ThreeSportStar80 said:
It will get done by 6:45 P.M., a little bird just came by and dropped off the news.
:laugh2:
The present agreement is for the players to receive 64.5% of the tv revenue, etc. of the NFL generated income which includes gate receipts.
Now they are demanding that everything, every teams personal income such as luxury boxes (which is supplied according to the ingeniuity of the particular owner) and parking and every aspect of generated income, which depends upon what the product is that the owner places on the field.
Then Upshaw, on television, makes the statement they have come down from the 64% to 60% but the owners only wants to give 56.2% which is far less than they were getting. He purposely let out that the owners would still ve giving the players, hundreds of millions of dollars over this last agreement; that 56% of a whole pie is a lot more than 64% of a slice of the pie.
Then a sportswriter wrote that the owners had shared in the distribution of all revenue and now the big market owners didn't want to share all of the revenue with the small market owners. If I were an owner Upshaw would have to tell the truth on television before we proceeded in the negotiations.
Instead of the squabbling by the owners, I would never have given in to placing every thing in the pot. If I had to increase the percentage of the present pot a little, I would do it but I would not allow the players to dictate and take control of the NFL. Then you could keep everything the same between the owners. Now that they have given away the store, the small market owners want the truly successful owners to pay the bill. Is Pittsburg a big market? No. But they generate the income from merchandise and success on the field, etc. because of the ownership.
Some people keep screaming to have two leagues. I think that is rediculous.
If they were to, however, let the top 9 or 10 teams establish their structure that is reasonable and fair to owner and player and let the other league of small market owners lacking in any initiative do their own thing. The small market league wouldn't last very long; the players pie in the sky would come crashing down and then reality would set in and you could have a solid league with fair compensation all around.
I am not for the wealthy unless they earn it and then they can earn all they can. It does bother me when a player says that the average playing time for a player is 3 1/2 years and they need to make enough to live comfortably the rest of their lives. I have been at my job for over 50 years and still working and can't afford to retire yet. The owners either inherited their teams that their fathers worked for or they made their money by hard work over a long period of time and made enough to buy the team and then invested hundreds of millions in the purchase.
The players can make 5 or 6 million per year and then if another player gets a new contract more than his, he demands a new contract and if the owner doesn't give it to him, he cries that it isn't about money, it is about respect. He is being disrepected by the team.
Do you really think that Manning is worth $100 m for 7 years given what he does? What is the teacher's salary that teaches your children how to survive and be successful in life? What do firemen and policmen make in your city? Not enough to keep them from having to moonlight on the side. I know you can say Manning puts fans in the seats, etc., etc., but do you really belive hs is worth that kind of money? Not in my life time.
I am more interested in the players on the bottom end of the scale being taken care of. Yes I am for a minimum and I think their should also be a maximum so there is a more equitable distribution - but I am rambling and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Sorry.
