Hey, dad, can I see your check??

[kerouac9]

Im glad you could come in and degrade the analogy the poster made but I suppose we can rephrase it for you to fit your needs.

Hey employer, my wage isnt high enough, open the books and show me all profits so we can talk about how much I SHOULD make.

you are an employee, you make the company run on a lower level but the company is much bigger than you. The company decides your worth, not you. If you do not like your pay, they can hire someone else.

Isn't that the point of the union? You couldn't do that, but if you had every person in the company do it, then the owners/management would have a tough choice to make between replacing every one of you and finding less qualified people (because you work for Harvard, and only one out of say 500,000 people can do the work that you do) to do so.

The NFL is not "much bigger" than the players. No one is going to Jerry World to see a high school team play the Div. III All-Stars. The players are the league.

 

[slanidrac16]

Im glad you could come in and degrade the analogy the poster made but I suppose we can rephrase it for you to fit your needs.

Hey employer, my wage isnt high enough, open the books and show me all profits so we can talk about how much I SHOULD make.

you are an employee, you make the company run on a lower level but the company is much bigger than you. The company decides your worth, not you. If you do not like your pay, they can hire someone else.

BUT, you can go work somewhere else. The NFL is a legalized monopoly that has the benefit of antitrust laws. Without a CBA they lose it.

Remember how things changed when the AFL started coming into prominence? All of a sudden the NFL DID lose player's because there wasn't a monopoly like there is now.
Please don't say the player can go to he CFL. That's not the same. I could turn around and tell you if you're not happy with your pay you can go bag groceries.

 

[TJ]

The NFL is not "much bigger" than the players. No one is going to Jerry World to see a high school team play the Div. III All-Stars. The players are the league.

But the bigger issue is the fact that the signature on their checks come from their respective owners and the logo on their checks and pay stubs bares that of the team logo and the NFL shield, not that of the NFLPA.

Players cant play w/o the owners and owners cant own w/o the players. It is a bilateral relationship, which is not being sabotaged by the owners.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

That would be relevant analogy if your dad had said "Son, I am going to give you 10% of my earnings if you do everything you are supposed to do. That number is (x)"

Then later he said "Son, I know you did everything you said you would but I only made (x)"

And of course it isn't relevant since my employer isn't my dad.

Agreed. A better analogy IMO, is if the parent was making their money off of their children. The child wants to then know how much money they are making off of their kid, so they know that they can find out how much they should be paid.

 

[kerouac9]

But the bigger issue is the fact that the signature on their checks come from their respective owners and the logo on their checks and pay stubs bares that of the team logo and the NFL shield, not that of the NFLPA.

Players cant play w/o the owners and owners cant own w/o the players. It is a bilateral relationship, which is not being sabotaged by the owners.

The owners want to unilaterally change the relationship with the players. That's just the fact. And they don't want to show the players the reason why that relationship needs to change.

It wasn't the players who voided the previous CBA, it was the owners. So who's doing the sabotaging? Who's being asked to give back, without being shown why?

 

[TJ]

The owners want to unilaterally change the relationship with the players. That's just the fact. And they don't want to show the players the reason why that relationship needs to change.

It wasn't the players who voided the previous CBA, it was the owners. So who's doing the sabotaging? Who's being asked to give back, without being shown why?

And D Smith is participating in fruitful negotiations? And the owners didnt suggest opening the books to show 5 years worth of profits since the last CBA? I think the owners have done more than enough to show why a "relationship change" (in your words) is necessary. The have enough financials to work with. They just dont want to admit it. And as I said earlier, evaluating 10 years worth of the entire books would take forever.

The owners have budged on so many pressing issues (pensions, 18 game schedule, health benefits, etc.) and the players keep asking for more. And with the players now acting like brats, calling the owners "liars" and telling potential high draft picks to boycott the draft, it has become absurd.

 

[kerouac9]

And D Smith is participating in fruitful negotiations? And the owners didnt suggest opening the books to show 5 years worth of profits since the last CBA? I think the owners have done more than enough to show why a "relationship change" (in your words) is necessary. The have enough financials to work with. They just dont want to admit it. And as I said earlier, evaluating 10 years worth of the entire books would take forever.

The owners have budged on so many pressing issues (pensions, 18 game schedule, health benefits, etc.) and the players keep asking for more. And with the players now acting like brats, calling the owners "liars" and telling potential high draft picks to boycott the draft, it has become absurd.

And the owners are? Is 2 seasons without an 18 game scheulde (2011 was going to be 16-games away--so it's really only 1) really giving something up? There's nothing about the distribution of money in the NFL-released talking points on their "concessions."

You can swallow the NFL's talking points hook, line, and sinker. But I'm not as quick to have full faith in authority as apparently many are. Chris-Sanders makes some good points about the omissions in the owners' so-called concessions here.

It's a business negotiation, it'll be resolved, the NFL will play again, and it's unfortunate that this all has to happen in the public eye. No one should get their feelings hurt, and those who think this is personal is falling for the line being put out by the League.

 

[Mulli]

And the owners are? Is 2 seasons without an 18 game scheulde (2011 was going to be 16-games away--so it's really only 1) really giving something up? There's nothing about the distribution of money in the NFL-released talking points on their "concessions."

You can swallow the NFL's talking points hook, line, and sinker. But I'm not as quick to have full faith in authority as apparently many are. Chris-Sanders makes some good points about the omissions in the owners' so-called concessions here.

It's a business negotiation, it'll be resolved, the NFL will play again, and it's unfortunate that this all has to happen in the public eye. No one should get their feelings hurt, and those who think this is personal is falling for the line being put out by the League.

join.

 

[TJ]

And the owners are? Is 2 seasons without an 18 game scheulde (2011 was going to be 16-games away--so it's really only 1) really giving something up? There's nothing about the distribution of money in the NFL-released talking points on their "concessions."

You can swallow the NFL's talking points hook, line, and sinker. But I'm not as quick to have full faith in authority as apparently many are. Chris-Sanders makes some good points about the omissions in the owners' so-called concessions here.

It's a business negotiation, it'll be resolved, the NFL will play again, and it's unfortunate that this all has to happen in the public eye. No one should get their feelings hurt, and those who think this is personal is falling for the line being put out by the League.

Just FYI, owners gave the players right of first refusal on this tabled subject.

 

[BigRedRage]

Per Chris (I really don't know if what he stated is accurate or not; I'm guessing it is) your re-phrasing still isn't right. It would be more like, your employer says, "Hey, I'll hire you for $40k/year, and on top of that, I'll give you 5% of my profits. My profits have always been at least 5 million a year."

Then, after the end of the year, the boss comes & says, "Yeah, I know I said I make 5 mil in profits, but I really only made 1 mil in profits this year. I know you were expecting $250,000, but you're only getting $50,000". At that point, you may have some sort of right to say, "Prove it".

Again, I don't know if what Chris stated is the way it is, but that's a better analogy based off what he said.

I could say prove it, the employer would say no and walk away. I can accept it, or let them replace me with someone who will. In this economy, the employee has zero leverage as a thousand people would love tyo have your job.

 

[BigRedRage]

Per Chris (I really don't know if what he stated is accurate or not; I'm guessing it is) your re-phrasing still isn't right. It would be more like, your employer says, "Hey, I'll hire you for $40k/year, and on top of that, I'll give you 5% of my profits. My profits have always been at least 5 million a year."

Then, after the end of the year, the boss comes & says, "Yeah, I know I said I make 5 mil in profits, but I really only made 1 mil in profits this year. I know you were expecting $250,000, but you're only getting $50,000". At that point, you may have some sort of right to say, "Prove it".

Again, I don't know if what Chris stated is the way it is, but that's a better analogy based off what he said.

Isn't that the point of the union? You couldn't do that, but if you had every person in the company do it, then the owners/management would have a tough choice to make between replacing every one of you and finding less qualified people (because you work for Harvard, and only one out of say 500,000 people can do the work that you do) to do so.

The NFL is not "much bigger" than the players. No one is going to Jerry World to see a high school team play the Div. III All-Stars. The players are the league.

but when boldin traded, none of us became ravens fans. we love our team and the nfl, players come third.

 

[kerouac9]

but when boldin traded, none of us became ravens fans. we love our team and the nfl, players come third.

Many people did become Ravens fans. Go back to threads in January and you'll see a ton of people saying, "Well, if the Cards aren't in the playoffs, then I'll root for the Ravens instead."

If the NFL cast off Peyton Manning, LDT, Ray Lewis, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Andre Johnson, Champ Bailey, Nmandi Asomugha, Troy Polumalu, and every other player and replaced them with a bunch of guys from the second-team of DI football programs, would you even watch that product? I know I wouldn't; I don't even like the product that college football puts on the field every year. In college football, there's one good game a week for the most part. In the NFL, there are 12-14 good games every week.

None of us became Ravens fans, but a lot of fans stopped posting here. The players make the product on the field. You can't put Cards unis on Mountain View's JV team and then ask me to pay $75 a ticket for it.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Im glad you could come in and degrade the analogy the poster made but I suppose we can rephrase it for you to fit your needs.

Hey employer, my wage isnt high enough, open the books and show me all profits so we can talk about how much I SHOULD make.

you are an employee, you make the company run on a lower level but the company is much bigger than you. The company decides your worth, not you. If you do not like your pay, they can hire someone else.

The NFL isn't a company. They are a collection of individuals businesses.

They LEGALLY can't conspire to fix wages. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Your beef is with Anti Trust laws in place since 1890.

 

[Mulli]

The NFL isn't a company. They are a collection of individuals businesses.

They LEGALLY can't conspire to fix wages. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Your beef is with Anti Trust laws in place since 1890.

I have an idea. Why don't the NFL owners get high schoolers to play next year. They could just pay them $2.00 an hour, if that. That would teach the players!

 

[BigRedRage]

The NFL isn't a company. They are a collection of individuals businesses.

They LEGALLY can't conspire to fix wages. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Your beef is with Anti Trust laws in place since 1890.

oh i understand, im just rephrasing his opinion since you took offense to it.

 

[BigRedRage]

Many people did become Ravens fans. Go back to threads in January and you'll see a ton of people saying, "Well, if the Cards aren't in the playoffs, then I'll root for the Ravens instead."

If the NFL cast off Peyton Manning, LDT, Ray Lewis, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Andre Johnson, Champ Bailey, Nmandi Asomugha, Troy Polumalu, and every other player and replaced them with a bunch of guys from the second-team of DI football programs, would you even watch that product? I know I wouldn't; I don't even like the product that college football puts on the field every year. In college football, there's one good game a week for the most part. In the NFL, there are 12-14 good games every week.

None of us became Ravens fans, but a lot of fans stopped posting here. The players make the product on the field. You can't put Cards unis on Mountain View's JV team and then ask me to pay $75 a ticket for it.

Sure ill root for the ravens when not playing AZ because boldin is there but in 20 years ill still be a cardinals fan and nfl fan, never loyal to players. The NBA is a players league, the NFL not so much. Sure maybe play on the field would drop for a few years but after a few more drafts there would be planety of ray lewises and larrys fitz to go around. I dont disagree witht he logic but I do think the NFL matter more than the players.

 

[TJ]

And the owners are? Is 2 seasons without an 18 game scheulde (2011 was going to be 16-games away--so it's really only 1) really giving something up? There's nothing about the distribution of money in the NFL-released talking points on their "concessions."

You can swallow the NFL's talking points hook, line, and sinker. But I'm not as quick to have full faith in authority as apparently many are. Chris-Sanders makes some good points about the omissions in the owners' so-called concessions here.

It's a business negotiation, it'll be resolved, the NFL will play again, and it's unfortunate that this all has to happen in the public eye. No one should get their feelings hurt, and those who think this is personal is falling for the line being put out by the League.

So where exactly are the players conceding? How is having a DC Attorney as your leader progressing the talks? Why are the players acting like babies while the owners are simply interested in getting a deal done? These are not ideal conditions. I dont buy into "full-faith" authority, but what I see is one party that has made concessions in areas where most didnt expect. I see no hook line and sinker here and if there is any, it's from players like Drew Brees telling people that the last offer was "all show."

 

[Crazy Canuck]

So where exactly are the players conceding? How is having a DC Attorney as your leader progressing the talks? Why are the players acting like babies while the owners are simply interested in getting a deal done? These are not ideal conditions. I dont buy into "full-faith" authority, but what I see is one party that has made concessions in areas where most didnt expect. I see no hook line and sinker here and if there is any, it's from players like Drew Brees telling people that the last offer was "all show."

This is "infantile", you might consider a better term of reference.

What part of "the owners want an additional 7 to 8 hundred million dollars per year off the top don't you understand?"

Over a 7 year agreement this is over $5B additional monies to the owners.

THIS IS THE ISSUE.... all other so-called concessions are irrelevant distractions until this is dealt with....

 

[TJ]

This is "infantile", you might consider a better term of reference.

Didnt realize this was a graded thesis. I assumed this was a message board featuring informal discussion. Think you need to stop wasting your time and mine trying to play 6th grade English teacher by attempting to correct everyone's posts.

What part of "the owners want an additional 7 to 8 hundred million dollars per year off the top don't you understand?"

The part where the owners were willing to share profit numbers with the players, which are substantial enough to get a monetary agreement completed.

Over a 7 year agreement this is over $5B additional monies to the owners.

THIS IS THE ISSUE.... all other so-called concessions are irrelevant distractions until this is dealt with....

Concessions are distractions? Do you even know what those concessions are? They are subjects which the players have vehemently objected to and the owners gave a reasonable and fair offer to address them. The $5 billion issue was never touched because the now decertified NFLPA believed that profit numbers not readily available to the team owners were not enough.

The decertified NFLPA since September (at least), made no attempt to make adjustments to the financial issue. The owners offered profit information. Why cant the players be held accountable for negotiating in poor faith?

So how much do they want? 10 years is excessive and the evaluation of that amount of information will only hold up the negotiation process that much longer if you account for how much paperwork would have to be sorted through

 

[THESMEL]

yes yes

Yes Yes 9 billion minus 1 billion is 8 billion revenue each year.

Players got 66% of appx 8 billion in 2009 and the Owners opted out of the current CBA.

1 billion plus 33% of 8 billion is fair to the owners? The Players want it all and cut the checks to the OWNERS! Freaking stupid unions.

Might be better for the owners though, the players can pay the 40%+ tax on the 9 billion, build stadiums, Hofame, Charities, retirement funds, NFLN
you know everything.

The players invest blood, sweat and time. but no money. they may or may not make the cut?

The owners have 1 Billion dollar businesses, some spent a lifetime of surviving and building, some inherited, some made their money elsewhere.

I thought when the players agreed to 50/50 partnership they had a chance, but they cut their own throat over the 1%.

The players must honor their contracts union or no union. If they don't, they don't get paid. And also must give back their bonuses.

This is "infantile", you might consider a better term of reference.

What part of "the owners want an additional 7 to 8 hundred million dollars per year off the top don't you understand?"

Over a 7 year agreement this is over $5B additional monies to the owners.

THIS IS THE ISSUE.... all other so-called concessions are irrelevant distractions until this is dealt with....

 

[john h]

I was reading about how the players want to see the owners' books. It got me to thinking. Can you imagine if back when I was say, 15 years old, I said to my dad, "Hey, dad, can I see your paycheck?" After carefully examining it, I gave it back to him and said, "Listen, I see you have an extra $20 at the end of each week...and well, I do alot of chores around here so I'm pretty important to you, soooooooooooo.... I think you should give that extra $20 to me. What d'ya say, dad?

Can you imagine his reaction?? YIKES! Hopefully, all the lil' cry-babies will just grow up and give us what WE DESERVE! Un-interrupted football! GO CARDS!!

In this day and age there is a big drive and issues involving right to privacy. Seems every time you go to a Doctors office or some other place you have to sign some sort of document concerning your privacy rights. You or your company can be sent to jail for violating privacy rights. I would think an individual owner would have all the weight of the courts on their rights to privacy when it comes to their personal or business finances. It would certainly not be a good precedent for the courts if some court issued some order for the owners to open their very private books. Sure, we all would like to see Mr. B's books on the Cardinals but not so much so that I would like to invade his right to privacy. I am no Mr. B fan but I say to Mr. B hang tough on this issue. It goes beyond football. The players have no right to see your books and you have no right to see their finances. Hey, Peyton Manning how about publishing your net worth and tell us how many cars, aircraft, yachts, etc you own. Let me see how much you spend on travel, eating out, and luxury items for the past ten years. Lets put that in the Wall St. Journal for all to see.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Didnt realize this was a graded thesis. I assumed this was a message board featuring informal discussion. Think you need to stop wasting your time and mine trying to play 6th grade English teacher by attempting to correct everyone's posts.

The part where the owners were willing to share profit numbers with the players, which are substantial enough to get a monetary agreement completed.

Concessions are distractions? Do you even know what those concessions are? They are subjects which the players have vehemently objected to and the owners gave a reasonable and fair offer to address them. The $5 billion issue was never touched because the now decertified NFLPA believed that profit numbers not readily available to the team owners were not enough.

The decertified NFLPA since September (at least), made no attempt to make adjustments to the financial issue. The owners offered profit information. Why cant the players be held accountable for negotiating in poor faith?

So how much do they want? 10 years is excessive and the evaluation of that amount of information will only hold up the negotiation process that much longer if you account for how much paperwork would have to be sorted through

If I thought for a moment that I'd made a particulary egregious or disrespectful reference, I'd quickly offer amends.

The point was that terms like 'baby' add nothing to your argument.

A simpleton, someone with room temperature IQ, would understand.

I'm reminded, in reading this exchange, of the adage about a guy up to his ass in crocodiles worrying about the flies buzzing around his head.

Don't, I suggest, get distracted by the so called concessions by owners (flies) and keep your eye on the cash up front being demanded (the crocodile).

Until the demand for additional $$$ up front is dealt with to the satisfaction of both parties, everything else is an irrelevant distraction in the PR war.

If you don't understand this, then, as my mother would say - "With all the wool in his head, it's not difficult to pull some over his eyes."

 

[TJ]

If I thought for a moment that I'd made a particulary egregious or disrespectful reference, I'd quickly offer amends.

The point was that terms like 'baby' add nothing to your argument.

A simpleton, someone with room temperature IQ, would understand.

"Acting like babies" or "Infantile" Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Playing semantics doesnt further an argument either, only makes one look pompous and decreases credibility.

I'm reminded, in reading this exchange, of the adage about a guy up to his ass in crocodiles worrying about the flies buzzing around his head.

Don't, I suggest, get distracted by the so called concessions by owners (flies) and keep your eye on the cash up front being demanded (the crocodile).

Until the demand for additional $$$ up front is dealt with to the satisfaction of both parties, everything else is an irrelevant distraction in the PR war.

If you don't understand this, then, as my mother would say - "With all the wool in his head, it's not difficult to pull some over his eyes."

Cute adage. But if the upfront money portion was the only issue agreed upon at this point, and other issues such as an prolonged schedule were still at a stalemate, wouldnt we be in the same position we're at now? If you've been paying any attention to the CBA debacle, you'd know there were several issues which need to be sorted through.

So using your adage, the roles of crocodiles and flies would be reversed.

A simpleton would understand this, right?

 

[Crazy Canuck]

"Acting like babies" or "Infantile" Six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. Playing semantics doesnt further an argument either, only makes one look pompous and decreases credibility.


Cute adage. But if the upfront money portion was the only issue agreed upon at this point, and other issues such as an prolonged schedule were still at a stalemate, wouldnt we be in the same position we're at now? If you've been paying any attention to the CBA debacle, you'd know there were several issues which need to be sorted through.

So using your adage, the roles of crocodiles and flies would be reversed.

A simpleton would understand this, right?

You evidently think that the list of so called concessions by owners have all been negotiated and agreed upon. They haven't.

They are still simply pieces on the bargaining chessboard and all subject to final agreement on whether the owners get $1B or $750M or $500M, whatever figure, off the top. That number will dictate whether all or some of these issues remain as presently put forward.

That one side or the other puts out a self serving communiqué at the 11th hour is common practice, and simply designed to get the constituency (fans in this case) to see their position as reasonable, etc. It's evidently working at this point.

Side table issues are not unimportant in the final instance, but the first instance remains finding a multi-billion dollar figure that both parties can live with.

The adage remains as originally put. While you are swatting at flies, the crocodile is about to chew off your gonads.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Yes Yes 9 billion minus 1 billion is 8 billion revenue each year.

Players got 66% of appx 8 billion in 2009 and the Owners opted out of the current CBA.

1 billion plus 33% of 8 billion is fair to the owners? The Players want it all and cut the checks to the OWNERS! Freaking stupid unions.

Might be better for the owners though, the players can pay the 40%+ tax on the 9 billion, build stadiums, Hofame, Charities, retirement funds, NFLN
you know everything.

The players invest blood, sweat and time. but no money. they may or may not make the cut?

The owners have 1 Billion dollar businesses, some spent a lifetime of surviving and building, some inherited, some made their money elsewhere.

I thought when the players agreed to 50/50 partnership they had a chance, but they cut their own throat over the 1%.

The players must honor their contracts union or no union. If they don't, they don't get paid. And also must give back their bonuses.

teachers make too much money too right? Stupid unions...