PDA

View Full Version : Some Interesting Numbers as We Watch the Labor Agreement Unfold



Hayvern
02-22-2011, 12:10 AM
hey gang,

I ran across some interesting information on Forbes.com that I compiled and thought I would put up here for some comparison purposes.

It all has to do with the amount of money in the NFL these days and where that money is being spent. These numbers are from the 2009 season.

First, a little information about the numbers.

Current Value = The latest value of the team
Revenue = The amount of gross income the team received in 2009
Operating Income = The amount of money left over after expenses but before taxes and interest payments
Player Expense = The amount of money spent on player salaries, benefits and bonuses
Gate Receipts = The amount of money from ticket sales including club seating
Margin Percentage = (not really correct here, but works) this is the percentage of operating income against total revenue
Players Percentage = the percentage of player costs to revenue
Overhead = the amount of money that was spent on overhead including stadium costs and everything else that it takes to run the team

Ok so here are the best and worse along with the Chiefs in each category

Current Value:
Dallas Cowboys = 1.8 billion
KC Chiefs = 965 Million 20th overall
Jaguars = 725 million

Revenue
Cowboys = 420 million
Chiefs = 235 million 23rd overall
Lions = 210 million

Operating Income
Cowboys = 143.3 million
Chiefs = 47.8 Million 6th overall
Dolphins = -7.7 million

Player Expense
Giants 166 million
Chiefs 111 million (we were last in this category)

Gate Receipts
Cowboys 112 million
Chiefs 53 million 16th overall
Raiders 34 million

Overhead costs
Cowboys = 133.7 million
Chiefs = 76.2 million 14th
Bills = 57.8 million

I found this interesting. It looks like the owners could learn a few things from the owner of the Bills on how to get costs down.

Overall, here are some interesting numbers league wide to think about.

All the teams in the NFL have a combined value of 32.6 BILLION dollars

All the teams in the NFL collected 8 billion in revenue for the 2009 season

All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income. Interestingly enough, this is what the owners have stated they want to keep that amount at.

Players have received 4.494 billion in expenses, or 56.06% of total revenue.

Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs are in excess of 2.45 billion dollars collectively or 30% of revenue.

For those of you who are business savvy, those numbers will mean something to you. For those of you who see that the players only get 56% and really don't know much about business you will think the players should get more. Interestingly enough, with a margin of 13.3% overall, the NFL is healthy, but not getting overly rich.

Putting that in perspective, if you owned your own business in construction. If your company made 100K in revenue in one year, you would have made 13K for your troubles. Its all about volume.

It appears some teams could work hard to get their costs down and save some money, which is another of the owners demands as they ask the players to pick up flights and hotel rooms on their own.

Anyway, I thought this information was interesting. If you want to see the numbers for yourself. You can visit:

#32 Jacksonville Jaguars - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Jacksonville-Jaguars_306892.html) and walk backwards through each team from the end forward.

pojote
02-22-2011, 09:31 AM
Thanks for the research. I think those are really good numbers for the owners. They own a football team, and still making some (good) profit.
Sports is a special industry, with special interests. It is much closer to entertainment than construction. You can do a movie with an unknown leading actor and pay him pennies, or you can do it with a top seller cast and pay him tons of money, getting most of the revenue (sometimes all of it). Big studios choices second option most of the times, why? Because it is less risky.
If you want to have superstars players, that will make super audiences ratings, you have to share most of the revenues. Without these players, teams worths close to zero.

Seek
02-22-2011, 06:14 PM
So teams are supposed to learn from the Bills, yet the Bills suck...

chief31
02-22-2011, 07:26 PM
For those of you who are business savvy, those numbers will mean something to you.

Putting that in perspective, if you owned your own business in construction. If your company made 100K in revenue in one year, you would have made 13K for your troubles. Its all about volume.




Good thing these guys aren't having to run lowly construction companies.:lol:

Anyway, let me try my hand at this "Business savvy" thing ...

If $4.494 billion is 56.06% of total revenue, as indicated in the story, then (4.494 / 56.06) gives us $80,164,109.88 to represent 1% of total revenue. Multiply that by 100, for 100%, and you get $8.016 Billion Total revenue.

Then he indicates that the owners, after all operating costs, collect 13.3% of total revenue. This is where it is made to look like a bad deal with the construction co. comparison.

$80,164,109.88 is 1%, so we multiply that by 13.3 and...

That comes to $1,066,182,661.43.

But he also mentions that "All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income."

That comes out before they determine the Total revenue. Sort of like "before taxes". They take that right our of the grand total, then work the numbers with what remains.

So, now, the owners total for profits comes to $2,066,182,661.43.

If we divide that among 32 owners, the average income, after all expenses, comes to $64,568,208.17 for the 2009 season.

What was that one line again?.... "the NFL is healthy, but not getting overly rich."

I'll disagree FTW.

I don't care what percentage of the revenue you are getting, if the actual amount comes to over $64.5 million a year, after all expenses, I will not be on your side when you demand more and threaten to cancel the NFL season for it.

But don't worry. I think most will.

Hayvern
02-22-2011, 10:19 PM
Good thing these guys aren't having to run lowly construction companies.:lol:

Anyway, let me try my hand at this "Business savvy" thing ...

If $4.494 billion is 56.06% of total revenue, as indicated in the story, then (4.494 / 56.06) gives us $80,164,109.88 to represent 1% of total revenue. Multiply that by 100, for 100%, and you get $8.016 Billion Total revenue.


Wowo good for you, you understand 5th grade math :lol:


Then he indicates that the owners, after all operating costs, collect 13.3% of total revenue. This is where it is made to look like a bad deal with the construction co. comparison.

$80,164,109.88 is 1%, so we multiply that by 13.3 and...

That comes to $1,066,182,661.43.


WOW, look at you go! :lol:



But he also mentions that "All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income."

That comes out before they determine the Total revenue. Sort of like "before taxes". They take that right our of the grand total, then work the numbers with what remains.


Actually, this is where you lose it. That is not how Operating Income works. Operating income is what is left over from revenue AFTER expenses are factored. So your math gets off base here, that is alright, we have moved into business concepts now.

Operating Income = Gross Income - Operating Expenses - Depreciation



So, now, the owners total for profits comes to $2,066,182,661.43.


This is where you are wrong. Total profit is not factored into this in anyway. The calculation of profit is operating income minus taxes and interest payments. I do not have the numbers on profit, but it will be less than the 1 billion that is stated in the article when you make the subtractions. It will obviously change per team, for instance, I am sure the Chiefs financed their stadium renovations and that interest payment will come off of operating income. What is the interest payment on 375 million? I don't have a clue.



If we divide that among 32 owners, the average income, after all expenses, comes to $64,568,208.17 for the 2009 season.

What was that one line again?.... "the NFL is healthy, but not getting overly rich."



Actually, I cannot calculate total profit since I do not know what each team pays in taxes and interest as stated above, but the average operating income around the league is more like 33.4 million, almost half of what you say it is. It is a pretty common mistake.



I'll disagree FTW.

I don't care what percentage of the revenue you are getting, if the actual amount comes to over $64.5 million a year, after all expenses, I will not be on your side when you demand more and threaten to cancel the NFL season for it.

But don't worry. I think most will.

Well as proven above, owners are not making that on average, but yeah, they make millions of dollars. It is all economies of scale though. So the simple person sees 33 million and they say "Man that is a lot of money per year" and it is a lot of money I admit. But at the same time, how much money is the top contracts getting?

Well here are some numbers from 2009

NFL TeamAverage Annual Salary
Julius Peppers, 16.6 million
Carson Palmer 16.16 million
Eli Manning 15.28 Million
Namdi Asomugha 15.1 million
Ben Rothlesberger 14.6 million
Peyton Manning 14 million

Some of those players made more money that year than the following teams:

Carolina Panthers 15 million
Green Bay Packers 9.8 million
New York Jets 7.6 Million
Oakland Raiders 2.2 Million
New York Giants 2.1 Million
Detroit Lions -2.9 million
Miami Dolphins -7.7 million

That's right, Asomugha made more money than the collective Raiders organization did. I find that very funny.

The point here really is that the profit margin average for all the teams in the NFL is probably closer to 8 - 9% which is low. For a team to borrow money, and have cash on hand to run their business, they would need to have 10 - 12% to be considered healthy. Even though they have millions of dollars, it costs millions to run the team. When we look at it compared to our small 50K salaries it seems a travesty, but again, economy of scale comes into play here.

To give you a comparison. Microsoft has a 40% operating margin and a 30% profit margin

Netflix has a 31.73% Profit Margin

Caterpillar has a 7.11% profit margin OH snap, can we say union?

General Motors 1.1% profit and 1.7% operating margin, wow unions strike again

Verizon 57.7 % Profit Margin

Apple Computers 40% profit margin

So you can see that at less than 13%, the NFL owners are not nearly getting as rich as others, but at least they are not yet down to Government bailout levels like GM.

Hayvern
02-22-2011, 10:22 PM
So teams are supposed to learn from the Bills, yet the Bills suck...

Yeah, well they could learn how to keep their costs down, but then part of keeping costs down is not paying a lot for players, so yeah, they suck!

tornadospotter
02-22-2011, 10:35 PM
:sign0087::canbeer::plus1:

Xanathol
02-22-2011, 10:47 PM
Hate to spoil the fun, but those numbers are messed up from the offset. You are forgetting that the owners get a credit off the top for expenses - close to a 1 billion dollar credit currently, after the numbers are worked out.

Per the NFLPA site: (http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/The-State-of-the-Game-A-Current-Look-at-the-Success-of-the-League/) "The NFL generated $8.8 billion in gross revenue in 2009, more than any other league." The 'total revenue' number is after that first amount is knocked off the top (http://www.nflplayers.com/articles/CBA-News/Letter-Clarifying-the-Truth-About-the-Revenue-Split/). Further, the actual percentage of player costs out of all revenue in 2009 was 50.6%, per the last link, or 57.1% of the actual 'total revenue' as used in the CBA terms.

Here you can check out all the things that the owners are compensated for off the top (http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2006%20CBA%20Expense%20Credits.pdf), before any pie splitting takes place. Pretty much the only things not listed are the things the owners are now asking to have covered - travel, lodging, funds for a new stadium, and the such.

Sorry, but the numbers just aren't that simple. The owners hide their compensation as much as they can, so simply adding the totals you see on Forbes won't cut it. If it was that simple, the owners wouldn't be so opposed to showing the players their books...

70 chiefsfan70
02-23-2011, 12:53 AM
I think I'll hold off on buying a NFL team, till next year.

I'm only 1,799,999,999.76 short of owning the Cowboys

Hayvern
02-23-2011, 03:05 AM
Hate to spoil the fun, but those numbers are messed up from the offset. You are forgetting that the owners get a credit off the top for expenses - close to a 1 billion dollar credit currently, after the numbers are worked out.

Per the NFLPA site: (http://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/CBA-News/The-State-of-the-Game-A-Current-Look-at-the-Success-of-the-League/) "The NFL generated $8.8 billion in gross revenue in 2009, more than any other league." The 'total revenue' number is after that first amount is knocked off the top (http://www.nflplayers.com/articles/CBA-News/Letter-Clarifying-the-Truth-About-the-Revenue-Split/). Further, the actual percentage of player costs out of all revenue in 2009 was 50.6%, per the last link, or 57.1% of the actual 'total revenue' as used in the CBA terms.

Here you can check out all the things that the owners are compensated for off the top (http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2006%20CBA%20Expense%20Credits.pdf), before any pie splitting takes place. Pretty much the only things not listed are the things the owners are now asking to have covered - travel, lodging, funds for a new stadium, and the such.

Sorry, but the numbers just aren't that simple. The owners hide their compensation as much as they can, so simply adding the totals you see on Forbes won't cut it. If it was that simple, the owners wouldn't be so opposed to showing the players their books...

I did forget about that, but rather I was not aware of that. What I will have to do though, is go back and see how that factors into the numbers, because ultimately the only thing that changes is whether the operating costs, those subtractions that leave operating income, are included or are over and above the expenses incurred. This I do not know for sure.

Interestingly enough, when you calculate expenses with the numbers, the total in expenses is stated to be 2 billion dollars. So if the 1 billion dollar allowance is factored in, owners are still paying 1 billion in expenses league wide.

That would leave 26% in operating margin, which is certainly better than 13% and places them squarely in the profitable range.

I am guessing that the 1 billion expense allowance is a bookkeeping tactic to avoid having to pay taxes on the first billion received. The same way someone who is paid per diem for working away from home gets that money tax free, which is why it would likely not be reported in revenue, I was just not aware of it.

The interesting thing to find out, which might be in the NFLPA contract, is how much per diem player's receive for travel expenses and lodging. For the numbers to be fair, that money should ALSO be factored into what the players get if you are going to fractor in the owner's expense allowance. Again, since that is not classified as income, then it would not be reported as salary. It could be part of the expense costs.

Either way, I never claimed this was the be all end all, nor was it meant to make the case for or against the players. These guys all make more money than I can ever dream of, so let the rick fight out there own.

Ultimately though, if the owners cannot afford to field the teams, the NFL will fail. Players come and players go, and the product may not be as good, but it would still be a product without the current crop of players, without the owners, you got nothing.

pojote
02-23-2011, 09:44 AM
To give you a comparison. Microsoft has a 40% operating margin and a 30% profit margin

Netflix has a 31.73% Profit Margin

Caterpillar has a 7.11% profit margin OH snap, can we say union?

General Motors 1.1% profit and 1.7% operating margin, wow unions strike again

Verizon 57.7 % Profit Margin

Apple Computers 40% profit margin

So you can see that at less than 13%, the NFL owners are not nearly getting as rich as others, but at least they are not yet down to Government bailout levels like GM.

As we can see, IT and communications industries are more profitable than others. Probably in 100 years won't be that much.

How much Microsoft invests in salaries? I think most GM workers would love to have a job in MS.

Those industries are far away from a sport venture, you can't compare thou.

OPLookn
02-23-2011, 01:22 PM
As we can see, IT and communications industries are more profitable than others. Probably in 100 years won't be that much.

How much Microsoft invests in salaries? I think most GM workers would love to have a job in MS.

Those industries are far away from a sport venture, you can't compare thou.

Actually because of unions you'd be suprized what a GM worker makes. Granted I'm not part of GM nor do I know anyone that works there but I've heard that unionized people (which GM employs) make anywhere from 20 to 40 bucks an hour.

I do however work in the IT world and can say that that is on par with what an IT person makes so I think that GM employees would happily stay exactly where they're at. Especially when you factor in that when GM employees strike GM HAS to pay them something like 90 to 95% of their salary.

So to wrap it up I'm thinking any unionized employee of GM would laugh at switching to an IT job.

bbacker51
02-23-2011, 06:04 PM
at the very least, they are either trying to save face with the fans, or have been getting something done the last 5 days.

chief31
02-23-2011, 07:43 PM
I did forget about that, but rather I was not aware of that. What I will have to do though, is go back and see how that factors into the numbers, because ultimately the only thing that changes is whether the operating costs, those subtractions that leave operating income, are included or are over and above the expenses incurred. This I do not know for sure.

Interestingly enough, when you calculate expenses with the numbers, the total in expenses is stated to be 2 billion dollars. So if the 1 billion dollar allowance is factored in, owners are still paying 1 billion in expenses league wide.

That would leave 26% in operating margin, which is certainly better than 13% and places them squarely in the profitable range.

I am guessing that the 1 billion expense allowance is a bookkeeping tactic to avoid having to pay taxes on the first billion received. The same way someone who is paid per diem for working away from home gets that money tax free, which is why it would likely not be reported in revenue, I was just not aware of it.

The interesting thing to find out, which might be in the NFLPA contract, is how much per diem player's receive for travel expenses and lodging. For the numbers to be fair, that money should ALSO be factored into what the players get if you are going to fractor in the owner's expense allowance. Again, since that is not classified as income, then it would not be reported as salary. It could be part of the expense costs.

No need to do all that. I already did that for you. You know... you made some big long speech to challenge the fact that that $1 billion doesn't count?

Yeah. Same billion dollars.


Either way, I never claimed this was the be all end all, nor was it meant to make the case for or against the players. These guys all make more money than I can ever dream of, so let the rick fight out there own.

Ultimately though, if the owners cannot afford to field the teams, the NFL will fail. Players come and players go, and the product may not be as good, but it would still be a product without the current crop of players, without the owners, you got nothing.

Yeah. Because the owners are irreplacable?

Ya know what? I bet if the current owners decided to get out of the business, there would be other people willing to get into the business.

But then, I don't see any mass defection of owners due to poor profits, do you?

Didn't think of that? How could you have overlooked that?


Wowo good for you, you understand 5th grade math :lol:


WOW, look at you go! :lol:

Yeah. It's pretty easy.

But you'll get lost in a second. I'll see if I can help you get back on the fifth grade train in a second...


Actually, this is where you lose it. That is not how Operating Income works. Operating income is what is left over from revenue AFTER expenses are factored. So your math gets off base here, that is alright, we have moved into business concepts now.

Yeah, see. I knew you wouldn't be able to follow.

"Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs are in excess of 2.45 billion dollars collectively or 30% of revenue."

Now, we can do this simple math now, later, or go back to the beginning and do it. But the result is the same.

First thing that happens is the $1 billion for owners, right off the top.

Then they get their share of total revenue.

From that point on, all costs and totals seem to come only from that total revenue, and no other mention of that $1 billion ever happens. The 13.3% comes directly from total revenue, and never touches the $1billion that was taken off the top.

So the owners collect that $1 billion, but they don't have it included in their 13.3%.

All I did was factor that in with the 13.3% of total revenue that they kept. (before taxes)




Operating Income = Gross Income - Operating Expenses - Depreciation

Depreciation isn't going to factor in this year. The average value of NFL teams didn't depreciate in 2009.


This is where you are wrong. Total profit is not factored into this in any way. The calculation of profit is operating income minus taxes and interest payments.

Well, since neither of us is a tax man for billion dollar firms, let's just call my numbers "Before all taxes".

I guarantee they get some write-offs that most of us will have never heard of. But let's not bother to go that deep. We can just say that they had to pay taxes on it.



I do not have the numbers on profit, but it will be less than the 1 billion that is stated in the article when you make the subtractions. It will obviously change per team, for instance, I am sure the Chiefs financed their stadium renovations and that interest payment will come off of operating income. What is the interest payment on 375 million? I don't have a clue.

You don't have a clue. But you are wanting to submit the notion that the "Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs" didn't include all of the operating costs.

How about if we suffice it to say that operating costs does include those operating costs?


Actually, I cannot calculate total profit since I do not know what each team pays in taxes and interest as stated above, but the average operating income around the league is more like 33.4 million, almost half of what you say it is. It is a pretty common mistake.

No mistake.

You chose to make guesses at what they pay in taxes, and I chose to just call it "before taxes".

Everybody knows what that means.And it allows everybody to make their own guesses as to what they actually get to put into their Swiss accounts.


Well as proven above, owners are not making that on average,

Wait... what did you prove again? That you don't know, or that you don't have a clue?

Those statements are proof of nothing.


but yeah, they make millions of dollars. It is all economies of scale though. So the simple person sees 33 million and they say "Man that is a lot of money per year" and it is a lot of money I admit. But at the same time, how much money is the top contracts getting?

Well here are some numbers from 2009

NFL TeamAverage Annual Salary
Julius Peppers, 16.6 million
Carson Palmer 16.16 million
Eli Manning 15.28 Million
Namdi Asomugha 15.1 million
Ben Rothlesberger 14.6 million
Peyton Manning 14 million

Some of those players made more money that year than the following teams:

Carolina Panthers 15 million
Green Bay Packers 9.8 million
New York Jets 7.6 Million
Oakland Raiders 2.2 Million
New York Giants 2.1 Million
Detroit Lions -2.9 million
Miami Dolphins -7.7 million

That's right, Asomugha made more money than the collective Raiders organization did. I find that very funny.

The point here really is that the profit margin average for all the teams in the NFL is probably closer to 8 - 9% which is low.

Yeah. Nevermind what the article said. Just make up your own numbers to try and make us feel sorry for the owners.

How about if we stick with the 13.3% that the article mentioned, eh?

We all make a certain amount before taxes, and we all realize that the amount you get after taxes is less. So we should all know that $64.5 million before taxes would be less than that later.

No need to go trying to deflate that number and make it look less imposing.


To give you a comparison. Microsoft has a 40% operating margin and a 30% profit margin

Netflix has a 31.73% Profit Margin

Caterpillar has a 7.11% profit margin OH snap, can we say union?

General Motors 1.1% profit and 1.7% operating margin, wow unions strike again

Verizon 57.7 % Profit Margin

Apple Computers 40% profit margin

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such a shame to have to take care of those who's backs you use to make your millions, ain't it?

That sure would make a sad, sad movie.


For a team to borrow money, and have cash on hand to run their business, they would need to have 10 - 12% to be considered healthy. Even though they have millions of dollars, it costs millions to run the team. When we look at it compared to our small 50K salaries it seems a travesty, but again, economy of scale comes into play here.



So you can see that at less than 13%, the NFL owners are not nearly getting as rich as others, but at least they are not yet down to Government bailout levels like GM.

Yeah. The poor little guys.

All you did with all of this is try to get taxes, interest payments, and depreciation included to reduce the numbers. But all people have those same kind of expenses. No need to jumble the numbers. Just say that they have to pay taxes with their $64.5 million a year.

Here's something that you haven't bothered to factor in, at any point...

Owning an NFL team has more rewards than just your profit margin.

If the profit margin for an NFL was at 1% somebody would still be dying to get into the business. Possibly because they care about football?

Ya know, some people actually pay to pretend to own and run an NFL team. Because it is rewarding. Just as you have no problem saying that the players get paid to "play a game", so do the owners.

If profit is your primary concern with your football team, then you have no business being in The NFL.

It has to be about more than money in any business.

Whatever business you are in, that is who you are. And if all you are about is profits, as with all big business, then that's who you are.

And if you already have more than enough money to last you the rest of your life, and you are still in it for the profits, then you are unarguably greedy.

If you want to defend greed as being ok, then take it up with God. I believe he did voice an opinion on the matter.

The players may also be greedy. But I know that profit is not the only thing keeping them where they are. They can not stay in The NFL if they don't have a vast passion for the game. (Larry Johnson)

Hayvern
02-23-2011, 10:18 PM
No need to do all that. I already did that for you. You know... you made some big long speech to challenge the fact that that $1 billion doesn't count?

Yeah. Same billion dollars.



Brilliant, I love how you leave out the whole concept of the billion dollars off the top, but then include it like you knew about it all along now. Brilliant move, dishonest, but brilliant, at least I admitted that I did not know about it. You could have done the same and then laid it on thicker and had more credibility in the end.




"Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs are in excess of 2.45 billion dollars collectively or 30% of revenue."

Now, we can do this simple math now, later, or go back to the beginning and do it. But the result is the same.

First thing that happens is the $1 billion for owners, right off the top.

Then they get their share of total revenue.

From that point on, all costs and totals seem to come only from that total revenue, and no other mention of that $1 billion ever happens. The 13.3% comes directly from total revenue, and never touches the $1billion that was taken off the top.

So the owners collect that $1 billion, but they don't have it included in their 13.3%.


Yeah, thanks to another individual here on the boards we have established that, too bad that was not part of your original calculations.



All I did was factor that in with the 13.3% of total revenue that they kept. (before taxes)


Oh, wow, so you added this in, but failed to mention it. You used my numbers and then in some weird way calculated it to show twice as much operating income, but never really mentioned it. Now you want to go back and include that to show you really knew what you were talking about all along?

Nice plan, epic fail on execution though.






Well, since neither of us is a tax man for billion dollar firms, let's just call my numbers "Before all taxes".


As are mine, thanks



I guarantee they get some write-offs that most of us will have never heard of. But let's not bother to go that deep. We can just say that they had to pay taxes on it.


I am sure they do, so do you think they have a way to hide all the taxes on that money? You think they do not pay ANY taxes on it, are you really trying to say that?




You don't have a clue. But you are wanting to submit the notion that the "Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs" didn't include all of the operating costs.


It is possible, there is two ways to account for it. You see Per Diem amounts are non-taxable and can be written off the top, or included as part of expenses. I am not sure if these numbers I got are from tax returns or some other type of accounting and the Forbes website does not say.

The way my company calculates health care benefits falls under this. It does not show up as expenses on the financial reports because of the way it is accounted. If I was a CPA I could probably explain it better.

Either way, I am admitting that I am not clear, but I would expect that those expenses are included here.

[/quote]



No mistake.

You chose to make guesses at what they pay in taxes, and I chose to just call it "before taxes".


So you really never read anything did you? If you had read what I posted you would know that Operating Income is calculated BEFORE TAXES and INTEREST PAYMENTS. My numbers do not account for what they might pay in taxes.



Everybody knows what that means.And it allows everybody to make their own guesses as to what they actually get to put into their Swiss accounts.


Ok you have no proof of that, so I would be wary of implying that Clark Hunt is somehow breaking the law.



How about if we stick with the 13.3% that the article mentioned, eh?

We all make a certain amount before taxes, and we all realize that the amount you get after taxes is less. So we should all know that $64.5 million before taxes would be less than that later.


Yeah, and if they only made 33.4 million, then that would be less as well.



All you did with all of this is try to get taxes, interest payments, and depreciation included to reduce the numbers. But all people have those same kind of expenses. No need to jumble the numbers. Just say that they have to pay taxes with their $64.5 million a year.


Once again, the 64.5 million number you have here is wrong. Sorry, but it is wrong.



Here's something that you haven't bothered to factor in, at any point...

Owning an NFL team has more rewards than just your profit margin.

If the profit margin for an NFL was at 1% somebody would still be dying to get into the business. Possibly because they care about football?

Ya know, some people actually pay to pretend to own and run an NFL team. Because it is rewarding. Just as you have no problem saying that the players get paid to "play a game", so do the owners.

If profit is your primary concern with your football team, then you have no business being in The NFL.

It has to be about more than money in any business.

Whatever business you are in, that is who you are. And if all you are about is profits, as with all big business, then that's who you are.

And if you already have more than enough money to last you the rest of your life, and you are still in it for the profits, then you are unarguably greedy.

If you want to defend greed as being ok, then take it up with God. I believe he did voice an opinion on the matter.

The players may also be greedy. But I know that profit is not the only thing keeping them where they are. They can not stay in The NFL if they don't have a vast passion for the game. (Larry Johnson)

Yeah, perhaps, and that would be great for you. But there is also big business here and big money in this, both for the owners and the players. Greed goes all different ways, so you are willing to forgive the players for being greedy, and I guess it could be said I am defending the owners.

Bottom line in this from a pure business perspective, the NFL is not all that and a bag of chips. Owners will always be there to try and take on a team, but just how many people can come up with a billion dollars to buy a team?

Oh yeah, pretty much only those greedy buggars that stomped all over turd ball workers, that's who. Nevermind that these greedy buggers are the very people who gave you a darned job to begin with.

I'm done, I pulled this together, and I have defended my numbers. I have admitted that they were not perfect, but at the same time, the reasoning is sound. You can make fun of it all you want, but if you are going to come in here and criticize me, then you would be better served to have first read the posts before doing so.

chief31
02-23-2011, 11:25 PM
Brilliant, I love how you leave out the whole concept of the billion dollars off the top, but then include it like you knew about it all along now. Brilliant move, dishonest, but brilliant, at least I admitted that I did not know about it. You could have done the same and then laid it on thicker and had more credibility in the end.


Well, I wouldn't say brilliant.


But he also mentions that "All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income."

That comes out before they determine the Total revenue. Sort of like "before taxes". They take that right our of the grand total, then work the numbers with what remains.

Ooooo. And definitely not so dishonest?

Maybe you just don't bother to comprehend.

I knew about it from an earlier thread, but, it is directly mentioned in your thread starter.

Twice you saw it and still denied it.




All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income. Interestingly enough, this is what the owners have stated they want to keep that amount at.



It's one thing to not comprehend what I posted, but entirely another thing to not comprehend what you, yourself have posted.

Xanathol
02-23-2011, 11:27 PM
How much Microsoft invests in salaries? I think most GM workers would love to have a job in MS.I can without a doubt tell you that is in reverse to the situation. MS does not pay well compared to other top software & IT companies. It use to be the 'hook' at MS was the stock & benefits. Stock hasn't been worth its paper since early 2000 and the health benefits start to erode in 2013, when employees will be forced to pay co-pays and the like. Realize that MS's insurance was as good as it gets, where you never paid anything for health care. It will still be good, but nowhere near what it is today.

Connie Jo
02-23-2011, 11:38 PM
Thanks for the research. I think those are really good numbers for the owners. They own a football team, and still making some (good) profit.
Sports is a special industry, with special interests. It is much closer to entertainment than construction. You can do a movie with an unknown leading actor and pay him pennies, or you can do it with a top seller cast and pay him tons of money, getting most of the revenue (sometimes all of it). Big studios choices second option most of the times, why? Because it is less risky.
If you want to have superstars players, that will make super audiences ratings, you have to share most of the revenues. Without these players, teams worths close to zero.

THIS!!


So teams are supposed to learn from the Bills, yet the Bills suck...

That was my thought too, haha

As pojote stated...when I hear someone say NFL players are overpaid, one of many thoughts I have is, 'by comparison to who from an entertainment apsect?' The NFL is a form of entertainment, just like any other. Why is it okay for an actor to make millions on one film, a recording artist millions on one album...but not okay for an NFL star to make millions over a multi yr contract?

Actors have stunt people perform their falls, flips, battles...they're protected from body injury. An NFL player risks his body in every game, possibly severe enough to end their career...although rare, their lives are at risk too...broken necks, etc.. An actors career can last a lifetime, but the same is not true for an NFL player, their career lifespan in the NFL is short by comparison to other forms of entertainment.

Most NFL players aren't paid the millions a QB like Manning is, they're even more at risk, less protected, & truly underpaid when considering all aspects.

chief31
02-24-2011, 12:06 AM
Using only the numbers that you brought from Forbes,

We have the "Players have received 4.494 billion in expenses, or 56.06% of total revenue."

Since the total revenue was not given, we get it from the players' share.

Just divide that dollar amount by 56.06 and we have 1% of total revenue. (4,494,000,000.00 / 56.06 = 80,164,109.88) Multiply that by 100 and we have our number for total revenue. (80,164,109.88 x 100 = $8,016,410,988.22)

But, since the article said that the owners' profit margin is at 13.3% we need to multiply our figure for 1% of total revenue by 13.3. (80,164,109.88 x 13.3 = $1,066,182,661.43)

Now, that is for all 32 teams combined. (And this is where we had a problem the first time...)

Before total revenue is even calculated for those percentages to come into play, there is that $1 billion that goes to the teams for expenses. so, we add that to our "after overhead" number, and we have ($1,066,182,661.43 + 1,000,000,000.00 = $2,066,182,661,43)

Now, still at a total for all 32 teams, we will divide that total by 32, to determine what the average, after paying overhead, but before taxes, (Maybe, maybe not) profit for an NFL owner over the 2009 season.

$2,066,182,661,43 / 32 = $64,568,208.17

Now, for clarity, the difference between my equation, and yours was that $1billion that you didn't notice.(but somehow "corrected" me on)

Because, without adding that number in, the calculation would have the average owner clearing $32,566,669.64.

That is pretty darn close to the estimate that you suggested, of 33.4 million.

Anyway, I apologize for my condescending remarks.

Clearly, we just had a misunderstanding there, about a matter of $1,000,000,000.00. Worse arguments have been had over a billion dollars. :lol:

billb40
02-26-2011, 01:21 PM
It does not matter how you slice or dice owners and players are making a lot of money. Where does that come from the fans and it will be the fans that take it in the wallets when all is said and done.
I for one will not watch or even pay attention to the NFL next year if there is a work stoppage. Lockout or walkout either one.

Neither the players or owners are thinking about the fans.:sign0094:

chief31
02-26-2011, 03:05 PM
It does not matter how you slice or dice owners and players are making a lot of money. Where does that come from the fans and it will be the fans that take it in the wallets when all is said and done.
I for one will not watch or even pay attention to the NFL next year if there is a work stoppage. Lockout or walkout either one.

Agreed.


Neither the players or owners are thinking about the fans.:sign0094:

Well, if they do deprive us our games, then I agree. But so far, I can't make that claim.

Let's hope that the fans' interests creep their way into all of this and get something done.

tornadospotter
02-26-2011, 03:31 PM
Owners? Profits? Owner profits go to who? Who owns the Kansas City Chiefs? Is it one person, or many? Is it the same with big company's? You know who should walk out, all the coaches and trainers. The staff of a NFL Franchise. Then we will see how fast things get done.

Blitzed
05-31-2011, 11:14 AM
You might also factor in some numbers that weren't expressed in the article. One of them being the real and implied debt load of each team not including the players and their salaries. For example, the much vaunted Cowboys may make a profit on the field, but the cost of the field and the sheltering building will not for many, many years. Jerry Jones may be a genius at self-aggrandizement, but when he uses his team and their resources to that end, he's making an error in taste (well, in his case that's a hard word to spit out.) and judgment. While it may be true that, once, the Cowboys were America's team, that's a fading memory and fading with it are the profits made from licensed merchandise. Also few teams have the in place loyal following as has Kansas City. And one that can afford to be loyal. No NFL tickets can be construed as a bargain but, for what you get in terms of play, sight lines, stadium, Kansas City has few competitors. Per capita KC is one of the wealthiest cities with a franchise (and yes, I know, it's hard to explain Green Bay on the quick) and only a modest group who feel the team costs the city too much. (These groups exist in every city with a team, no matter what sport.) However it may look to Forbes, I'll argue that the Chiefs are better placed over the long haul than many other teams. You mention the Bills and their thriftiness. All well and good but, apparently, they're permanently on the edge of being moved, they're already being "shared" with Toronto.

Interesting write up and Thank You for it.

hometeam
05-31-2011, 11:52 AM
^ So then do we get to factor in all the taxpayer incentivized perks the teams get? Taxpayer funded stadiums, tax breaks, roads and infrastructure paid for exclusively by the cities/states the teams reside in? The owners get to keep those type of assets for as long as they stick around in a city. The players do not benefit from that directly, and only indirectly via the players share of the profits of the team during the time they play.

Chiefster
05-31-2011, 07:28 PM
Agreed.



Well, if they do deprive us our games, then I agree. But so far, I can't make that claim.

Let's hope that the fans' interests creep their way into all of this and get something done.

Yup, at this point I really could care less who wins the labor dispute; I want my football!

tornadospotter
05-31-2011, 11:00 PM
^ So then do we get to factor in all the taxpayer incentivized perks the teams get? Taxpayer funded stadiums, tax breaks, roads and infrastructure paid for exclusively by the cities/states the teams reside in? The owners get to keep those type of assets for as long as they stick around in a city. The players do not benefit from that directly, and only indirectly via the players share of the profits of the team during the time they play.
Well then you have to factor in the benefits of revenue from the host NFL City. Jobs, sales tax on ect! I know for a fact, that there is an increase in sale of beer, anytime the Chiefs Crowd has members coming to a game, and they spend money on other things as well. Having a NFL Franchise makes money for the taxpayer. Yes it may not seem so for those who pay those taxes, but it does more than you think in increasing the economy of your tax base.

hometeam
06-01-2011, 09:20 AM
We are talking about what the teams get out of it, not what it brings back to the city, becuase in that case, the players are just as much to blame for bringing that economic increase in said host city, so you cant show that as something the owners can hold over the players head. Regardless of any economic boon to a NFL town, the owners are the one who get the lifetime benefit of the free infrastructure.

figcrostic
06-01-2011, 10:48 AM
Putting that in perspective, if you owned your own business in construction. If your company made 100K in revenue in one year, you would have made 13K for your troubles. Its all about volume.

It appears some teams could work hard to get their costs down and save some money, which is another of the owners demands as they ask the players to pick up flights and hotel rooms on their own.

Anyway, I thought this information was interesting. If you want to see the numbers for yourself. You can visit:

#32 Jacksonville Jaguars - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Jacksonville-Jaguars_306892.html) and walk backwards through each team from the end forward.

Bad comparison I used to own a flooring company until the economy went south, in construction most of your expenses go toward labor probably 30% and that's working as your own foreman. But if you do no work like the owners of these teams then your labor can easily be around 50%, not to mention customers are paying for a product whether it be a new deck or new floors they don't care who you hire as long as the end result meets their expectations. If you compare a huge construction company like JE Dunn I bet the owner would be pretty happy with 13%, because 13% of billion is 10's of millions, for essentially having people run your business while you come in and collect checks and yell at them.Also the NFL on the other hand is all about the labor. We watch the NFL because it's the best players in the world not the second best but the very best. Not to mention many of these players play 10 years or less and many of them don't reach their 60th birthday because of all the abusive their body receives. Why shouldn't they be well payed?

Canada
06-01-2011, 10:55 AM
We are talking about what the teams get out of it, not what it brings back to the city, becuase in that case, the players are just as much to blame for bringing that economic increase in said host city, so you cant show that as something the owners can hold over the players head. Regardless of any economic boon to a NFL town, the owners are the one who get the lifetime benefit of the free infrastructure.For an average of three years. The owners are the ones who are in it for the long term.

AkChief49
06-01-2011, 03:18 PM
It does not matter how you slice or dice owners and players are making a lot of money. Where does that come from the fans and it will be the fans that take it in the wallets when all is said and done.
I for one will not watch or even pay attention to the NFL next year if there is a work stoppage. Lockout or walkout either one.

Neither the players or owners are thinking about the fans.:sign0094:
exactly

^ So then do we get to factor in all the taxpayer incentivized perks the teams get? Taxpayer funded stadiums, tax breaks, roads and infrastructure paid for exclusively by the cities/states the teams reside in? The owners get to keep those type of assets for as long as they stick around in a city. The players do not benefit from that directly, and only indirectly via the players share of the profits of the team during the time they play.
This was my thought as well. All the new renovations going on at tax payers/fans expense. Still cannot seat the people they sell tickets for(see super Bowl in Dallas last year-nicely done Jerry!)Not saying that renovations are not needed, but they are not done without taxpayer/fan approval. So it would be interesting to know how much we/they factor in.

bbacker51
06-02-2011, 01:10 PM
There were some talks today in Chicago WITHOUT LAWYERS...........maybe this will help. I think DeMaurice Smith is on the verge of being a fartbag.

Seek
06-02-2011, 02:03 PM
There were some talks today in Chicago WITHOUT LAWYERS...........maybe this will help. I think DeMaurice Smith is on the verge of being a fartbag.

It was secret meeting with some of the big name owners, Representing Dallas, Pittsburgh, Patriots, Giants and Jacksonville. Jacksonville being the only insignificant owner.

They said it was so secret not all teams new it was even taking place. To me this means the owners are divided, and you most likely have the big market owners making compromises that could end up ruining the small market teams.

I am on the fence with this whole lock out, but the one thing I am worried about is hurting the small market teams and making this league like the NBA or NFL. I certainly think the players are worth the money, as long as it is structure to help all players, not just the great one. I think they are being just as greedy as the owners so I cant pick one or the other, but I do not like secret meetings unkown to other NFL teams and I think this could be a worse case scnerio based on my concerns.

matthewschiefs
06-02-2011, 02:05 PM
There were some talks today in Chicago WITHOUT LAWYERS...........maybe this will help. I think DeMaurice Smith is on the verge of being a fartbag.

I hope to see more of this maybe even without Demaurice Smith. I think on the players side he is most to blame for this whole mess. The guys is a toatal D BAG.

tornadospotter
06-08-2011, 10:31 PM
Get er done! Get er done!!!!!! That is it period.....

Hayvern
06-09-2011, 09:12 PM
I hope to see more of this maybe even without Demaurice Smith. I think on the players side he is most to blame for this whole mess. The guys is a toatal D BAG.

Well Demaurice is still around and the talks continue to drag on. The more I hear from this guy, the more I believe that Matthewschiefs is right. I would believe if anyone with an ounce less ego, this deal would be done already.

#58ChiefsFan
06-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Id like to see de smiths approval rating in the NFLPA. I can already guess the rating from the fans, for the good of the game he needs to move on to something else in life. Rodger Goofel can go away too. The longer this drags on and on and on and on the more I dont like these two baffons.

I ran across this and found it an interesting point...

I believe that the real issue at this point is that the players have selected a litigator to represent them and not a negotiator. DeSmith's specialty is not going to be getting a CBA done but rather attempting to sue the league till they are on their knees and give back the old CBA.

tornadospotter
06-09-2011, 10:00 PM
I have to say that this stinking pile of bovine excrement, is costing both the owners, but probably more the players. It is bovine excrement when you go in to a meeting not planning on negotiating, and it is stupid to think that you can not be replaced. I really hope the owners, start training camp on time, start signing players that want to play, and to hell with it all. The core group that needs to resolve this, needs to do it, stop ######## around and get it done!

tornadospotter
06-09-2011, 10:14 PM
Do you all know that if I go to my employer and say that I am not going to work, until I have what I believe I deserve in pay, I will walk out. Do I have a job anymore?

matthewschiefs
06-09-2011, 11:26 PM
Do you all know that if I go to my employer and say that I am not going to work, until I have what I believe I deserve in pay, I will walk out. Do I have a job anymore?


No you wouldn't but your employer mostlikey wouldn't have locked you out. (chief31 should be proud of me for that :lol: )


But the good news the talk is starting to be postive. I am feeling alot better in thinking this gets done late June early July. WE WILL HAVE A SEASON.

matthewschiefs
06-09-2011, 11:28 PM
the more I believe that Matthewschiefs is right. .



I'm sorry I didn't here this part could you say that again :D

Seek
06-10-2011, 01:39 PM
No you wouldn't but your employer mostlikey wouldn't have locked you out. (chief31 should be proud of me for that :lol: )


But the good news the talk is starting to be postive. I am feeling alot better in thinking this gets done late June early July. WE WILL HAVE A SEASON.

Yes, Yes they would lock you out. As soon as an employee is terminted, most companies removes all access to the building and to their systems. This could be on good terms or bad terms, it does not matter, but when they are no longer getting a pay check, they have no capability to continue working and become a liability for the company.

The players are unemployed until an agreement is in place and allowing the players to come to work increases the risk of Anti Trust Laws in which players are suing the NFL over.

matthewschiefs
06-10-2011, 03:36 PM
Could I be reading to much into this or could this whole thing be over soon.

NFL denies report that lockout will soon end - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-denies-report-that-lockout-will-soon-end-061011)

The report is the sides are close to a deal in the denial they only said the deal is not done but did not say they were not close. Add to it that the Goodell and DeMaurice Smith were seen having a "jovial dinner" lastnight. I got a good feeling we are going to end this mess in the next couple of weeks.

Chiefster
06-11-2011, 02:08 AM
Could I be reading to much into this or could this whole thing be over soon.

NFL denies report that lockout will soon end - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN (http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/NFL-denies-report-that-lockout-will-soon-end-061011)

The report is the sides are close to a deal in the denial they only said the deal is not done but did not say they were not close. Add to it that the Goodell and DeMaurice Smith were seen having a "jovial dinner" lastnight. I got a good feeling we are going to end this mess in the next couple of weeks.


I sincerely hope you are correct sir! :smile

chief31
06-11-2011, 03:43 AM
No you wouldn't but your employer mostlikey wouldn't have locked you out. (chief31 should be proud of me for that :lol: )


But the good news the talk is starting to be postive. I am feeling alot better in thinking this gets done late June early July. WE WILL HAVE A SEASON.

I DID notice that you found a section of the middle ground there. :D

However, this is how I would have said it...


Do you all know that if I go to my employer and say that I am not going to work, until I have what I believe I deserve in pay, I will walk out. Do I have a job anymore?

These players do that at the end of each individual contract, and the demand for their talents gets them what they want.

However.....

That is, in no way, similar to what is going on this offseason.

The metaphore would be more of ....

The boss came in and told you to get off of the company property, and have not allowed you back.

These players, nor their union, have gone to the employers with demands. The owners made demands.

You may be willing to watch second-rate schmucks play football, but then, you could have been watching The CFL all along, if that is what you wanted.

I choose to watch The NFL because these are the greatest football players on the planet.

If I were interested in mediocre competition, then I could watch the 89-3 scores of The NCAA, or even High school, or Arena football.

But I don't watch that lesser talent. I, like so many others, am interested in watching the game played at the highest level possible.

I want to see Muhamed Ali, not Joe The Drunk at the bar.

I will watch the best there is, or I won't watch. And that's how the free market goes. Those who tune if to see the best in the world, will not tune in to see scabs.

We want to complain about the greed of the players, and neglect the greed of those who make far more than even the richest player?

Both sides have greed. I see the players' greed when they demand a contract extention, while already under contract, and during every free agency period.

But what I see now, this offseason, is the greed of ownership.

Sn@keIze
06-11-2011, 09:28 AM
tried to rep this post but said i couldnt. anyway thanks Hayvern

Canada
06-11-2011, 06:05 PM
I DID notice that you found a section of the middle ground there. :D

However, this is how I would have said it...



These players do that at the end of each individual contract, and the demand for their talents gets them what they want.

However.....

That is, in no way, similar to what is going on this offseason.

The metaphore would be more of ....

The boss came in and told you to get off of the company property, and have not allowed you back.

These players, nor their union, have gone to the employers with demands. The owners made demands.

You may be willing to watch second-rate schmucks play football, but then, you could have been watching The CFL all along, if that is what you wanted.

I choose to watch The NFL because these are the greatest football players on the planet.

If I were interested in mediocre competition, then I could watch the 89-3 scores of The NCAA, or even High school, or Arena football.

But I don't watch that lesser talent. I, like so many others, am interested in watching the game played at the highest level possible.

I want to see Muhamed Ali, not Joe The Drunk at the bar.

I will watch the best there is, or I won't watch. And that's how the free market goes. Those who tune if to see the best in the world, will not tune in to see scabs.

We want to complain about the greed of the players, and neglect the greed of those who make far more than even the richest player?

Both sides have greed. I see the players' greed when they demand a contract extention, while already under contract, and during every free agency period.

But what I see now, this offseason, is the greed of ownership.

Did you just call Canadians shmucks??:fighting0030:

chief31
06-12-2011, 06:18 AM
Did you just call Canadians shmucks??:fighting0030:
Only one of them :whipping1:

Canada
06-12-2011, 11:29 AM
Only one of them :whipping1:Why dont you get up on a chair and say that to my face?:beer:

Drunker Hillbilly
06-12-2011, 11:59 AM
Ahhhhh the sweet smell of CAPITALISM!!!! If the employee's don't like the rules of the organization they work for, maybe they should go out and get a real job or better yet BUY THE TEAM!

Seek
06-13-2011, 02:02 PM
I DID notice that you found a section of the middle ground there. :D

However, this is how I would have said it...



These players do that at the end of each individual contract, and the demand for their talents gets them what they want.

However.....

That is, in no way, similar to what is going on this offseason.

The metaphore would be more of ....

The boss came in and told you to get off of the company property, and have not allowed you back.

These players, nor their union, have gone to the employers with demands. The owners made demands.

You may be willing to watch second-rate schmucks play football, but then, you could have been watching The CFL all along, if that is what you wanted.

I choose to watch The NFL because these are the greatest football players on the planet.

If I were interested in mediocre competition, then I could watch the 89-3 scores of The NCAA, or even High school, or Arena football.

But I don't watch that lesser talent. I, like so many others, am interested in watching the game played at the highest level possible.

I want to see Muhamed Ali, not Joe The Drunk at the bar.

I will watch the best there is, or I won't watch. And that's how the free market goes. Those who tune if to see the best in the world, will not tune in to see scabs.

We want to complain about the greed of the players, and neglect the greed of those who make far more than even the richest player?

Both sides have greed. I see the players' greed when they demand a contract extention, while already under contract, and during every free agency period.

But what I see now, this offseason, is the greed of ownership.


What I see is the Greed of the Players from the previous CBA not working for the owners, and the owners then saying we can't continue under this structure anymore. We tried, Sorry.

I have seen this same example in the corporate world. A company contractly owes an employee a certain bonus. However, if they pay the bonus, they will either have to let someone go, or let that person go if they pay the bonus. People either agree to not take the bonus and keep their job, or go find a new job.

Again, The only concern I have with this whole thing, is for our Chiefs. I do not want them becoming the small market no body team like the Royals. Where they have to catch lightning in the bottle through a draft and then kiss that player bye bye once their contract is up. I do not want the Chiefs skipping out on being competitive because they are having to cut budgets due to paying the players more of the profits lost under the old CBA.

Xanathol
06-13-2011, 04:53 PM
What I see is the Greed of the Players from the previous CBA not working for the owners, and the owners then saying we can't continue under this structure anymore. We tried, Sorry.

I have seen this same example in the corporate world. A company contractly owes an employee a certain bonus. However, if they pay the bonus, they will either have to let someone go, or let that person go if they pay the bonus. People either agree to not take the bonus and keep their job, or go find a new job.

Again, The only concern I have with this whole thing, is for our Chiefs. I do not want them becoming the small market no body team like the Royals. Where they have to catch lightning in the bottle through a draft and then kiss that player bye bye once their contract is up. I do not want the Chiefs skipping out on being competitive because they are having to cut budgets due to paying the players more of the profits lost under the old CBA.
But this is factually incorrect. The NFL took in more money than ever. The NFL owners took in more raw profit. What has happened - note, in this poor economic time for our entire country - is the rate of growth of their profit is down, and that is the main 'problem' the owners are bemoaning.

You hear it ever time Goodell speaks about "growing the game" and you see it every time a game is scheduled to play overseas. You also find it when the owners blame their lockout on "rising player costs". Say what? We all know that the player costs are a fixed percentage of the total profit under the old CBA, so how in the world are player costs 'rising'?

In the owners' twisted words, what they are saying is they don't like the percentage based agreement ( which aligns with their 'proposal' they made before the NFLPA decertified ). The owners see the NFL revenue growing, but each time it does, so does the amount that goes to the players. What the owners want is to stop paying the players a percentage, replacing it with a fixed amount, and take in all the extra profit for themselves - again, see their 'proposal' they made, as this is exactly what the model they used.

And yes, that is the owners' greed, plain & simple.

Seek
06-13-2011, 06:34 PM
But this is factually incorrect. The NFL took in more money than ever. The NFL owners took in more raw profit. What has happened - note, in this poor economic time for our entire country - is the rate of growth of their profit is down, and that is the main 'problem' the owners are bemoaning.

You hear it ever time Goodell speaks about "growing the game" and you see it every time a game is scheduled to play overseas. You also find it when the owners blame their lockout on "rising player costs". Say what? We all know that the player costs are a fixed percentage of the total profit under the old CBA, so how in the world are player costs 'rising'?

In the owners' twisted words, what they are saying is they don't like the percentage based agreement ( which aligns with their 'proposal' they made before the NFLPA decertified ). The owners see the NFL revenue growing, but each time it does, so does the amount that goes to the players. What the owners want is to stop paying the players a percentage, replacing it with a fixed amount, and take in all the extra profit for themselves - again, see their 'proposal' they made, as this is exactly what the model they used.

And yes, that is the owners' greed, plain & simple.

Facts based on what analysis. One of the biggest arguments I have been hearing is that the Owners are saying they are not all making proifts needed to substain the CBA. The players are saying BS, but have no way of knowing this as a fact unless the owners show the players their ledgers in which they are not. So factually how do you know they are making more and more profits, and is this fact constant accross all NFL teams or an average based on a the profits of a few Large market teams.

Again, My concern with this whole situation is not the owners or players holding out. I don't care who gets paid as long as the integrity and parodity of the NFL as a whole remains.

It may be fact that all big market teams are increasing in profits thus the entire NFL, but in the long run it is not the same for 2/3 of the NFL. What this lock out may be creating is the NBA and MLB where the big market teams outbid everyone because they have the most jack.

This lock out benefits the Chiefs more than it does the big market teams.

Xanathol
06-14-2011, 02:07 PM
"We are not losing money; we have never said that." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/nfl-says-rising-player-costs-cuts-incentive-to-create-new-revenue-streams.html) - NFL VP

"They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html) - Washing Post article

"the margins are tight" (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2008/04/Issue-132/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/NFL-Owners-Meetings-Goodell-Expresses-Concerns-Over-CBA.aspx) - Roger Goodell

"Packers say player costs rising faster than profits" (http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=688:packers-say-player-costs-rising-faster-than-profits&catid=34:nfl-news&Itemid=53) - bizfootball.com

"Seriously Mr Goodell, Spare Us" (http://sportsfans.org/category/issues/nfl-lockout-issues/) - just a good article on the rhetoric of Goodell from sportsfan.org



And that's all hits on the first page of a search.

The whole issue has always been about the owners' greed, being jealous that the players get a percentage cut instead of a flat amount, while the NFL revenue is growing. In other words, they see the 43+% growth from 2006 to today and instead of thinking "great - we all made more" they think "those ******* players and their percentage cut - if we could get rid of that, we could have made even more of that money for ourselves".

I'm as conservative as it gets, but the owners in the NFL are personifying the evil and greed of big business rich guys. That's why it shocks me to see people side with the owners; most of the time its just a bit of ignorance on the matter at hand but sometimes its a lot worse - similar views...


*edit - almost forgot; for the clubs claiming they aren't making enough, why don't they open the books? This is not a typical employer / employee business model - its closer to a partnership with the private owners club and the NFLPA* - but even more worrisome is the last major labor issue showed that when the books were opened, the owners were expensing personal expenses, such as vacation travel, family 'bonus' payrolls, etc, to claim a low profit margin. Its called cooking the books and they've done it before; it would be foolish to think they are not doing it again, when they refuse to open their books. And pre-emptive comment, check Green Bay's data - they wrote off bad investments ( allowed as they are publicly owned ) which lowered their profit margin.

Seek
06-14-2011, 02:35 PM
"We are not losing money; we have never said that." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/nfl-says-rising-player-costs-cuts-incentive-to-create-new-revenue-streams.html) - NFL VP

"They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html) - Washing Post article

"the margins are tight" (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2008/04/Issue-132/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/NFL-Owners-Meetings-Goodell-Expresses-Concerns-Over-CBA.aspx) - Roger Goodell

"Packers say player costs rising faster than profits" (http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=688:packers-say-player-costs-rising-faster-than-profits&catid=34:nfl-news&Itemid=53) - bizfootball.com

"Seriously Mr Goodell, Spare Us" (http://sportsfans.org/category/issues/nfl-lockout-issues/) - just a good article on the rhetoric of Goodell from sportsfan.org



And that's all hits on the first page of a search.

The whole issue has always been about the owners' greed, being jealous that the players get a percentage cut instead of a flat amount, while the NFL revenue is growing. In other words, they see the 43+% growth from 2006 to today and instead of thinking "great - we all made more" they think "those ******* players and their percentage cut - if we could get rid of that, we could have made even more of that money for ourselves".

I'm as conservative as it gets, but the owners in the NFL are personifying the evil and greed of big business rich guys. That's why it shocks me to see people side with the owners; most of the time its just a bit of ignorance on the matter at hand but sometimes its a lot worse - similar views...


*edit - almost forgot; for the clubs claiming they aren't making enough, why don't they open the books? This is not a typical employer / employee business model - its closer to a partnership with the private owners club and the NFLPA* - but even more worrisome is the last major labor issue showed that when the books were opened, the owners were expensing personal expenses, such as vacation travel, family 'bonus' payrolls, etc, to claim a low profit margin. Its called cooking the books and they've done it before; it would be foolish to think they are not doing it again, when they refuse to open their books. And pre-emptive comment, check Green Bay's data - they wrote off bad investments ( allowed as they are publicly owned ) which lowered their profit margin.

Okay using your article, We are not losing money.

So using your very first article.

Grubman said that since players get a percentage of revenue, while owners bear the cost of new ventures, clubs could increase income and still see tighter margins.
“We have a healthy business,” Grubman said today during a lunch with reporters in New York. “We are not losing money; we have never said that. We do not have a healthy business model.”
Owners voted in 2008 to end the current labor agreement, which is due to expire March 3, saying it didn’t account for costs, such as those of building stadiums. Jeff Pash, the league’s chief negotiator, said the sides are still talking about when to meet next.

Where does this make the Owners Greedy? Yes, they want to make more money, just as the the players do. They are clearling stating that under the current agreement, the players are getting a percentage that out ways the cost of running the business and that the split in revenue does not account for that, such as funding the stadium etc... Where does the Owner recoup this money for expenses. Charge the fans more money in which a certain percentage of that goes back to the players and angers the fans.

The next answer will be cutting cost in signing competitive players as we all know, you over pay for Free agents. The big market teams with bigger pocket books get the key players, while the smaller market teams become the training grounds.

Again, I am on both sides of this, and do think the players deserve better benefits and structured retirement plans etc.., but I can see long term this being a losing situation for the NFL as a whole and more specifically the Chiefs and other small market teams.

matthewschiefs
06-14-2011, 02:54 PM
"We are not losing money; we have never said that." (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-27/nfl-says-rising-player-costs-cuts-incentive-to-create-new-revenue-streams.html) - NFL VP

"They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html) - Washing Post article

"the margins are tight" (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Daily/Issues/2008/04/Issue-132/Leagues-Governing-Bodies/NFL-Owners-Meetings-Goodell-Expresses-Concerns-Over-CBA.aspx) - Roger Goodell

"Packers say player costs rising faster than profits" (http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=688:packers-say-player-costs-rising-faster-than-profits&catid=34:nfl-news&Itemid=53) - bizfootball.com

"Seriously Mr Goodell, Spare Us" (http://sportsfans.org/category/issues/nfl-lockout-issues/) - just a good article on the rhetoric of Goodell from sportsfan.org



And that's all hits on the first page of a search.

The whole issue has always been about the owners' greed, being jealous that the players get a percentage cut instead of a flat amount, while the NFL revenue is growing. In other words, they see the 43+% growth from 2006 to today and instead of thinking "great - we all made more" they think "those ******* players and their percentage cut - if we could get rid of that, we could have made even more of that money for ourselves".

I'm as conservative as it gets, but the owners in the NFL are personifying the evil and greed of big business rich guys. That's why it shocks me to see people side with the owners; most of the time its just a bit of ignorance on the matter at hand but sometimes its a lot worse - similar views...


*edit - almost forgot; for the clubs claiming they aren't making enough, why don't they open the books? This is not a typical employer / employee business model - its closer to a partnership with the private owners club and the NFLPA* - but even more worrisome is the last major labor issue showed that when the books were opened, the owners were expensing personal expenses, such as vacation travel, family 'bonus' payrolls, etc, to claim a low profit margin. Its called cooking the books and they've done it before; it would be foolish to think they are not doing it again, when they refuse to open their books. And pre-emptive comment, check Green Bay's data - they wrote off bad investments ( allowed as they are publicly owned ) which lowered their profit margin.

You act like the greed is only from one side. Your 100% right the owners have been greedy from the start. They are in this whole mess because of greed from the owners but this is no excuse for the greed coming form the players side of things.

The players have said they want more benfits and less ota for "health concerns" Less Otas mean less work. They also have said they won't give a dime back unless the owners open there books. Meaning they want something for nothing. THIS IS GREED. They have not once dropped there health concerns even after the owners backed off there 18 game season. I don't no about you but where I come from in negations you give a little to get a little. You don't say we want this but we also want to keep what we have now.

As for why the owners don't just open the books mindset. NBA players who went through this back in 1999 have stated that it did not help them. It just leads to fights over how much is enough for one side to make. The owners in the NBA did open there books what happened they MISSED HALF THERE SEASON. It's not a clear if they would open there books this whole thing would be settled. It would just lead to fighting over the numbers as it did in the NBA.

As for you comment about those who side with the owners being out of ignorance I will just say I have no respect for that type of if you don't agree with me your stupid mindset. This is a situation where there is not one side is right one side is wrong. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean there ignorant. It just means they have anther opinion of the matter. The truth is there is no good guy bad guy in this matter. If EITHER (that means OWNERS AND PLAYERS) side wanted to get a deal done they would have one by now.

The good news is they seem to finally be getting down to talking about a deal and not about how bad the other side is. I think we will see a deal done by the first week of July.

pojote
06-14-2011, 04:23 PM
I've read an interesting article about the margins, it was very sound to me. http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/2/18/2000707/nfl-lockout-cba-2011-revenue-sharing
It makes sense that are a few teams that have great incomes, and others that can't past red numbers. The problem is that incomes per team aren't a factor to ponder in salary bottom. A team should be able to reduce their salary costs, but also they shouldn't pay less than a certain minimum per player.

Xanathol
06-14-2011, 06:11 PM
Where does this make the Owners Greedy? Yes, they want to make more money, just as the the players do. They are clearling stating that under the current agreement, the players are getting a percentage that out ways the cost of running the business and that the split in revenue does not account for that, such as funding the stadium etc... Where does the Owner recoup this money for expenses. Charge the fans more money in which a certain percentage of that goes back to the players and angers the fans.But that's not what they said - they said, quote, "rising player costs", which we know, the percentage is not rising. What is rising is the raw, total amount the players are getting ( because they get a percentage of the rising total revenue ) and the owners want that for themselves - that's the greed in the matter. They are trying to say that costs too have risen, but check the nation's inflation rates against that 40%+ increase in revenue the NFL saw, and it just doesn't add up.

Furthermore, check the CBA - most expenses are already covered in the off the top percentage that the owners get. If you check out the infamous 'proposal' the owners made, they wanted virtually all expenses covered in the off the top money ( that's where the going from 1 to 2 billion off the top figures came from ). Of course, you've also got owners of teams like the Bengals who tell the media that they need the money to pay for stadiums... did ya know that tax payers paid for the Bengals' stadium, (http://bengals.enquirer.com/2000/08/19/ben_bengals_lease_pretty.html) complete with clauses for taxpayers to fund "holographic replays", if other teams received them? (http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/02/14/loc_turf14.html)


As for you comment about those who side with the owners being out of ignorance I will just say I have no respect for that type of if you don't agree with me your stupid mindset.Ignorance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance) is the lack of knowledge. I simply stated that one of the conditions I find where people are siding with the owners are when people simply do not know the facts of the matter; they are ignorant to the situation. If that's an insult to you, well, there's not much I can say to that.

matthewschiefs
06-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Ignorance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ignorance) is the lack of knowledge. I simply stated that one of the conditions I find where people are siding with the owners are when people simply do not know the facts of the matter; they are ignorant to the situation. If that's an insult to you, well, there's not much I can say to that.

What you are saying is pretty much if someone does not agree with you then they don't no what there talking about. It's that mindset that I have a problem with.

The fact of the matter is that BOTH the owners and the players have done the same thing. TRIED TO GET A BETTER DEAL FOR THEMSELVES. While the owners are saying give me more so are the PLAYERS. There are some legitimate arguments for the owners to get some of what they want there are some legitimate arguments for the players to get some of what they want. The problem has been neither side wanted to give anything up to get what they wanted. THAT'S OWNERS AND PLAYERS.

Canada
06-17-2011, 12:56 AM
They are both wrong, Im pro lockout!!

Seek
06-17-2011, 10:28 AM
Rumor has it that the judge told both sides that if he makes his ruling, One side will lose big time, but did not specify who and strongly suggested they work this out.

What you are probably seeing is both sides giving a little, which in the end will be the best answer in my opinion.

Connie Jo
06-18-2011, 02:42 AM
Rumor has it that the judge told both sides that if he makes his ruling, One side will lose big time, but did not specify who and strongly suggested they work this out.

What you are probably seeing is both sides giving a little, which in the end will be the best answer in my opinion.

I read an article quoting a similar statement, but what it said was that the judge told both sides they wouldn't like his ruling if it came down to his decision alone, that both sides would lose, and suggested strongly they attempt to work it out between themselves asap.

Seek
06-20-2011, 11:50 AM
hey gang,

I ran across some interesting information on Forbes.com that I compiled and thought I would put up here for some comparison purposes.

It all has to do with the amount of money in the NFL these days and where that money is being spent. These numbers are from the 2009 season.

First, a little information about the numbers.

Current Value = The latest value of the team
Revenue = The amount of gross income the team received in 2009
Operating Income = The amount of money left over after expenses but before taxes and interest payments
Player Expense = The amount of money spent on player salaries, benefits and bonuses
Gate Receipts = The amount of money from ticket sales including club seating
Margin Percentage = (not really correct here, but works) this is the percentage of operating income against total revenue
Players Percentage = the percentage of player costs to revenue
Overhead = the amount of money that was spent on overhead including stadium costs and everything else that it takes to run the team

Ok so here are the best and worse along with the Chiefs in each category

Current Value:
Dallas Cowboys = 1.8 billion
KC Chiefs = 965 Million 20th overall
Jaguars = 725 million

Revenue
Cowboys = 420 million
Chiefs = 235 million 23rd overall
Lions = 210 million

Operating Income
Cowboys = 143.3 million
Chiefs = 47.8 Million 6th overall
Dolphins = -7.7 million

Player Expense
Giants 166 million
Chiefs 111 million (we were last in this category)

Gate Receipts
Cowboys 112 million
Chiefs 53 million 16th overall
Raiders 34 million

Overhead costs
Cowboys = 133.7 million
Chiefs = 76.2 million 14th
Bills = 57.8 million

I found this interesting. It looks like the owners could learn a few things from the owner of the Bills on how to get costs down.

Overall, here are some interesting numbers league wide to think about.

All the teams in the NFL have a combined value of 32.6 BILLION dollars

All the teams in the NFL collected 8 billion in revenue for the 2009 season

All the teams in the NFL ended up with 1 billion in operating income. Interestingly enough, this is what the owners have stated they want to keep that amount at.

Players have received 4.494 billion in expenses, or 56.06% of total revenue.

Overhead, or somtimes called operating costs are in excess of 2.45 billion dollars collectively or 30% of revenue.

For those of you who are business savvy, those numbers will mean something to you. For those of you who see that the players only get 56% and really don't know much about business you will think the players should get more. Interestingly enough, with a margin of 13.3% overall, the NFL is healthy, but not getting overly rich.

Putting that in perspective, if you owned your own business in construction. If your company made 100K in revenue in one year, you would have made 13K for your troubles. Its all about volume.

It appears some teams could work hard to get their costs down and save some money, which is another of the owners demands as they ask the players to pick up flights and hotel rooms on their own.

Anyway, I thought this information was interesting. If you want to see the numbers for yourself. You can visit:

#32 Jacksonville Jaguars - Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_Jacksonville-Jaguars_306892.html) and walk backwards through each team from the end forward.

Yes, I saw this a while ago. The general response was still hitting on the fact that the Bills suck.

Canada
06-20-2011, 08:38 PM
Yes, I saw this a while ago. The general response was still hitting on the fact that the Bills suck.Best post EVER!! :bananen_smilies046:

Chiefster
06-20-2011, 10:35 PM
Best post EVER!! :bananen_smilies046:

http://www.chiefscrowd.com/forums/images/imported/2010/09/37.jpg

Xanathol
06-22-2011, 11:50 AM
What you are saying is pretty much if someone does not agree with you then they don't no what there talking about. It's that mindset that I have a problem with.

The fact of the matter is that BOTH the owners and the players have done the same thing. TRIED TO GET A BETTER DEAL FOR THEMSELVES. While the owners are saying give me more so are the PLAYERS. There are some legitimate arguments for the owners to get some of what they want there are some legitimate arguments for the players to get some of what they want. The problem has been neither side wanted to give anything up to get what they wanted. THAT'S OWNERS AND PLAYERS.No, I said exactly what I said; please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

No, the owners have not had a good case at all, on any of the topics publicly mentioned - that's been proven time & again. Besides that, I think the underlying theme in the difference in opinion here is a word comprehension gap ( see above, for example ) - you are stating that because the players didn't give in to the owners with no requests, it is player greed; Well, that is simply not the definition of the word.

Greed is (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greed):

a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is neededThe players didn't come in to request more nor have requested more value in any trade off requests - in fact, they've backed down in value from the onset. Just because they requested the owners' justify their request for more, does not make the players 'greedy'. Requesting something in return for what the owners do ask ( which was a LOT ) does not make the players greedy either - that's called negotiation (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/negotiating). Further evidence of this is as of today's rumored deal, the players are giving up $500 million this year and possibly much more in the future (http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30186109)... but they've been 'greedy'.... right...

Making blanket statements doesn't mean you're looking at both sides equally & more oft than not, may mean you haven't looked at the issue objectively at all.

matthewschiefs
06-22-2011, 01:44 PM
Making blanket statements doesn't mean you're looking at both sides equally & more oft than not, may mean you haven't looked at the issue objectively at all.

And your looking at this objectively?


Requesting something in return for what the owners do ask ( which was a LOT ) does not make the players greedy either - that's called negotiation

You act like the nfl players have EVER agreed to 18 games. Witch they have not. In fact all they have ever said is that they will never agree to it.
NFL Players Say 18-Game Season Unacceptable (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/sports/nfl-players-say-18-game-season-unacceptable-dpgonc-20110314-gc_12317126) Or just google Nfl players 18 game season. Not one will show you the players agree to it.

Or that they have EVER agreed to give the owners the billion off the top. Witch they have NEVER done either.
DeMaurice Smith On Decertification - ESPN Video - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6207949) DeMaurice smith talks about not giving back anything at all till there demands were met at opening the books. And there are reasons. The NBA did it in 99 and they just fought over the numbers and MISSED HALF THE SEASON.

So what demands did the players ever agree to in order to get what they wanted? In order for there Requesting something to get something back they would have to be willing to give something back. Negotiation is saying If you give me this I will give you this. Something that is finally happening now. But NEITHER side was doing that all along. Thats OWNERS AND PLAYERS.

Xanathol
06-27-2011, 01:41 AM
The owners requested another billion off the top, the players asked to see the books ( sorry - no one is going to give up a billion dollars without justification ). The owners asked for a rookie wage scale, the players asked that be reinvested into veteran players. The owners essentially asked for a reversal of total revenue split - instead of 53/47 players/owners, they asked for 47/53 - the players countered with an actual, flat, 50/50 offer, to which the owners walked out on... The owners later offered a WORSE offer - money that would be a lesser percentage cut, but better yet, a fixed value to players and any additional money all goes to the owners! And you sya the owners are negotiating or the players are not?!?


The 18 game schedule is a red herring. Its just a matter of converting 2 pre season games to regular season, which means more games for starters to play in - the money is still the same, since the league charges the same amount no matter what. Do you really think the owners care if the games are real or not as long as they get their money? Of course not. In fact, they care so little that Goodell lies about this point, claiming "the people want it" - no we don't - we don't want to pay full price for pre season games... and he knows this.

Seek
06-27-2011, 11:14 AM
What I find funny, is that the players have a Media ban on discussing any information related to this lock out, and the Owners have leaked some details. So HOW can anyone base any opinion, stating people are uniformed on the subject support one side stating it as fact, when the facts are behind closed door and only known by the players and owners involved. Supporting articles as fact is not fact. The media is biased in their reporting, and is often blows reports out of the wate in attempts to help leverage one side.

In the end, the owners are being screwed, and I don't mean the owners running the team. I mean the fans who own a team as their team. The people who spend their money to watch the NFL. Without the TRUE owners, both the Players and NFL is nothing.

Hayvern
06-28-2011, 04:46 PM
The 18 game schedule is a red herring. Its just a matter of converting 2 pre season games to regular season, which means more games for starters to play in - the money is still the same, since the league charges the same amount no matter what. Do you really think the owners care if the games are real or not as long as they get their money? Of course not. In fact, they care so little that Goodell lies about this point, claiming "the people want it" - no we don't - we don't want to pay full price for pre season games... and he knows this.

It is not the same. Pre Season games are rarely televised nationally so there is not as much revenue there. The fans do not show up to pre-season games like regular season games, less money there, yet the players get paid the same amount of money on the year whether they play 16 games or 18 games.

As for the players seeing the books? Again, who in real life ever gets to look at the books of the business? You seem to think that the employees are owners, they are not they are not entitled to see the books.

Only in a union can employees demand something that is not normally provided.

matthewschiefs
06-28-2011, 05:41 PM
And you sya the owners are negotiating or the players are not?!?

That's not at all what I have EVER said if you READ my post you will see that.



Negotiation is saying If you give me this I will give you this. Something that is finally happening now. But NEITHER side was doing that all along. Thats OWNERS AND PLAYERS.



The truth is there is no good guy bad guy in this matter. If EITHER (that means OWNERS AND PLAYERS) side wanted to get a deal done they would have one by now.



The problem has been neither side wanted to give anything up to get what they wanted. THAT'S OWNERS AND PLAYERS.

Just a few of where i say it's both sides that are to blame OWNERS AND PLAYERS. Not once have I said this is the players fault. In fact I have said a number of times the owners are mostly to blame for this whole mess. But I don't excuse the players for there actions witch have also hurt the game IMO if theres games missed.

Chiefster
06-28-2011, 06:19 PM
That's not at all what I have EVER said if you READ my post you will see that.







Just a few of where i say it's both sides that are to blame OWNERS AND PLAYERS. Not once have I said this is the players fault. In fact I have said a number of times the owners are mostly to blame for this whole mess. But I don't excuse the players for there actions witch have also hurt the game IMO if theres games missed.

This describes, perfectly, how I feel about the whole mess.

tornadospotter
06-29-2011, 12:16 AM
This describes, perfectly, how I feel about the whole mess.
If this whole mess does not clean its self up real soon, I may become extremely foul in my choice of language about both groups involved. Due from anger will be my only defense. :efpge:

Chiefster
06-30-2011, 01:02 AM
If this whole mess does not clean its self up real soon, I may become extremely foul in my choice of language about both groups involved. Due from anger will be my only defense. :efpge:

I have, at times, had to impose upon myself an informal ban; before things got ugly. :lol:

Canada
06-30-2011, 11:50 AM
If this whole mess does not clean its self up real soon, I may become extremely foul in my choice of language about both groups involved. Due from anger will be my only defense. :efpge:


I have, at times, had to impose upon myself an informal ban; before things got ugly. :lol:Do you guys need me to come back to swear and get banned again?

Hayvern
07-01-2011, 11:34 AM
If this whole mess does not clean its self up real soon, I may become extremely foul in my choice of language about both groups involved. Due from anger will be my only defense. :efpge:

The owners and players reportadly talked for 15 hours yesterday. OK, so what on earth could be said in 15 hours of discussions that would at the end of the day, make you think that another day of discussions would get the deal done.

If after 15 hours you cannot get a deal done, then there is little hope additional discussions will bear fruit.

Canada
07-01-2011, 01:23 PM
The owners and players reportadly talked for 15 hours yesterday. OK, so what on earth could be said in 15 hours of discussions that would at the end of the day, make you think that another day of discussions would get the deal done.

If after 15 hours you cannot get a deal done, then there is little hope additional discussions will bear fruit.So you assume that the talks are bad just because they lasted a long time? Perhaps they are working out details of a very in depth bargaining agreement. Im pretty sure that stuff does not all get worked out in an hour or two. I think the fact that they are spending this much time together is a sign that they are trying to get stuff done.

Chiefster
07-02-2011, 04:43 AM
Do you guys need me to come back to swear and get banned again?

:lol::lol::lol:

Hayvern
07-02-2011, 05:53 AM
So you assume that the talks are bad just because they lasted a long time? Perhaps they are working out details of a very in depth bargaining agreement. Im pretty sure that stuff does not all get worked out in an hour or two. I think the fact that they are spending this much time together is a sign that they are trying to get stuff done.

That is another way to look at it. I do believe they want to get something done, I just don't see how 15 hours of talks can signify anything except they are still arguing.

But I know nothing!

Canada
07-02-2011, 08:37 AM
That is another way to look at it. I do believe they want to get something done, I just don't see how 15 hours of talks can signify anything except they are still arguing.

But I know nothing!You know me, the eternal optimist!! :homer:

tornadospotter
07-04-2011, 12:33 AM
I am getting closer!
GET IT DONE, YOU Freaking MORONS!!!!!