• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

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

McKissic for the win

Lanky Livingston

Guest
and who decides market value? why the owners of course since they are hiring!!!! not the fans...not gross revenues...none of that: it's what the company is willing to pay. players can withhold their services if they like - but not get paid. the players went on strike and a CBA the owners didn't want ensued. either way...that is not germane to what is going on today...which is high stakes poker being played out in the courts. to repeat...I've reached the stage where I no longer care......if the Union lawyers get what they want the players will suffer in the long run (as always happens when Unions get involved) as will the fans....especially those at the bottom of the pay scale. I'm laughing at the absurdity of mega-millionaires like Manning and Brady filing a lawsuit ostensibly for "fair pay".... I hope these cats all roast in you know where while 14 million+ enjoy the perks of unemployment!!!

but if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy because there's a U somewhere in the conversation....go for it!!!!
Partially right - the owners outbid each other for the services of players, but based on the laws of supply and demand, if there was nobody watching the NFL players simply wouldn't make as much. So yes, owners are a very small factor in determining market value, i.e. how much they are willing to pay - but nowhere near the whole story.

NOW you are touching on the true problem in developing another CBA - some owners are willing to pay more than others, and some owners CAN pay more than others. THIS is why the salary cap was enacted, THIS is why revenue sharing was put together.
 

Burgundy Burner

The Commissioner
Joe Gibbs Club Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
24,089
Reaction score
361
Points
1,113
Location
Memphis, TN

Virginia

PFT is trying to suggest that DS forced the coaches to write that letter. Maybe he did, but I highly doubt it. Coach Shanahan is his own man and I can see him doing something like this on his own and the staff getting behind it.

My double pennies.
 

fansince62

Guest
PFT is trying to suggest that DS forced the coaches to write that letter. Maybe he did, but I highly doubt it. Coach Shanahan is his own man and I can see him doing something like this on his own and the staff getting behind it.

My double pennies.

agree! DS was just on the boob tube tonight stating Shanahan was so much like Gibbs he has no problem backing out of personnel and other decisions.
 

fansince62

Guest
Partially right - the owners outbid each other for the services of players, but based on the laws of supply and demand, if there was nobody watching the NFL players simply wouldn't make as much. So yes, owners are a very small factor in determining market value, i.e. how much they are willing to pay - but nowhere near the whole story.

NOW you are touching on the true problem in developing another CBA - some owners are willing to pay more than others, and some owners CAN pay more than others. THIS is why the salary cap was enacted, THIS is why revenue sharing was put together.
1) Are you sure? I can think of some rather large institutions that pay people to perform activities there is no demand for..... :) .... !

2) The claim all along has been that the owners exercise inordinate market power, etc.. hence, they..should they so chose, could collude to set wages. on the flip side...as we have learned here in DC...players are very often GROSSLY overpaid and cannot be held accountable.

3) Agree on the last except the dynamic is that if there is no CBA with a salary cap and revenue sharing.....the smaller markets will evaporate as the competitive balance deteriorates (i.e., the larger markets sign the better talent)
 

fansince62

Guest
I'm all for a competitive market and contracts more like the norm in the private (heck even public) sector!!

1) 21 days max vacation the first 10 years. players in work spaces otherwise.

2) no roster size limits

3) no guaranteed bonuses

4) fixed medical insurance...players are on their own after that

5) fixed food budgets

6) fixed travel expenses

7) cheapest hotel on the road

8) immediate firing for drug violations/arrests

9) no special exemptions for OTAs, etc. They're getting friggin paid to do a job.

10) no revenue sharing among teams - let there be true competition.

11) established deliverables (i.e., performance) every year - pay decreases for failure to perform. bonuses for those who exceed deliverables.

12) no draft

13) no extra pay for the playoffs/SB - it's their friggin job.

14) no ability to capitalize on team associations for advertising deals, etc., unless specifically approved by management

15) prosecution for sharing playbook information when moving to new teams (i.e., trade secrets)

I can think of lots more. The reality is that the NFL has always been in restraint of fair market practices....and players benefitted just like the owners. That many only make it 3 years or less - tough. It aint my burden as a fan to pay a salary that covers time a player might not be in the league...that's absurd.
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
63
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

INteresting argument, FS. Are you sure you're in favor of #10? Seems to me that is what keeps the league successful, isn't it? I think I am in agreement with you, because to me, that is what most of the lockout is really about. Snyder and Jones are tired of floating the Bengals and Jaguars of the league, while not being able to get any advantage at all.

That is the real problem I have with the owners not opening up the books. I would be willing to bet that some of the owners run their franchises exceptionally well, very profitably. I would also bet that some of them don't, and do stupid things with their money. Jones and Snyder see those owners doing stupid things and wonder why in God's name they are paying for that stupidity. Seems to me that is what this lockout is REALLY about.

The problem with all this is that the owners have decided the best way for Snyder and Jones to make more money is to take the money away from the players, then redistribute to the owners, in order to appease the big boys. I have no problem with the players telling the owners to **** off. Sounds like an internal problem to me.
 

fansince62

Guest
INteresting argument, FS. Are you sure you're in favor of #10? Seems to me that is what keeps the league successful, isn't it? I think I am in agreement with you, because to me, that is what most of the lockout is really about. Snyder and Jones are tired of floating the Bengals and Jaguars of the league, while not being able to get any advantage at all.

That is the real problem I have with the owners not opening up the books. I would be willing to bet that some of the owners run their franchises exceptionally well, very profitably. I would also bet that some of them don't, and do stupid things with their money. Jones and Snyder see those owners doing stupid things and wonder why in God's name they are paying for that stupidity. Seems to me that is what this lockout is REALLY about.

the other point I'm making is that much of what the players are saying about competitive markets is BS...I don't hear them speaking to how their contracts will be modified to come more into line with labor practices that are more the norm in the business world you and I are familiar with. In short....in many ways...the players have benefitted hugely precisely because both the NFL AND the Union live in a near monopoly business.

The problem with all this is that the owners have decided the best way for Snyder and Jones to make more money is to take the money away from the players, then redistribute to the owners, in order to appease the big boys. I have no problem with the players telling the owners to **** off. Sounds like an internal problem to me.
#10 is a logical conclusion from the argument that the NFL should be a completely competitive market. Bill's Hardware doesn't revenue share with Elsa's Hardware! and you are right......that is precisely one of the major reasons the league is successful.....but it is most certainly not a competitive market principle.

the players receive 60% of gross revenues (allowing for the 1 bil off the top)...players who share zippo in terms of financial risk. I have no problem with the players making their power grab for money either. I just don't view them as some 19th century afflicted lumpenproletariat exploited by the big mean owners to slave away 20 hr days, 365 days a year in overseas sweat shops (let's avoid the obvious here!). in fact..... pox on owners and players...they both collude to RIP OFF THE FANS.
 

Goaldeje

The Legend
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
18,417
Reaction score
63
Points
328
Location
Waynesboro, VA

James Madison

#10 is a logical conclusion from the argument that the NFL should be a completely competitive market. Bill's Hardware doesn't revenue share with Elsa's Hardware! and you are right......that is precisely one of the major reasons the league is successful.....but it is most certainly not a competitive market principle.

the players receive 60% of gross revenues (allowing for the 1 bil off the top)...players who share zippo in terms of financial risk. I have no problem with the players making their power grab for money either. I just don't view them as some 19th century afflicted lumpenproletariat exploited by the big mean owners to slave away 20 hr days, 365 days a year in overseas sweat shops (let's avoid the obvious here!). in fact..... pox on owners and players...they both collude to RIP OFF THE FANS.

Yep, I don't really feel badly for either of them. I just don't understand all the animosity towards the players when the owners were the ones who asked for more, not the players. The players would have been fine maintaining the status quo, but the owners wanted more. If the players went on strike, then yes, I would be upset with them (unless working conditions had drastically deteriorated), but as it is now, I see this as more of an internal struggle within the league owners, which they are using to extract money from the players.
 

fansince62

Guest
Yep, I don't really feel badly for either of them. I just don't understand all the animosity towards the players when the owners were the ones who asked for more, not the players. The players would have been fine maintaining the status quo, but the owners wanted more. If the players went on strike, then yes, I would be upset with them (unless working conditions had drastically deteriorated), but as it is now, I see this as more of an internal struggle within the league owners, which they are using to extract money from the players.

Goal...opinions vary...but IMO the players are laying down a hand decided by the lawyers...and that hand is much more aggressive than just maintaining status quo ante.

either way...the subject gets me angry every time I dip into it.....so I'm gonna enjoy my Monday and let this slide!
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Private conversations
Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friend 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you Sandy ❤
    Top