Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 147

Thread: Players Union decertifies

  1. #1
    Member Since
    Sep 2009
    Location
    hollywood
    Posts
    404
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 0
    Given: 0

    Default Players Union decertifies


    0 Not allowed!
    Per Chris Mortensen, ESPN NFL insider.

    Players union has filed decertification papers in Minneapolis court.

    Peaceful renegotiation of new CBA is now a thing of the past. The courts will decide, and there may be no football this year.

  2. #71
    Member Since
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    14,126
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 78
    Given: 27

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryfo18 View Post
    Right, their profit was $20.1M and they made $247.9M in revenue. That means their expenses were 247.9-20.1 = $227.8M. The $1Billion number is what the franchise is "worth" if it were to be up for sale.

    Just to put it in perspective, the company I work for made around $180 billion in revenue last year, with a 10% profit margin. Our top executive made $10M including bonuses. It seems like most of the owners are doing pretty well if they're making anywhere near $10M, considering they probably generated about 1/1000th the revenue my company does (.001%), and has the same profit margins.

    I'll let it rest for now b/c I get the sense I'm not going to change anyone's minds :). Both sides are at fault here for not getting something done, but I can't put the blame more on the players than the owners.
    Do me a favor, call you CEO and tell him that you deserve to make more than he does. Tell him that you deserve to make more than the company NETS(Peyton$25mm vs Avg Franchise$20mm). Let me know how that goes.

    I do agree though that BOTH sides are at fault. This deadline has been known for months yet they waited till the week before the deadline to get serious about it. Too late, damage has been done and gets worse every day that people like us are discussing it in forums instead of tdiscussing who our favorite teams will be drafting in 1 month. It's sad and all parties are worse off.


  3. #72
    Member Since
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    262
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 4
    Given: 1

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    Tell him that you deserve to make more than the company NETS(Peyton$25mm vs Avg Franchise$20mm).
    These negotiation don't have anything to do with top players salaries. Do you think that a new CBA will make Manning earn less? How many teams will offer Manning a better deal if he hit free agency because Indianapolis won't pay him as much?

    The most of sports venture's owners don't want to make money, they want to win. What they need to win? Players and coaches, so they pay.
    The best Chilean fan.
    Follow me on twitter @ChileanChief

  4. #73
    Member Since
    May 2006
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    9,123
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 27
    Given: 26

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    Shame on the owners for wanting to make money.

    The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done.
    The billionaires get the sarcastic remark, as if to say that they really deserve to make higher profits, and the players, most of whom are not quite millionaires, are greedy?

    So, by my calculations, wanting as much money as you can get is not greedy, only so long as you have approximately 1000 times what the truly greedy guys have. Is that about right?



    : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    All I've sen so far are concessions by the owners.
    Could that be because those "concessions" are only concessions from the ridiculous demands that they made when they decided to take on this fight?

    Is it possible that the "concessions" would actually still be gains on their part, and losses on the players' parts?





    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    It's time for the players to get this deal done. You won't se the books, because you have no right to se the books.
    Anybody who wants to bargain with me, by saying that the deal they have with me is making them lose money needs to prove that claim, or shut up about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    IMO, This comes down to a fundamental problem of "Partner or Employee". The players union thinks they are partners. The owners view them as employees. As partners, they have the have the right view the books and a bigger piece of the pie. As employees, they do not. I personally believe they are employees.
    Employees are partners. You need me. I need you. Let's do this together.

    Even partners? No. But partners none the less.


    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    They don't take on the risk of the franchise. If it loses money they still get paid.
    Yeah. The risk of still living better than most of the world has ever dreamed of is so frightening.

    There is zero risk to being an NFL owner. None.

    Risk involves the potential for losing something important. And extra money is not important. It's pure luxury.

    Worst case scenario for the owners, they wind up living better than the average NFL player
    .

    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    The way I know they are employees, not partners, is because they sign the back of the paychecks, not the fronts. The players need to quit being greedy and get this deal done. Does anyone dispute that they are vastly overpaid?
    Yes. For the amount of money that is paid to watch them? Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    Does anyone believe that someone should get paid $25 million a year to throw a football while doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?
    The players need to have a Coke and a Smile and the shut the HELL up!
    Does anyone believe that using Daddy's money to hire people to make you money should get you paid $60 million a year while the athletes make a fraction of that, and doctors, teachers, policeman, firemen, servicemen, and our president make only fractions of that?

    By the way, what athlete is making $25 million a year?

  5. #74
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,954
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 60
    Given: 22

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Coach View Post
    Do me a favor, call you CEO and tell him that you deserve to make more than he does. Tell him that you deserve to make more than the company NETS(Peyton$25mm vs Avg Franchise$20mm). Let me know how that goes.

    I do agree though that BOTH sides are at fault. This deadline has been known for months yet they waited till the week before the deadline to get serious about it. Too late, damage has been done and gets worse every day that people like us are discussing it in forums instead of tdiscussing who our favorite teams will be drafting in 1 month. It's sad and all parties are worse off.
    I'm not going to tell him I need to make more, but considering that my company has 287,000 employees, vs about 1700 for the NFL (32 teams * 53 players/team). That means the NFL has 1/168th the number of employees as my company. Let's assume each employee makes around $40K (conservatively). If my company for some reason decided to reduce the workforce to 1700 while spending the same amount of money on salaries as when they had 287,000 employees, the remaining 1700 employees would make $6.75M each. The average NFL player makes nowhere close to that. Keep in mind too that there are other costs for the company to create products. The NFL players are the product.

    Ok, I'm really done this time. Let's just get a damn agreement!!!!!
    Last edited by Ryfo18; 03-15-2011 at 11:25 AM.
    Diehard Fan Living in Packer Territory

    Co-Founder: 2 Mugs Fantasy Football -- a site about and football!

  6. #75
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,954
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 60
    Given: 22

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    The above example is probably pretty confusing to make sense of, but basically what I was trying to prove is that given the small number of players and the large amount of revenue generated, they are not overcompensated.
    Diehard Fan Living in Packer Territory

    Co-Founder: 2 Mugs Fantasy Football -- a site about and football!

  7. #76
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura, Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryfo18 View Post
    I'm not going to tell him I need to make more, but considering that my company has 287,000 employees, vs about 1700 for the NFL (32 teams * 53 players/team). That means the NFL has 1/168th the number of employees as my company. Let's assume each employee makes around $40K (conservatively). If my company for some reason decided to reduce the workforce to 1700 while spending the same amount of money on salaries as when they had 287,000 employees, the remaining 1700 employees would make $6.75M each. The average NFL player makes nowhere close to that. Keep in mind too that there are other costs for the company to create products. The NFL players are the product.

    Ok, I'm really done this time. Let's just get a damn agreement!!!!!
    And you are way off in your number of employees for the NFL. The NFL is more than just the players, there is the coaches, the people who work the front offices, the officials, the venders who work during the game, security for the parking lots. A lot of those people are part-time and only get paid during the season, but that is far more than the 1700 that are just players and coaches.

    In fairness, those employees may not work for the NFL per se, but they work for the teams in the NFL.


    Are you man enough? Eric Berry? Apparently Not!

  8. #77
    Member Since
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura, Ca.
    Posts
    2,605
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 6
    Given: 1

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Ultimately, it does come down to the players in one major sense. To negotiate in good faith, one has to make demands and then counter demands. Typically, you would move off your position a little. The players NEVER EVER did that.

    The owners got a raw deal in the last CBA. This is pretty well established, they are trying to close that gap a little bit, the players, who know they got a cream deal in the last CBA are not willing to give any back. This nonsense about opening the books is just that, nonsense. I get the feeling that the players only want to open the books so they can point out how a couple of teams, Dallas, New England, Pittsburgh perhaps, are all making tons of money, yet they forget about those teams like the Chiefs, Dolphins, Jaguars, who are not making all that much money.

    In this case, it comes down to anamosity from the players towards the owners, the players were never interested in getting a deal done, this is more a political statement than trying to save the season. I maintain that, and stand by it until they prove me wrong, and so far, I am right.

    And let's be clear, I doubt that even the majority of the players back this move if you asked them one on one over a beer and they were perfectly candid about it. But the nature of unions is such that you do not split ranks with the union if you want the union to help you in the future, so you go along even though you know the collective actions of the union are wrong.

    You will see more players step out and go against the union the closer we get to actual game time. The last strike saw a great number of players cross the picket lines to play, and I believe the same will happen if we get to that at this point. Expecially when the wives start screaming about paying the bills.

    To all of you saying that the players are one of a kind and cannot be replaced so they deserve this money. Let me give you another example. There are just under 1200 Cisco Certified Internetworking Experts in this country. These are the rock stars of the IT community, the cream of the crop so to speak. These guys get a huge salary compared to others in the field, but not so much that it is a factor of millions.

    And before you go off and say that they are not as important as NFL players, lets consider the guy that works for Bank of America. Bank of America handles more money every week than the NFL handles in a year. The CCIEs are what keeps those systems talking. Bank of America probably only has 2 or 3 of these types of guys on payroll. Should they band together and demand 50% of all of Bank of America's revenue because without them, BofA would no longer be a viable business?

    No, they should not, that would be classified as extortion, which brings me back to my point that unions are nothing more than legalized extortion.


    Are you man enough? Eric Berry? Apparently Not!

  9. #78
    Member Since
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,586
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 381
    Given: 74

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by chief31 View Post
    Could that be because those "concessions" are only concessions from the ridiculous demands that they made when they decided to take on this fight?

    Is it possible that the "concessions" would actually still be gains on their part, and losses on the players' par
    While I 100% agree the the first demands by the owners were 100% unfair to the players I think the same can be said about the offers from the players. The players are on record saying they won't give a dime back till they are shown the books while at the same time they want benfits for former players more health benfits for themselfs. WHO PAYS FOR THAT? The owners. They to wanted more and not to give anything back. Yes the owners opted out they HAD THAT RIGHT in the CBA. Like I have asked many times do we jump on a player for takeing the rights in the CBA? Just because the owners have more money that does not make an action less wrong. If I had a billion$ and you only had a million we both killed someone should you go to jail alone just because I have more money? A wrong is still a wrong and 2 wrongs don't make a right.

    The fact is say what you will about the greed from the owners they have made moves on this whole deal while the players won't even talk until there demands to have the books are open. That's not negotiating that's makeing demands.

  10. #79
    Member Since
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Milwaukee
    Posts
    2,954
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 60
    Given: 22

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by matthewschiefs View Post
    While I 100% agree the the first demands by the owners were 100% unfair to the players I think the same can be said about the offers from the players. The players are on record saying they won't give a dime back till they are shown the books while at the same time they want benfits for former players more health benfits for themselfs. WHO PAYS FOR THAT? The owners. They to wanted more and not to give anything back. Yes the owners opted out they HAD THAT RIGHT in the CBA. Like I have asked many times do we jump on a player for takeing the rights in the CBA? Just because the owners have more money that does not make an action less wrong. If I had a billion$ and you only had a million we both killed someone should you go to jail alone just because I have more money? A wrong is still a wrong and 2 wrongs don't make a right.
    Actually, a lot of the money for that comes from a rookie wage scale (less money to rookies goes towards former health benefits).

    Here's a decent article from Peter King on why the owners should open the books. I like his point about the McCaskey's and the Bears. That's a huge family, and needless to say, just about everyone in that family is an employee of the Chicago Bears. I'm not saying that they shouldn't look out for the interests of their family, it's more saying that if the owners want to cry poverty their should be some financial transparency. What if (and I have no idea if this is true), each of their family members were making ridiculous amounts of money? Should the players have to give up money so the entire family can make decent salaries to fly around on private jets and watch football every week?

    NFL lockout is bad, but resolution closer than it appears - Peter King - SI.com

    If this doesn't change your mind a little bit, I don't know what will haha. I keep saying I'm done, I might be this time!
    Last edited by Ryfo18; 03-15-2011 at 12:31 PM.
    Diehard Fan Living in Packer Territory

    Co-Founder: 2 Mugs Fantasy Football -- a site about and football!

  11. #80
    Member Since
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    2,932
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 113
    Given: 3

    Default


    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryfo18 View Post
    It's not giving "more money" to the players in the sense that the money they make is based off of total revenue. It does hit the pockets of the fans, but as I've said before...Player costs in no way determine ticket prices. It's demand for the product. I hear people complaining about the crazy ticket prices, but in the end, they are still getting sold, right? Have the owners come out said if they get more of the revenues they'll pass on the savings to the fans?

    It's not on the owners or players to fix the rising costs of the NFL. It's simple supply/demand. Sure you can create a "false demand" that drives ticket prices down, but in that scenario the owners AND players stand to lose money. There are other options like creating more franchises to increase the "supply", which would help decrease costs. Or if the fans get fed up with the costs, stop watching to help drive the demand down. In the end though, we as fans will continue to get screwed as the NFL gets more popular.
    The big picture is much more than Supply and demand for tickets. The owners profits are based off much more than just tickets.

    Giving more money to the players will decrease the owners profit, thus decrease quality of the game. Do you think the Chiefs will go out and spend the extra money to have all the fire works, the bands playing and all the extra stuff that went on that game.

    Not that the food is good at Arrowhead, but they will start to cut back on the quality of food, yet charge the same price or raising the price in attempts to regain that profit margin.

    Maybe cut back on staff, which makes longer lines longe to get in or buy that watered down beer.

    For the owners to pay more to the players cutting their profits down, the other tangibles that makes the game day experience enjoyable other than the players will suffer. When the demand for those items start to decrease you will see teams saving money by not signing big contract, thus making the game less competitive.

    With the last CBA, the owners gave more to the players, and I think the whole reason you see the Owners saying NO more, is that they are already seeing this uncompetitive trend taking place with some of the teams. Now you can say it is a down economy, but smaller market teams are finding it hard to Make the Demand.

    So in the long run. What is best for the NFL as a whole.

Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. NFL Files Suit Against Players Union
    By Hayvern in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 03-19-2011, 12:16 AM
  2. NFL owners could opt out of CBA with union as early as Tuesday
    By Guru in forum KC Chiefs News and Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-17-2008, 04:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •