This Union should be broken

[YosemiteSam]

The Union shouldn't be broken. It should be CRUSHED. Shattered beyond repair. Buried, not six feet under, but six miles deep. The headstone should not mention one word about DeMaurice Smith since he is a huge reason why it should be absolutely obliterated.

 

[jterrell]

Not true. The draft is opt-in, and no contract is ever guaranteed. That's what termination conditions are for. The tags need to go away regardless.

contracts are guaranteed... in fact that is the sole purpose of a contract... agreement to guarantees on both sides.

how the contract is broken is all part of the language of the deal.

i hope it remains as is but it may well move to the baseball or basketball or hockey route and have every red cent guaranteed.

the nfl owners have had a sweetheart deal and anyone with an actual working brain gets that. the teams are NOT even close to losing actual money. and the numbers they are talking about are from the worst economic conditions of the last half century. So of course the profits shrunk. Just about every businesses profits shrunk in the midst of the economic depression.

 

[jterrell]

Sandy,

The CBA expired. They had the option to opt out, that both sides agreed was fair.

Partners help pay the bills. If Manning or Brady is willing to help fund the business than sure open up the books, but that is not the case at all.

Stop posting nonsense please.

They do fund the league. How many people buy jerseys with Jerry Jones name on them??? How many people pay to watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes? The product they sell is the players themselves. The players are forced to give interviews, to attend all team mandated events or risk fines. And of course players actually play the game. They are very much all in once they sign a deal. They have to constantly work to keep the deal and ONLY in the NFL (of major sports leagues) can they be cut at any time without any further compensation.

The ONLY thing the owners have of real value is the players (some own stadiums, some do not).

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Stop posting nonsense please.

And I would suggest the same to you sir.

The owners take all of the losses. The players get paid regardless.

You make it sound like this is a job waiting tables.

 

[NinePointOh]

The owners take all of the losses. The players get paid regardless.

This is patently false. The salary cap is tied directly to teams' income from the previous year. If the league is losing money, the players lose money.

Further, the NFL has denied that they are losing money. Their claim is that they need a bigger share of the revenue because their profit margins are shrinking.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

This is patently false. The salary cap is tied directly to teams' income from the previous year. If the league is losing money, the players lose money.

Further, the NFL has denied that they are losing money. Their claim is that they need a bigger share of the revenue because their profit margins are shrinking.

The teams are considered separate yet under the umbrella of the league. That is the reason for the revenue sharing to begin with. The players don't lose anything.

The teams like the Commanders, Cowboys, Patriots, Giants, Jets, etc... Have been losing money because of having to share across the league, but to have to give more (which even then they agreed to) is absurd because the Bills, Jags, etc, can't make money.

It is like you having 10 bucks, Me having 8, and let's say Hostile having 3. We have to give him the money to balance us out. This is the reason Jerry, Dan, and Kraft market so well, because that is their money to keep.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Deeply flawed arguement. The owners forced the action upon the NFLPA not vice versa. All they doing is fighting for what they already had. Wouldnt you, or would you just hand money over because somebody told you too?

It is a labor axiom that when labor and management meet to hash out another CBA, you renegotiate the standards and practices and payoffs.
That is what the owners are doing, within the confines of collective bargaining.
Now there is no collective bargaining.
So, aside the one atop of your head, what is your point? That the owners should never challenge something the union already has? How about the players wanting something the owners already have, like the $9 billion or so?

Your response is deeply flawed. And very union.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Stop posting nonsense please.

They do fund the league. How many people buy jerseys with Jerry Jones name on them??? How many people pay to watch the owners sit in their luxury boxes? The product they sell is the players themselves. The players are forced to give interviews, to attend all team mandated events or risk fines. And of course players actually play the game. They are very much all in once they sign a deal. They have to constantly work to keep the deal and ONLY in the NFL (of major sports leagues) can they be cut at any time without any further compensation.

The ONLY thing the owners have of real value is the players (some own stadiums, some do not).

Nobody forces the players to do anything. If they want they can stay away from the NFL and be gardeners or burger flilppers or "communications specialists" with the worthless degrees they earned in college.

Also, in the real world where salaries are a lot less, we -- JUST LIKE THE PLAYERS -- can be cut at any time without any further compensation. It's true. Sheck it out.

 

[Stautner]

Deeply flawed arguement. The owners forced the action upon the NFLPA not vice versa. All they doing is fighting for what they already had. Wouldnt you, or would you just hand money over because somebody told you too?

The owners just acted first. With the change in the division of revenue the owners want the players would have threatended to strike had they not been locked out, and as history has shown, the players could well have carried through with the threat.

It's a negotiating tactic. I don't think anyone blames the players for wanting to keep the same division of revenue as before, but the owners are under no obligation to maintain that split. Regardless of the lockout, and regardless of whether the players would have gone on strike had the lockout not occurred, it all comes down to both sides have to negotiate something they can both live with, and the rest is just posturing.

 

[mmillman]

The owners want to dramatically change things and have been deceitful in the process. The Union response was to ask to see their books to verify their sob story.

I have zero sympathy for the public subsidized owners and their overpriced palaces and their multi million or billion dollar bank accounts.

 

[Nightman]

The owners have huge debts that need servicing. Tagliabue gave away the farm in 2006 because he was retiring and didn't want a work stoppage on his watch. The owners are trying to get a roll back, but no union in the country is allowed to "give back" what they have "earned" without throwing a huge hissy fit. Labor costs of 50-60% are unheard of in most industries.

 

[Dallas]

The owners want to dramatically change things and have been deceitful in the process. The Union response was to ask to see their books to verify their sob story.

I have zero sympathy for the public subsidized owners and their overpriced palaces and their multi million or billion dollar bank accounts.

How much entitlement do you expect in your life as a regular joe? You know what I am talking about. How much "FREE" stuff do we as owners and employers need to provide to you so that you FEEL better and less angry w/ your job and employment?

It isn't whatever is FAIR because that example flies right out the window when we are talking 100million dollar contracts.

Do you find it odd that those sueing the NFL now haven't 1 time asked to increase the vet minimums for those not making the millions like the Mannings and the Breeses?

Funny.... I keep scratching my head over why a union wouldn't want to increase the base salaries of the regular joes in the NFL.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

If I were the owners, I would refuse to open my books, and make it clear that the books were off limits. The players, with time, will cave in or kill Smith if he doesn't make a deal.

 

[DeaconBlues]

And I would suggest the same to you sir.

The owners take all of the losses. The players get paid regardless.

You make it sound like this is a job waiting tables.

Losses?? Please name one owner, since the 1950's, that had to sell a team due to losses related to football.

You can't.

 

[Dallas]

Losses?? Please name one owner, since the 1950's, that had to sell a team due to losses related to football.

You can't.

Businesses deal with losses each and every hour of the day. I really don't think he was meaning having to sell a business or team because of losses.

 

[speedkilz88]

Although we have seen with the Texas Rangers that can happen to a sports franchise.

 

[SkinsandTerps]

Businesses deal with losses each and every hour of the day. I really don't think he was meaning having to sell a business or team because of losses.

Thank you sir. Glad you understood that.

 

[NinePointOh]

The teams are considered separate yet under the umbrella of the league. That is the reason for the revenue sharing to begin with. The players don't lose anything.

The teams like the Commanders, Cowboys, Patriots, Giants, Jets, etc... Have been losing money because of having to share across the league, but to have to give more (which even then they agreed to) is absurd because the Bills, Jags, etc, can't make money.

It is like you having 10 bucks, Me having 8, and let's say Hostile having 3. We have to give him the money to balance us out. This is the reason Jerry, Dan, and Kraft market so well, because that is their money to keep.

What the heck are you talking about? The way teams split their share of the revenue amongst themselves has nothing to do with the players.

However, the league's overall income does directly affect the salary cap because of the formula used to calculate it. If the owners as a group make less money, the players as a group get less money.

 

[Wood]

This is patently false. The salary cap is tied directly to teams' income from the previous year. If the league is losing money, the players lose money.

Further, the NFL has denied that they are losing money. Their claim is that they need a bigger share of the revenue because their profit margins are shrinking.

your mixing apples and oranges. Revenues and profit margin are not one in same. Your revenues can increase but your margin could be decreasing. The players Salary should be tied to profit margin not revenue because it does not factor in cost that appear to be growing faster than revenue.

 

[NinePointOh]

your mixing apples and oranges. Revenues and profit margin are not one in same. Your revenues can increase but your margin could be decreasing. The players Salary should be tied to profit margin not revenue because it does not factor in cost that appear to be growing faster than revenue.

That's an absolutely terrible idea, since it just would reward owners for spending recklessly on non-labor expenses.

Want to build a Jerryworld in Jacksonville? No sweat! Spend away! Player salaries will just drop automatically so your profit margin doesn't shrink. Wait, it was a terrible investment and isn't making enough revenue to make up for the expenditure? So what! Player salary will just keep dropping to make up for it!