T0mShane Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I agree with you. I think this is one of those issues that fall down to whatever your politics are. Though no one would support an end to profit sharing in the NFL. It's a 100% philosophical argument, divided along the line of how much one believes that labor contributes to the whole. Sperm Edwards is a chinaman slave owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 At this point beginning to wonder if as per his membership's wishes Smith's goal is simple and two-fold- 1. take the deal without losing any game checks but 2. try to make sure this training camp/preseason is the shortest in NFL history. Preseason games let the owners fleece everyone-fans, networks, concessions. Right now suspect he will succeed. Kinda shocked Jerry Jones is a hardliner, but suspect it's an act to get the real harrdliners to go along. This is all winks and nods at this point to get dolts like Richardson, Wilson, Bidwill and Brown to STFU and take the deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Wrong. Have you seen the players offer to throw percentages out the window and stick with a $130M salary cap? No. Would they be ok with that even though it is a pay RAISE? Absolutely not. They want a percentage that leads to higher dollars, whatever that percentage is. For the players it is not about how much they make. It's about how much they make in comparison to how much is made by the people who the team franchises actually belong to. That is greed. Both sides are greedy. But if you look at business today-most any business-all you hear is business owners "wanting a piece" of this and "wanting a piece" of that. Those "pieces" are percentages, of course. So the players tie part of their package to getting a "piece" of some future NFL revenues and they automatically become greedy douches? Sounds to me like they're just getting with the program. When the players seek a deal that nets them less money because they're giving more to the bottom-rung of players or because they're giving more to the retired players (who make up the true unfortunate parties in all this) then you get back to me. Until then it's 2 groups of very well-off people fighting over how much more or less they get than the other. If you think the deal Smith is negotiating for the lower rung players is unsatisfactory, just imagine the deal they'd be getting from the owners if there were no Smith. The owners would be paying kick returners minimum wage, and complaining the minimum wage is too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bitonti Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The league is making the profit it does due to the NFL marketing itself, not due to the superduperness of the current players. Accept it. every year we see 1000 draft prospects vie for 250 slots and of those 250 maybe 2 become hall of famers there aren't as many good players as we think there are... and the good Qbs are not replaceable. yes they could have a league without Brady, Manning and Brees and it would be about as watchable as the NFL used to be, before the forward pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The players are not out for more than they had. They are out for more relative to how much someone else has. That is greed. You've made this point a couple times, and I definitely disagree with you. Looking for open in books in the business in which they are both the laborers and the product, and wanting a fair share of that pie every year is just that - looking for a fair share. Why should the owners profits go up while the players salaries remain stagnant? I don't think the owners even agree with you there (well they probably do, but they aren't trying to negotiate it). They're just looking to make the players' slice of the pie smaller, not put a hard cap on the players' total earnings while theirs continues to skyrocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You've made this point a couple times, and I definitely disagree with you. Looking for open in books in the business in which they are both the laborers and the product, and wanting a fair share of that pie every year is just that - looking for a fair share. Why should the owners profits go up while the players salaries remain stagnant? I don't think the owners even agree with you there (well they probably do, but they aren't trying to negotiate it). They're just looking to make the players' slice of the pie smaller, not put a hard cap on the players' total earnings while theirs continues to skyrocket. One would say that the owners deserve a bigger piece because they carry all the risk of the business. They are leveraged. Yes, the players will get a smaller piece of the pie. The smaller piece of a larger pie. The revenues streams are different (and will continue to emerge). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 One would say that the owners deserve a bigger piece because they carry all the risk of the business. They are leveraged. Yes, the players will get a smaller piece of the pie. The smaller piece of a larger pie. The revenues streams are different (and will continue to emerge). You missed my point. Sperm is saying that the players seeking a percentage of the business equates to greed. You seem to agree with me that the players deserve a steady percentage of the business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You missed my point. Sperm is saying that the players seeking a percentage of the business equates to greed. You seem to agree with me that the players deserve a steady percentage of the business. I don't think anyone is arguing that they deserve a "percentage". Both sides are looking to negotiate the best deal for themselves. Nothing unique about that. That is what I take that Sperm is saying. Those that see this as a one sided equation, and that there is a definite evil within all of this are deluded. BOTH sides are greedy. That is the way these things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And everyone is missing the point is that the reason we don't have football right now is that the OWNERS, not the players, were too greedy to continue with the same economic system that had been in place when the NFL became the most popular league in the history of professional sports and in which everyone was making bucket loads of money. Of course everyone wants more but the players aren't striking for more and if they had struck with the league doing this well I would be blaming them. The owners created this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 And everyone is missing the point is that the reason we don't have football right now is that the OWNERS, not the players, were too greedy to continue with the same economic system that had been in place when the NFL became the most popular league in the history of professional sports and in which everyone was making bucket loads of money. Of course everyone wants more but the players aren't striking for more and if they had struck with the league doing this well I would be blaming them. The owners created this. We don't see the players rushing to make any deals either. The old CBA does not fit current NFL climate. Tagliabue extended a bad deal to save his own face. The owners HATED that deal. And they are within right to exercise their option. This is a business, also folks. Some seem to forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 We don't see the players rushing to make any deals either. The old CBA does not fit current NFL climate. Tagliabue extended a bad deal to save his own face. The owners HATED that deal. And they are within right to exercise their option. This is a business, also folks. Some seem to forget that. Talk about nonsense. Of course it's a Business... an amazingly profitable business. And of course the players aren't rushing to take the deal the owners are offering them with a 10% paycut. Why is the fact that this lockout 100% a result of the owners greed so part to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Talk about nonsense. Of course it's a Business... an amazingly profitable business. And of course the players aren't rushing to take the deal the owners are offering them with a 10% paycut. Why is the fact that this lockout 100% a result of the owners greed so part to understand? You only see things on one side, we get it. The players are going to get a smaller piece of a larger pie. THAT is where the issue lies. NEW revenues. That has what changed, The NFL is a different world than it was when the original CBA was signed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You only see things on one side, we get it. The players are going to get a smaller piece of a larger pie. THAT is where the issue lies. NEW revenues. That has what changed, The NFL is a different world than it was when the original CBA was signed. Yeah because as we all know you're the paragon of fair and balanced posts HAHA. The new revenues had nothing to do with the revenue split. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 We don't see the players rushing to make any deals either. The old CBA does not fit current NFL climate. Tagliabue extended a bad deal to save his own face. The owners HATED that deal. And they are within right to exercise their option. This is a business, also folks. Some seem to forget that. It was a deal that saw the value of their franchise increase astronomically and made them more money in the past several years than they did for the first 50 years of the league inclusive. That's not a bad deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slats Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You only see things on one side, we get it. The players are going to get a smaller piece of a larger pie. THAT is where the issue lies. NEW revenues. That has what changed, The NFL is a different world than it was when the original CBA was signed. The owners' real squabbles are amongst themselves. It just so happens that the one thing they can all agree on is that screwing the players is in all of their best interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It was a deal that saw the value of their franchise increase astronomically and made them more money in the past several years than they did for the first 50 years of the league inclusive. That's not a bad deal. SD is gonna start a collection plate for the poor owners who have been screwed over by this unfair CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 It was a deal that saw the value of their franchise increase astronomically and made them more money in the past several years than they did for the first 50 years of the league inclusive. That's not a bad deal. How did player salaries evolve over that time? I assume they dropped, by all this talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The owners' real squabbles are amongst themselves. It just so happens that the one thing they can all agree on is that screwing the players is in all of their best interests. Yes, they greatly are. And that affects the players. Not unlike any other business where there are multiple interests and partnerships that are not mutually exclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 How did player salaries evolve over that time? I assume they dropped, by all this talk? There is no way the average NFL salary has grown in proportion with franchise values and TV revenues. None. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 There is no way the average NFL salary has grown in proportion with franchise values and TV revenues. None. Go ahead and supply the stats. Show NFL team revenue, NFL team profit, NFL player salary. Show these figures for the life of the CBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T0mShane Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 The owners' real squabbles are amongst themselves. It just so happens that the one thing they can all agree on is that screwing the players is in all of their best interests. 100% true. This lockout is just the pre-text to the owners turning on themselves over profit-sharing. Jerry Jones knows it'll be easier for Jerry Richardson to swallow losing his welfare check if he can get the players to subsidize the small markets instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 How did player salaries evolve over that time? I assume they dropped, by all this talk? Did someone hold a gun to the owners' heads and force them to make those salary offers? They are more complicent than the player BECAUSE they are the ones signing the checks. And guess what? It worked! They made that money back in spades. Like George Steinbrenner was fond of saying - "you gotta spend money to make money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Go ahead and supply the stats. Show NFL team revenue, NFL team profit, NFL player salary. Show these figures for the life of the CBA You can't get team profit information. You can only get franchise values (which is simply equity gains instead of operations gains) and the dollar value of TV deals which have clearly grown exponentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Did someone hold a gun to the owners' heads and force them to make those salary offers? They are more complicent than the player BECAUSE they are the ones signing the checks. And guess what? It worked! They made that money back in spades. Like George Steinbrenner was fond of saying - "you gotta spend money to make money." Yes, as a matter of fact agents did Think the Jets enjoy what they are paying Revis and the contract that was worked? I will ask you the same exercise I gave fumingmike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You can't get team profit information. You can only get franchise values (which is simply equity gains instead of operations gains) and the dollar value of TV deals which have clearly grown exponentially. So, in other words, we are all talking out of our a$$ as it relates to current profit for NFL teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So, in other words, we are all talking out of our a$$ as it relates to current profit for NFL teams. Wrong. Franchise values and TV deals are perfectly representative of how profitable the business is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 OK I did a little math. The median salary for NFL players last season was 770,000. In 2001 dollars thats about 603,000. What was the Median Salary in 2001? Glad you asked it was 562,000. Thats a 7% pay raise. Over 10 years. In that time the TV deals have more than doubled and and franchise values are up in the 60% range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Wrong. Franchise values and TV deals are perfectly representative of how profitable the business is. So, you have a line list of operational costs for each franchise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 OK I did a little math. The median salary for NFL players last season was 770,000. In 2001 dollars thats about 603,000. What was the Median Salary in 2001? Glad you asked it was 562,000. Thats a 7% pay raise. Over 10 years. In that time the TV deals have more than doubled and and franchise values are up in the 60% range. What is the average NFL salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 So, you have a line list of operational costs for each franchise? Equity is the measurement of the future cash flows by definition. If franchise equity is skyrocketing so are profits. You don't have a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Equity is the measurement of the future cash flows by definition. If franchise equity is skyrocketing so are profits. You don't have a point. There is no guarantee of equities. Equities are only insured if earnings are REALIZED, among other factors. Thus, YOU don't have a point. Again, do you have operational costs of each club? Didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmikeisback Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 There is no guarantee of equities. Equities are only insured if earnings are REALIZED, among other factors. Thus, YOU don't have a point. Again, do you have operational costs of each club? Didn't think so. You have no idea what you're talking about lol. You're describing a dividend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klecko73isGod Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 Yes, as a matter of fact agents did Think the Jets enjoy what they are paying Revis and the contract that was worked? I will ask you the same exercise I gave fumingmike. Changing the CBA isn't going to stop players from holding out or agents from being unreasonable and asking for the moon so that's a terrible example. Please tell me of one instance where an agent actually put a gun to an owner's head and made him sign an outrageous contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelticwizard Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 What is the average NFL salary? Median salary, (the salary at which half are higher, half are lower), for the Houston Texans is $ 848,640. Houston is ranked 16th out of 32 teams in median salary. http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team (Sperm informs me Rotoworld is better for salaries and I am sure he is right, but this source is just so convenient). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted July 5, 2011 Share Posted July 5, 2011 You have no idea what you're talking about lol. You're describing a dividend. Where are those operational costs? Thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.