View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 31st, 2014, 3:17 pm



Reply to topic  [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Uncapped Year or New CBA for next season? 
Author Message
Online
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2286
Post 
It really is a shame the NFLPA let it get to this out of greed. Ive been a football fan since i was 4 years old. College , Pros, played in HS, etc. Its the only sport I really give a poop about.

I can handle 1 uncapped year, but if it isnt re-implmented, I will be done with Pro football. Baseball is a fudge joke of a sport because of this, and I just cant bear to watch the best sport in the world destroyed by greed.

At leas tI will still have college football (like that isnt driven by greed). :/


February 2nd, 2010, 2:27 am
Profile ICQ WWW
Color Commentator - John Madden
User avatar

Joined: January 19th, 2007, 3:21 am
Posts: 1919
Location: A2
Post 
I can't see the league not going without a salary cap beyond one year. The thing that the league has preached is parity, the "Any Given Sunday" mentality. Without a cap it would be a Yankees and the Red Sox problem while driving the small market teams out of business (Read Buffalo, Jacksonville).

I think now is the best and the worst time to have an uncapped year. With the current economy as it is, it plays both sides of the coin. Without the cap richer teams will be fine, but the small market teams won't be able to make the type of financial commitment to its team like the others, without the revenue sharing. The middle tier teams, which is the majority, will most likely play it safe because of the economy, leaving only the big spenders and the low end teams having the biggest problems when the new cap is instituted.

_________________
Forward down the field!


February 2nd, 2010, 1:35 pm
Profile
Online
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2286
Post 
Wayne Fontes wrote:
I can't see the league not going without a salary cap beyond one year.


The thing is the League is comprised of the Owners. The Owenrs have the power here. Certain Owner stand to gain a lot (both those who will pay up to win titles, AND those that will lower pay to increase revenue [read: small market teams]). IF enough owner fit into either of those categories it is in their best interest for it to remain uncapped. The NFLPA, is standing firm that they want an even better deal than 2006, even though they actually raped the owners in 2006. The Longer this draws on, the more power shifts to the owners, and the more likely they are going to want to keep it so they can Over Pay or Under pay their team.

Roger Goodell and NFL Corporate might want to present a certain image and maintain competative play, but for 95% of the Owners its more about either Winning or $$$ than it is about Image or "Balanced Play".

Unless the NFLPA pulls its head out of its rectum and gets this fixed by next year, I could see this being a permanent change, and Football slowly going the way of Baseball.


February 2nd, 2010, 5:04 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Color Commentator - John Madden
User avatar

Joined: January 19th, 2007, 3:21 am
Posts: 1919
Location: A2
Post 
I see your point, but the NFL has to understand that they are the pre-eminent sports league in the world because of how the last few CBA's have dictated the success of the league as a whole. At least I hope they understand that. The NFLPA is better off in the hands of De Smith instead of Upshaw, as far as i'm concerned, but they better wise up because like you said, the longer this drags out the more power goes to the owners.

_________________
Forward down the field!


February 2nd, 2010, 10:11 pm
Profile
Online
Fired Head Coach (0-16 record)
User avatar

Joined: April 5th, 2007, 5:51 pm
Posts: 2286
Post 
Right, the problem is again, the NFLPA is Basically De Smith, and a concentrated team working with him. The "They" of the NFL is 32 Individual owners, who as a group are siding agaisnt a Cap. So even as the NFLPA starts to give ground, they will only slowly pull the Owners in their direction, and Unless they make a good offer, they may not pull enough to get a New CBA in place as long as the High BUdget Teams see "Buying Championships as a Possibility, and Low Budget Teams see Lowering Payroll to 60% of what it is now as a Positive Business Proposition.


February 2nd, 2010, 10:41 pm
Profile ICQ WWW
Color Commentator - John Madden
User avatar

Joined: January 19th, 2007, 3:21 am
Posts: 1919
Location: A2
Post 
If there is a prolonged period of time it would signal the end of at least one franchise, possibly two. Obviously Buffalo and Jacksonville are the two teams that get tossed around as possible moves to L.A. Maybe this is the NFL's way of getting one or two teams to L.A. Jacksonville was a poor decision and the NFL has realized that already, and Buffalo has a great fan base and tradition, but so did the Baltimore Colts. Different reasons obviously for moving, but this could be something the NFL has thought about.

If the NFL becomes the MLB and the Cowboys become the Yanks I'll be real pissed. If the NFL were to do it, would the NBA and NHL follow suit?

_________________
Forward down the field!


February 2nd, 2010, 10:52 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post 
PFT wrote:
Saturday labor meeting yields no progress
Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2010 9:32 AM ET
The past few days have seen the most public developments to date in the labor dispute between the NFL and the players union.

For the most part, the developments have not been encouraging.

On Thursday, NFLPA Executive Director De Smith behaved like a trial lawyer in front of a Mississippi jury, seizing on catch phrases (and, no, I didn't "dig it") and taking subtle liberties with reality.

Afterward, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash behaved like a big tobacco consigliere before a small audience of reporters, speaking in complexities and offering a detailed (but spurious) argument in support of the league's refusal to open its books.

It prompted us to explain in an item for SportingNews.com that these two mutually dependent entities need to start behaving like the partners that they are, not the enemies that they should never be.

On Friday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell adroitly injected a sense of calm and optimism via his pre-Super Bowl press conference. But based on the depth of the current divide between the two sides, some might wonder whether Goodell has been paying attention to the events transpiring in his own backyard.

The process culminated Saturday in another negotiating session. The 90-minute meeting was far too short to yield any progress, but long enough to give the parties a chance to get some things off their chests and agree to proceed in a more discreet fashion going forward. As Judy Battista of the New York Times reports, the recently loquacious Smith opted not to comment while leaving the room.

Per the Associated Press, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said that there's "[n]othing new to report."

The public rhetoric helps no one. If there's a work stoppage, the very people to whom De Smith's misleading "18 percent pay cut" and "$5 billion to not play football" and "nonprofit organization" buzz words are aimed will shed no tears for the millionaires who supposedly are being abused by the billionaires.

But Pash's persistent stonewalling likewise will not result in no real progress being made.

As Goodell said Friday, a work stoppage will mean that both sides have failed. And that's a commitment that the media and the fans need to keep in mind as the next year unfolds.

But let's all forget about labor issues for the rest of the day. Today is the national NFL holiday, and let's enjoy it without worrying about what 2011 might bring.

Based upon everything I've heard this week, I'm starting to get scared. I have no doubt now that the 2010 season will be uncapped and it's looking more likely that there will be a lockout in 2011. The owners are being ridiculous for wanting an 18% pay cut and the players are equally stupid for saying that they want the same or better deal than they got in 2006. This does not look good.

_________________
Image


February 7th, 2010, 4:15 pm
Profile
Hall of Fame Player
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7457
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post 
I pretty much was resigned to the idea that there would be a work stoppage in 2011 as soon as the players union elected a lawyer, out of the blue, to be there negotiator.

When lawyers get involved, negotiations get messy!


February 7th, 2010, 5:40 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9908
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
slybri19 wrote:
PFT wrote:
Saturday labor meeting yields no progress
Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2010 9:32 AM ET
The past few days have seen the most public developments to date in the labor dispute between the NFL and the players union.

For the most part, the developments have not been encouraging.

On Thursday, NFLPA Executive Director De Smith behaved like a trial lawyer in front of a Mississippi jury, seizing on catch phrases (and, no, I didn't "dig it") and taking subtle liberties with reality.

Afterward, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash behaved like a big tobacco consigliere before a small audience of reporters, speaking in complexities and offering a detailed (but spurious) argument in support of the league's refusal to open its books.

It prompted us to explain in an item for SportingNews.com that these two mutually dependent entities need to start behaving like the partners that they are, not the enemies that they should never be.

On Friday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell adroitly injected a sense of calm and optimism via his pre-Super Bowl press conference. But based on the depth of the current divide between the two sides, some might wonder whether Goodell has been paying attention to the events transpiring in his own backyard.

The process culminated Saturday in another negotiating session. The 90-minute meeting was far too short to yield any progress, but long enough to give the parties a chance to get some things off their chests and agree to proceed in a more discreet fashion going forward. As Judy Battista of the New York Times reports, the recently loquacious Smith opted not to comment while leaving the room.

Per the Associated Press, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said that there's "[n]othing new to report."

The public rhetoric helps no one. If there's a work stoppage, the very people to whom De Smith's misleading "18 percent pay cut" and "$5 billion to not play football" and "nonprofit organization" buzz words are aimed will shed no tears for the millionaires who supposedly are being abused by the billionaires.

But Pash's persistent stonewalling likewise will not result in no real progress being made.

As Goodell said Friday, a work stoppage will mean that both sides have failed. And that's a commitment that the media and the fans need to keep in mind as the next year unfolds.

But let's all forget about labor issues for the rest of the day. Today is the national NFL holiday, and let's enjoy it without worrying about what 2011 might bring.

Based upon everything I've heard this week, I'm starting to get scared. I have no doubt now that the 2010 season will be uncapped and it's looking more likely that there will be a lockout in 2011. The owners are being ridiculous for wanting an 18% pay cut and the players are equally stupid for saying that they want the same or better deal than they got in 2006. This does not look good.


Sly, I agree with you that asking for an 18% pay cut is ridiculous, but the owners have to start somewhere to help make financially troubled teams more solvent. The NFLPA expecting a better deal than what they got in 2006 is beyond ridiculous.

What I would like is for the owners to commit, in writing, that if they get a pay cut from the players, they will likewise cut the cost of tickets and goods, or at least have a price freeze for two years across the board. I for one don't pity any of these greedy bastards, but if the owners want to sell their stance to the fans, then making some sort of an announcement or agreement like that will force the players to comply. Because in the end, no fans, no games.


February 7th, 2010, 9:41 pm
Profile
Post 
m2karateman wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
PFT wrote:
Saturday labor meeting yields no progress
Posted by Mike Florio on February 7, 2010 9:32 AM ET
The past few days have seen the most public developments to date in the labor dispute between the NFL and the players union.

For the most part, the developments have not been encouraging.

On Thursday, NFLPA Executive Director De Smith behaved like a trial lawyer in front of a Mississippi jury, seizing on catch phrases (and, no, I didn't "dig it") and taking subtle liberties with reality.

Afterward, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash behaved like a big tobacco consigliere before a small audience of reporters, speaking in complexities and offering a detailed (but spurious) argument in support of the league's refusal to open its books.

It prompted us to explain in an item for SportingNews.com that these two mutually dependent entities need to start behaving like the partners that they are, not the enemies that they should never be.

On Friday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell adroitly injected a sense of calm and optimism via his pre-Super Bowl press conference. But based on the depth of the current divide between the two sides, some might wonder whether Goodell has been paying attention to the events transpiring in his own backyard.

The process culminated Saturday in another negotiating session. The 90-minute meeting was far too short to yield any progress, but long enough to give the parties a chance to get some things off their chests and agree to proceed in a more discreet fashion going forward. As Judy Battista of the New York Times reports, the recently loquacious Smith opted not to comment while leaving the room.

Per the Associated Press, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said that there's "[n]othing new to report."

The public rhetoric helps no one. If there's a work stoppage, the very people to whom De Smith's misleading "18 percent pay cut" and "$5 billion to not play football" and "nonprofit organization" buzz words are aimed will shed no tears for the millionaires who supposedly are being abused by the billionaires.

But Pash's persistent stonewalling likewise will not result in no real progress being made.

As Goodell said Friday, a work stoppage will mean that both sides have failed. And that's a commitment that the media and the fans need to keep in mind as the next year unfolds.

But let's all forget about labor issues for the rest of the day. Today is the national NFL holiday, and let's enjoy it without worrying about what 2011 might bring.

Based upon everything I've heard this week, I'm starting to get scared. I have no doubt now that the 2010 season will be uncapped and it's looking more likely that there will be a lockout in 2011. The owners are being ridiculous for wanting an 18% pay cut and the players are equally stupid for saying that they want the same or better deal than they got in 2006. This does not look good.


Sly, I agree with you that asking for an 18% pay cut is ridiculous, but the owners have to start somewhere to help make financially troubled teams more solvent. The NFLPA expecting a better deal than what they got in 2006 is beyond ridiculous.

What I would like is for the owners to commit, in writing, that if they get a pay cut from the players, they will likewise cut the cost of tickets and goods, or at least have a price freeze for two years across the board. I for one don't pity any of these greedy bastards, but if the owners want to sell their stance to the fans, then making some sort of an announcement or agreement like that will force the players to comply. Because in the end, no fans, no games.


That said, a LOT of teams (the Lions being one of them) have lost money the last 2-3 seasons because pay is getting out of hand. People have been saying that these teams may have lost money in ticket sales, but they've made money after TV contracts etc., but that's absolutely not true. Once again, labor unions have bargained themselves into a better deal than deal that they actually should get, and now they're unwilling to take a lesser deal.

If the league goes to replacement players, I'll go to at least 4 games, and support my team every week!!!


February 7th, 2010, 11:51 pm
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2799
Post 
But who's saying they're losing money? The owners? As ludicrous as it sounds for the players to want the same or better deal they got in 2006, its more ludicrous for the owners to demand an 18% paycut yet refuse to open their books to validate WHY they should take a paycut. If you can't justify the reason other than saying "because we said so", what union employee would agree to that?

Would the auto unions agree to a substantial paycut by taking the word of the car manufacturers without proof?

i think both sides need to come together, but the players are in a much better situation if there's a lockout. They have this season to put away money, and they don't have the rents and mortgages that the owners do. They don't need to play to stay afloat like the owners do.


February 8th, 2010, 1:36 am
Profile
Post 
njroar wrote:
But who's saying they're losing money? The owners? As ludicrous as it sounds for the players to want the same or better deal they got in 2006, its more ludicrous for the owners to demand an 18% paycut yet refuse to open their books to validate WHY they should take a paycut. If you can't justify the reason other than saying "because we said so", what union employee would agree to that?

Would the auto unions agree to a substantial paycut by taking the word of the car manufacturers without proof?

i think both sides need to come together, but the players are in a much better situation if there's a lockout. They have this season to put away money, and they don't have the rents and mortgages that the owners do. They don't need to play to stay afloat like the owners do.


No, their financial statements say that they're losing money, and I've personally seen them. This is not something that is open for debate... You can argue speculation if you want to, I've seen the numbers. I know that as a franchise that they've lost money for at least two seasons, after every dollar that they've taken in has came into account.


February 8th, 2010, 4:08 am
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post 
According to Forbes, the Seahawks and Raiders were the only two teams to lose money in 2008. The Lions actually made money that year after losing money in 2006 and 2007. The numbers for 2009 won't be out for several more months, but I'd imagine that a few more teams lost money this past season.

If wjb or anybody else has any different numbers, then please point me in the right direction. If not, I'm gonna stick with what Forbes is reporting.

_________________
Image


February 8th, 2010, 11:50 am
Profile
Post 
slybri19 wrote:
According to Forbes, the Seahawks and Raiders were the only two teams to lose money in 2008. The Lions actually made money that year after losing money in 2006 and 2007. The numbers for 2009 won't be out for several more months, but I'd imagine that a few more teams lost money this past season.

If wjb or anybody else has any different numbers, then please point me in the right direction. If not, I'm gonna stick with what Forbes is reporting.



Hey Sly, I'll see if I can get a hold of my source for financial #'s again. I was seeing that person semi-regularly, but the numbers I had I got in 2008 and they were for the 2006 and 2007 seasons. I argued the same argument that everyone else does (after their TV contracts, etc. they make a ton of money, and only show "fake" losses). I was proved wrong. I had assumed that things have only gotten worse in terms of profit over the last two seasons, but apparently I was wrong about 2008.


February 8th, 2010, 6:49 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 9908
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post 
njroar wrote:
But who's saying they're losing money? The owners? As ludicrous as it sounds for the players to want the same or better deal they got in 2006, its more ludicrous for the owners to demand an 18% paycut yet refuse to open their books to validate WHY they should take a paycut. If you can't justify the reason other than saying "because we said so", what union employee would agree to that?


First of all, let's get something straight. The players are NOT union employees. They work for the teams, not the NFLPA. And that is part of the problem, the mindset of these players is that they have a RIGHT to know, but in truth they possess no such right, legally or otherwise. Do you think you could access all the detailed financial statements of your employer simply by asking? Try it and see how you fare.

njroar wrote:
Would the auto unions agree to a substantial paycut by taking the word of the car manufacturers without proof?


Here's the problem...the auto unions HAVE known the car companies were losing money, and STILL refused pay cuts until the car companies were on the brink of extinction. Unions don't exist to benefit the companies even if they are losing money. The auto unions blamed the management teams, and the NFLPA would do exactly the same thing, blame the owners.

njroar wrote:
i think both sides need to come together, but the players are in a much better situation if there's a lockout. They have this season to put away money, and they don't have the rents and mortgages that the owners do. They don't need to play to stay afloat like the owners do.


I think you're dead wrong. I am pretty certain that both parties will suffer, with the players suffering more. Why? The owners are Billionaires. They have more money than any single player could make in 10 lifetimes, or you and I could make in 1000. Also, and I'm pretty sure about this, the fans in general would blame the PLAYERS, not the owners. Why? The players play a game and get well paid to do so. The owners made their money elsewhere. Fans in general feel that the players make too much anyways. Look what happened to baseball...fans generally felt disdain towards the players because of their salaries and demands. The same will happen in the NFL. The players are getting greedy at a time when most folks are just trying to hang on for dear life. People who struggle don't feel sympathy towards those who are making demands for more despite the fact that they make more than they should. In the past couple years, all sorts of folks have sacrificed and taken pay cuts. You think the fans are going to support the players for asking for a better deal, and thus cause ticket prices to rise? Believe me, ain't happening.


February 8th, 2010, 7:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 70 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.