Schefter tweets - Stay granted, lockout is on, complete win for owners

[Goaldeje]

SNF, we are probably pretty close on this one. I do shade slightly to the players because of a number of factors, and agree with Lanky that the owners started this. Also, I have a big problem in general with NfL owners holding localities hostage with tax payer funded stadium projects ala Minnesota right now.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

De smith is a bag o turds but imho the biggest things that should have been ironed out easily are the Owners keep claiming they are not making that much, SO OPEN THE BOOKS and show them. The players are very well compensated so make a rookie cap and make a vet cap, have easier free agency and escalating salaries and bonuses, stay with 16 real games go to 2 exhibition games and be done with it. there is more than enough money to go around with TV money, if an owner got into owning a franchise to make money, there is an issue there. I blame the owners for being greedy and the Players for not being smarter.

 

[fansince62]

You can find fault on oth sides, and i can understand why both sides are doing what they are doing. Lanky, the owners agreed to the CB agreement, then experienced what it was like, decided they did not like it with that new information, and changed their minds. Happens all the time. Are we not allowed to change our minds now? El, most of us have around 40 years to enjoy our careers; the majority of NFL players have three. If their salary totals $3M over their career, and you take away half for taxes and agents, is that 1.5M supposed to last them 37 years? I can completely understand the players not wanting to give back any more money to the owners, why would they?

I side with the players on this, but narrowly. I do not lke the way Smith is handling things at all. I understand part of negotiation is to come up with an offer that is a lot further away from what youre willing to accept at first, but the stuff his is pushing for would damage the league. Most fans just want football to be played, but we need to pay attention to this stuff, because there will be more problems down the road if some of this stuff isn't resolved.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

Goal...I've never cottoned to that length of career argument. who cares if it's 10 days or 10 years? they make a choice. what you're implying is some relationship between length of career and a guaranteed income.

the players already corner 60% of the gross revenue. if it is a "partnership" then I want to see it written into contracts that...as "partners"...they pay money back to owners should they happen to play for a franchise that loses money. if they're so critical so the whole equation...why don't they go out, find the capaital, and start their own teams? start their own leagues? this is a bunch of runt rich guys suing other rich guys. they can all hitch a ride with Charon!

 

[fansince62]

De smith is a bag o turds but imho the biggest things that should have been ironed out easily are the Owners keep claiming they are not making that much, SO OPEN THE BOOKS and show them. The players are very well compensated so make a rookie cap and make a vet cap, have easier free agency and escalating salaries and bonuses, stay with 16 real games go to 2 exhibition games and be done with it. there is more than enough money to go around with TV money, if an owner got into owning a franchise to make money, there is an issue there. I blame the owners for being greedy and the Players for not being smarter.

the players demand the money but they don't share the risk...eff em!

 

[Lanky Livingston]

De smith is a bag o turds but imho the biggest things that should have been ironed out easily are the Owners keep claiming they are not making that much, SO OPEN THE BOOKS and show them. The players are very well compensated so make a rookie cap and make a vet cap, have easier free agency and escalating salaries and bonuses, stay with 16 real games go to 2 exhibition games and be done with it. there is more than enough money to go around with TV money, if an owner got into owning a franchise to make money, there is an issue there. I blame the owners for being greedy and the Players for not being smarter.

The main problem holding back a new CBA agreement is revenue sharing - it has nothing to do with caps.

I do disagree with your assertion that its a problem if the owner got into it to make money - these are all business men, looking to make a profit. There's a reason Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys and not the Bills...

 

[Goaldeje]

Goal...I've never cottoned to that length of career argument. who cares if it's 10 days or 10 years? they make a choice. what you're implying is some relationship between length of career and a guaranteed income.

the players already corner 60% of the gross revenue. if it is a "partnership" then I want to see it written into contracts that...as "partners"...they pay money back to owners should they happen to play for a franchise that loses money. if they're so critical so the whole equation...why don't they go out, find the capaital, and start their own teams? start their own leagues? this is a bunch of runt rich guys suing other rich guys. they can all hitch a ride with Charon!

The "make their own choices" argument is weak. You know as well as I do that for most of the players, they have no other choice aside from football. They are not going to get multiple scholarship offers because of their oratory skills or SAT scores. If they don't play football, they face the same poverty that was all around them growing up. Not much of a choice, imo.

If you are going to go the "partners" route, then have the owners up their books. You know, like partners do. The Bengals and Jags and all the other small market teams can claim as much as they want they are losing money, but how do we know they are losing money because of players' salaries, and not poor business decisions? Why should the players have to pay for the owners over-using their private jet? Should the Dodgers players have gotten together and given some of their salaries back to help with McCord's divorce? Open up the books, show us WHY you are losing money, especially when Dallas and Wash and some of the others are rolling in it.

 

[fansince62]

The "make their own choices" argument is weak. You know as well as I do that for most of the players, they have no other choice aside from football. They are not going to get multiple scholarship offers because of their oratory skills or SAT scores. If they don't play football, they face the same poverty that was all around them growing up. Not much of a choice, imo.

If you are going to go the "partners" route, then have the owners up their books. You know, like partners do. The Bengals and Jags and all the other small market teams can claim as much as they want they are losing money, but how do we know they are losing money because of players' salaries, and not poor business decisions? Why should the players have to pay for the owners over-using their private jet? Should the Dodgers players have gotten together and given some of their salaries back to help with McCord's divorce? Open up the books, show us WHY you are losing money, especially when Dallas and Wash and some of the others are rolling in it.

that is essentially a political argument...so....the message is...if you don't play football...you're too stupid to do anything else in life? hey...you know what...my environment kept me from being the President of France...doesn't society owe me some compensating retributive justice? point being...there are avenues other than ripping off fans with higher prices to effect social justice initiatives.

and..since there is not supposed to be any politics outside of asylum...I drop the subject here and now.

 

[Goaldeje]

, brother!

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

Fansince- the players take a physical risk every time they step on the field.

Lanky- when you start putting profit over winning, you kill a team, look at the bungles, until they started worrying less about money and more about winning they were terrible.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

ok so without getting all political, football players arent exactly encouraged to study while in school, just sayin.

 

[fansince62]

Fansince- the players take a physical risk every time they step on the field.

so what? I took a life risk every time I launched off the pointy end. I didn't expect to be compensated to the tune of millions every year. It was a choice I made to participate in the field.

 

[Rymanofthenorth]

so what? I took a life risk every time I launched off the pointy end. I didn't expect to be compensated to the tune of millions every year. It was a choice I made to participate in the field.

no offence al but your job was not what we call a 2%er meaning that maybe 2% of all people could do it. in a perfect world, soldiers, would be paid what they are worth. that doesnt mean that football players should be paid less, they take risks with their bodies for our entertainment.

 

[fansince62]

no offence al but your job was not what we call a 2%er meaning that maybe 2% of all people could do it. in a perfect world, soldiers, would be paid what they are worth. that doesnt mean that football players should be paid less, they take risks with their bodies for our entertainment.

no offense taken! in most businesses that have a danger factor there is a premium plus insurance. but that's not what the players are after and doesn't explain the humongous salaries. and...the length of time in the league generally is not driven by injury. it's driven by the economics of the league with the top end earning huge amounts and by constant recycling of youth. i personally don't care how long these folks are in the league - poor planning seems more to the point with many of these cats....wasting the money they earn...not earning a degree during their free rides in college so they have options.......

the whole charade we are seeing now is about one set of rich guys trying to get a bigger cut from the pot a set of even richer guys are taking in.

 

[Yusuf06]

no offense taken! in most businesses that have a danger factor there is a premium plus insurance. but that's not what the players are after and doesn't explain the humongous salaries. and...the length of time in the league generally is not driven by injury. it's driven by the economics of the league with the top end earning huge amounts and by constant recycling of youth. i personally don't care how long these folks are in the league - poor planning seems more to the point with many of these cats....wasting the money they earn...not earning a degree during their free rides in college so they have options.......

IIRC there was a CBA in effect and it wasn't the players that opted out of it. So where's all the usual outrage along the lines of "X player had a contract, so honor it" that one hears when a player holds out for more $$$? Sounds a bit inconsistent to me. Besides, as I've mentioned before, the players aren't the ones demanding that the free market for their relatively rare talents be abolished-the owners are.

Second, while many of the players make big bucks, most of them don't. The non superstars do make a nice chunk of change to be sure, but the $300-$400K types that spend a couple or three years in the league are taking the same risks of injury and shortened lifespan that the other players are.

So tell me something. If you were an NFL player with a good chance of only getting two or three years to make real money, try to tell me you wouldn't be doing everything in your power to maximize your earnings while you could. Hell if we're honest, we all do that--and most of us risk little more than a paper cut every now and then. So the players are human in wanting to maximize their earnings, just like the rest of us. Big surprise there.

So I get that you don't care how long a given player is in the league or what happens to them...as long as you get your football. So then is it fair to expect the players to care about whether we fans have to go without a few weeks of football? (poor babies!!) So if you don't like it, vote with your feet. There's always soccer after all.

 

[fansince62]

IIRC there was a CBA in effect and it wasn't the players that opted out of it. So where's all the usual outrage along the lines of "X player had a contract, so honor it" that one hears when a player holds out for more $$$? Sounds a bit inconsistent to me. Besides, as I've mentioned before, the players aren't the ones demanding that the free market for their relatively rare talents be abolished-the owners are.

Second, while many of the players make big bucks, most of them don't. The non superstars do make a nice chunk of change to be sure, but the $300-$400K types that spend a couple or three years in the league are taking the same risks of injury and shortened lifespan that the other players are.

So tell me something. If you were an NFL player with a good chance of only getting two or three years to make real money, try to tell me you wouldn't be doing everything in your power to maximize your earnings while you could. Hell if we're honest, we all do that--and most of us risk little more than a paper cut every now and then. So the players are human in wanting to maximize their earnings, just like the rest of us. Big surprise there.

So I get that you don't care how long a given player is in the league or what happens to them...as long as you get your football. So then is it fair to expect the players to care about whether we fans have to go without a few weeks of football? (poor babies!!) So if you don't like it, vote with your feet. There's always soccer after all.

hey there Y: no...it's not that I get my football and nothing else matters. in fact...there are plenty of other things I enjoy doing - I will more than survive if the season is shortened/canx'd. the truth is...I'm laughing over the whole matter. if this moves to worst case...IMO....competitiveness will be killed.....the product will suffer...demand will fall...and people will start looking elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollars. it's already started to some degree. this is not David against the Goliaths and everyone knows it. the only ones getting the shaft in all of this are the fans....and anyone who peripherally earns a living supporting these top 1% income earners.

ah....finally we get to the gist of it: what's "fair". or more specifically...what you think is fair. I agree completely that this about getting as much as they can...I believe I stated as much earlier. though..the agenda for the lawyers involved in this goes beyond that. but that is a separate matter.

btw...I haven't been able to find a complete list of Skins 2010 salaries....but the partial list I did find had 35 players making $320K or more with 22 players making over a million. out of how many?...53 players?.....seems to me folks are doing fine relative to the working population at large. and, obviously, the lower the salary the less likely it is a player sees action on the field....barring injuries to starters, etc.

 

[Goaldeje]

Since the lockout began on March 12, various teams have acknowledged the implementation of plans aimed at cutting costs in light of the lack of revenue, a problem that only will get worse if preseason and regular-season games are missed.

A tipster tells us — and we’ve confirmed it via a source with knowledge of the situation — that the Ravens quietly adopted at the commencement of the lockout an across-the-board reduction in non-player pay of 25 percent. If no regular-season games are missed, the lost money will be paid to the employees.


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/24/ravens-quietly-slash-employee-pay-by-25-percent/


Sooooo, even though there is not normally any revenue being generated right now, the teams are going to start cutting salaries? Not a good sign, imo.

 

[Lanky Livingston]

IIRC there was a CBA in effect and it wasn't the players that opted out of it. So where's all the usual outrage along the lines of "X player had a contract, so honor it" that one hears when a player holds out for more $$$? Sounds a bit inconsistent to me. Besides, as I've mentioned before, the players aren't the ones demanding that the free market for their relatively rare talents be abolished-the owners are.

Second, while many of the players make big bucks, most of them don't. The non superstars do make a nice chunk of change to be sure, but the $300-$400K types that spend a couple or three years in the league are taking the same risks of injury and shortened lifespan that the other players are.

So tell me something. If you were an NFL player with a good chance of only getting two or three years to make real money, try to tell me you wouldn't be doing everything in your power to maximize your earnings while you could. Hell if we're honest, we all do that--and most of us risk little more than a paper cut every now and then. So the players are human in wanting to maximize their earnings, just like the rest of us. Big surprise there.

So I get that you don't care how long a given player is in the league or what happens to them...as long as you get your football. So then is it fair to expect the players to care about whether we fans have to go without a few weeks of football? (poor babies!!) So if you don't like it, vote with your feet. There's always soccer after all.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The players = Capitalism

The owners = Socialism

Its clear who's side we should be on!

 

[Goaldeje]

What better way to run a business during a work stoppage than to raise prices? That’s precisely what the NFL has done when it comes to replica player jerseys, according to the folks at JoeBucsFan.com.

The Tampa Bay-specific website recently reported that the league has increased the price for replica jerseys (i.e., the ones with the painted numbers that eventually begin to come off after a certain number of washings) at NFLShop.com from $79.99 to $84.99.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...creases-replica-jersey-prices-during-lockout/

Nice.

 

[fansince62]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The players = Capitalism

The owners = Socialism

Its clear who's side we should be on!

except: who forced the original CBA?

 

[Lanky Livingston]

except: who forced the original CBA?

The players, trying to get their fair-share of compensation based on market value, aka Capitalism.

EDIT: NFLPA started in the 50s, to ensure small things happened for the players like per diems on road trips, etc. Long before it was the massive money-making entity it is today.