Yahoo's Michael Silver: Goodell, Smith fight through rough patches

[RCowboyFan]

Owners are the ones who take the risks? In a small business sure.

But what we are talking about here is not a business that most of these guys are in exclusively for profit. They are all good and strong business people so they want to make good money on the investment.

However, these owners are not like some rinky dink Subway franchise owners. They are guys who got bored with yachts, private jets, and a myriad of other status symbols. They've gone for one of the ultimate trophies -- a professional sports team. This is a hobby for them. If the business fails, they will still be rich.

So sure, the owners are taking the "risks" but that they are guys who do this for fun as much as profit. I support completely the players who make their franchises so desirable making as much as they possibly can.

So, its the amount of money that is an issue for you? Pretty much back to class warfare deal.

When a fan sues or employee sues NFL or Owners who is the one paying for the loss or damages? Lets a a Players throws the football into crowd and the a fan dies because it hits him or significantly injured, who the heck he is going to pay the damages?

You are assuming, as normal "Class Warfare" type advocates types tend to do, is Owners are some kind of leaches and they are just trying to make money by being leaches or cheating employees.

On top of it, you are physcoanalyzing (sp?) owners as playboys type. Bored with too much money. Which is pretty foolilsh statement or assumption.

 

[AbeBeta]

So, its the amount of money that is an issue for you? Pretty much back to class warfare deal.

When a fan sues or employee sues NFL or Owners who is the one paying for the loss or damages? Lets a a Players throws the football into crowd and the a fan dies because it hits him or significantly injured, who the heck he is going to pay the damages?

You are assuming, as normal "Class Warfare" type advocates types tend to do, is Owners are some kind of leaches and they are just trying to make money by being leaches or cheating employees.

On top of it, you are physcoanalyzing (sp?) owners as playboys type. Bored with too much money. Which is pretty foolilsh statement or assumption.

Wow. You are full of great analyses this week! Gee, when was the last time a ball thrown from the field hurt or killed a fan? It ain't a "risk" if it never happens.

Compare that to the risk taken by a player for the CHANCE to make a roster.

 

[Kevinicus]

Wow. You are full of great analyses this week! Gee, when was the last time a ball thrown from the field hurt or killed a fan? It ain't a "risk" if it never happens.

Compare that to the risk taken by a player for the CHANCE to make a roster.

That's not a very intelligent thing to say. A risk is a risk, regardless of whether it happens or not. And there are plenty of issues the owners are responsible, and situations they would be responsible for if they arose.

If they're really going to delve into total revenues, then the players need to throw in their deals with advertisers since that is revenue that is a result of the NFL's existence.

 

[burmafrd]

When the Packers release ALL of their books ( and they never have ), then I might change my mind IF they prove me wrong. Until then, I'll stick with my position:


The Packers’ report is more than a novelty in the run-up to their playing the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Super Bowl on Feb. 6. It is a result of their being the league’s only publicly owned, nonprofit company, with 112,158 shareholders who own 4.7 million shares.

The Packers’ income statement is a proxy for the ones the 31 other team owners do not release and is of more than usual interest because owners are looking to alter the economics of paying their players in a new labor agreement. If the league and the N.F.L. Players Association cannot agree, owners could lock out the players.

Union officials frequently mention team revenue and profit; they want to examine every team’s books, but they cannot. The league insists that the union has audit rights to all league and team revenue, and player costs. But that is not enough for the union.

In fact, the Packers have a more detailed version of their public statements, but it is not available to the union. George Atallah, the union’s assistant executive director, said, “Nobody gives you one-thirty-second of the information you need to make a business decision.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/sports/football/28packers.html

The so called details would not make any real difference on the bottom line. But if you want to continue to live in la la land go ahead. I will take Brandt over anything that rag says.

 

[AbeBeta]

That's not a very intelligent thing to say. A risk is a risk, regardless of whether it happens or not. And there are plenty of issues the owners are responsible, and situations they would be responsible for if they arose.

If they're really going to delve into total revenues, then the players need to throw in their deals with advertisers since that is revenue that is a result of the NFL's existence.

And it is certainly even less intelligent to claim something that is an extremely low risk would is costly to an owner. Insurance is based on issues of risk. All owners have liability insurance that covers issues of this nature -- since fans dying in this manner is such a low risk, it likely does little to factor into the cost of said insurance.

 

[JD_KaPow]

NFL players are under contract and the team can't just tell them they're going to cut their pay. They can say "No." If the team decides to cut them, then they can sign with 31 other teams, or another league.

This is true, but teams can and do keep players from negotiating in a free market, through mechanisms like the draft and the various tags they can place on them (and, of course, through the salary cap itself). All of these would violate anti-trust law if they had not been agreed to through a collective bargaining process. And all of these have the effect of depressing overall player salaries.

 

[AbeBeta]

This is true, but teams can and do keep players from negotiating in a free market, through mechanisms like the draft and the various tags they can place on them (and, of course, through the salary cap itself). All of these would violate anti-trust law if they had not been agreed to through a collective bargaining process. And all of these have the effect of depressing overall player salaries.

That's a pretty solid point there jimnabby --- of course, this will be lost on most of the folks in the thread as they are of they can't get past the whole "the players make enough already" aspect of the argument.

Kinda turns the whole "the owners make all of this possible" argument on its ear

 

[Randy White]

NFL players are under contract and the team can't just tell them they're going to cut their pay. They can say "No." If the team decides to cut them, then they can sign with 31 other teams, or another league.

You're talking apples and oranges.

What you're saying is NOT " competition ". The " 31 other teams " are under the same league's rules and regulation ( salary cap, revenue sharing..etc..etc ) as the 32nd team which would prevent players, in most cases, to earn at the same level as they were before.

It would be similar to you getting cut from your job and your other option(s) would be restricted to that job's business partners. You think you'd get a fair deal ? Of course not.

And for the record, I do know what my co-workers are making. I just believe it's not my business and should have no bearing on the wage I'm willing to accept.

That's fine. It was the same case for me as well because just in like everything else, people talk to each other no matter what, but I knew why upper management wanted the information to be as restricted as possible and, again, it was not because of privacy issues.

 

[Randy White]

The so called details would not make any real difference on the bottom line. But if you want to continue to live in la la land go ahead. I will take Brandt over anything that rag says.

Says who ? You ? Brandt, because " he knows better " ? Yea, ok.. prove it. If the " details would not make any real difference to the bottom line ", simply show them and solidify your case.

 

[Kevinicus]

You're talking apples and oranges.

What you're saying is NOT " competition ". The " 31 other teams " are under the same league's rules and regulation ( salary cap, revenue sharing..etc..etc ) as the 32nd team which would prevent players, in most cases, to earn at the same level as they were before.

It would be similar to you getting cut from your job and your other option(s) would be restricted to that job's business partners. You think you'd get a fair deal ? Of course not.



That's fine. It was the same case for me as well because just in like everything else, people talk to each other no matter what, but I knew why upper management wanted the information to be as restricted as possible and, again, it was not because of privacy issues.

Who is supposed to be competing here? The employee and employer? There if often competition between the teams for a specific player. If a player gets cut because he won't take a cut, and he can't find employ with another team at the same rate he had before, then that means he overvalued the worth of his services. He isn't entitled to make what he thinks he's worth, the other side has to agree he's worth it as well. Other leagues aren't under the same rules as the NFL and he could go there if he wished. Or he can go into another field entirely.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Wow. You are full of great analyses this week! Gee, when was the last time a ball thrown from the field hurt or killed a fan? It ain't a "risk" if it never happens.

Compare that to the risk taken by a player for the CHANCE to make a roster.

What does that have to do with financial risk??

Second, its called an example, something seems like fails you obviously. Among other things, which explains nonsensical ramblings of you claiming Owners somehow are just doing this for fun.

But then it seems on par with your rantings about Cowboys trying to experiment with OL, just because they had Houck at Baylor Pro day.

 

[AbeBeta]

What does that have to do with financial risk??

Gee, how does risking permanent injury -- or even brain injury or other conditions that lead to a very early death -- compare to having to buy liability insurance in case some fan gets hit in the head with a ball?

You are absolutely right -- there is no comparison. I can't believe anyone would be so downright ignorant to even suggest the owner's risk is greater.

 

[Randy White]

Who is supposed to be competing here? The employee and employer? There if often competition between the teams for a specific player. If a player gets cut because he won't take a cut, and he can't find employ with another team at the same rate he had before, then that means he overvalued the worth of his services. He isn't entitled to make what he thinks he's worth, the other side has to agree he's worth it as well.

Once again, you're talking about apples and oranges.

Although the NFL's 32 teams, at times, compete with each other for players' services, they ALL belong to the same " corporation " or " partnership ", and the Supreme Court confirmed it. That means that just because the Dallas Cowboys outbid the Green Bay Packers for a player, those actions does not affect with any signficance the revenues that the Green Bay Packers will receive since they're part of the same league as the Cowboys.

However, if your company is considering getting rid of you because you're not taking a paycut, it will take into consideration the chance that you'll go to it's competitor and make them better, which then would affect their revenues. This ( theoritically speaking here ) would be the option that NFL players do not have. Your company, most probably, has direct competition and does NOT own more than 49% of it's market, which makes it easier for them to cut you ( unless you belong to a union and are under a CBA rules ). As a matter of fact, your probably owns way less % of the market, and most companies want it that way.

Other leagues aren't under the same rules as the NFL and he could go there if he wished. Or he can go into another field entirely.

That's incorrect. If there's no union, that player can take the NFL to court and open up a whole new can of worms ( such as the NFL would then have to show probable cause to ask for a paycut in court because they own over 50% of the professional football market in the country ).

That's why the last thing the NFL owners want is for the union to decertify. The NFL does NOT have direct competition which is why they're subject to Anti-trust laws. So does the NBA and even MLB, although baseball's anti-trust laws are less restrictive as agreed by congress many decades ago. That means that just about any labor decision they make, and they don't have unions to deal with and CBAs in place, comes under heavy scrutiny and can be challanged in court.

 

[Kevinicus]

Once again, you're talking about apples and oranges.

Although the NFL's 32 teams, at times, compete with each other for players' services, they ALL belong to the same " corporation " or " partnership ", and the Supreme Court confirmed it. That means that just because the Dallas Cowboys outbid the Green Bay Packers for a player, those actions does not affect with any signficance the revenues that the Green Bay Packers will receive since they're part of the same league as the Cowboys.

However, if your company is considering getting rid of you because you're not taking a paycut, it will take into consideration the chance that you'll go to it's competitor and make them better, which then would affect their revenues. This ( theoritically speaking here ) would be the option that NFL players do not have. Your company, most probably, has direct competition and does NOT own more than 49% of it's market, which makes it easier for them to cut you ( unless you belong to a union and are under a CBA rules ). As a matter of fact, your probably owns way less % of the market, and most companies want it that way.



That's incorrect. If there's no union, that player can take the NFL to court and open up a whole new can of worms ( such as the NFL would then have to show probable cause to ask for a paycut in court because they own over 50% of the professional football market in the country ).

That's why the last thing the NFL owners want is for the union to decertify. The NFL does NOT have direct competition which is why they're subject to Anti-trust laws. So does the NBA and even MLB, although baseball's anti-trust laws are less restrictive as agreed by congress many decades ago. That means that just about any labor decision they make, and they don't have unions to deal with and CBAs in place, comes under heavy scrutiny and can be challanged in court.

That's incorrect? He couldn't go to another league and be paid 200 million (surely more than he makes now) if they agreed to pay him that?

I think the only point you're making is that there are a lot of stupid labor laws in this country, which I've never disputed and think has always been pretty clear.

 

[RCowboyFan]

Gee, how does risking permanent injury -- or even brain injury or other conditions that lead to a very early death -- compare to having to buy liability insurance in case some fan gets hit in the head with a ball?

You are absolutely right -- there is no comparison. I can't believe anyone would be so downright ignorant to even suggest the owner's risk is greater.

You have one track agenda, and nothing seems to change that. Carry on Comrade.