Lockout debate: hypothetical concession

[trapezeus]

I actually don't have much of an idea how this board feels about players vs. owners. So i've put up the poll to see which way people side.

More importantly, since it's a bit slow, i thought it might be interesting to have a couple hypotheticals put out there and see how you would react as a player rep or the owners.

So my hypothetical to you:

- The owners decide that they need to cut the player expense from 60% to 50% of total revenue. Playing additional games has been taken off the table. Owners propose to the players: "Take the cut, and we'll guarantee all salaries going forward."

What are the pro's and cons to this proposal?

[Beebe's Kid]

I have to ask you, Trap; if the owners get the reduction to 50%, but guarantee salaries, does money being paid to a player that is on IR or PUP count against the cap and/or 50%?

Edit: I apologize for not knowing if players on IR currently count against those numbers. That would be a good place to start.

I think this is a good idea.

[Extremebillsfan247]

The big corporate wheels that spin in the NFL are the ones behind the curtain here. It's all about greed, bottom line. JMO

[Beebe's Kid]

The big corporate wheels that spin in the NFL are the ones behind the curtain here. It's all about greed, bottom line. JMOThis is a generic statement.

The negotiations are about money, and large amounts of it. To say it is all about greed is a little vague, and probably not fair. I would say especially to the players.

As far as the "big corporate wheels," could you elaborate a little bit?

[k-oneputt]

I know who will end up winning, the owners.

Like you said Beebe, if you don't like it start your own football team.

[Forward_Lateral]

The owners are stupid. They want more games, which leads to more revenue, but they don't want to compensate the players for it. 2 more games a season will shorten the already short careers of many NFL players. I think the players are just as greedy as the owners, but in this case, the owners want the players to give, but don't want them to take.
I blame the owners more than the players in this case.

[Forward_Lateral]

And I voted wrong. ****.

[trapezeus]

Overall, i think greed is driving the decisions made. the owners are really being douchebags about this. they have money coming to them guaranteed through the TV contracts, and they can cut big contracts whenever they want. They have sweetheart stadium deals and get parking revenues for things they don't even maintain themselves. To push back on non guaranteed salaries is troublesome, i think. And to have revenue sharing as an item to discuss is idiotic.

But to the topic at hand, i'm not clear on the PUP and IR salary cap implications. Let's assume that they keep that they same. You can buy out the player out at a negotiated price, or they can keep them on the books.

I think overall the guarantee would reign in owners from making idiotic decisions because it'd haunt them for years or be a large hinderance to them going forward.

I think a team like buffalo would pay for it the most as you know someone like ralph isn't going to buy out a player with multiple years and a large balloon payment. but maybe that stops those contracts going foward.

I think it's a fair deal to get guarantees and the owners as a result pay out less. i'd be willing to sign a $20MM guaranteed contract over 4 years, vs. a $30MM 4 year deal that isn't guaranteed. Because as a player you're only guaranteed the $6-8MM upfront that you are taking.

[ddaryl]

Well I could never side with the owners who are the entire reason why they are giving 60% of the revenues away now.

but neither side is demanding that the price of the game come down so the fans can save some coin, so either way the fans will end up being the ones that pay.

[Forward_Lateral]

I think the Players' Union is going to fight very hard for guaranteed contracts. If I'm a player and I'm playing in an 18 game season, and I sign a 3 year, 5 million per season, I want that money guaranteed. If I'm cut, I still want the remainder of my 15 million, not a small fraction of it. If I'm hurt, I want the entire amount, not a small fraction of it. If you want to buy me out, it will be for the entire amount.
I think the owners are going to have to give some major concessions to the players, one way or another. If they don't want to give them a bigger piece of the revenue sharing pie, the players are going to get it in some other form. There is no game without players. Yes, you can always find replacement players, but eventually they will want more, and the cycle will continue. The owners are being very short-sighted, IMO.

[trapezeus]

exactly, ddaryl.

its not like they'll lock out and say, "we as owners came out with a way to save money on salaries. we've cut season tickets by the same amount because we were looking out for you guys."

And the players aren't going to be like, "we got extra money, we're going to all put in 100% effort every down and reduce the number of busts and maddening plays"

The fans will be screwed. I'm sure the owners are excited they didn't go exclusively to a pay TV model right now, or the whole lockout would be a little more fair.

[Night Train]

I often wonder if the 18 game proposal by the owners is a negotiation ploy to get the players to give back a bit.

If the players kick back 3-5%, they'll drop the 2 extra games idea and eliminate 2 preseaon games regardless.

[NOT THE DUDE...]

this isnt the union movement in the 30s where people were being exploited. its looks really bad in this economic environment whenever millionaires are arguing with billionaires over money, and im pro union.... its sick, just ****ing split 50/50 and call it a day....

[trapezeus]

i'm surprised that people support the owners. they are making say $x. They want all the players to take less, but there is no indication that they are going to reduce prices to be fan friendly. This is simply money they want to pocket when they full on know the risks the players go through. and they want them to sacrifice more.

If the numbers were lower, you'd side with the players. IF the league can generate $x, and there is no sign of weakness in the incoming revenues, why should the worker take a cut? Millionaires are dime a dozen these days.

Literally Golisano was the 185th richest man at over $1BN in assets. That's insane.

The owners are straight up making a money grab from their worker bees.

[Ingtar33]

i'm surprised that people support the owners. they are making say $x. They want all the players to take less, but there is no indication that they are going to reduce prices to be fan friendly. This is simply money they want to pocket when they full on know the risks the players go through. and they want them to sacrifice more.

If the numbers were lower, you'd side with the players. IF the league can generate $x, and there is no sign of weakness in the incoming revenues, why should the worker take a cut? Millionaires are dime a dozen these days.

Literally Golisano was the 185th richest man at over $1BN in assets. That's insane.

The owners are straight up making a money grab from their worker bees.

i think it's a matter of scale. i remember a college lecture i had once, where the professor drew a long line on this great big black board, and labeled the end 1,000,000,000. he then called people up from the class to mark 1 million, and 1 thousand.

three people marked the board, then he pulled out a ruler, and inside the smallest person's marking for 1000, he marked 1 million.

The point was the largest number the human mind can easily visualize is just about 1000.

People don't think of 1 billion to be 1000 times the size of 1 million. or 1 million to be 1000 times the size of 1000. It's just not possible to visualize it conceptually. So when the players all are making millions per year and the owners are making hundreds of millions per year, it means nothing to the fans.

It's all so far beyond simple comprehension as to be a foreign language.

Because of the size of the numbers involved the fans don't hold any sympathy for the players as members of a union. Their salaries are so high as to defy sympathy over a 5% or 10% cut in pay. The fans have favorite players, and teams but the labor side means almost nothing to them. what they want is a fair playing field for all the teams to be competitive. Many fans here on this board have a team they think is cheap, or financially not competitive with other teams. In that case it's natural, though buffalo is a blue collar city, for the fans of that team to want to limit salaries, so we can become more competitive.

The fans might hate Ralph for being tight, but they don't sympathize with players making more money in a season then they'll ever make in a lifetime. If lowering the cap, makes the bills more competitive by bringing the rest of the league down to Ralphs spending levels, then it's reasonable for bills fans to side with ownership, because they're desperate.

In cities like Washington or NY i'm sure you'd probably see results more even with the players. Money isn't an issue for ownership there. Or, maybe not. Again, the player's salaries are so high as to defy easy comprehension no matter where you live.

If your team doesn't have money issues the whole thing looks like two millionaires fighting over 10,000 dollars in the middle of the street, no matter who wins the fans will be late for work, and it will mean next to nothing for the fan either... so they just want one to win fast and let the off season progress.

[k-oneputt]

That's all fine and dandy but who's money is gonna run out first ?

The players will fold.

[Thief]

Who wouldn't want to play in the NFL? I thought everyone believed sports players were overpaid.

[trapezeus]

but that's what i find so odd. The owners make money on ticket sales, suite sales, tv sales. it's like chris rock's joke on not wanting to be rich, but wanting to be wealthy.

They have no detrimental injury to the body. I would understand management sticking it to workers when its GM and the company is failing and the payouts our outsized of the revenues generated. but literally, the sport is set for the next 5-10 years. they have TV deals, attendence was a little down during the downturn in the economy, but the superbowl is still the most watched event which pushes up the ad rates, which pushes up tv contracts.

The players gave them non guaranteed contracts. Why change something when it's not broken. it's the jones and the synders who are ruining it for the owners, not the players.

[Extremebillsfan247]

This is a generic statement.

The negotiations are about money, and large amounts of it. To say it is all about greed is a little vague, and probably not fair. I would say especially to the players.

As far as the "big corporate wheels," could you elaborate a little bit? Players just want what they feel they are entitled to while the Owners feel they should have everything, and feel the players are getting too much of what they already have. It's about greed like I said. In the end the losers will be the fans who will be forced to pay more out of pocket to watch a football game that has an NFL logo attached to it. Just remember one thing through this whole debacle. Billionaires don't become billionaires by playing nice. If the Owners want the players money, they will get it even if it means stepping on fans in the process who supply the money that feeds the NFL corporate machine. No matter how this thing turns out in the end, we as fans are the ones who are going to pay the price. JMO

[trapezeus]

i think if a lockout happens, it would be best for the fans if it's a prolonged deal. One that lasts for an entire year. Because like baseball and football, a long lockout will ensure that the fans get treated well with lower prices, more deals and enticement to come to them. Especially if the UFL and college football see spikes in sales and merchandise. Perhaps the owners will realize that they shouldn't rock the boat so much when they have a monopoly.

A short affair would screw the players and screw the fans.

[jamze132]

The 18 game schedule could be a huge sticking point for the players, especially if the owners don't sweeten the deal for that particular issue. As of now teams play 20 games per season. If the owners get their way, 20 games will still be played. However right now, starters end up playing about the equivelent of 60 min in the preseason, or roughly 1 game. So they end up playing 17 in a season. If the 18 game schedule goes into effect, they are going to have to play more of both pre-season games to get ready for the season so you are looking at at least 19 games for starters. Could be tricky to work out.

I'm sure players would LOVE guaranteed contracts like MLB enjoys. I am willing to bet if 18 games for gauranteed contracts was on the table, the owners would balk.

[better days]

I think the Players' Union is going to fight very hard for guaranteed contracts. If I'm a player and I'm playing in an 18 game season, and I sign a 3 year, 5 million per season, I want that money guaranteed. If I'm cut, I still want the remainder of my 15 million, not a small fraction of it. If I'm hurt, I want the entire amount, not a small fraction of it. If you want to buy me out, it will be for the entire amount.
I think the owners are going to have to give some major concessions to the players, one way or another. If they don't want to give them a bigger piece of the revenue sharing pie, the players are going to get it in some other form. There is no game without players. Yes, you can always find replacement players, but eventually they will want more, and the cycle will continue. The owners are being very short-sighted, IMO.

Well if contracts are guaranteed there should be no need for signing bonuses. That has been their guarantee in the past along with their 1st year of pay at least.

The vast majority of contracts up to now have very large amounts of money tacked on at the end that both the team & player know will never be paid out. Either they will renegotiate a new contract or the player will be traded/cut before the end of most big contracts.

With contracts guaranteed it will fundamentally change the way contracts have been written in the past, with no huge amounts of money at the end of contracts.

[better days]

The 18 game schedule could be a huge sticking point for the players, especially if the owners don't sweeten the deal for that particular issue. As of now teams play 20 games per season. If the owners get their way, 20 games will still be played. However right now, starters end up playing about the equivelent of 60 min in the preseason, or roughly 1 game. So they end up playing 17 in a season. If the 18 game schedule goes into effect, they are going to have to play more of both pre-season games to get ready for the season so you are looking at at least 19 games for starters. Could be tricky to work out.

I'm sure players would LOVE guaranteed contracts like MLB enjoys. I am willing to bet if 18 games for gauranteed contracts was on the table, the owners would balk.

Well the players would be paid for those two exta games, unlike preseason games which they receive very little for. Also I think the roster size would need to increase & maybe allow players to come back from injured reserve if they are able to during the season.

[ddaryl]

I'm really shocked with the amount of people siding with the owners when it is clearly the owners problem when they voted yes on the last CBA.

They opened Pandoras box and now they are upset with that. If it wasn't for that 30-2 yes vote I might lean a little more towards the owners side, but the fact that they almost unanimously signed on for it means they are the ones who screwed this process up to begin with.

It is pretty obvious that the owners negotiated their latest TV contract for the soul purpose of locking out the players in 2011. Which IMO is pretty under handed way of doing business, and definitley does not promote the leagues best interests, nor does it promote a positive relationship with owners and players.

[better days]

I'm really shocked with the amount of people siding with the owners when it is clearly the owners problem when they voted yes on the last CBA.

They opened Pandoras box and now they are upset with that. If it wasn't for that 30-2 yes vote I might lean a little more towards the owners side, but the fact that they almost unanimously signed on for it means they are the ones who screwed this process up to begin with.

It is pretty obvious that the owners negotiated their latest TV contract for the soul purpose of locking out the players in 2011. Which IMO is pretty under handed way of doing business, and definitley does not promote the leagues best interests, nor does it promote a positive relationship with owners and players.


Ralph does not look like the senile old fool the media painted him during the last CBA negotiation. As for the rest of the owners, if you make a mistake & recognize that, you should be allowed to rectify it.

[ddaryl]

Ralph does not look like the senile old fool the media painted him during the last CBA negotiation. As for the rest of the owners, if you make a mistake & recognize that, you should be allowed to rectify it.

I agree Ralph was smart on that one.

However the Owners do need to rectify it, but they are too blame for any lockout or any strike by agreeing to that last CBA to begin with.