How about replacement owners?

[KD in CA]

Nonsense - the players themselves have more than enough money to start their own league, with equity as salary. They would be playing in lousy stadiums, but so what? And a television deal would not be hard - they wouldn't get any money at first, but they would get great national exposure. And if they could keep it together for 5 years, the money would come.

You can't eat equity. How's that gonna work for the players who make league minimum now and don't have millions in the bank? The money would only come from a small % of the players so you'd end up with 'owners' named Manning and Brady instead of Isray and Kraft. And those guys would never risk their existing lifetime security on such a pipe dream.

 

There's 0% chance the players would make the sacrifices necessary to bootstrap a competing league.

 

The problem is that they would soon find out just how important they really are to the NFL. It would be them, in new teams and minor league stadiums, against the historical NFL franchises, run by actual businessmen and restocked with the latest shiny new players from the college ranks. I think they would be finished in two years and they know it.

I agree with this.

[Max997]

I've paid a fair amount of attention to the current NFL labor "negotiation".

 

The possibility of replacement players has been explored, as has the possibility of no NFL for 2011 until an agreement is reached.

 

Why has there been no serious discussion about replacment Owners stepping in and utilizing the players that are already in place? I'm sure they'd have trouble finding places to play but I'm interested that there aren't 30+ wealthy individuals salivating at the opportunity to take part in restructuring a 9 billion dollar a year industry.

 

do you honestly think any of the players especially the ones with higher contracts would risk their careers playing for some cracker jack league?

[simpleman]

People keep saying the players are under contract. If the contract states you have to pay the players and the owners miss a payment, wouldn't in fact the owners be in breach of contract and that the contact could be voided?

If the new "league" does not call themselves the NFL, the players would not violate any exclusivity clauses of their contract. Actually as a pressure tactic by the players, this is not as wild as it sounds. The players could play games in smaller college stadiums, getting only the TV revenue. What percent of the fans watch the game in person vs on TV? Don't tell me a major player in the TV business who has not had a chance at getting a TV broadcast contract, and does not think they will get a chance at one, would not jump at the chance to televise football with real name players. The teams could stay as they are, they would be Buffalo, just not the Buffalo Bills. Sounds like a great idea for the players to pressure the owners to "play ball".

I'd watch it, it could be fun. Not as a long term thing, but as a tactic. Plus imagine the PR the players could get saying they owe it to the fans to just play ball, and then just do it. Bet the owners would actually start real negotiations after the first week of games.

[Nanker]

I think The League should void all player contracts making everyone an unrestricted free agent and announce there's no cap ceiling nor floor and they're open for business as unusual.

 

The wild wild west baby, the wild wild west.

 

A whole lot of players will find out suddenly what they're really worth - and it's not nearly as much as they think.

[Rob's House]

Yeah, I mean, who wouldn't want to sink a $billion into a franchise where you can have a bunch of snot nosed punk ass 20 and 30 something millionaire jocks try to put you over a barrel in an attempt to take the lion's share of the reward from your risk and investment?

Edited May 17, 2011 by Rob's House

[Johnny Hammersticks]

I think The League should void all player contracts making everyone an unrestricted free agent and announce there's no cap ceiling nor floor and they're open for business as unusual.

 

The wild wild west baby, the wild wild west.

 

A whole lot of players will find out suddenly what they're really worth - and it's not nearly as much as they think.

 

Profound...I suspect, if this scenario were to play out, our friend Mr. Kelsay would be bitterly disappointed.

[Malazan]

I think The League should void all player contracts making everyone an unrestricted free agent and announce there's no cap ceiling nor floor and they're open for business as unusual.

 

The wild wild west baby, the wild wild west.

 

A whole lot of players will find out suddenly what they're really worth - and it's not nearly as much as they think.

 

I'm curious what leads you to believe that when their is a cap and players being ridiculously overpaid, that removing said cap would cause the opposite to occur?

[EastRochBillsfan]

Your points are well taken…but if you think of the NFL and its owners as a coral reef and all the teams are sea anemone…

 

I'm sorry.

 

Wrong thread. Never mind.

 

LMAO San Jose! as I did in that thread as well.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

LMAO San Jose! as I did in that thread as well.

Thanks, ERBF… glad I wasn't just amusing myself!

 

Thank goodness for that Crayonz guy and everyone else who tries to lighten things up a bit around here.

 

As a group we have a tendency to get kind of serious at times.

 

 

[Sisyphean Bills]

I'm curious what leads you to believe that when their is a cap and players being ridiculously overpaid, that removing said cap would cause the opposite to occur?

Probably because the cap has a ceiling and a floor and the NFL in the uncapped year didn't bother to reach for the floor marker. Not to mention that the owners opted out of the CBA because they obviously felt that the players were taking too much of the revenue.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d816fbd4e/printable/uncapped-year-hasnt-exactly-led-to-a-spending-spree

[Mr. WEO]

People keep saying the players are under contract. If the contract states you have to pay the players and the owners miss a payment, wouldn't in fact the owners be in breach of contract and that the contact could be voided?

Players are payed per game, except for injury.

 

I'm curious what leads you to believe that when their is a cap and players being ridiculously overpaid, that removing said cap would cause the opposite to occur?

Not cap but free agancy. With it there are only a few superstar players at any given position available in any given off-season. They get re-signed or get snapped up for a king's ransom. Desperate teams left out of the bidding then are left to overbid/overspend on the mediocre leftovers like Walker and Dockery, etc.

 

With "the wild wild west", everyone is available. There would a speed auction and after the top prized players were taken, the market would nosedive for the vast majority of players left.

[Malazan]

Players are payed per game, except for injury.

 

 

Not cap but free agancy. With it there are only a few superstar players at any given position available in any given off-season. They get re-signed or get snapped up for a king's ransom. Desperate teams left out of the bidding then are left to overbid/overspend on the mediocre leftovers like Walker and Dockery, etc.

 

With "the wild wild west", everyone is available. There would a speed auction and after the top prized players were taken, the market would nosedive for the vast majority of players left.

 

I see your argument and raise you the New York Rangers pre-cap or the Washington Synderkins

[Sisyphean Bills]

I see your argument and raise you the New York Rangers pre-cap or the Washington Synderkins

There are roughly 2000 NFL players. Do you think the Snyderskins are going to overpay them all?

 

Let's put this another way. What owner and front office is going to "sprint to the podium" to give a player like Aaron Maybin a contract that's 10X what he makes now?

 

When you think about it there are a lot more combinations than the rarefied pairings of Dan Snyders and Peyton Mannings and it isn't far fetched at all to see many owners would balk to give the average Joe Player a vast sea of money to be a 3rd string long snapper.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

There are roughly 2000 NFL players. Do you think the Snyderskins are going to overpay them all?

 

Let's put this another way. What owner and front office is going to "sprint to the podium" to give a player like Aaron Maybin a contract that's 10X what he makes now?

It would be interesting to see what such a free-for-all would do to the "competitive balance" in the NFL.

[Sisyphean Bills]

It would be interesting to see what such a free-for-all would do to the "competitive balance" in the NFL.

Agreed. A Wild, Wild West would be quite interesting.

 

The NFL wouldn't have pay parity clearly as not every franchise (nor community) is equal, but players may make decisions on where to play based on other factors and just being highly touted and compensated doesn't automatically guarantee victory. Who knows, but it could even mean an expanded labor pool where players get a few games as a "try out" and the next kid is brought in immediately. Many more people getting their micro-slivers of the pie could even be declared good old American capitalism and at-will employment in full swing, no more of that restricted trade stuff. Besides, getting to watch your team on the Jewelry Channel after they hammer out a deal for extra peanuts would be fun.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

And rest assured, there is no way in hell any person facilitating a new league ever gets a chance to own an NFL team in the future.

I'm late to the party again and didn't bring beer. Even my middle brother Darryl thought the OP's idea wasn't very sensible, but he did point out that there's this really old fella in Michigan . . . . .

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

If the new "league" does not call themselves the NFL, the players would not violate any exclusivity clauses of their contract.

Not commenting on the logic of the rest of your post, but I think this particular statement is incorrect. The recently expired CBA is publicly available, and contains a sample player contract. See Article XIV, section 1, at page 40/301 of the CBA here:

 

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

 

"Section 1. Form: The NFL Player Contract form attached hereto as Appendix

C will be used for all player signings. This form cannot be amended

without the approval of the Management Council and the NFLPA."

 

The sample contract attached as Exhibit C in turn reads, at page 200/301 of the CBA

 

"Player will not participate in any football game not sponsored

by the League unless the game is first approved by the League.

 

* * * *

 

Without prior written consent of the

Club, Player will not play football or engage in activities related to football

otherwise than for Club . . .

 

* * * *

 

Player ... agrees that Club will have the right, in addition to any other right

which Club may possess, to enjoin Player by appropriate proceedings from

playing football or engaging in football-related activities other than for Club"

Edited May 21, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[LGB]

I've paid a fair amount of attention to the current NFL labor "negotiation".

 

The possibility of replacement players has been explored, as has the possibility of no NFL for 2011 until an agreement is reached.

 

Why has there been no serious discussion about replacment Owners stepping in and utilizing the players that are already in place? I'm sure they'd have trouble finding places to play but I'm interested that there aren't 30+ wealthy individuals salivating at the opportunity to take part in restructuring a 9 billion dollar a year industry.

 

How about the two sides come to an agreement...does anyone know how far apart they are?

 

The owners want another X percent more of the profit and the players don't want to give it to them - right?

 

Seems like there should be a compromise - because nobody wins when season is canceled. The nation's fans will focus on watching college ball and CFL fantasy leagues will start popping up.

 

This issue should be settled by now after so many months of millionaires vs. millionares?

[Hplarrm]

The thing which makes me wonder about the NFL that the lockout has made fairly clear to this viewer is that it simply does not strike me that the owners really provide much added value to this product which I enjoy viewing.

 

The owners do clearly own their teams and American society is what Pres. Bush used to call the "ownership society."

 

I would oppose any government entity trying to take property from any individual without some agreed upon form of due process and adequate compensation for this taking. However, in this case we do not have any dispute between the government and a property holder. We simply have a dispute between two private economic institutions, the NFL team owners and the NFLPA in regard to a contract both agreed to.

 

These two entities have petitioned the courts in regard to the meaning of that agreement. Government is basically involved in that the two parties have gone to the court and asked for interpretation. Ironically it is actually the players who are championing the side of individual freedom as they are making a basic claim in the Brady et al. lawsuit that they are individual contractors who must be dealt with individually in the free market.

 

The owners on the other hand are basically arguing that their social compact known as the NFL gives them the ability to do things such as:

 

1. Impose a contractual agreement on the players since an impasse has been reached.

2. Allows them to force the players to operate with the NFLPA as their bargaining agent even though the NFLPA itself has decertified itself as the bargaining agent for the players.

3. Despite the decert, the NFLPA not only will be forced to represent the players but the last contractual offer from the owners will be forced upon the player without negotiations.

4. Even stranger, rookies not even represented by the NFLPA are going to forced as individuals to negotiate with one and only one employer over the terms of their contract and in addition, adults are simply barred from signing contracts with teams even though they are adults and no other sports league in the country operates this way.

 

I admit that I have a pre-existing bias on these issues, but my bias is toward free market approaches and i am reluctant to buy into a socialized approach to doing business which is what the NFL is advocating.

 

The owners can attempt to take refuge in the practical and make the claim that it would end the NFL as we know it unless their social compact is upheld. However, on the practical side, though I am reluctant to see the government participate in the taking away of property from individuals as the near billon $ NFL teams would be reatly reduced in their worth in a true free market system, I tend to prefer free market approaches so I think the courts should be very interested in a upholding a free market system if it can work.

 

Particularly when the social compact based system which is the NFL is actually supressing the rights of adults to trade in a free market, I hope the courts will find for the players and thus restore football to the fans and uphold and agreement which afterall restore football back to us fans and an agreement which all agree has brought unimagined wealth to the team owners.

 

It is clear to me that the players are on the side of the free market here.

 

Perhaps one can argue for overriding this principal based on the practical aspects of the game.

 

However, when one looks at the practical, the owners have even less of a case to make from my view of reality.

 

1. The owners did bring critical capital to the NFL in its formative days. Men like Mr. Ralph risked tens of thousands of $ back when this was real money. However, there are clearly ample sources of capital available these days such as:

 

A. The TV networks are the real cash cow which drives the league. The owners are essentially unnecessary if one is looking for cash and the billions of dollars the networks provide actually reduced the team owners to a rate limiting factors which actually makes the whole entity less economically efficient as the owners scrape their nickels from the total receipts without adding much in terms of added value to the product.

 

B. I oppose government confiscation of my cash or that of most others. However, in this case, it is not the government which would be confiscating the assets of the owner but the private parties involved have petitioned the courts to rule on the meaning of their contract. In any case it is clear that the original owners like Mr. Ralph or those who assumed the benefits and liabilities of ownership have been richly paid back from the original investment. Further, the NFL owners have conveniently chosen themselves to demand renegotiation of the CBA earlier than its terms would have forced renegotiation and in the interim the owners have decided not to provide a product to consumers. The team owners are not having this situation forced upon them they chose it.

 

C. In addition to the networks being the true cash cow here, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated this past season that a publicly owned source of cash is a viable method of producing a product both on the field and off the field.

 

D. It would be a heavier lift, but since the players have gained the majority of the total receipts, the players themselves could potentially be the cash source for the league (or more likely provide a framework to borrow and payback the needed capital from banks or the networks to fund and manage the league.

 

E. Some other capital source I have not even thought of yet. With the decert threat forging the new CBA the talented tenth of NFL players have already demonstrated a real world ability to think outside of the box and liberate new sources of capital.

 

The bottomline I think is I simply do not understand why some posters seem to have such a woodie for the NFL team owners. Their time has passed and they were richly rewarded for their activities and risks in the past.

 

The current owners are simply redundant and I advocate getting some replacement owners to set up the NewFL where the money saved by dealing the current owners out of the process can be allocated or split between lowering costs to the fans or paying the players.

 

In the end, I watch the NFL to see Brady, et al perform. I have zero interest in laying out any dollars to seeing Mr. Ralpj, Al Davis, Dan Snyder, Jerry Jones etc strap on the shoulder pads and take the field.

 

The basic question for those who advocate the owners winning the lawsuits is would you really watch the game if the primary product were the team owners.

 

The players are the product and I think that finding replacement owners would solve a lot of problems here.

[robertpaul49]

Your bias is very evident, and you demonstrate a complete ignorance of economics. The agrument you are making is very similiar to the historical agruments against middlemen, which is not born out by reality.

 

First, if the players are what drive the sport without anything else, then why don't they just create their own league?

How about we fire management for all of airlines and let the pilots get all of the money and see how that works out?

 

You could have a free market if it were illegal for the players to unionize. Currently, they are still a union because you have union representatives suing in court. The idea that there is no union is more legalize then reality.

 

I like the comment about how you do not want the government to confiscate the money, but if the government doesn't get the money it isn't confiscation. Sure, eminant domain is confiscation if they give the land to another owner.

 

Green Bay is a corporation, not a public entity. The league prefers to have a single voice in its franchises. I like the Green Bay model because it is more responsive to the fans. Oh, the NFL is a loose franchise model, like Burger King and McDonalds.

 

I am absolutely convinced that the an owner run league will be more responsive to the fans than a player run league.

1) Players are too defuse, the rich players will dominate and will have their narrow interests at heart.

2) The players cannot come up with a vision of the NFL. You can see this in their statements, they do not want parity.

3) The players will not be concerned about the quality on the field. Mike Williams will have more power to determine the direction of the franchise and there will be more Mike Williams.

 

I think that the NFL will be more like the NBA where players have a lot of power. There will be a few important teams and a lot of bad teams. I will be very depressed because the Jets will compete against the Patriots to play the Redskins, Giants or Cowboys in the Super Bowl, and the every good player the Bills are able to get will be signed by one of those teams once they are good. Oh, the only players the Bills will be able to get will be seventh round draft choices.