10 things you need to know right now about the CBA situation

[2ndgenz28]

And people will show up to play, like the draft will still go on as they are not union players yet.

If they could screw up the draft somehow, they could get some attention from owners.

But that would take the drafties to make some sort of drama and risk reprisel

[PoorMansCamaro]

yeah, there's no question that there will be a draft.

[ron10]

oh boy,after the settlement they can raise ticket prices again.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

I know, but the whole point is making money. Why would the owners allow there to be replacement players, make a whole lot less money than if they would have made an agreement with the current players? That doesn't make any sense at all.

And the alternative is let the players have everything they want. It certainly beats a lockout that COST money. They would make much more money with scabs than no play at all. Sometimes you have to scale back. Profits have to get cut to grow. Or in this case, stay alive. I gaurantee they lose MANY less fans with scab players than with an all out strike.

Lets also not forget the league trying to add 2 more games. Why shouldn't the players be compensated for those two games? Raise the league minimum. Who gives a shit about the high paid guys. and if there is an increase of 2 games, i believe they will also have a larger roster, meaning the pot for the players is getting smaller. There will also be a rookie cap, so the league can reduce the salary cap to also increase revenue for the owners, or use that money to pay the players. That money could be used TO pay the expanded league minimum players.

edit: i think you are drastically underestimating the amount of revenue lost if there were replacement players. merchandise sales will be virtually nothing. Ticket sales will be pennies to the dollar, etc...

No. I don't underestimate. Like I said, the league would lose more money striking. And they have to draw a line in the sand somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, it's not as simple as I am explaining it, for either side.

But this time around, I will NOT budge from the owners side.

Again, all I need to know is there is no other business in our country that pays employees as well as the Pro Players.

I'd laugh my ass off if the owners were to successfully start anew with scabs. Dump those Players Union Leaders on their asses. In fact, I'd pay big money to see that.

Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28

And people will show up to play, like the draft will still go on as they are not union players yet.

If they could screw up the draft somehow, they could get some attention from owners.

But that would take the drafties to make some sort of drama and risk reprisel

And if they do, I'd hope they NEVER play. I'll have more respect ANY player who defies and tries to start a scab run.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by ron10

oh boy,after the settlement they can raise ticket prices again.

I'll go toe to toe with anyone anywhere on how big of an NFL fan I am.

I live in College land where they brag on how the college season is basically a 13 game playoff.

These people are so clueless to playoff football that they thought there was something majorly wrong with the Saints when they lost their first game last year.

I'm an NFL fan first.

BUT, I'll lose that toe to toe battle of the biggest NFLer if the argument is supporting these Fers if the players get their way.

[PoorMansCamaro]

it's really tough because we don't know what the previous CBA was. I hear the owners want a bigger cut. Why? Has their risks gotten higher since their last CBA? How do we know it's the players that are being greedy and not the owners?

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

it's really tough because we don't know what the previous CBA was. I hear the owners want a bigger cut. Why? Has their risks gotten higher since their last CBA? How do we know it's the players that are being greedy and not the owners?

Just my own thoughts.

But to answer the question, because the players make more of the money than any other employee pool, in any company or business, anywhere. MUCH more.

PERIOD.

That's all I care about. Is it unfair to the league minimum guys? I don't care. Let the big guys give a little at the top. It isn't the owners fault these Fers hold out for "More money than the last guy".

When the situation gets too complicated to understand. I default to common sense.

[PQ]

BTW, PMC, I'm not saying the players don't or won't have some gripes. But, while at a impass, I gotta go with what, to me, makes sense.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Ok, i did some digging. I looked through the 2006 CBA. I was actually shocked that this document would be public. lol

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...-2006-2012.pdf

Here is a quote from that document:

Section 3. Guaranteed League-wide Salary: In any League Year in which
a Salary Cap is in effect, there shall be a Guaranteed League-wide Salary of
50% of Total Revenues. In the event that the Player Costs for all NFL Teams
during any League Year in which a Salary Cap is in effect are less than 50%
of actual TR for such season, then, on or before April 15 of the next League
Year, the NFL shall pay an amount equal to such deficiency directly to players who played on NFL Teams during such season pursuant to the reasonable
allocation instructions of the NFLPA.

The players union asked for the same amount for the new CBA, 50/50, and the owners walked out.

So PQ, since you are favoring the owners in this, why do you think the owners should change the total revenue sharing this go around, from the last CBA agreement? Do they have more risks now, then they did in 2006?

[PoorMansCamaro]

pretty much what i'm asking is, why F with a good thing! lol

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

Ok, i did some digging. I looked through the 2006 CBA. I was actually shocked that this document would be public. lol

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...-2006-2012.pdf

Here is a quote from that document:



The players union asked for the same amount for the new CBA, 50/50, and the owners walked out.

So PQ, since you are favoring the owners in this, why do you think the owners should change the total revenue sharing this go around, from the last CBA agreement? Do they have more risks now, then they did in 2006?

HELL yes he risk is higher.

The NFL is at an all time high as far as popularity. Nowhere to go but level or down from here.

Plus, I wouldn't have given them the 50% in the first place.

Plus, what the players are asking for is a starting point. Always is.

Plus, the players are talking about SALARY only. THEN the owners gotta ante up pensions, insurance, and travel etc.......

Plus, the cost of advertizing, taxes, equipment, insurance, facilities to compete, etc...... have gone WAYYY up.

But, to be fair, when the players take pay based on a fair level of profit, AND give money back (assume some liability) when the team doesn't profit beyond that 50%, and pays fair dues for the rest of a businesses liabilities, THEN I'll come to the players side.

A player CAN'T lose. He gets his salary no matter what.

If the players agree to take the losses when the teams do, fine.

Cold day in hell when that happens.

[PoorMansCamaro]

eh, i don't see it that way. I think there's no way to go but up for the nfl. I'm starting to see more and more women getting into it. every year it keeps out doing itself. Fantasy football is growing. Even through a tough economic stretch, the nfl didn't suffer too bad, if any at all. They made 9 billion dollars in revenue last season.

Maybe the owners shouldn't have agreed to the 50/50 split in the last CBA, but they did. Now it will be very tough to change that.

And I agree, the owners have other things they have to pay for, but then again, it's only one of them, while they have to split the revenue with 52 players, coaches, front office, staff, practice squad, etc. And the smaller you make their piece of the pie, the worse off the team is, imo. Once the owners loosened their leash, they can't tighten it back up without expecting some reprecusion.

I can understand if the NFL was doing bad, and they were losing money, but they aren't. Their revenue is still increasing, and while it may cost more for maintaining facilities, pensions, etc that you mentioned, they still wouldn't be losing any money if they kept the CBA the same. In fact, i'm sure they would still make money.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

eh, i don't see it that way. I think there's no way to go but up for the nfl. I'm starting to see more and more women getting into it. every year it keeps out doing itself. Fantasy football is growing. Even through a tough economic stretch, the nfl didn't suffer too bad, if any at all. They made 9 billion dollars in revenue last season.

Maybe the owners shouldn't have agreed to the 50/50 split in the last CBA, but they did. Now it will be very tough to change that.

And I agree, the owners have other things they have to pay for, but then again, it's only one of them, while they have to split the revenue with 52 players, coaches, front office, staff, practice squad, etc. And the smaller you make their piece of the pie, the worse off the team is, imo. Once the owners loosened their leash, they can't tighten it back up without expecting some reprecusion.

I can understand if the NFL was doing bad, and they were losing money, but they aren't. Their revenue is still increasing, and while it may cost more for maintaining facilities, pensions, etc that you mentioned, they still wouldn't be losing any money if they kept the CBA the same. In fact, i'm sure they would still make money.

Bottom line is the players salary will stay the same no matter what. NOTHING can make it go down. Owners? No. Their profits fluctuate. And you see what's happening. Just like you said, the owners give them and inch, and they take two or threaten.

And you can bet your sweet patooti (LMAO, did I just attempt that ) that the players aren't asking for status quo.

So, then, am I to assume that if I put up 100 thousand dollars of my own money to start a business, and in 10 years I make it into a million dollar a year profitable business that my employees can demand half my profits?

Communism.

NONE of these players made the sacrifices and risks that the owners or owners fathers have.

But, I guess it goes back to the ole Patrick Ewing comment:

"Sure, we make a lot of money, but we spend a lot, too."

[PoorMansCamaro]

the players asked for the same 50/50 as last time. not more. and the owners walked out. owners could have at least pondered it. they didn't even counter or anything.