If Teddy Bruschi is right, this won't ever get done

[MadHatter]

The article I read stated that, as with most negotiations, one side offers up a starting point and they negotiate from there... So, for the owners to get up and walk out on a 50/50 proposal shows what jackasses they are.

Again, they aren't even opening the books to the players to justify their "losses." Which suggests, there are no losses.

You know absolutely nothing about corporate negotiations. This is VERY typical.

One side offers up a ridiculous proposal and the other side walks out.

That let's the NFLPA know that their proposal is not even considered and establishes the paramaters of what will be considered acceptable.

This is not what I wanted to see. However, it is quite common in these types of negotiations.

[riddel]

The 50/50 split did not require the owners to "open the books" and it was a reduction from the 60% that the players had in the old CBA, so the players have already made concessions. The owners want the players to take a 40% stake. Most corporations pay 35% for labor costs and we are talking about dime a dozen labor that can be developed to perform the job. NFL players taking only 40% is pure crap. Without the players the NFL will become a water down product just like the MLB.

The fact is the playes leverage doesn't and won't start until preseason, so this thing won't get resolved until the owners start to see revenues hurt. Right now they have a $300 million slush fund and the TV contracts in hand, but once the games don't start the TV companies are going to sue the pants off the owners and that $300 million will look like peanuts, once the TV companies come after the owners for lost revenues, which they can do!

So, buckle up fellers, we got atleast 8 to 12 months of this crap to deal with.

[MadHatter]

The 50/50 split did not require the owners to "open the books" and it was a reduction from the 60% that the players had in the old CBA, so the players have already made concessions. The owners want the players to take a 40% stake. Most corporations pay 35% for labor costs and we are talking about dime a dozen labor that can be developed to perform the job. NFL players taking only 40% is pure crap. Without the players the NFL will become a water down product just like the MLB.

The fact is the playes leverage doesn't and won't start until preseason, so this thing won't get resolved until the owners start to see revenues hurt. Right now they have a $300 million slush fund and the TV contracts in hand, but once the games don't start the TV companies are going to sue the pants off the owners and that $300 million will look like peanuts, once the TV companies come after the owners for lost revenues, which they can do!

So, buckle up fellers, we got atleast 8 to 12 months of this crap to deal with.

WRONG...WRONG...WRONG

The past 60-40 split was on Football Revenue...which equated to a 50-50 split on Total Revenue.

The NFLPA proposed a 50-50 split of Total Revenue...which is the same.

NO CONCESSIONS WERE MADE BY THE PLAYERS.

Damn, we need a remedial reading comprehension class for some posters.

[riddel]

WRONG...WRONG...WRONG

The past 60-40 split was on Football Revenue...which equated to a 50-50 split on Total Revenue.

The NFLPA proposed a 50-50 split of Total Revenue...which is the same.

NO CONCESSIONS WERE MADE BY THE PLAYERS.

Damn, we need a remedial reading comprehension class for some posters.

Previously the split was 60/40 after the owners took S1 billion for costs.....the owners want S2 billion for costs and a 50/50 split.....the players "I thought" wanted a 50/50 split with the same S1 billion retained by the owners for costs.....I've been wrong before....maybe the deal was, don't open the books and the players would accept a 50/50 split on the total amount, do open the books and the players would negotiate from there....not sure on that....

the point that I wanted to make was more about the players leverage not being realized until preseason and the fact that the 2011 season would lose some if not all games.....unless the owners force the CBA through, which would require the players to strike, which would allow the owners to seek SCABs. I don't see a lockout being in the owners' best interest, because I don't know that they can use replacement players during a lockout and the pressure from the TV contracts will be a real problem once the games are not televised. TV companies will sue for alot more than the $125 million per team in guaranteed money....they will sue for lost revenues, which could be in the billions. The owners will be the ones screwed if they don't get a product on the field come August/September.

[Gazi]

Why is Team Billionaire on this board so angry this morning?

[MadHatter]

Previously the split was 60/40 after the owners took S1 billion for costs.....the owners want S2 billion for costs and a 50/50 split.....the players "I thought" wanted a 50/50 split with the same S1 billion retained by the owners for costs.....I've been wrong before....maybe the deal was, don't open the books and the players would accept a 50/50 split on the total amount, do open the books and the players would negotiate from there....not sure on that....

the point that I wanted to make was more about the players leverage not being realized until preseason and the fact that the 2011 season would lose some if not all games.....unless the owners force the CBA through, which would require the players to strike, which would allow the owners to seek SCABs. I don't see a lockout being in the owners' best interest, because I don't know that they can use replacement players during a lockout and the pressure from the TV contracts will be a real problem once the games are not televised. TV companies will sue for alot more than the $125 million per team in guaranteed money....they will sue for lost revenues, which could be in the billions. The owners will be the ones screwed if they don't get a product on the field come August/September.

According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the players received 51.87 percent of all revenue in 2002. In 2003, it dropped to 50.23 percent. In 2004, it was 52.18 percent. In 2005, 50.52 percent. In 2006, it was 52.74 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2007, it was 51.84 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2009, it was 50.06 percent.

Based on the above, the players is essence offered a proposal equal to the one that the owners opted out of.

The NFLPA association still does not get it. The owners have all of the leverage......and are not playing around.

[riddel]

The NFLPA association still does not get it. The owners have all of the leverage......and are not playing around.

The owners have all the leverage right now. Again, once the preseason is scheduled to start and the very first game doesn't get televised, the lawsuits from the TV companies will be enormous! The NFL is under contract to provide games and if they don't, then the lawsuit will be for lost revenues. That's not joke.

Go do some stat checking on that.....find out how much each game earns television companies in revenues, then multiply that out times 1 Sunday and see how much the owners will be paying per game. I'm betting 16 games per week equals $100s of millions.

Who will have the leverage then? Also, if the owners do try and use replacement players, I'm betting the TV companies will still sue and claim the product is not the same. Those owners may be big shots when it comes to players, but once they cross TV corporations, they will see who the real big shots are.

[Panthro]

Dunno...both have leverage. Come March 4th advertisers won't sign contracts for next season if there is no football. The owners will get the TV money but that is it. No tickets, no concessions.

I'd like to see how long it would take the owners to recoup their losses if there is a lock out versus the players. Which will be hard to do because no one really knows how much each owner makes.

[MadHatter]

The owners have all the leverage right now. Again, once the preseason is scheduled to start and the very first game doesn't get televised, the lawsuits from the TV companies will be enormous! The NFL is under contract to provide games and if they don't, then the lawsuit will be for lost revenues. That's not joke.

Go do some stat checking on that.....find out how much each game earns television companies in revenues, then multiply that out times 1 Sunday and see how much the owners will be paying per game. I'm betting 16 games per week equals $100s of millions.

Who will have the leverage then? Also, if the owners do try and use replacement players, I'm betting the TV companies will still sue and claim the product is not the same. Those owners may be big shots when it comes to players, but once they cross TV corporations, they will see who the real big shots are.

That was already addressed in the new contract that the league signed with the television companies. There will be nothing for the TV companies to sue over.

Owners have the leverage now and have this upcoing season protected from a financial perspective.

The employees (players) will lose even more leverage (and create internal strife) as the number of months without a paycheck add up.

Players = employees who want the financial reward of ownership without the investment and risk of ownership.

[CLTPanther]

F all unions

[pantherfan49]

I'd like to see how long it would take the owners to recoup their losses if there is a lock out versus the players. Which will be hard to do because no one really knows how much each owner makes.

Most of the players have no money saved up at all. Most of the owners have their money tied up in the team and other investments.

Simply put, the owners can wait this out a lot longer than can the players.

[logic1977]

You know something that i have been thinking about the TV contracts with the owners.....

The TV executives had to know that if there is a lockout/strike that they would be losing on revenues so why sign the deal with the NFL promising to make payments even if there are no games?

Unless of course you realize that by signing said deal the players will really be in a bad spot and be forced to take whatever deal they are offered by the owners. Which means you help stack the deck against the players and help ensure that the games get played and you make money.

Underhanded, unethical, dirty, and absolutely genius

[AKPantherFan]

who cares-- the players WILL give in.... They dont pay themselves. What business model has you the person who owns the business paying your employee more than you make?

How do you excell in that type model? You dont?

i dont blame the owners, maybe if they get a bigger portion of the pie us fans will not have to continue to pay increased prices on EVERYTHING..

Because the owners will do whatever they have to do to make more money, even if that means $10 beers....

I would rather the players make 2 billion less than me having to fork over more money to keep the whole damn operation afloat.

[Cyberjag]

You're all missing the real point. JR forces a lockout, the season is canceled, and we get Fairley AND Luck.

Genuis, really...