Jerry Richardson insults players intelligence

[CBWx2]

It is incredible that ANY of you think this is something approaching "fairness". If you want to introduce "fairness" into negotiations, you're losing.

This is about the owers rightly gauging that it is their turn to have a more "fair" deal.

The last one clearly benefited the players - this one will no doubt go in favor of the owners. The fans are actually siding with the owners.

Where did you see anywhere that the fans are siding with the owners? Everything I've read points to the contrary, and it will even be more so the case if there is a lockout.

PLUS - it's hard to make a case to be allowed to not have your pay effected by the economic conditions - especially when you're playing a game.

Players need to stop pronlonging this - they lost last week.

I would say you are correct if the NFL was indeed feeling the affects of the economy, but they are not. Just because some teams are failing to sell out doesn't mean that the NFL is in dire straights. There is evidence to suggest that the economy isn't the primary reason for the lack of sellouts. For example, I grew up in Tampa, but currently live about 30 minutes outside of Detroit. Very few states have been hit by the recession harder than Michigan, and the Lions don't exactly have a winning history, yet they sold out the vast majority of their home games this season. I can only recall one blackout this season. The Redskins game, if I recall correctly.

The NFL made more money last year than they ever have, and without a work stoppage, the same would probably be the case this year as well. Why should the players feel the affects of an economic downturn when the NFL itself has not? Just because you think they should? The numbers don't suggest that it's necessary. The owners just have a bee in their bonnet about the 50-50 revenue split and want more. It's as simple as that.

[Hate]

I fail to see where public opinion will have any bearing on the outcome of the bargaining.

[The White Tiger]

It is incredible that ANY of you think this is something approaching "fairness". If you want to introduce "fairness" into negotiations, you're losing.

This is about the owers rightly gauging that it is their turn to have a more "fair" deal.

The last one clearly benefited the players - this one will no doubt go in favor of the owners. The fans are actually siding with the owners.

Where did you see anywhere that the fans are siding with the owners? Everything I've read points to the contrary, and it will even be more so the case if there is a lockout.

I should refer you to the numerous posts where I did JUST this, but instead I've said it so often I can now do so in a thumbnail summation - 1) Any one of the 12% - 15% of folks that no longer have a job, 2) Those that still have a job, but have seen their pay CUT, 3) and the numerous companies that have liquidated and closed their doors - who are no longer around to buy club level seats OR those Skyboxes - all combined to drastically reduce revenue each game.

Multiply this across EVERY NFL stadium and you don't have to pretend to need to see the owners books.

PLUS - it's hard to make a case to be allowed to not have your pay effected by the economic conditions - especially when you're playing a game.

Players need to stop pronlonging this - they lost last week.

I would say you are correct if the NFL was indeed feeling the affects of the economy, but they are not. Just because some teams are failing to sell out doesn't mean that the NFL is in dire straights. There is evidence to suggest that the economy isn't the primary reason for the lack of sellouts. For example, I grew up in Tampa, but currently live about 30 minutes outside of Detroit. Very few states have been hit by the recession harder than Michigan, and the Lions don't exactly have a winning history, yet they sold out the vast majority of their home games this season. I can only recall one blackout this season. The Redskins game, if I recall correctly.[/quote]

Do you know Detroit SOLD seats, or do you believe they sold-out? Unless you make booze or are in the government sponsored healthcare industry, NO business is immune to the effects of this economy. You may want to believe the NFL doesn't need PAYING fans to show up to buy tickets, or to buy SNACKFOODS, CARS, CELL PHONES, or any other things advertised during NFL games - but THEY'RE all hurting.

...and it's NOT just the NFL teams for which the NFL owners have to insure profitability (in order to maintain competitive levels) - they ALL own businesses that are also experiencing the effects of this down-turn.

The NFL made more money last year than they ever have

I can't begin to explain the fallacy of this statement. You are either purposely leaving out the cost/liability side of the balance sheet, or you don't understand it. I give you the benefit of being intelligent enough to spin this to support your position. Because I wouldn't want to think that you are so naive as to believe any entertainment business wouldn't suffer during severe economic conditions.

...and without a work stoppage, the same would probably be the case this year as well.

So the owners are so greedy they want to "steal" from the players - but aren't quite greedy enough to accept a deal that burdens them with direct fixed and variable costs (in an inflationary period)?

Why should the players feel the affects of an economic downturn when the NFL itself has not? Just because you think they should?

So, somehow the players - who have had the same burden of risk (while their salaries have SPIKED over the course of the last CBA) - somehow feel the effects of the economic downturn...although they share NO overhead, save for taxes, union dues, a $1 billion assessment - but the owners with their employees, healthcare plans, electric bills, finance charges, salaries, managingement/coaching/scouting/player development departmental budgets - DO NOT feel ANY effects of the economic conditions?

The numbers don't suggest that it's necessary.

umm...even by your own admission - the economy has somehow effected the insulated players - so the numbers would indicate THE OPPOSITE of what you assert. Costs are up, EVERY fan KNOWS that...

The owners just have a bee in their bonnet about the 50-50 revenue split and want more. It's as simple as that.

The audacity of this statement aside - if your lawncare guys demanded to see your books in order to force you to give them a 30% share of your paycheck, would you do it?

The players lose - because they are delaying in hopes to leverage the fans desire to see games - against the economic realities EVERY fan accepts (well, EVERY fan except you).

They lose.

[CyberDilemma]

The NFL made more money last year than they ever have

I can't begin to explain the fallacy of this statement. You are either purposely leaving out the cost/liability side of the balance sheet, or you don't understand it. I give you the benefit of being intelligent enough to spin this to support your position. Because I wouldn't want to think that you are so naive as to believe any entertainment business wouldn't suffer during severe economic conditions.

You might want to quit while you're ahead because, obviously, YOU have no knowledge of the inner workings of the NFL's finances. In case you hadn't noticed, the NFL owners weathered the economic downturn just fine. Most saw it coming and made major cuts to their overhead and costs. Just ask several who post on this board who either lost their jobs or had a relative who did when the Glazers (and other owners) slashed payroll. As far as player salaries, how many teams even sniffed the salary cap last season? Even though it was an uncapped year, if it had been in place, maybe one or two teams would have approached it. In past years you saw several teams maneuver to try to get below the cap figure. Certainly not last year. Why? Because the owners saw all of this coming and intentionally played it conservative in the free agency market AND they had the benefit of holding the younger players hostage with the restricted free agency rules being extended an additional two years during the uncapped year. Yes, gate fees were down a little last year but do you honestly think that reduction is not outpaced by the increased revenues from licensing of  NFL's products and the HUGE increase in tv ratings and the revenues which are going to result from it? The new contract for JUST Monday night football is going to be around 2 billion per year. Now what about Sunday and Sunday night television rights? Oh, and let's not forget that revenues have skyrocketed as a result of the NFL holding all the cable companies hostage for the privilege of televising the Thursday night games on the NFL network (owned by the NFL). And don't even get me started on how much global revenues have been increasing, since the NFL has focused on expanding on their global revenues.

This whole thing isn't really about player salaries. It's about the owners crying over the fact that THEY are now being asked to finance their own stadium construction and improvements, whereas in the past they could always hold the communities hostage to get them their shiny new stadiums with sweetheart lease deals. They do not want to fund these new stadiums out of their own pockets, so they are asking the players for an additional billion dollars off the top to finance them. The problem is that they want to use the players as a financing mechanism but they never plan on paying the money back, nor giving them any kind of equity interest in the new stadiums, nor sharing any of the ancillary revenues from the stadiums (e.g. conventions, concerts, etc.). The fact that both Dallas and New York had to start the new "stadium wars", as I call it, by building stadiums that both cost well over a billion dollars certainly isn't helping things. Does the NFL really need stadiums on the grand scale of what Jerry Jones did in Dallas when clearly the facts show that fans are more interested in the tv experience these days than the live-game experience? Wouldn't a stadium like RJS, which only costs $168.5 million when it was constructed, had sufficed?

I have a reasonable solution to all of this. I can understand that the owners need a new mechanism for financing their construction. I can also see that the players do not want to give up something that was already previously negotiated (nobody would). Your argument that they should take a pay cut because "costs are up" fails in theory because the players are paid a percentage of revenue. Sure costs will go up because it is determined as a percentage of revenue. If league revenue wasn't increasing, then the 59% (after the $1 billion off the top to owners) wouldn't be increasing either. Solution: go ahead and set aside an additional $1 billion yearly for stadium construction/improvements BUT earmark it as deferred comp for the players. In other words, treat it just like you would an ordinary construction loan. That way the owners get their cash now to fund construction and the players get the money back down the road (after their short careers have ended). Most players do not know how to effectively manage their money anyway, so having some kind of deferred comp after they retire would actually be some kind of godsend for them.

[Chief Joseph]

In case you hadn't noticed, the NFL owners weathered the economic downturn just fine. Most saw it coming and made major cuts to their overhead and costs.

Perhaps that's why these people managed to become owners to begin with?

[The White Tiger]

(Ok Light Bearer, we can add business...to football and global warming...)

The rest of you - many businesses trimmed their budgets in order to ride the economic impact of a protracted recession.

Monies gained from reducing overhead and fixed costs - are NOT earnings. Think of it in terms of cancelling cable, turning the thermostat up to reduce expenditures - and then you pawn your television after several weeks of unproductive jobhunt reveals that it's worse than you thought...

Hoping of course, that if you do find work, the pawn shop won't ask to see your bank account before determining the NEW price of your old television.