AP Source: NFL’s profitability data offer rejected

[#27TheDominator]

I have lobbied all along that there has to be respectful balance between the two sides. That HAS to happen.

The Bigger problem is who is going to conquer the divide between the owners. There are haves and have nots.

To suggest that these are "partners" is a pipe dream. They are convenient bedfellows is all they are. One needs the other. That is not a partner. You think billionaire owners want to "partner" with the common riff-raff that is the player? Hardly.

Pretty funny that your first paragraph mentions balance and your last paragraph is so hostile. I'm sure that plenty of those guys are actual groupies like Mark Cuban. Richardson is actually an ex-player and there is always chatter about guys like Curtis seeking ownership, it's kind of funny that you think they wouldn't want to be partners. The fact is, those guys would partner with the devil himself if it would make them a buck and the players are making them billions. Players-owneres might not be "partners" in a strict legal sense, but they have plenty of common interests that mean that they will have to make sacrifices for each other in order to maximize their own profits. The owners have gotten away with murder for ages because they know that players have a short career and won't wait out a long labor dispute.

I forgot to laugh at another of your comments - "it's the owner's ball". Really? How did they do with that ball in 1987 when they didn't have the players? I'm assuming that the lock-out is off the table because if the players decertify they can't lock them out and will be forced to pay salaries. They already lost the court case and aren't getting TV money without games so they are flat out ****ed.

[Scott Dierking]

Pretty funny that your first paragraph mentions balance and your last paragraph is so hostile. I'm sure that plenty of those guys are actual groupies like Mark Cuban. Richardson is actually an ex-player and there is always chatter about guys like Curtis seeking ownership, it's kind of funny that you think they wouldn't want to be partners. The fact is, those guys would partner with the devil himself if it would make them a buck and the players are making them billions. Players-owneres might not be "partners" in a strict legal sense, but they have plenty of common interests that mean that they will have to make sacrifices for each other in order to maximize their own profits. The owners have gotten away with murder for ages because they know that players have a short career and won't wait out a long labor dispute.

I forgot to laugh at another of your comments - "it's the owner's ball". Really? How did they do with that ball in 1987 when they didn't have the players? I'm assuming that the lock-out is off the table because if the players decertify they can't lock them out and will be forced to pay salaries. They already lost the court case and aren't getting TV money without games so they are flat out ****ed.

They are no more partners than the guy who is making with his girlfriend, while seeing 5 other girls on the side. You are my partner when I need you to be my partner.

Billionaires cavorting with simple millionaires who go off half cocked, shooting, raping and rabble rousing with the commoners who are fans? Please

[#27TheDominator]

They are no more partners than the guy who is making with his girlfriend, while seeing 5 other girls on the side. You are my partner when I need you to be my partner.

This is true of most business partners. You are confusing partnership with WANTING to be partners. I will admit that they aren't partners in the strict legal sense, but that has nothing to do with what kind of people they are.

Billionaires cavorting with simple millionaires who go off half cocked, shooting, raping and rabble rousing with the commoners who are fans? Please

Bssides being somewhat offensive, thaere is no way to pigeonhole the owners. They are all different. It simply isn't true that they all don't want to "cavort". Jerry Jones is a flat out groupie that loves players. He loves hugging them on the sideline and probably was doing coke off a hookers a$$ with Irvin. Al Davis was a coach and commissioner before he bacame owner and I guarantee you that he hates the NFL establishment as much as he can remember. Jerry Richardson is an ex-player, but he insulted Peyton Manning. Tim Mara was a bookie and his whole family owes their fortune to the players. I'm not sure how well I remember the story, but I think that Art Rooney started the Steelers with money he won on a trifecta in Saratoga. Doesn't seem like the upper crust tht should be getting all snooty to me.

[ylekram]

You have No Clue

Owners did not invent football, they are making billions and their bodies do not turn into mush when they turn 50. They are

partners, we pay to see Players Play, we are not accountants. Partners share cost data plain and simple. 100% on Players side.

i have no clue?sound like you are the one without a clue.i didnt say owners invented football.i said they pioneered football.big difference.without the owners,there would be no "millions" in the same sentence as "players salaries"

[Scott Dierking]

This is true of most business partners. You are confusing partnership with WANTING to be partners. I will admit that they aren't partners in the strict legal sense, but that has nothing to do with what kind of people they are.

Bssides being somewhat offensive, thaere is no way to pigeonhole the owners. They are all different. It simply isn't true that they all don't want to "cavort". Jerry Jones is a flat out groupie that loves players. He loves hugging them on the sideline and probably was doing coke off a hookers a$$ with Irvin. Al Davis was a coach and commissioner before he bacame owner and I guarantee you that he hates the NFL establishment as much as he can remember. Jerry Richardson is an ex-player, but he insulted Peyton Manning. Tim Mara was a bookie and his whole family owes their fortune to the players. I'm not sure how well I remember the story, but I think that Art Rooney started the Steelers with money he won on a trifecta in Saratoga. Doesn't seem like the upper crust tht should be getting all snooty to me.

We are dancing around the same areas here.

I think that we just have a different perspective what a partner is. I look at it from the truest sense of a partner-One who looks out for the others best interests. That is clearly not happening.

[Gainzo]

Pretty funny that your first paragraph mentions balance and your last paragraph is so hostile. I'm sure that plenty of those guys are actual groupies like Mark Cuban. Richardson is actually an ex-player and there is always chatter about guys like Curtis seeking ownership, it's kind of funny that you think they wouldn't want to be partners. The fact is, those guys would partner with the devil himself if it would make them a buck and the players are making them billions. Players-owneres might not be "partners" in a strict legal sense, but they have plenty of common interests that mean that they will have to make sacrifices for each other in order to maximize their own profits. The owners have gotten away with murder for ages because they know that players have a short career and won't wait out a long labor dispute.

I forgot to laugh at another of your comments - "it's the owner's ball". Really? How did they do with that ball in 1987 when they didn't have the players? I'm assuming that the lock-out is off the table because if the players decertify they can't lock them out and will be forced to pay salaries. They already lost the court case and aren't getting TV money without games so they are flat out ****ed.

It's not 1987 anymore. I detest both sides but the owners need to give, not take. Wilson in Buffalo and Brown in Cincy are making money but they want to cry poor. That is BS IMO.

This is the NFL, not MLB, NBA or the NHL were players get guaranteed contracts. A rookie pay scale and health care for retired players would work wonders IMO.

Bob Kraft, Jerry Jones, Dan Synder, etc can go F themselves.

[#27TheDominator]

We are dancing around the same areas here.

I think that we just have a different perspective what a partner is. I look at it from the truest sense of a partner-One who looks out for the others best interests. That is clearly not happening.

I actually think of it from a legal perspective, but they aren't true partners there either. They both need each other to behave a certain way to maximize revenues, but then they have to fight over those limited, but huge, revenues. I don't think our actual feelings are that far apart, but I find some of your comments amusing and ridiculous. That is odd, because I usually find your posts rational. I think you have more of a problem with it because you are a big baseball fan and not a Yankee fan. You are afraid of the haves-vs-have-nots, but that is a triumph for the free market.

[#27TheDominator]

It's not 1987 anymore. I detest both sides but the owners need to give, not take. Wilson in Buffalo and Brown in Cincy are making money but they want to cry poor. That is BS IMO.

This is the NFL, not MLB, NBA or the NHL were players get guaranteed contracts. A rookie pay scale and health care for retired players would work wonders IMO.

Bob Kraft, Jerry Jones, Dan Synder, etc can go F themselves.

I agree for the most part, but a rookie pay scale and the current draft don't go so well together.

[Larz]

the players are itching to decertify and go to court

lets go PGA tour !!!!

[Scott Dierking]

I agree for the most part, but a rookie pay scale and the current draft don't go so well together.

Rookie pay scale has been agreed to

[#27TheDominator]

Rookie pay scale has been agreed to

Yeah, that's easy because vets are pissy because rookies are getting such a chunk and the cap is hard. We'll see what the terms are. They would have to give up years on the deals and I'd wonder about the rounds. Being locked in as a late rounder could be difficult. Can't lock guys up long term.

[Larz]

LOL Players tend to die young, they assume plenty of risk

they are partners whether you like it or not

players are meat for the machine, and they all full well know it when they sign up for the fame, money, groupies and glory. they last 3 years in the league on average. how can they be considered partners in any sense of the word ? will they start kicking in money for stadiums ? will they take less pay if a teams revenues go down from one year to another ?

I can't wait to see all the players champions around here turn in august when it looks like some training camp will be missed.

for every dave duerson there are 10 vernon gholstons

the players do steriods, take pain killing needles on game day, wolf down handfulls of vicodin and work out like demons and push their bodies beyond what is even sane. not for the love of the game, but for the cash.

they will also decertify and take the owners to court

for the cash

[donboyO]

players are meat for the machine, and they all full well know it when they sign up for the fame, money, groupies and glory. they last 3 years in the league on average. how can they be considered partners in any sense of the word ? will they start kicking in money for stadiums ? will they take less pay if a teams revenues go down from one year to another ?

I can't wait to see all the players champions around here turn in august when it looks like some training camp will be missed.

for every dave duerson there are 10 vernon gholstons

the players do steriods, take pain killing needles on game day, wolf down handfulls of vicodin and work out like demons and push their bodies beyond what is even sane. not for the love of the game, but for the cash.

they will also decertify and take the owners to court

for the cash

Ummmm we pay to see the players, they are the product, the movie so to speak, we do not go to stadium to cavort with Woody at the stadium.

[serphnx]

Personally I'm hoping they can't agree on anything and screw the entire sport over.

Then I hope Vince McMahon starts the XFL again, and this time has say about 28 teams. He then drafts all the NFL players among those teams, and talks CBS or NBC into airing the games. If the players are locked out they're not bound to the NFL anyway.

Let's see which league survives: the NFL with scabs or the XFL with all the top players. I know which one I would watch.

[Larz]

Ummmm we pay to see the players, they are the product, the movie so to speak, we do not go to stadium to cavort with Woody at the stadium.

the meat wearing the home teams logo is what we root root root for

can't wait for the draft, fresh meat !

saying the players are partners with the owners is like saying the gladiators were partners with the emperor. all I care about is a great show with some blood !!!!!

[aec4]

This is what a fans revolt looks:

us bitching on a website.

yay us!

how's that differ from there not being a lockout and there being no fan revolt?

[SMC]

Do the players assume risk if the business heads south? If franchises are losing value?

Yes. It's called getting cut.

[SMC]

Partners share risk. Players don't pay down the debt out of their profits. Players don't expose themselves to damages.

If a person slips at Foxborough and decides to sue, who is he going after-Robert Kraft or Tom Brady?

Don't delude yourself that they are partners.

LOL. You simply don't get it, do you? Robert Kraft has insurance for that slip & fall.

What is that insurance premium paid by? Football revenues. Who generates football revenues? The players.

AND, that insurance premium is an expense that REDUCES the pool that the players get their salary cap from.

So guess what? The players expose themselves to damage and the debts of the owners because the salary cap is reduced according to net revenue.

[SMC]

If the NFL truly is a partnership between its players and owners—and ''partnership'' is the word Roger Goodell uses—then let's make it a true partnership. Open the doors and the books. If the owners need help, well, friends do help friends. Otherwise, it sounds like all the owners want is to line their pockets with more cash.

the above statement is all one needs to know about this crisis.the players beleive they are "entitled" to a bigger peice.sound exactly like what revis and his agent tried to pull last offseason.

revis-"coach ryan says i am the best,so i want to be paid like the best".even tho "the best" was a complete brainfart from al davis.

You're obviously dreadfully misinformed.

The OWNERS are asking for an ADDITIONAL $1 billion to be taken off the top before any money is divided with the players. So how is it the players are acting like they are "entitled" to a bigger piece????

Currently, the owners take off $1 billion from the $9 billion revenue pool. They want to take off $2 billion and then split the rest. The NFLPA has offered to accept an additional $200 million to go to the owners.

So, again, how is the NFLPA wanting a "bigger piece" when they have ALREADY agreed to take less???

[Scott Dierking]

LOL. You simply don't get it, do you? Robert Kraft has insurance for that slip & fall.

What is that insurance premium paid by? Football revenues. Who generates football revenues? The players.

AND, that insurance premium is an expense that REDUCES the pool that the players get their salary cap from.

So guess what? The players expose themselves to damage and the debts of the owners because the salary cap is reduced according to net revenue.

Sounds like you are the one that doesn't get it.

The players cut comes from revenue, not profit. BIG difference.

This may be why you are confused, you have totally misrepresented how the system works. It is not profit sharing, it is revenue sharing.

[#27TheDominator]

Sounds like you are the one that doesn't get it.

The players cut comes from revenue, not profit. BIG difference.

This may be why you are confused, you have totally misrepresented how the system works. It is not profit sharing, it is revenue sharing.

It's revenue sharing and the revenues keep going up. That's why the cap rises. If revenues go up and profits go down it sounds like the owners aren't doing their jobs properly. Why should the players be penalized?

[SMC]

Sounds like you are the one that doesn't get it.

The players cut comes from revenue, not profit. BIG difference.

This may be why you are confused, you have totally misrepresented how the system works. It is not profit sharing, it is revenue sharing.

LOL you really don't get it.

The owners' cut comes from revenues as well.

The only money the owners put in is to buy teams or build stadiums, and that mostly comes from private or public financing. The owners, in turn, get their investment back from monies generated by the players. Those owner " profits" is from money generated by the players.

EVERYTHING is paid by football generated revenues. BUT not everything goes into the revenue sharing pool where the cap comes from and the players get paid.

PSLs and luxury suite money goes directly to the owners although the players are the reason those items are sold.

You're the one either misrepresenting matters or don't understand how it works.

[Scott Dierking]

It's revenue sharing and the revenues keep going up. That's why the cap rises. If revenues go up and profits go down it sounds like the owners aren't doing their jobs properly. Why should the players be penalized?

The teams will tell you that expenses are going up. One of the expenses that has gone up appreciably is % of labor. That is what the league is looking to control

That SMC did not even understand the equation is a little bit comical, after he called some people out.

Hey, I am not trying to take the side of the Owners here-I don't have a dog in this race. But I am trying to the discussion from the Owners side.

[Scott Dierking]

LOL you really don't get it.

The owners' cut comes from revenues as well.

The only money the owners put in is to buy teams or build stadiums, and that mostly comes from private or public financing. The owners, in turn, get their investment back from monies generated by the players. Those owner " profits" is from money generated by the players.

EVERYTHING is paid by football generated revenues. BUT not everything goes into the revenue sharing pool where the cap comes from and the players get paid.

PSLs and luxury suite money goes directly to the owners although the players are the reason those items are sold.

You're the one either misrepresenting matters or don't understand how it works.

This is your statement-"AND, that insurance premium is an expense that REDUCES the pool that the players get their salary cap from". WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. You are way off base

You have the terms profits and revenues confused. YIKES

Not everything is paid by football generated revenues. Some owners HAVE NOT had public stadium funding. And yes, buying a team is a pretty big expense. And a majority of franchises have been devalued recently. Economy hits them too.

You were WRONG on how monies get paid out.

[PatriotReign37]

Not off base at all-The franchises have values and that is very important to the owners.

Those values have diminished (marginally) in recent years.

Meanwhile, players salaries escalate.

I am not looking to take a side here, other than players do not deserve an open look at owners or league books. Out of bounds

When the players are being asked to fork over an additional 1 billion before the split then the players do deserve to see why the owners need the money.

[Scott Dierking]

When the players are being asked to fork over an additional 1 billion before the split then the players do deserve to see why the owners need the money.

Therein lies the crux of the matter. But lets be careful of the term "fork over". My belief is that players salaries will not decline. Am I wrong there?

[Jetsfan80]

Therein lies the crux of the matter. But lets be careful of the term "fork over". My belief is that players salaries will not decline. Am I wrong there?

Seeing as the owners want a decrease in the salary cap I doubt salaries will stay the way they are.

[#27TheDominator]

The teams will tell you that expenses are going up. One of the expenses that has gone up appreciably is % of labor. That is what the league is looking to control

That SMC did not even understand the equation is a little bit comical, after he called some people out.

Hey, I am not trying to take the side of the Owners here-I don't have a dog in this race. But I am trying to the discussion from the Owners side.

Eh. Why are expenses going up? Why should the players give a **** about new stadiums? If the owners want to build a new stadium to improve their profit margin why should the money come from the players? It's not like the players get any say in the who/what/when/where/why/how of the building.

[Scott Dierking]

Seeing as the owners want a decrease in the salary cap I doubt salaries will stay the way they are.

Can you link me to something that says what the NFL owners want to reduce the salary cap to? I wasn't aware that this would result in a net reduction in salaries.

Just looking to be educated here. Thanks.

[bitonti]

And a majority of franchises have been devalued recently. Economy hits them too.

I dont think that's true. Check the latest forbes valuations even the Jags are worth north of 730 Mil.

the owners are crying poverty when the value of their franchises have basically doubled in the last 10 years... and revenue has also exploded. they won't open their books to prove they are losing money because they can't prove it. it's simply not happening.

[Scott Dierking]

Eh. Why are expenses going up? Why should the players give a **** about new stadiums? If the owners want to build a new stadium to improve their profit margin why should the money come from the players? It's not like the players get any say in the who/what/when/where/why/how of the building.

Economy is one reason expenses are going up. Same as every business in America.

Can you point to any business that has seen their salaries explode over 2 decades, more than the NFL.

Again, this is not a side I am taking, just creating dialogue.

[Scott Dierking]

I dont think that's true. Check the latest forbes valuations even the Jags are worth north of 730 Mil.

the owners are crying poverty when the value of their franchises have basically doubled in the last 10 years... and revenue has also exploded. they won't open their books to prove they are losing money because they can't prove it. it's simply not happening.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10_land.html

Labor issues will roil the league this year, but pro football faces a far larger long-term business problem.

NFL team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop. Team values slipped because the bad economy has reduced demand and cut nonbroadcasting revenue for many teams. More

[#27TheDominator]

Can you point to any business that has seen their salaries explode over 2 decades, more than the NFL.

Not at all relevant in my opinion. The players were ridiculously underpaid for decades while having no FA rights, etc. Also, I'm sure that NFL revenue has exploded over 2 decades as well. Once again, if there were a true free market everybody would be looking at these salaries and yelling about what a bargain they were.

[Scott Dierking]

Not at all relevant in my opinion. The players were ridiculously underpaid for decades while having no FA rights, etc. Also, I'm sure that NFL revenue has exploded over 2 decades as well. Once again, if there were a true free market everybody would be looking at these salaries and yelling about what a bargain they were.

Agreed.

The key contention, at least in my simple mind is-What is a fair cut of revenue and are all revenues up for grabs?

Duh

[#27TheDominator]

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10_land.html

Labor issues will roil the league this year, but pro football faces a far larger long-term business problem.

NFL team values fell 2% last season to an average of $1.02 billion, the first decline since Forbes began tracking the league's finances in 1998, with 21 of the league's 32 teams seeing their worths drop. Team values slipped because the bad economy has reduced demand and cut nonbroadcasting revenue for many teams. More

That's great! The value went down ONCE in forever and they have to restructure everything. They opted out of the CBA two years BEFORE they ever lost value. Is there one single owner that paid more for his team than it is currently worth? I think not. I'm not sure how they valued the teams, but if I were bidding on buying one this bullsh*t labor strife is a major reason why I would bid less. I'm sure it's tougher to sell season tickets with a lockout looming the next season.