PDA

View Full Version : NFL Labor Issues: Who's side you on?


b0ng
09-11-2010, 11:01 AM
Okay, so obviously after the Thursday night opener I'm sure everybody has heard about the "Show of solidarity" that the players had on the field before the kickoff. My question is, in these labor disputes, who is right?

The players who don't want lose money to play more games?

The owners who have said continously that they are losing money while they build billion dollar stadiums?

Who's side are you on? I don't know as much about this issue as some, but I think it's pretty ridiculous that people like Jerry Jones claim they are losing money.

Scooter
09-11-2010, 12:31 PM
neither, i'm on the fans' side.

eriadoc
09-11-2010, 12:52 PM
The players make millions because the owners make billions. I'm on neither side, but I see both sides.

The Pencil Neck
09-11-2010, 12:54 PM
I really don't care about the sides in this. I just want them to get it resolved so that they're playing next season.

b0ng
09-11-2010, 01:02 PM
I really don't care about the sides in this. I just want them to get it resolved so that they're playing next season.

I'd be surprised if a football fan with no monetary interests was in favor of a lockout in 2011.

To me, I just don't see why the owners are going to lockout a season because they are arguing over revenue sharing, rookie contracts, and. . . other stuff I guess?

SheTexan
09-11-2010, 01:26 PM
Owners!! Without their "billions" we would have nothing!!

Players play in the finest of stadiums, have the best training facilities available, have huge contracts laced with fab incentives, opportunities to make MORE millions if they do a good job, ALL because of the owners. They are EMPLOYEES! If they don't like what they are paid, join the real world and find out how the fans feel!!!!

Kulluminatii
09-11-2010, 02:07 PM
Owners!! Without their "billions" we would have nothing!!

Players play in the finest of stadiums, have the best training facilities available, have huge contracts laced with fab incentives, opportunities to make MORE millions if they do a good job, ALL because of the owners. They are EMPLOYEES! If they don't like what they are paid, join the real world and find out how the fans feel!!!!

Yes players play in great stadiums and have amazing training facilities, and also get paid pretty damn well for what they do...BUT you are forgetting something. This isn't an ordinary 9-5 job, these players are putting their bodies on the line day in and day out for our entertainment and to line the owner's pockets with $$$. By the end of their careers (if they are lucky enough to have lasted more than 3 years) these player's bodies have taken so much damage that many have some sort of problem down the road. That may be a reason why quite a few former NFL players, who were amazing athletes, die by the time they reach their 70s.

I do agree with owner's on one specific point, rookie contracts. The system we have now is seriously flawed and we need something that would be fair for both sides. Maybe something like a cap for each round, so for example players drafted in the 1st round can only make a max of 1mill in their first season with 100% of that money being guaranteed. After that initial year they can then work out a long term deal and can't sign with another team unless their current team trades their rights.

gwallaia
09-11-2010, 02:22 PM
I think it was someone on this message board that posted the following statement, "Millionaires vs Billionaires" to describe the labor conflict in the NFL. The only losers in this battle will be us, the "Thousadnaires."

Kulluminatii
09-11-2010, 02:44 PM
I think it was someone on this message board that posted the following statement, "Millionaires vs Billionaires" to describe the labor conflict in the NFL. The only losers in this battle will be us, the "Thousadnaires."

:clap:

I agree completely. The way I see it, the owners have the power to end this right now if they so wish. However they wont, they are probably going to wait until the last minute to see if the NFLPA will break.

I find this quote from this article (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-laborquestions090810)(thanks to JT for originally posting it) very telling as to how close we are to a lockout.

At one point in the commissioner’s visit with the Cleveland Browns, linebacker Scott Fujita(notes), a member of the NFL Players Association’s executive committee, asked: “What do the owners want? What’s it going to take to get a deal done?”

“I can’t answer that,” Goodell replied.

“You’re the NFL commissioner,” Fujita shot back. “You’re here as the mouthpiece for the owners, and you can’t even tell us what they want? The CBA [collective bargaining agreement] is up in March. Don’t you think you need to start giving us some answers?”

thunderkyss
09-11-2010, 02:44 PM
Owners!! Without their "billions" we would have nothing!!

If you are talking about Larry Hunt, Al Davis, & that group of owners from way back, when there wasn't billions in pro-football, I agree.

This group of owners is a totally different breed, who have it made in comparison.

If you want to know the truth, I hope Obama busts this racket all to hell.



:kitten:

b0ng
09-11-2010, 03:12 PM
If you want to know the truth, I hope Obama busts this racket all to hell.



:kitten:

Bush would do it.

axman40
09-11-2010, 03:22 PM
neither, i'm on the fans' side.
I also am on the fan's side , the only loser is the fans, when millionaires go against the billionaires.
A pox on both their greedy houses.
:tiphat:

Corrosion
09-11-2010, 03:25 PM
Okay, so obviously after the Thursday night opener I'm sure everybody has heard about the "Show of solidarity" that the players had on the field before the kickoff. My question is, in these labor disputes, who is right?

The players who don't want lose money to play more games?

The owners who have said continously that they are losing money while they build billion dollar stadiums?

Who's side are you on? I don't know as much about this issue as some, but I think it's pretty ridiculous that people like Jerry Jones claim they are losing money.

In most cases , the owners dont pay for the majority of the stadium the city / county do. The owners simply lease the facilities.

Owners losing money ? I dont know .... Im sure some of the more high profile teams see revenue sharing as money lost. Owners make the majority of their money via TV.

The owners made investments of many hundreds of millions in this industry. In most cases they made their millions long before owning a football team.


What do the players invest ? Time and their bodies ....


I guess the big question is who has more to lose ?

When it comes to a work stoppage - the players will cave first , the owners have their millions upon millions.

J_R
09-11-2010, 03:29 PM
NFLPA collecting signatures for possible decertification (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81a70089/article/players-union-collecting-signatures-for-possible-decertification)


The NFL Players Asscoiation (NFLPA) began collecting signatures for possible decertification in March, according to league sources.

Decertification is one possible tact the NFLPA could take this spring to negate a potential lockout and begin a process through the court system toward a possible resolution of the labor impasse with owners.

The collective bargaining agreement is set to expire in March, and decertification could allow the NFLPA to sue the league in an attempt to prevent owners from locking players out of offseason activities. If the NFLPA decertifies it would, in effect, cease to become a union. If the league then attempted lockout the players, they could sue the NFL under U.S. antitrust laws. However, the NFL could also challenge that decertification.

Regardless, the NFLPA, rather than wait until March to vote on decertifying, is conducting voting on a team-by-team basis now, beginning with the Saints last week, where the measure passed unanimously, according to sources. The process will continue as union head DeMaurice Smith meets with each team through the season.

"This is a procedural thing only," is how one NFLPA official put it. "It's easier to collect 1,900 signatures now than in March."

If the NFLPA is successful in an effort to decertify, then the collective bargaining process would end, and individual players could seek antitrust lawsuits, an action the union took in past labor negotiations that resulted in the Reggie White lawsuit, and ultimately a system of free agency beginning in 1993. In the meantime, as that case was unfolding from 1989-1993, obviously games were played

Giant Tiger
09-11-2010, 11:00 PM
I think it was someone on this message board that posted the following statement, "Millionaires vs Billionaires" to describe the labor conflict in the NFL. The only losers in this battle will be us, the "Thousadnaires."

So true...

eriadoc
09-12-2010, 12:29 AM
I do agree with owner's on one specific point, rookie contracts. The system we have now is seriously flawed and we need something that would be fair for both sides.

The system? Who is paying these crazy rookie contracts? There is nothing in the CBA that says rookies have to have XYZ% of team salaries, and there is nothing that says the contracts have to escalate every year. The owners are the ones handing out these insane contracts. The players ask for as much as they can get, sure, but they only get it because the owners pay it.

Since people like to try and compare NFL to the real world, think about your situation. You can go into your boss' office, demand a raise, and threaten not to come to work if they don't give you said raise. You have no actual leverage, but you can do this. We all know what would happen. What if businesses started caving to these demands across the board, though? Next thing you know, you can go in and demand this raise, and your employer will have to consider that other businesses will pay what they haven't. Your company could start losing talent if they refuse to pay what everyone else pays. That's why you see these salary surveys everywhere. Bottom line though, is the owners are the ones that created the situation by caving to these insane demands.

So why punish the players because you can't keep your financial house in order? Why punish the fans because you felt the need to escalate rookie contracts? And now you want to be bailed out of your own bad business decisions?

Big Lou
09-12-2010, 12:42 AM
I commented in the in Texans Talk. However to add a little bit to this, I think that both sides loss site of the fans.

The players make a lot and deserve a lot. the owners deserve to make money, they have a lot of money invested in thier franchises.

It simple bussiness 101. If the cost of the product goes up, the purchase price of the product goes up. The owners will raise prices to make the profit margin they desire, and what we'll pay for.

I will say that owners have way more liability than the players though. The players have exposure to injuries, but they are covered for that. Sure they make more when they play, but that's how the world works. The owners have to pay the players, and pay the coaches, pay for marketing, insurance, administration, accounting, HR, the list goes on and on.

Players have no overhead other than thier agents, thier cut of the pie is almost pure profit, the owners don't have that luxury.

Sure thw owners make millions, but they have almost a billion tied up, so they really only clear what any billion dollar bussiness does.

The fans are the ones that lose in all this.

eriadoc
09-12-2010, 01:13 AM
I will say that owners have way more liability than the players though. The players have exposure to injuries, but they are covered for that. Sure they make more when they play, but that's how the world works. The owners have to pay the players, and pay the coaches, pay for marketing, insurance, administration, accounting, HR, the list goes on and on.

The owners do not have more liability. The players have the most skin in the game - their bodies. You say they're covered for that, but that's not true. Some of the top players will be financially covered if they take a career ending injury, but they don't get their body back. There's no covering that. And that's the top players. You think guys like Harry Williams are "covered"? His life is forever changed, and he's far from financially set.

As for the owners liability ... well, they have stadiums they don't have to pay for, they have operating expenses that are subsidized by the more lucrative franchises, they have city governments and taxpayers by the short ones, and they have a a product for they can charge anything they want. Imagine if our country went through the worst depression since the Great Depression and NFL teams raised prices. You'd think that would be a bad business decision, right? Well, evidently not.

The rules of business do not apply to NFL owners. Once they come up with their ante, they get to rake pots until they die.

thunderkyss
09-12-2010, 07:52 AM
The system? Who is paying these crazy rookie contracts? There is nothing in the CBA that says rookies have to have XYZ% of team salaries, and there is nothing that says the contracts have to escalate every year. The owners are the ones handing out these insane contracts. The players ask for as much as they can get, sure, but they only get it because the owners pay it.


Exactly, all it would take is for one owner to have the gnads to make a player sit out, & see what would happen to him next year. I can't think of any player (other than Ricky Williams) that have had any success, after taking a year off of football. I can't think of any rookie who came into the league after a year away from organized team football that has had any success. Yet the Owners act as if they are over a barrell.


It simple bussiness 101. If the cost of the product goes up, the purchase price of the product goes up. The owners will raise prices to make the profit margin they desire, and what we'll pay for.


Business generally doesn't work this way. Owners will continue to raise prices until the fans stop paying. Then they'll lower prices to get to the maximum revenue generated. The cost of the product will determine the profits, but not the prices.

If you create a product in your garage, do you charge cost + 50% ($125)? What if you could get cost + 83%($240) ? The smart business person would charge cost + 83%, and continue to make that product, until the profits or lack of tells him he can't. Whether it is market saturation or other market pressures that drives your price to cost + 14%, or increasing health-care cost which drives profit margins to 14%, you as an owner have to decide whether it makes sense to keep making that product. You can increase the price all you want, but if the public has already said they won't pay more than ($240), they won't pay more than ($240).

Like the Valentine 1 radar detector. There was a time he could have charged anything he wanted for that thing. & I'm sure he found that max price. It doesn't matter that it costs more to support that device than it did the day he created it, he can't get more for it today, than he did when it first came out. If he ends up losing money on it, he'll stop selling it.

Of course, he can add new features to it (like GPS) but then it's a different product, and he can ask/get more for it.

Moral of the story, owners will continue to raise prices, regardless what they are paying players. It doesn't cost the Jacksonville Jaguars any less to field a team than it does the Washington Redskins. But if the rumors are true, I guarantee it's cheaper to enjoy the "game-day experience" in Jacksonville than it is in D.C.

awtysst
09-12-2010, 09:43 AM
In this situation, both sides have faults. However, I am taking the side of the owners and management over the players. Simply stated, the owners created the system so that the players can play. The football players are ALL replaceable. Without owners there would be no NFL. There are a ton of people who would love to play professional football. To play football requires some skills, some of which can be taught. In contrast, there are far fewer people who have the financial wherewithal to own a team. It comes down to one simple thing, players can and are replaced every day. Its a lot tougher to replace owners.

There are numerous examples through sport and in other types of businesses that show that the employees (and that's what the players are in essence) are not indispensable.

An interesting question for yall to consider would be this: If all the NFL players all played in the United Football League and the United Football League players played in the NFL, would you suddenly switch to the UFL? Consider this: if the UFL players were now playing in the NFL and
Andrae Thurman was the best WR for the Texans, would you cheer for him or would you continue to cheer for Andre Johnson of the Las Vegas Locomotives?

I cheer for the Team and not the individual players. I am concerned with how The Houston Texans do, not Andre Johnson. If Andre Johnson does well and that leads to the Texans doing well, great. But, the second he begins to fade and we can replace him, we should trade him immediately.

Thus, as you can see, I side with the owners, though they are not without fault.

HJam72
09-12-2010, 10:05 AM
I think it was someone on this message board that posted the following statement, "Millionaires vs Billionaires" to describe the labor conflict in the NFL. The only losers in this battle will be us, the "Thousadnaires."


Don't forget the hundredaires. :boogereater:

RazorOye
09-12-2010, 11:08 AM
However, I am taking the side of the owners and management over the players. Simply stated, the owners created the system so that the players can play. The football players are ALL replaceable. Without owners there would be no NFL. There are a ton of people who would love to play professional football.

I don't fully buy this.

There's no doubt that without the owners there would be no NFL. But I think it's a stretch to say that without the players that we have, that the NFL would be where it is today and that the owners would be making the kind of money from their franchises that they do or that the franchises would be rising in value the way that they have or that they would've secured TV contracts as they have.

Take away all 1700 players.

Can you find 1700 players that could step on the field and deliver a product comparable to what's there now?

Just as you make the point that both owners and players share fault, I think you have to acknowledge that both owners and players share credit for the league's success.

And, as a result, I think you're too easily dismissing what the players have contributed to the NFL and take for granted the ability to replace that talent pool easily.

Living in Canada, I watch a bit of CFL. And I can watch players that couldn't make it in the NFL. These would be the players that would populate NFL rosters - and there's about 400 players. And the 400th best player in the CFL - whoever he might be - is really not very good. And yet he'd be an above average player in the new NFL.

Without the players of the caliber and talent that are on NFL rosters right now, I'm not so certain that the NFL wouldn't miss a beat or that the players are as "replaceable" as you suggest.

awtysst
09-12-2010, 12:02 PM
I don't fully buy this.

There's no doubt that without the owners there would be no NFL. But I think it's a stretch to say that without the players that we have, that the NFL would be where it is today and that the owners would be making the kind of money from their franchises that they do or that the franchises would be rising in value the way that they have or that they would've secured TV contracts as they have.

Take away all 1700 players.

Can you find 1700 players that could step on the field and deliver a product comparable to what's there now?

Just as you make the point that both owners and players share fault, I think you have to acknowledge that both owners and players share credit for the league's success.

And, as a result, I think you're too easily dismissing what the players have contributed to the NFL and take for granted the ability to replace that talent pool easily.

Living in Canada, I watch a bit of CFL. And I can watch players that couldn't make it in the NFL. These would be the players that would populate NFL rosters - and there's about 400 players. And the 400th best player in the CFL - whoever he might be - is really not very good. And yet he'd be an above average player in the new NFL.

Without the players of the caliber and talent that are on NFL rosters right now, I'm not so certain that the NFL wouldn't miss a beat or that the players are as "replaceable" as you suggest.

Sure, the players have some role in the process but its like any corporation or business. Who is the person who is irreplaceable: the guy who is assembling widgets or the guy who is in charge of the business. The guy who assembles widgets can and is replaced by cheaper, younger, people when possible and many times, nobody notices.

But the thing is the players ARE being replaced. ALL of them will be replaced with better, younger, faster, stronger talent. The average length of an NFL career is 3 years. So, in the time the Texans have been playing games (8 seasons), we have gone through about 2.67 cycles of players.

One thing you need to remember though is that the quality of the game is relative to the players playing the game. Can we easily replace a Peyton Manning for example? Probably not. But, if you put Meyton Panning behind a line of second tier players, throwing to second rate receivers, being defended by a second tier defense, perhaps you may not even notice. If Meyton Panning dominates the NFL the way Peyton did, you may not notice the talent difference. After an initial shock, the league may tweak the rules and allow the game to be played based on the talent of the players they have.

I have never watched Canadian Football, but perhaps some of the rules make it a less desirable game to watch in addition to the level of play.

Whats the average time an owner owns a sports franchise? I do not know, but I am pretty sure its A LOT longer than 3 years.

The fact is we could go to any D1 college football team and find people with the talent and skill level to play NFL football. I can guarantee you cannot easily find people with the $ to purchase and run an NFL team.

RazorOye
09-12-2010, 12:46 PM
n/m

burro
09-13-2010, 06:47 PM
to think that either the players or owners are complaining about losing money in this economy is laughable. that said, it's the players who should stfu. very few people in this world are making millions of dollars to play a game that they love. if they don't like the amount, let them find another occupation that will pay them better.

Goldensilence
09-13-2010, 07:37 PM
Players.

IF the owners really are loosing money then open up the books and prove it. So far as I know the only team to do so is G.B., which is different from privately owned teams.

The biggest thing I can agree with owners on is a solution for rookie salaries selected in like the top 20, with an emphasis on the top 5. I would think both sides could agree on something.

Goldensilence
09-13-2010, 07:42 PM
Sure, the players have some role in the process but its like any corporation or business. Who is the person who is irreplaceable: the guy who is assembling widgets or the guy who is in charge of the business. The guy who assembles widgets can and is replaced by cheaper, younger, people when possible and many times, nobody notices.

But the thing is the players ARE being replaced. ALL of them will be replaced with better, younger, faster, stronger talent. The average length of an NFL career is 3 years. So, in the time the Texans have been playing games (8 seasons), we have gone through about 2.67 cycles of players.

One thing you need to remember though is that the quality of the game is relative to the players playing the game. Can we easily replace a Peyton Manning for example? Probably not. But, if you put Meyton Panning behind a line of second tier players, throwing to second rate receivers, being defended by a second tier defense, perhaps you may not even notice. If Meyton Panning dominates the NFL the way Peyton did, you may not notice the talent difference. After an initial shock, the league may tweak the rules and allow the game to be played based on the talent of the players they have.

I have never watched Canadian Football, but perhaps some of the rules make it a less desirable game to watch in addition to the level of play.

Whats the average time an owner owns a sports franchise? I do not know, but I am pretty sure its A LOT longer than 3 years.

The fact is we could go to any D1 college football team and find people with the talent and skill level to play NFL football. I can guarantee you cannot easily find people with the $ to purchase and run an NFL team.

Good luck turning over 32 rosters completely in one year with a lockout. Imagine an entire year of pre-season or worse.