Could this really happen?

[CodeMonkey]

Wouldn't it be interesting if the UFL stepped in and gave the players a better deal and instantly expanded to 32 teams, shutting out the NFL.

That would be very entertaining to see. You know the TV networks would fall in line, they just want to show football. Since the teams generally don't own the existing stadiums, the UFL should be able to make deals with them as well.

 

Dare to dream I guess

[Wayne Cubed]

I'm sorry, but i just do not see how some fans side with the owners. It's not like the players 2 years ago opted out of the CBA and demanded more money. Newsflash, it was the owners. So where is all this hatred and calling the players greedy coming from?

 

Lets say your boss walked into your office and said "hey, you know that contract we signed so that you could work here? Well we have decided to opt out of it and restructure it. We want to give you less money and oh yea you'll be working more!" Now, that's just the general gist of the NFL, but would you honestly lay down and say ya, ok, sounds great? Not to mention you as the employee are all the talent and assume all of the physical risk.

 

I think I understand where people confuse the greed part, they see millions and billions of dollars and get confused. The principals are still basically the same. The players didn't want the contract to end. It was the owners greed.

[CodeMonkey]

I'm sorry, but i just do not see how some fans side with the owners. It's not like the players 2 years ago opted out of the CBA and demanded more money. Newsflash, it was the owners. So where is all this hatred and calling the players greedy coming from?

 

Lets say your boss walked into your office and said "hey, you know that contract we signed so that you could work here? Well we have decided to opt out of it and restructure it. We want to give you less money and oh yea you'll be working more!" Now, that's just the general gist of the NFL, but would you honestly lay down and say ya, ok, sounds great? Not to mention you as the employee are all the talent and assume all of the physical risk.

 

I think I understand where people confuse the greed part, they see millions and billions of dollars and get confused. The principals are still basically the same. The players didn't want the contract to end. It was the owners greed.

That has happened to people that I know. Contracts now do not mean what they did years ago, and that is not for the better.

 

There is plenty of greed on both sides. And I personally find the entire situation disgusting.

[bigc14120]

Preposterous and ridiculous. Sure, there are some owners who clearly are absurdly wealthy and with their fail safe TV deal that included money for them in the event of a lockout (why do you think they are so set on a lockout - no lockout, no fail-safe funds from the Networks), they have minimized their own personal losses in the event there's isn't a season. The owners worked on this a couple years back in planning for what is going on now. For this year, it's the players who will get hurt the worst financially and that's what the owners banked on.

 

Why do you, and many others, continue to berate the players for disbanding the NFLPA as a sham, while failing to mention or even acknowledge the lockout provisions the owners sought and received from the Networks years back? Your post is so much like what is reported on Fox, in that it conveniently left out key facts and data, so as to support your "opinion". If the lockout is allowed to stand, and I fear it will be, it will leave the owners in a position to continue their demands for more revenues not subject to any CBA, an 18 game schedule that only benefits them, a reduction in players salaries that will take them back to levels of 4-5 years ago, etc. Not one single item "improves" anything for the players, and they offer only relatively small incremental improvements for the retired players.

 

With that said, the players themselves, should seek greater benefits for retired players, well above the owners limited improvements they've offered. Sure, that too would reduce what they can get now, but do these guys think they will be playing forever? With careers as short as theirs, long term benefits should be of keen interest to them (not Manning or Brady, or similary wealthy players who don't need any help) as most won't be in the NFL but for a short while. Yet, the gimme now mentality of the owners and players isn't likely to produce real improvements for those players who have gone before.

Well, there is always the ying and the yang of any debate. The US pro labor entitlement mentality is reflected here, along with some well thought out comments about the retirees that built the game. But, in the end, it will be whoever gives up because they can't stand the pain that will have to negotiate a settlement. I am betting on the owners winning, and it might take a lost season. We have been down this road before, and I hope they just cancel. The strike season of 3 decades ago was a joke, and I did ask and get my money back that year. Will do the same this year, no full season, no money from me....I, the customer, can also walk. The money talks, and the money walks. Never forget, the fan is the ultimate source of "the money" This is a three part discussion, but the fan is not often quoted in media.

[Gordio]

Amen.

 

 

The car companies (Big 3) who since the early 70s have given American car buyers vehicles with poorer quality control, poorer safety features, uglier vehicles (Pacer, Gremlin, Aztec) and poorer gas mileage?

 

The car companies (Big 3) who ignored the poignant and profound lessons of the early 70s (oil embargo, spiraling gas crisis) who circumvented EPA mileage standards by leaping headfirst into the pickup truck and SUV loopholes instead of creating exciting, well-crafted automobiles which would always be sporty, safe, and fuel-efficient?

 

Those U.S. car companies?

 

The auto industry is yet another prime example of an American industry which has blamed workers wages for the mistakes made by management…a ridiculously overcompensated management.

 

Answer me this? Why do American Auto Execs make way more than their foreign counterparts…even as their companies are circling the drain?

 

And keep in mind the non-union auto workers have good wages and benefits. Why? Because without Unions to set standards for working men and women, non-union shops could pay their employees whatever the hell they wanted to. It's only when they finally crush the Unions that workers wages will fall and the working middle class will finally disappear completely.

 

 

No I think he is talking about the US Car Companies that were forced to pay $30 - $40 bucks an hour to dipshits that could barely graduate high school for sweeping floors & & screwing a bolt into an axle because of your unions. F*ck unions, there is no place for them in this country anymore. My father in law & brother in law worked at GM(my FIL is retired, my brother in law lost his job)& the sense of their entitlement was astounding. My father in law made well over $100K & what was his job. He had to ride around the plant once an hour to sweep the floors. He would work(& I use the term work lightly) 13 days in a row & then take one day off. He would make double time for half those hours & would openly brag that he would sit around playing cards most of the time during his shift at the union hall. He would often tell management off when they had the audacity to ask him you know to actually do some work & then he would always come away thinking he was right. MY BIL made close to $70K right out of high school(barely graduated). Since he lost his job it took him 2 years to find a job & he now makes $12 an hour, which he probably should of been making all along. Bottomline is these jobs are unskilled labor, why pay them $30/$40 per hour? It was a joke.

 

Well, there is always the ying and the yang of any debate. The US pro labor entitlement mentality is reflected here, along with some well thought out comments about the retirees that built the game. But, in the end, it will be whoever gives up because they can't stand the pain that will have to negotiate a settlement. I am betting on the owners winning, and it might take a lost season. We have been down this road before, and I hope they just cancel. The strike season of 3 decades ago was a joke, and I did ask and get my money back that year. Will do the same this year, no full season, no money from me....I, the customer, can also walk. The money talks, and the money walks. Never forget, the fan is the ultimate source of "the money" This is a three part discussion, but the fan is not often quoted in media.

 

 

Good point. I have not renewed my tickets yet & I will not until I see everything settled & I know even part of the season is not compromised. If I lose my seats well I guess that is the chance I am willing to take. I ma sure there will be plenty of seats available once this thing is settled.

[UConn James]

Stop right there. The answer is because this isn't "any other company or business". The NFL isn't GM, it isn't Blue Cross, it isn't Kodak or Wegmans or Zerox or Bausch & Lomb. It's not Apple, a Law Firm, Hospital or a McDonalds. The NFL Owners do not make anything nor do they provide any sort of service. The owners make money because people want to pay them to watch their players who are independent contractors. Yet the players assume virtually all the risks.

 

Stop thinking the NFL is like any other business. It's not. If you replaced the entire workforce in virtually any other business, chances are you could find replacements for all of them without much fallout in your profit margins. But when your product is your employees, and your business operates under a system in which those employees assume all the risk financially AND physically, the traditional employee/employer relationship goes out the window.

 

With that being the case how is it justifiable in any way shape or form for the Owners to risk losing control of their business, or forcing the players to take a massive pay cut when despite signing a deal that favored the players AND the worst economic crisis this country has faced since the '40s, the Owners made more money than they ever have in the history of the league? Especially without providing any reason for the need to do so other than "trust us."?

 

It's not fair to the players who's talents built and define the league. And it's certainly not fair to the fans of the league who spend billions of dollars a year of their disposable income to the Owners.

 

For the Owners it's just greed and arrogance.

 

For the players it's just stubborness and principles.

 

For the fans it just sucks.

 

tgreg, how can you say that the players assume all the financial risk?

 

If the league were to fold, the players could walk away. The owners would be left with empty stadiums, practice facilities, vending contracts, facilities staff, unused uniform stock, and buttloads of litigation. The owners provide everything. The players just show up.

 

The players assume almost no financial risk, other than missing out on their salaries.

Edited May 9, 2011 by UConn James

[KRT88]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/08/rumors-fly-of-a-complete-nfl-shutdown/

 

 

I'm not sure how likely this is but i felt like i needed to be posted. What would your reaction be if this were to happen? I for one would be a) shocked and b) extremely angry that it would have to come to something like this

 

 

If I was a small market owner and the player keep winning in court, thus the players get to keep tyhing the way they are, this is exactly what I'd do. They players think they run over the league, then simply disolve the league. If the players can pull same crap on paper with their union, then why can't the owners do the exact same thing with league? They own the business and together the 32 of them make up the enity known as the NFL.

 

From a fans point of vgiew it would suck, but from a business point of view, use whatever tool you must to get what you want. Otherwise, there’s no reason for the players to sit down and truly negotiate, as according in the courts no lockout means they players can simply keep things as they currently are.

[RealityCheck]

I don't have anything insightful to bring to the table on this subject. I am not on anyone's side and chalk it up to a symptom of our current economic crisis. Some serious factors to consider that are not part of the typical discussion are trends in media distribution and revenue. Also, the fact that the NFL made amazing profits in this recession is over stated. Employees make predictions based on the trends of last year. Entrepreneurs typically assess cause and effect on larger scales and far longer tim frames. We avoided our debt crisis by INVESTING in more debt. If you have it in you to look at the big picture the owners are of the belief that the Golden Egg of TV revenue will be shrinking in the foreseeable future. I am personally under the impression that our economic woes will continue with increasing unemployment, increasing high school dropout rates, inflation, higher taxes and expenses, exporting of more jobs, and the importing of illegal labor. If your fan base is fighting something like this, how can you possibly think the owners would be confidant that their League is not extremely vulnerable moving forward. Due to inflation, the owners expenses will be going up every year. Some teams even with TV revenue are not especially profitable, now picture a slide in Sunday ticket subscriptions or and a potential freeze on it's cost. Imagine the decline in advertising money. It's not unimaginable for a one or two year decline of 10% in this revenue to absolutely kill certain teams versus the rising operating costs. Under the circumstances, I am feeling a little greedy myself. Perhaps I should take this cue from the owners and not invest in there future debt.

[benbillsfan]

im not an expert on whats going on but as far as i can tell the last deal the owners offered was quite fair

 

lets also remember the owners got raped last time around - albeit their own fault for not listening to ralph but still they got screwed

 

finally lets remember the players want full access to financials of the teams. so really they want to take pretty much everything they can and leave the owners with very little actual control over what is going on

 

so if im an owner i probably feel like im getting painted into a very undesireable corner. at some point you just say well **** if this is the way things are gonna be shoved down my throat then i can just shutter the windows and be kept warm by snuggling up to the many millions i already have. fk the players im going yachting

 

and i cant say i entirely blame them

 

i actuall think this is a pretty good point here...i totaly agree with this post here...why would anyone call this the worst post they have ever seen...

[Jerry Jabber]

While football (the NFL) is my favorite sport to watch, especially watching the Bills, I would hate to see the NFL come to an end, but if it happens, life goes on. I'll save a few hundred bucks a year from the NFL Sunday ticket. Now that the Sabres have an owner, who is very committed to winning a championship, I'll get the NHL package and watch the Sabres all season long.

 

IMO, neither side of this dispute is right, they're all a bunch of greedy bastards. The NFL is at the height of it's popularity and especially in financial terms. Millions of fans like us on TBD love the NFL, but if both sides are going fight tooth and nail over every last penny, then f@ck them all. Both sides are ultimately screwing us, the fans, so if they can't make a deal and this straightened out, the hell with all of them!!! I'll take my money that I spend on the NFL Sunday ticket, and NFL merchandise, and spend it elsewhere.

[Wagon Circler]

My general feeling is that players start preparing for this career at age 19 , and the average NFL career is 4-5 years. Those lucky enough to have an 8-9 year career walk away with a permanent limp or 3 knee surgeries or arthritis in their fifties, or tinnitus (ringing of the ears) (see concussions). Therefore, the players are entitled to get whatever they can get.Oh and the 18 game season is really a BAD idea for the players. Two more games to get maimed.

Because the injury risk is so much greater than any other sport, football is not analogous to any other sport.

It's not the auto industry either.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

The car companies (Big 3) who since the early 70s have given American car buyers vehicles with poorer quality control, poorer safety features, uglier vehicles (Pacer, Gremlin, Aztec) and poorer gas mileage?

 

The car companies (Big 3) who ignored the poignant and profound lessons of the early 70s (oil embargo, spiraling gas crisis) who circumvented EPA mileage standards by leaping headfirst into the pickup truck and SUV loopholes instead of creating exciting, well-crafted automobiles which would always be sporty, safe, and fuel-efficient?

 

Those U.S. car companies?

 

The auto industry is yet another prime example of an American industry which has blamed workers wages for the mistakes made by management…a ridiculously overcompensated management.

 

Answer me this? Why do American Auto Execs make way more than their foreign counterparts…even as their companies are circling the drain?

 

And keep in mind the non-union auto workers have good wages and benefits. Why? Because without Unions to set standards for working men and women, non-union shops could pay their employees whatever the hell they wanted to. It's only when they finally crush the Unions that workers wages will fall and the working middle class will finally disappear completely.

 

No I think he is talking about the US Car Companies that were forced to pay $30 - $40 bucks an hour to dipshits that could barely graduate high school for sweeping floors & & screwing a bolt into an axle because of your unions. F*ck unions, there is no place for them in this country anymore. My father in law & brother in law worked at GM(my FIL is retired, my brother in law lost his job)& the sense of their entitlement was astounding. My father in law made well over $100K & what was his job. He had to ride around the plant once an hour to sweep the floors. He would work(& I use the term work lightly) 13 days in a row & then take one day off. He would make double time for half those hours & would openly brag that he would sit around playing cards most of the time during his shift at the union hall. He would often tell management off when they had the audacity to ask him you know to actually do some work & then he would always come away thinking he was right. MY BIL made close to $70K right out of high school(barely graduated). Since he lost his job it took him 2 years to find a job & he now makes $12 an hour, which he probably should of been making all along. Bottomline is these jobs are unskilled labor, why pay them $30/$40 per hour? It was a joke.

Gordio, I see where you are coming from and there are certainly instances of the abuse of power by unions just as there are instances of abuse of power by management (obscenely lucrative "golden parachutes" and non merit-based bonuses). Executive compensation in the United States is way beyond the level of executive comp in other countries.

 

However, most industries and companies succeed/fail due to one major factor…management.

 

Why is Ford thriving while GM is failing?

 

And the Bills and Redskins have sucked for so long because they've hired lazy, overpaid players? Or might it have anything to do with the incompetence of their ownership?

 

 

 

 

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

with BILLIONS to lose? I doubt it. The Schedule is out and I think that the networks will demand something in return.

 

Can players afford it in this economy? The banks won't like it when they say they are not getting paid than the average joe on the street.

Edited May 9, 2011 by BillsFan-4-Ever

[BillsfaninFl]

If there is no season at all this year, what happens to the players who were drafted this year?

 

Could they possibly go back into the next draft if teams are unable to sign them for an entire year?

 

No. The team that drafted them still has their rights. Several players have gone to the CFL or other leagues, but if they come to the NFL the drafting team still has exclusive rights. Jim Kelly was an example of that situation.

[CosmicBills]

tgreg, how can you say that the players assume all the financial risk?

 

If the league were to fold, the players could walk away. The owners would be left with empty stadiums, practice facilities, vending contracts, facilities staff, unused uniform stock, and buttloads of litigation. The owners provide everything. The players just show up.

 

The players assume almost no financial risk, other than missing out on their salaries.

The NFL is a cash machine for the owners, it is as close to a risk free investment as one can find in modern America. The only catch is you need to have 600b of spending money to play. With the exception of a small contingent of owners like Ralph who bought into the league when it's future was in doubt, most of the owners came into the league after it was established as a can't miss investment. Most sports teams are not investments at all. They are toys for the super rich to play with without worrying about the ror. That's not the case in the NFL. The league will never fold over night, the country is too addicted to it. Is it possible? Sure. Likey? Not a chance. Thus, in a ery realistic sense, the owners assume little to no financial risk. The tv contracts alone cover their expenses AND provide a profit before a single ticket or concession is sold.

 

The players do not have guaranteed contracts and are one play away from being unable to earn another game check in the league.

 

So yeah, I stand by what I said.

Edited May 9, 2011 by tgreg99

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I'm sorry, but i just do not see how some fans side with the owners. It's not like the players 2 years ago opted out of the CBA and demanded more money. Newsflash, it was the owners. So where is all this hatred and calling the players greedy coming from?

 

Lets say your boss walked into your office and said "hey, you know that contract we signed so that you could work here? Well we have decided to opt out of it and restructure it. We want to give you less money and oh yea you'll be working more!" Now, that's just the general gist of the NFL, but would you honestly lay down and say ya, ok, sounds great? Not to mention you as the employee are all the talent and assume all of the physical risk.

 

I think I understand where people confuse the greed part, they see millions and billions of dollars and get confused. The principals are still basically the same. The players didn't want the contract to end. It was the owners greed.

I find plenty of fault with both sides, but your analogy isn't accurate. As a result of bargaining in which both sides were represented by high-priced and presumably capable negotiators, a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") was agreed upon by BOTH sides in 2006. It's long and complex, but publicly available. You can read it here:

 

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

 

Before the CBA was signed, the negotiators for BOTH sides agreed that each party would later have the right to opt out of it, and that provision was written into the CBA. It's a whole two sentences long, and you can find it at Article LVIII, Section 3(a) at page 240/301 of the above link. It reads:

 

"(a) Either the NFLPA or the Management Council may terminate both of the final two Capped Years (2010 and 2011) by giving written notice to the other on or before November 8, 2008. In that event, the 2010 League Year would be the Final League Year, and the Agreement would continue in full force and effect until the last day of that League Year, except for the provisions related to the Draft, which would expire as prescribed in Article XVI, Section 1."

 

So it's closer to a situation where your boss walks into your office and says "hey, you know that contract we jointly negotiated and signed so that you could work here? It gave each of us the right to terminate it after you had worked here for a few years just in case either of us later thought it was unfair. Well we have decided to exercise the contractual right you gave us to opt out of it and try to negotiate a new one. We want to give you less money and oh yea you'll be working more!"

 

Now you may find the owners arrogant and greedy for exercising the right you gave them to terminate the original agreement and ask you to work longer for less money, but they're just doing something that you agreed a long time ago that they had the right to do.

 

There are things the owners have done that the players have a right to complain about. Opting to terminate the CBA early according to terms that the NFLPA previously agreed to isn't one of them.

[thebandit27]

The NFL is a cash machine for the owners, it is as close to a risk free investment as one can find in modern America. The only catch is you need to have 600b of spending money to play. With the exception of a small contingent of owners like Ralph who bought into the league when it's future was in doubt, most of the owners came into the league after it was established as a can't miss investment. Most sports teams are not investments at all. They are toys for the super rich to play with without worrying about the ror. That's not the case in the NFL. The league will never fold over night, the country is too addicted to it. Is it possible? Sure. Likey? Not a chance. Thus, in a ery realistic sense, the owners assume little to no financial risk. The tv contracts alone cover their expenses AND provide a profit before a single ticket or concession is sold.

 

The players do not have guaranteed contracts and are one play away from being unable to earn another game check in the league.

 

So yeah, I stand by what I said.

 

No offense tgreg, but what part of the league's $9 Billion debt margin (as of October 2009) says "no risk" to you?

 

What portion of that debt are the players shouldering?

 

What portion of that debt are the owners shouldering?

 

What portion of future investments to grow the game are the players responsible for?

 

What portion are the owners responsible for?

 

Not exactly no risk...

 

I find plenty of fault with both sides, but your analogy isn't accurate. As a result of bargaining in which both sides were represented by high-priced and presumably capable negotiators, a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") was agreed upon by BOTH sides in 2006. It's long and complex, but publicly available. You can read it here:

 

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/NFL%20COLLECTIVE%20BARGAINING%20AGREEMENT%202006%20-%202012.pdf

 

Before the CBA was signed, the negotiators for BOTH sides agreed that each party would later have the right to opt out of it, and that provision was written into the CBA. It's a whole two sentences long, and you can find it at Article LVIII, Section 3(a) at page 240/301 of the above link. It reads:

 

"(a) Either the NFLPA or the Management Council may terminate both of the final two Capped Years (2010 and 2011) by giving written notice to the other on or before November 8, 2008. In that event, the 2010 League Year would be the Final League Year, and the Agreement would continue in full force and effect until the last day of that League Year, except for the provisions related to the Draft, which would expire as prescribed in Article XVI, Section 1."

 

So it's closer to a situation where your boss walks into your office and says "hey, you know that contract we jointly negotiated and signed so that you could work here? It gave each of us the right to terminate it after you had worked here for a few years just in case either of us later thought it was unfair. Well we have decided to exercise the contractual right you gave us to opt out of it and try to negotiate a new one. We want to give you less money and oh yea you'll be working more!"

 

Now you may find the owners arrogant and greedy for exercising the right you gave them to terminate the original agreement and ask you to work longer for less money, but they're just doing something that you agreed a long time ago that they had the right to do.

 

There are things the owners have done that the players have a right to complain about. Opting to terminate the CBA early according to terms that the NFLPA previously agreed to isn't one of them.

 

Exactly...if the players didn't want the owners to have the ability to opt out, they didn't have to agree to the deal back in 2006.

[Orton's Arm]

Well, if the season was canceled, we would draft at 3 next year! Carolina already as 2 QB's which means we would only have to compete with Denver if we wanted Luck-- That is if he is still considered the BEST of the best!

Agreed. Add to that the fact that Denver took Tim Tebow in the first round of last year's draft; and therefore may not have quite as much enthusiasm for trading up as the Bills ought to have.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

No. The team that drafted them still has their rights. Several players have gone to the CFL or other leagues, but if they come to the NFL the drafting team still has exclusive rights. Jim Kelly was an example of that situation.

Maybe this has been discussed in other threads, but I must have missed it. Your example about Jim Kelly sounds right, but I also thought I remembered reading that Michael Crabtrree could re-enter the 2010 draft if the 49ers did not sign him by a certain date. Based on a quick Google search, I think my recollection about Crabtree was right:

 

http://blog.oregonlive.com/nfl/2009/09/nfl_insider_michael_crabtree_s.html

 

So why the difference between Jim Kelly and Michael Crabtree? I have no clue. The recently expired 2006 CBA probably covered the Crabtree siutation, but I'm not up to speed on what the rules were back in the early Jim Kelly days.

Edited May 9, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Munch]

I don't have anything insightful to bring to the table on this subject. I am not on anyone's side and chalk it up to a symptom of our current economic crisis. Some serious factors to consider that are not part of the typical discussion are trends in media distribution and revenue. Also, the fact that the NFL made amazing profits in this recession is over stated. Employees make predictions based on the trends of last year. Entrepreneurs typically assess cause and effect on larger scales and far longer tim frames. We avoided our debt crisis by INVESTING in more debt. If you have it in you to look at the big picture the owners are of the belief that the Golden Egg of TV revenue will be shrinking in the foreseeable future. I am personally under the impression that our economic woes will continue with increasing unemployment, increasing high school dropout rates, inflation, higher taxes and expenses, exporting of more jobs, and the importing of illegal labor. If your fan base is fighting something like this, how can you possibly think the owners would be confidant that their League is not extremely vulnerable moving forward. Due to inflation, the owners expenses will be going up every year. Some teams even with TV revenue are not especially profitable, now picture a slide in Sunday ticket subscriptions or and a potential freeze on it's cost. Imagine the decline in advertising money. It's not unimaginable for a one or two year decline of 10% in this revenue to absolutely kill certain teams versus the rising operating costs. Under the circumstances, I am feeling a little greedy myself. Perhaps I should take this cue from the owners and not invest in there future debt.

 

That is my favorite thing ive ever read on this site.