- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: NFL-NFLPA Labor Talks | NFLPA has filed for decertification
Posted on 3/12/11 at 11:58 am to TigerV
Posted on 3/12/11 at 11:58 am to TigerV
The league still wants to cut their salaries, which is unacceptable without providing evidence for it.
This 'good deal' was too little tooate, and they knew the players would't take it. The owners have been talking about and planning a lockout for the last four years. They have NOT negotiated in good faith at any point of this discussion, beginning with their decision to opt out of the deal a mere two years into it.
This 'good deal' was too little tooate, and they knew the players would't take it. The owners have been talking about and planning a lockout for the last four years. They have NOT negotiated in good faith at any point of this discussion, beginning with their decision to opt out of the deal a mere two years into it.
3
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:02 pm to teke184
quote:
It is NOT players striking for more money.
You really believe this?
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:02 pm to TGHub
quote:
Now they are trying to make the players look like the bad guy when the owners started all of this
yeah, I am sure
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:05 pm to Sophandros
quote:
They have NOT negotiated in good faith at any point of this discussion, beginning with their decision to opt out of the deal a mere two years into it.
Yet again, why do you think the old CBA was fair? Your entire argument rests on the old CBA being some moral/ethical superiority. If the owners felt like they got the short end of the stick last time, why would they not attempt to get a better deal?
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:08 pm to Sophandros
quote:
So the owners want the players to take less money, play more games, and not have health coverage in a sport with a 100% injury rate. All this so that instead of, say, a 10% profit margin, they can have a 15% margin.
One side seems right until the other speaks
Everyone playing football understands the risks
How did drafting JR work out for the Raiders to the tune of 38 Million guaranteed? And the loss of that pick and set back on the franchise?
Obviously some of you are not business owners.
Workers (players) don't call the shots. In many ways they have, but eventually, the owners are going to have a union of their own and shut that junk down...which maybe what this is about??
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:10 pm to ApexTiger
FWIW, 10% profit margin kind of sucks.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 12:16 pm to Sophandros
quote:
beginning with their decision to opt out of the deal a mere two years into it.
That is idiotic. It's not bad faith if they have the ability in the CBA to opt-out.
quote:
The current Collective Bargaining Agreement, initially negotiated in 1993, has been extended on several occasions, most recently in March 2006. The 2006 extension, which could have continued through the 2012 season, gave both the NFL and the NFLPA an option to shorten the deal by one or two years.
Source
Posted on 3/12/11 at 1:46 pm to ApexTiger
All the costs that are incurred by the owners are their own. The inability to control those costs are the fault of strictly the owner and his management.
Guaranteeing 50 million dollars to a rookie qb is a team management decision. Spending $70 million on a free agent is a team management decision.
Building a 650 million dollar stadium (with half of it publicly financed) is the decision of the owner. The 400 million dollar overrun is once again on the owner/team management.
We've got owners building half a billion dollar stadiums next to perfectly functioning stadiums. The entity who reaps 90% of the economic benefit from a overpriced newly constructed stadium is the owner/team management.
The game is the same to the fan whether its in Texas stadium or Cowboys stadium. It looks the same on tv where new ratings records are set each year. The game is the same for the players in either stadium. The construction jobs created are gone in 3 years. The popcorn sellers, janitorial staff, and gourmet hot dog cookers simply move from the old stadium to the new stadium. The municipality/state never recoups its investment, yet the owner is going to nearly double his luxury box revenue.
The owners want the players to give back 18% of their share of the revenue so that; Jerry Jones can make his 600 million dollar mortgage payment, Zygi Wolf can build his own billion dollar stadium (since the taxpayers want no part of it), and owners like Ralph Wilson can augment their small market meager luxury box revenue.
It's perfectly clear what's happening. It's the same story it's been for the last 20+ years.
• The big market teams are building new stadiums and raking in big luxury revenue whereas the small market teams are lagging.
• The big market owners aren't sharing their luxury revenue with the small market owners.
• The small market owners are using relocation threats in order to get public subsidies or public financing/support for their own "Jerry World".
• Can't get Jerry Jones (600 million outstanding credit) to share his luxury revenue with Ralph Wilson
• Can't get Joe Taxpayer in San Diego, Minneapolis, St. Louis, or Jacksonville to support the construction of a half billion or more stadium
• Leaves one entity to stick up - players
Guaranteeing 50 million dollars to a rookie qb is a team management decision. Spending $70 million on a free agent is a team management decision.
Building a 650 million dollar stadium (with half of it publicly financed) is the decision of the owner. The 400 million dollar overrun is once again on the owner/team management.
We've got owners building half a billion dollar stadiums next to perfectly functioning stadiums. The entity who reaps 90% of the economic benefit from a overpriced newly constructed stadium is the owner/team management.
The game is the same to the fan whether its in Texas stadium or Cowboys stadium. It looks the same on tv where new ratings records are set each year. The game is the same for the players in either stadium. The construction jobs created are gone in 3 years. The popcorn sellers, janitorial staff, and gourmet hot dog cookers simply move from the old stadium to the new stadium. The municipality/state never recoups its investment, yet the owner is going to nearly double his luxury box revenue.
The owners want the players to give back 18% of their share of the revenue so that; Jerry Jones can make his 600 million dollar mortgage payment, Zygi Wolf can build his own billion dollar stadium (since the taxpayers want no part of it), and owners like Ralph Wilson can augment their small market meager luxury box revenue.
It's perfectly clear what's happening. It's the same story it's been for the last 20+ years.
• The big market teams are building new stadiums and raking in big luxury revenue whereas the small market teams are lagging.
• The big market owners aren't sharing their luxury revenue with the small market owners.
• The small market owners are using relocation threats in order to get public subsidies or public financing/support for their own "Jerry World".
• Can't get Jerry Jones (600 million outstanding credit) to share his luxury revenue with Ralph Wilson
• Can't get Joe Taxpayer in San Diego, Minneapolis, St. Louis, or Jacksonville to support the construction of a half billion or more stadium
• Leaves one entity to stick up - players
Posted on 3/12/11 at 1:51 pm to tiger2012
quote:
All the costs that are incurred by the owners are their own. The inability to control those costs are the fault of strictly the owner and his management.
Guaranteeing 50 million dollars to a rookie qb is a team management decision. Spending $70 million on a free agent is a team management decision.
Building a 650 million dollar stadium (with half of it publicly financed) is the decision of the owner. The 400 million dollar overrun is once again on the owner/team management.
We've got owners building half a billion dollar stadiums next to perfectly functioning stadiums. The entity who reaps 90% of the economic benefit from a overpriced newly constructed stadium is the owner/team management.
The game is the same to the fan whether its in Texas stadium or Cowboys stadium. It looks the same on tv where new ratings records are set each year. The game is the same for the players in either stadium. The construction jobs created are gone in 3 years. The popcorn sellers, janitorial staff, and gourmet hot dog cookers simply move from the old stadium to the new stadium. The municipality/state never recoups its investment, yet the owner is going to nearly double his luxury box revenue.
The owners want the players to give back 18% of their share of the revenue so that; Jerry Jones can make his 600 million dollar mortgage payment, Zygi Wolf can build his own billion dollar stadium (since the taxpayers want no part of it), and owners like Ralph Wilson can augment their small market meager luxury box revenue.
It's perfectly clear what's happening. It's the same story it's been for the last 20+ years.
• The big market teams are building new stadiums and raking in big luxury revenue whereas the small market teams are lagging.
• The big market owners aren't sharing their luxury revenue with the small market owners.
• The small market owners are using relocation threats in order to get public subsidies or public financing/support for their own "Jerry World".
• Can't get Jerry Jones (600 million outstanding credit) to share his luxury revenue with Ralph Wilson
• Can't get Joe Taxpayer in San Diego, Minneapolis, St. Louis, or Jacksonville to support the construction of a half billion or more stadium
• Leaves one entity to stick up - players
Mighty fine post, sir!
This is exactly what's happening in a nutshell.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 2:21 pm to grif82
quote:
Mighty fine post, sir!
+1
Posted on 3/12/11 at 3:10 pm to tiger2012
quote:
All the costs that are incurred by the owners are their own. The inability to control those costs are the fault of strictly the owner and his management.
Guaranteeing 50 million dollars to a rookie qb is a team management decision. Spending $70 million on a free agent is a team management decision.
Building a 650 million dollar stadium (with half of it publicly financed) is the decision of the owner. The 400 million dollar overrun is once again on the owner/team management.
We've got owners building half a billion dollar stadiums next to perfectly functioning stadiums. The entity who reaps 90% of the economic benefit from a overpriced newly constructed stadium is the owner/team management.
The game is the same to the fan whether its in Texas stadium or Cowboys stadium. It looks the same on tv where new ratings records are set each year. The game is the same for the players in either stadium. The construction jobs created are gone in 3 years. The popcorn sellers, janitorial staff, and gourmet hot dog cookers simply move from the old stadium to the new stadium. The municipality/state never recoups its investment, yet the owner is going to nearly double his luxury box revenue.
The owners want the players to give back 18% of their share of the revenue so that; Jerry Jones can make his 600 million dollar mortgage payment, Zygi Wolf can build his own billion dollar stadium (since the taxpayers want no part of it), and owners like Ralph Wilson can augment their small market meager luxury box revenue.
It's perfectly clear what's happening. It's the same story it's been for the last 20+ years.
• The big market teams are building new stadiums and raking in big luxury revenue whereas the small market teams are lagging.
• The big market owners aren't sharing their luxury revenue with the small market owners.
• The small market owners are using relocation threats in order to get public subsidies or public financing/support for their own "Jerry World".
• Can't get Jerry Jones (600 million outstanding credit) to share his luxury revenue with Ralph Wilson
• Can't get Joe Taxpayer in San Diego, Minneapolis, St. Louis, or Jacksonville to support the construction of a half billion or more stadium
• Leaves one entity to stick up - players
As an LSU fan, I think you can appreciate the importance of Keeping up with the Jones' when it comes to facilities. Why did LSU upgrade Tiger Stadium? Because we want to compete, and nothing last for ever. Georgia, UF, and Alabama were making boat loads more money than Tiger Stadium because we didn't have suites.. Now we do, now we are making elite money, which allows us to pay our coaches Elite money etc etc....
Wouldn't you be ticked off as a proud Alumni if LSU just sat on its' hands and left TS the same, while everyone else was passing up by? yes you would...
So it' s not just an owners issue...it's a business issue
NFL Fans don't want to go dump like the Astrodome.. so in part, it's a city decision to build..just like When Bud Adams said, "ok, you don't want to help me deal with this old Stadium?, fine, I am leaving this city with my franchise"....that really sucked as an Oiler fan, I can you tell that much. The city didn't believe he would do it.
It's not the same being the "Texans"... and guess what? The city agreed to help the new NFL owner build that fancy stadium that Bud insisted on years before.
Players want to make millions AND MILLIONS , and so, Owners have to take their game up as well to maintain the "way things work" in "the business".
I am pretty sure the city of Dallas is darn proud of their stadium. Heck, theY JUST HAD Super Bowl and the Olympics are on their way...JJ is doing all kinds of good for the city of Dallas. Wake up and smell the coffee.
NFL owners are business people. In part I blame the players and their Agents for the expensive ticket prices. the Parking fees are also part of the whole Package (experience of going to the game) going up.
the NFL is not exclusive to your points. MBL and the NBA are dealing the same issues...The Elite players are making loads of money. In order to keep butts in the seats, facilities need to be awesome, and TV etc, is a big part of paying the bills.
If you don't win, you don't sell tickets
"it takes money to make money"
Is Peyton Manning worth 27 Million a year? Well, you decide...
When Jerry Jones signed Dion Sanders he was down to his last 100 thousand dollars...His son tried to stop him... "Dad, have you lost your mind?" True story...my point is, JJ has taken big time personal risk to win football games, and put his oil fortune on line more than once for signing big contracts for big time players which fans demand in "big markets".
If you want to win, and fill seats and make the fans happy, the owner must be doing everything they can to win... Does that describe Detroit Football? That's a major market.. What is your counterpoint to this city's whoas?
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 3:33 pm
Posted on 3/12/11 at 6:01 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
If you want to win, and fill seats and make the fans happy, the owner must be doing everything they can to win...Does that describe Detroit Football? That's a major market.. What is your counterpoint to this city's whoas?
Detroit has a new stadium, located in a top 10 type market but low attemdance. Why? They play bad football. Ultimately, winning puts fans in the seats especially after the "newness" of the stadium wears off.
Winning and losing in the nfl comes down to player personnel decisions. The good teams can pick out quality players consistently whereas the bad teams can't. Not about dollars.
Al Davis can overspend/overreach on player just as well as Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones.
Back to the main issue, Can the owners demonstrate that the NFL is in peril with this current CBA?
We know that they've been plotting this shutdown for 4 years.
We all know that it's a business and that the owners are in it to make money. Even going as far as overbooking the superbowl and treating some hard working fans who bought tickets like trash.
From my vantage point, the owners look greedy. Those killer traits that worked in the boardrooms and wall street are being applied here. These are some of the wealthiest and brightest businessmen in the world (Paul Allen, Tisch, Lerner, Jones, Blank, McNair, Kraft,etc). They saw an opportunity to snag 4 billion in tv money to use as a lockout fund for the 2011 season and couldn't resist. They were going to destroy the 2011 season and try to starve the players out.
As a fan I can't support that. The league is the pinnacle of all sports. Popularity at an all time high. Revenue strong.
I'll stand on the side of Manning and Brees on this one.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 6:15 pm to ApexTiger
quote:
the NFL is not exclusive to your points. MBL and the NBA are dealing the same issues...
The situations are not the same. There's no talk of contraction in the NFL and there's no instance where the NFL has had to take over a team (like in NBA and MLB).
The NFL is strong.
when this lockout issue comes up for the NBA, I'll be inclined to side with the League. There's fundamental problems in the NBA and MLB that you don't see in the NFL (bankrupt or owner abandoned teams and super teams dominating the free agent market).
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 6:17 pm
Posted on 3/12/11 at 6:22 pm to Sophandros
quote:
You can't compare this to our jobs because most of us are not at a job where we agree to share revenue with our boss who is also our business partner.
I agree with
quote:on most points. I also think that the anti-trust angle is lost on many of the posters above who are complaining about the involvement of the union. I'm not normally a union fan, but when it comes to the NFL, I don't think there is a choice
Sophandros
The way I understand, the Sherman Act prohibits competitors from making agreements with one another to stifle competition. I take that to mean that it is illegal for the owners of the NFL to make an agreement not to hire X player at a higher salary if he refuses to play for ABC team. A salary cap is illegal, too. If Exxon and Valero and Shell and Citgo all agree to charge $10 a gallon for gas just because there are no other sources for gas, it would also be illegal. In that hypothetical, a consumer can't go elsewhere to get gas because there are no sellers who are not in on the agreement.
If player X says I don't want to work for ABC team, he cannot go to XYZ team because XYZ and ABC are members of the NFL and all member teams have said they are not going to violate franchise rights on players. There is no free market competition when competitors have horizontal agreements in place to control competition.
In order to allow an antitrust situation to work, you have to give the players collective bargaining rights. Otherwise, they have no leverage. They cannot get other jobs playing professional football because most of the jobs in that market are with NFL teams. The Sherman Act deals in markets and does not apply if the offender has only 1% of the market. But what percentage of the professional football market do we think the NFL has? 99.99%?
My point is that the owners are not like regular business owners because they are doing something regular business owners cannot do under the Sherman Act. They are allowed to enter horizontal agreements. To balance that advantage, the players get collective bargaining rights.
I want the NFL this year. I hope this gets fixed. I believe that it will get fixed because there is too much money to be made if they can fix it. I'm going to break with my usual course of action here -- I'm siding with the players.
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 3/12/11 at 6:34 pm to tiger2012
quote:
Winning and losing in the nfl comes down to player personnel decisions. The good teams can pick out quality players consistently whereas the bad teams can't. Not about dollars.
Detroit has always been bad.
they play bad football, maybe because they have bad ownership? I don't know..but they can't seem to get it right...
But as you can see, if they just invested in this new stadium to build excitement but the product remains poor, then the owner is going to really lose his shirt. That's bad news... JJ hasn't won a play off game in 10 years...
Tidbit, JJ paid 600 Million for the Cowboys, now they are worth roughly over 1.6 Billion (on paper)
If players are making Millions (a lot more than 10 years ago), why does it matter the Owners are making a lot of money also?
I fail to see the real problem?
If the owners are saying, "Things aren't as great as you think they are, why does everyone assume all the owners are lying?"
"Good business people don't lie and never give full the truth"
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 8:19 pm
Posted on 3/12/11 at 8:39 pm to Sophandros
quote:
The league still wants to cut their salaries, which is unacceptable without providing evidence for it.
This is absoutely false.. Not One player under contract would be required to cut their salary and the fact of the matter is the salary cap under the last proposal would have risen to 164 million by 2014
And for the record. I'm not on either side and find childish that both sides have acted the way they have knowing full well the ramifications of decertification
This post was edited on 3/12/11 at 8:44 pm
Posted on 3/12/11 at 8:50 pm to TROLA
quote:
And for the record. I'm not on either side and find childish that both sides have acted the way they have knowing full well the ramifications of a lockout
FIFY
decertification is simply the result of the owners locking out the players. It was a strategic move that the players do it now instead of after the CBA expired.
Even if players had waited the 6 months to decertify the owners still would have locked out the players
Posted on 3/12/11 at 8:57 pm to jacks40
quote:
decertification is simply the result of the owners locking out the players. It was a strategic move that the players do it now instead of after the CBA expired.
While the lockout is strategic, it is no way as nucleur as decertification and allows for ongoing mediation.. Decertification turns this whole thing into dog and pony show with lawyers
Posted on 3/12/11 at 9:23 pm to TROLA
quote:
While the lockout is strategic, it is no way as nucleur as decertification and allows for ongoing mediation.. Decertification turns this whole thing into dog and pony show with lawyers
Lockout is strategic only for the owners. A lockout only favors the owners bc they have the financial means to last through one.
Going through the courts gets lawyers involved yes but the possibility of losing puts pressure on both sides to compromise. Going to court does not rule out a settlement.
The only people who thought a lockout was fair was the owners.
Posted on 3/12/11 at 9:37 pm to jacks40
quote:
Going through the courts gets lawyers involved yes but the possibility of losing puts pressure on both sides to compromise. Going to court does not rule out a settlement.
You honestly believe the owners are going to budge at this point? They are hunkering down as we speak and are gong to ride this out as long as they can. Quite frankly their pissed and negotiations have started over.
I just find this process both lockout and decertification to be bullshite. The owners made a solid offer, one that should have lead to continued negotiations, instead the players puffed out their chest and said frick you.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News