Jerry Richardson insults players intelligence

[dalbuc]

It's the American way now days. The rich get richer while the working stiffs are told they just need to sacrifice a little bit more. As evidenced by the recent elections, the majority actually sympathize with the same mega rich who are pusing them down. 

Only true if you have a zero sum game like the NFL salary structure. In the real world you are dead wrong.

[JC5100]

Bibfortuna, the players aren't asking for more money. The owners want them to take an 18% pay cut.

Dalbuc, owners want the cap to be around $108M, not $137M.

Owners are claiming costs are going up but won't show the books to prove it. Darren Rovell of CNBC has reported that the owners borrowed money to build their stadiums and in some cases buy the team itself.

[MiltonMack21]

One small thing is that things such as luxury boxes and seating of that nature were not covered in the about to expire CBA as part of the revenue that was split among players. The owners have been slowly adding these luxury boxes over the last couple of years.

[CyberDilemma]

CNBC has reported that the owners borrowed money to build their stadiums and in some cases buy the team itself.

How do you think that Dan Snyder was able to buy the Redskins? It was almost all borrowed money. That's why he is such a free-spending owner. It was NEVER his money to begin with. Just a guy at the right place at the right time.

[Capt Kidd]

It's the American way now days. The rich get richer while the working stiffs are told they just need to sacrifice a little bit more. As evidenced by the recent elections, the majority actually sympathize with the same mega rich who are pusing them down. 

Only true if you have a zero sum game like the NFL salary structure. In the real world you are dead wrong.

Nope, it's a fact. In the last 30 years (in the real world) the blue collar jobs are shrinking and paying less. People used to have pensions, now they have 401k's and they're dumb enough to think $500k is a great retirement fund. It's ironic that the people who make the most money, do it using other people's money. There's one born every minute.

[dalbuc]

Bibfortuna, the players aren't asking for more money. The owners want them to take an 18% pay cut.

Dalbuc, owners want the cap to be around $108M, not $137M.

Owners are claiming costs are going up but won't show the books to prove it. Darren Rovell of CNBC has reported that the owners borrowed money to build their stadiums and in some cases buy the team itself.

There is no way they are asking for an 18% paycut - no player is going to take a pay cut. They are asking to move the % of player revenues from 59% of defined revenues to 54.5% and the result of that will be that the rate of growth in the cap will slow down - and I don't know the exact numbers but the cap would actually go up year over year under the owners proposal.

[JDouble]

It's pretty simple.

They had a CBA.

It expired.

Even though the NFL is bigger than ever and making more money than ever, the owners want the players to take a huge pay cut for the new CBA.

The players want to keep things the same.

The players want a reason for the pay cut and some financial paper work to show it is a good reason.

The Owners won't give a reason and won't provide any financial paperwork.

Now.....the owners have come up with this idea that the players can continue to keep the same benefits and pay IF they play two more games a year.

The players say FU. If we are playing more games we want more in return.


In the end the players have no leverage. The NFL and the owners will still make loads of money during the lockout. The players will be making no money and have no health care. Eventually the players will start fighting amongst themselves and crumble. The owners know this. The only question is how long will it take? Probably a few weeks into next season. We'll see, because the NFL and owners have no intentions of giving the players what they want.

[JC5100]

Bibfortuna, the players aren't asking for more money. The owners want them to take an 18% pay cut.

Dalbuc, owners want the cap to be around $108M, not $137M.

Owners are claiming costs are going up but won't show the books to prove it. Darren Rovell of CNBC has reported that the owners borrowed money to build their stadiums and in some cases buy the team itself.

There is no way they are asking for an 18% paycut - no player is going to take a pay cut. They are asking to move the % of player revenues from 59% of defined revenues to 54.5% and the result of that will be that the rate of growth in the cap will slow down - and I don't know the exact numbers but the cap would actually go up year over year under the owners proposal.

Which would be $2 billion off the top instead of the current $1 billion. Much smaller pie.

[CyberDilemma]

It's pretty simple.

They had a CBA.

It expired.

Not really. They had a CBA and the owners exercised an option to elect out of it because they thought they were giving the players too big of a piece of the pie. The current CBA was supposed to have run through 2012. Everything was all fine and dandy in the past when owners could freely strong arm communities into building them new stadiums but with the financial crunch and so many cities now operating in the red, owners are finding that they have to fork out some of their own money to get new stadium deals. They don't like digging into their own pockets so, in addition to the current $1 billion that currently comes off the top of the revenue pool for stadium funding before splitting with the players, they are now asking for an additional $1 billion to come off the top for such funding. Is it fair? Did they give up too much to the players the last time a CBA was negotiated? I don't know but I DO know that nobody likes giving up something they have already been given. I also believe that as long as the owners have one of the "good old boys",  Jerry Richardson, and Bob Batterman, the same attorney that negotiated for the NHL when they lost a whole season, as their chief negotiators, things don't look too promising.

[dalbuc]

Which would be $2 billion off the top instead of the current $1 billion. Much smaller pie.

How does < 10% reduction to revenue shared result in a 50% reduction in pay, sorry doesn't work that way. The defined revenues are not changing, just the % of those revenues. The players last laughable offer was to change to the bigger pie and then accept a smaller % but that is obvious a retarded position to take since that basically says we want to same amount..

[JC5100]

Which would be $2 billion off the top instead of the current $1 billion. Much smaller pie.

How does < 10% reduction to revenue shared result in a 50% reduction in pay, sorry doesn't work that way. The defined revenues are not changing, just the % of those revenues. The players last laughable offer was to change to the bigger pie and then accept a smaller % but that is obvious a retarded position to take since that basically says we want to same amount..

Yes they are DalBuc.

And the players offered 50% of ALL REVENUE because the owners don't want show their costs. If the owners aren't going to completely open the books there's nothing else for the players to do.

[dalbuc]

Which would be $2 billion off the top instead of the current $1 billion. Much smaller pie.

How does < 10% reduction to revenue shared result in a 50% reduction in pay, sorry doesn't work that way. The defined revenues are not changing, just the % of those revenues. The players last laughable offer was to change to the bigger pie and then accept a smaller % but that is obvious a retarded position to take since that basically says we want to same amount..

Yes they are DalBuc.

And the players offered 50% of ALL REVENUE because the owners don't want show their costs. If the owners aren't going to completely open the books there's nothing else for the players to do.

Nope, you are 100% wrong. The owners proposed to lower the % of defined revenues from 59.5% to 54.5%. They already shave some odd % off the top per the last CBA so this isn't total revenue but a subset of total revenues and that isn't changing merely the chunk of the pie that the players get to eat. The players proposed shifting the model to total revenues in what has to be the worst opening gambit ever- you are asking for more money when your partner is asking for less. It'd be like going to a car dealer and you saying, I want $1,000 under MSRP and he starts going up from sticker.

As for the "show the books" argument all I can say is....really? This is 100% dodge. They already get to see the books because they have to audit the revenues to get to the 59.5% of X right now so the notion that they have no idea what the owners make is stupid and shows what a disingenuous position they have is.  Second, the Packers released their books. Their numbers are the NFL numbers. Revenue has increased 5.5% and player costs 11.8%. Packers get a cut of NFL $$$$ and have the same cap as the rest of the league. Now in any world short of government accounting that is not a sustainable model.

[VinBucFan]

The players need to keep calling out specific owners. They're starting to gain fans momentum against the owners.

really? Hadn't noticed!!

Neither had I, but that is certainly the goal.  When two sides are engaged in negotiations and only one side is constantly in the press that should give all some indication of the weakness of the speaking side's position.  The players are in a tough spot so they are going to try to change the momentum by turning to the press.

[JC5100]

I don't think you realize what you're arguing

The owners want to change what you call "defined revenue" aka Gross Revenue from "All Revenue minus $1billion" to "All Revenue minus $2billion", claiming costs have gone up. The players get to see their revenue but not their costs, that's what they mean by open their books.   If the owners won't show costs then they can't negotiate gross. All the players can negotiate is All Revenue.

[bibfortuna]

If the owners feel the pinch because they have less of an operating margin from before because the economy went south, then players cannot remain immune from what the rest of the country faced and is facing.

The economy went south; we lost jobs or took pay cuts; the owners feel squeezed and the players get a lower, renegotiated deal. Full circle.

The owners also need to stop screwing cities and fans.