ESPN: Several NFL owners resisting deal to end lockout, sources say

[WoodysGirl]

Sources: Resistance for owners mounts

By Adam Schefter
ESPN
Archive (http://search.espn.go.com/adam-schefter/)

An internal battle is percolating at some of the highest NFL circles in which some owners are resisting the labor deal they've been trying to negotiate with the players, according to multiple sources.

A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources.

Read the rest: http://sports.espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/news/story?id=6671873

[SkinsHokieFan]

No surprise here. These are guys who blew up the offseason and there are enough who simply want to be leeches off other owners and the fans that are willing to blow up the season.

But its the players fault we are at this point, right?

[WoodysGirl]

PFT Spin: Report: Some owners are resisting potential deal

Posted by Mike Florio on June 17, 2011, 8:50 AM EDT

The reality is that, in the end, a handful of owners have no power to derail a deal. A new agreement still can be approved with 24 of 32 votes. (Apparently, there’s a belief in some circles that the committee negotiating the CBA already has the authority to do a deal without further approval. Multiple sources have advised us that any proposal still must be approved by 75 percent of the owners, which meshes with Commissioner Roger Goodell’s comments (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/commissioner-goodell-interview-transcript/) during a May 11 visit to PFT Live.)

That said, the fact that some owners are concerned with the emerging deal suggests that a truly fair deal for both sides is being pursued. If every owner were happy, it would mean that the owners were getting too good of a bargain. In any successful mediation, each side should emerge from the room at least a little bit pissed off.

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-some-owners-are-resisting-potential-deal/

[Nightshade]

Anyone have an idea what side of this Jerry falls on?

For some reason I'm still holding out hope and almost believe that he's one of the good guys in these final stages who's working hard to close the deal.

stupid I know.

[SkinsFan28]

PFT Spin: Report: Some owners are resisting potential deal

Posted by Mike Florio on June 17, 2011, 8:50 AM EDT

The reality is that, in the end, a handful of owners have no power to derail a deal. A new agreement still can be approved with 24 of 32 votes. (Apparently, there’s a belief in some circles that the committee negotiating the CBA already has the authority to do a deal without further approval. Multiple sources have advised us that any proposal still must be approved by 75 percent of the owners, which meshes with Commissioner Roger Goodell’s comments (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/commissioner-goodell-interview-transcript/) during a May 11 visit to PFT Live.)

That said, the fact that some owners are concerned with the emerging deal suggests that a truly fair deal for both sides is being pursued. If every owner were happy, it would mean that the owners were getting too good of a bargain. In any successful mediation, each side should emerge from the room at least a little bit pissed off.

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/17/report-some-owners-are-resisting-potential-deal/

I agree that this is basically a good thing. I want the ratification on the owners side to be on the 80% range. I just hope they vote with realistic ideals this time as opposed to 2006's vote.

Does anyone know how it works on the players' side? What percentage if any must approve it?

[SkinsFan28]

Anyone have an idea what side of this Jerry falls on?

For some reason I'm still holding out hope and almost believe that he's one of the good guys in these final stages who's working hard to close the deal.

stupid I know.

no idea, but I would imagine that the highest revenue, and lowest revenue teams are the ones that will be least likely to vote for whatever agreement comes out. That said, I do think the high revenue teams tend to see the value of any agreement rather than no agreement. The low revenue guys tend to be the ones that don't want any agreement that does not give them every penny of the money involved. (all my opinion obviously)

[Sam I Am]

No surprise here. These are guys who blew up the offseason and there are enough who simply want to be leeches off other owners and the fans that are willing to blow up the season.

But its the players fault we are at this point, right?

lol wut? That is an ignorant and statement. You are aware that two of thirty two owners have zero power to sway a vote right? Ask Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown. They were the only two owners to vote against the 2006 CBA that was a cluster **** for the owners.

[burmafrd]

24 votes are needed. So you would have to have 9 owners vote no. If you have 4-5 malcontents, that is not enough to scuttle a deal. As was pointed out, if all of the owners were happy that might not be a good sign that the players would sign off on it.

[InmanRoshi]

Wow, you mean the real underlying problems exist between the owners that they need to work out between themselves?

Knock me down with a feather.

If the small market owners blow the deal up, it will be funny watching people insist it's all D. Smith's fault.

A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources.

Wild guess, but I think it might be the two AFC owners who voted no on the last CBA. The ones with the initials of RW and MB?

The surprise is that many thought this kind of pushback to a deal would occur within the player ranks, not among NFL owners.

In reality, the resistance has been there since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote of the owners to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.

After the players decertified, owners were briefed on Goodell's offer and some felt it was too one sided for the players and not strong enough for the teams. Those teams never changed their feelings, and recently they have made this directly known to Goodell, according to a source.

What? I heard the owners were collectively pleading for the players to sign on the dotted line for the proposed deal at the negotiating deadline to avoid the lockout, the one they so desperately didn't want, D. Smith and Tom Brady and Peyton Manning laughed in their faces and called up their lawyers. Then they got together and pranked Sam Hurd and ordered 20 pizzas to be delivered to his house.

[Everlastingxxx]

I have been impressed by how the players have stuck together in all of this. It has been the owners that are not in agreement. Why a new deal has taken so long to achieve.

[Doomsday101]

I have been impressed by how the players have stuck together in all of this. It has been the owners that are not in agreement. Why a new deal has taken so long to achieve.

Players for the most part are not losing money right now.

[notherbob]

Anyone have an idea what side of this Jerry falls on?

For some reason I'm still holding out hope and almost believe that he's one of the good guys in these final stages who's working hard to close the deal.

stupid I know.

As I understand it, Jerry was one of the more active instigators of the lockout as he became upset with the existing agreement and may have been the one behind negotiating the lockout deal where the owners get paid even if there is no football.

It seems to me that he became increasingly irritated with the CBA after his new stadium got built and became determined to change it and acted on his intentions.

For good or bad, Kerry has been a prime instigator and in the thick of it ever since. He is not a bystander who got caught up in the action, he was a big part of the cause of it.

Even before the lockout was announced, there were videos of Jerry expressing displeasure with the CBA and expressing a strong desire to change it.

Jerry is just as much a part of the problem as he is going to be part of the solution.

Personally, I don't care much one way or another, I'm just patiently waiting for football to resume, which it ultimately will. Since I don't attend games or buy gear, the outcome won't affect me much. If there are no games, I will watch college ball on Saturday and fix fences and work in the garden on Sundays. I'm slowly becoming indifferent to it all and eventually won't even watch it on TV or internet.

Life is good, anyway.

[superpunk]

What? I heard the owners were collectively pleading for the players to sign on the dotted line for the proposed deal at the negotiating deadline to avoid the lockout, the one they so desperately didn't want, D. Smith and Tom Brady and Peyton Manning laughed in their faces and called up their lawyers. Then they got together and pranked Sam Hurd and ordered 20 pizzas to be delivered to his house.

I was hearing the same things around that time. I can confirm this information.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wild guess, but I think it might be the two AFC owners who voted no on the last CBA. The ones with the initials of RW and MB?




Those were the first two I thought of as well.

[theogt]

A few idiot owners who can't run their franchise properly apparently want others to hand them more money.

Shocked.

[Joe Rod]

The ones with the initials of RW and MB?

Row Williams and Marian Barber? They don't have that kind of clout.

[peplaw06]

<insert dramatic theories about fractures and implosions here>

[BrAinPaiNt]

<insert dramatic theories about fractures and implosions here>

We need to look for Owners who also are lawyers or have been lawyers. :p: ;)

[Hostile]

Anyone have an idea what side of this Jerry falls on?

For some reason I'm still holding out hope and almost believe that he's one of the good guys in these final stages who's working hard to close the deal.

stupid I know.Jerry is one of the chief negotiators of the current deals on the table. He is 100% behind them so far. The two straggler owners are most likely the two already posited, Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown. Their votes will not kill the deal, so this is probably much ado about nothing. I would have been shocked if all 32 owners agreed on the parameters of the deal.

[adbutcher]

Wow, you mean the real underlying problems exist between the owners that they need to work out between themselves?

Knock me down with a feather.

If the small market owners blow the deal up, it will be funny watching people insist it's all D. Smith's fault.



Wild guess, but I think it might be the two AFC owners who voted no on the last CBA. The ones with the initials of RW and MB?



What? I heard the owners were collectively pleading for the players to sign on the dotted line for the proposed deal at the negotiating deadline to avoid the lockout, the one they so desperately didn't want, D. Smith and Tom Brady and Peyton Manning laughed in their faces and called up their lawyers. Then they got together and pranked Sam Hurd and ordered 20 pizzas to be delivered to his house.

Good points. Just when I was thinking that D. Smith was the root of evil and then post like this comes along.

[burmafrd]

Have to laugh at the so called unity of the players. Their shills really are blind.

[Hostile]

Good points. Just when I was thinking that D. Smith was the root of evil and then post like this comes along.You have got to be kidding. Pure sewage and petty nonsense.

[adbutcher]

You have got to be kidding. Pure sewage and petty nonsense.

Got it, D. Smith is the debil.

[burmafrd]

De is not the devil. He is nowhere near that important.

[peplaw06]

This thread brings teh win

[Hostile]

What? I heard the owners were collectively pleading for the players to sign on the dotted line for the proposed deal at the negotiating deadline to avoid the lockout, the one they so desperately didn't want, D. Smith and Tom Brady and Peyton Manning laughed in their faces and called up their lawyers. Then they got together and pranked Sam Hurd and ordered 20 pizzas to be delivered to his house.

Got it, D. Smith is the debil.You're telling me that paragraph is accurate and insightful? Seriously?

Ad, that was flushable.

[superpunk]

This thread brings teh win

I concur.


inb4butthurt

[StylisticS]

Wow, you mean the real underlying problems exist between the owners that they need to work out between themselves?

Knock me down with a feather.
Basically, the bloggers that posted that article on BTB were correct that this entire fight was between the owners namely big market owners and small market owner.

[BrAinPaiNt]

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b133/BrAinPaiNt/full_of_win.jpg

[dogberry]

Buffalo, Cincinnati, Carolina, Minnesota, Green Bay, Miami, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Oakland, Jacksonville.

Possible teams concerned with their bottom lines.

[Marktui]

Anyone have an idea what side of this Jerry falls on?

For some reason I'm still holding out hope and almost believe that he's one of the good guys in these final stages who's working hard to close the deal.

stupid I know.


I would think he is pushing for a start to the season. Jerry wants to make money and that only happens if football is played.

[The Emperor]

If we can somehow figure a way to blame this on Jerry Jones, then all will be right with the world.

Quick! The spike-haired liar at Pro Football Gossip should play Goebbels again and show the same stock photo of Jerry Jones and Roger Goodell, as if to suggest Jerry Jones is behind the whole lockout.

[speedkilz88]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1536/epicfailsealvr6.gif/ (http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1536/epicfailsealvr6.gif/) http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1536/epicfailsealvr6.gif

This thread is just full of fail.

[CoCo]

I propose that all zoners meet somewhere to negotiate and agree once and for all whose fault this all is, who we should admire, despise, who are sheep, shills, liars etc.

[BrAinPaiNt]

I propose that all zoners meet somewhere to negotiate and agree once and for all whose fault this all is, who we should admire, despise, who are sheep, shills, liars etc.

Sounds like something Edward Longshanks would do and then kill off the scottish noblemen. :p:

[CoCo]

Sounds like something Edward Longshanks would do and then kill off the scottish noblemen. :p:

drats, he's on to me...

[DallasEast]

[/URL][URL="http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif"]http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif (http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif)

*The labels of The Devil and Satan have been interchangeable between Jones and Goodell, depending on who has pissed off fans the most at any given moment

[Hoofbite]

No surprise here. These are guys who blew up the offseason and there are enough who simply want to be leeches off other owners and the fans that are willing to blow up the season.

But its the players fault we are at this point, right?

It's everyone's fault.

[Hoofbite]

[/URL][URL="http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif"]http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif (http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif)

*The labels of The Devil and Satan have been interchangeable between Jones and Goodell, depending on who has pissed off fans the most at any given moment

Don't you mean "The Debil" and:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kslfvfmK6W1qzxbido1_500.jpg

SATAN! You just gotta imagine the voice and the way he says it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Don't you mean "The Debil" and:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kslfvfmK6W1qzxbido1_500.jpg

SATAN! You just gotta imagine the voice and the way he says it.

:laugh2: :laugh2: Those skits were so funny.

[DallasEast]

Don't you mean "The Debil" and:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kslfvfmK6W1qzxbido1_500.jpg (http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kslfvfmK6W1qzxbido1_500.jpg)

SATAN! You just gotta imagine the voice and the way he says it.
:laugh1:

If folks only took it as funny as SNL. :D

[The30YardSlant]

Got it, D. Smith is the debil.

He's just worthless

[The30YardSlant]

No surprise here. These are guys who blew up the offseason and there are enough who simply want to be leeches off other owners and the fans that are willing to blow up the season.

But its the players fault we are at this point, right?

Everyone involved is at fault, and anybody who believes otherwise is either being misled one way or the other or has a serious agenda

[Nightshade]

Jerry is one of the chief negotiators of the current deals on the table. He is 100% behind them so far. The two straggler owners are most likely the two already posited, Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown. Their votes will not kill the deal, so this is probably much ado about nothing. I would have been shocked if all 32 owners agreed on the parameters of the deal.

If it's true and Jerry's working to close the deal. This is Great news! It's hard to stop the train that Jerry gets rolling. Say what you want. The owner of our team can get things done when he sets his mind on something. (As long as it doesn't have anything to do with O-line talent) lol

[adbutcher]

[/URL][URL="http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif"]http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif (http://i356.photobucket.com/albums/oo4/DallasEast1701/3222487f.gif)

*The labels of The Devil and Satan have been interchangeable between Jones and Goodell, depending on who has pissed off fans the most at any given moment

Thank you DE, you just made me spit out my green tea.:laugh2:

[JustDezIt]

http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/1182/unled2jc.png

[mcduff]

We are finally seeing at this late hour the real reason for the lockout. The attempt to put in place built in protections for owners who are trying to make the bucks (skimpers) from the owners who are trying to win a championship and expand the values of their franchises (winners). Some sort of CBA must be in place for antitrust protection, the owners have no choice or lose big to the Mark Cuban types in the Federal Courts (ie Bill Gates and Microsoft). However, no one twist anyones arms in signing free agents, bonuses, or lenghts of contracts. Socializing income streams, limiting costs, and mandated risk mangement are required to prevent a Twins versus Yankees situation in the NFL not bedcause of opportunities but because of certain owners attitudes. If everyone was like Jerry it could be a true free market versus the artificial protections the owners are putting on themselves to protect them from themselves while blaming it on the players. I am sure there are potential owners out there like the Jones and Cubans that would love to take the Bills and Bengals off an owners hands who is more concerned with protecting his monopoly enhanced cash-cow. I garantee Cuban could make Buffalo and their New York and Canadian fan base and top ten NFL frnachise in five years. It just takes getting off your duff and marketing your product. This is all the owners doing, the players like any of us worker bees will take as much as we can for our labor.

[InmanRoshi]

I garantee Cuban could make Buffalo and their New York and Canadian fan base and top ten NFL frnachise in five years. It just takes getting off your duff and marketing your product.

Actually, it takes a new stadium (preferably tax payer funded) that brings in piles of cash revenue that doesn't have to be shared (luxory boxes). Also local media isn't shared, like Jerry's Silver Star Network, which certainly helps advertising rates when you're in a Top 5 TV market like Jerry has, opposed to whatever miniscule TV market Buffalo has.


No matter how much Ralph Wilson "gets off his duff" he will never be an equal foothold with Jerry. No matter how hard Ralph Wilson worked, Ford and Pappa Johns is never going to pay him as much money as they paid Jerry, because he doesn't have as many potential eyeballs when they roll their ads.

Personally I'm okay with that, and I don't think it would be any huge problem if Buffalo lost their team if they've proven they can't competitively support it compared to other NFL markets.

.... but certainly it has to be a huge concern for all of those screaming that the NFL "is going to become baseball" when the players decertified, who constantly preached the importance of equality and fairness and level playing field in the NFL two months ago.

[sonnyboy]

Actually, it takes a new stadium (preferably tax payer funded) that brings in piles of cash revenue that doesn't have to be shared (luxory boxes). Also local media isn't shared, like Jerry's Silver Star Network, which certainly helps advertising rates when you're in a Top 5 TV market like Jerry has, opposed to whatever miniscule TV market Buffalo has.


No matter how much Ralph Wilson "gets off his duff" he will never be an equal foothold with Jerry. No matter how hard Ralph Wilson worked, Ford and Pappa Johns is never going to pay him as much money as they paid Jerry, because he doesn't have as many potential eyeballs when they roll their ads.

Personally I'm okay with that, and I don't think it would be any huge problem if Buffalo lost their team if they've proven they can't competitively support it compared to other NFL markets.

.... but certainly it has to be a huge concern for all of those screaming that the NFL "is going to become baseball" when the players decertified, who constantly preached the importance of equality and fairness and level playing field in the NFL two months ago.


Good post.

IMO The root of the problem is the system or structure the NFL is working under.

I've said this before and I'll say it again.....it's like trying to jam a round peg and a square peg into two round holes.

How can you mandate a nearly exact and nearly equal amount of payroll for 32 teams when there is a significant disparity in the revs they generate?

If the cap/floor is set low enough for every team to turn a profit, the players probably wont and certainly will feel like they're not getting their fair share.

When the players do feel like they getting a fair share of the revs, you get a handful of the smaller market teams running a loss.


The best solution as I see it, is 32 different cap/floors for all 32 teams based on the total revs of that team.


And it won't kill the competitive balance of the NFL. The gap between the Cowboys and Bills is nowhere near the gap between the Yanks and Royals.


And the formula itself doesn't need to be a exact % of the teams revenue. It can work on somewhat of a sliding scale to keep the gap in cap/floors between the have and have nots closer.


The Bills may only need a floor 10-15 mil lower than the average floor or perhaps 20-25 mil lower than a top rev team like the Cowboys, to turn a profit.

[gimmesix]

Anyone have an idea what side of this Jerry falls on?

For some reason I'm still holding out hope and almost believe that he's one of the good guys in these final stages who's working hard to close the deal.

stupid I know.

Considering Jones has been one of the owners involved in the negotiations, I doubt he would be one of the owners against what he's been negotiating.

[gimmesix]

Jerry is one of the chief negotiators of the current deals on the table. He is 100% behind them so far. The two straggler owners are most likely the two already posited, Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown. Their votes will not kill the deal, so this is probably much ado about nothing. I would have been shocked if all 32 owners agreed on the parameters of the deal.

Guess I should have kept reading before I posted.

Although some will do it, I think it's hard to blame Jerry on this one.

[M'Kevon]

The best solution as I see it, is 32 different cap/floors for all 32 teams based on the total revs of that team.




Not a chance. Guarantee 2/3 of the owners would be against this.

Who sets the floor? How do you compare total revenues of GB against the other 31 teams? What's to stop Cincinnati from cooking their books? Do you really think JJ and the dwarf in Washington wouldn't sue the league to block this?

[junk]

Here's an interesting article from 1995 about Jerry.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1007120/1/index.htm


Jones insists that he is simply trying to show his fellow owners the way. But others sense something darker in Jones's game plan: the creation of a slowly elevating salary cap that benefits him alone. Say that Jones has an extraordinarily successful year and closes marketing deals worth $150 million for 1996. Even though he would keep most of the money (giving some, he promises, to teams that simply can't get their own deals), all of it would count toward the figure that the league uses to calculate the salary cap. In this scenario the cap would rise by $3 million per team. But only Dallas, with its lucrative outside contracts, and a few other wealthy teams would actually be able to afford to increase their payrolls. The cap goes up, while everybody's income but the fat cats' remains mostly flat.


There's no doubt that his actions have in some way contributed to the current situation. I think the scenario laid out above is exactly what is happening.

I'm not against individual owners pursuing local revenue streams and trying to maximize their profits. I think there's little doubt that league wide revenues have increased dramatically because of it.

However, it bothers me that they've known about this since 1995 and the best solution they've been able to come up with is to reduce/eliminate revenue sharing and ask for more from the players.

[big dog cowboy]

The two straggler owners are most likely the two already posited, Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown.

When the last deal got done Wilson admitted he didn't understand it and just voted yes to go along with the other owners. He is such a tool. Way past time for him to step down.

Brown is just a blooming idiot. The inside knowledge I have heard first hand makes me question why he is even involved in the league. He should sell the team. If that happened the league would be better instantly.

[baj1dallas]

Basically, the bloggers that posted that article on BTB were correct that this entire fight was between the owners namely big market owners and small market owner.

even more than that it's between real owners and cheapskates who don't care about their team and don't want to do anything other than milk the local fans for every penny.

[mmillman]

I would guess Jerruh is one of the holdouts on this

[RS12]

Schefter said two AFC owners. I'm guessing owners with piles of debt, one would be Woody Johnson.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's everyone's fault.

The only fault that matters is by the rule of law. That forum is at least an attempt at impartiality even if it is less and less so as time goes by. We just do not have enough information to say anything one way or the other.

Maybe, the demonologists here are right and Smith has been the driving force delaying settlement or it could be Richardson or any permutation of the seventy or so direct participants in this.

[the truth of it all]

As I understand it, Jerry was one of the more active instigators of the lockout as he became upset with the existing agreement and may have been the one behind negotiating the lockout deal where the owners get paid even if there is no football.

It seems to me that he became increasingly irritated with the CBA after his new stadium got built and became determined to change it and acted on his intentions.

For good or bad, Kerry has been a prime instigator and in the thick of it ever since. He is not a bystander who got caught up in the action, he was a big part of the cause of it.

Even before the lockout was announced, there were videos of Jerry expressing displeasure with the CBA and expressing a strong desire to change it.

Jerry is just as much a part of the problem as he is going to be part of the solution.

Personally, I don't care much one way or another, I'm just patiently waiting for football to resume, which it ultimately will. Since I don't attend games or buy gear, the outcome won't affect me much. If there are no games, I will watch college ball on Saturday and fix fences and work in the garden on Sundays. I'm slowly becoming indifferent to it all and eventually won't even watch it on TV or internet.

Life is good, anyway.

This... i just cant forsee the owner of one of the biggest teams in all sports being ON the players side etc.. Doesnt Jerry head various committees ?

[J-DOG]

no idea, but I would imagine that the highest revenue, and lowest revenue teams are the ones that will be least likely to vote for whatever agreement comes out. That said, I do think the high revenue teams tend to see the value of any agreement rather than no agreement. The low revenue guys tend to be the ones that don't want any agreement that does not give them every penny of the money involved. (all my opinion obviously)
Agree.
In the last agreement there was 2 AFC teams who did not agree to the CBA. Buffalo and Cincinnati.
Turns out they were correct as that agreement was the one that the owners opted out of because it was so much in favor to the players.
To me this news just means that we are one step closer to a new CBA.
Cincinnati is a team that will likely always disagree with a new CBA as they are notoriously one of or the cheapest team in spending money in the league. Ever wonder why Cincy always is drafting players with questionable background in the draft? They have the smallest amount of scouts in the NFL. Cincy definitely falls into the category of why there is a minimum for teams in what they spend for salary. Long history of draft picks holding out as Cincy will not budge in negotiations.

[gimmesix]

There's no doubt that his actions have in some way contributed to the current situation. I think the scenario laid out above is exactly what is happening.

I'm not against individual owners pursuing local revenue streams and trying to maximize their profits. I think there's little doubt that league wide revenues have increased dramatically because of it.

However, it bothers me that they've known about this since 1995 and the best solution they've been able to come up with is to reduce/eliminate revenue sharing and ask for more from the players.

Jerry has long been against revenue sharing because he thinks every owner should be trying to maximize their profits, and the ones that do shouldn't have to take care of the ones who are too lazy to try.

His actions have contributed to what is happening in that sense, but I believe he sees it as the lazy ones' inaction is the problem. If they were all like Jerry, there would be less need for revenue sharing or "taking back" money from the players.

[notherbob]

This... i just cant forsee the owner of one of the biggest teams in all sports being ON the players side etc.. Doesnt Jerry head various committees ?

Jerry is on Jerry's side. His issue with the CBA may not have been with the players but with the small market owners like Mike Brown, maybe Jerry just got tired of carrying him when he seemed to make little effort to succeed financially on his own like stadium naming revenues.

I don't recall Jerry saying what his issue was, only that the CBA couldn't continue the way it was.

[notherbob]

Jerry has long been against revenue sharing because he thinks every owner should be trying to maximize their profits, and the ones that do shouldn't have to take care of the ones who are too lazy to try.

His actions have contributed to what is happening in that sense, but I believe he sees it as the lazy ones' inaction is the problem. If they were all like Jerry, there would be less need for revenue sharing or "taking back" money from the players.


This is true and just what I have been talking about.

[Randy White]

Basically, the bloggers that posted that article on BTB were correct that this entire fight was between the owners namely big market owners and small market owner.


They must have been reading CowboysZone back when this whole thing started because there was at least one poster who was stating that same thing.

[Randy White]

Buffalo, Cincinnati, Carolina, Minnesota, Green Bay, Miami, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Oakland, Jacksonville.

Possible teams concerned with their bottom lines.


The one in bold is because of the owner's stupid decisions and he's a BILLIONAIRE..

" Oh, here's an excellent idea for a promotion: let's build a night club on the stadium that people could go to after games "..

Lasted all of 3 weeks and that's only because J-LO and Marc Anthony ( minority owners ) made appearances in it.. Had they bother to do some research, they would have found out that the majority of the male ticket buyers who want to continue partying after the game go to the nearby strip joint called Tootsies. The rest of the ticket buyers are either married people who go straight home after the game, or families.. None of which would likely stay in the stadium to " party ".

and then there was the " coach search ".. right after the Jimmah Jenius years, which produced the Dave " One"stash years, which lead to the famous " You need to welcome the Ted Ginn family and turn those thumbs upside " ..

So, yea, the Dullphins are concerned with their bottom line after watching half empty stadiums except when teams like the Cowboys, Jets, or Steelers are visiting town, and the luxury suites are empty.

[WoodysGirl]

CBS Sports Clark Judge Spin

Talk is cheap ... and not always positive (http://clarkjudge.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6384866/30097347)

So now we have a report that NFL owners aren't so happy with the ongoing negotiations between players and management, and while I haven't heard a league owner second that I do think there's something to it, and here's why: Because people are talking.

No, let me put that more succinctly: Because Jeff Pash, lead counsel for the NFL, is talking. He told Sirius Radio this week that owners had proposed a 90 percent cash cap, and that's the first we've heard from Pash since the league meetings in late May. So what? So it's never a good sign when people are talking.

Look what happened when the two sides initiated impromptu talks prior to the June 3 hearing in St. Louis. Nobody knew about it. Which meant nobody was talking. And look what happened since: Nobody spoke about what went on inside those meetings ... until now, that is.

Read the rest: http://clarkjudge.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/6384866

[burmafrd]

love how the fact that the REAL problem started once the lawyers got back into the room; but that article does not seem to want to admit that.

Only an idiot would expect all the owners to be happy with ANY deal that got done.

[Hostile]

love how the fact that the REAL problem started once the lawyers got back into the room; but that article does not seem to want to admit that.

Only an idiot would expect all the owners to be happy with ANY deal that got done.
The lawyers divided the owners?

[burmafrd]

The lawyers divided the owners?


would never put anything past a lawyer

[notherbob]

More from the Judge article:

"Remember, this is not a one-year agreement they're trying to negotiate. This is one they hope carries them and the players through the next 8-10 years -- which means they're determined to get it right.

They didn't in 2006, which is why the NFL went to a lockout and why it hasn't been lifted. Reports indicate that next week's owners' meetings in Chicago will address the issues that are causing problems among owners, and I suggest if that's true they'll need more than a night to resolve things. They may need weeks.

The small-market vs. big-market debate in revenue sharing won't go away, and until that is resolved there's no use talking about a new CBA."

Read the rest: http://clarkjudge.blogs.cbssports.co...s/view/6384866

- - - - - -

This is what I have been saying all along.

[notherbob]

They must have been reading CowboysZone back when this whole thing started because there was at least one poster who was stating that same thing.

That would be me.

When management rushed itself into that deal in 2006 but with an escape valve in the form of an opt-out, I knew that someone would be pulling on that emergency brake cord and they did only two years later.

The real issues truly are between owners but I think the agreement is fused into the CBA so my guess is that the CBA was trashed so the owners cound straighten out revenue sharing once and for all, or at least the next few years.

Lotta money at stake here. "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we're talking about real money." - Sen. Ev Dirksen, R-IL.

[junk]

Jerry has long been against revenue sharing because he thinks every owner should be trying to maximize their profits, and the ones that do shouldn't have to take care of the ones who are too lazy to try.

His actions have contributed to what is happening in that sense, but I believe he sees it as the lazy ones' inaction is the problem. If they were all like Jerry, there would be less need for revenue sharing or "taking back" money from the players.

Sure, I completely understand the owners distaste for revenue sharing. Unfortunately, not all owners, cities and teams are created equal. Jerry is a terrific businessman, but he does have a much better situation than Buffalo or Jacksonville to work with. Then there is the laziness factor you referred to as well. Also at play are those that are only about the bottom line and the team likely suffers because of it (Cincy).

However, one of the real issues with this whole situation is that you have revenue streams that are, by definition, shared. The TV contract, national advertising, etc. The owners make way more as a group than they do individually. Then you also have revenue streams that are dependent upon the business savvy of the individual teams, the individual markets, etc.

Personally, I think whatever this final solution is, it should treat the revenue streams differently. Both for cap calcs and for the % given to players.

[burmafrd]

I agree that there should be revenue streams that will not be shared. Anything to force the lazy ones like Brown to get off their butts and actually work.

[Hostile]

Sure, I completely understand the owners distaste for revenue sharing. Unfortunately, not all owners, cities and teams are created equal. Jerry is a terrific businessman, but he does have a much better situation than Buffalo or Jacksonville to work with. Then there is the laziness factor you referred to as well. Also at play are those that are only about the bottom line and the team likely suffers because of it (Cincy).

However, one of the real issues with this whole situation is that you have revenue streams that are, by definition, shared. The TV contract, national advertising, etc. The owners make way more as a group than they do individually. Then you also have revenue streams that are dependent upon the business savvy of the individual teams, the individual markets, etc.

Personally, I think whatever this final solution is, it should treat the revenue streams differently. Both for cap calcs and for the % given to players.With you on that because it makes absolute sense. It would also offer some protection for both sides. I think initiative and industriousness by teams should be rewards they reap.

[junk]

With you on that because it makes absolute sense. It would also offer some protection for both sides. I think initiative and industriousness by teams should be rewards they reap.

A good example that was brought up here was the party tents that some teams have prior to a game.

Currently, I believe that is all counted as revenue and thrown in the overall pool from which the players get somewhere between 50% and 55%.

Now, as someone pointed out, you can't really expect that sort of margin for something like that. You have quite a bit of overhead and you can only charge so much before fans balk at the price.

With the current deal, certain owners still make money doing this because that revenue is essentially split 32 ways and provided to the players as a salary cap increase. However, it also drives up costs for those teams that can't/don't have party tents.

So, what do you do? You don't want to eliminate a revenue stream just because you don't have a 50% margin. You still could easily have 20 to 30%. I don't feel it's fair to tell the players they aren't allowed a share of that revenue because, frankly, the fans are there to see the players and that revenue opportunity would not exist without the players. Calculating based on profits is obviously out because 1) owners don't want to open the books and 2) you can make the books say whatever you want anyway.

I'd actually propose giving the players a bigger share of the national revenue. TV money, league advertising......that is the league's high profit area. Not much overhead associated with those things (relatively speaking). That would form the basis of your yearly salary cap. Equal among all teams. No competitive advantage and players costs would be set according to the ability of the league to market itself as a whole. This salary cap would probably actually be a bit lower than what we are used to now.

Then I'd start reclassifying the other revenue streams. Something like the party tent, concessions, etc would just dedicate a % to the players. Say 10% (we don't have real numbers to work with to see if this is feasible unfortunately). They have relatively high amounts of overhead, so players take a lower percentage.

Gate receipts (ticket sales) - I'd break these into standard and luxury box. Standard tickets would be a set percentage. Maybe a 60/40 split among owners and players. Luxury boxes, I think I'd considered a formula for each team based upon their current debt situation. Luxury boxes are an area of high profit which is why teams want new stadiums. If the formula allowed owners a high percentage of the take based upon their debt situation, I think it would encourage growth, stadium expansion and encourage owners to pay off their debt sooner. This would be the hardest one to calculate and make fair. I think you'd also have to include stadium naming rights and parking in this deal as well. Once debt was essentially gone, this would become essentially a 50/50 split.

Finally, local advertising. I'd push this as a slightly higher percentage to the players. This is low overhead/high profit revenue.

Now, again, not having numbers, I have no idea how this would shake out, but ideally, you'd end up with approximately a 50/50 split between players and owners. You might have to tweak the %s.....maybe it wouldn't even work. I'm spit balling.

But, here's what I would do differently. Cap would be static based upon the income streams stated above (TV, national advertising, etc). It would have a hard cash floor with a high % (90-95%).

The rest of the money would go into another pool. From that pool, you'd take out player/retiree benefits first. I'd bump up/enhance the performance based pay plan, because I like the idea of paying players for performance. Maybe bonuses to the top 5 performers in pre-determined statistical categories. Bonus money to players that outplayed their contract like they do now. Reward stars as well as those that are underpaid while providing incentive to get on the field and perform.

Then if there was still money left, I'd consider implementing player exemptions. Essentially every team would have 1 or 2 player exemptions. Maybe a Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 is allotted a salary of $1.5 million and Tier 2 is a allotted a salary of $1 millon. This player's salary would not come from the salary cap, but instead from this pool of money allocated to the players. It would not give anyone a competitive edge. If a team chose not to/could not spend that money, they would not receive that money and it would go back into the player's pool. I'd see this as a useful tools for a team to sign an aging vet or to keep a lower end/ST type guy (Sam Hurd since he's popular around here) on the roster.

I have no idea if this is even feasible, but the last couple of months, I've tried to think of other ways to split revenues and this was one thought I had. I'm sure others may disagree and it may not even work, but it's a different approach.

[hutch1254]

We are finally seeing at this late hour the real reason for the lockout. The attempt to put in place built in protections for owners who are trying to make the bucks (skimpers) from the owners who are trying to win a championship and expand the values of their franchises (winners). Some sort of CBA must be in place for antitrust protection, the owners have no choice or lose big to the Mark Cuban types in the Federal Courts (ie Bill Gates and Microsoft). However, no one twist anyones arms in signing free agents, bonuses, or lenghts of contracts. Socializing income streams, limiting costs, and mandated risk mangement are required to prevent a Twins versus Yankees situation in the NFL not bedcause of opportunities but because of certain owners attitudes. If everyone was like Jerry it could be a true free market versus the artificial protections the owners are putting on themselves to protect them from themselves while blaming it on the players. I am sure there are potential owners out there like the Jones and Cubans that would love to take the Bills and Bengals off an owners hands who is more concerned with protecting his monopoly enhanced cash-cow. I garantee Cuban could make Buffalo and their New York and Canadian fan base and top ten NFL frnachise in five years. It just takes getting off your duff and marketing your product. This is all the owners doing, the players like any of us worker bees will take as much as we can for our labor.

Good post. I agree very much with your Wilson comments. He does have a monopoly here. Yes he helped build the AFC back in the day but nowadays there is an air of him just riding it out and protecting what he built. Understandable. But this local fan base continues to buy tickets and sell out games out of fear that the team will leave. A Cuban type owner in this location would be rewarded handsomely by this fan base. An example of this can be seen with the new owner that bought the Buffalo Sabres. He has more money than the NY Rangers and the fans here are going crazy with renewed hope and anticipation. The new owner is already making sweeping changes internally. Nothing like this will happen to the Bills until Wilson passes away, unfortunately. Wilson's business practices may be tried and true for his situation when he started but it no longer fits today's market place. It's really unfortunate because the Buffalo fan base is as hardcore as it gets but they've put up with crap going on 20 years.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Everyone involved is at fault, and anybody who believes otherwise is either being misled one way or the other or has a serious agenda

Or they could just make gross generalizations without any direct knowledge whatsoever.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The lawyers divided the owners?

Just people filling in gaps without knowing anything.

[Hostile]

Just people filling in gaps without knowing anything.
I know brah.

I think the perceived owner split won't matter ultimately. I am firmly in the belief that the two sides are close enough that it gets done on their target date next week.

[Fletch]

I know brah.

I think the perceived owner split won't matter ultimately. I am firmly in the belief that the two sides are close enough that it gets done on their target date next week.

And yet again I just heard my father-in-law today say that their will be no football. His source from what I gather is NFL.com or something like that. I keep telling him we'll have a season, but he went on and on about how the owners won't be able to agree and how the lawyers almost ruined negotiations earlier this week. :rolleyes:

I almost had to laugh. He thinks he is spot on because last offseason he did predict the Steelers would go to the Super Bowl even while Ben was under suspension for 4 games. Knowing I am a die-hard Cowboys' fan, he was merely trying to get a rise out of me. His prediction included the Steelers holding up the Lombardi Trophy at Cowboys' Stadium. We all know that didn't happen.

[InmanRoshi]

Wasn't the existing CBA opted out to begin with because the existing CBA wasn't working for the Ralph Wilsons and Mike Browns? It's obviously worked out gloriously for the Jerry Jones and Robert Krafts.

So if they manage the strong arm Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown into another CBA that doesn't work for them, the last 5 months was pretty much for nothing. People tore Tom Brady and Peyton Manning a new one for not "looking out" for the Sam Hurds, but Jerry is under no obligation to help his little brother owners?

Besides, supposedly, the "most important thing" is to keep football from becoming baseball. That's what I kept reading in thread after thread after thread. If that's the "most important thing" then Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown's and Wayne Weavers' concerns should be at the forefront.

[Hostile]

Wasn't the existing CBA opted out to begin with because the existing CBA wasn't working for the Ralph Wilsons and Mike Browns? It's obviously worked out gloriously for the Jerry Jones and Robert Krafts.No, it didn't work for a lot of owners and the big market teams more than the small market teams.

So if they manage the strong arm Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown into another CBA that doesn't work for them, the last 5 months was pretty much for nothing. People tore Tom Brady and Peyton Manning a new one for not "looking out" for the Sam Hurds, but Jerry is under no obligation to help his little brother owners?Jerry helps more than any other owner in the NFL. Yet again, you have got the facts wrong.

Besides, supposedly, the "most important thing" is to keep football from becoming baseball. That's what I kept reading in thread after thread after thread. If that's the "most important thing" then Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown's and Wayne Weavers' concerns should be at the forefront.Sooner or later we all hope you understand what you've been reading and why some of the messages are viable, vital, and relevant.

[junk]

Wasn't the existing CBA opted out to begin with because the existing CBA wasn't working for the Ralph Wilsons and Mike Browns? It's obviously worked out gloriously for the Jerry Jones and Robert Krafts.

So if they manage the strong arm Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown into another CBA that doesn't work for them, the last 5 months was pretty much for nothing. People tore Tom Brady and Peyton Manning a new one for not "looking out" for the Sam Hurds, but Jerry is under no obligation to help his little brother owners?

Besides, supposedly, the "most important thing" is to keep football from becoming baseball. That's what I kept reading in thread after thread after thread. If that's the "most important thing" then Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown's and Wayne Weavers' concerns should be at the forefront.

Good points.

This has always been more about the disconnect between the big owners and the small owners rather than the owners and players.

Although Jerry, Kraft and company made a lot of money, they want to make more. They can do that if they don't share revenue with the small market owners. How do you make up that revenue gap? Take it from the players.

However, I suspect you know this already and are simply making a point.

[Hostile]

Good points.

This has always been more about the disconnect between the big owners and the small owners rather than the owners and players.

Although Jerry, Kraft and company made a lot of money, they want to make more. They can do that if they don't share revenue with the small market owners. How do you make up that revenue gap? Take it from the players.

However, I suspect you know this already and are simply making a point.By giving them a 90% cash floor and promising to hit projected cap amounts?

Myopic.

[junk]

No, it didn't work for a lot of owners and the big market teams more than the small market teams.

Links?

Which big market teams are struggling? Which ones more than the small market teams?

Or is the larger picture that it "didn't work" for big market teams because the amount of revenue they had to share?

Any data you might have supporting your stance would be greatly appreciated.


Jerry helps more than any other owner in the NFL. Yet again, you have got the facts wrong.

Helps with what? This is a very general statement.

Revenue sharing? He hates and wants to get rid of it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4447436

Do you have links to how much he paid into revenue sharing under the last CBA?

Your quote indicates that the OP got some facts wrong. Please provide links and data to set the record straight.


Sooner or later we all hope you understand what you've been reading and why some of the messages are viable, vital, and relevant.

What message(s) specifically are viable, vital and relevant?

[junk]

By giving them a 90% cash floor and promising to hit projected cap amounts?

Myopic.

By reducing their overall percentage of revenue.

In very coarse terms, the additional $1 billion they initially wanted taken off the top of overall league revenues before distribution to the players.

Do you believe the players will come out of this negotiation with a greater percentage of revenue?

[Hostile]

By reducing their overall percentage of revenue.

In very coarse terms, the additional $1 billion they initially wanted taken off the top of overall league revenues before distribution to the players.

Do you believe the players will come out of this negotiation with a greater percentage of revenue?No I don't. But since their pay has always been based upon a cap and floor and if both of those go higher they will still make more money.

[Hostile]

Links?

Which big market teams are struggling? Which ones more than the small market teams?

Or is the larger picture that it "didn't work" for big market teams because the amount of revenue they had to share?

Any data you might have supporting your stance would be greatly appreciated.


Helps with what? This is a very general statement.

Revenue sharing? He hates and wants to get rid of it.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4447436

Do you have links to how much he paid into revenue sharing under the last CBA?

Your quote indicates that the OP got some facts wrong. Please provide links and data to set the record straight.



What message(s) specifically are viable, vital and relevant?I can't believe I have to explain revenue sharing with you. Yes, Jerry hates it. The post you quoted said Jerry benefits from it. Then why does he hate it? Or did you just misread the post?

It's real simple, Dallas made more revenue than any other team. That means money (revenue) was taken form out of their coffers and placed in the coffers of a lesser team like Jacksonville.

Brown and Wilson did not dislike the previous CBA because they were going to put money in the revenue tills. They hated it because of the % paid out to the players put them in a financial bind. They determined they needed a higher operating capital than was available with that deal. Other owners subsequently found out they did too and thus they opted out.

[junk]

No I don't. But since their pay has always been based upon a cap and floor and if both of those go higher they will still make more money.

Everyone will make more money if revenues grow as expected.

However, the players will make less (percentage wise) than they did under the previous CBA. The owners will make more.

Cap floor and cap ceiling are just two pieces of data and, alone, do not tell the whole story.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, it didn't work for a lot of owners and the big market teams more than the small market teams.

Jerry helps more than any other owner in the NFL. Yet again, you have got the facts wrong.

Sooner or later we all hope you understand what you've been reading and why some of the messages are viable, vital, and relevant.

Both were impacted. What large market teams were doing was building stadiums with luxury boxes from which revenues did not have to be shared with the rest of the league through their revenue sharing.

At the same time, they were trying to apply for credits for their stadiums through the CBA provisions which were ultimately denied or rather they would not account for them.

The large market teams don't like it because they cannot keep their revenues from both the player base and the smaller markets. I can understand that.

The small market teams do not like it because the cap goes up based on the increased revenues yet they do not see a dime of the box income. I can understand that.

Players do not like it because they are being asked to take less money. They are willing to sue to stop it. I can understand that as well.

The cap system where the smaller market teams are required to pay in salaries as much as the big markets is a disproportionate financial burden. Its Jerry's money so he has the right to retain his own property. The players are entitled to a free market unless they agree to some other arrangement through collective bargaining.

All sides have legitimate position. Ultimately, the only position that in my view is not legitimate is the NFL being a trust and forcing any party to act against its wishes. That includes the players and the owners, large and small.

[Hostile]

Everyone will make more money if revenues grow as expected.

However, the players will make less (percentage wise) than they did under the previous CBA. The owners will make more.

Cap floor and cap ceiling are just two pieces of data and, alone, do not tell the whole story.Percentages are an illusion just like the Cap. Surely I don't need to explain to you how far under the Cap some teams were operating?

Be honest with me. Which way guarantees more money?

A. A salary cap of 135 million with an 80% cap floor? The 135 million based on a 50% split.

B. A salary cap of 128 million with a 90% cash floor? The 128 million based on a 45% split.

[junk]

I can't believe I have to explain revenue sharing with you. Yes, Jerry hates it. The post you quoted said Jerry benefits from it. Then why does he hate it? Or did you just misread the post?

If anyone needs clarification, I think it may be you.

The post I quoted, Inman's, was generally sarcastic in nature.

Yes, Jerry made out like a bandit under the last CBA. He also had to cough up a lot of money to support small market teams. He doesn't want to do that anymore. Yes, he made money. He wants to make more.


It's real simple, Dallas made more revenue than any other team. That means money (revenue) was taken form out of their coffers and placed in the coffers of a lesser team like Jacksonville.

Yes. And Dallas doesn't want to do this anymore. Their original "solution" to this is to eliminate revenue sharing, take another billion dollars from the players and distribute among the owners.

So now, not only do the large market teams not have to share revenue with smaller market teams, they get a piece of that $1 billion from the players.


Brown and Wilson did not dislike the previous CBA because they were going to put money in the revenue tills. They hated it because of the % paid out to the players put them in a financial bind. They determined they needed a higher operating capital than was available with that deal. Other owners subsequently found out they did too and thus they opted out.

Again, big owner versus small owner. The big market owners are doing just fine under the current deal. However, they don't like the share they have to pay out to small market owners (via revenue sharing) and want to eliminate that.

However, the big market teams are also driving up small market teams player salary costs via their huge local revenue streams.

It's a complicated scenario. I posted a whole page in another thread on some possible approaches However, I have always felt that the owners need to work out the revenue sharing issues between large and small market teams before proceeding. Instead, they decided to try to squeeze more from the players with their issues still festering beneath the surface.

[junk]

Percentages are an illusion just like the Cap. Surely I don't need to explain to you how far under the Cap some teams were operating?

You're contradicting yourself here. Although the numbers below are flawed, I think you're trying to present the case that the players will make more money under the owner's proposal with a hard cap floor? That doesn't make any sense if rising player salaries are the reason small market owners needed to opt out of the cap.

Percentages are not an illusion. They are a key piece of information. Concentrating on the cap number (ceiling and floor) only is the equivalent of going to a car dealer and negotiating based upon monthly payment.


Be honest with me. Which way guarantees more money?

A. A salary cap of 135 million with an 80% cap floor? The 135 million based on a 50% split.

B. A salary cap of 128 million with a 90% cash floor? The 128 million based on a 45% split.

I don't think A or B are realistic scenarios.

An 80% cap floor is not a realistic number. The cap floor in 2009 (last year with a salary cap) was 87.6%.

What total revenue amount are we dealing with in each scenario? You indicate a % for the split, but a split from which amount? Keep in mind that the numbers being thrown about in these proposals are based upon 2011 projected revenue versus actuals from the last time there was a cap (2009)

Assume $10 billion in projected revenues for 2011. 50% would be a little over $156 million per team. 45% would be about $140 million. That's a $16 million dollar difference per team as opposed to $7 million. What if revenues reach $11 billion?

I believe the previous CBA also had a provision that increased the players' percentage of revenue if spending dropped below a certain limit.

There's no doubt that the cash floor is a good thing. I actually think it's good for both players and owners. For the owners, it will ensure that expenses for player salaries can be predicted from year to year, but it is only a piece of the financial picture.

I also think that trying to claim that a 90% cash floor will actually increase what the players receive is flawed logic. Why would the owners, who claim player costs are one of their primary areas of concern with this CBA, offer to increase player costs?

[Hostile]

:laugh2:

Oh my gosh, I just had an accident reading that.

The 2009 Cap was around $128 million. At 87% this puts a floor at around $111.4 million.

Someone who buys his calculations, please post for me all 32 teams showing them over that amount for the 2009 season with a cap ceiling and a cap floor.




Now, once you research and find that all 32 teams were not above that floor it should be real easy to see why the cap is an illusion. No teams are going to exceed the cap.

So then how is the split not an illusion as well? Right, it is. For the sake of very simple math let's say that in 2011 the revenue split ends up being 50/50 and the revenue then calls for 2012 to have a cap of $135 million per team. If all 32 teams are below that cap, do the players actually get their 50%?

No?

Thank you. That is called an illusion of more money.

[junk]

:laugh2:

Oh my gosh, I just had an accident reading that.

So, you are claiming that with a 90% cash floor, the players are going to make more money than they would have under the previous CBA?

Why are the owners locking them out? So they can pay them more?

:laugh2: That doesn't even make any sense.

If rising player salaries are threatening small market owners, as you and the NFL claim, why would they propose a deal that would pay the players more?


The 2009 Cap was around $128 million. At 87% this puts a floor at around $111.4 million.

Someone who buys his calculations, please post for me all 32 teams showing them over that amount for the 2009 season with a cap ceiling and a cap floor.

Now, once you research and find that all 32 teams were not above that floor it should be real easy to see why the cap is an illusion. No teams are going to exceed the cap.
Not true. Player expenditures (cash) can exceed the salary cap. Either through signing bonuses or LTBE credits.

I'll post more on this after work tonight.


So then how is the split not an illusion as well? Right, it is. For the sake of very simple math let's say that in 2011 the revenue split ends up being 50/50 and the revenue then calls for 2012 to have a cap of $135 million per team. If all 32 teams are below that cap, do the players actually get their 50%?

No?

Thank you. That is called an illusion of more money.

As I've said all along, there are multiple factors that are going to determine overall player compensation. Looking at one in a vacuum doesn't tell the whole story.

Teams actually can spend more than the cap in a single year as I stated above. Also, the previous CBA actually had a term that would raise the salary cap if spending on players fell below a certain percentage of total revenue. With a hard cap floor, they may be able to do away with those terms and make player salaries much less dynamic to project.

Cap ceiling, cap/cash floor, overall % of revenues, actual cash expenditures, projected revenue, terms if projected revenue is met, is not met or is exceeded, etc.

You're also failing to take into account pensions and benefits which are provided to players out of their overall % of total revenue.

[Hostile]

Why are the owners locking them out? So they can pay them more?To reduce the % and have a long term gain on investment. This gives them more freedom for stadium improvements, etc. by increasing their cash flow.

TV money is going to rise, and if they continue to have the players at 50% of this it will end up costing them a lot more than if they are at 45%. That 5% is a big chunk of money.

Anyone who tells you this is not about money is daft. The owners want more up front and are offering the players more than 2009 but a lesser % going forward.

[junk]

To reduce the % and have a long term gain on investment. This gives them more freedom for stadium improvements, etc. by increasing their cash flow.

TV money is going to rise, and if they continue to have the players at 50% of this it will end up costing them a lot more than if they are at 45%. That 5% is a big chunk of money.

Wait a minute. You just said percentages were an illusion. Which is it? A big chunk of money that the owners want to reduce or an illusion?


Anyone who tells you this is not about money is daft. The owners want more up front and are offering the players more than 2009 but a lesser % going forward.
I don't recall ever saying this was about anything but money. In fact, I've repeatedly said that.

I believe it was you that told me you didn't care about the financial aspect of this debate.

Answer me this....you claim the owners are offering the players more than in 2009. Is that due the projected increase in revenues? How does that compare to what they would have received under the previous agreement?

[Wrangler87]

lol wut? That is an ignorant and statement. You are aware that two of thirty two owners have zero power to sway a vote right? Ask Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown. They were the only two owners to vote against the 2006 CBA that was a cluster **** for the owners.

It's probably them again. They were also the only two who voted against the Browns leaving Cleveland for Baltimore in 1996. They are not always wrong.

[Hostile]

Wait a minute. You just said percentages were an illusion. Which is it? A big chunk of money that the owners want to reduce or an illusion?You're only listening to part of what I am saying about the %. Sadly it is the illusion part now. Let me put it this way, regardless of what the owners % is they will get more than their share of that and regardless of what the players % is they will get less than their share of it. That is why it is an illusion.

From the word go I have said the players need to simply negotiate for a higher cap and not worry about the %. The owners will and they almost have to because they have to worry about financing for their businesses. So what I am trying to tell you is that for the owners the cushion of 5% is relevant. For the players, not so much because of where the cap floor was.

With a cap floor they are not going to see as much. With a cash floor there is protection. This is why I am happy with the way negotiations are going.

I still fault both sides for litigation and both sides still aren't doing some of what I want, but I like the progress. I do feel that this movement by the owners protects the rank and file players moreso than the elite and I feel that was necessary.

I would like to see players be given a chance to come back off of IR. If a guy is ready to go in November or December, let him play. I think the current model punishes unnecessarily. This is just one example of some things I would like to see change.

[kmd24]

please post for me all 32 teams showing them over that amount for the 2009 season with a cap ceiling and a cap floor.

Here are the team-by-team cash expenditures for 2009-2010:

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team

The cap was about $128 million in 2009. Only 8 teams spent more than 90% of the cap. Only 11 teams spent more than 87.4% of the cap.

[Hostile]

Here are the team-by-team cash expenditures for 2009-2010:

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team

The cap was about $128 million in 2009. Only 8 teams spent more than 90% of the cap. Only 11 teams spent more than 87.4% of the cap.Thanks. It is appreciated.

[Hoofbite]

Here are the team-by-team cash expenditures for 2009-2010:

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/salaries/team

The cap was about $128 million in 2009. Only 8 teams spent more than 90% of the cap. Only 11 teams spent more than 87.4% of the cap.

Thanks. It is appreciated.

Supposedly there's another set of numbers out there somewhere.

theo's mentioned them in the past.

[kmd24]

Supposedly there's another set of numbers out there somewhere.

theo's mentioned them in the past.

I'm sure Adam has more accurate numbers. Maybe he will post them.

[jterrell]

Percentages are an illusion just like the Cap. Surely I don't need to explain to you how far under the Cap some teams were operating?

Be honest with me. Which way guarantees more money?

A. A salary cap of 135 million with an 80% cap floor? The 135 million based on a 50% split.

B. A salary cap of 128 million with a 90% cash floor? The 128 million based on a 45% split.

The answer historically is A.
Teams below the cap by any measurable amount never even amount to a handful.

Taking 25 teams and having them spend 7 additional million adds up to 175 million. 5 to 7 teams sitting 12 mil below what they otherwise would only equals 144 million at the high end.

There is a reason the owners are driving this issue and not the players. It because the players actually have hired people who can add and understand this issue is rather weak. It is other owners who want to see Mike Brown spend 90% of the cap. Adding in that stipulation means a lot more to other owners than it does to players thus it is not any friggin concession at all but a self-corrective action by the majority of owners.

[jterrell]

Supposedly there's another set of numbers out there somewhere.

theo's mentioned them in the past.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

Only 4 teams were more than 10% under the salary cap. 4-6 per year has been about right by year.

Not sure what the USA Today article was using but anyone with a brain knows Dallas didn't sit at the bottom of any salary cap rankings so that data was quite flawed.

[jterrell]

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

Only 4 teams were more than 10% under the salary cap. 4-6 per year has been about right by year.

Not sure what the USA Today article was using but anyone with a brain knows Dallas didn't sit at the bottom of any salary cap rankings so that data was quite flawed.

If you use that USA Today site to check past years you will see they often have teams FAR exceed the cap. This means they are not using true cap numbers but instead actual salary or spend. It makes it very difficult to interpret the numbers using that site. And is very misleading.

[kmd24]

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/numbers.asp

Only 4 teams were more than 10% under the salary cap. 4-6 per year has been about right by year.

Not sure what the USA Today article was using but anyone with a brain knows Dallas didn't sit at the bottom of any salary cap rankings so that data was quite flawed.

It's not flawed, you just don't understand it.

The numbers are supposedly actual cash outlay. We are discussing whether a cash minimum or a cap minimum would net the players more money, so it seemed important to know how much the teams were actually paying out.

I don't know how they plan to figure the 90% cash minimum, but it is clear that most teams actually paid out less than that figure in 2009, so they'd be paying more under the new rules if it is a team-by-team figure rather than an aggregate figure. Of course, you'd have to look at three-year averages to know for sure what the effect would be. 2009 might have been an oddball year since 2010 was widely expected to be an uncapped year.

[Hostile]

It's not flawed, you just don't understand it.

The numbers are supposedly actual cash outlay. We are discussing whether a cash minimum or a cap minimum would net the players more money, so it seemed important to know how much the teams were actually paying out.

I don't know how they plan to figure the 90% cash minimum, but it is clear that most teams actually paid out less than that figure in 2009, so they'd be paying more under the new rules if it is a team-by-team figure rather than an aggregate figure. Of course, you'd have to look at three-year averages to know for sure what the effect would be. 2009 might have been an oddball year since 2010 was widely expected to be an uncapped year.Again, thank you. Saved me the trouble.

[kmd24]

If you use that USA Today site to check past years you will see they often have teams FAR exceed the cap. This means they are not using true cap numbers but instead actual salary or spend. It makes it very difficult to interpret the numbers using that site. And is very misleading.

Why is it misleading? It's exactly the topic being discussed. Cash vs. cap minimum.

[junk]

You're only listening to part of what I am saying about the %. Sadly it is the illusion part now. Let me put it this way, regardless of what the owners % is they will get more than their share of that and regardless of what the players % is they will get less than their share of it. That is why it is an illusion.

OK, if it is simply an illusion, why are the owners so concerned with reducing that percentage?

If they are truly able to dictate what is spent on player salaries, without regard for the overall negotiated percentage, why are they claiming rising player salaries are threatening their business model?

It can't be an illusion to one side and real to the other. It's one piece of the overall financial puzzle and just one piece of overall player compensation. It cannot be viewed in a vacuum.


From the word go I have said the players need to simply negotiate for a higher cap and not worry about the %. The owners will and they almost have to because they have to worry about financing for their businesses. So what I am trying to tell you is that for the owners the cushion of 5% is relevant. For the players, not so much because of where the cap floor was.

Player compensation comes in forms other than just the amount allocated in the salary cap. Where does the funding for pensions and benefits come from?

There are quite a few other things funding from that overall percentage other than just player salaries (insurance, medical, post season pay, performance based pay, tuition, 88 benefit, etc)

The previous CBA also provided protections to the players if total player compensation fell below certain thresholds. It could provide direct payments or increases in the salary cap. See Article XXIV of the CBA.


I still fault both sides for litigation and both sides still aren't doing some of what I want, but I like the progress. I do feel that this movement by the owners protects the rank and file players moreso than the elite and I feel that was necessary.

For the most part, I agree. I like the recent progress. I'm not sure any of it does anything to differentiate between rank and file and elite players though.


I would like to see players be given a chance to come back off of IR. If a guy is ready to go in November or December, let him play. I think the current model punishes unnecessarily. This is just one example of some things I would like to see change.
Agreed. A rookie pay scale is needed as well.