ESPN.com Reporting....

[K Gun Special]

Every capped year has had a "salary floor".

 

I don't see how lifting the lockout gets them closer to a deal. There is now zero incentive for the playrs to listen to any more of the several offers made by the owners. If the league is going to continue under the conditions of the expired CBA (which had one more year anyway, not "several more years"),the players will be content to ride out the legal process of their frivolous lawsuit.

 

Hardly frivolous since a federal judge ruled they have a likelihood of success by granting the injunction.

 

You dont like unions and you similarly dislike the PA. But dont let it cloud your analysis so much.

[RealityCheck]

What evidence is there that prices will even just stay the same if players get more money?

You are the one I posed a question to because you made a very broad assumption. Don't respond as if my question to you was a statement of my opinion on the subject. I am asking if your opinion is founded upon reality or if it was simply an off the cuff personal opinion based on personal bias. If you still don't want to answer my question that's cool, but it is not a good habit to treat someone's question as a statement of their own opinion.

[RealityCheck]

I have a couple of question that maybe somebody can answer. These numbers are my estimates, I did not research them....

 

Baseball has 81 home games, Hockey and Basketball 41 each. Football has 8.

 

Baseball has about 25 to 30 players on a team, hockey about 20 and basketball about 12. Football has about 65 or more when counting practice squad and injured players.

 

Baseball has about 8 coaches, managers, trainers or instructors, hockey maybe 6, basketball has 4 or 5 and football has more than 15.

 

The most common injury in baseball is jock itch, hockey has upper and lower body injuries whatever that means, basketball's biggest risk is tattoo-ink poisoning. Football players have dementia, broken necks, ruined legs....long term crippling and life debilitating injuries.

 

A good player can last 20 years in baseball and hockey, about 15 in basketball and very few last 10 years in football. Any player in football can be out for good in a nano second.

 

The average ticket price for baseball, hockey and basketball has risen to where it is close to the same cost as a single football game. Hockey and basketball in many places surpass the cost of a football game. But baseball is not far behind football any longer.

 

Nothing is better than an NHL playoff game, i hate pro basketball so my opinion of their playoff product is jaded, baseball has had some unbelievable playoffs but usually only the WS gets my interest. Football is one and done and the hype around the Super Bowl is rarely fulfilled.

 

Baseball, hockey and basketball are not ruined by TV timeouts. Football has lost its game continuity and no player should be tired in the fourth quarter as it takes forever to get to the fourth quarter and on average about 30 minutes to play the last two minutes of any game. Even having the K-Gun offense in this league could not tire anyone out. Baseball does need to shake up its game and complete games in 2 hours as not many can stomach watching more than two hours of 18 players and 4 base coaches crotch scratching.

 

Why own a football team - TV revenue.

 

 

Back to my question:

1. If you have a child that is athletic why would you ever let him play football?

Outstanding post.

[Mr. WEO]

Hardly frivolous since a federal judge ruled they have a likelihood of success by granting the injunction.

 

You dont like unions and you similarly dislike the PA. But dont let it cloud your analysis so much.

It is frivolous becuase there is simply no evidence that the players want to end the "constrictive" way the NFL is run (draft, FA, salary caps, revenue sharing between teams, etc.), yet this is the what they claim they want in their suit. They are challenging what they have happily accepted for much of the past 2 decades and which they absolutley will accept again in the next CBA, if the price is right.

 

They are using the courts as a negotiation tactic, so, yeah, it's a frivolous lawsuit.

[K Gun Special]

It is frivolous becuase there is simply no evidence that the players want to end the "constrictive" way the NFL is run (draft, FA, salary caps, revenue sharing between teams, etc.), yet this is the what they claim they want in their suit. They are challenging what they have happily accepted for much of the past 2 decades and which they absolutley will accept again in the next CBA, if the price is right.

 

They are using the courts as a negotiation tactic, so, yeah, it's a frivolous lawsuit.

 

So frivolous no one with a legal degree is saying that. That word has a very distinct legal implication and by your use of it I take it you understand it as simply a buzzword for litigation you dont like.

OH and preventing non-union employees from working using collusion is not permitted under US law. Thank Teddy R for that.

 

Litigation as a negotiation tactic is as American as apple pie. Been happening for centuries.

 

Now the owners are forced to make the argument that they Courts should reinstate the union.

[Mr. WEO]

So frivolous no one with a legal degree is saying that. That word has a very distinct legal implication and by your use of it I take it you understand it as simply a buzzword for litigation you dont like.

OH and preventing non-union employees from working using collusion is not permitted under US law. Thank Teddy R for that.

 

Litigation as a negotiation tactic is as American as apple pie. Been happening for centuries.

 

Now the owners are forced to make the argument that they Courts should reinstate the union.

If a party is not rally interested in winning their suit and use it as a threat to force negotiations, it's frivolous. There is not one player who wants to get rid of the draft, revenue sharing, etc. The proof is that they keep signing agreements that forbid the "free trade" that they seek in their suit.

 

I have no problem with them using any method at their disposal. The owners don't need a union to bargain with--they can sign a CBA with the players without a union.

[K Gun Special]

If a party is not rally interested in winning their suit and use it as a threat to force negotiations, it's frivolous. There is not one player who wants to get rid of the draft, revenue sharing, etc. The proof is that they keep signing agreements that forbid the "free trade" that they seek in their suit.

 

I have no problem with them using any method at their disposal. The owners don't need a union to bargain with--they can sign a CBA with the players without a union.

 

Thats your definition. The case clearly has merit, and enough merit to warrant an injunction. This places very far away from the legal definition of the word frivolous.

 

The NFL has lost a number of cases in the Federal system, see American Needle, and they will likely lose this one too. The court would certainly prefer them to work it out, which they will.

[Hplarrm]

If a party is not rally interested in winning their suit and use it as a threat to force negotiations, it's frivolous. There is not one player who wants to get rid of the draft, revenue sharing, etc. The proof is that they keep signing agreements that forbid the "free trade" that they seek in their suit.

 

I have no problem with them using any method at their disposal. The owners don't need a union to bargain with--they can sign a CBA with the players without a union.

Yes, my understanding of labor law (which is both limited by my not being a lawyer or paid to understand the CBA but that appears to be the general case with most of us TSW posters unless 1) you are a labor law lawyer and/or you are paid real money by someone for your expertise on these issues) is that while the NFL does have the right under the current situation to declare an impasse and impose their final offer, this would also open them up to some probably very bad situations which any sane person would avoid, such as:

 

1. Under the terms of the current agreement and labor law, once the players are locked out and the NFLPA decertifies itself as a bargaining agent (and be clear on a point which you seem to have stated incorrectly in earlier posts- decert does not mean that the NFLPA ceases to exist or to operate -the institution has a separate life and mission likely as a recognized by the IRS as an association which is a right protected in the Constitution and likely embodied in the IRS not for profit institution code section 501c3- I am not sure of the specific section but this is one way it might be done- the NFLPA has a separate institutional mission and role from the mere tactic of whether it gains certification as a bargaining agent). Upon decert and even clearer if the NFL imposes a labor settlement on the players then they have the right to sue in court as individuals.

 

The players have already done this under Brady, et al. and quite frankly these individuals have more than a fighting chance of winning this suit. If they did, then the individual team owners would actually have to compete in a free market against other individual team owners. Ironically, the social contract which the NFL operates under actually gets the teams and players more money than a free market approach where at BEST the NFL would be like MLB where the individual owners with the most money would buy the best teams.

 

This whole fight really strikes me as being about those who would offer up a free market approach (the NFLPA decertifiying itself as a bargaining agent leaving individual players and individual owners to negotiate individual personal services contracts) or those who advocate a system based on a social contract (the NFL). One of the reasons why the NFLPA has gained and enforced such an advantage embodied in the CBA that the owners themselves opted out of it despite the league achieving record profits underneath it is that it grates on the captains of industry who own the individual teams to have to send over a majority of the profits to the workers. The team owners prefer a more socialist approach where they get to play the role of the Kremlin or royalty in charge.

 

The problem for the NFL in the American courts however is that our government and constitution has a strong bias toward individual rights and this is where the players are.

 

2. To me the really aggrieved party in all of this are the college athletes. The US Courts have allowed the NFL to operate in its more socialistic framework which is based on the NFL draft.

 

Normally in US society, an individual goes to school, demonstrates what they have learned and can do, and then jump into the free market and sale their services to corporations and entities across this great land of ours.

 

Lets say a kid learns to be a great computer guy, he then can try to sell his services to Micriosoft if he wants to live in the NW, to Hewlett-Packard if he wants to live in CA, or IBM if he wants to live in Armonk, NY. Maybe his parents are in one of those places, maybe his girlfriend lives in one of these towns.

 

However, lets say his talent is Pro Football.

 

Well, the NFL has designed things so that he not only can be told the one team he must sign with and where he must live without regard to his desire to be with his parents, girlfriend or whatever.

 

Even worse, the NFL has a nice collusion going on with the colleges. Colleges actually pay to train and develop his youngsters at no cost to the NFL (with some of this welfare subsidy actually coming from taxpayers as we pay for college football mills like the U of Nebraska or to make Univ. at Buffalo Division I. The NFL and the colleges collude and price fix to ban any person to play in the NFL until his age group reaches 21.

 

Why does the NFL need the NFLPA?

 

Because our court system will not endorse at all the taking away of individuals rights to compete as individuals in a free market except that individuals do have a right to form a union and bargain collectively.

 

If the NFL were to simply impose its will on the NFLPA such that the union actually loses its relevance to players, the NFL would be subject to lawsuits by individual players demanding the individual right to sell their contractual services to the highest bidder.

 

Without the NFLPA the entire draft would be illegal and am abridgement of individual rights.

 

The team owners need their partners the NFLPA.

 

Actually given that their are a number of ready sources of capital out there (other individuals, TV corporations, municipalities, the players themselves now)there is a real question of whether the current owners are even necessary.

 

The Green Bay Packers demonstrated in the last SB that municipal ownership can work. You may have some kind of woody for the current owners but for this fan, they have made their original investments back far times over. They deserved that money because they took a risk. However, I do not feel bad for them finanacially as they have been paid back many times over. The current NFL owners are merely redundant and a source of rising costs as best as I can see.

[yungmack]

Actually I think you have it reversed. The owners are actually the biggest expense that the players have.

 

Take the NFL and their 39.5% share of the total receipts out of the loop and the NFLPA could keep the owners share and we could still reduce ticket prices by 20%.

 

(I know I know actually some of those total receipts go to maintain the game so it would not be a flat calculation in this fantasy).

 

The point however is this.

 

If I gave you a chance to watch NFLPA members strap on the gear and have at it or you could chose to have Snyder, Jerry Jones, and Mr. Ralph strap on the gear and play ball who would you buy season tickets to see.

 

The team owners were an essential part of the game back in its founding days when folks like George Halas actually understood the game and even HC'ed his team to championships. Their guts were even essential elements when folks like Mr. Ralph risked a few tens of thousands (real money back in the day) and forced the NFL to let them into the game (and if you want to blame rising salaries for the costs of the game look no further than Mr. Ralph and his partners paying Joe Willie $400K a year).

 

Do not feel bad for the NFL owners however, good sportsmen like the Rooneys and the Maras got paid back with the championships. Even folks like Mr. Ralph who were far more businessmen than sportsmen though they never won the SB they have made their original investments back hand over fist over jowl.

 

However as yet another SB win for the Packers demonstrated, the owners are pretty far from essential today. There are tons of sources of capital out there from other individuals, to corporations to the public on shareholder deals like the Packers.

 

The team owners are really an unnecessary today and though Dan Snyder does have some comedic value they really could be done without.

 

Why do you and some others have such a woody for the owners?

You nailed it.

 

For those of you in blue collar Buffalo so worried about the "poor" owners, remember, for example, that Ralph Wilson spent $50,000 for the Bills franchise (about $700,000 in today's sad excuse for the dollar) and his heirs will sell it for a figure approaching a billion dollars. Pass the hat.

Edited April 26, 2011 by yungmack

[Guest three3]

You may have some kind of woody for the current owners but for this fan, they have made their original investments back far times over. They deserved that money because they took a risk.

 

ralph risking 50k of his inheritance? his father passed an extremely profitable business down to him as well as piles of cash. not much of a risk when you didn't earn the money yourself. not so risky when 50k is a fraction of your worth. ralph deserves nothing.

[Buftex]

 

The Green Bay Packers demonstrated in the last SB that municipal ownership can work. You may have some kind of woody for the current owners but for this fan, they have made their original investments back far times over. They deserved that money because they took a risk. However, I do not feel bad for them finanacially as they have been paid back many times over. The current NFL owners are merely redundant and a source of rising costs as best as I can see.

 

I realize, you are not making this argument, but I hear it all the time....it is a very weak argument!

[CosmicBills]

I realize, you are not making this argument, but I hear it all the time....it is a very weak argument!

It's less than weak. It's absurd.

 

Less than half of the current owners actually TOOK a financial risk when they bought into the league. The majority of owners bought into the league after the NFL was established as THE entertainment business in the country. There was NO risk when they bought into the league. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

 

"But they put up their own money! That's taking a risk! Who knows what the future holds! The game could change!"

 

Bullsh*t.

 

Owning an NFL team is like buying your own bottomless cash register. And the men who own teams are savvy enough to realize that. I work in the entertainment industry, and the NFL is by far the biggest earner in the entire industry. It kills movies, TV, music, games -- it's massive. Any owner who bought in post 1985-'90 (roughly), knew they were buying into the safest 500b investment fund in the history of man. Proof of just how successful and profitable the business is evident over the past few years. Despite the worst economic crisis the country has faced since the '40s and despite a CBA where the players clearly had the upper hand, the league and the owners made RECORD PROFITS.

 

That is not hyperbole or even taking a side. That's just the facts of the matter.

 

Now there is a serious threat to the upcoming season because the Owners want even more. That's the bottom line.

 

As a fan, I don't care who "wins" when the deal is finally made (and it will get made), I care about not losing out on games. Others here are far more concerned with being right or seeing the owners crush the players. Even though for the Owners to "win" it virtually guarantees that we the fans will miss out on some, if not all, of the 2011 season. If the players "win" there is a far better chance of a deal getting done quick enough to avoid losing ANY games in '11. That's all I care about.

 

But I'm aware that not everyone feels this way. In fact, there is a wide spectrum of opposing views. From the absurd to the very rational and well articulated.

 

Some of the thinking on this board is ridiculous -- on both the owner's side and the player's. There are people here (like WEO) who shouldn't be allowed to carry anything sharper than a butter knife (which is still sharper than his IQ) based on the deluded logic and verbal douche-baggery displayed in these threads. But I understand where the crazy arguments come from. 90% of the people who are on the owners' side wrongly think the NFL is a traditional business model where the owners rule and the players are just employees. That's just not the case. As much as people want to make it about that, it isn't. The NFL, like almost every element of the entertainment industry, is a partnership. You can't have good football without good players. You can't have good movies without good actors. Most of the anger spewed on here (on both sides) comes from the mistaken belief that the NFL operates under the traditional business model and they refuse to open their minds to the reality that it just doesn't. Not even the owners think it does.

 

Still more of the crazy responses are rooted in the mistaken belief in the myth of the American Dream. You know what I mean when you read the posts. The posters who feel the Owners have to win because one day, when they get that rich they don't want to have to take crap from their "employees". Or, "I'm an employee and I'd never stand up to my boss". Those types of posts and posters are so common and so tough to rationally debate because deep down they believe in the myth that if you work hard enough in this country one day you'll be as rich as the owners.

 

I got news for you, that ain't gonna happen. Ever. Never in a million years.

 

NFL Owners aren't rich. They're a different CLASS of rich. There isn't a single person on this board that will ever accumulate the type of wealth these 32 people have (unless they have it already). Hell, even if you're a millionaire right now (which I'm sure some people on here are) you won't ever reach the level of these guys. Heck, there is more of a chance of getting hit by lightning twice on the same day you win the lottery. I'm not a politics guy at all, but there seems to be a very conservative and very American under current that comes to the surface in these types of posts. It's fascinating to witness.

 

That's not to say there aren't some very informed posters who have taken the owner's side. There are plenty. And there are some fantastic debates that have gone on here between both viewpoints that have opened my eyes to things I haven't considered before (Ramius's and Doc's take on the small market clubs for instance). But the majority of arguments here (on BOTH sides) are so reactionary and irrational it makes for hilarious entertainment.

 

The reality of the situation is that a deal will get done. One side will "win" but that victory will have no impact on us the fans. None. Football will continue, the Players will still be rich, the Owners will still be richer. The world won't end if the players win. The world won't end if the owners win. Everything between now and when a deal gets done is just posturing by BOTH sides and academic masturbation for the rest of us.

 

Politics and business models aside, at the end of the day you'd think fans would want the same thing: Football in '11.

 

It's my opinion that the fastest way for that to happen is for the players to win as much leverage as possible because of the two sides, they NEED a resolution quicker than the Owners do. Hence, any victory for the players right now I see as a step towards there being an NFL season in 2011.