. Thus, a large market team like Dallas or Washington may only have to pay 40% of their revenue toward player salaries. Whereas, a smaller market team like Indy may be paying 70-80%. It is hard to stay in business when that much of your revenue (not profit) is dedicated to labor -- and not even TOTAL labor -- costs.

That is exactly the point. And yet there are those that insist RW was stupid for voting against his own self-interest because small market teams would have seen a 500% increase in revenue sharing from the large market teams. But there were certain qualifiers a small market team needed to meet in order to be eligible for the increased revenue share. The problem was those qualifiers were not defined in the agreement that RW and Paul Brown objected to in 2006. Basically, 30 other owners voted for something they hadn't read thoroughly. And Ralph is the dumb one?

Regardless, he was vindicated later on as well all know. But the problem still remains.

GO BILLS!!!

Mickey · February 16, 2011

Everything you said is factually accurate, San Jose, but there are two sides to each point you've made, namely:

1) The owners do have the power to implement the "last offer" as the governing rules providing that a new agreement isn't reached by the March 4th deadline. The main reason they won't? The likelihood that a player strike would commence...

2) The players ratified the 2006 CBA extension with full knowledge that Ownership had an opt-out clause. I understand that the owners didn't do themselves a favor with the extension, but it's not as though they are attempting to pull a fast one with the opt-out.

3) The part that makes the money pool issue a little more complicated is that Owners are currently facing unprecedented cost burdens while taking in an unprecedentedly low percentage of the revenue. Whether we the fans believe them or not, the owners are claiming that they want to grow the game (thus growing the overall revenue for both sides), and that they'll need the additional revenue to invest in the game's growth.

4) The conundrum you've stated is the nature of any business: the owner makes the most because he risks the most (in terms of monetary investment, that is).

5) That's true enough, but they also have the benefit of being compensated with enough money ($200k+ per year for the absolute league minimum) to ensure that they and their families can handle the financial burden that the realization of such risk scenarios would impart on them, provided they spend/invest their income wisely, and they have the owners to thank for that.

6) Again, the players did ratify an agreement that put control in the hands of the owners to opt-out; they didn't have to agree to that clause.

While I share your vitriol for the situation, I really haven't directed more of my anger toward one side or the other. I do side, in small part, with the owners, because--as a small business owner myself--I relate more to their business approach than the players. I've also lived life as an employee, and I can see both sides of the disagreement. Let me say this: the owners are not "right" in their stance, but I do believe that they have a point when they stress to the players that they're the people laying down several hundred million dollars per season to operate the business that results in the players' collective livelihood.

It's a tough situation to analyze, and I think you've made some great points; I just happen to believe that there are equally great points on the other side of the coin.

No. 3 above may be true, it may not be, we don't know and neither do the players because the league won't show them the numbers. They have made the claim that you cite as fact but haven't proven it to be so. If it were true, showing the numbers would end the argument and the fact that they won't makes the player rightly suspicious that the claim is BS.

the_franchise · February 17, 2011

Actually, it is the same.

When the current CBA extension was signed prior to the 2006-07 season, both sides knew it was being done in "band-aid" fashion. Neither side was ready to confront the possibility of either an uncapped year or a work stoppage, so they hastily threw together a deal at the last moment. The players got the upper hand in terms of the revenue division, which made them happy to sign the deal. The owners recognized this, and requested that a clause be added to the agreement that provided them an opt-out that they could exercise prior to the 2009 season; that way they could (1) prevent a work stoppage in the short-term, (2) further evaluate the ramifications of an uncapped season--which turned out to work in their favor as opposed to the players', and (3) get out of a "bad" deal in the event that their nest eggs took a hit in the coming seasons. They chose to opt-out prior to the 2009 season, which gave us 2 years of uncapped league operations prior to the early (by 2 years) expiration of the deal.

Now that the deal is expired (or rather, will expire on March 4th of this year), the Owners can lock out the players. Unless, of course, the union chooses to decertify, in which case there's no players union to lock out. Then, of course, the owners will further pursue their charges to the NLRB that the players' union had no intention of reaching a deal because they intended to fall back on decertification the entire time, and there will be a lawyer vs. lawyer pissing match for who knows how long...but, there would be football.

P.S. congrats on your new fatherhood

Double thanks, good breakdown and fatherhood is something else. :thumbsup:

Sisyphean Bills · February 17, 2011

Umm, isn't that what a lot of people do. I know at my job when we have a great year and I'm a part of that success I usually get a raise or bonus of some sort.

If or when your company loss money, should the owner be able to take away or slash your salary ? It has to work both ways.

And that may be more the point, actually. The owners want more of a buffer as the general economy wobbles like global warming weather patterns, corporate sponsors go arse up, and they find themselves zillions in debt with new glitz and sizzle stadiums.

T master · February 17, 2011

The players are delusional. Feeley was crying about how the NFLPA knows how much revenues the owners are getting, but they don't know the owners costs. Therefore, they don't know how much of a profit the owners are making, insinuating that the bigger the profit, the more the players should get.

WTF world are they living in where you demand a bigger salary based on your employers bottom line?

Then he went on to piss and moan about how if they are locked out, they will have to pay for their own health insurance, blah, blah, blah. BOO FREAKIN' HOO!

Even if it means losing the season, I hope the owners lock them out and make them eventually come crawling back.

:censored:

I get some of what your saying , but Ralph makes more of a profit than Jerry Jones because Jerry has to feed his ego so much THE BIGGEST, THE BEST, TALK ABOUT WTF !!!

Plus don't forget Jones & others were the ones that voted in this last deal , Ralph & Brown were the ONLY 2 that balked at it with good reason, now the MAVERICK OWNERS of the league which i choose to lable as DUMB ASSES now realize the mistake they have made and want to get out of a deal that they voted in in the first place . So who's fault is this mess really ??

Don't blame it on the players that were given a great deal & wind up with broken bodies & make the ultimate sacrifice while the Maverick owners set in there air conditioned boxes & make millions possibly billions a year off of the players then when there done they wind up like Joe D making $1200 a month in so called retirement .

CosmicBills · February 17, 2011

I'd rather see no football, than to see players salaries continue to climb in some new CBA that favors the players, and the status quo does just that.

Stating that the players are ignorant is not calling names, it's just stating fact. I don't think many of them could build and operate an NFL organization. In any company, usually the employees who think they could run the show, are the ones most ill-equipped to do so.

There is really nothing you can do in this situation as a fan but pick one side or the other, I choose to side with the owners. I suppose the third option is not to care at all, which many fans may choose, as they can no longer afford to buy tickets to go see their team anyways. And in cities like Buffalo, where most ppl can still afford it, we are laughed at by the rest of the league because of it. Our stadium is a rat hole, and our team sucks, because we're all poor. Jerry and co. would like nothing more than to put us out of our misery. He is an enabler of the entitlement issues players display these days.

"The players are a product of society. We are a part of that society. By judging the players negatively, you imply that you are a better person than they are." -I think a lot of NFL players are delusional folk. Much like the Hollywood/Political elite, they live far from reality.

It's unfortunate that owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Schneider exist, they are turning a sport into a 100% entertainment industry, which always lose touch with the populace at some point. I for one hope the whole thing crashes, and they have to reboot the NFL, and guys like Jerry Jones will be in the poorhouse once again having nightmares about his 1 billion dollar stadium.

The NFL needs to get back to reality, and maybe a lockout would do some good.

Siding with the owners is not much better than siding with the players, but just like a US presidential election, if you want to have a say in anything, you have to choose.

I don't see how a CBA favoring the players changes the direction of the leauge at all. (Not that favoring the owners will change the direction either, but it's the lesser of the two evils)

It's amazing to me that someone who comes across as so bitter in his posts (which may not be the case in reality) is so willing to throw their lot in with the owners rather than labor. It's shocking really.

You talk about the owners "building their empires" but don't factor in that a large percentage of the owners were born into the wealth that allowed them to buy the teams. Some weren't of course, but more players come from poverty and the "reality" you talk about than owners. The Arthur Blanks of the NFL are more of an exception than the rule. A large chunk of owners came from more wealth and privilege than 99% of the players CURRENTLY enjoy even with their million dollar contracts. The players are the reason the NFL is what it is. NOT the owners. The players are why you yourself are a fan. Without their talents (yes, they have talents that are worth millions of dollars -- talents that they work hard to hone and craft) the league isn't as profitable or popular. Without the players the owners, no matter how smart, inventive, or driven they are could not convince the networks to buy their product for 7 billion (with a b) dollars.

The NFL is a virtual zero risk business. If you have the wealth to afford to purchase a team there's no way NOT to make money and be "successful". Even Weaver, who runs perhaps the least popular franchise, is raking it in hands over fist despite his poor business model and plan for the Jags. The players are the ones taking the larger risks -- risks to their very lives -- every snap. An NFL lineman with 10 years in the league has an average lifespan of 55-59 years. Yet the owners you are backing won't even agree to help cover their escalating health care costs.

You shouldn't feel sorry for the players -- they choose to play the game. No one forces them. But as a fan it's their talents and abilities that make the game great. Not the owner. You could put ANYONE in the owner's box -- no matter how little they understand of the game OR business -- and they could turn a profit in the current NFL. Just look at Ralph ... okay, that was a low blow. Going for a joke there, it's early. :pirate:

It's really astounding to me how blind and bitter some people can be when it comes to this stuff.

Edited February 17, 2011 by tgreg99

papazoid · February 17, 2011

there will be a lockout. the players are in no hurry to take a pay cut. they will drag this all the way til mid july when regular camps open and they are closer to actually missing a game check. players will not want to sign before all the OTA's....voluntary...wink wink you better be there, activities are over.

thebandit27 · February 17, 2011

You talk about the owners "building their empires" but don't factor in that a large percentage of the owners were born into the wealth that allowed them to buy the teams. Some weren't of course, but more players come from poverty and the "reality" you talk about than owners. The Arthur Blanks of the NFL are more of an exception than the rule. A large chunk of owners came from more wealth and privilege than 99% of the players CURRENTLY enjoy even with their million dollar contracts. The players are the reason the NFL is what it is. NOT the owners. The players are why you yourself are a fan. Without their talents (yes, they have talents that are worth millions of dollars -- talents that they work hard to hone and craft) the league isn't as profitable or popular. Without the players the owners, no matter how smart, inventive, or driven they are could not convince the networks to buy their product for 7 billion (with a b) dollars.

Not to cherry pick your post here, but the bolded statemenst aren't really an accurate representation of the facts.

Owners who are self-made billionaires:

Ralph Wilson

Robert Kraft

Stephen Ross

Steve Bisciotti

Bob McNair

Wayne Weaver

Bud Adams

Al Davis

Alex Spanos

Jerry Jones

Jeffrey Lurie

Dan Snyder

Zygi Wilf

Arthur Blank

Jerry Richardson

Tom Benson

Malcolm Glazer

Stan Kroenke (eventually married into the Walton family, but founded his own successful businesses prior to that)

Paul Allen

Owners who inhereted fortunes:

Woody Johnson

Mike Brown

Dan Rooney

Jim Irsay

Pat Bowlen

Clark Hunt

John Mara

Brenda McCaskey

Bill Ford

Bill Bidwill

Denise DeBartolo-York

Complete exception to every rule:

Green Bay Packers

The vast majority of owners are self-made billionaires; they became wealthy through their own business ventures. Your claim that the players are the reason the NFL is what it is (and NOT the owners), is--with all due respect--completely unjustified and one-sided. Without the entrepeneurship of the above individuals (and their forefathers in some cases), there would be no NFL. Without a business owner, there are no jobs, and thus no salaries, pensions, 401k's, etc. I'm not denying that the converse is true, but the fact of the matter when you live in a caitalist system (and I thank that God we do) is that the person that generates the idea always makes more than the people who execute it because he/she is taking all of the risk and all of the initial loss to get the business off the ground (and he/she is the one stimulating the economy with consumer spending and job provision if/when the business succeeds).

You can say there would be no NFL without the players, and that's true, but consider this: the vast majority of owners made their own wealth, and did so without the help of the players, coaches, fans, etc. Do the owners need the NFL to make billions? No, they did it already without the NFL's help. Do the players need the NFL to make millions? Yes (actually, there are probably some players--call it 2-5%--that have the business savvy to make millions in other ways, but for the most part they do not).

I don't know if that changes your perspective at all (make no mistake, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion), but I hope at least I've been able to shed some additional light on these facts for you.

Edited February 17, 2011 by thebandit27

IDBillzFan · February 17, 2011

The owners aren't a bunch of modern day Robin Hoods that are stealing from the rich players to give to us poor schmucks. They are simply filthy rich schmucks trying to steal from less filthy rich schmucks to line their own pockets.

Newflash, Skippy...if that's really the way you feel, then the issue is not that these guys are stealing but that people like you allow them to steal. Most of the time, things don't happen to you so much as you LET them happen to you.

Don't like it? Take your own money and create your own football league, or stop following the game, or find another sport, or turn off the TV, or just shut the hell up. The only person making YOU do anything is yourself, and the sooner people stop thinking the owners owe anything to anyone simply becaue they're the owners and they're rich, the sooner this will get fixed.

CosmicBills · February 17, 2011

Not to cherry pick your post here, but the bolded statemenst aren't really an accurate representation of the facts.

Owners who are self-made billionaires:

Ralph Wilson

Robert Kraft

Stephen Ross

Steve Bisciotti

Bob McNair

Wayne Weaver

Bud Adams

Al Davis

Alex Spanos

Jerry Jones

Jeffrey Lurie

Dan Snyder

Zygi Wilf

Arthur Blank

Jerry Richardson

Tom Benson

Malcolm Glazer

Stan Kroenke (eventually married into the Walton family, but founded his own successful businesses prior to that)

Paul Allen

Owners who inhereted fortunes:

Woody Johnson

Mike Brown

Dan Rooney

Jim Irsay

Pat Bowlen

Clark Hunt

John Mara

Brenda McCaskey

Bill Ford

Bill Bidwill

Denise DeBartolo-York

Complete exception to every rule:

Green Bay Packers

The vast majority of owners are self-made billionaires; they became wealthy through their own business ventures. Your claim that the players are the reason the NFL is what it is (and NOT the owners), is--with all due respect--completely unjustified and one-sided. Without the entrepeneurship of the above individuals (and their forefathers in some cases), there would be no NFL. Without a business owner, there are no jobs, and thus no salaries, pensions, 401k's, etc. I'm not denying that the converse is true, but the fact of the matter when you live in a caitalist system (and I thank that God we do) is that the person that generates the idea always makes more than the people who execute it because he/she is taking all of the risk and all of the initial loss to get the business off the ground (and he/she is the one stimulating the economy with consumer spending and job provision if/when the business succeeds).

You can say there would be no NFL without the players, and that's true, but consider this: the vast majority of owners made their own wealth, and did so without the help of the players, coaches, fans, etc. Do the owners need the NFL to make billions? No, they did it already without the NFL's help. Do the players need the NFL to make millions? Yes (actually, there are probably some players--call it 2-5%--that have the business savvy to make millions in other ways, but for the most part they do not).

I don't know if that changes your perspective at all (make no mistake, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion), but I hope at least I've been able to shed some additional light on these facts for you.

Great post! Seriously, I love honest and intelligent discussion about this situation (and there has been plenty in this thread already).

I should clarify though, I didn't mean to imply that the majority of owners inherited their wealth, but a large percentage (35% -- 11 out of 31 teams) have. Which was more in reference to the above poster's claim that the owners have suffered more than the players to get where they are -- which just isn't true.

You're certainly correct that the NFL exists today because of the efforts of the league's original owners. The ones who took the risks (like Wilson and Davis) when the sport wasn't the money maker it became in the late 70s, early 80s. But the modern NFL, built off the backs of those owners, is a new entity that the owners don't really do much more than reap the rewards that others built for them.

Owners like Kraft ('94) (who I'd also argue married into wealth rather than created his own ... though I'm biased there), Ross ('08), Biscotti ('04), McNair ('02), Lurie ('94), Snyder ('99), Wilf ('05), Blank ('04), Richardson ('93), Glazer ('95), Kroenke ('10), Allen ('97) bought their teams after the NFL was well established and profitable. There was virtually zero risk (in the grand scheme) to these owners when they moved into ownership as the NFL was already generating billions of dollars and revenue sharing and TV contracts assured a profit for the nation's most popular sport.

So 12 out of the 19 on your list I'd argue didn't help build the league -- in fact their contributions, while important, I'd argue are less valuable than the players. It's reasonable (though unrealistic) to assume that if you swapped out any of those 12 with anyone else, the NFL would be in exactly the same position it's in right now financially. These men aren't mavericks. They are smart businessmen who recognized the modern NFL for what it is: a no risk enterprise.

KRC · February 17, 2011

Not to cherry pick your post here, but the bolded statemenst aren't really an accurate representation of the facts.

Owners who are self-made billionaires:

Ralph Wilson

Robert Kraft

Stephen Ross

Steve Bisciotti

Bob McNair

Wayne Weaver

Bud Adams

Al Davis

Alex Spanos

Jerry Jones

Jeffrey Lurie

Dan Snyder

Zygi Wilf

Arthur Blank

Jerry Richardson

Tom Benson

Malcolm Glazer

Stan Kroenke (eventually married into the Walton family, but founded his own successful businesses prior to that)

Paul Allen

Owners who inhereted fortunes:

Woody Johnson

Mike Brown

Dan Rooney

Jim Irsay

Pat Bowlen

Clark Hunt

John Mara

Brenda McCaskey

Bill Ford

Bill Bidwill

Denise DeBartolo-York

Complete exception to every rule:

Green Bay Packers

The vast majority of owners are self-made billionaires; they became wealthy through their own business ventures. Your claim that the players are the reason the NFL is what it is (and NOT the owners), is--with all due respect--completely unjustified and one-sided. Without the entrepeneurship of the above individuals (and their forefathers in some cases), there would be no NFL. Without a business owner, there are no jobs, and thus no salaries, pensions, 401k's, etc. I'm not denying that the converse is true, but the fact of the matter when you live in a caitalist system (and I thank that God we do) is that the person that generates the idea always makes more than the people who execute it because he/she is taking all of the risk and all of the initial loss to get the business off the ground (and he/she is the one stimulating the economy with consumer spending and job provision if/when the business succeeds).

You can say there would be no NFL without the players, and that's true, but consider this: the vast majority of owners made their own wealth, and did so without the help of the players, coaches, fans, etc. Do the owners need the NFL to make billions? No, they did it already without the NFL's help. Do the players need the NFL to make millions? Yes (actually, there are probably some players--call it 2-5%--that have the business savvy to make millions in other ways, but for the most part they do not).

I don't know if that changes your perspective at all (make no mistake, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion), but I hope at least I've been able to shed some additional light on these facts for you.

I am probably picking some nits here, but I would disagree with Dan Rooney inheriting his fortune and not being a self-made millionare/billionare. His fortune obviously came primarily from the Steelers. Dan was an integral part of the team since the early 1950s and was a part of all league meetings and discussions. The team faced financial trouble for at least the first two decades while under the control of Art Rooney. He didn't just inherit a team. He built the team.

Dan was just as much a part of building the Steelers and the league as his father. Personally, I would remove him from that list and bump him to the top list. He built the fortune he inherited.

thebandit27 · February 17, 2011

Owners like Kraft ('94) (who I'd also argue married into wealth rather than created his own ... though I'm biased there), Ross ('08), Biscotti ('04), McNair ('02), Lurie ('94), Snyder ('99), Wilf ('05), Blank ('04), Richardson ('93), Glazer ('95), Kroenke ('10), Allen ('97) bought their teams after the NFL was well established and profitable. There was virtually zero risk (in the grand scheme) to these owners when they moved into ownership as the NFL was already generating billions of dollars and revenue sharing and TV contracts assured a profit for the nation's most popular sport.

So 12 out of the 19 on your list I'd argue didn't help build the league -- in fact their contributions, while important, I'd argue are less valuable than the players. It's reasonable (though unrealistic) to assume that if you swapped out any of those 12 with anyone else, the NFL would be in exactly the same position it's in right now financially. These men aren't mavericks. They are smart businessmen who recognized the modern NFL for what it is: a no risk enterprise.

That's a great point, and one to which I suppose I hadn't given much thought.

As I mentioned in my earlier post--despite my position on the subject (as a business owner, I side with the owners), I can understand why others would side with the players; there are very compelling reasons to do so.

What's disappointing to me about the entire scenario is that neither side seems to be making any effort to empathize with the other. Honestly, do the owners really understand the players' apprehension towards an 18-game season? Do they not comprehend why the players' union feels they need to see proof of the owners' declining income stream? Conversely, do the players give any credence to the fact that it is the owners' money that must be invested to grow the game? Do they want to continue to see salaries increase, facilities improve, and endorsement opportunities expand?

That's where I get frustrated, and it seems like those things make sense to most of the posters in this thread, which makes me think that there's at least some common sense surrounding this issue, even if it's not in the minds of the owners and players.

I am probably picking some nits here, but I would disagree with Dan Rooney inheriting his fortune and not being a self-made millionare/billionare. His fortune obviously came primarily from the Steelers. Dan was an integral part of the team since the early 1950s and was a part of all league meetings and discussions. The team faced financial trouble for at least the first two decades while under the control of Art Rooney. He didn't just inherit a team. He built the team.

Dan was just as much a part of building the Steelers and the league as his father. Personally, I would remove him from that list and bump him to the top list. He built the fortune he inherited.

Sure, I could be on board with that logic. I guess the view I took on it was this: if the owner in question inherited the money-making asset (i.e. the business, system, franchise, or investment portfolio that generated the income that build his/her wealth), then they went on the "inherited" list. However, that doesn't make your points any less valid.

JohnC · February 17, 2011

As I mentioned in my earlier post--despite my position on the subject (as a business owner, I side with the owners), I can understand why others would side with the players; there are very compelling reasons to do so.

I appreciate your well thought out comments. What I don't understand is if you owned a business and your business was thriving moreso than before why would you open up a labor agreement with the expectation that the workers would give back some of their gains? Wouldn't you expect them to ask for some evidence regarding your fiscal challenges?

In a recent interview Roger Goodell was asked about the the fiscal state of affairs of the owners and NFL. He pointed out that the costs are escalating. And he then said the owners are willing to show them their costs. When asked about the profit level and why the owners were not willing to reveal it to the players his lame response was that it wouldn't be useful. I got the sense that he was embarrassed by that ridiculous company line response.

What's disappointing to me about the entire scenario is that neither side seems to be making any effort to empathize with the other.

In management/labor issues it is not always a question of empathy so much as an issue of the facts. If the owners want to make a claim regarding their changing circumstances then so be it. Making a claim is one thing. Anyone can do that. The next step is to prove or at least credibly demonstrate the merits of your claim. When the owners give a response that they have no obligation to provide the evidence of their claim then you shouldn't be surprised that the labor side of the negotiations are skeptical.

Do they not comprehend why the players' union feels they need to see proof of the owners' declining income stream?

What would be your view of the owners' side of the issue if the facts revealed that the owners actually made more money under this current CBA than it did prior to it?

Scraps · February 17, 2011

Newflash, Skippy...if that's really the way you feel, then the issue is not that these guys are stealing but that people like you allow them to steal. Most of the time, things don't happen to you so much as you LET them happen to you.

Don't like it? Take your own money and create your own football league, or stop following the game, or find another sport, or turn off the TV, or just shut the hell up. The only person making YOU do anything is yourself, and the sooner people stop thinking the owners owe anything to anyone simply becaue they're the owners and they're rich, the sooner this will get fixed.

Wow did you ever miss the point of my post!

thebandit27 · February 17, 2011

I appreciate your well thought out comments. What I don't understand is if you owned a business and your business was thriving moreso than before why would you open up a labor agreement with the expectation that the workers would give back some of their gains? Wouldn't you expect them to ask for some evidence regarding your fiscal challenges?

I understand why you're asking the question. The problem I have here is that you're asking me to answer it looking at the dispute through a strawhole. As an owner--knowing what I know now--I wouldn't have signed the original deal in the first place, so it's hard for me to say what I'd expect from the union.

That said, the union isn't stupid, they knew perfectly well that they were doing a patchwork deal in 2006. As an owner, I can only assume that NFL ownership will submit that at the time, keeping the game from experiencing a work stoppage was what was in the best interest of all parties, and that now, doing whatever is necessary to grow the game is what's in the best interest of all parties.

As far as asking for evidence, sure, I expect it. Like I said, I have bones to pick with both sides.

In management/labor issues it is not always a question of empathy so much as an issue of the facts. If the owners want to make a claim regarding their changing circumstances then so be it. Making a claim is one thing. Anyone can do that. The next step is to prove or at least credibly demonstrate the merits of your claim. When the owners give a response that they have no obligation to provide the evidence of their claim then you shouldn't be surprised that the labor side of the negotiations are skeptical.

As I said, I fully understand the players' union requesting financial statements. At the same time, I fully understand that ownership has absolutely no obligation to show them; that is also a fact.

Now, is it the right thing to do? I believe so, and this is where my comment about empathy comes full circle. If the owners understood the players' position, they'd at least make an effort to substantiate their claims. Likewise, if the players understood that--irrespective of their de facto income derived from ownership of the football team--the owners are facing more financial liability than ever before (without accounting for the investments incumbent upon them to grow the game as they'd like to), they'd back down a bit on their demands to retain their existing percentage of compensation, or at least consider a longer regular season to "grow the pie" for both sides.

What would be your view of the owners' side of the issue if the facts revealed that the owners actually made more money under this current CBA than it did prior to it?

I'd want to know how their profits compare in terms of the following: current debt load, increase in expenses, exected investments to grow the game, present worth of the income to account for inflation, etc. If, after taking the aforementioned into account, it turned out that their profit margin increased, then I'd say that ownership would need to present a detailed financial plan/budget for how they intend to use their increased revenue to benefit all sides. That, of course, would be opening a new can of worms, since I can only assume that the players union would want those expenses audited to ensure that they're not using the increased revenue to line their own pockets.

Fixxxer · February 17, 2011

Actually, it is the same.

When the current CBA extension was signed prior to the 2006-07 season, both sides knew it was being done in "band-aid" fashion. Neither side was ready to confront the possibility of either an uncapped year or a work stoppage, so they hastily threw together a deal at the last moment. The players got the upper hand in terms of the revenue division, which made them happy to sign the deal. The owners recognized this, and requested that a clause be added to the agreement that provided them an opt-out that they could exercise prior to the 2009 season; that way they could (1) prevent a work stoppage in the short-term, (2) further evaluate the ramifications of an uncapped season--which turned out to work in their favor as opposed to the players', and (3) get out of a "bad" deal in the event that their nest eggs took a hit in the coming seasons. They chose to opt-out prior to the 2009 season, which gave us 2 years of uncapped league operations prior to the early (by 2 years) expiration of the deal.

Now that the deal is expired (or rather, will expire on March 4th of this year), the Owners can lock out the players. Unless, of course, the union chooses to decertify, in which case there's no players union to lock out. Then, of course, the owners will further pursue their charges to the NLRB that the players' union had no intention of reaching a deal because they intended to fall back on decertification the entire time, and there will be a lawyer vs. lawyer pissing match for who knows how long...but, there would be football.

P.S. congrats on your new fatherhood

Great summary post. It was evident that the last deal was hurried to be signed so that football could carry on. In the meantime players got a sweet deal, they also agreed in good faith that if the owners didn't think this deal was good for them the deal could be voided.

What bothers me is that now that the owners are saying that the past deal was not a good one for them the players start claiming dishonesty from their employers?

Either way, it all started when the owners rushed to sign the last deal. They should have been more conscious of the potential problems the new CBA would bring.

ETD66SS · February 17, 2011

"It's really astounding to me how blind and bitter some people can be when it comes to this stuff."

I'm niether blind nor bitter, I'm picking a side, just like you are. Don't get so butthurt about the side I'm choosing.

I tend to never side with unions/labor. Don't be telling me my opinion on the matter is wrong (or calling me blind, bitter, whatever adjective you choose), just because it's different than yours.

Edited February 17, 2011 by ETD66SS

CosmicBills · February 17, 2011

"It's really astounding to me how blind and bitter some people can be when it comes to this stuff."

I'm niether blind nor bitter, I'm picking a side, just like you are. Don't get so butthurt about the side I'm choosing.

I tend to never side with unions/labor. Don't be telling me my opinion on the matter is wrong (or calling me blind, bitter, whatever adjective you choose), just because it's different than yours.

If you read what I wrote, I specifically say that may not be how you are in reality -- but it's how your post is written (bitter that is).

JohnC · February 17, 2011

As I said, I fully understand the players' union requesting financial statements. At the same time, I fully understand that ownership has absolutely no obligation to show them; that is also a fact.

I'd want to know how their profits compare in terms of the following: current debt load, increase in expenses, exected investments to grow the game, present worth of the income to account for inflation, etc.

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. However, you leave me baffled. On the one hand you talk about the risks and future financial stresses incurred by the owners, and then on the other hand you say you have no obligation to demonstrate that claim of vulnerability. Don't you think that if the owners felt their businesses were in peril to some degree, now or in the future, that they would be eager to demonstrate that point? What if the reality of the financial books were that the owners were making more money under this CBA than the former CBA? Wouldn't that be a reason why they wouldn't want the players to glimpse the robust books?

The country and a good chunk of the world have gone through two years of wrenching economic turmoil. The economic situation is slowly improving. Yet, the owners were still able to make a sizeable profit during this stressful economic climate. They still want more. Sometimes greed can be self-destructive.

Edited February 17, 2011 by JohnC

purple haze · February 17, 2011

Your boss/owner of your company gives you a bonus/raise or you demand to see the books and then make your own determination what your raise/bonus should be?

Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for these guys at all. Because of their athletic talent, they received a 4 year degree at some of the best colleges in the country(If they didn't, shame on them), and are being paid a kings ransom to play a game they love.

F*** THEM.

One more point...

Without the owners, the NFL players would be no different than 99% of all NCAA athletes. Looking for a real job when their college days were over.

They just don't know how good they have it.

The players ARE NOT looking for a raise. They are happy with the way things are. The owners say they are losing money and want the players to give back money. IF they are losing money then why can't they open up their books to prove it. If they are losing money the players might work with them. Without players owners aren't making as much money and adding to their fortunes.

Nobody made the owners build new stadiums and take on all that extra debt. They CHOSE to do that to try to make more money. Now they want the players to make up for that. The players are the product. No players, no league. No employees, less business. Unless owners can do everything themselves. It's simple really. I don't know how you are mad at the players when the owners are the one's threatening to lock them out. The owners signed the last deal. Maybe they (exception being Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown who said it was a bad deal at the time and got laughed at.) are not as smart as you or they think they are, huh?

Edited February 17, 2011 by purple haze

Scraps · February 17, 2011

Now, is it the right thing to do? I believe so, and this is where my comment about empathy comes full circle. If the owners understood the players' position, they'd at least make an effort to substantiate their claims. Likewise, if the players understood that--irrespective of their de facto income derived from ownership of the football team--the owners are facing more financial liability than ever before (without accounting for the investments incumbent upon them to grow the game as they'd like to), they'd back down a bit on their demands to retain their existing percentage of compensation, or at least consider a longer regular season to "grow the pie" for both sides.

How are they facing more financial liability than ever before? How do they intend to "grow the game"?

CosmicBills · February 17, 2011

How are they facing more financial liability than ever before? How do they intend to "grow the game"?

They want to grow the game by expanding to profitable cities like Jacksonville. :wallbash:

No, in all seriousness, taking the owner's side for a (brief) moment: growing the game most likely includes the costs of the new palatial stadiums and the technology they're trying to implement to make fans want to leave the confines of their living rooms and actually COME to the games. Technology such as the hand held devices the Bills (and several other) teams tested last season. I forget their name. But they were cool.

HDTV has increased TV ratings but if the owners keep raising ticket prices, concession prices, PSLs, parking prices etc, it is going to be tough to convince fans to go to the games when they can see the games better than ever -- and cheaper than ever -- in their living rooms. I think this has owners panicking. They're looking for ways to protect themselves from how over extended the big market clubs have become with their new palaces.

I've mentioned this in other posts, but this reminds me A LOT of the stance the studios took in the most recent WGA strike in Hollywood a few years ago. The studios were terrified (rightfully so) of the internet and movie goers forgoing the "theater" experience and instead downloading or streaming their movies. They wanted to cut the writers out of the internet entirely and they used the excuse "no one can make money off the internet, so why do you need a cut of it" yet they refused to open the books to show that to be true. Because, of course, it wasn't true.

Just my take of course.

JohnC · February 18, 2011

I've mentioned this in other posts, but this reminds me A LOT of the stance the studios took in the most recent WGA strike in Hollywood a few years ago. The studios were terrified (rightfully so) of the internet and movie goers forgoing the "theater" experience and instead downloading or streaming their movies. They wanted to cut the writers out of the internet entirely and they used the excuse "no one can make money off the internet, so why do you need a cut of it" yet they refused to open the books to show that to be true. Because, of course, it wasn't true.

Just my take of course.

Excellent analysis. The biggest fear of the owners is the concept of transparency. To these barons it is a revolutionary concept. Their paternalistic and condescending attitude is how dare these impudent peasant workers ask us to prove our claims.

The following link is a column written by Sally Jenkins for the Washington Post. Her attitude toward the owners' approach in this CBA negotiation is similar to your sentiments. It points out that some of the troublesome issues that the owners want remedied are owner created. It also addresses the attitude of entitlement permeating their side of the negotiating table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html

Edited February 18, 2011 by JohnC

GaryPinC · February 18, 2011

Excellent analysis. The biggest fear of the owners is the concept of transparency. To these barons it is a revolutionary concept. Their paternalistic and condescending attitude is how dare these impudent peasant workers ask us to prove our claims.

Why should the owners be transparent about it? Because their employees say so? The owners run the league and the teams. They are not a public company and are under no obligation to open their books. I feel a big, seldom discussed part of all this is that the owners don't want the players controlling the league, and I can't blame them for that. Look at the NBA, I think it's crap that players like Lebron/Wade/Bosh can get together and manipulate the fortunes of certain teams.

Let's say the owners show the players negative percent changes in profits/revenues since the new CBA took effect. Would that be good enough? Probably not, but the NFL is not a democracy. It's great when commercial companies do profit sharing, etc. but there are plenty of companies in the world that aren't going to be doing any profit sharing ever. I've worked for some, and if they decide to give a bonus the first thing they'll say is "don't expect it again next year".

The owners were stupid to sign the CBA last time around and the players are stupid to think they should be treated as equals in determining where the revenues go. That's why I don't think this lockout is going away anytime soon.

Like others, I have issues with both sides but mildly favor the owners as I'm not a big fan of unions.

CosmicBills · February 18, 2011

1. Why should the owners be transparent about it? Because their employees say so? The owners run the league and the teams. They are not a public company and are under no obligation to open their books. 2. I feel a big, seldom discussed part of all this is that the owners don't want the players controlling the league, and I can't blame them for that. 3. Look at the NBA, I think it's crap that players like Lebron/Wade/Bosh can get together and manipulate the fortunes of certain teams.

4. Let's say the owners show the players negative percent changes in profits/revenues since the new CBA took effect. Would that be good enough? Probably not, but the NFL is not a democracy. It's great when commercial companies do profit sharing, etc. but there are plenty of companies in the world that aren't going to be doing any profit sharing ever. I've worked for some, and if they decide to give a bonus the first thing they'll say is "don't expect it again next year".

The owners were stupid to sign the CBA last time around and the players are stupid to think they should be treated as equals in determining where the revenues go. 5. That's why I don't think this lockout is going away anytime soon.

Like others, I have issues with both sides but mildly favor the owners as I'm not a big fan of unions.

1. Because they are claiming they need more money because they are losing money. If that's true, prove it. Otherwise, it's difficult to believe that considering the record ratings the NFL has been generating and the enormous TV contracts it has handed out.

2. The players aren't controlling the league, but they want to be partners with ownership. And since the owners need the players to survive and visa versa, this isn't an unfair request. Don't forget, the players aren't asking for a wage increase. They're asking the owners to show them a justifiable reason for a pay CUT.

3. So ... you're in favor of a capitalistic system but are against players using their legal rights within that system as "Free" Agents (note the key word) to go where they wish? Gotcha.

4. That's a huge leap. If the owners could show a loss, they would. They can't. So they won't. If they did show a loss, they'd be waiving it to every camera they could, like the NBA owners are doing right now, because it would take away every bit of leverage the players have. Which isn't much to begin with.

5. That's absolutely true. And it'll be the owners' fault and it'll be the fans (you and me) that suffer.

thebandit27 · February 18, 2011

Again, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. However, you leave me baffled. On the one hand you talk about the risks and future financial stresses incurred by the owners, and then on the other hand you say you have no obligation to demonstrate that claim of vulnerability. Don't you think that if the owners felt their businesses were in peril to some degree, now or in the future, that they would be eager to demonstrate that point? What if the reality of the financial books were that the owners were making more money under this CBA than the former CBA? Wouldn't that be a reason why they wouldn't want the players to glimpse the robust books?

The country and a good chunk of the world have gone through two years of wrenching economic turmoil. The economic situation is slowly improving. Yet, the owners were still able to make a sizeable profit during this stressful economic climate. They still want more. Sometimes greed can be self-destructive.

No legal obligation, that is. As I went on to explain, I do believe it would be the right thing to do.

How are they facing more financial liability than ever before? How do they intend to "grow the game"?

Scraps pretty much covered it. More financial liability stems from the need for new stadiums, more insurance (especially now that the league is taking player safety so much more seriously), increased benefits for retired players, greater operating costs, increasing player salaries, etc. That's without facotring in the fact that player salaries have grown at nearly double the inflation rate over the past 10 years.

As for growing the game, there's no doubt that the league wants to go international. They also want to increase their fan base within North America. As I'm sure you know, it takes money to market your business, and there's no way that's coming out of the players' pockets (nor should it, that's ownership's responsibility). How much money does it take to market a multi-billion dollar industry? Not sure, but a traditional business standard rate says that about 30% of total revenue goes right back out the door for marketing and advertising.

JohnC · February 18, 2011

No legal obligation, that is. As I went on to explain, I do believe it would be the right thing to do.

You are sophisticated enough to know that when management/labor sit at the table to negotiate new labor contracts they don't sit around talking about the weather. The topic of their discussions, sometimes rancorous and sometimes not, is about numbers. What is the cash flow, insurance costs, labor costs, stadium costs etc? It is about the state of affairs of the finances.

What evidence have the owners exhibited about the change of their financial status? None. What evidence have the owners exhibited that demonstrates that the future of the league is in jeopardy under this current deal? None. They are emphatically saying trust us. Take our word for it. We are only acting on behalf of the good of the game.

The NFL commissioner has stated that the owners are willing to show the union what their costs are. He then elaborated that the owners are not willing to say what their profit margins are. No one is denying that the costs are going up, that is not in dispute. The central point is how has it affected the profitability of the franchises and the long term viability of the game. The owners are not telling you what their profit levels are because they are going up. That exposure of fact would undercut their claims.

We can go around and around in circles and get to the same stalemate point. Again, and again, I am making the same point. If the economic circumstances have negatively changed for the owners then demonstrate it.

How do you think a bank would respond if you went to it and asked for a change in your loan contract because your financial circumstances have deteriorated? When they ask for some documentation such as pay records and cash/flow records you then respond that they have no right to see your personal information. What do you think their response would be?

My basic point is when you are the one to make a contract altering claim then it is not unreasonable for the other side of the table to request some evidence for your claim. Saying something doesn't make it so.

thebandit27 · February 18, 2011

You are sophisticated enough to know that when management/labor sit at the table to negotiate new labor contracts they don't sit around talking about the weather. The topic of their discussions, sometimes rancorous and sometimes not, is about numbers. What is the cash flow, insurance costs, labor costs, stadium costs etc? It is about the state of affairs of the finances.

What evidence have the owners exhibited about the change of their financial status? None. What evidence have the owners exhibited that demonstrates that the future of the league is in jeopardy under this current deal? None. They are emphatically saying trust us. Take our word for it. We are only acting on behalf of the good of the game.

The NFL commissioner has stated that the owners are willing to show the union what their costs are. He then elaborated that the owners are not willing to say what their profit margins are. No one is denying that the costs are going up, that is not in dispute. The central point is how has it affected the profitability of the franchises and the long term viability of the game. The owners are not telling you what their profit levels are because they are going up. That exposure of fact would undercut their claims.

We can go around and around in circles and get to the same stalemate point. Again, and again, I am making the same point. If the economic circumstances have negatively changed for the owners then demonstrate it.

How do you think a bank would respond if you went to it and asked for a change in your loan contract because your financial circumstances have deteriorated? When they ask for some documentation such as pay records and cash/flow records you then respond that they have no right to see your personal information. What do you think their response would be?

My basic point is when you are the one to make a contract altering claim then it is not unreasonable for the other side of the table to request some evidence for your claim. Saying something doesn't make it so.

I think, perhaps, we are misunderstanding each other, John.

My statement was made simply to recognize that the owners bare no legal responsibility to provide financial documentation, just as a bank requires no legal responsiblity to show proof of hardship in order to adjust its interest rates. Remember, the owners are the bank in this scenario, not the players. If you applied for and received a short-term, fixed rate savings account (i.e. a CD) at a bank, would you be entitled to the same interest rate once the loan term expired? Of course not. What if this bank is the only one in town? Still, the answer is no. Would the bank have the freedom to offer you a new interest rate that better suits their revenue goals? Of course. Remember, you're the one that wants the loan, and since your previous loan expired, there is no binding contract guaranteeing your rate. Your leverage is that you don't have to take the loan; theirs is that they don't need your loan to earn interest.

As I've elaborated, I believe they should indeed show their financial statementsfor the benefit of preserving their credibility (as well as to accelerate the deal). If they're worried about doing so because the dollars don't back up their claims, well, then they need to bring enough support in terms of inflation, rising costs, etc. (i.e. all those things we've discussed) to further substantiate their claim that they're under greater financial stress than in previous years.

If that's not true, well, then that's a whole different issue altogether.

Edited February 18, 2011 by thebandit27

JohnC · February 18, 2011

I think, perhaps, we are misunderstanding each other, John.

My statement was made simply to recognize that the owners bare no legal responsibility to provide financial documentation, just as a bank requires no legal responsiblity to show proof of hardship in order to adjust its interest rates.

Remember, the owners are the bank in this scenario, not the players. If you applied for and received a short-term, fixed rate savings account (i.e. a CD) at a bank, would you be entitled to the same interest rate once the loan term expired? Of course not.

You have the participants in your bank analogy in reverse. The bank has a loan contract and the other party, the recipient of the loan, is asking for a change of terms. The owners signed a deal with an opt out clause. They are asking for a change in the original terms. The other side of the re-opened deal wants some evidence that the reasons for the change are as they are claimed by the owners. The players have publicly stated that they are willing to alter the original agreement (take less) if the claim is reasonably demonstrated.

Where your bank analogy does resemble this football situation is that one side is basically saying take it or leave it without any meaningful dialogue.

As I've elaborated, I believe they should indeed show their financial statementsfor the benefit of preserving their credibility (as well as to accelerate the deal). If they're worried about doing so because the dollars don't back up their claims, well, then they need to bring enough support in terms of inflation, rising costs, etc. (i.e. all those things we've discussed) to further substantiate their claim that they're under greater financial stress than in previous years.

If that's not true, well, then that's a whole different issue altogether.

My point is harshly simple: The owners' claims are patently untrue. If they had the ability to demonstrate their claims why wouldn't they do it? I'll be rude enough to answer my own question: The facts undercut their claims.

There is nothing subtle about their approach. They feel they have the muscle in this dispute and they are going to use it. The negotiation with the union have little to do with the facts because the owners are avoiding presenting the facts. They feel they have the leverage and they are going to use that leverage to get what they want. Their franchises are stupendously profitable. That is not adequate for them. They want more.

I do appreciate your thoughts on this topic. Although I respectfully disagree with your view you state your case very well.

Edited February 18, 2011 by JohnC

LabattBlue · February 18, 2011

The players ARE NOT looking for a raise. They are happy with the way things are. The owners say they are losing money and want the players to give back money. IF they are losing money then why can't they open up their books to prove it. If they are losing money the players might work with them. Without players owners aren't making as much money and adding to their fortunes.

As you and others have pointed out, I was incorrect in stating that the players are not looking for a raise.

That being said, the owners are still in charge and don't have to open their books up. I still stand behind the owners 100%, and if the players don't like it, they can always walk away from football, put their 4 year degree to work, and there will be plenty of other players waiting for the chance to play at the NFL level.

Edited February 18, 2011 by LabattBlue

Jay Feeley on Sirius NFL Radio discussing CBA talks

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment