Which side are you on in the stalled CBA talks: players or owners?

[TruBlueCowboy]

Quick cliff notes for those of you who haven't followed the negotiations:

The owners want 43.8% of the revenue, and will give the players 56.2% of the revenue.

The players want 60.3% of the revenue, and will give the owners 39.7% of the revenue.

The difference between these two positions is $320 million dollars per year.

The owners position: NFL teams have skyrocketed in value. New owners must invest nearly a billion dollars to buy a team now. Owners claim they have huge debt after buying a team and are reluctant to give up such a larger share to the players. The older owners who didn't invest the crazy amounts of money for new teams just want to keep more money in the bank. Also at stake are small market owners who claim they can't pull in funds from additional sources at the same rate that a Dallas Cowboys or New York Giants franchise can and the revenue sharing is a greater source of income for them, especially when they need money up front for signing bonuses, so they are less willing to give up money to the players.

The players position: The players currently get 64% of revenue, and are not willing to take a huge salary cut. The owners get subsidies. Some of the owners don't even pay for their stadiums (the taxpayers do!) yet make millions of dollars from it. The NFL is a short life. NFL players make far less than their professional counterparts in the NBA or MLB. Older players and backups make less money compared to their professional counterparts. Players give up their bodies for the NFL. Many players have health problems later in life. Owners often do not have to guarantee much of the salary that players receive and can cut the player and part ways. And of course, the basic belief that without the players, there is no league.

Where do you stand?

 

[DBoys]

No way players deserve that kind of money from the owners

 

[slick325]

I voted for the players. I will always be on the side of labor. They are the heart and soul of ALL businesses in this capitalistic society.

 

[Pokes28]

The problem isn't that they can't reach a % number. The issue is deeper than saying "the players will take 60% of the money and the owners will take 40%."

Remember that there are two sets of negotiations on the table here. You have the CBA negotiations where instead of shared revenue being what they share, now they are talking total revenue dollars. This means that if they settle on a higher number the low effort owners like Bidwell and Brown will continue to squawk about they need more sharing as the players' salaries are taking al their money. The higher the number, the more revenue Snyder and Jones will have to give away. Snyder and Jones are very wealthy men, but they both have a lot of irons in the fire that depends on the stream of revenue that their aggressive marketting has given.

Basically, the settlement number on this will dictate the sharing agreement between the owners. Obviously the Cardinals, Browns, and Vikings are willing to set that number up there as high as possible. That means more sharing and a knowledge that they won't spend near the cap figure anyway.

This is a deep issue. And that is why I don't see this being resolved until the owners get their own issues in order.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh

 

[conner01]

i don't think it's so much about the percentage as it is what is figured in as revenue.teams that own their own stadiums deserve to keep more of their local revenue, otherwise there will be no more owners putting their money into stadiums because they will never be able to recoup it back

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

The problem isn't that they can't reach a % number. The issue is deeper than saying "the players will take 60% of the money and the owners will take 40%."

Remember that there are two sets of negotiations on the table here. You have the CBA negotiations where instead of shared revenue being what they share, now they are talking total revenue dollars. This means that if they settle on a higher number the low effort owners like Bidwell and Brown will continue to squawk about they need more sharing as the players' salaries are taking al their money. The higher the number, the more revenue Snyder and Jones will have to give away. Snyder and Jones are very wealthy men, but they both have a lot of irons in the fire that depends on the stream of revenue that their aggressive marketting has given.

Basically, the settlement number on this will dictate the sharing agreement between the owners. Obviously the Cardinals, Browns, and Vikings are willing to set that number up there as high as possible. That means more sharing and a knowledge that they won't spend near the cap figure anyway.

This is a deep issue. And that is why I don't see this being resolved until the owners get their own issues in order.

David Harrell - Pokes
dwh

I've listed that in the owners position in the first thread. While the small market teams are more united in their position of no compromise to the players, there are still quite a few large market owners who are not willing to give the players union the share they want.

 

[Thick 'N Hearty]

I mean come one. They are all wealthy. Even the lowly rookies who earn a couple hundred thousand a year to ride pine. I would love to make that kind of money so I don't want to hear them ***** about not getting their due. Hell, I feel like I should get paid more, too.

 

[aznhalf]

I really believe that Gene Upshaw is NOT qualified to be the head of the NFLPA. He has a Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A & I.

I work for a Financial Firm and there is absolutely no way that we would bring him on to make decisions that are worth hundreds of millions. People who make those types of decisions have at least a decade of education and are at the top of their class. Someone with a Bachelor of Science wouldn't even be enough for a Junior position! You can tell me "hands on experience is the best" but its not enough. Education is necassary, you just cant pick up everything by fooling around at that level.

Now I'm sure he has a slew of lawyers working with him but the final decision still remains in his hands. This is not a normal union, they need someone who is more knowledgable about the financial world.

As Tags alluded to, the deal offered by the NFLPA was unanimously rejected because it was simply did not take multiple other factors into consideration. The NFLPA needs someone who understands what it takes to get a deal done and who would know how to deal with these owners who are all succesfull businessmen with proper knowledge.

Of course, the head of the Players Union should be a former player. Since players leave college before they can get higher levels of education it makes things diffucult. I think a board of former players with a well educated head(not necassary a former player) would be the best.

 

[Gaede]

I don't agree with either side.

The owners are already stinking rich. That's why they're owners. A players minimum salary is still in the hundreds of thousands.

Just a case of both sides trying to get more than they already have.

 

[wileedog]

I mean come one. They are all wealthy. Even the lowly rookies who earn a couple hundred thousand a year to ride pine. I would love to make that kind of money so I don't want to hear them ***** about not getting their due. Hell, I feel like I should get paid more, too.

Jose Cortez made half a million bucks this year.

Keep that in mind when you take this poll.

 

[TruBlueCowboy]

Jose Cortez made half a million bucks this year.

Keep that in mind when you take this poll.

 

[DBoys]

Jose Cortez made half a million bucks this year.

Keep that in mind when you take this poll.

AHHAHHAHAHAHAHAH good one

 

[RCowboyFan]

I voted for the players. I will always be on the side of labor. They are the heart and soul of ALL businesses in this capitalistic society.

NO, thats the producers. When there is no guy inventing Gasoline engine, there are no Car manufacturing plants to work with.

Just like with no guy inventing original tubes and now chips, I wouldn't have programmer job to work.

So Owners are the risk takers, who take a lot of risk in putting their money, since quite a few of them were not born rich. Players deserve their share of money too, but far too many are born with the talent they have, not too many are their due to solely their hard work.

Either way I have always disliked Unions, since they are the primary forces in the drive of jobs from US, as they drive up the cost of hiring way too high and hence force business to find cheaper ways to manufacture, to keep cost of goods low etc.

I think Players benifit a lot from Uncapped salary systems. THey can make more money, I believe several players were against Capped system, like Irvin, who thought it was bad system since teams couldn't keep their older players etc.

 

[CowboyWay]

I have a simple plan. If you play in the NFL, you make 1 million per year. I don't care if your Peyton Manning or Drew Henson. Everyone gets 1 million a year. Salary cap is 53 million.

Take the rest of the money and lower the ticket prices, parking, food, and have half the commercials than they have now on TV.
Everybodys happy.

If you're a player and don't like only making a million a year, make some money on the side by advertising something. If thats not good enough for you, then go drive a truck or work construction and see how that fits you.

Both sides are cryasses

 

[k19]

The only side I'm on is the fans side. The game hasnt been the same since free agancy and I think if we ditch the cap only 7 or 8 teams will be worth watching. Way to go NFL

 

[slick325]

NO, thats the producers. When there is no guy inventing Gasoline engine, there are no Car manufacturing plants to work with.

Just like with no guy inventing original tubes and now chips, I wouldn't have programmer job to work.

So Owners are the risk takers, who take a lot of risk in putting their money, since quite a few of them were not born rich. Players deserve their share of money too, but far too many are born with the talent they have, not too many are their due to solely their hard work.

Either way I have always disliked Unions, since they are the primary forces in the drive of jobs from US, as they drive up the cost of hiring way too high and hence force business to find cheaper ways to manufacture, to keep cost of goods low etc.

I think Players benifit a lot from Uncapped salary systems. THey can make more money, I believe several players were against Capped system, like Irvin, who thought it was bad system since teams couldn't keep their older players etc.

Although I respect your take on the owners being risk takers I respectfully disagree with the statement about athletes being born with it and getting to where they are not solely on hard work.

Just because you are "born" with something doesn't mean that you don't have to work hard to attain a goal. There are a number of basketball playground legends who have the talent to play professionally but what separates them from NBA players in most instances is the work ethic. No one worked harder than Michael Jordan. No one works harder than Kobe Bryant or T.O. No one worked harder than Walter Payton, Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith or Michael Irvin. In order to make your way from also ran to star an athlete must put in countless hours of work physically and mentally.

I cannot disagree with you regarding unions however they serve a valuable purpose too.

Based on the opinions of a majority of posters on this wonderful Board, I assume most of you are business owners and do not work for someone else. It amazes me that When these labor disputes arise in sports the common fan forgets that their favorite player, at the end of the day, is an employee just like they are. Yet, they jump to the defense of the boss/owner. If we as employees (list your job) were in the same situation how many would agree with their company/boss?

 

[Established1971]

I really believe that Gene Upshaw is NOT qualified to be the head of the NFLPA. He has a Bachelor of Science degree from Texas A & I.

I work for a Financial Firm and there is absolutely no way that we would bring him on to make decisions that are worth hundreds of millions. People who make those types of decisions have at least a decade of education and are at the top of their class. Someone with a Bachelor of Science wouldn't even be enough for a Junior position! You can tell me "hands on experience is the best" but its not enough. Education is necassary, you just cant pick up everything by fooling around at that level.

Now I'm sure he has a slew of lawyers working with him but the final decision still remains in his hands. This is not a normal union, they need someone who is more knowledgable about the financial world.

As Tags alluded to, the deal offered by the NFLPA was unanimously rejected because it was simply did not take multiple other factors into consideration. The NFLPA needs someone who understands what it takes to get a deal done and who would know how to deal with these owners who are all succesfull businessmen with proper knowledge.

Of course, the head of the Players Union should be a former player. Since players leave college before they can get higher levels of education it makes things diffucult. I think a board of former players with a well educated head(not necassary a former player) would be the best.

So lesser educated people should just step aside and let "better" people tell them what is fair compensation? That's a bit elitist isn't it?

 

[mmurray21]

I voted for the players because the end game will be that the union will decertify itself. Then the owner won't have the union to save them from themselves. There won't be any cap. No minimum. No draft, and every player will have to fend for themselves. There will be more have and have nots. Rich market teams will dominate(great news if you own your stadium).The owners will then have to deal with anti-trust laws so they won't be able to "legally" conspire against the players. It will be worse than baseball, and the owners will get to be happy with the fact that they couldn't give up 4 points when revenues are growing by 2 and 3 times that.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Although I respect your take on the owners being risk takers I respectfully disagree with the statement about athletes being born with it and getting to where they are not solely on hard work.

Just because you are "born" with something doesn't mean that you don't have to work hard to attain a goal. There are a number of basketball playground legends who have the talent to play professionally but what separates them from NBA players in most instances is the work ethic. No one worked harder than Michael Jordan. No one works harder than Kobe Bryant or T.O. No one worked harder than Walter Payton, Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith or Michael Irvin. In order to make your way from also ran to star an athlete must put in countless hours of work physically and mentally.

I cannot disagree with you regarding unions however they serve a valuable purpose too.

Based on the opinions of a majority of posters on this wonderful Board, I assume most of you are business owners and do not work for someone else. It amazes me that When these labor disputes arise in sports the common fan forgets that their favorite player, at the end of the day, is an employee just like they are. Yet, they jump to the defense of the boss/owner. If we as employees (list your job) were in the same situation how many would agree with their company/boss?

I never said they dont work for what they achieve. But every Tom/Dick/Harry don't have the Natural ability to play, even if they work their rears off. You still need a lot of natural talent. That was my point about having natural ability or born with it.

Now as far as many of the guys are not workers, that is probably wrong. Many are workers, but not any kind of Union workers I would think. Myself, although technically work for my self, as sole owner, but still I am a contractor. And most of my life have always worked for someone and have been laid off, although really only one time in my life.

And not once even when I was laid off, and had tough time getting a job ( mostly because I didn't want to travel or take less money than I thought I could get), never once thought Owners/employers were at wrong. So I would never think Owners/Employers are wrong. Unlike quite a few like to think, in Free Market, the businessmen aren't there to simply exploit people. They are there to make money, which means they need to spend money, which means, to get best talent, they need to pay the best so on so forth. Now there some bad businessmen who try to exploit, and seldom do they remain in business for long time, even if they achieve short term success. In other words you get what you pay for.

 

[jazzcat22]

the owners.
for every player that earn and deserve their high pay such as the Triplets
you have countless of others stealing money......MARCELLUS WILEY.....