Who do you blame for the current lockout?

[fyo]

One thing people forget. The players aren't asking for anything more. They want nothing than what they have.

The owners are cutting HUGE TV deals where they make more and more money, and the players aren't asking for a bigger cut or a piece of that. Nope, they players are content.

It really is striking how many times you can be wrong in just a few sentences.

There is no current deal. The players don't have a deal. There WAS a deal. It EXPIRED per the conditions in the deal, that both sides agreed to.

Anyway, there were many elements in the old deal that meant that the players were indeed asking for a bigger cut. Not only did their cut in percentage terms increase every year of the deal (and would have continued to do so had the deal no EXPIRED), but they were also guaranteed to get at least the same total amount in absolute terms as the year before. In other words, if the pie shrunk, the players would get a relatively larger piece of the pie and the owners would have to settle for "leftovers" (big chunk, not disputing that).

With regards to making money... Remember that team that has made its financials public? You remember, the one you were adamant didn't exist? Well, they're making a pitiful amount of money. No, not losing money, but then they do get a great deal from revenue sharing (the stuff that isn't shared, they have a lot of, the stuff that is shared is where they are weak). But they are making PEANUTS and fewer peanuts every year for the past 4-5 years. Even a year or so more of that trend and they'd be in the red. Simply not tenable.

[MikeO]

There is no current deal. The players don't have a deal. There WAS a deal. It EXPIRED per the conditions in the deal, that both sides agreed to.

Anyway, there were many elements in the old deal that meant that the players were indeed asking for a bigger cut. Not only did their cut in percentage terms increase every year of the deal (and would have continued to do so had the deal no EXPIRED), but they were also guaranteed to get at least the same total amount in absolute terms as the year before. In other words, if the pie shrunk, the players would get a relatively larger piece of the pie and the owners would have to settle for "leftovers" (big chunk, not disputing that).

With regards to making money... Remember that team that has made its financials public? You remember, the one you were adamant didn't exist? Well, they're making a pitiful amount of money. No, not losing money, but then they do get a great deal from revenue sharing (the stuff that isn't shared, they have a lot of, the stuff that is shared is where they are weak). But they are making PEANUTS and fewer peanuts every year for the past 4-5 years. Even a year or so more of that trend and they'd be in the red. Simply not tenable.

So because one or two teams aren't making a truckload of money lets blow up the whole system. They are still making money hand over fist, but just because they want to do NO WORK to make MORE money, its time to bring the sport to a hault. It's a joke! Newsflash, its a BUSINESS!!  So if the Packers can't make a HUGE profit then its time to either find a way to make more money or the city should sell the damn team to an owner with a brain who can cash in like the vast majority of NFL owners do.

I'm sorry if Jerry Jones sells 10 million Tony Romo jerseys Im sorry, the Panthers, Bills, and Packers shouldn't get a cut of that. And if those lazy ass owners don't like it, then get out of the NFL business.

This notion that NFL teams are going into the  RED  or on the brink of it and going under is laughable. If NFL teams can't survive in the NFL's greatest era of success, then how did they survive all of these other years.

And don't say the deal expired, the deal could have continued that was also an option ya know, the owners wanted out and backed out of the current deal. They bargined in bad faith with the TV networks and the players to bail out of this deal. They have been sleezy since day 1 and not upfront.

The pie hasn't shrunk since the 70's, that stupid analogy holds no water either

[fyo]

So because one or two teams aren't making a truckload of money lets blow up the whole system. They are still making money hand over fist

You need a course in economics. Considering absolute numbers for profits is stupid. What counts is the profit margin and it's pathetic. Doing just about anything else with the money would yield a greater return on investment. That's not "making money hand over fist".

should sell the damn team to an owner with a brain who can cash in like the vast majority of NFL owners do.

That's one heck of an unsubstantiated claim. The players were offered a great deal of economic insight on the teams, including bottom line figures, but turned it down without even looking at it. Yet YOU know the teams are turning huge profits... right...

I'm sorry if Jerry Jones sells 10 million Tony Romo jerseys Im sorry, the Panthers, Bills, and Packers shouldn't get a cut of that. And if those lazy ass owners don't like it, then get out of the NFL business.

It's unclear from you statement above whether you're aware that the money from those jersey sales is subject to the revenue sharing agreement between the teams (with some limitations). If you are, it nicely undermines your point in the previous section of your post.

This notion that NFL teams are going into the  RED  or on the brink of it and going under is laughable. If NFL teams can't survive in the NFL's greatest era of success, then how did they survive all of these other years.

Economics really isn't your strong suite, is it? Look at the airline industry, automobile industry or any one of the once major industries that have been decimated by high labor costs. News flash: The players pile of money NEVER goes down. NEVER. If owners are struggling to turn a DECENT profit in a time where the NFL, as you correctly point out, is experiencing great success, how are they ever going to survive if other expenditures increase (which they have) or popularity falls? The owners should, just like the players, be making piles of money during this time. All indications are that they are NOT.

As for how they survived "all those other years", how about looking at their labor costs -- just related to the on-field product. It's SKY ROCKETED. Both in absolute terms and in terms of "share of the pie". And, again, the players don't take a pay cut if the pie shrinks... they keep their absolute amount.

And don't say the deal expired, the deal could have continued that was also an option ya know, the owners wanted out and backed out of the current deal. They bargined in bad faith with the TV networks and the players to bail out of this deal. They have been sleezy since day 1 and not upfront.

The TV network deal was unconscionable, at least as represented in the media. You'll get no argument for me there. Sorry. (Yes, I'm capable of a nuanced view, something you might want to look into.)

And, sure, the owners could have chosen to continue with the old deal, which included more escalators for the players, meaning they would have gotten an even larger piece of the pie in 2010 -- and even larger than that in 2011. Not to belabor the point, but the players wouldn't be taking pay cuts if revenues decreased (which all indications are they have, so your "the pie never shrinks" is implausible at best); they were guaranteed at least as much in absolute terms as they got the previous year.

The deal the players agreed to contained an opt-out provision exactly because there was considerable uncertainty as to how tenable the deal actually was, especially if the economic boom didn't continue. News flash: it didn't. And that has had a profound effect on teams with large debts (hint: just about every team but the Packers has HUGE amount of debt that needs financing and that's become a lot harder to do in this economy). The old deal was based on the premise that securing capital for stadium enhancements or new stadiums would be easy and cheap. Look around... that's not the world we live in today.

[Pappy13]

The players aren't asking for anything more.

And they won't accept one penny less either. I feel so bad for Peyton and his family. Where should I send a donation so that he doesn't starve? The rest of the country is going through some tough financial times. Is it unreasonable to ask the players to negotiate a new contract? One that takes some of the money out of the hands of a few first round draft choices before they play a single game and puts it into the hands of veteran players? One that spends some money on the stadiums in which the players play to give the fans the best possible experience while coming to the games? One that pays a little more to retired players so that they can get the necessary medical attention they need after abusing their bodies for years playing football? And yes one that helps out some of those owners who clearly AREN'T making money hand over fist and may need a little help from the league?

Here is what the players turned down:

"The union left a very good deal on the table. It included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for Rounds 2-7; ensure no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years)."

The league said that the union was offered financial disclosure of profitability information that "is not even shared with the NFL clubs."

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=pfw-20110311_nflpa_has_decertified

"What's amazing, and what shows the absolute distrust the players have for the owners, is that the NFL offered the players to have an independent auditor -- to be determined by both sides -- study the audited financial statements. The independent auditor would have studied the statements, then reported to the union the year-by-year profit-and-loss statements for each team. Theoretically, that would have shown whether teams were becoming less profitable in the past two or three years, a core argument of the ownership."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/11/fallout.from.decision/index.html#ixzz1O2H2lISi

Newsflash, its a BUSINESS!!

Yes, it is.  Now stop talking like a fan and look at it from a business perspective.  You had a contract and it ran out. What do you do? You negotiate a new contract. I fail to see where that runs aground of good business.

And don't say the deal expired, the deal could have continued that was also an option ya know

op·tion   /ˈɒpʃən/ [op-shuhn]   
–noun
1. the power or right of choosing.
2. something that may be or is chosen; choice.
3. the act of choosing.

Maybe that helps?

The players had a choice too. Negotiate the best possible deal they could or take it to the courts. They chose the latter.

[Spider-Dan]

The owners had a choice: negotiate the best possible deal or lock the players out.
The players had a choice: negotiate the best possible deal or try to force the league to end the lockout via litigation.

I am forced to wonder if the pro-owner posters would be backing the players in the case of a strike.

[Pappy13]

The owners had a choice: negotiate the best possible deal or lock the players out.
The players had a choice: negotiate the best possible deal or try to force the league to end the lockout via litigation.

I am forced to wonder if the pro-owner posters would be backing the players in the case of a strike.

I absolutely would be backing the players on the RIGHT to strike if the owners seemed to be unwilling to sit at a negotiation table. I'm also not oposed to the players going for litigation if the owners were unwilling to negotiate, but that does not seem to be the case from where I sit.

Some people would have me believe that the owners hold all the cards. That simply is not the case. The players have plenty of options as do the owners. Why should I back the players? The owners have simply been using the tools that they have to renegotiate a new contract, I wouldn't take those rights away from the players, why should I take them away from the owners?

I'm not saying that the owners aren't greedy. I fully admit they are. What I'm saying is that the players are every bit as greedy. Both sides need to sit down at a table and figure out a way to cut up the pie. The owners have been wanting that for years and the players don't feel like they should have to. I don't understand why they feel that way. Can you explain it?

In the gaming world we have a saying "Shut up and take my money" It refers to games that are so good that the developers can pretty much do and charge whatever they want and gamers will pay for it. Gamers know they are probably getting screwed, but hey it's the best thing out there, they'll take it. The NFL is kinda like that for players. The NFL is willing to pay you a LOT of money to play a game for a living. Shut up and take the money.

[Spider-Dan]

Pappy13, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the owners are wrong to lock the players out.  But I'd like to know why you seem to believe that the owners are putting forth a more genuine effort at the negotiating table than the players.

The owners negotiated a TV deal that would pay dividends in the event of a lockout several years ago.
The players did not undertake litigation until after the lockout went into effect (they decertified approximately one day before).

If anyone is to be accused of being unwilling to negotiate in good faith, it should be the owners.

[Pappy13]

Pappy13, I don't think anyone here is arguing that the owners are wrong to lock the players out.  But I'd like to know why you seem to believe that the owners are putting forth a more genuine effort at the negotiating table than the players.

Well I'm not privy to the conversations that have gone on inside the negotiations, but the owners have been adament in their stance that the only way to resolve this is with negotiations. It is the players who have insisted that they would rather take it up with the courts. The owners certainly don't want this to be decided for them, why wouldn't they want to try to work out an agreement? Now maybe what the owners feel is fair is different from what the players feel is fair, but that's part of the negotiation.

I linked above to a couple of reports that the owners have in fact tried to give the players some concessions like getting a 3rd party auditor to go over their books and report on their findings.  Why would that be unacceptable to the players? They also backed off on trying to go for an 18 game schedule. They were also willing to split the difference with the players between where they were as far as compensation goes. What exactly have the players offered in return? I have not heard of a single concession made by the players. In fact many of them have expressed the feeling that what they have they worked hard for and they won't give it up under any circumstance. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound like someone who's willing to negotiate.

They seem to have the same general feeling that MikeO has been portraying. We like what we got and we can either continue playing with the rules exactly as they are or you can lock us out. We dare you. We double dog dare you.

[MikeO]

And they won't accept one penny less either.

WHY THE F' SHOULD THEY? The league has never been stronger ever. That isn't when you take cuts.  In fact the players SHOULD be asking for more in reality!

[MikeO]

They seem to have the same general feeling that MikeO has been portraying. We like what we got and we can either continue playing with the rules exactly as they are or you can lock us out. We dare you. We double dog dare you.

YES! Exactly. The league isn't losing money. The league made some $9 billion last year. When has it ever made that much before? Answer: NEVER! If a few teams are having trouble that is an owner vs owner issue. Decide how to split up YOUR PIECE of the pie among yourself and don't touch the players piece of the pie!

So obviously whatever deal is in place is working as the league is growing, the fans are happy, and the money is flowing in at a record rate. Yet the owners want the players to take a cut? HA! Good luck with that.

And comparing it to the auto industry or the airline industry as you did in your long ass diatribe is LAUGHABLE! Those industry's were on the verge of BANKRUPTCY! They were damn near finished and gone under. It was take cuts or goodbye. The NFL isn't in that situation, the leverage is with the players in this situation.

[MikeO]

The NFL is willing to pay you a LOT of money to play a game for a living. Shut up and take the money.

 

[Spider-Dan]

Well I'm not privy to the conversations that have gone on inside the negotiations, but the owners have been adament in their stance that the only way to resolve this is with negotiations.

That is not true.  The owners' stance has been that they will lock the players out and then attempt to resolve this with negotiations.  The players' counterargument is that they will sue to stop the lockout and then attempt to resolve this with negotiations.  (You can see that after the initial ruling in the players' favor that ended the lockout, the players did not simply declare, "We won, time for football" but rather that it was time to go back to the bargaining table.)   So what is the difference?

I linked above to a couple of reports that the owners have in fact tried to give the players some concessions like getting a 3rd party auditor to go over their books and report on their findings.  Why would that be unacceptable to the players? They also backed off on trying to go for an 18 game schedule. They were also willing to split the difference with the players between where they were as far as compensation goes. What exactly have the players offered in return? I have not heard of a single concession made by the players.

Well, the players have been open about their willingness to potentially institute a rookie wage scale, as well as their willingness to accept 50% of gross revenue (instead of 59% of the remainder after certain operating costs have been subtracted), but that's really beside the point.  Neither of us are privy to the discussions and cannot intelligently comment on who was willing to give up what.  For all of the concessions that the owners purportedly offered, you have no idea of exactly what they were asking in return (and vice versa).

[masterfins]

The league made some $9 billion last year.

The league didn't "MAKE" $9 billion last year.  They "Grossed" $9 billion.  Huge difference.  What the net profit to the owner's was is unknown.

[Phishfan]

the fans are happy,

Is that why we had a thread from disgruntled season ticket holders about why they decided to cancel their tickets?

[Pappy13]

That is not true.  The owners' stance has been that they will lock the players out and then attempt to resolve this with negotiations.  The players' counterargument is that they will sue to stop the lockout and then attempt to resolve this with negotiations.  (You can see that after the initial ruling in the players' favor that ended the lockout, the players did not simply declare, "We won, time for football" but rather that it was time to go back to the bargaining table.)   So what is the difference?

What evidence do you offer to support your claim? I gave you some examples that supported my belief, lets see some examples that support your belief.

The players didn't declare they had won because they hadn't. The NFL immediately filed an appeal and asked for a stay. The judge wouldn't grant a stay, but that decision was overturned and they were granted the stay until the appeal could be heard. It also appears that the NFL will prevail on appeal.

Well, the players have been open about their willingness to potentially institute a rookie wage scale, as well as their willingness to accept 50% of gross revenue (instead of 59% of the remainder after certain operating costs have been subtracted), but that's really beside the point.  Neither of us are privy to the discussions and cannot intelligently comment on who was willing to give up what.  For all of the concessions that the owners purportedly offered, you have no idea of exactly what they were asking in return (and vice versa).

The things I mentioned WERE offered, even the players did not dispute it, they merely said that it wasn't good enough. You're right, we have not been in the negotiations so we don't know for sure all what was offered, but frankly actions speak louder than words. The players are the ones that decertified so they could take it to the courts, that is a fact and it's undisputable. They walked away from the negotiation table first and then the owners locked them out. The players made the first move away from negotiations, not the owners.