Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SkinzWin;786388][URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6161468"]Sources: NFLPA to decertify by March 3[/URL][/quote]

I don't know much about the whole CBA issue and what each side's argument is in this matter. However, it is hard to get on the owners' side when they seem to be doing everything to make sure there is a lockout.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I also do not claim to know much detail about the issues, but if I heard it right, there was an article in the Washington Post about a week ago that a sentor was saying the NFL owners have not completely opened the finances/books 100% of the way. IF true, that is dissappointing to hear.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

^^^Completely true. It sickens me how much players make but at the same time I can't stomach the approach the owners have been taking to this whole thing. I don't think they need another billion off the revenue take. They seem to be super prickish IMO.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I have a hard time siding with anyone on either side of the issue's. I could care less about if the owners not opening up their books and I could care less about the players wanting to know what the $$ amount is the owners are trying to hide. I do think it's unfair to not be completely open, but this is business and most business's are not completely open about business afairs.

I look at it this way... if the players are not happy with what they are making then stop playing and get a job like all of us at a fraction of the pay they are making now. I don't see any reason why they need to know what the books say? simply put, they get drafted by a stingy owner then after their contract is up they can leave for a team who has an owner who will pay them. No different then if common citizen wants a job in a specific field he can look at several companies and chose the one he wants to work for or the one that pays the best or the one closer to where he lives.

The only issue I have is for years the market has been good, and most likely still is when it comes to football. But with the economy crashing I'm sure the vendor's are taking a hit by people partying in the parking lot prior to entering the game. Which means the owners are taking a slight hit because I'm sure the vendors probably pass on a % of their take for the day to the owner in order to sell at the stadium. Then there is the hats and jersey's, and whatever else people purchase that in the long run makes it back to the team. I'm sure the teams are taking a hit there due to the economy being bad and people not being able to afford them. So one has to imagine the owners are taking some sort of loss, I'm not saying they are in the red or negative money wise just saying I'm sure they are not making as much as they have in the past.

I bring this up because some owners own their stadiums and are paying a mortgage, some are tied to the city paying a portion, and some rent their stadiums. So what I'm getting at is the actual income after paying the players, paying for the stadium, paying for other employee's (coach's, secretaries, etc.), equipement, and other expenses I'm sure the owners take home is less then it used to be. Now top that with a horrid market in which other teams like the Skins and Cowboys who have to throw money at to support cuts into the income as well and even more with the bad economy.

Yet the players want more. 60% of the overall take goes to the players right now. It's not 50/50 like it should be. The players already take the majority of the income.

But this is just one issue.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;786535]I have a hard time siding with anyone on either side of the issue's. [B]I could care less about if the owners not opening up their books[/B] and I could care less about the players wanting to know what the $$ amount is the owners are trying to hide. I do think it's unfair to not be completely open, but this is business and most business's are not completely open about business afairs.

I look at it this way... if the players are not happy with what they are making then stop playing and get a job like all of us at a fraction of the pay they are making now. I don't see any reason why they need to know what the books say? simply put, they get drafted by a stingy owner then after their contract is up they can leave for a team who has an owner who will pay them. No different then if common citizen wants a job in a specific field he can look at several companies and chose the one he wants to work for or the one that pays the best or the one closer to where he lives.

The only issue I have is for years the market has been good, and most likely still is when it comes to football. But with the economy crashing I'm sure the vendor's are taking a hit by people partying in the parking lot prior to entering the game. Which means the owners are taking a slight hit because I'm sure the vendors probably pass on a % of their take for the day to the owner in order to sell at the stadium. Then there is the hats and jersey's, and whatever else people purchase that in the long run makes it back to the team. I'm sure the teams are taking a hit there due to the economy being bad and people not being able to afford them. So one has to imagine the owners are taking some sort of loss, I'm not saying they are in the red or negative money wise just saying I'm sure they are not making as much as they have in the past.

I bring this up because some owners own their stadiums and are paying a mortgage, some are tied to the city paying a portion, and some rent their stadiums. So what I'm getting at is the actual income after paying the players, paying for the stadium, paying for other employee's (coach's, secretaries, etc.), equipement, and other expenses I'm sure the owners take home is less then it used to be. Now top that with a horrid market in which other teams like the Skins and Cowboys who have to throw money at to support cuts into the income as well and even more with the[B] bad economy.[/B]

Yet the players want more. [B]60% of the overall take goes to the players right now. [/B]It's not 50/50 like it should be. The players already take the majority of the income.

But this is just one issue.[/quote]

The players and owners negotiate a percentage of the revenue. So your concern for the owners in the bad economy is already taken into account, because as the revenue goes up or down, the players take adjusts accordingly.
One thing do I know is the owners did not always share in the merchandise money until the 80's or 90's CBA agreement. The owners until then took it all. The owners at the time also did not want to open the books on the merchandise revenue numbers either and they finally did.
Your claim of the players taking 60% does not ring true if the owners are not completely opening the books. As you well know, the players take 60% of what the owners are willing to reveal and share. Not the entire nut.

Another thing some people do not take into account is the value of the franchises and stadiums continue to going up and up. I am not saying the players should have any of it, they should NOT!
But don't cry poor for the owners when they are cash poor and hurting financially day to day. They can sell the team make a bundle and there will be a line of wealthy owners to buy.
Leonard Tose former owner of the Eagle bought them for $16m, paid himself a $6M a year salary off the team revenues, and then sold them for $65M.
Jack Kent Cooke bought Redskins in the 60's for a few Million, then sold them in the 90's for $800M.
The players have short careers, take all the risks to health and life, and their star power is what draws the crowds and sells the merchandise. Don't compare them to an everyday working folks. As you well know in the Sports and Entertainment business it is the stars that generate the revenue, not the owners.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I just don't see how they can have a fair negotiation without the owners opening their books.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786576]I just don't see how they can have a fair negotiation without the owners opening their books.[/quote]

It sounds like this might be a negotiation in itself. If the owners are to do that I'm sure attorneys on both sides would have to sign off on an agreement on what info can be discussed publicly by either side, which would be difficult to set the parameters on.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786576]I just don't see how they can have a fair negotiation without the owners opening their books.[/quote]

Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;786587]Do [B]steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?[/B]

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.[/quote]

This is the Sports & Entertainment business. Not your everyday job type situation. The comparison does not apply.
Look what happened to the Miami Heat after they acquired LeBron James and Chris Bosh. With in a week they went from being a team struggling to fill their seats, to selling out 100% of their entire arena for every game this season. All 44 games. They were able to lay off their entire tickets sales department. They do not need to sell tickets anymore. The revenue influx was massive. Star Power.
All of their road away games are also all sold out.
A steel worker or a welder is not going to have that kind of effect on the bottom line. Get it?
The same is true when we negotiate a concert deal with a high powered entertainer like U2 or Rolling Stones. They take a % of the entire revenue that night. It is not uncommon in the Sports & Entertainment business because the revenue gained by a Peyton Manning is so diffrent than that gained by a Rex Grossman. LOL!
If Peyton Manning is traded tomorrow to a team that is struggling to fill their seats like a Tampa Bay, Oakland or St Loius that only sells about 75% of their seats, the result is instant and powefull$$$. Not to mention the effects of Revenue on sales of Merch, Parking and Concessions.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;786587]Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.[/quote]

The NFL is not everyday America so your comparisons don't hold much water.

If the owners are going to use lost revenue as their main thrust as to why they want to take a bigger piece of the pie, they sure as hell better be ready to [B][I]prove[/I][/B] their point.

Are the players supposed to just take their word for it??

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Defensewins;786571]The players and owners negotiate a percentage of the revenue. So your concern for the owners in the bad economy is already taken into account, because as the revenue goes up or down, the players take adjusts accordingly.
One thing do I know is the owners did not always share in the merchandise money until the 80's or 90's CBA agreement. The owners until then took it all. The owners at the time also did not want to open the books on the merchandise revenue numbers either and they finally did.
Your claim of the players taking 60% does not ring true if the owners are not completely opening the books. As you well know, the players take 60% of what the owners are willing to reveal and share. Not the entire nut.

Another thing some people do not take into account is the value of the franchises and stadiums continue to going up and up. I am not saying the players should have any of it, they should NOT!
But don't cry poor for the owners when they are cash poor and hurting financially day to day. They can sell the team make a bundle and there will be a line of wealthy owners to buy.
Leonard Tose former owner of the Eagle bought them for $16m, paid himself a $6M a year salary off the team revenues, and then sold them for $65M.
Jack Kent Cooke bought Redskins in the 60's for a few Million, then sold them in the 90's for $800M.
The players have short careers, take all the risks to health and life, and their star power is what draws the crowds and sells the merchandise. Don't compare them to an everyday working folks. As you well know in the Sports and Entertainment business it is the stars that generate the revenue, not the owners.[/quote]

In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
[B]#1-[/B] your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.
[quote]“The CBA defines what ‘total revenue’ is in detail and gives the Union roughly 60 percent of that amount. The Union has created a new measure of revenue, which it calls ‘All Revenue,’ and says that the players get 50 percent of that,” Aiello said. “Saying they want 50 percent of this new revenue base, is the same as saying they want 60 percent of the existing revenue base.[/quote]

[B]#2[/B]- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut, but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.

[B]#3[/B]- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.

[B]#4[/B]- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;786599]In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
[B]#1-[/B] your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.


[B]#2[/B]- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut,[B] but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.
[/B]
[B]#3[/B]- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.

[B]#4[/B]- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.[/quote]

1) Not correct because it is not 60% of all that is taken in. Just what the owenrs are willing to reveal.

3) This is the Sports & Entertainment business. Not your everyday job type situation. The comparison does not apply.
Look what happened to the Miami Heat after they acquired LeBron James and Chris Bosh. With in a week they went from being a team struggling to fill their seats, to selling out 100% of their entire arena for every game this season. All 44 games. They were able to lay off their entire tickets sales department. They do not need to sell tickets anymore. The revenue influx was massive. Star Power.
All of their road away games are also all sold out.
A steel worker or a welder is not going to have that kind of effect on the bottom line. Get it?
The same is true when we negotiate a concert deal with a high powered entertainer like U2 or Rolling Stones. They take a % of the entire revenue that night. It is not uncommon in the Sports & Entertainment business because the revenue gained by a Peyton Manning is so diffrent than that gained by a Rex Grossman. LOL!
If Peyton Manning is traded tomorrow to a team that is struggling to fill their seats like a Tampa Bay, Oakland or St Loius that only sells about 75% of their seats, the result is instant and powefull$$$. Not to mention the effects of Revenue on sales of Merch, Parking and Concessions.

#4) If the owner does not have enough money to be an NFL owner. Easy, sell the team to someone that does.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;786587]Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.[/quote]

Finally someone who understands me. lol. Even in the old days players had choices. Go out test the market and take the highest bid or don't and go work for the team they like best. I look at whats happening now and think (as I did back in the 90's) if you don't like what your getting paid go get a real job and use your degree. The problem is they won't get as much money.

I also think the players are making enough money that they should be able to afford their own health insurance and retirement. Unless the NFLPA chooses to bring all the players under one health insurance company to save money. I think every player has a pretty good idea that they will only last about 10 yrs tops in the NFL and possibly less. So they go out and lobby for a huge salary. They should be putting money away for their retirement instead of buying 5 million dollar houses, or $100,000 dollar cars, or $50,000 dollar Rolex watches. It's not the owners fault the players don't know how to spend wisely or invest.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

So for those of you who keep saying "this is not an everyday business" and that "this is show business" your saying then Actors and Actresses should be able to know the companies books and have their health insurance paid for?

I think you guys are wrong. It's a job. They are getting paid to do a job. The players can't have it two ways... they can't say hey this is my "job" and I should get paid for it, then turn around and say "oh I'm in show business so I want to see your books."

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

We're talking about collective bargaining, something that doesn't typically happen in every day life. Both sides involved should definitely be ready to prove and show their numbers. Otherwise how can the negotiations be fair and accurate?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786614]We're talking about collective bargaining, something that doesn't typically happen in every day life. Both sides involved should definitely be ready to prove and show their numbers. Otherwise how can the negotiations be fair and accurate?[/quote]

I totally agree with you about the fairness. I'm not argueing that. My issue is the owner's shouldn't have to show it.

Is there not some public record they or anyone can pull this info from? I thought big companies assets were of public record and their taxable income?

On another note I understand the whole getting paid like a rock star, especially rock stars who are getting paid by several different organizations through their agent, and on top of that the band not knowing exactly how many people will show up so they get paid per a % of the take for the evening.

Football is different. Each players agent lobbies for a set amount for their client to be paid yearly and in some cases a bonus. Whether the player makes $10 mill a year or $400,000 thousand a year their income does not change according to their contract. The whole 60% was the NFLPA simply wanting to make sure the players were getting the majority of the cut which honestly is not fair. What would happen if the owner went out and hired players who accepted $400,000 dollar contracts? I mean after paying everyone I doubt it would be 60% of the teams income so what happens to the owner?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

NFL teams (other than the Packers) are not public companies and don't have to release financial info. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;786635]I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.[/quote]

This is not a bad idea. It might be interesting to know which teams are considered to be low, mid, and hi revenue teams, or who the owners figure to be low, med, and high.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786640]NFL teams (other than the Packers) are not public companies and don't have to release financial info. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.[/quote]

Thanks. Well personally, I feel if the players feel they are getting cheated.... go play in the CFL, or UFL. Maybe they can make their money there, get all the concessions they want, and the fan base who follows players will follow them.

My problem is when the 90's hit I was sorta on the players side. In the aspect that the owners were making all this money and the players hardly getting any. This go around I sorta side with the owners. Part of my issue's have to do with the fact that prior to the CBA players could stay with a specific team their whole career, show loyalty, and have a fan base. When the CBA was put in place players started jumping ship like rats. Going to different teams, going where the money was, and smiling all the way to the bank. There is no team loyalty. There is money loyalty, and honestly I don't see the arguement if players are getting paid what they are asking for? Manning getting $50 mill? Haynesworth getting his big payday? I could see if players were asking 2-4 mill a year and the owners saying no I'll pay you 400,000 thousand. But even then the player can say no thank you and either look to another team or not play if they think they are worth more.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;786635]I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

[B]Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.[/B][/quote]

1) No they do not. Green Bay is the only team that does and is obligated to that because the are publicly traded. The others teams are not and do not share all the information. It is not public information. The IRS would know, but the do not share that information.

2) The NFL owners will not agree to even that. Bottom line is they do not want any of the undisclosed revenue being part of the CBA. Negotiation tactic. They will most likely give in and share the remaining information in exchange for a concession on the part of the players. Like some % points off the top. But how can the players negotiate that in good faith do that with out knowing what that dollar amount is?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;786647]Thanks. Well personally, I feel if the players feel they are getting cheated.... go play in the CFL, or UFL. Maybe they can make their money there, get all the concessions they want, and the fan base who follows players will follow them.

My problem is when the 90's hit I was sorta on the players side. In the aspect that the owners were making all this money and the players hardly getting any. This go around I sorta side with the owners. Part of my issue's have to do with the fact that prior to the CBA players could stay with a specific team their whole career, show loyalty, and have a fan base. When the CBA was put in place players started jumping ship like rats. Going to different teams, going where the money was, and smiling all the way to the bank. There is no team loyalty. There is money loyalty, and honestly I don't see the arguement if players are getting paid what they are asking for? Manning getting $50 mill? Haynesworth getting his big payday? I could see if players were asking 2-4 mill a year and the owners saying no I'll pay you 400,000 thousand. But even then the player can say no thank you and either look to another team or not play if they think they are worth more.[/quote]

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Matty,

That may be the case, but the owners, if they feel they gave up too much, have the opportunity to get back what they feel they're missing. The players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players. When it comes down to it, as long as the owners aren't completely unreasonable the players will break. If I were the owners I'd be playing it the same way. Don't give them information either way.

It's all about getting a deal that keeps your product strong while also protecting your revenue stream. The heart of capitalism. Personally, I side with the owners here for the most part. They take a lot of the financial risk in this equation and have to put up a lot of capital to make things work. Players sacrifice their bodies and personal lives for this sport, and deserve to be compensated handsomly, but there need to be controls built in to this scheme.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786657]Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.[/quote]


Which is why I believe the owners are happy to let this CBA expire. So they can roll into a new one with out giving up so much. On top of that putting a Rookie salary in place.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Daseal;786664]Matty,

That may be the case, but the owners, if they feel they gave up too much, have the opportunity to get back what they feel they're missing. [B]The players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players.[/B] When it comes down to it, as long as the owners aren't completely unreasonable the players will break. If I were the owners I'd be playing it the same way. Don't give them information either way.

It's all about getting a deal that keeps your product strong while also protecting your revenue stream. The heart of capitalism. Personally, I side with the owners here for the most part. [B]They take a lot of the financial risk in this equation and have to put up a lot of capital to make things work.[/B] Players sacrifice their bodies and personal lives for this sport, and deserve to be compensated handsomly, but there need to be controls built in to this scheme.[/quote]

1) That kind of talk will lead to a long strike. I do not think anyone wants that. Both sides need eachother. I do not want to suffer through scab games again. If the owners feel they gave up too much, open the books and prove it. Show that some teams are operating at a loss. Then it will be easier to solve. But you can not hide the numbers and cry foul. That is childish.

2) The owners do not take a lot of risk. what are you talking about? The NFL makes money hand over fist. The NFL makes billions of dollars. Don't cry poor for the owners. Name me one owner that did not have enough money operate in a lavish way and was forced to sell and came out losing money on the deal. Every former owner went out making a ton of money on their initial investment.
Did you hear the story about the New Orleans owner that was really upset that his 34 year old daughter did not have a limo waiting for her at the airport at superbowl? He was upset that all are her expenses were not paid for. The daughter is 34! LOL!
These billionaires get real cheap when they need too and take money off the top to pay for their jet set life styles.
The owners hold the cities hostage and threaten to move if the local goverments do not put up bonds to back construction of new stadiums.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;786665]Which is why I believe the owners are happy to let this CBA expire. So they can roll into a new one with out giving up so much. On top of that putting a Rookie salary in place.[/quote]

Actually the owners opted out 2 years ago.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Defensewins;786671]That kind of talk will lead to a long strike. I do not think anyone wants that.
Both sides need eachother. Id not want to suffer through scab games again.
[B]If the owners feel they gave up too much, open the books and prove it.[/B] Show that some teams are operating at a loss. Then it will be easier to solve. But you can not hide the numbers and cry foul. That is childish.[/quote]

Exactly.

I'm always kinda confused when people stick up for the owners. I'm really not seeing where the owners are in a position to be pitied. Neither side is really... but the owners are the ones that have dug their heels in the ground here and are demanding a bigger slice of the pie, without showing what it is they are losing exactly.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786657]Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize [B]the owners agreed to this current CBA[/B]... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.[/quote]

And the players agreed that the owners could opt out. The owners didn't do anything back-handed by opting out, and the players shouldn't try and make it seem like they did.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;786674]Exactly.

I'm always kinda confused when people stick up for the owners. I'm really not seeing where the owners are in a position to be pitied. Neither side is really... but the owners are the ones that have dug their heels in the ground here and are demanding a bigger slice of the pie, without showing what it is they are losing exactly.[/quote]


Ok, I'm tracking with you here on the "demanding a bigger slice of the pie" but let me ask you is it not a companies job to try to get the best talented worker for the cheapest price? The less the company pays out the more the business makes in order to spend on equipment, supplies, other staff like in this case secretaries, coach's, and scouts.

So if under the CBA there is a rule as to how much of the income must go to the players then why do they even negotiate dollar amounts? The amount could be set at 30% for the players but if an owner wants to pick up players he still has to negotiate an agreed dollar amount and if doing this for 52 players plus the 8 practice squad members I'd imagine the 30% wouldn't matter and why would the players care if their team is putting the majority of the teams money towards players contracts if they are getting the money each individual is asking for? It's more like "Who's line is it anyway" where the players % doesn't matter. Heck the owners could agree to 70% toward players contracts but if they are sitting down trying to negotiate the cheapest deals and the players agree to the amount then it really doesn't matter.

Maybe there would be more money to put towards an in door practice facility.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

On another note I thought it was said that if the CBA expired then there would be no draft and the players could sign with whomever they wanted to possibly the highest bidder. Yet all I keep hearing about is how it will effect the FA's and that there will be a draft no matter what but signing the players might be difficult.

When actually would there be a situation where there is no draft? Next year?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://concede330.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/nfl-labor-faq/]NFL Labor FAQ « Raw Sports by CONCEDE330[/url]

Some good info here

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Looks like the Owners may be losing their guaranteed payday. We may see some movement afterall.

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/-Lockout-insurance-reversal-ruling-saps-leverag?urn=nfl-328305]'Lockout insurance' reversal ruling saps leverage from owners - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/01/AR2011030106787.html]NFL labor talks resume amid slim hopes of a deal[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Let's hope that we hear today of the temporary extension of the old rules. Otherwise we enter a Cold War phase tomorrow night.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

So stupid that they can't get something worked out.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Lotus;787061]Let's hope that we hear today of the temporary extension of the old rules. Otherwise we enter a Cold War phase tomorrow night.[/quote]

None of us want to see a repeat of 1987, especially SB's. This entire process has to be extremely difficult for everyone involved, especially the fringe players just hopeful for an invite to an NFL training camp as an UFA. In the event of an extended lockout and the decision is made that the early games would be played with replacement players [of which we haven't heard much talk] some of these players could be the one's choosing to cross the line. How will they be accepted team-wise when a new CBA is eventually reached?

With both fans and players being able to interact via Twitter, Facebook and other social outlets available, the longer it takes for an agreement to be reached, the more interesting the whole process is going to become.

[url=http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessnewsdaily.com%2Fnfl-strike-small-business-1032%2F&ei=EkBuTbL5G4TGlQeAmYFO&usg=AFQjCNFf3_rrrV-vNj9Y4LpmdkGo9e8UEg&sig2=CWEELa_esfhv6IiUG2MoaA]NFL Lockout Will Impact Small Business | Small Business Fears NFL Strike | Business News Daily[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Last two labor disputes -
1987 = short season, Skins SB
1982 = short season, Skins SB


Let's hope for a 12-game season! :D


I don't care about the asterisk.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BuckSkin;787015]Looks like the Owners may be losing their guaranteed payday. We may see some movement afterall.

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/-Lockout-insurance-reversal-ruling-saps-leverag?urn=nfl-328305]'Lockout insurance' reversal ruling saps leverage from owners - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports[/url][/quote]


[IMG]http://www.openclipart.org/people/bnielsen/Cartoon_monkey_wrench.svg[/IMG]


That ruling was like you laying down a full house, and the next guy dropping a royal flush on you. Now the playing field is even with much to lose from both sides of the table.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;787141][IMG]http://www.openclipart.org/people/bnielsen/Cartoon_monkey_wrench.svg[/IMG]


That ruling was like you laying down a full house, and the next guy dropping a royal flush on you. Now the playing field is even with much to lose from both sides of the table.[/quote]

The huge difference on the two sides of the table - - despite the recent ruling by Judge Doty - - is that the owners by and large have ways to make money outside football. After all, that is how most of them made the money it takes to buy and NFL team. If the Redskins shut down completely for two years, do you think Danny Boy would be going to a Food Assistance Center looking for free canned goods?

The players on the other hand have only one way that they can earn a minimum of about $500K per year and some of them getting to earn significantly more than that. If the league shut down for 2 years, what percentage of the players would find "six-figure jobs" in the private sector? (Of course, the NFLPA reps at the bargaining table will continue to pull down more than a living wage even if the league shuts down for 2 years.)

That is a fundamental distinction between the two sides doing the negotiating and I don't see any realistic way for that aspect of the playing field to "get leveled".

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110302/sp_afp/amfootnflunion_20110302070500]NFL players win court ruling as deadline looms - Yahoo! News[/url]

This is great news. I hope it holds up on appeal. This gives the owners huge incentive to get a CBA deal done otherwise no TV money. Especially those small/weak market teams that depend on the TV money to pay their bills.

"In a ruling on Tuesday, US District Court judge David Doty in Minneapolis sided with the union by overruling a February 1 decision to reject the NFLPA's request that $4 billion in 2011 payments from networks to the league be placed in escrow if there is a lockout."