Jerry Jones message to sponsors:

[CloakNNNdagger]

I didn't build stadium not to play football
ByDavid Moore / Reporter
dmoore@dallasnews.com

12:57 PM on Wed., May. 18, 2011

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones met with some sponsors Tuesday night before' the team's annual golf tournament.

His message: "I expressed the incentive plan that I'm on and the Cowboys are on in this way,'' Jones said. "I didn't spend $1.2 billion to build a stadium and not have the Cowboys playing football in it this year.''

Jones did not offer specifis but said the club has not experienced any fallout from the labor impasse in terms of its sponsors or suite holders.

"In general, the response of our ticket holders, the response of our suite holders, the response of all of our constituencies have been they have been and are expecting us to play football and they're counting on us to get it worked out so we don't miss any playing time,'' Jones said.

With a lawsuit putting into question how much of the of the $9 billion the owners will really walk away with. With them starting to seriously think of how much money will at the same time will be going out in stadium lease money, loss of ticket revenues, loss of concessions revenues, loss of team pariphernalia revenues.........there maybe a dose of reality that will be shared with the players potential negative plight in loss of a season. This is not to mention, money continuing to go out to pay idle FO, coaches, PR people, and attornies playing "C-Ching!"........and even a myriad of significant hidden costs such as those to sponsors to keep them from bailing. And can they count on there not being long term financial consequences to their folly when the game does finally come back?

Jerry and his rich playmates would do well to lay off this game of playing stupid. But when you stop to think about it, stupidity has not been recognized as very much of a "handicap" for NFL ownership.




Instructions for owners:

*Plug fan into any bathroom electrical outlet.

*Turn fan on

*Position yourself in front of the fan

*Aim for the center of the disc

*Now relieve yourself

[awtysst]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

With a lawsuit putting into question how much of the of the $9 billion the owners will really walk away with. With them starting to seriously think of how much money will at the same time will be going out in stadium lease money, loss of ticket revenues, loss of concessions revenues, loss of team pariphernalia revenues.........there maybe a dose of reality that will be shared with the players potential negative plight in loss of a season. This is not to mention, money continuing to go out to pay idle FO, coaches, PR people, and attornies playing "C-Ching!"........and even a myriad of significant hidden costs such as those to sponsors to keep them from bailing. And can they count on there not being long term financial consequences to their folly when the game does finally come back?

Jerry and his rich playmates would do well to lay off this game of playing stupid. But when you stop to think about it, stupidity has not been recognized as very much of a "handicap" for NFL ownership.

But Jerry may be the only one in this boat. How many other owners shelled out that kind of money for a stadium recently? I am not sure many others if any.

[TimeKiller]

Even when you're rich....9 bil is still too much of a chunk of change to ignore.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Originally Posted by awtysst

But Jerry may be the only one in this boat. How many other owners shelled out that kind of money for a stadium recently? I am not sure many others if any.

All owners will have these same problems. Maybe not on the grandiose scale as Jerry. But they will all share these problems. The inequalities, though may just serve to break the ranks.

[awtysst]

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

All owners will have these same problems. Maybe not on the grandiose scale as Jerry. But they will all share these problems. The inequalities, though may just serve to break the ranks.

Possibly. But, Jerry was pointing out that he did not build his stadium in order to lose a full season. If he can get in say half a season, he will probably be ok. And he is probably the owner in the most dire shape.

The real question is how long can the players stay away? Owners have other sources of revenue, players typically don't. And while the Peyton Mannings of the league may be just fine financially, those making the league minimum are not nearly in the same financial shape.

[DonnyMost]

Sounds like Jerry is worried about having to pay his mortgage.

[Thorn]

I hope Jerry Jones goes broke, and his wonderful stadium and the Cowboys franchise are sold off at an auction. And maybe, just maybe, if this happened to a few more owners and their football teams, there might be some incentive to resolve this dumb ass mess.

[GP]

What's to stop the players from just signing with a UFL team, even if the UFL knows the ex-NFL player will probably head back to the NFL once the mess is resolved?

I don't think there will be a big migration or anything, but I could see several NFL players (especially the ones like Arian Foster who signed for chump change and have out-earned that contract amount) just signing on to make extra money until things are over.

Because things might not be over for a long, long time.

As more and more players try the UFL, the NFL owners will be watching its players risk injury in the UFL. This, coupled with the loss of revenue due to the lockout, could put them in a pinch to sign a more player-friendly deal, IMO.

If I'm Bob McNair and I see Arian Foster playing games for the Tulsa Gladiators, I might just sit there and think "You know what? I have a lot to lose--besides just some money--if he gets hurt. I will lose a great running back, and it took me forever just to get THIS one."

I bet there will be some guys who say "Screw it. I'm going to go play football and at least get paid something." They can always have their agent structure the contract wisely, so as to allow them to leave when the NFL resumes business. And the UFL will just go out and sign the street free agent(s) they had cut previously in order to make room for the NFL player who came and left. No big deal.

Some will not want to risk injury, some will take the risk on the idea that they need money AND want to play football in a scenario where football might be gone for a year. Or two.

[CloakNNNdagger]

Just one of those "hidden" losses I was referring to.............and an example of how the owners want their losses being covered by taxpayers and fans.

PFT

Browns want taxpayers to give them a deal on parking
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 19, 2011, 9:28 AM EDT

The Browns have said the lockout won’t cause them to cut the salaries of their employees. But the lockout is causing the Browns to ask the county for a deal on parking spaces the team has leased.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Browns want taxpayers to cut them a break on thousands of parking spaces leased from the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority, saying the lockout could result in games being canceled and the spaces being unused on game days.

Port Authority Board member Richard Knoth, however, said that if the Browns can’t use the spaces they’ve leased, that’s the Browns’ problem.

“It’s setting a bad precedent, pro-rating and discounting parking rates because they’re not doing so well,” Knoth said.

The seven-member Port Authority Board deadlocked 3-3 with one member absent on the vote, which means the issue will come up again at its next meeting, on July 20.

At least, the current plan is to address the issue at the next meeting. We’d like to think there’s a possibility that the lockout will be over by the next meeting, and the Browns’ request will be moot.

[Marcus]

A lot that I'm reading here is fan wishful thinking.

I think it's fair to assume that the owners, all 32 of them, as a group, got together and decided that they got screwed in the last deal with the players, and they are going to do whatever it takes to get a deal that's more favorable to them. Only they understand what that is, but whatever it is, they deem it important enough to put up with all the negatives to go with it. I don't see 1 or 2 owners getting weak in the knees in the middle of it. This has been in the planning for way too long for them to see anything unexpected.

They are going to ride this thing out until the players cave in to their demands. They have the resources. They have the cards.

If there is going to be football this season, which I very much doubt, it will be only because the players finally see the light.

[awtysst]

Originally Posted by Marcus

A lot that I'm reading here is fan wishful thinking.

I think it's fair to assume that the owners, all 32 of them, as a group, got together and decided that they got screwed in the last deal with the players, and they are going to do whatever it takes to get a deal that's more favorable to them. Only they understand what that is, but whatever it is, they deem it important enough to put up with all the negatives to go with it. I don't see 1 or 2 owners getting weak in the knees in the middle of it. This has been in the planning for way too long for them to see anything unexpected.

They are going to ride this thing out until the players cave in to their demands. They have the resources. They have the cards.

If there is going to be football this season, which I very much doubt, it will be only because the players finally see the light.

Oh I think there will definitely be some football. It imagine the season will start sometime in October. I think what will happen is around August, the two sides will try to bargain with the players trying to get a deal and the owners not budging. The Owners hold all the cards here. After a couple of missed game checks the lesser paid players will try to push for progress while the better off players will try to insist on player unity. I figure somewhere around the second week in September, the players will pretty much cave in to the owners. This will then cause FA to start that week, there will be say 2 weeks of training camp, 2 preseason games, and the first regular season game played in the second week of October.

[GuerillaBlack]

Originally Posted by awtysst

But Jerry may be the only one in this boat. How many other owners shelled out that kind of money for a stadium recently? I am not sure many others if any.

Originally Posted by CloakNNNdagger

All owners will have these same problems. Maybe not on the grandiose scale as Jerry. But they will all share these problems. The inequalities, though may just serve to break the ranks.

And at least Jerry uses his stadium for other events. Some owners rely only on the NFL season to fill up their stadiums. Let's hope the owners come to their senses.

[IDEXAN]

As more and more time passes without a resolution, I wonder how much internal disagreement/squabbling we'll see amoung the players, will it be isolated or could it become widespread and even organized by large player factions, and how public might it become ?

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by Marcus

A lot that I'm reading here is fan wishful thinking.

I think it's fair to assume that the owners, all 32 of them, as a group, got together and decided that they got screwed in the last deal with the players, and they are going to do whatever it takes to get a deal that's more favorable to them. Only they understand what that is, but whatever it is, they deem it important enough to put up with all the negatives to go with it. I don't see 1 or 2 owners getting weak in the knees in the middle of it. This has been in the planning for way too long for them to see anything unexpected.

They are going to ride this thing out until the players cave in to their demands. They have the resources. They have the cards.

If there is going to be football this season, which I very much doubt, it will be only because the players finally see the light.

I agree to a point, I honestly don't think either side is "fully prepared" to do without a season. I think both sets of advisers have told their people that the other side will cave. The Cleveland thing is a good example that the owners still have bills to pay and their revenue generators aren't onboard yet. While this affects each owner differently, most will start feeling it in the pocketbook eventually.

Originally Posted by awtysst

Oh I think there will definitely be some football. It imagine the season will start sometime in October. I think what will happen is around August, the two sides will try to bargain with the players trying to get a deal and the owners not budging. The Owners hold all the cards here. After a couple of missed game checks the lesser paid players will try to push for progress while the better off players will try to insist on player unity. I figure somewhere around the second week in September, the players will pretty much cave in to the owners. This will then cause FA to start that week, there will be say 2 weeks of training camp, 2 preseason games, and the first regular season game played in the second week of October.

The Owners hold most, but not ALL the cards. Doty is prepared to cost them hundreds of millions (he's already taken their TV $$ away). The Anti-Trust suits, that might take awhile to litigate will still create a drain on the owners as well. Hey, lawyers gotta eat!

[Hervoyel]

I'm curious about something. I've not spent much time looking into this so maybe the answer is right in front of my face but why aren't the NFL teams making plans to sign scabs again? Unless there's some legal reason why this isn't possible I don't see why they aren't already making plans to field strike teams like they did back in the day. That was some of the most entertaining football I saw that year and it essentially broke the players at the time didn't it?

[DonnyMost]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

I'm curious about something. I've not spent much time looking into this so maybe the answer is right in front of my face but why aren't the NFL teams making plans to sign scabs again? Unless there's some legal reason why this isn't possible I don't see why they aren't already making plans to field strike teams like they did back in the day. That was some of the most entertaining football I saw that year and it essentially broke the players at the time didn't it?

Because this isn't a strike, it's a lockout.

[disaacks3]

Originally Posted by Hervoyel

I'm curious about something. I've not spent much time looking into this so maybe the answer is right in front of my face but why aren't the NFL teams making plans to sign scabs again? Unless there's some legal reason why this isn't possible I don't see why they aren't already making plans to field strike teams like they did back in the day. That was some of the most entertaining football I saw that year and it essentially broke the players at the time didn't it?

Yep, they can't in a lockout, that's the whole purpose. If they lifted it, they'd have to let in ALL their currently contracted players or would be in a WORLD of legal hurt.

Scabs = Break a Strike, not a lockout

[Double Barrel]

Originally Posted by awtysst

The Owners hold all the cards here.

Except for the small fact that fans pay to watch players, not owners.