Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Richardson ...Lockout Article


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
49 replies to this topic

#41 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,896
  • Reputation: 8,791
SUPPORTER

Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:47 PM

You think the owner's opted out of a 'terrible' deal only because that's what they lead you to believe. The only things the public sees should indicate otherwise--but the NFL PR department is doing a fantastic job of making the owners seem like the victims. They haven't opened the books yet claim they are so financially imperiled that they want the players AND fans to make sacrifices. What sacrifices have the owner's made? They are demanding that taxpayers pay more and more for PRIVATELY OWNED stadiums (1.2 Billion for the new meadowlands, 1.7 Billion for Cowboys stadium, 1+ billion estimated for new vikings stadium). I, for one, wouldn't mind accepting such a 'terrible' deal that allows me to live as lavishly as most owner's do.

Revenues are up, profit is down and owner's claim that down profits are primarily due to player expenses. I say prove it. If the player's really are pocketing 57% of the money as the owners say, it shouldn't be hard to show on a financial statement.

As a business owner, manipulating profit/losses is as simple as writing a bonus check. Not saying that all owner's are doing this--but it seems pretty likely that at least some would. And opening that can of worms may get a CBA worked out, but it would certainly cause some strife and regulatory headaches for the owners.


The owners offered to show their books to a third party that was agreeable to both sides for the last 5 years. The players didn't want a third party and requested the last 10 years (a time frame which is completely unnecessary and was only requested for political cover to decertify). And if a third party certified their findings on the owners books and they lied or manipulated they would be on the hook for fraud so I doubt they would fudge the numbers in the owners favor.

So they offered to prove it, and the NFLPA refused.

Most major corporations get tax breaks in the millions or even billions by state governments and many are also subsidized by the federal government. Often times they are tax exempt and are given land to build their buildings free of charge. Is there a difference??

Both the players and owners live pretty lavish lifestyles. The owners however carry all the risk and expenses.

As far as manipulating profit/loss that is serious fraud and I doubt anyone would do that.

The real negotiations won't really start until a counter proposal is on the table. Until then the NFLPA will continue to piss on our legs and tell us it is raining.

#42 carolinarolls

carolinarolls

    Mel's brother Del

  • Joined: 03-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,452
  • Reputation: 451
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:49 PM

Kinda just proved my point...you'll pay to hear the no name cover band bc you like the song. It might not be as good but you still are there for the music.


Agreed. There are plenty of decent enough "artists" out there who are more than willing to take the place of a butt hurt current "artist" for half the gig price. What's more is that there will be plenty of fans to fill the stadium. Maybe not the same fans, but it will be full.

I do not think the interest will drop off that much if every player who played a down last year was wiped from this season.

There is a huge difference between fantasy leagues and the real thing. The game will remain the same. New stars will be born. New jersey's will be sold. Everyone is replaceable. The truth about it all does hurt but the facts are that people love football. They love it at all levels. just like I enjoy myself at a HS game with no D-1 prospects on either team, I would enjoy the NFL with practice squad rosters and scabs.

#43 Panthers_Lover

Panthers_Lover

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,114
  • Reputation: 183
HUDDLER

Posted 26 May 2011 - 04:03 PM

Kinda just proved my point...you'll pay to hear the no name cover band bc you like the song. It might not be as good but you still are there for the music.


Nah ... I might not even go to the bar, even if there's no cover charge, if the Stones aren't going to be there.

#44 ElIngeniero

ElIngeniero

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 78
  • Reputation: 1
ROOKIE

Posted 27 May 2011 - 10:36 AM

The owners offered to show their books to a third party that was agreeable to both sides for the last 5 years. The players didn't want a third party and requested the last 10 years (a time frame which is completely unnecessary and was only requested for political cover to decertify). And if a third party certified their findings on the owners books and they lied or manipulated they would be on the hook for fraud so I doubt they would fudge the numbers in the owners favor.

So they offered to prove it, and the NFLPA refused.

Most major corporations get tax breaks in the millions or even billions by state governments and many are also subsidized by the federal government. Often times they are tax exempt and are given land to build their buildings free of charge. Is there a difference??

Both the players and owners live pretty lavish lifestyles. The owners however carry all the risk and expenses.

As far as manipulating profit/loss that is serious fraud and I doubt anyone would do that.

The real negotiations won't really start until a counter proposal is on the table. Until then the NFLPA will continue to piss on our legs and tell us it is raining.


The NFLPA sent a letter to the NFL in May 2009 (long before they 'forced their own decertification') specifying EXACTLY the financial details they were looking for. These financial details included each teams operating income, total operating expenses, such as player costs, team expenses, sales/marketing, game expenses, salaries/payments to owners., profit from operations, net income, and cash assets. Those are pretty standard details that any well-run business should have no problem quickly producing. I have to provide this information to other businesses often before we sign large contracts. The NFL recently offered to provide VERY general information that amounted to little more than Richardson's egg-shaped drawing. I don't doubt that the third party would validate the information they offered...but that doesn't make the provided info useful. Specifically, they offered league-wide profitability data from 2005-2009 (5 years)...nothing specific here indicating how the owners are using the money. They also offered to show the number of teams that have seen 'a shift in profitability' during those 5 years...Profitability shifts every year--so it seems like the number here would be 32. If, what they mean, is that they'll provide a number of teams whose profitability went down, then that does not mean that profitability went down due to player's expenses.

Again, the owner's are barking that they are broke and it's because of the player expenses. Nothing offered has any relation to player expenses and certainly doesn't prove that player expenses are the root cause of a supposed decline in profitability.

As of last year, the average NFL player salary was 1.9 Million. The average career length is ~3.5 years for a career salary of ~6.5 Million. That's certainly a lavish lifestyle compared to the average American. I don't discredit that. But comparing a football player's lifestyle to that of an NFL owner is ludicrous.

Profit and loss can and IS legally manipulated everyday. Perhaps you're confusing profit/loss with Revenue, which cannot be manipulated legally. Example: You sell 1 Million in goods--that's revenue. Deduct expenses, etc and you are left with profit or loss. Part of those expenses could be a significant bonus you gave to yourself at the end of the year, leaving the company with little profit or even a loss. Thus, profit has been manipulated.

Understand that I want what's best for the NFL--growth, profitability and continued success for the greatest sport in the world (as far as I'm concerned). If their biggest expense (player costs) is too high, then they should work to reduce it. But demanding a reduction in those expenses without backing up their claims is dubious.

There is a 'breakeven point' where the cost incurred by the owner's will surpass the benefit gained by reducing salaries. I'm sure the owner's are already aware of the approximate date when that happens.

However, thus far they've negotiated TV deals that will pay them 4 billion even without a season...that's almost 50% of revenue and GREATLY reduced expenses--so they likely produce a profit without an NFL season. More importantly, it pushes that 'breakeven point' back further so the players almost certainly give in to their negotiation tactics. That, to me, solidifies my stance that the NFL owner's are more interested in padding their pockets than providing fans with entertainment.

#45 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,918
  • Reputation: 5,441
HUDDLER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 10:52 AM

The NFLPA sent a letter to the NFL in May 2009 (long before they 'forced their own decertification') specifying EXACTLY the financial details they were looking for. These financial details included each teams operating income, total operating expenses, such as player costs, team expenses, sales/marketing, game expenses, salaries/payments to owners., profit from operations, net income, and cash assets. Those are pretty standard details that any well-run business should have no problem quickly producing. I have to provide this information to other businesses often before we sign large contracts. The NFL recently offered to provide VERY general information that amounted to little more than Richardson's egg-shaped drawing. I don't doubt that the third party would validate the information they offered...but that doesn't make the provided info useful. Specifically, they offered league-wide profitability data from 2005-2009 (5 years)...nothing specific here indicating how the owners are using the money. They also offered to show the number of teams that have seen 'a shift in profitability' during those 5 years...Profitability shifts every year--so it seems like the number here would be 32. If, what they mean, is that they'll provide a number of teams whose profitability went down, then that does not mean that profitability went down due to player's expenses.

Again, the owner's are barking that they are broke and it's because of the player expenses. Nothing offered has any relation to player expenses and certainly doesn't prove that player expenses are the root cause of a supposed decline in profitability.

As of last year, the average NFL player salary was 1.9 Million. The average career length is ~3.5 years for a career salary of ~6.5 Million. That's certainly a lavish lifestyle compared to the average American. I don't discredit that. But comparing a football player's lifestyle to that of an NFL owner is ludicrous.

Profit and loss can and IS legally manipulated everyday. Perhaps you're confusing profit/loss with Revenue, which cannot be manipulated legally. Example: You sell 1 Million in goods--that's revenue. Deduct expenses, etc and you are left with profit or loss. Part of those expenses could be a significant bonus you gave to yourself at the end of the year, leaving the company with little profit or even a loss. Thus, profit has been manipulated.

Understand that I want what's best for the NFL--growth, profitability and continued success for the greatest sport in the world (as far as I'm concerned). If their biggest expense (player costs) is too high, then they should work to reduce it. But demanding a reduction in those expenses without backing up their claims is dubious.

There is a 'breakeven point' where the cost incurred by the owner's will surpass the benefit gained by reducing salaries. I'm sure the owner's are already aware of the approximate date when that happens.

However, thus far they've negotiated TV deals that will pay them 4 billion even without a season...that's almost 50% of revenue and GREATLY reduced expenses--so they likely produce a profit without an NFL season. More importantly, it pushes that 'breakeven point' back further so the players almost certainly give in to their negotiation tactics. That, to me, solidifies my stance that the NFL owner's are more interested in padding their pockets than providing fans with entertainment.


You are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are EMPLOYEES who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, I suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their JOB.

End of story.

#46 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,421
  • Reputation: 2,152
HUDDLER

Posted 27 May 2011 - 01:15 PM


Personally I want to see football this year


The only thing of relevance you said. As for your analogy, it was totally off base. This isn't a car sale but an employment negotiation. They have nothing in common.

#47 ElIngeniero

ElIngeniero

    Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 78
  • Reputation: 1
ROOKIE

Posted 28 May 2011 - 08:13 AM

You are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are EMPLOYEES who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, I suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their JOB.

End of story.


No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.

#48 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,421
  • Reputation: 2,152
HUDDLER

Posted 28 May 2011 - 08:47 AM

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.


The owners are asking for concessions and the players are refusing so there is an impasse. The issue is that the owners want a fixed cap and the players want a moving one. The major issue is that players want their salaries tied to the league revenue and the owners want it to be tied to a fixed rate of increase. The only reason it is perceived as a pay cut is because the cap has increased way in excess of expectations when the last deal was done. And owners want more money excluded from this "split pot" to account for current and expected increased costs.

As for increased wear on the body that is not true, they have largely abandoned the 18 game season and are willing to cut down on OTAs, offseason training and some other issues.

THe point here is that the players don't want any changes and aren't negotiating for a deal. This last owner proposal is a negotiating point not a final offer, which the players could use to continue to negotiate. But from I have seen they have taken the position of litigating to avoid any concessions and gain leverage not work to make the best deal. Opening the books has been a major deal but it really isn't. They didn't lose money and everyone knows it. That isn't the point really. They aren't at the point of needing to renegotiate to survive but are looking to gather a bigger piece of the pie. So the players need to make the best deal they can and see what concessions they can get. There is a lot the players can do to protect their interests.

#49 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Gonna live and die as a faithful Panther Fan

  • Joined: 09-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,624
  • Reputation: 898
HUDDLER

Posted 28 May 2011 - 09:07 AM

you are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are employees who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, i suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their job.

End of story.



bam
we have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


#50 DaveThePanther2008

DaveThePanther2008

    Gonna live and die as a faithful Panther Fan

  • Joined: 09-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,624
  • Reputation: 898
HUDDLER

Posted 28 May 2011 - 09:11 AM

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.


I think 6.5 million dollars as you put it, is more than enough...

I also believe the cuts would come in Rookie Salaries. You have a problem with a Rookie making more than a VET. I DO!!!!