Summary of last NFL offer to NFLPA

[DraftBoy]

http://nfllabor.com/2011/03/11/exclusive-summary-of-nfl-proposal-to-nflpa/


1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by:

* Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;
* Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and
* Increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

[mikemac2001]

Seems fair

[Extremebillsfan247]

Mr. Aiello is just putting it all out there. lol I'm wondering what Mr. Smith is going to say to all that. He can say they are lying all he wants, but until he presents proof contrary to what the NFL is putting out there for everyone to see, it's going to look really bad on him and the players. JMO

[Night Train]

Anyone else see De Smith playing the part of Mr. Ditto (Teachers) during these sham negotiations ?

[X-Era]

Seems fairThey are asking the players to take a pay cut.

They are rich, and still will be and if that's your angle, I agree.

But it's still a pay cut. It's an extra billion off the top when all indications are that the teams are doing better than ever (collectively).

[X-Era]

Mr. Aiello is just putting it all out there. lol I'm wondering what Mr. Smith is going to say to all that. He can say they are lying all he wants, but until he presents proof contrary to what the NFL is putting out there for everyone to see, it's going to look really bad on him and the players. JMOThe NFL is just playing a game to pretend that they are the ones negotiating and that the players aren't. That's a legal move to prevent de-certification.

Personally, I'm not buying much of what either side says publicly, and I certainly won't feel like the NFL can play the martyr card... Not with Jerry Jone's extremely rich and douchey face in the background. He wants one thing, to get richer. And Pash can't convince me any differently.

[Extremebillsfan247]

The NFL is just playing a game to pretend that they are the ones negotiating and that the players aren't. That's a legal move to prevent de-certification.

Personally, I'm not buying much of what either side says publicly, and I certainly won't feel like the NFL can play the martyr card... Not with Jerry Jone's extremely rich and douchey face in the background. He wants one thing, to get richer. And Pash can't convince me any differently. It does seem to me though that the NFL is attempting to be a little more transparent about intention than the Players are. All you ever get out of these players is that they want to play football, or they are trying harder than the owners, but provide little if anything to corroborate that.

[alohabillsfan]

F-that, the bottom line is the players are paid extremely well for playing a game. It does not matter what the "books" say. Its a dam nice deal! Have them try to find a job that pays that good. I say let them sit a year.

[Yasgur's Farm]

They are asking the players to take a pay cut.

They are rich, and still will be and if that's your angle, I agree.

But it's still a pay cut. It's an extra billion off the top when all indications are that the teams are doing better than ever (collectively).How can anybody continue to say the owners are asking them to take a pay cut after this transparent document? The salary cap increases every year to $161M per club... The owners must spend up to 90% of cap.

Seems to me, the only players losing something here are the ones who need to prove themselves in the NFL before cashing in big time. Jamarcus Russel got in under the wire.

[ddaryl]

F-that, the bottom line is the players are paid extremely well for playing a game. It does not matter what the "books" say. Its a dam nice deal! Have them try to find a job that pays that good. I say let them sit a year.


yes they are... but they are the product and without product you have nothing

sure they can bring in a new generation of players and rebuild the league, but in that time many teams will go belly up do to the insane amounts of money some of these owners paid for their franchises, and the fact that many fans won't bother watching the game or paying top buck while they rebuild.

if the owners are losing money then they would be willing to open up and prove it.

both sides here are hell bent on getting the best deal for themselves... neither side is doing anything to bring value back to the fans

[alohabillsfan]

Wait and see how many players sign back up to play football. They (the majority) need the money and will in a heartbeat, its (money) is like crack to them.

[Lone Stranger]

Here's my take on this. Most, if not all, of us, work for somebody. What are our primary concerns are what is our compensation and what are the benefits. If we feel we're getting a fair package we are willing to work for that person.

If I'm an NFL player, I have to ask myself that question. What player in his right mind is going to complain about his arrangement, when you consider a minimum salary of $300k. He has to be practical in making this decision.

I really don't care how much my employer is making as long as I'm treated fairly.
I can carry this point ad finitum but I think I have made it. We all live in a real world.

BTW, shame on the owners; they screwed up when signing the last CBA and were not willing to deal with issues now confronting them.

[alohabillsfan]

Brown (Bengals) and our very own R. Wilson did not approve of the last CBA, yet he was ridiculed on this board.

[Dujek]

The NFL is just playing a game to pretend that they are the ones negotiating and that the players aren't. That's a legal move to prevent de-certification.

Personally, I'm not buying much of what either side says publicly, and I certainly won't feel like the NFL can play the martyr card... Not with Jerry Jone's extremely rich and douchey face in the background. He wants one thing, to get richer. And Pash can't convince me any differently.

Bull****. Did you actually read what was set out there? The NFL will be increasing the salary cap and offered the players the figure they wanted for the 2014 season. How the hell is that a pay cut?

Also, if the rookie salary cap is in effect and the owners must spend to 90% of cap then the current players will get a pretty significant pay rise.

Take your blinkers off and realise that for once it isn't the owners being greedy here.

[Ebenezer]

This is a stare down between the new head of the NFLPA on one side and the commish and the more vocal owners on the other. Each is trying to show how powerful they can be. The players were not accepting anything but 100% openness and as much of the cut as possible. The new breed owners were not accepting anything but what they want. All of it is just talk.

[Forward_Lateral]

This is a stare down between the new head of the NFLPA on one side and the commish and the more vocal owners on the other. Each is trying to show how powerful they can be. The players were not accepting anything but 100% openness and as much of the cut as possible. The new breed owners were not accepting anything but what they want. All of it is just talk.

I agree. Neither side is willing to compromise by the looks of it. I'm sure the offer the NFL made was just lip-service with them knowing full well there's no way the NFLPA would accept it.

[cordog]

The NFLPA can go F themselves. The deal presented by the owners seems more than fair especially when the owners dropped the additional 1 billion off the top down to $325 million. The NFLPA is not going to get much sympathy from middle Americans that are losing jobs, taking paycuts, and paying more and more for healthcare, and most are losing their retirement benefits. The owners won't and should not open their books to the players. They are privately owned franchises (minus GB). If anyone has followed the NBA labor talks, the owners opened their books and showed the players EVERYTHING, and it still wasnt good enough for the players. And the players are not qualified nor have the right to determine how much profit is enough for the owners.

[Ebenezer]

The NFLPA is not going to get much sympathy from middle Americans that are losing jobs, taking paycuts, and paying more and more for healthcare, and most are losing their retirement benefits.


Really?? I wonder how many Americans who make under $75K a year support the Republicans who just brokered tax cuts for the rich. Don't give people more credit than they deserve.

[Ebenezer]

I agree. Neither side is willing to compromise by the looks of it. I'm sure the offer the NFL made was just lip-service with them knowing full well there's no way the NFLPA would accept it.
Completely orchestrated. That speech was very well written and delivered. This was all planned.

[cordog]

Really?? I wonder how many Americans who make under $75K a year support the Republicans who just brokered tax cuts for the rich. Don't give people more credit than they deserve.


Well I wasn't trying to get political, but there are quite a few. They are the same people that voted the republicans in to power just 5 months ago. Nothing wrong with trying something other than just hope.

[Ebenezer]

Well I wasn't trying to get political, but there are quite a few. They are the same people that voted the republicans in to power just 5 months ago. Nothing wrong with trying something other than just hope.
I wasn't being political...I was trying to show how people aren't as smart we give them credit for being.

[Spiderweb]

F-that, the bottom line is the players are paid extremely well for playing a game. It does not matter what the "books" say. Its a dam nice deal! Have them try to find a job that pays that good. I say let them sit a year.

When one seeks concessions based on the books, it DOES matter that they refuse to make those very books open to review.

The offered deal may be far beyond anything most of us will ever see, or can imagine having, yet that in and of itself does not necessarily make it appropriate in this case.

[Spiderweb]

Well I wasn't trying to get political, but there are quite a few. They are the same people that voted the republicans in to power just 5 months ago. Nothing wrong with trying something other than just hope.

Even if it the same old track we've been on since Regan, only accelerated? The middle class has had only one year since, 1998, where they actually had a net gain income wise. Oh, that wasn't a GOP administration? Darned Clinton, the GOP never would have allowed that to happen.

[cordog]

Even if it the same old track we've been on since Regan, only accelerated? The middle class has had only one year since, 1998, where they actually had a net gain income wise. Oh, that wasn't a GOP administration? Darned Clinton, the GOP never would have allowed that to happen.

Lol, don't give Clinton, or any politician too much credit for that, that was during the tech stock era, and we all seen what happened when that bubble burst. But if you want to make that argument, the republicans did control congress during that time, so yeah the GOP would allow that to happen. You just keep beliveing the Democratic Party has your best interests in mind, I'll live in reality. Don't trust any of them, Dem or GOP, their first job is to get re-elected. Neither side really cares about anything other than that.

[better days]

My opinion is that the NFLPA hired a litigator, not a negotiator to head the union & his plan all along was to litigate not negotiate a new deal. I think the players union was very foolish to turn down the last offer the league made & I doubt they will get anything better.

[X-Era]

How can anybody continue to say the owners are asking them to take a pay cut after this transparent document? The salary cap increases every year to $161M per club... The owners must spend up to 90% of cap.

Seems to me, the only players losing something here are the ones who need to prove themselves in the NFL before cashing in big time. Jamarcus Russel got in under the wire.Because before they took 1 bill off the top of revenues, now they want another 1 bill of the top. If the total amount is less, the % of money going to the players is less. I could be wrong, but the cap is based on dividing the total amount going to players by 32.

[X-Era]

Bull****. Did you actually read what was set out there? The NFL will be increasing the salary cap and offered the players the figure they wanted for the 2014 season. How the hell is that a pay cut?

Also, if the rookie salary cap is in effect and the owners must spend to 90% of cap then the current players will get a pretty significant pay rise.

Take your blinkers off and realise that for once it isn't the owners being greedy here.Again, my comment on them taking a paycut is based on 2 bill off the top instead of 1 and then the % going to players across the board is less than before. To me that means a lower cap, not higher. But I admit it hasn't been clearly stated anywhere that I could find.

[Yasgur's Farm]

That extra 1 bill was reduced to $320M... But the players % increases.

Bottom line... If the salary cap is increased, and the owners must payout at least 90% of that cap, then the pay is increased.

Not bad considering I had no pay increase over the past 3 years... Had to go on workshare... Lost 1 out of 3 of us in our department (in other words, a REAL paycut).

[X-Era]

That extra 1 bill was reduced to $320M... But the players % increases.

Bottom line... If the salary cap is increased, and the owners must payout at least 90% of that cap, then the pay is increased.

Not bad considering I had no pay increase over the past 3 years... Had to go on workshare... Lost 1 out of 3 of us in our department (in other words, a REAL paycut).
It seems:

Players % remains the same. The amount available is supposedly going down by 1 bill. Then the 60% comes out for players which is then divided by 32 teams.

9 bill -1 bill off the top = 8 bill with 60% going to players which is 4.8 bill which is then divided by 32 to set the per team cap... thats a 150 mill cap.

9 bill - 1 bill and also minus another 1 bill = 7 bill with 60% going to the teams which is 4.2 bill divided by 32 teams which is a cap of 131 mill.

The players view the extra 1 bill off the top as a pay cut and that's if their percent stays the same.

The numbers are rough but thats the players claim.

This document says 161 mill cap which would be an increase in total pay.

I guess it's a matter of whom you believe. And as I said I don't believe either side. I think the players wanted litigation to try to pry the books from the owners to help make their case.

[Ebenezer]

The final agreement won't contain most of what the owners said they offered the players.

[X-Era]

The final agreement won't contain most of what the owners said they offered the players.I hope it doesn't.

[Yasgur's Farm]

$131M
$150M
$161M (2014)

No matter how you view it, it's in no way a "salary cut" when you look at the '09 cap.

[X-Era]

$131M
$150M
$161M (2014)

No matter how you view it, it's in no way a "salary cut" when you look at the '09 cap.It's a % of revenue. If the revenue is up from 09 levels, and the owners are asking for the players to take a lower % it's a pay cut because they are getting a lower percent of revenue.

I don't think it should be based on a % of revenue anyways. It should be simply a structured dollar figure.

I get what your saying, it's their argument, not mine.

[Yasgur's Farm]

Bottom line... A union has it's place and time. But they (unions in general) have historically been stupid with their demands in times of economic stress.

They were instrumental in getting us 40 hour work weeks... Fair compensation... Weekends off (other than OT), etc., etc. They were also instrumental in running GM (and America Axle for that matter) out of Buffalo. Ask Detroit what they think about unions.

All I'm saying is this... Maybe these are the times when a unions demands are the very thing that gets the plant closed down. Maybe they ought not be calling "pay increases", "pay cuts" in this economy. Unless of course we feel, as middle class fans, like we're not being push out of our seat (or parking spot) at the Ralph.

[X-Era]

Bottom line... A union has it's place and time. But they (unions in general) have historically been stupid with their demands in times of economic stress.

They were instrumental in getting us 40 hour work weeks... Fair compensation... Weekends off (other than OT), etc., etc. They were also instrumental in running GM (and America Axle for that matter) out of Buffalo. Ask Detroit what they think about unions.

All I'm saying is this... Maybe these are the times when a unions demands are the very thing that gets the plant closed down. Maybe they ought not be calling "pay increases", "pay cuts" in this economy. Unless of course we feel, as middle class fans, like we're not being push out of our seat (or parking spot) at the Ralph.I am no fan of unions trust me.

[Yasgur's Farm]

1) An owner of a business is the recipient of high risk, high reward... It's his balls on the anvil.
2) The palyers are the recipient of what the owner has built. They bring their skills to the model that has been built. But their careers are relatively short... Thus they are well compensated for the average 3 1/2 year career.
3) The agents, having much longer careers than the players, and demanding up to 50% from players, are the individuals that have the most to loose here.

Once the players figure out that they're puppets for these agents, the NFL will resume.

[Beebe's Kid]

Really?? I wonder how many Americans who make under $75K a year support the Republicans who just brokered tax cuts for the rich. Don't give people more credit than they deserve.


You make a point here, which I see was intelligently countered with a "hope" dig...

The problem here, as in "real life" is that the ones with the most money are trying to make sure they get more.

To talk about the middle class taking pay cuts is ****ing absurd. The middle class is getting ****ed in it's proverbial ass, while the rich get richer. That is not a cliche, that is the ****ing truth. Not only are they getting richer, they are are taking great strides to make sure there is nothing the middle class will be able to do about it, and that they are not plagued by inconsequential things like the EPA...

Why won't the owners open the books? That is not a trick question, and I would think that most of us would be able to come up with an answer...unless you are voting for Tea Baggers because you are scared to lose a gun, think Dems raise taxes, and/or make some vague allusion to "more than hope."

Players make a ton of money...that is true. They should no make less because you can't comprehend how much they make. This is emphasized even further, through the fact that we pay those salaries. If you have a problem with how much the players make, what about the owners?

There is a double standard here, because it is going to effect you/me/us. The owners make a lot, and are going to continue to escalate those profits over the length of the CBA. Hell, they made money hand over fist with the last CBA that they got "screwed" on. Just because you can't comprehend the money, don't be hasty to blame the players.

They are practicing their right to collectively bargain. That is a beautiful thing. If it interrupts football, oh well. Somethings are more important than football. It is nice to see that one group of workers in this county isn't agreeing to pay cuts just because they are scared of losing their jobs, even while the profits of their businesses are at record highs.

The workers are the ones making all of the sacrifices...this includes football players, even though you don't see them as workers. What you would do with that money is inconsequential, because it isn't your money, it isn't what you have worked long and hard to achieve...it's what you do on Sunday.

[Beebe's Kid]

Bottom line... A union has it's place and time. But they (unions in general) have historically been stupid with their demands in times of economic stress.

They were instrumental in getting us 40 hour work weeks... Fair compensation... Weekends off (other than OT), etc., etc. They were also instrumental in running GM (and America Axle for that matter) out of Buffalo. Ask Detroit what they think about unions.

All I'm saying is this... Maybe these are the times when a unions demands are the very thing that gets the plant closed down. Maybe they ought not be calling "pay increases", "pay cuts" in this economy. Unless of course we feel, as middle class fans, like we're not being push out of our seat (or parking spot) at the Ralph.

Your take on unions is completely unfounded.

Read "Screwed" by Thom Hartmann. The problem is that there are a lot of facts that go into these conversations that have nothing to do with "unions had their time and place" or the "unioins rand GM out of Buffalo."

Those are what you are supposed to believe so you think that your right to organize and seek better than just above poverty with a constant fear of being **** canned or cut back.

Don't believe me, I'm just a bleeding heart....try the book I recommended. There are Acts, facts, sources and everything!!!! If you'd rather just take the opinion that unions are bad, and so on and so on, then I apologize for trying to introduce facts.

Just so I am clear..."I've seen it myself" isn't an argument either. I have seen it myself when my old man got ****ed by his union, or so it would have appeared when the the shop closed, but there is more to it than that.

You don't have to like unions, or a strong middle class...but if you are a part of it, and this is how you feel, I don't know how you could seek some education on the issue, and not see that THAT is the biggest problem.

[Ebenezer]

Why won't the owners open the books?

On one side...the owners shouldn't open their books because they are a private company - i.e., no public stock. They shouldn't open their books any more than the owner of the corner pizza joint.

On the other side...the amount of the cap is based on a percentage of the total income generated by the league. How can an accurate amount be allocated to the players if the owners won't open up their books.

In other words - both sides are wrong.

[Beebe's Kid]

It's a % of revenue. If the revenue is up from 09 levels, and the owners are asking for the players to take a lower % it's a pay cut because they are getting a lower percent of revenue.

I don't think it should be based on a % of revenue anyways. It should be simply a structured dollar figure.

I get what your saying, it's their argument, not mine.

% of revenue is how the NFLPA is trying to ride the waive of growing popularity and subsequently, growing income. There is not real way to forecast.

% of revenue could backfire, too. If revenues dropped so do salaries. They will keep raising the price of beer, and merchandise, tickets, parking, Sunday Ticket, etc etc, so there is really no fear of revenue decreasing.

I mean to keep raising the prices of all of that stuff seems completely realistic, because I know that all of my friends and family are getting annual raises and are making more now than ever...and since the cost of everything else; gas, groceries, etc, is dropping...what the hell else are we going to buy?!?!

There will be a tipping point....at least for me anyway.

[Ebenezer]

...and since the cost of everything else; gas, groceries, etc, is dropping...what the hell else are we going to buy?!?!

where do you live and where do you shop? If you've looked lately you'd see that the price of gasoline is skyrocketing and groceries go up all the time.

[Beebe's Kid]

On one side...the owners shouldn't open their books because they are a private company - i.e., no public stock. They shouldn't open their books any more than the owner of the corner pizza joint.

On the other side...the amount of the cap is based on a percentage of the total income generated by the league. How can an accurate amount be allocated to the players if the owners won't open up their books.

In other words - both sides are wrong.

You're absolutely right. They don't have to. It was a good effort, and a justified effort, after the players were hearing them cry broke for so long. It was the "I'll take a cut, show me you're bleeding too." move. They knew it was bull****, and asking to see the books, and the owners' refusal just made it public knowledge.

[Ebenezer]

You're absolutely right. They don't have to. It was a good effort, and a justified effort, after the players were hearing them cry broke for so long. It was the "I'll take a cut, show me you're bleeding too." move. They knew it was bull****, and asking to see the books, and the owners' refusal just made it public knowledge.
The owners have never cried broke. They are insisting they need more money to improve other things around the league so that future revenues continue to increase. Whether that is true or not we will never know but they aren't crying broke - nobody would ever believe that.

[Beebe's Kid]

where do you live and where do you shop? If you've looked lately you'd see that the price of gasoline is skyrocketing and groceries go up all the time.

It was sarcasm, Eb...sorry.

I am saying that we are being priced out of our own society. I was, also, pointing out that in their little world, the players/owners have no fear of losing revenue...none.

They are hedging all of there bets that revenues will continue to rise, at record paces, for at least the foreseeable future. I am saying that at the rate we are going, it won't be long before many of us cut the fat, and football is fat.

[Ebenezer]

It was sarcasm, Eb...sorry.

I am saying that we are being priced out of our own society. I was, also, pointing out that in their little world, the players/owners have no fear of losing revenue...none.

They are hedging all of there bets that revenues will continue to rise, at record paces, for at least the foreseeable future. I am saying that at the rate we are going, it won't be long before many of us cut the fat, and football is fat.


Sorry, the sarcasm didn't come through. LOL.

Can't disagree with what you said.

[Beebe's Kid]

The owners have never cried broke. They are insisting they need more money to improve other things around the league so that future revenues continue to increase. Whether that is true or not we will never know but they aren't crying broke - nobody would ever believe that.

"Crying broke" was a little harsh. Their claiming that the players' proposal would, at any level, infringe on them being whatever they want/need to do is nuts, and we all know that. They were just PC about saying they want more money.

There is nothing wrong with that either, it is the way capitalism is intended to work.

[Ebenezer]

"Crying broke" was a little harsh. Their claiming that the players' proposal would, at any level, infringe on them being whatever they want/need to do is nuts, and we all know that. They were just PC about saying they want more money.

There is nothing wrong with that either, it is the way capitalism is intended to work.
Correct...doesn't matter if it is the NFL or if it is the corner pizza joint...the owner always wants to keep costs down, regardless of what they previously paid, and put as much back in their pocket. They are not all Pegula.

[Forward_Lateral]

If you and your co-workers went to your bosses and told them to tell the owner of wherever you work that you want to see the books, what do you think would happen?

Gimme a break.

[methos4ever]

If you and your co-workers went to your bosses and told them to tell the owner of wherever you work that you want to see the books, what do you think would happen?

Gimme a break.
But F_L if the case was as it is with the NFL wouldn't that be justified?

See below :

But before he moved on, I also replied that the question didn't apply to the current NFL labor impasse. I went on to tell him if I had admitted publicly that my business was earning significant profits but that I wanted my employees to give me back between 20-30 percent of their income so I could invest in the business because that was the only way I could continue growing my profits, even though I had no intentions of sharing any of my equity in the company with them, I'd have a very different answer. I'd turn over every significant piece of information they requested and sit with them 24 hours a day, seven days a week keeping their coffee hot and refreshments fresh for however long it took to justify my demand. After all, if I were telling the truth, what could I possibly have to hide?

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/13/nfl-owners-to-blame-for-the-lockout

[McBFLO]

One thing I hope we can all agree on is that the NFLPA is barely comparable to the teacher unions, the police and firefighters unions, et al. Yes, they're both unions, and they both have the right to collectively bargain (unless you're in Wisconsin... or soon to be in Ohio, Indiana... thank your local Republican politicians for that!), but that's just about where the comparisons end. So to say 'unions are bad' when talking about the NFL/NFLPA labor situation, while not only being totally absurd, also throws the more 'everyday' unions into the mix, which is totally unfair and untrue.

[better days]

But F_L if the case was as it is with the NFL wouldn't that be justified?

See below :

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/13/nfl-owners-to-blame-for-the-lockout


IMO the only thing the players need to be concerned about is the salary cap & benefits package.

The higher the cap the more they will be paid. They have no real reason or justification IMO to know how much owners make. They are employees, not partners, they have nothing invested in the business of the NFL.

[Ebenezer]

IMO the only thing the players need to be concerned about is the salary cap & benefits package.

The higher the cap the more they will be paid. They have no real reason or justification IMO to know how much owners make. They are employees, not partners, they have nothing invested in the business of the NFL.
they have perfect justification to know the true revenues of the game if the salary cap & benefits package is based on a percentage of those true revenues. show me one person here that wouldn't be pissed if they were told they were going to make 10% of the net and their boss lied about the net and they were only paid 6%.

[better days]

they have perfect justification to know the true revenues of the game if the salary cap & benefits package is based on a percentage of those true revenues. show me one person here that wouldn't be pissed if they were told they were going to make 10% of the net and their boss lied about the net and they were only paid 6%.

Well, I think the owners made a HUGE mistake in the last CBA in agreeing to a percentage in the first place. I am saying the players should not even need to know the percentage all they need to know is the dollar amount of the cap plus benefit package.

There was a time before the players started everything that brought on free agency when the average person could easily afford to go to games & take the entire family & sit in good seats as well.

Today, thanks to the players greed the majority of people sitting in the best seats is not a true fan & probably can't even name more than a few players on the team.

With the players decertification of the Union & taking the NFL to court again, there is a very real possibility the NFL will be forever changed & you can trust me, it won't be for the better. You can thank the greedy players for that if it happens & the NFL becomes a league like baseball where only the big market teams have a real shot at winning.

[Ebenezer]

Well, I think the owners made a HUGE mistake in the last CBA in agreeing to a percentage in the first place. I am saying the players should not even need to know the percentage all they need to know is the dollar amount of the cap plus benefit package.

There was a time before the players started everything that brought on free agency when the average person could easily afford to go to games & take the entire family & sit in good seats as well.

Today, thanks to the players greed the majority of people sitting in the best seats is not a true fan & probably can't even name more than a few players on the team.

With the players decertification of the Union & taking the NFL to court again, there is a very real possibility the NFL will be forever changed & you can trust me, it won't be for the better. You can thank the greedy players for that if it happens & the NFL becomes a league like baseball where only the big market teams have a real shot at winning.
do you really think the owners aren't greedy?? They drive the game. They pay the players. Their contract offers are what drive up costs. If the owners had held their position in 1987 they could have destroyed the union. Pete Metzalaars was still driving a beat up Chevette. Both sides are at fault - neither wanted a settlement. I've said many times - go back and watch Rollerball (the one made in 1975, not the piece of crap from 2008). What a prophetic movie.

[X-Era]

they have perfect justification to know the true revenues of the game if the salary cap & benefits package is based on a percentage of those true revenues. show me one person here that wouldn't be pissed if they were told they were going to make 10% of the net and their boss lied about the net and they were only paid 6%.I agree. It is the crux of their argument and it has some logic to it.

However, that's also why I have a problem with this owner/player relationship. The organizations should not expose their internal books, and the owners should be negotiating for a set dollar figure and be done with it.

[X-Era]

do you really think the owners aren't greedy?? They drive the game. They pay the players. Their contract offers are what drive up costs. If the owners had held their position in 1987 they could have destroyed the union. Pete Metzalaars was still driving a beat up Chevette. Both sides are at fault - neither wanted a settlement. I've said many times - go back and watch Rollerball (the one made in 1975, not the piece of crap from 2008). What a prophetic movie.Jerry Jones cares about one thing, his wallett.

[Ebenezer]

I agree. It is the crux of their argument and it has some logic to it.

However, that's also why I have a problem with this owner/player relationship. The organizations should not expose their internal books, and the owners should be negotiating for a set dollar figure and be done with it.
I never meant to imply that the owners should open their books...however, since the salary cap is directly attached to a percentage of said revenues by default they committed themselves to open up their books.

[Ebenezer]

Jerry Jones cares about one thing, his wallett.
He needs to spend more money on a better toupee.

[better days]

do you really think the owners aren't greedy?? They drive the game. They pay the players. Their contract offers are what drive up costs. If the owners had held their position in 1987 they could have destroyed the union. Pete Metzalaars was still driving a beat up Chevette. Both sides are at fault - neither wanted a settlement. I've said many times - go back and watch Rollerball (the one made in 1975, not the piece of crap from 2008). What a prophetic movie.

Of course the owners are greedy, that is a given, they always were & always will be. But it is the greed of the players & with the Courts intervention that has caused prices in the NFL to skyrocket.

God only knows how this will all play out, but there is a real possibility that the Courts could say the NFL is no longer allowed to negotiate a TV deal together & you could see separate TV deals for each team such as baseball has. If that happens the NFL will become like baseball where only the big market teams have a real shot at winning. If it comes to that, you can thank the greed of the players, not the owners because the players are the party that want to settle things in court rather than by negotiation.

[Ebenezer]

Of course the owners are greedy, that is a given, they always were & always will be. But it is the greed of the players & with the Courts intervention that has caused prices in the NFL to skyrocket.

God only knows how this will all play out, but there is a real possibility that the Courts could say the NFL is no longer allowed to negotiate a TV deal together & you could see separate TV deals for each team such as baseball has. If that happens the NFL will become like baseball where only the big market teams have a real shot at winning. If it comes to that, you can thank the greed of the players, not the owners because the players are the party that want to settle things in court rather than by negotiation.
won't happen. there is a huge difference between 16 games 17 times a year and the 162 game marathon played by 30 teams. if the NFL goes that route they will slit their own throat, cease to exist as we know it and have only themselves to blame. At that point, good riddance. If your biggest worry about this lockout/strike is the break up of a national TV contract I don't think you have anything to worry about.

as to the players greed - the players are not the driving force. owners give out the contracts. the owners are afraid without the best players that nobody will watch. nobody watching = no TV or merchandise revenue. That's why they keep throwing money at the players. The players could very easily still be making pennies...the owners caved and gave away the store too many times in the past.

[better days]

won't happen. there is a huge difference between 16 games 17 times a year and the 162 game marathon played by 30 teams. if the NFL goes that route they will slit their own throat, cease to exist as we know it and have only themselves to blame. At that point, good riddance. If your biggest worry about this lockout/strike is the break up of a national TV contract I don't think you have anything to worry about.

as to the players greed - the players are not the driving force. owners give out the contracts. the owners are afraid without the best players that nobody will watch. nobody watching = no TV or merchandise revenue. That's why they keep throwing money at the players. The players could very easily still be making pennies...the owners caved and gave away the store too many times in the past.

If it happens it will not be because that is what the owners want but rather a court ruling due to the players suing the NFL. It could very easily happen if the courts decide to rule that way. Of course the players greed is the driving force. They are the party that left the table & decided to go to court.

[Ebenezer]

If it happens it will not be because that is what the owners want but rather a court ruling due to the players suing the NFL. It could very easily happen if the courts decide to rule that way. Of course the players greed is the driving force. They are the party that left the table & decided to go to court.
Look, the owners stake in this is billions...the players are merely their million dollar investments. They must have the players to keep the golden goose going. Hence, the reason the owners kick so much money to the players. The value of the seasonal profit and the value of their franchises does not escalate without the best players playing the game - that is why they pay them so much money. Again, think back to '87. The players had nothing. The league set up scab games. It was a disaster. If fans had showed up and watched out of shape nobodies, has beens and never wases then the union would have been destroyed and the players would have played for peanuts. The two sides came together and forged a deal where the owners got super rich and all they had to do is invest in the players. This year is not about greed. This is an orchestrated stare down to see if these two can cooperate. Any thought that either side is trying to destroy the game is silly. Each side has new negotiators - this is not the Gene & Tags show. Because of that, each side is trying to show how strong they are. There is no need to have a settlement now. They are going to see which way the courts decided before they progress. Each side has very powerful lawyers that wouldn't let them step on landmines...sit patient. In a few months nobody will be worrying about the greed of anybody.

[better days]

Look, the owners stake in this is billions...the players are merely their million dollar investments. They must have the players to keep the golden goose going. Hence, the reason the owners kick so much money to the players. The value of the seasonal profit and the value of their franchises does not escalate without the best players playing the game - that is why they pay them so much money. Again, think back to '87. The players had nothing. The league set up scab games. It was a disaster. If fans had showed up and watched out of shape nobodies, has beens and never wases then the union would have been destroyed and the players would have played for peanuts. The two sides came together and forged a deal where the owners got super rich and all they had to do is invest in the players. This year is not about greed. This is an orchestrated stare down to see if these two can cooperate. Any thought that either side is trying to destroy the game is silly. Each side has new negotiators - this is not the Gene & Tags show. Because of that, each side is trying to show how strong they are. There is no need to have a settlement now. They are going to see which way the courts decided before they progress. Each side has very powerful lawyers that wouldn't let them step on landmines...sit patient. In a few months nobody will be worrying about the greed of anybody.

Well, both sides hired LITIGATORS, not negotiatiors. The players want to settle this in Court & every NFL fan should be concerned about the Courts ruling because it could well change the NFL forever.

This year is ALL ABOUT GREED. The owners decided they gave up too much in the last CBA so they decided to opt out of it. The greed of the players is the reason they do not want to settle for anything less than they got in the last CBA.