The real victims of the work stoppageSome NFL

**dabears54** · 03-25-2011, 06:09 AM

The real victims of the work stoppage

Some NFL teams are picking on employees who don't deserve to be picked on. Dan Pompei

In the war between owners and players, the coaches and front office employees should be treated like women and children. But instead of protecting them, some NFL owners are making them the first victims of the fight.

NFL owners have yet to lose a dime over the work stoppage. In fact, almost all of them continue to make stacks of Benjamins with your season-ticket money. Players have lost only their benefits up until this point, because their paychecks come 17 times a year during the season.

But team employees on at least six teams who have nothing to do with the dispute are losing money. Many of these employees are the hardest working, most loyal and least compensated people in their buildings.

won’t be critical of owners for wanting to see their profit margins increase. That’s their right. But I will be critical of owners for taking advantage of the $90,000 a year assistant defensive backs coach, the $60,000 a year scouting assistant, and the $40,000 a year assistant groundskeeper.

How the millionaires and billionaires who own NFL teams can justify this is beyond me. If owners want to pick a fight with the players so they can make more money, the burden of risk should fall on their shoulders, and only their shoulders. The defense of the owners is that everyone but the players is part of management in this fight. The flaw in that argument is only the owners and players have something to gain.

The bad guys in this story are the owners of the Cardinals, Chargers, Chiefs, Jets, Ravens and Steelers, and probably a few others who have yet to be outed. I have great respect for a number of these owners. Some of them have been among the most upstanding in the league, and they usually run their organizations with class and dignity. That’s what makes these actions so puzzling.

What’s more, some of these teams have threatened their employees not to disclose information about pay cuts, even going so far as to tell them they could be fired with cause if they complain publicly.

Only eight teams have included clauses in the contracts of coaches that insure they won’t lose money unless games are cancelled, according to NFL Coaches Association director Larry Kennan. Twelve or 13 teams that we know of have given coaches contracts that say they can take a percentage of their salary at some point in the offseason. It is believed the Chargers, Chiefs, Jets, and Steelers enacted immediate pay cuts, according to a published report.

I’ve learned the Ravens also have. The Cardinals are forcing a one week furlough on employees if the work stoppage hasn’t ended by May 23. “Most of the teams in the NFL treat their coaches and employees fairly,” Kennan said. “We have no issues with them. But there are 10 to 12 who don’t treat them fairly.”

Different teams are handling the cuts in different ways. Some teams are telling employees they will be re-compensated if no games are cancelled. But that’s not of much help to the assistant equipment manager who just bought a new house and was counting on 100 percent of his pay check every two weeks to pay the monthly mortgage.

The Packers have the contractual right to cut the pay of coaches and all football personnel, as well as 20 of their high-ranking administrators, after 60 days of a work stoppage. If no games are lost, those employees would get their money back.
The Ravens are imposing 25 percent pay cuts, but will give the money back if 16 games are played. Cutting salaries if games are cancelled is not unreasonable. But why cut them now? The Ravens also are offering interest-free loans to employees.

At least this confirms that greed is very much a part of everything that’s happening in the NFL right now.

**loki520** · 03-25-2011, 08:14 AM

Here's a chance for the players to win the PR war, once and for all, with a knock-out punch.

Will they?

**dabears54** · 03-25-2011, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by loki520

Here's a chance for the players to win the PR war, once and for all, with a knock-out punch.

Will they?

why? the players( and the owners also) have shown ZERO inclination to care or do a thing except their own self-interests, doubt that changes from either side

**dabears54** · 03-25-2011, 10:59 AM

and doubt goes anywhere, but funny:

Fan sues Browns, NFL for lockout

Businessman upset with NFL labor dispute Aaron Wilson

A fan has sued the Cleveland Browns and the NFL because of the labor dispute that has triggered a lockout, a decertified players' union and litigation.

Ken Lanci is upset about it, writing in his lawsuit that the lockout represents a violation of the personal seat license contract with the team since there's a chance he might not get to see a full season of home games, according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Per the report, Lanci filed the suit in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court.

Lanci, 60, who's a self-made millionaire who owns 10 PSL seats in the club section, told the newspaper he wants to affect positive change.

"What tipped the scale for me is the labor issue between millionaires and billionaires and the fact they can't settle it when the country is in a recession," Lanci said. "Worse yet, they have to rub this in our faces."

Who's side is Lanci on?

"The players union says NFL owners are offering what will be the worst deal ever," Lanci said. "Really? How about being unemployed? Right now they get 59 percent of the take, and that's beyond comprehension.

"These players should get on their knees and be grateful they can play a game for that kind of money when so many others in this city and country are hurting financially."

**soulman** · 03-26-2011, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by dabears54

why? the players( and the owners also) have shown ZERO inclination to care or do a thing except their own self-interests, doubt that changes from either side

That's not the point. So far the owners have cast the players as greedy, ungrateful employees who already make millions but still want more. The American middle class can't identify with the players plight so easily because of this so they buy into the owners propaganda.

But, if the payers were to point out the plight of "Every Day Joe" employees who are losing their jobs or having their salaries cut by their employers who are still raking in beaucuop cash from season ticket and merchandise sales daily the PR pendulum may swing.

This Middle America can identify with and the players gain back some esteem and understanding from the public by beating some of the owners over the head with this evidence of their behavior as cheapskates. I think this is what Loki was getting at.

**loki520** · 03-26-2011, 08:11 PM

Yes, that is part of it. When the billionaires screw over those making 75k or less annually, it's the perfect time to point out the "greed" of STILL making millions while cutting an annual salary of less than 75k by 25%.

"Trade Association", "Union", "Group of players", "Owners nemesis"... It doesn't matter WHAT you call them. They should gather all the players who make more than a certain amount (i.e., 500k) and take up a collection. And then let every... EVERY... team employee that makes less than 50k annually (groundskeeper, etc.) know that the difference between normal annual salary, and any 'cut' salary, will be covered by the players. Those that make mid to low five figures should not be victims of a dispute between M and B's.

Trust me... in a scenario where both sides paint the other as greedy, the side who actually goes out and protects the employees from the other, and does it because it's the right thing to do as opposed to a marketing strategy, wins the PR battle.

**soulman** · 03-26-2011, 08:18 PM

Nice strategy if the players decide to take advantage of it. Shows some solidarity with other team employees who don't have the benefit of collective bargaining. Loki, send this idea to Mike Vrabel and see what happens.

**dabears54** · 03-28-2011, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by loki520

Yes, that is part of it. When the billionaires screw over those making 75k or less annually, it's the perfect time to point out the "greed" of STILL making millions while cutting an annual salary of less than 75k by 25%.

"Trade Association", "Union", "Group of players", "Owners nemesis"... It doesn't matter WHAT you call them. They should gather all the players who make more than a certain amount (i.e., 500k) and take up a collection. And then let every... EVERY... team employee that makes less than 50k annually (groundskeeper, etc.) know that the difference between normal annual salary, and any 'cut' salary, will be covered by the players. Those that make mid to low five figures should not be victims of a dispute between M and B's.

Trust me... in a scenario where both sides paint the other as greedy, the side who actually goes out and protects the employees from the other, and does it because it's the right thing to do as opposed to a marketing strategy, wins the PR battle.

wile it would be a great move, there is ZERO chance of it loki..

let's face it, the players for the most part selfish "me-me" people unfortunately.. hell 2 years ago when the plight of the "retired players" first brought up, and the players reminded it was the UNION HEAD THAT SCRWED UP, and told them all to cash their pensions becuase 'they will not live to be 40+"... and now in a really bad straight and ditka and others campaining to help them and to help the "image of the union", and help their fellow football breathern, the union asked all players to donate 1 paycheck( or part of their week 15 salary), to the cause to raise the money - and you can't think of a more close cause for the players, as these were the guys who got them their big salaries.. and ya know what??

6 guys did it!(turley from kc started it, 2 from new englad one from rams one from bears( kreutz) and can't remember the other

So while sounds nice and logical- if they couldn't get these guys to help their fellow union members and trailblasers.. thechance of them helping the staff's? alot less, imo

**loki520** · 03-28-2011, 06:31 AM

Oh, I agree with you 100%.

I'm just merely pointing out that if the would do this, it would be the knock-out punch to the public's perception of who the "greedy" one's are.

**dabears54** · 03-28-2011, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by loki520

Oh, I agree with you 100%.

I'm just merely pointing out that if the would do this, it would be the knock-out punch to the public's perception of who the "greedy" one's are.

and guess playing devil's advocate, by not doing it,, does that also show who the 'greedy" one's are?.. guess as have said- Sick of both sides, and sick of the name calling and finger pointing,, its solving nothing and getting furhter away from both sides.. and now only the bloodsucking lawyers happy and making $$$.

The last NFL offer was $320 million apart from what the union wanted..

The Union wants the books...

So sit the heads of both in a room, split the $320 million down the middle, have a 3rd party big 6 accounting firm look at the 32 teams 10 years of financials( understand from a competitive standpoint why the individual teams don't want the others knowing all their individual details and serves no purpose for a CBA that is done in the aggrgate to get this breakdown.. The accountant verifes the numbers for each team,and is giving access to each teams CFO to ask questions and confirm the numbers and what they are doing- verifies the projections and gives a public report of the aggragate and impact for any CBA number.

Done and done.. and all this blather and nonsense can stop..

Thread: The real victims of the work stoppageSome NFL

LinkBack

Thread Tools

The real victims of the work stoppageSome NFL

Posting Permissions