Thread: Chicago meetings pivotal for Goodell

Originally Posted by dabears54

lawsuit fees and more dollars for 2 reasons.

There would have been no reason for attorneys fees if there was no lawsuit and if an agreement on the new CBA had been reached based upon what now seems to be discussed ( a percentage of current and future revenues) and will be put in front of the owners for approval. Any lawsuit would have been superfluous if an agreement had been reached. As to the second reason, the owners steadfastly refused to consider a continuation of the 2006 accord and willingly give the players a percentage of the revenues. They offered dollars not percentages which is exactly what the players had finally gotten in 2006 and did not want to give up. It wasn't about more but rather maintaining the status quo.

Originally Posted by dabears54

that article B.S.( written by the 'christian monitor' fwiw) and said owners are still making money( of course didn't back up this statment with a shred of evidence or facts).. but somehow to you that means must be true?.. and will try again SOME owners are NOT making money now( never said all , just SOME) and yes OVERALL the league is still making money.. So only one missing FACTS was that article you seem to hold dear.

the POINT is you can't have owner's losing money consistently for the health of a league, and tha is what is happening nw and has been getting worse.. so do you just say "screw it! let's keep losing more money each year!! because 'some" clubs still making it.. OR do you intelligently look at the situation and FIX THE PROBLEMS and inequity of the 006 deal that has SOME ( not all but some)
clubs losing money and itsgaining in the loses yearly..

and btw since you felt 60/40 to the players Still was too generous to the owners.. why are the players agreebable to a 48/52 split now.. unless they KNOW how bad and unfair the 60/40 deal was.. just saying you have the ideas wrong

LMAO, would you rather have one from the Bleacher Report. You can't pick and choose what you will or won't believe based on who wrote the article. This didn't come from the Onion. I never once questionned your sources when you posted articles and the Christian Science Monitor is not just some fly by night publication. It's widely read and quoted daily. If Reuters published something on it I would quote them too but apparently it's not world news.

The reason they aren't producing any number to support it is that no accurate numbers are available to research. I think what they're trying to point out, and I am as well, is that in general the owners and the NFL remain profitable and will continue to do so. How profitable is the only unanswered question and we'll never know that because there are no audited financials or 10Q's to look at. I'm willing to admit that some teams are more profitable than others but as a whole they are not losing money and that is what both the article and I are trying to point out.

No where has it ever been said or quoted that the players want the owners to lose money. That would be foolish and very shortsighted on their part wouldn't it? However, they do have a legitimate interest in how much they make and how it is split between them. That it what their disagreement is all about and both of these articles, your and mine, point out the very same thing.

This is not about a new CBA at all. This is about the owners wanting to renegotiate the 2006 CBA and take away the players rights to a percentage of revenues. The players will not agree to give that up and now that the owners realize they won't get that concession from them, that they stand to lose significant $$$ if the season is further delayed, and that the courts may permit the players lawsuit to continue they have reportedly put a proposal on the table which does continue to provide the players with a percentage of current and future revenue growth. From the very beginning that is what the players would go along with and the owners wanted to prevent.

This is not about who's greedy and who's not on an owner by owner basis and it's not about greed on the part of overpaid prima donna football players. This is and has been about the negotiation of a new CBA based upon what had been accomplished alreadly in the last one or at least that's what the players thought and I understood. But to the owners this has been about getting out of what they considered a bad deal and beginning negotiations with a renegotiation of the 2006 CBA agreement and that is what's BULLSHIT!!!

I have never said or posted differently and it's getting tough to continue to debate this with you along any different lines than this. There's nothing more to say and your own post in the thread starter affirms everything that I've been saying all along. I quote;

The problem is that ever since the owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008, there has been a strong subset of them who have pushed to fight the now decertified NFLPA for significant rollbacks in the portion of money going to players. Intitially, this was not just a slight adjustment this group was seeking. It was an attempt to turn back the clock to pre-2006, when players shared in only a part of pro football revenue, not all of it. They didn't just want a chunk of money back; they wanted a $1 billion dollar boulder right off the top to go with the other $1 billion they were already getting.

That was $2 billion going straight into the owners' pockets from the little more than $9 billion the league currently makes. When that idea crumbled, the owners countered with a system that didn't account for potentially huge increases in revenue that are expected to occur when the televisions contract, which expire after the 2013 season, are renegotiated. That's when the players, frustrated with the perceived shell game and the lack of respect that went with it, walked away from negotitations in March, decertified as a union and filed a lawsuit.

The above comes directly from your post of an article from Yahoo Sports! Are they full of shit too? The sentence I have underlined indicates to me, and I'm sure many others, that the owners were as prepared for this to go to court as the players. Their attitude and behavior virtually assured it so to say the the players alone planned it is also BULLSHIT!!!!

Maybe the cooler heads will prevail and the moderates will tell the hardliners to "pound sand" but what has happened during the past three months has been a direct result of the position the owners took during over two years of negotiation and until they pull back from the posture that they are renegotiating 2006 all over again nothing will be solved.

LMAO, would you rather have one from the Bleacher Report.You can't pick and choose what you will or won't believe based on who wrote the article

no they are unreliable also and sure you can CHOOSE who.. if talking financial figures, give me something from forbes, financial times, heck even clayton from spn who links numbers and backs up what they are saying.. not just "make a claim',, but not offer one shred of proof its true.. you know better soul.. theere is a vast difference between an unsubstainted claim and let's say like forbes breaking down all the revenue streasm, giving estimates and showing balances for the difference in the 2 articles and the credibilty of the claims

This is not about a new CBA at all. This is about the owners wanting to renegotiate the 2006 CBA and take away the players rights to a percentage of revenues,,,But to the owners this has been about getting out of what they considered a bad deal and beginning negotiations with a renegotiation of the 2006 CBA agreement and that is what's BULLSHIT!!!

Again do not understand this.. there is no 'rights" to anything, its a contract and agreement, and no rights are attached. And again contracts ALWAYS either get better or worse for each side, nature of business and negotations. Why do you take th stance that the union should never give back and always get more? that makes no sense.And its that attitude that KILLED most unions in this country, and lead to companies either going overseas or going non-union, because they always wanted more no matter how the companies doing and it bleed them dry.

jsut like the owner's shouldn't have just said "well the cap is 48 million' and that's the status quo, so we will not negotae it higher, as that already what we have!-- you would find that stance ridiculous.. so why isn't the opposite true?

the owner's had the better deal for many years, and FINALLY in 2006 the pendulum swung the other way, with the players getting the better deal and shafting the owners( heck even the union leaders admit this!),,, so OF COURSE THE NEXT CONTRACT WILL BE THEM GIVING SOME BACK.. the only question was "how much"..( and as seen from was looks like the agreement it was a give back as expected).. I just do not understand your stance of negotations HAve to be "one-sided" and once one side gets soemthign it can enver be give back.. esp when the union has been asking and getting stuff FROM the owners for 15 years.. why doesn't that theory apply to the owner's side?

Originally Posted by dabears54

no they are unreliable also and sure you can CHOOSE who.. if talking financial figures, give me something from forbes, financial times, heck even clayton from spn who links numbers and backs up what they are saying.. not just "make a claim',, but not offer one shred of proof its true.. you know better soul.. theere is a vast difference between an unsubstainted claim and let's say like forbes breaking down all the revenue streasm, giving estimates and showing balances for the difference in the 2 articles and the credibilty of the claims



Again do not understand this.. there is no 'rights" to anything, its a contract and agreement, and no rights are attached. And again contracts ALWAYS either get better or worse for each side, nature of business and negotations. Why do you take th stance that the union should never give back and always get more? that makes no sense.And its that attitude that KILLED most unions in this country, and lead to companies either going overseas or going non-union, because they always wanted more no matter how the companies doing and it bleed them dry.

jsut like the owner's shouldn't have just said "well the cap is 48 million' and that's the status quo, so we will not negotae it higher, as that already what we have!-- you would find that stance ridiculous.. so why isn't the opposite true?

the owner's had the better deal for many years, and FINALLY in 2006 the pendulum swung the other way, with the players getting the better deal and shafting the owners( heck even the union leaders admit this!),,, so OF COURSE THE NEXT CONTRACT WILL BE THEM GIVING SOME BACK.. the only question was "how much"..( and as seen from was looks like the agreement it was a give back as expected).. I just do not understand your stance of negotations HAve to be "one-sided" and once one side gets soemthign it can enver be give back.. esp when the union has been asking and getting stuff FROM the owners for 15 years.. why doesn't that theory apply to the owner's side?

I give up pal. I show you in your own post where the writer agrees with what I've been saying has been the bone of contention all along between the two sides. If you don't buy that why post it? I've posted any number of other articles, incuding todays, from sources including Yahoo Sports that have all seemingly come to the same conclusion. The sport of pro football is not in any dire financial straits and, even it things may have gotten tighter recently, they are not losing money nor will they in the immediate and forseeable future. In fact it would appear that quite the opposite is true yet you seem somehow to ignore this fact and go on quoting past figures from one team and it has no bearing on anything going forward from here. I've said before that I wouldn't take anything as the whole of the NFL from the basis of just that one team but you have nothing else to present so you keep doing it over and over again even when the principle of it has been rejected as insufficient to base that state of the entire NFL on!

That's pretty much what the owners have been doing and your methods of defending their positions are similar. First you claim that the players planned to walked away from the table from the start when the weight of evidence tells me that they would have stayed to bargain had the NFL presented them with anything else but a recast and warmed over version of the same lousy deal that they had been proposing for over two years. Nothing changed in March so they walked but it is changing now since the NFL has quietly agreed to negotiate on the basis of a percentage of revenues and not a fixed dollar amount. They also seem to have come off of their insistence on an extra $1 bil off the top. If the players would have agreed to the March proposals they would have given up anywhere from $300 to $750 mil up. The wait paid off in both ways. No more owners skim and a continuation of the revenue sharing on a percentage basis.

Had this proposal been on the table in March then I contend the players would not have walked when they were very near and agreement. They're not walking now are they? The owners played their hand out as long as they could before getting real and so have the players. This is not about who won or who lost or who was right and who was wrong. That's not my point. All I'm saying is that these were the facts of the break down in negotiations in March. I simply describe it as trying to negotiate 2006 all over again or the NFL bargaining backwards and that is exactly what they were doing. How much clearer could that be when every article being written now indicates that and the NFL isn't even refuting it.

You have taken the position that it was not what they were doing and that a fair and acceptable offer had been presented in March and the players spurned it preferring instead to go to court. It's pretty clear that an acceptable offer based on a revenue sharing percentage had not been offered in March but one which is based on that is on the table now. You also have taken the position that the owners needed to lower costs by undoing this deal because of deteriorating economics yet all you can produce to document it is the financial reports of the only publicy owned NFL team. Then you invalidate my positions by saying that I haven't documented anything. If you don't want to acknowledge what is now becoming a pretty commonly accepted truth, that the NFL is not struggling anywhere near as much as it claimed, so be it but they were the ones who wouldn't document it so neither could you on an across the board basis.

The bottom line is that your truths are not anymore documented than mine. The only difference is that the weight of the evidence is now tilting towards the players position from the start. The NFL played it games as it does and I'm not even saying that they shouldn't have. They could and did bargain anyway they wanted once they scrapped the 2006 CBA. All I've been saying all along is that this is what they've been doing all along and it was the main reason why the deal wasn't sealed in March. Nothing that's happening now or being reported belies that in anyway. I just got tired of hearing that it was the players who caused this labor dispute by not bargaining fairly when the evidence both then an now indicated just the opposite. You can't see it any other way now that it's all in the light of day. You can say that they were entitled to do it but you can't say that they didn't and that's been my sole point for 3 months.

If you don't buy that why post it?

because like "information" and even if do not agree, to make a more intelligent decision or line of thought, better to SHOW BOTH SIDES, and so post both "pro" and "con" articles.. because you can learn from both sides.

The sport of pro football is not in any dire financial straits and, even it things may have gotten tighter recently

And that's the CRUX of the issue, you seem to ignore. Things 'getting tighter, so of course as a Successful businessman, you do NOT continue down the SAME PATH that is giving you less and less a profit, do you? and if do you will not be a successful business much longer. Smart business FIX the problem BEFORE it becomes "dire" and not wait until almost completely screwed before changing and that's what this is about( ask hockey about waiting until it was dire). And we have talked abotu this before, and "most" writers, do not understand business, and just 'think" an owner making $10-25 mill/yr is "great" and complaing about that "greedy".. but you know better- if you invested as many owner's ahve $600 mill-$1 bill ina franchise and it "only returned 10 mill -25 mill, that's a 1-2.5% return on your investment and not very good. And that is the BIGGEST PROBLEM, the idea of owner's making a REASOANBLE return on their investment is a "bad thing" and 'greedy".. and to me it isn't.. and a teams making $40- 50 mill is a reasonable return on the investment.Just like do not think its 'fair" to call tom brady and manning "greedy" for making $20 mill/yr.. do not think the owner of the team making what they do or more is an unreasoanble request or goal.

I've said before that I wouldn't take anything as the whole of the NFL from the basis of just that one team but you have nothing else to present so you keep doing it over and over again even when the principle of it has been rejected as insufficient to base that state of the entire NFL on!

present the packers BECAUSE ITS KNOWN AND TRUE.. if presented anything else you jsut say 'speculation" and may not be true.. so that's why present the packers numbers.. and soul as have said DO THINK packers numbers very good starting point.. and probably a very good "middle" ground( obviously some making alot more and some alot less).. not saying the other teams the 'same" but to just ignore them, seems wrong IMO.. Obviously teams like the lions, panthers' jax numners would be LESS than packers( no sellouts less marketing less success).. and teams like dallas, giants, redskins bears etc have better numners because much larger markets same sellout's higher prices etc etc.. so while not "perfect".. do think gives a good idea of the "financial" health of the Average of league and shows profits have been in decline.. which is the ONLY POINT THAT MATTERS.. and when a contract is up, the time to fix this decling profit equation

First you claim that the players planned to walked away from the table from the start when the weight of evidence tells me that they would have stayed to bargain had the NFL presented them with anything else but a recast and warmed over version of the same lousy deal

guess we shall agree to disagre any basis for THAT and many writers, articles and posters do think demaurice wanted the court route from day 1..and your stance, they would ahve stayed an opinion not a fact. And as demaurice smith's "power point" presentation that got him elected , was all about decertifying, going the court route, and getting a better deal trhough the courts as he outlined why he should be the leader of the union, do not think its much a a leap of logic, or thinking to say, "well he wanted to go the court route" from day 1( as was his strategy he told the union members he would do), as opposed to saying he enver wanted that and wanted to stay in arbitration, diagree about that soul

No need to go any further with this. Your other thread discussing the preliminary terms of the deal says it all. The owners have made concessions on the revenue sharing allowing a percentage of both current and future revenues and the players have agreed that certain costs are increasing and allowed a reasonable revenue credit for that. The great compromise has apparently been reached although I won't hold my breath for the season to start until it's signed sealed and delivered.

I believe that if the "hardliners" had not been so insistent on not giving up that percentage any longer and the attorneys would all have jointly been killed simultaneously in a car crash this battle would have been over a long time ago. How to share the pie was the sticking point and both got what they wanted. A reasonable share of revenue (players) and (owners) a reasonable revenue credit to cover increasing costs. The cash minimum expenditures take away some of the suspicious cap chicanery that some teams use (not the Bears) and the players get what they want monetarilly and the owners go on to even greater riches through new broadcast rights and sponsorship deals. All is right in the NFL world.

Open ended are plans for how to increase the revenue pie even more through an 18 game schedule and a Thursday night game package and those will require more negotiation but nobody sees them as having to be resolved right now so that can be dealt with as it comes.

It finally looks like we're gonna have something else to disagree over so I'm putting this to bed for my part.

LOL.. we def. agree about what the lawyers future's SHOUDl ahve been soul.. and will respctfully agree to disagree about the "objective of smith" no biggie

And just IMO, the 18 game talk, will be put on hold for now, and in 2 years when the cap isn't going up as much as players want, and salaries going up a 'normal" 5-8%( and not the 20-30% we saw in 2004-2009) in this economic enviornment, it will be put to players again, as the way to get higher salaries, because of the added revenue the 2 games gives them and they get 48%( or whatever number they settle) to their bootom line.. then we shall see how many "like" the idea because means a bigger paycheck..

and btw:

The average value of NFL teams fell last year for the first time since Forbes Magazine started tracking data in 1998.* Overall, the magazine says teams declined in total value by 2%.* That was mostly caused by the bottom six teams falling anywhere from 5-16%. The bottom teams dropping up to 16% in value

and only 4 TEAMs rose in value of 32 in 2010

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/...ions_Rank.html

NFL Team Valuations

08.25.10, 06:00 PM EDT


RankTeamsCurrent Value ($mil)1-Yr Value Change (%)Debt/Value (%)Revenue ($mil)Operating Income ($mil)1 Dallas Cowboys1,805 9 11 420 143.3 2 Washington Redskins1,550 0 15 353 103.7 3 New England Patriots1,367 0 20 318 66.5 4 New York Giants1,182 0 55 241 2.1 5 Houston Texans1,171 2 17 272 36.5 6 New York Jets1,144 -2 66 238 7.6 7 Philadelphia Eagles1,119 0 16 260 34.7 8 Baltimore Ravens1,073 -1 25 255 44.9 9 Chicago Bears1,067 -1 9 254 37.3 10 Denver Broncos1,049 -3 14 250 22.0 11 Indianapolis Colts1,040 1 4 248 43.2 12 Carolina Panthers1,037 -1 18 247 15.0 13 Tampa Bay Buccaneers1,032 -5 14 246 56.1 14 Green Bay Packers1,018 0 2 242 9.8 15 Cleveland Browns1,015 -2 15 242 36.1 16 Miami Dolphins1,011 0 40 247 -7.7 17 Pittsburgh Steelers996 -2 25 243 17.9 18 Tennessee Titans994 -1 13 242 23.3 19 Seattle Seahawks989 0 12 241 34.0 20 Kansas City Chiefs965 -6 14 235 47.8 21 New Orleans Saints955 1 13 245 36.7 22 San Francisco 49ers925 6 14 226 21.0 23 Arizona Cardinals919 -2 16 236 28.1 24 San Diego Chargers907 -1 14 233 24.7 25 Cincinnati Bengals905 -5 11 232 49.4 26 Atlanta Falcons831 -3 33 231 34.5 27 Detroit Lions817 -6 43 210 -2.9 28 Buffalo Bills799 -12 16 228 28.2 29 St Louis Rams779 -15 8 223 29.0 30 Minnesota Vikings774 -7 36 221 17.9 31 Oakland Raiders758 -5 7 217 2.2 32 Jacksonville Jaguars725 -16 17 220 25.9