Judge orders players, owners back to mediation

[Deadstroke]

Really? Did you just try to redefine (or dismiss) the definition of average?

 

"In fact the 'average career' is weighed down by th e (sic) huge number of guys who pass through the league for a season or two" ... uh, that's why it's called an average. In case you wondered, the definition of average is: "an estimation of or approximation to an arithmetic mean". You can't just dismiss the numbers you don't like (or the ones that refute your entire point) when compiling an average.

 

"Very few players, relative to the total, end their careers by injury" This is something you just made up.

 

And what about the many players, 99, who sign contracts just to fill in for a week or 2, and really might never play. They are in fact NFL players and if I have my math straight, they bring the averages down. Hey, I mean all you have to do is go down the roster of your favorite team and you'll see that the average is in fact NOT 3.5 years.

 

I took the Bills roster, divided it up, and came up with an avg of 5.8 yrs per player. Lower than I thought, but not 3.5.

[Mr. WEO]

Players who do not have a year of service are not counted as NFL players and used in the average career calculation? I thought they were. Show me that link please.

 

Many players are injured during the season. Whether they get placed on IR depends somewhat on the severity of the injury, but also it often is a strategic move by the team for roster reasons, whcih I said already and which you agree with.

 

 

When an injured player gets cut, it's not because they were felt not to be "tough enough" (is that a joke?)--it's because they aren't worth keeping (translated: they're no good).

[papazoid]

Players who do not have a year of service are not counted as NFL players and used in the average career calculation? I thought they were. Show me that link please.

 

Many players are injured during the season. Whether they get placed on IR depends somewhat on the severity of the injury, but also it often is a strategic move by the team for roster reasons, whcih I said already and which you agree with.

 

 

When an injured player gets cut, it's not because they were felt not to be "tough enough" (is that a joke?)--it's because they aren't worth keeping (translated: they're no good).

 

FACT: Players get credited for a full season after being on the active roster (or on injured reserve or the physically unable to perform list) in three regular season games.

 

you said "80 or so players go to training camp. 27 are cut before opening day. Few of those make another final roster. This happenes every year. They are counted in the "average career of an NFL player"." THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE !!

 

 

https://www.nflplayercare.com/

 

 

http://blog.nflalumniassociation.com/2011/02/24/knowing-the-nfl-benefits-and-if-you-qualify/

 

argueing why players get cut is a waste of time.....there are many many reasons besides talent. specifically, someone who is almost or just as good is cheaper (dollars/value)and injuries(a player who is more talented , but can't stay on the field, gets replaced).

[Mr. WEO]

FACT: Players get credited for a full season after being on the active roster (or on injured reserve or the physically unable to perform list) in three regular season games.

 

you said "80 or so players go to training camp. 27 are cut before opening day. Few of those make another final roster. This happenes every year. They are counted in the "average career of an NFL player"." THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE !!

 

 

https://www.nflplayercare.com/

 

 

http://blog.nflalumniassociation.com/2011/02/24/knowing-the-nfl-benefits-and-if-you-qualify/

 

Can you point to the part in those links where it says that only players who have been on an opening day roster are counted as NFL players who had careers in the NFL? Or only those who have been credited with a full year?

[Hplarrm]

I'm not lawyer, but I just don't get the anti- trust issues. If the NFL was proceeding with games and certain players were being blacklisted by the Owners from participating or if the Owners were instituting a wage scale without player consent, then that is obviously an anti-trust violation. But if there are no games then what's the problem? It's like a business which has closed (e.g. Wendy's has just indefinitely shut down all of their stores). How can the courts force them to open back up and start operations again? If the players want to play then I'm sure the UFL or some minor league team would be very happy to take them at a reduced salary.

You seem to have an overinflated sense of the importance of owners to the NFL game.

 

Would you really pay any money to see Ralph Wilson and Al Davis don shoulder pads and play the game?

 

Tom Brady, et al and the individual players who have sued the owners are THE GAME.

 

The owners back in the day of George Halas were necessary to the game as the NFL owners back in the day were the only ones willing to risk any capital to fund the league and were real football guys who managed the teams.

 

In today's reality because the early owners took a risk (a risk they have been repaid handsomely for taking actually) and built a product which quite frankly the networks actually provide the capital that drives the game.

 

The NFL owners are simply having trouble dealing with the fact that they are now simply a partner with the players who are actually the GAME and in fact since they gave up the vast majority of the total take to the players in the last CBA in writing they are actually the minority partners in this enterprise.

 

My sense is that the NFLPA is actually quite happy not to kill the owners as minority partners because actually they maker tons of money in this situation and the real game for them is to actually keep the minority partners around but find a way to create a new league with new sources of capital which will allow the NFLPA to represent professional football players in the NFL and what I call the NewFL of a new league which improves the product and the players take by the good old American method of competition.

 

The ultimate answer to me for this is to find replacement owners to compete with the current NFL owners.

[Mr. WEO]

 

The NFL owners are simply having trouble dealing with the fact that they are now simply a partner with the players who are actually the GAME and in fact since they gave up the vast majority of the total take to the players in the last CBA in writing they are actually the minority partners in this enterprise.

 

My sense is that the NFLPA is actually quite happy not to kill the owners as minority partners because actually they maker tons of money in this situation and the real game for them is to actually keep the minority partners around but find a way to create a new league with new sources of capital which will allow the NFLPA to represent professional football players in the NFL and what I call the NewFL of a new league which improves the product and the players take by the good old American method of competition.

 

The ultimate answer to me for this is to find replacement owners to compete with the current NFL owners.

Glue sniffer.

[papazoid]

Glue sniffer.

 

 

party pooper......next thing ya know you'll say you can't turn $25,000 into $800 million

[Hplarrm]

Glue sniffer.

The thought that the NFLPA is undertaking a strategy which will remake the game in a new form in a manner which will greatly benefit the players is actually quite consistent with what has happened in the NFL over the past 15-20 years.

 

If someone predicted in the late 80s after the NFL owners locked out the players as part of the mid-80s dispute that the late 80s would see:

 

1. The NFLPA threaten to decertify itself

2. This would lead to the CBA agreement which saw the owners agree to the salary cap which awarded the players up to 70+% of a designated gross.

3. The renegotiation of the CBA to a level where Gene Upshaw dictated prior to negotiations that the new cap would be based on total gross receipts rather than a designated gross and that the number for the player take must start with a 6_%.

 

They too would have been accused of sniffing glue or worse.

 

No one knows what will happen for sure, but based on the results of the past decade plus it seems wrongheaded to simply conclude the owners hold all the cards when the recent past shows the players really have dictated what the agreement would be such that the owners chose to renegotiate the past deal prior to the formal ending of the previous agreement.

 

It seems clear to me that the players goal is to maximize their take.

 

It seems clear to me that the players take is maximized when there is a competition between owners following the good old American way.

 

Whether the new league succeeds as was the case with the AFL or the new league founders as was the case with the USFL or the WFL, the players have seen their salaries ramp up be it the Joe Namath or the Jim Kelly case.

 

Brady, et al. have filed a suit demanding that they have a right as Americans to bargain in a fair playing field without individual team owners colluding to set salaries or force individuals to bargain with one and only one owner.

 

The US courts dating back to the days of them finding for Marvin Miller and the MLB players have routinely followed the line of Teddy Roosevelt and the days when the GOP stood up for individual rights against corporations that undercut competition by establishing trusts that individual rights rule in the good ol US of A.

 

They have allowed individual rights to be abridged only in the case where individuals use their right of free association and assembly to organize to provide a check and balance to the power of corporations to establish trusts.

 

It my hope as a good American that the rights of individuals will prevail over the more socialistic approach taken by the NFL team owners.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Would you really pay any money to see Ralph Wilson and Al Davis don shoulder pads and play the game?

Maybe if I was sleep deprived enough and had finished doing my taxes - but hey, I can be a little twisted at times. Seriously, though, I need more information to answer your question:

 

1. What position is Ralph playing?

 

2. Ralph is wearing more than just shoulder pads, right, or do you have to be over 18 to get in?

 

3. Is the TN owner who flipped the bird at the Bills sideline that time also playing?

 

4. Do I have to cross the Peace Bridge to get there?

 

5. We're talking AMERICAN football here, not that sissy European "football" stuff that the rest of the world watches, right?

 

6. Outside on grass, like what I like to call the OldFL, or inside on artificial turf?

 

7. If Ralph plays well enough to get elected to the NewFL Hall of Fame, who's gonna fact check his induction speech?

[Mr. WEO]

party pooper......next thing ya know you'll say you can't turn $25,000 into $800 million

 

You can't do that any more. I think you knew that. And that's kind of the whole point.

The thought that the NFLPA is undertaking a strategy which will remake the game in a new form in a manner which will greatly benefit the players is actually quite consistent with what has happened in the NFL over the past 15-20 years.

 

If someone predicted in the late 80s after the NFL owners locked out the players as part of the mid-80s dispute that the late 80s would see:

 

1. The NFLPA threaten to decertify itself

2. This would lead to the CBA agreement which saw the owners agree to the salary cap which awarded the players up to 70+% of a designated gross.

3. The renegotiation of the CBA to a level where Gene Upshaw dictated prior to negotiations that the new cap would be based on total gross receipts rather than a designated gross and that the number for the player take must start with a 6_%.

 

 

The players never got anything close to 60% of all revenue. It's never been more then 40%.

 

Also, I can guarantee that none of the players truly wants an NFL without the draft, FA and revenue sharing. History has proven this, as will the inevitable deal that they will soon make with the owners.

 

As of today, there are 2 alternative leagues in which the players can play professional outdoor football. What's keeping them from joining the UFL or CFL?

[K Gun Special]

You can't do that any more. I think you knew that. And that's kind of the whole point.

 

 

The players never got anything close to 60% of all revenue. It's never been more then 40%.

 

Also, I can guarantee that none of the players truly wants an NFL without the draft, FA and revenue sharing. History has proven this, as will the inevitable deal that they will soon make with the owners.

 

As of today, there are 2 alternative leagues in which the players can play professional outdoor football. What's keeping them from joining the UFL or CFL?

 

do you have a link? no? i didnt think so. your points would matter more if you used links.

A professional accounting showed players received 53% of the revenue from 2006-9.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/21/revenue.report.ap/index.html

Heres a business article showing players got 59-60%

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Prime-Cut-Goes-To-NFL-Players.aspx

 

heres the GB Packers president saying players got 60%

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Expanded-season-revenue-The-NFL-s-math-problem?urn=nfl-249565

 

The issue is how total revenue is counted or more precisely what revenue is excluded before the calculation is performed.

 

The thing keeping the players from playing in alternative leagues is injury. It would void their current contracts when a deal is reached. Not a smart move since the NFL refuses to guarantee contracts.

Edited April 14, 2011 by K Gun Special

[papazoid]

NFL teams today have two principle revenue sources, shared revenues and retained revenues. Shared revenue is income shared more or less equally between the 32 NFL teams, with the bulk coming from national broadcast rights fees, augmented by a share of ticket sales, non-network media income and licensing.

 

Retained revenue (or unshared revenue) is revenue generated and kept by individual teams. This includes about two thirds of the gate receipts, luxury suite revenues, stadium naming rights, sponsorships, concessions, parking fees and any local broadcast revenues.

 

 

 

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2004505/nfl-lockout-2011-revenue-gap-problem

[K-9]

...If someone predicted in the late 80s after the NFL owners locked out the players as part of the mid-80s dispute that the late 80s would see:...

 

The owners never locked out the players in the 80s. The players went on strike in both '82 and '87.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[papazoid]

players percentage of "All" revenue and "total" revenue

 

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharing

 

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues 56.5 52.6 51.8 50.5 52.3 51.1 52.7 51.8 51.0 50.6

Players’ Percentage of "Total Revenue" 61.7 57.1 56.1 54.3 57.0 55.1 58.4 58.0 57.7 57.1

 

Part 3: NFL Lockout 2011: The Haves And Have-Nots Of The NFL:

 

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl

[Hplarrm]

do you have a link? no? i didnt think so. your points would matter more if you used links.

A professional accounting showed players received 53% of the revenue from 2006-9.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/21/revenue.report.ap/index.html

Heres a business article showing players got 59-60%

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Prime-Cut-Goes-To-NFL-Players.aspx

 

heres the GB Packers president saying players got 60%

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Expanded-season-revenue-The-NFL-s-math-problem?urn=nfl-249565

 

The issue is how total revenue is counted or more precisely what revenue is excluded before the calculation is performed.

 

The thing keeping the players from playing in alternative leagues is injury. It would void their current contracts when a deal is reached. Not a smart move since the NFL refuses to guarantee contracts.

Many thanks for sharing actual facts rather than the fact-free opinions that often are the commerce on these boards. I often engage in throwing mere opinions out myself, but I at least try to base them in factoids such as my sense that while is mere language in the CBA which promises them a % of total revenues that begins with a 6 (60.5% is my understanding of the final calculation) the reality is now that under the current CBA the players are arguably the majority partner in the NFL receiving slightly over 50% of the total receipts as shown by the facts you share. The notion that the players only receive 40% is a rant that some have made on TSW but this notion is not supported by any references or credible links.

 

Again looking at reality, if in fact the owners are the ones receiving 60% of the revenues then why did they opt to re-open the agreement if in fact they were bringing in a clear majority of the revenue?

 

The answer is that the players have had the owners on the run since the mid-80s lockout when they brought in replacement players. The players were looking to strike under the old AFL-CIO union approach under the leadership of Ed Garvey and planned to go out after the regular season concluded and the players had received most of their cash but the owners had not yet collected the major share of their bucks when came with the TV ratings and ticket taking during the playoffs. Players could break the lockout and cross the lines and get paid if they agreed to the NFL overall terms, By pushing the date forward to a point where the players were not collecting game checks this was how they broke the union.

 

By decertifying itself as a bargaining agent, the NFLPA (which still exists as an entity even if it decertifies itself as a bargaining agent) the NFLPA forced the owners to actually engage in a free market where it bid for individual player to sign personal services contracts.

 

The NFLPA is a partner with the NFL because the courts have determined that individual rights to free market negotiation can only be abridged if the team owners and the NFLPA operate together in partnership embodied in the CBA. By decertifying itself as a bargaining agent the team owners are left to either use the free market to negotiate with individual players or to attempt to collude with each other to set salaries and allocate players.

 

With the NFLPA decertifying itself, it forces the owners to operate using free market principles and the NFL cannot stand that.

[K Gun Special]

Many thanks for sharing actual facts rather than the fact-free opinions that often are the commerce on these boards. I often engage in throwing mere opinions out myself, but I at least try to base them in factoids such as my sense that while is mere language in the CBA which promises them a % of total revenues that begins with a 6 (60.5% is my understanding of the final calculation) the reality is now that under the current CBA the players are arguably the majority partner in the NFL receiving slightly over 50% of the total receipts as shown by the facts you share. The notion that the players only receive 40% is a rant that some have made on TSW but this notion is not supported by any references or credible links.

 

Again looking at reality, if in fact the owners are the ones receiving 60% of the revenues then why did they opt to re-open the agreement if in fact they were bringing in a clear majority of the revenue?

 

The answer is that the players have had the owners on the run since the mid-80s lockout when they brought in replacement players. The players were looking to strike under the old AFL-CIO union approach under the leadership of Ed Garvey and planned to go out after the regular season concluded and the players had received most of their cash but the owners had not yet collected the major share of their bucks when came with the TV ratings and ticket taking during the playoffs. Players could break the lockout and cross the lines and get paid if they agreed to the NFL overall terms, By pushing the date forward to a point where the players were not collecting game checks this was how they broke the union.

 

By decertifying itself as a bargaining agent, the NFLPA (which still exists as an entity even if it decertifies itself as a bargaining agent) the NFLPA forced the owners to actually engage in a free market where it bid for individual player to sign personal services contracts.

 

The NFLPA is a partner with the NFL because the courts have determined that individual rights to free market negotiation can only be abridged if the team owners and the NFLPA operate together in partnership embodied in the CBA. By decertifying itself as a bargaining agent the team owners are left to either use the free market to negotiate with individual players or to attempt to collude with each other to set salaries and allocate players.

 

With the NFLPA decertifying itself, it forces the owners to operate using free market principles and the NFL cannot stand that.

 

 

Too many people miss the bolded part when commenting on the situation.

[CosmicBills]

do you have a link? no? i didnt think so. your points would matter more if you used links.

 

He doesn't care about facts. He cares about being "right" at all costs. Which is hilarious because he can't engage in any sort of honest intellectual debate (about anything) because he lacks the abilities to understand the finer points of logic and language.

 

Good stuff.

[Mr. WEO]

do you have a link? no? i didnt think so. your points would matter more if you used links.

A professional accounting showed players received 53% of the revenue from 2006-9.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/21/revenue.report.ap/index.html

Heres a business article showing players got 59-60%

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2008/03/20080303/This-Weeks-News/Prime-Cut-Goes-To-NFL-Players.aspx

 

heres the GB Packers president saying players got 60%

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Expanded-season-revenue-The-NFL-s-math-problem?urn=nfl-249565

 

The issue is how total revenue is counted or more precisely what revenue is excluded before the calculation is performed.

 

The thing keeping the players from playing in alternative leagues is injury. It would void their current contracts when a deal is reached. Not a smart move since the NFL refuses to guarantee contracts.

Exactly. The players have no interest in "other leagues", so hplarrm's suggestion is silly.

 

players percentage of "All" revenue and "total" revenue

 

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharing

 

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues 56.5 52.6 51.8 50.5 52.3 51.1 52.7 51.8 51.0 50.6

Players’ Percentage of "Total Revenue" 61.7 57.1 56.1 54.3 57.0 55.1 58.4 58.0 57.7 57.1

 

Part 3: NFL Lockout 2011: The Haves And Have-Nots Of The NFL:

 

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/21/2005431/nfl-lockout-2011-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-nfl

The total revenue percentages listed are after the owners take $1 billion off the top. Also, those numbers aren't waht players "got"--it was the amount of the cap for each of those years that was available to spend on players if owners so chose. The total amount of the cap money is never spent in any year.

 

Look at the actual annual payrolls for the teams (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005), add them up and compare to the total league revenues for any given year. For example, in '08 the total team payroll was 3.62 billion against 7.6 billion in revenue for a total of 47% of the "total" (54% after you take 1 billion off the top). In '09 it was 3.31 billion on 9 billion (or 9.2) which is 37% (41% after taking off the 1 billion).

 

Too many people miss the bolded part when commenting on the situation.

The bolded part is nonsense. Every CBA has fully embraced "collusion" (draft) and "restriction of trade" (FA) and the next one will also. To believe otherwise, or that the players actually want to see this changed is crazy.

[K Gun Special]

Exactly. The players have no interest in "other leagues", so hplarrm's suggestion is silly.

 

 

The total revenue percentages listed are after the owners take $1 billion off the top. Also, those numbers aren't waht players "got"--it was the amount of the cap for each of those years that was available to spend on players if owners so chose. The total amount of the cap money is never spent in any year.

 

Look at the actual annual payrolls for the teams (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005), add them up and compare to the total league revenues for any given year. For example, in '08 the total team payroll was 3.62 billion against 7.6 billion in revenue for a total of 47% of the "total" (54% after you take 1 billion off the top). In '09 it was 3.31 billion on 9 billion (or 9.2) which is 37% (41% after taking off the 1 billion).

 

 

The bolded part is nonsense. Every CBA has fully embraced "collusion" (draft) and "restriction of trade" (FA) and the next one will also. To believe otherwise, or that the players actually want to see this changed is crazy.

 

 

Its not nonsense. The total amount the players recieve also includes benefits like retirement, health care, insurance for their families.

 

ITs a total package not strictly limited to salaries.

 

In the face of a professional accounting of the benefits players received equaling more than you continue to state, you refuse to acknowledge the same.

 

The numbers you eschew cannot be found anywhere but in your simplified math, which is why you cannot show anyone else saying the same. The players received more revenue than you believe. The links I've shown prove that beyond a doubt.

 

If there is something somewhere out the supporting your position that's its closer to 40% I'd like to see it.

[CosmicBills]

Its not nonsense. The total amount the players recieve also includes benefits like retirement, health care, insurance for their families.

 

ITs a total package not strictly limited to salaries.

 

In the face of a professional accounting of the benefits players received equaling more than you continue to state, you refuse to acknowledge the same.

 

The numbers you eschew cannot be found anywhere but in your simplified math, which is why you cannot show anyone else saying the same. The players received more revenue than you believe. The links I've shown prove that beyond a doubt.

 

If there is something somewhere out the supporting your position that's its closer to 40% I'd like to see it.

Don't hold your breath