Dan III Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9278236 "I would guess that upwards of 60 veterans around the NFL will get a pink slip without a CBA extension. Some of them will get work on another team for a lot less money, but they will replace other veterans. In the long run, 60 to 80 veterans more than usual will be out of work next fall because there might not be a CBA extension. Mark my words: With at least 12 teams terminating good veteran players, it will be the rookies and young untested players that will benefit from the increased opportunities around the league." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9278236 "I would guess that upwards of 60 veterans around the NFL will get a pink slip without a CBA extension. Some of them will get work on another team for a lot less money, but they will replace other veterans. In the long run, 60 to 80 veterans more than usual will be out of work next fall because there might not be a CBA extension. Mark my words: With at least 12 teams terminating good veteran players, it will be the rookies and young untested players that will benefit from the increased opportunities around the league." 616557[/snapback] I think this neglects the fact that veterans are cut every year by teams that are over the cap. Additionally, it takes two to tango, and the failure of the owners to agree upon revenue sharing is at least as big an obstacle to an agreement as any position that the players have taken. JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think this neglects the fact that veterans are cut every year by teams that are over the cap. Additionally, it takes two to tango, and the failure of the owners to agree upon revenue sharing is at least as big an obstacle to an agreement as any position that the players have taken. JDG 616581[/snapback] One thing I've heard is that the players are in the dark. One agent who represents 50 some clients has sent a letter to NFLPA and media outlets asking for some communication for the players. They have no clue as to what's going on. Sorry, didn't catch which agent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think this neglects the fact that veterans are cut every year by teams that are over the cap. Additionally, it takes two to tango, and the failure of the owners to agree upon revenue sharing is at least as big an obstacle to an agreement as any position that the players have taken. The less percentage of DGR the players take, the less revenue sharing becomes an obstacle. The 4% difference between the players and owners represents $320-350M, which workd out to ~$11M a club, which is a large chunk and COULD represent one club's profit for the year. So dig in players, expect to be out of work and lower-paid this year, mostly restricted NEXT year, and then locked-out in 2008. Bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 The less percentage of DGR the players take, the less revenue sharing becomes an obstacle. So, the players should just take whatever amount of money the NFL Owners want to give them - no matter how rich those owners are getting???? JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 So, the players should just take whatever amount of money the NFL Owners want to give them - no matter how rich those owners are getting???? JDG 616622[/snapback] Nope, they can find another line of work if they feel they are underpaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 http://www.nfl.com/news/story/9278236 "I would guess that upwards of 60 veterans around the NFL will get a pink slip without a CBA extension. Some of them will get work on another team for a lot less money, but they will replace other veterans. In the long run, 60 to 80 veterans more than usual will be out of work next fall because there might not be a CBA extension. Mark my words: With at least 12 teams terminating good veteran players, it will be the rookies and young untested players that will benefit from the increased opportunities around the league." 616557[/snapback] I think Kirwin misses the boat on this one because he does not seem to look at this the way the NFL players as a whole and as their leadership has since they got their butts whipped by the owners in the mid-80s during the replacement player debacle. Kirwin is correct that a significant (but way smaller than the majority) number of vets will have thier careers killed during this dispute. However, the NFL players have won out as a union since the replacement player debacle by resisting advice based on fear and warfare (NFLPA chief's Ed Garvey's demand which led to the players being replaced that they get 52% of the gross) and instead players have profited both as a group and individually in a big way by actually threatening to eliminate their own union the NFLPA as a bargaining agent for the players. This tactic which as best as I can tell was lead by some very smart lawyers who were employed by Upshaw and the NFLPA forced the owners to see and agree that they could choose betweem the joy of beating the crap out of the players and their union over the mid-80s strike/lockout or instead they could enter into a new partnership with the players where both sides would make more money than they ever made before under a new CBA. Instead of a mere 52% of the total gross receipts, the CBA insituted a labor peace which allowed the new partnership to fashion a deal with the networks where the players got a sliding scale between the upper 60s and lower 70s % of the DESIGNATED gross. Even though owners quickly moved toward maximizing the non-designated revenue streams like club seats rather than designated parts like general ticket sales, the $ delivered by the designated stream of TV money was so huge (and was only possible if the NFL could guarantee the quality of the product which the CBA provided) the players have made more $ both as a group and individually than they dreamed possible (or deserve since for the most part the players are jist dumb pampered jocks). Kirwin seems to miss the fact that though yes some vets will lose their jobs: 1. The vast majority of players are youngsters who stand to get great benefits from hanging tough for a new labor deal which they will sign one or more contracts under if they have been in the NFL less than 4 years and may well sign another contract under if they have been in the NFL4-7 year. Kirwin is really talking about a universe of players who have only this year they can reasonably expect to sign a contract. This is a signficant but still clear minority of the NFLPA. 2. Athletes tend to have an inflated sense of ego and themselves. Even many of the athletes who are part of this on their way out minority still believe they are the biggest fastest mofo on the block and their natural tendency is to believe that they will last long enough to cash in on a new deal even if this is not true. 3. Most of the NFL players have made more money and gotten more bennies than they wever dreamed possible. Unless they are total Travis Henry like idiots (many are actually but these fools also tend to think they will play forever). Particularly in a significant part of this way smaller than majority pool that Kirwin is talking about, they are set for life with even half reasonable financial management from the NFL pension system and because money making opportunities do not stop for a retired player who is old enough to be in the group Kirwin is siting. 4. Pride makes a difference. The former NFL players I have met are proud men. Upshaw and the leadership have convinced the players (convincing them was not hard to do when the NFL minimum got up over $300K and the NFLPA negotiated salary cap exceptions which makes it easier to keep vets around, and the NFLPA was prominent in joining with the NFL to restrain trade in an Un-American way by suing to stop underage players from accepting what the market was happy to give them for their skills) that winning for them means taking risks on these final contracts for vets in return for having players share in the extraordinary wealth their labor is creating and the NFL harvests. These men in general seem willing to take the risk of losing out that this marginal group of vets faces in return for having had the chance to make far more $ than they deserved, to be a part of building something which will last, and which if they are good enough to play will reward them by gettimg their share of a new contract which will give them a % of the total gross rather than the designated gross. The key to Upshaw's (and the NFLPA's) position is that even the owners are starting with an offer of 56% of the total gross (of a larger pool of $ which makes the Garvey 52% look like chump change) and Upshaw says that the final deal will have to start with a 6! Even better, I think Upshaw and the NFLPA deserve kudos (at this point as we will see what they end up with which is where the real judgment by the players will be made) because they have created negotiation where instead of a united group of owners negotiating with the NFLPA, the negotiations have been between the haves of the owners versus the have mores. Upshaw has joined with the majority of the owners who have instructed Tagliaboo-boo to wotk in partnership with Upshaw to push 6-12 rich owners like Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder and Kraft into a revenue sharing deal with the Rooneys et al. Kirwin misses the point that right now Upshaw and the NFLPA leadership has really dealt the players a winning hand. If the players do not break down and allow personal profit and fears to pick off a substantial portion of them the workers will end up getting 60%+ of the total gross revenues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HAMMER07 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 So, the players should just take whatever amount of money the NFL Owners want to give them - no matter how rich those owners are getting???? JDG 616622[/snapback] Yup, the owners are called OWNers for a reason, if the players don't like it they can hit the bricks. You can be sure there are plenty of quality football players that will gladly work for 500K per season. They know their choices are working at Costco for 30K, maybe a sports gig at a local TV station for 60K a year, some are bright enough to make more, but the majority are not. Salaries in professional sports are well out of whack and continue to climb much faster than necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Nope, they can find another line of work if they feel they are underpaid. 616623[/snapback] and.... Yup, the owners are called OWNers for a reason, if the players don't like it they can hit the bricks. You can be sure there are plenty of quality football players that will gladly work for 500K per season. They know their choices are working at Costco for 30K, maybe a sports gig at a local TV station for 60K a year, some are bright enough to make more, but the majority are not. Salaries in professional sports are well out of whack and continue to climb much faster than necessary. 616649[/snapback] The NFL needs both labor (players) and capital (teams) to survive. Why should the owners of the capital take home 99% of the proceeds, like you are suggesting? In other words, why shouldn't the NFL Owners just set the salary cap at $10mil per team, pocket the rest, and tell the players to either like it or leave it???? JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 and....The NFL needs both labor (players) and capital (teams) to survive. Why should the owners of the capital take home 99% of the proceeds, like you are suggesting? In other words, why shouldn't the NFL Owners just set the salary cap at $10mil per team, pocket the rest, and tell the players to either like it or leave it???? They should. But they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichFan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Imagine running a large corporation and having 56% of your revenue going to payroll... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Imagine running a large corporation and having 56% of your revenue going to payroll... 616682[/snapback] Imagine running a large corporation, having 56% of your nrevenue going to payroll AND your employees demanding more money. THe owners are owners for a reason, they take on the most risk plain and simple. I hope Upshaw wakes up and smells the coffee. There are going to be many unhappy vets if things aren't resolved. We'll see what happens in the next 24 hours. I still won't watch the NHL after the crap pulled last time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Imagine running a large corporation, having 56% of your nrevenue going to payroll AND your employees demanding more money. THe owners are owners for a reason, they take on the most risk plain and simple. I hope Upshaw wakes up and smells the coffee. There are going to be many unhappy vets if things aren't resolved. We'll see what happens in the next 24 hours. I still won't watch the NHL after the crap pulled last time. 616702[/snapback] Imagine running a large corporation, having 56% of your nrevenue going to payroll AND your employees demanding more money. And then imagine that the owners overall enjoy something like a 30% profit margin or more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pyrite Gal Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Imagine running a large corporation, having 56% of your nrevenue going to payroll AND your employees demanding more money. And then imagine that the owners overall enjoy something like a 30% profit margin or more. 616713[/snapback] Exactly! It is amusing to see some folks talk about NFL owners taking all the risks when today's NFL ownership is as close to a risk-investment as you can get if you got in on near the groundfloor like Ralph or you have tons of capital like Snyder. I think part of the entertainment value some folks seem to get from performances is that people love to assoiate themselves in their minds with celebrities or rich folk. While a team may be taking risks of choosing a particular player as to whether you get a championship or not, the fact is that NFL ownership is like owning a printing press for money because it makes little difference how that or your team of players perform in terms of your investment or making a profit. Whether your team performs like NE or like AZ you make a profit. Whether Flutie starts or RJ starts you make a profit. Teams can even do a lousy job selling tickets and not sell as many seats as anuone would prefer, the TV money is so huge you make a profit. Granted this is America and we became the economic and miltary power we are by operating with a sense that there is no such thing as too much money. Businesses in our society squeeze every dollar out of every profit center the business has. When your manager increases your profit margin from 30% to 31% the American question is to ask (demand) that manger why it was not 32%. Not that there is anything wrong with that, its the life we were brought up in and thus it is the life we choose. However, I think what most NFL owners have figured out but some fans have not is that though there are owners and there are players, these two forces are in partnership. What some try to think of as a war between these two parties that they want to choose a winner, is merely a dispute to divide up your an my money. In our society the owners profited through the mid 80s after they destroyed the USFL by operating in an un[American manner which was a monopoly that restrained trade. What Upshaw and the players have done is insert themselves into this partnership and get a slice of the pie. Since labor peace allowed them to gurantee to the networks they they would provide a product with consistency and stability that consumers wanted to watch, they have been willing to pay the NFL partnership goo-gobs of $ for the product. The owners did not mind giving up 70% of the DESIGNATED revenue, nor will they be unable to deal with giving up 60% of the total revenue because both figures will be signficantly larger than getting 60% of the total revenue back when they were at war with and kicked the NFLPA's butt. The NFL would not produce a good product if it pursued a free market approach where the richest teams simply bought the best players in a free market. Instead, the NFL and the NFLPA join together to restrain free trade for player's service and tale action to block youngsters like Maurice Clarett from pursuing the American way and selling their services to the highest bidder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Imagine running a large corporation and having 56% of your revenue going to payroll... 616682[/snapback] Sorry fellas, players aren't payroll, they are the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 As was said, if the players don't like it, they can go elsewhere. And the owners are within their rights to lockout the players, thus taking even MORE money from them. All anyone needs to do is look at the NHL fiasco. The owners are the owners for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 As was said, if the players don't like it, they can go elsewhere. And the owners are within their rights to lockout the players, thus taking even MORE money from them. All anyone needs to do is look at the NHL fiasco. The owners are the owners for a reason. 616919[/snapback] comparing the nfl and the nhl is so wrong i don't know what to say. one league was dysfunctional and probably unprofitable; the other has profit margins that match the oil industry in its good years. take this line of argument somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 comparing the nfl and the nhl is so wrong i don't know what to say. one league was dysfunctional and probably unprofitable; the other has profit margins that match the oil industry in its good years. take this line of argument somewhere else. Who cares which one was profitable? The POINT is that the owners OWN THE LEAGUE. The longer the NFLPA stubbornly refuses to budge from 60% DGR the more money their players are losing, like the NHL players did. Deal with it. And using your oil industry reference, you think oil workers are going to demand a pay raise after the oil industry posted their BEST-EVER quarter recently? According to you, they should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDG Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Who cares which one was profitable? The POINT is that the owners OWN THE LEAGUE. The longer the NFLPA stubbornly refuses to budge from 60% DGR the more money their players are losing, like the NHL players did. Deal with it. How much money is the NFL going to earn without any players? JDG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 How much money is the NFL going to earn without any players? JDG 617040[/snapback] I think they tried that in 1987, didn't they? (And set an all-time attendance low for Rich Stadium in the process...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts