Thread: Trotter: NFL won't expand season to 18 games

Originally Posted by dabears54

I'm torn, and here's why.

As an business owner your employees don't know your books and unless the union wants to also open up the players finances and bank accounts before they sign any big deals, so the owners know how responsile the players are( which we know will never happen), how is that different?.

the difference is, most businesses arent exempt from Monopoly laws like the NFL is. If the NFL wants to keep their exemption, then the owners should be forced to open their books.

Originally Posted by soulman

Even with verification by an independent third party there will still be plenty to disagree about but it's the only way that I can see this moving off the spot that they seem to be fixed on now.

In reality the word partnership is a poor choice of words because it is only an abstract description. In reality it's more of a co-dependency with similar squabbles and periodic dysfunction.

exactly, and guess that's my point, even WITH full disclosure nothing is solved or change, so why bother? heck the packers disclose their info becuase a public company and each year despite "full disclosure" the NFLPA and NFL look at the SAME NUMBERS and give 2 differeent views on them!.. so adding 31 more is going to change what?.. rather just have one independant report giving the the whole league numbers( which are what matter for CBA discussions NOT individual breakdowns anyway) and move on, because all else Noise and more finger pointing and squabbling eading to more hot air and more in fighting

Originally Posted by Jimmors

the difference is, most businesses arent exempt from Monopoly laws like the NFL is. If the NFL wants to keep their exemption, then the owners should be forced to open their books.

Please show me where in any law or busines if you have "monopoly exemption" you are forced to open books? I've never seen that!.. So not sure where that argument comes from. What does opening their books have to do with with a trade exemption for the logical sense of sports league's being one enitity for contract negotiations?

Originally Posted by Dagan81

It's not as if the league isn't making any money. From all indicators that have been presented over the past few years, the NFL is making more money than ever before. That's total bullshit in my book.

Actually this is what this argument is over Dagan- While the NFL is still making more money it is getting to be less and less of a Percentage growth each year- and for some clubs( carolina/jax/minny/st.louis etc) they are probably at the flatline to even negtive growth/ profits right now. So looking Forward trying to find a way to keep viable and profitable, while expenses always rising( salaries, esp medical costs, travel etc), the revenue because of the economy flat or down is where they are at. heck 4 stadiums can't even get naming right deals right now and even 5 and esp 10 years ago, that was an instant layup and $20 mill+ in a teams coffer's they aren't getting anymore.. Its that kind of stuff, while no need to feel bad for the teams, from a strit economic formula and Profit/loss do matter

Originally Posted by dabears54

exactly, and guess that's my point, even WITH full disclosure nothing is solved or change, so why bother? heck the packers disclose their info becuase a public company and each year despite "full disclosure" the NFLPA and NFL look at the SAME NUMBERS and give 2 differeent views on them!.. so adding 31 more is going to change what?.. rather just have one independant report giving the the whole league numbers( which are what matter for CBA discussions NOT individual breakdowns anyway) and move on, because all else Noise and more finger pointing and squabbling eading to more hot air and more in fighting

And so it goes. One decertifies, the other locks out and all of it is just posturing. NFL tries to make players look unreasonable and players say "Fvck It" see you in court and as usual nothing gets accomplished in a climate of disagreement and distrust. If the players want to examine the books then let em' see a compilation of the league's finances. Individual financials are not needed because this is a collective agreement affecting all players and all teams.

NFL needs to do it in a manner that engenders trust not impairs it. The real truth of the matter is that they don't want to and never did. Now, at the midnight hour, they say ok and blame the players for not capitulating. The players say "too little, too late" walk away from the table and decertify the union. Nice posturing from both but it get's them nowhere.

Ever since Doty took away the owner's lock out survival fund they've had to take a little different stance because they were forced to, not because out of the goodness of their hearts they chose to. The players are now on more equal footing with owners which in the international arena usually means that a war will be fought to see who gets the spoils. Only when one side clearly has the advantage does a negotiated peace usually breakout.

Originally Posted by soulman

And so it goes. One decertifies, the other locks out and all of it is just posturing. NFL tries to make players look unreasonable and players say "Fvck It" see you in court and as usual nothing gets accomplished in a climate of disagreement and distrust. If the players want to examine the books then let em' see a compilation of the league's finances. Individual financials are not needed because this is a collective agreement affecting all players and all teams.

NFL needs to do it in a manner that engenders trust not impairs it. The real truth of the matter is that they don't want to and never did. Now, at the midnight hour, they say ok and blame the players for not capitulating. The players say "too little, too late" walk away from the table and decertify the union. Nice posturing from both but it get's them nowhere.

Ever since Doty took away the owner's lock out survival fund they've had to take a little different stance because they were forced to, not because out of the goodness of their hearts they chose to. The players are now on more equal footing with owners which in the international arena usually means that a war will be fought to see who gets the spoils. Only when one side clearly has the advantage does a negotiated peace usually breakout.

Actually it benefits the law firms and lawyers who are demaurice's friends. Sorry i think he neve intended to work a thing ou, wanted this granstanding and lawsuits from day 1 - agree about the Fund, but disagree Strongly about needing 32 seperate 10 years worht of financials, that's total BS and serves zero purose, all you need is an indepeendant 3rd part audit of the total amount( which si what relly fighting over the % slice of the Pie) and until that gets solved will just be this childish pissing match on both sides,,

But do think once its appealed out of dooty's court and highe up, the pendulum swings back to owners..

Originally Posted by Dagan81

This is where you are going to want to gouge my eyes out. This is why there should not be a salary cap in my estimation. Listen to this: if we allow all teams to spend what they will on free agents, and have a "mythical" cap figure of, say, $130-140 million in place, any team who goes over that cap will be forced to pay a revenue sharing tax to be distributed to other teams in the league. It works well in baseball, as several teams have gone out with the money redistribution and used it on player development and purchasing key free agents to fill spots in their line ups. In the past ten years in Major League Baseball, only one team has won more than two championships (Boston Red Sox), and there have been no repeat champions.

In 2001, the Arizona Diamondbacks won the World Series; the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim did so in 2002, as did the Florida Marlins in 2003. The Chicago White Sox won the World Series in 2005, the St. Louis Cardinals did in '06, and in '10, the San Francisco Giants won the Fall Classic. The Colorado Rockies made it to the World Series in 2007, but lost to the Red Sox; the Tigers lost to the Cardinals in '06. Last season, the Texas Rangers lost to the Giants in the Series. The Twins have won six division titles since 2002, and the Oakland A's experienced great success up until just a few years ago when the team traded away all of its talent.

The point I'm getting at, DB, is that baseball's system is working. If teams in smaller markets/those with limited capacities to pay large sums of money to players can find ways of winning using this system, then there is no doubt in my mind that it would work in football.

ITS DOESN"T WORK IN BASEBALL!.. what about kansas city? pittsburgh? they small market team now serve as the "minor leagues" for the large market teams.. and while occassionally the small market team can rise up for 1-2 year with good Scouting, it then gets quickly dismantled and sold off to the yankee's ,sox, chicago etc.. as seen by ariz,florida and now tampa losing all their superstars when can't affrd them. i know works' for you becuase you are a yankee fan so when they screw up, they jsut buy more tlent and always in the race( even if don't win).. 70% of the league can't sustain that like the yankees. disagree very stongly baseball works..

Btw if "baseball " is working and NFL isn't.. why are baeball ratings stll in decline, and football not? Why did for the first time ever, a world series game get lower ratings than a early football game going head/head? that isn't what anyone calls success of their sport, sorry