NFL Owners Contribute to Benefits Fund

[FuzzyLumpkins]

*****. You're cynical.

First, the league's not so much painting a picture as they are letting the NFLPA hang themselves with the stupid-rope. The league's not doing anything other than meeting it's contractual obligations. It just so happens that doing so flies in the face of yet-another-stupid-comment from the NFLPA. It's a huge stretch to blame the league for that.

In terms of the difference it makes, in a tax context, yes, it does matter if it's coming off the top line. But that's not what we were discussing. In the context of whether or not it was a good thing that the check was cut to the retirees, it doesn't matter whether it came off the topline revenue or after expenses from the owner's pockets.

Either way, this is money that's calculated off of league revenue. All of the parties involved deserve credit for the contribution. It's hugely cynical and not demonstrably true to say you can only count on a party doing the right thing if it looks out for number one.

I was too absolutist in that statement. The person that contributes for their own benefit are less likely to be truly charitable than those that do not. That is what I should have said.

And i am cynical to the owners approach because I have read their briefs submitted to court which are just the same argumetns from 50 years ago and statements by them that are intentionally confusing and inflammatory.

All thngs considered they had to know that a press release taking all the credit for retiree benefits would upset the players just as Goodell must have known that the condescending letter they sent would anger them.

Not exactly an olive branch.

People constantly talk about bad faith upon the players and i just ask myself whether or not any of them have actually read any of the discourse going on between the players and the ownership.

 

[AdamJT13]

If that is the case and all of the benefits are coming out of the players cut then that does mean Smith was correct.

Only if it would also be correct to say that the owners have never paid the current players a dime.

Obviously, that's not the case. The owners are the ones who start with the money. They pay the players, and they pay for the former players' pension benefits. The CBA dictate which percentages of the revenues end up where, but it's all paid by the owners.

 

[Derinyar]

That is not correct. Pension payments were not part of the expense credits. All benefits for current and former players were part of the players' percentage.

If it comes out of the players part and is due to the CBA wouldn't that mean that the owners were, probably, not contractually obligated to make a payment considering there is not a working CBA at this time?

Personally, I think the big problem right now is that the players chose poorly for their union head. It really is beginning to feel like Smith is in over his head and doesn't understand PR at all. I've always sorta figured he was trying to use this as a jumping off point for something bigger.

 

[DallasEast]

If it comes out of the players part and is due to the CBA wouldn't that mean that the owners were, probably, not contractually obligated to make a payment considering there is not a working CBA at this time?

Personally, I think the big problem right now is that the players chose poorly for their union head. It really is beginning to feel like Smith is in over his head and doesn't understand PR at all. I've always sorta figured he was trying to use this as a jumping off point for something bigger.

Methinks it has far less to do with understanding good public relations and much more to do with just not giving a damn.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Only if it would also be correct to say that the owners have never paid the current players a dime.

Obviously, that's not the case. The owners are the ones who start with the money. They pay the players, and they pay for the former players' pension benefits. The CBA dictate which percentages of the revenues end up where, but it's all paid by the owners.

Well if I get paid by my employer and take that money and then turn around and pay for my mother's retirement home then who is paying the retirement home?

Semantics is maybe the wrong word but its just an interpretation of the accounting.

My issue is that ownership makes loaded statements that just serve to obfuscate the reality.

 

[wileedog]

My issue is that ownership makes loaded statements that just serve to obfuscate the reality.

So the statement from DeSmith that the owners don't pay a dime for retired players was meant to do what exactly?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If it comes out of the players part and is due to the CBA wouldn't that mean that the owners were, probably, not contractually obligated to make a payment considering there is not a working CBA at this time?

Personally, I think the big problem right now is that the players chose poorly for their union head. It really is beginning to feel like Smith is in over his head and doesn't understand PR at all. I've always sorta figured he was trying to use this as a jumping off point for something bigger.

The players decision is not going to hinge on PR at all. The federal court in Minneapolis is not going to give a damn about polls and jury selection will take that into context if it comes to that.

Thats what this is all about. Win or lose the propaganda of the NFL will start selling the virtues of the players once this over and people are going to think players are stupid just due to stereotyping anyway.

Smith knows the lay of the land in the federal courts and if you were to read the briefs from both sides it would become readily apparent that he is very much so not in over his head and instead right inside his wheelhouse.

Unless the NFL can get 50 years worth of precedents to just go away, the lockout is going to be rescinded and their leverage gone. Then just one club has to start signing players and its over.

PR does not matter unless this drags on for a long time and even then their respective financial situations are more important than PR.

The NFL plays lip service but really neither side cares about the fan when it becomes a choice between us and their money.

 

[AdamJT13]

Well if I get paid by my employer and take that money and then turn around and pay for my mother's retirement home then who is paying the retirement home?

When the current players start taking their salaries and writing checks to the former players, then your analogy might be relevant.