AP: Players getting 75% of revenue according to NFL

[GrudginglyOptimistic]

It's an embarrassment because just 2 years after signing it, they chucked it, and the specter of a work stoppage looms. True they're making more money than ever, thanks to more revenue streams and higher TV contracts, which would have materialized anyway. But they made FAR more money under the previous CBA and no owners were crying poverty then. The players got one over on the owners and the owners know it, and that's the most embarrassing part of it all.

The embarassing thing is that the current CBA finally saw the owners facing reality that it really is the players whom us fans find entertaining to watch and the owners are simply sources of capital and a tool for organizing the teams. Bills fans have really been penalized because our tool for running our team has proved to be such a blunt bad tool for the last decade.

 

The owners made the same mistake most of the rest of us made in not realizing how badly the economy would implode. My guess is that the owners and the NFL realize they have to sleep in the bed they made by deciding prior to the meltdown to re-open the CBA, but as the owners likely have their most weak teams with billions on the line while the players have their most weak members with mere millions on the line, it is the team owners who are gonna cave on this fight.

[Dante]

Ralph isn't in IDIOT. He's an astute businessman. On the other hand, he's a HORRIBLE evaluator and administrator of a football team.

Nobody ever said he was a bad businessman. History pretty much proves he sucks at building a winner on the field. However at the box office and as an investment, the Bills are a huge winner.

[Bill from NYC]

Actually, this is good info and imo good for the Bills.

 

Not to offend anyone, but it did seem as if WNY was in an economic downturn before much of the country. If other owners cannot outspend Mr. Wilson at will, it might serve to level the playing field, if only just a little.

 

Color me grasping at straws for good news about the Bills.

[Mr. WEO]

It's an embarrassment because just 2 years after signing it, they chucked it, and the specter of a work stoppage looms. True they're making more money than ever, thanks to more revenue streams and higher TV contracts, which would have materialized anyway. But they made FAR more money under the previous CBA and no owners were crying poverty then. The players got one over on the owners and the owners know it, and that's the most embarrassing part of it all.

Why are YOU claiming it's an embarrassment?

 

Look, There has been no 3 year period where Ralph made MORE money than SINCE the last CBA was signed. What don't you understand about that? Wiser men than Ralph have guaranteed an uninterrupted river of money entering his accounts in Grosse Point.

 

What huge non-manufacturing corporation doesn't spend 60-70% on labor costs??

 

The economic situation was far different when that CBA was signed. Teams that spent huge money on personnel and facilities felt that the agreement was a way to keep the game on the field and on TV. Times quickly changed for the worse--especially for teams with large monthly carrying costs (not Ralph). They wisely allowed for an opt out clause in the CBA--now they have exercised that option.

 

This really isn't hard to get. Just because Ralph claimed he didn't understand it, doesn't mean you should behave in the same way.

[ThereIsNoDog]

Why are YOU claiming it's an embarrassment?

 

Look, There has been no 3 year period where Ralph made MORE money than SINCE the last CBA was signed. What don't you understand about that? Wiser men than Ralph have guaranteed an uninterrupted river of money entering his accounts in Grosse Point.

 

What huge non-manufacturing corporation doesn't spend 60-70% on labor costs??

 

The economic situation was far different when that CBA was signed. Teams that spent huge money on personnel and facilities felt that the agreement was a way to keep the game on the field and on TV. Times quickly changed for the worse--especially for teams with large monthly carrying costs (not Ralph). They wisely allowed for an opt out clause in the CBA--now they have exercised that option.

 

This really isn't hard to get. Just because Ralph claimed he didn't understand it, doesn't mean you should behave in the same way.

I'd say that having years to get on the same page but waiting until the 3rd extension of the start of free agency, giving the players a 5% raise, giving the owners 45 minutes to read the CBA and vote on it, and then "opting-out" at the earliest chance (hint, it had NOTHING to do with the economy), is an embarrassment.

 

And yet if it's so great, and "rivers of money" are being made, even in this economy, why "opt out" at all and risk a work stoppage? See that's the funny part about trying to defend that last CBA. No sane person can.

[Ramius]

I'd say that having years to get on the same page but waiting until the 3rd extension of the start of free agency, giving the players a 5% raise, giving the owners 45 minutes to read the CBA and vote on it, and then "opting-out" at the earliest chance (hint, it had NOTHING to do with the economy), is an embarrassment.

 

And yet if it's so great, and "rivers of money" are being made, even in this economy, why "opt out" at all and risk a work stoppage? See that's the funny part about trying to defend that last CBA. No sane person can.

 

You're not going to get anywhere arguing with a pats* fan about the old CBA. Its a garbage CBA, evidenced by the fact that the owners ditched out as soon as they could.

 

The only owners that liked the last CBA are Kraft, Snyder, and Jones, since it gave them a vehicle to push the cap higher and higher so they could outspend everyone else. But, you are attempting to argue with a fan of kraft's team, so its no wonder why he drools over the previous CBA.

[Mr. WEO]

I'd say that having years to get on the same page but waiting until the 3rd extension of the start of free agency, giving the players a 5% raise, giving the owners 45 minutes to read the CBA and vote on it, and then "opting-out" at the earliest chance (hint, it had NOTHING to do with the economy), is an embarrassment.

 

And yet if it's so great, and "rivers of money" are being made, even in this economy, why "opt out" at all and risk a work stoppage? See that's the funny part about trying to defend that last CBA. No sane person can.

 

 

I don't think it was a "great CBA"--it was a necessary evil at the time. It is no longer necessary and the owners now want a better deal. It's simple.

 

Also, Ralph spent about as much on player expenses lat year as the Patriots did. And, Ralph actualy spent less in 2008 than he did in 2007. So much for effect of the "pushing the salary cap higher and higher".

 

 

In 2008 the owners had a great year. But if you don't think that the economy (which also affects their OTHER business interests--i.e. the business intertests of owners other than guys like Ralph, who makes the vast majority, if not all of his money from the Bills/League) had anything to do with the opt out, you don't have a very deep understanding of the dynamics of this.

 

The League signed $4 billion in annual TV contracts starting the 2006 season. You would have to be worse than naive if you don't believe that the networks didn't demand some sort of agreement that there would not be a work stoppage or scab football two seasons into these huge new contracts. Also, the League needed this money to, among other things, maintain their A+ rating on their unsecured debt.

 

The owners delivered 4 seasons of guaranteed NFL football when they agreed to the 2006 CBA. The cost of their own debt has risen, new stadiums were coming online and sellouts were now much harder to achieve than they were 2 years ago, and so, right on schedule, they dumped the CBA. Certainly they are now waiting to see how the SCOTUS rules on the "single entity" status, in which case, they may not need to "negotiate" or "collectively bargain" with the union again. Why stay stuck in a CBA if the ruling is in their favor?

 

See, fellas, it's a little more complicated than you wish it to be. My 8 year old may be tempted to say "if it was such a great deal, why did they opt out?", but he could be forgiven if he did.

 

And Ramius---you never have much of a factual argument to make on this site, so why don't you go back in the closet and we'll let you know when we need to know who's "gay" here.

[GripnRip]

its 75% of NEW revenues, not all revenues.

[Mr. WEO]

its 75% of NEW revenues, not all revenues.

We got that covered

[ThereIsNoDog]

See that's the funny part about trying to defend that last CBA. No sane person can.

 

I don't think it was a "great CBA"--it was a necessary evil at the time. It is no longer necessary and the owners now want a better deal. It's simple.

 

Also, Ralph spent about as much on player expenses lat year as the Patriots did. And, Ralph actualy spent less in 2008 than he did in 2007. So much for effect of the "pushing the salary cap higher and higher".

 

 

In 2008 the owners had a great year. But if you don't think that the economy (which also affects their OTHER business interests--i.e. the business intertests of owners other than guys like Ralph, who makes the vast majority, if not all of his money from the Bills/League) had anything to do with the opt out, you don't have a very deep understanding of the dynamics of this.

 

The League signed $4 billion in annual TV contracts starting the 2006 season. You would have to be worse than naive if you don't believe that the networks didn't demand some sort of agreement that there would not be a work stoppage or scab football two seasons into these huge new contracts. Also, the League needed this money to, among other things, maintain their A+ rating on their unsecured debt.

 

The owners delivered 4 seasons of guaranteed NFL football when they agreed to the 2006 CBA. The cost of their own debt has risen, new stadiums were coming online and sellouts were now much harder to achieve than they were 2 years ago, and so, right on schedule, they dumped the CBA. Certainly they are now waiting to see how the SCOTUS rules on the "single entity" status, in which case, they may not need to "negotiate" or "collectively bargain" with the union again. Why stay stuck in a CBA if the ruling is in their favor?

 

See, fellas, it's a little more complicated than you wish it to be. My 8 year old may be tempted to say "if it was such a great deal, why did they opt out?", but he could be forgiven if he did.

 

Maybe you should have your 8-year old 'splain things to you. And post for you.

[Mr. WEO]

 

Maybe you should have your 8-year old 'splain things to you. And post for you.

That's the expected response. Roll over, dog. You're just not going to get this.