What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Numbers Show NFL’s ‘Economic Realities’ for Lockout Unwarranted (1 Viewer)

I'm a glass-is-full guy, but the underlying aspects of this CBA all point to a dim chance of games in 2011.

DeMaurice Smith is not in a position that decades tenured Gene Upshaw was.

18 game schedule. Will most likely be enacted, but the NFLPA needs to leverage this to the utmost for concessions from ownership.

Revenue sharing. Ugly, ugly, ugly. Ownership refuses to open their books, even to 3rd parties and there is no way the NLFPA agrees to an large roll back.

Franchise value has spike tremendously, there is little to no leverage here on the owner's behalf.

Drug testing. Needs to be at a independent lab.

Retired players/current player health. Owners could care less, but purely symbolic on both sides.

Franchise/RFA tags. PA should have the upper hand here.

 
Jason Wood said:
I think people really underestimate the staying power of billionaire owners who have been proactively planning for a lock out, and have guaranteed revenue streams versus a players union where, no matter what they SHOULD do, a good many of said players live well beyond their means.
Click to expand...
further, really I don't think this is like t he NHL strike/lockout or MLB labor issues - NFL is unlikely to lose a lot of ground. I have a feeling - unless it's REALLY long or really bad - that after a year or so, the numbers for ratings will bounce back in a way the NHL never has and MLB has struggled too.They have no steroid scandels (unlike MLB) and a huge TV contract (unlike NHL). It's actually not a bad place for the owners to be in. I'm not particularly on their side. But that doesn't make their position toothless.
 
CalBear said:
Andrew Garda said:
They have no steroid scandels (unlike MLB) and a huge TV contract (unlike NHL). It's actually not a bad place for the owners to be in.
Click to expand...
The only reason they have no steroid scandals is that the testing program is pathetic.
Click to expand...
True, but I'm talking about perception and to Joe Fan there isn't a problem or if there is, certainly it's not as much as baseball. Further the way the game is played and stats accumulated, the impact would still be less than a sport where individual stats are the end all be all. So unless steroids and testing becomes a focal point - and it likely won't - it's not going to do lasting damage.
 
The NFL owners (better than ownership/leadership in any other pro sport) has always tried and generally succeeded in getting in front of an issue. For example they want to start doing blood tests for drugs like all international athletes have to do (only reliable way to determine use of HGH). Of course the union is completely against this invasion of privacy, but the fans see this as the NFL trying to keep their game "clean". Much of it is spin and perception not based in actual reality.

As to the owners value of the franchises, the debt most of the owner's owe on these franchises has gone up dramatically as well. The Rooney's and a few long standing owners that have not needed to carry a big debt to acquire their team in the last 15 years are in a much better financial position than some that may have more than half their franchise value tied up in paying off their loan with interest.

And lastly, I think the key point that many are not seeing is the small market owners feel like they got "snookered" in the last CBA just to get it signed. I don't know what % increase there was in amount of $$ the players would receive from the final pot, but I know there was an increase and I think the owners are trying to go back to the 55% or 56% that I believe it used to be. From the owner's side, they are using the extra games and revenue of an 18 game season to keep the amount of $$ the players receive close to the same - while reducing the % the player's get of the final pot.

I don't know if there will be any games missed next year, but I think with Demaurice Smith running the Union side of this means it will get ugly before it is finalized.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Wood said:
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?
Click to expand...
Because of the way it continually tries to oppress its labor pool and squeeze the last nickel out of its fan base, I exult when the owners get the occasional chunk bitten out of their butts.The rookie draft is inherently unfair to players, the impending 18-game schedule is a monstrous disregard for the health of the players, preseason games are even more dead weight and the league does a pitiful job of taking care of its labor force post-retirement when the inevitable effects of the violent nature of the game cripple the people who were most responsible for our enjoyment of the game.I'm getting to the point where I'd like to blow it up and start all over.
 
roadkill1292 said:
Jason Wood said:
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?
Click to expand...
Because of the way it continually tries to oppress its labor pool and squeeze the last nickel out of its fan base, I exult when the owners get the occasional chunk bitten out of their butts.The rookie draft is inherently unfair to players, the impending 18-game schedule is a monstrous disregard for the health of the players, preseason games are even more dead weight and the league does a pitiful job of taking care of its labor force post-retirement when the inevitable effects of the violent nature of the game cripple the people who were most responsible for our enjoyment of the game.I'm getting to the point where I'd like to blow it up and start all over.
Click to expand...
A new AFL
 
Joe Summer said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything???
Click to expand...
What incentive do the owners have to field a team at all? $4 billion in pure profit with almost zero expenses = $125 million per owner. How many owners are making $125 million a year right now?? Not very many, I'd bet. They should just shut down football until the TV contract money runs out.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is the bean-counter approach that I've seen many companies take and it is a terrible, terrible approach. It's actually a trap to do this. Think of it this way - the accountants see that a company pulls in $100M in a year over costs but they spend $20M on sales guys and $30M on marketing. One of them decides that they should just "trim the fat" and get rid of the sales department and marketing to get $50M more income for the next year. That's a great plan - for the short term. Without sales growth / support and marketing, the $100M dries up to $25M - thus the "$50M savings" cost the company $75M in profits.Short term "gains" are often detrimental to long term company health.
 
roadkill1292 said:
Jason Wood said:
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?
Click to expand...
Because of the way it continually tries to oppress its labor pool and squeeze the last nickel out of its fan base, I exult when the owners get the occasional chunk bitten out of their butts.The rookie draft is inherently unfair to players, the impending 18-game schedule is a monstrous disregard for the health of the players, preseason games are even more dead weight and the league does a pitiful job of taking care of its labor force post-retirement when the inevitable effects of the violent nature of the game cripple the people who were most responsible for our enjoyment of the game.I'm getting to the point where I'd like to blow it up and start all over.
Click to expand...
This might warrant a separate thread, but what is so terrible about giving the worst team the first pick and so on?Each league uses a draft. Are you saying that's anti-free market (which I can appreciate)? Do you really want the NFL to have a Yankees team where one owner buys everyone he can?
 
Jeff Pasquino said:
roadkill1292 said:
Jason Wood said:
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?
Click to expand...
Because of the way it continually tries to oppress its labor pool and squeeze the last nickel out of its fan base, I exult when the owners get the occasional chunk bitten out of their butts.The rookie draft is inherently unfair to players, the impending 18-game schedule is a monstrous disregard for the health of the players, preseason games are even more dead weight and the league does a pitiful job of taking care of its labor force post-retirement when the inevitable effects of the violent nature of the game cripple the people who were most responsible for our enjoyment of the game.I'm getting to the point where I'd like to blow it up and start all over.
Click to expand...
This might warrant a separate thread, but what is so terrible about giving the worst team the first pick and so on?Each league uses a draft. Are you saying that's anti-free market (which I can appreciate)? Do you really want the NFL to have a Yankees team where one owner buys everyone he can?
Click to expand...
No, I would urge the players to remain in agreement with a salary cap, as I believe it's in their best interests to do so (for the very reason you mentioned). But you don't need a draft in order to have a salary cap. I think it's inherently unfair for a player fresh out of college not to be able to negotiate his services with any, or all, of the 32 teams.
 
roadkill1292 said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
roadkill1292 said:
Jason Wood said:
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?
Click to expand...
Because of the way it continually tries to oppress its labor pool and squeeze the last nickel out of its fan base, I exult when the owners get the occasional chunk bitten out of their butts.The rookie draft is inherently unfair to players, the impending 18-game schedule is a monstrous disregard for the health of the players, preseason games are even more dead weight and the league does a pitiful job of taking care of its labor force post-retirement when the inevitable effects of the violent nature of the game cripple the people who were most responsible for our enjoyment of the game.

I'm getting to the point where I'd like to blow it up and start all over.
Click to expand...
This might warrant a separate thread, but what is so terrible about giving the worst team the first pick and so on?Each league uses a draft. Are you saying that's anti-free market (which I can appreciate)? Do you really want the NFL to have a Yankees team where one owner buys everyone he can?
Click to expand...
No, I would urge the players to remain in agreement with a salary cap, as I believe it's in their best interests to do so (for the very reason you mentioned). But you don't need a draft in order to have a salary cap. I think it's inherently unfair for a player fresh out of college not to be able to negotiate his services with any, or all, of the 32 teams.
Click to expand...
I think we need a spin-off thread, else we'll derail this topic.Spin-off

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe the NFL is looking to put DirecTV out of business so they can take over Sunday Ticket on NFLN.

Also, always on the side of the owners. It's their league, they agreed to a crappy CBA extension and now they want it back. If the players don't like it, go play somewhere else.

 
zed2283 said:
Maybe the NFL is looking to put DirecTV out of business so they can take over Sunday Ticket on NFLN.Also, always on the side of the owners. It's their league, they agreed to a crappy CBA extension and now they want it back. If the players don't like it, go play somewhere else.
Click to expand...
DirecTV is a $35 billion media company, the NFL can't put it out of business. Not to mention DirecTV just extended their agreement with the NFL for $4 billion per year through 2014.
 
Jason Wood said:
zed2283 said:
Maybe the NFL is looking to put DirecTV out of business so they can take over Sunday Ticket on NFLN.Also, always on the side of the owners. It's their league, they agreed to a crappy CBA extension and now they want it back. If the players don't like it, go play somewhere else.
Click to expand...
DirecTV is a $35 billion media company, the NFL can't put it out of business. Not to mention DirecTV just extended their agreement with the NFL for $4 billion per year through 2014.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have said out of the football business. You're right though, I had forgotten about the recent extension.
 
Slapdash said:
CalBear said:
It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist. Greedy and unscrupulous owners.
Click to expand...
:own3d:
Click to expand...
Yeah, like no one else in this wonderful economy is having to cut back. This is one reason I normally side with management on many of these labor disputes. Having been a union negotiator in two very contentious labor disputes, I still get amazed how the "public perception/rank and file" have little sense of reality. It is not a one way street where management has to give on every negotiation, especially when the economy sucks. The NFL was the first major union I believe that has a direct % of "income/profits/whatever the bean counters use" as the pool to get paid from. The owners felt the jump in this % was too high last time and want it dialed back. It actually does not mean the players pool of money would be less, assuming the new TV contracts keep increasing. A 56% of 18 game season worth of $$ from tickets and TV vs 58% of a 16 season worth of $$ from tickets and TV may be equal or more likely with the extra games even bring in more revenue for the player's pool.
 
roadkill1292 said:
Jason Wood said:
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
Overdue?Why, because ratings suck? Because fans aren't ravenous about the game anymore? Because the quality of the sport has diminished?
Click to expand...
Because of the way it continually tries to oppress its labor pool and squeeze the last nickel out of its fan base, I exult when the owners get the occasional chunk bitten out of their butts.The rookie draft is inherently unfair to players, the impending 18-game schedule is a monstrous disregard for the health of the players, preseason games are even more dead weight and the league does a pitiful job of taking care of its labor force post-retirement when the inevitable effects of the violent nature of the game cripple the people who were most responsible for our enjoyment of the game.

I'm getting to the point where I'd like to blow it up and start all over.
Click to expand...
This sentiment amazes me and seems to be more prevalent in our Country's discourse all the time. Of course it is a human flaw with history littered with this sentiment leading to "overthrow" of the status quo. Are things as good as they could be, no they never are. But historically speaking, blowing up something that at its base is good and successful brings something that is worst. Start looking at history of the the world and how many of the dictators in the third world countries got their position by this process, the French Revolution, etc. I could go on forever with examples of this mindset and how the outcome is never what the original leaders envisioned. This is a fight between millionaires of which many are broke a few years after they quit and billionaires that many have leveraged themselves to the hilt. It is a massive pie of cash to split, will cooler heads prevail? I don't know. When human nature's jealous, envy, and egos get involved - common sense goes out the window. But let's not advocate destroying it and starting over.

 
Ksquared said:
Yeah, like no one else in this wonderful economy is having to cut back. This is one reason I normally side with management on many of these labor disputes. Having been a union negotiator in two very contentious labor disputes, I still get amazed how the "public perception/rank and file" have little sense of reality. It is not a one way street where management has to give on every negotiation, especially when the economy sucks.
Click to expand...
It should be clear that the reason the owners will not open their books is that they are making too much money to justify the cuts they are asking for. Despite the economy, more money is flowing into the NFL than ever.
The NFL was the first major union I believe that has a direct % of "income/profits/whatever the bean counters use" as the pool to get paid from. The owners felt the jump in this % was too high last time and want it dialed back. It actually does not mean the players pool of money would be less, assuming the new TV contracts keep increasing. A 56% of 18 game season worth of $$ from tickets and TV vs 58% of a 16 season worth of $$ from tickets and TV may be equal or more likely with the extra games even bring in more revenue for the player's pool.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that if the players work 12.5% more, they might be able to keep the same salary. What a deal!
 
Ksquared said:
Slapdash said:
CalBear said:
It's hard to see how the players can be viewed as at fault; they're not really asking for anything beyond the status quo, under which most teams are making money hand over fist. Greedy and unscrupulous owners.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:
Click to expand...
Yeah, like no one else in this wonderful economy is having to cut back. This is one reason I normally side with management on many of these labor disputes. Having been a union negotiator in two very contentious labor disputes, I still get amazed how the "public perception/rank and file" have little sense of reality. It is not a one way street where management has to give on every negotiation, especially when the economy sucks. The NFL was the first major union I believe that has a direct % of "income/profits/whatever the bean counters use" as the pool to get paid from. The owners felt the jump in this % was too high last time and want it dialed back. It actually does not mean the players pool of money would be less, assuming the new TV contracts keep increasing. A 56% of 18 game season worth of $$ from tickets and TV vs 58% of a 16 season worth of $$ from tickets and TV may be equal or more likely with the extra games even bring in more revenue for the player's pool.
Click to expand...
This isn't a situation of cutting back, it is a situation where the owners are determined to tilt the profits even more in their favor. It is billionaires coming after the earnings of millionaires without any good reason and it is a very poor time to have this fight. The owners want to make the seasons longer and pay the players less, getting more revenue for themselves.This also isn't about people wanting the management to give in, just maintain the status quo. Everyone involved is making money hand over fist and it is reprehensible that the owners would pick a time when their customer base is struggling to making a greedy power play.By the way, I think your numbers are off. IIRC, the extra exemptions would mean a decrease to near 40% of total revenue going to players.
 
Many of the top companies in the world do not "open their books" (which should not be confused with making financial statements available to the public).

The attempt to ask the NFL owners to do this is a smoke and mirrors distraction tactic. The NFLPA would love nothing more than to distract people by building "greed" stories based on how a particular person paid or saved money on one thing or another that seems excessive or frivalous. But it does not address any of the real issues.

A lot of people are calling the owners greedy but you have to remember: this is a business and the vast majority of big businesses exist for the purpose of making a profit. These owners have a love of their game but they are also business people. If you worked your whole life (or was your family's business over generations) to run a successful business, you would likely be more in tune to what the owners are saying. Remember, at some point, it was them, not us, that put their family's life on the line and invested, took the risks, wrote the multi-million dollar checks that they stood good for.

Revenue sharing is a big part of what makes the NFL the great sport it is and it helps some owners and hinders others, but they are all working together in compromise to make the NFL a success as a whole. A lot of us probably can not even begin to comprehend how much money has been forgone by owners of teams like the cowboys, 49'ers, Giants, Steelers, etc, in order to have the product we have as a whole.

So when people starting crying foul to owners, put yourself in their shoes. You are Jerry Jones and you could have 10X more money than you do..but you share with 31 other teams although you may be the sweat that earns a lionshare....and even though you worked all your life and made a fortune by hard work and put your good name on the line and wrote a check to invest in a business, you take the minority cut in the amount that gets spread to the 22 year old football player that has never put his millions (cash in hand..earned) on the line for the business.

The whole $4B that gets paid by TV stations even if their is a lockout is not what it seems. It is not free money; it is a loan. It is not something new and being used as a leverage tool; it is a standard provision in ALL the tv contracts that have ever existed, according to **** Ebersol (and if you can find a guy that has seen more of these NFL tv contracts over the years, I want that name). And its not money that goes to the owners so their kids can go to the movies or buy an island; the purpose of that money is to preserve the NFL. It pays salaries to non-player employees so your uncle working on a cleanup crew at the Metrodome doesn't lose his job. It pays contracts that are needed with city and local vendors to ensure your town doesn't have a huge unemployment spike (especially in the smaller markets). It pays for the never-ending repairs and inspections that must go on in the stadiums and equipment that must be maintained to ensure safety to the public (even if the venue sits empty). It bascally makes sure that if the NFL quits palying, you have a team and a steady economy to come back to some day. How outraged would fans be if a lockout OR STRIKE occurred and then when it was resolved, owners gave the players the raise they wanted to end the strike but guess what: that strike made the economy flop and the stadiums unplayable in..so Cleveland, Buffalo, baltimore, and Minnesota loses their teams (or the league retracts).

Its a very complex thing but the owners need some slack. Sure, they want to make money. If you or I open a business today, we don't do it to trade dollars. We do it with dreams of beoming wealthy or famous and feeding our families and protecting future generations of our familes...the American dream. These owners are the same. And some of them HAVE forgone money that could make them wealthier in order to make the league as a whole better (did you know AL Davis once loaned money to Ralph Wilson, the Bills owner so that he could keep his team solvent and remain in the league? Personal money...BIG money...). When's the last time any of us as much as paid a random owner's FF league fees so that he could stay in the league vs. just say "if you don't have the money, we'll find someone else"?

So now we have a situation where the owners want to reign this in; spread money out to veterans instead of paying a guy like Jamarcus Russell $30 Million guaranteed dollars on the IDEA that he MIGHT make the NFL better. Why shouldn't we spread that money out to guys that have actually done something instead of the "maybes"? And if it puts more money in the owners' pockets in the process, is that a crime? Can't they see $5 Million more one year because they risked their life's saving 20 years ago when they wrote a $300 Million check? Is it worse to do that than to give that $5 Million to a guy that was a good amateur player that ran a nice 40 time at a combine, but will quickly become a guy that no one ever remembers contributed anything to the NFL or its history?

These owners have done something: they put fortunes on the line to make a fortune (the model of big busines) and the fact that SO MANY people have such passionate stances on it (me included) should illustrate that they have done a great job at it over the years. If they sucked, we wouldn't care what happens. But we do and maybe we should take a step back to think about and perhaps accept that we can trust in their (and the commissioner's) bigger picture ideas on this; that its not just a simple issue of sliding money from one side of a table to another.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shutout said:
Many of the top companies in the world do not "open their books" (which should not be confused with making financial statements available to the public).
Click to expand...
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
A lot of people are calling the owners greedy but you have to remember: this is a business and the vast majority of big businesses exist for the purpose of making a profit. These owners have a love of their game but they are also business people. If you worked your whole life (or was your family's business over generations) to run a successful business, you would likely be more in tune to what the owners are saying. Remember, at some point, it was them, not us, that put their family's life on the line and invested, took the risks, wrote the multi-million dollar checks that they stood good for.
Click to expand...
Oh, the horrible plight of the billionaire! Something must be done--they're at risk of losing their family's Carribean islands and their offshore bank accounts!
 
zed2283 said:
Jason Wood said:
zed2283 said:
Maybe the NFL is looking to put DirecTV out of business so they can take over Sunday Ticket on NFLN.Also, always on the side of the owners. It's their league, they agreed to a crappy CBA extension and now they want it back. If the players don't like it, go play somewhere else.
Click to expand...
DirecTV is a $35 billion media company, the NFL can't put it out of business. Not to mention DirecTV just extended their agreement with the NFL for $4 billion per year through 2014.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have said out of the football business. You're right though, I had forgotten about the recent extension.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, but I would dare say that at least 1/3 if not more subscribers are DirecTV subscribers solely for spots -and that's dominated by the NFL Sunday Ticket.
 
CalBear said:
Ksquared said:
Yeah, like no one else in this wonderful economy is having to cut back. This is one reason I normally side with management on many of these labor disputes. Having been a union negotiator in two very contentious labor disputes, I still get amazed how the "public perception/rank and file" have little sense of reality. It is not a one way street where management has to give on every negotiation, especially when the economy sucks.
Click to expand...
It should be clear that the reason the owners will not open their books is that they are making too much money to justify the cuts they are asking for. Despite the economy, more money is flowing into the NFL than ever.
The NFL was the first major union I believe that has a direct % of "income/profits/whatever the bean counters use" as the pool to get paid from. The owners felt the jump in this % was too high last time and want it dialed back. It actually does not mean the players pool of money would be less, assuming the new TV contracts keep increasing. A 56% of 18 game season worth of $$ from tickets and TV vs 58% of a 16 season worth of $$ from tickets and TV may be equal or more likely with the extra games even bring in more revenue for the player's pool.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that if the players work 12.5% more, they might be able to keep the same salary. What a deal!
Click to expand...
Andrew Brant gave some historical perspective on this in the first of his recent series on the CBA, essentially suggesting that many owners felt betrayed or hoodwinked after the last negotiations. They were focused on revenue-sharing at the time, and Upshaw ended up getting a great deal for the NFLPA. ( http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFL-la...s-Part-One.html ):
To review, in March 2006 NFL ownership ratified a new agreement with the players by a vote of 30-2, with Ralph Wilson of the Bills and Mike Brown of the Bengals the dissenting votes. I remember the day well, communicating with our president at the Packers at the time, Bob Harlan, who kept saying that the meeting was all about revenue sharing plan. “Nothing about the labor deal?” I would ask. “No” Harlan would respond, “We’re just talking revenue sharing.”

...

Upon ratification of the new deal in 2006, the Cap went up geometrically. In years prior to 2006, and years since 2006, growth rates for the Cap have been in the 6-7% range. In 2006, the Cap grew 19%.

The 2005 Salary Cap for NFL teams was $85.5 million; the 2006 Salary Cap for NFL teams was $102 million. Whether that was not fully explained to ownership nor fully understood remains a mystery. However, soon after the ink was dry on the deal, more owners and league employees started to feel that the deal needed to be rolled back, especially in an environment of a lean economy and lost appetite for public funding of stadiums.
Click to expand...
 
Jeff Pasquino said:
zed2283 said:
Jason Wood said:
zed2283 said:
Maybe the NFL is looking to put DirecTV out of business so they can take over Sunday Ticket on NFLN.Also, always on the side of the owners. It's their league, they agreed to a crappy CBA extension and now they want it back. If the players don't like it, go play somewhere else.
Click to expand...
DirecTV is a $35 billion media company, the NFL can't put it out of business. Not to mention DirecTV just extended their agreement with the NFL for $4 billion per year through 2014.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have said out of the football business. You're right though, I had forgotten about the recent extension.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, but I would dare say that at least 1/3 if not more subscribers are DirecTV subscribers solely for spots -and that's dominated by the NFL Sunday Ticket.
Click to expand...
Which is why DirecTV spends $4 billion a year to secure the rights. And also, tangentially, why ESPN is in a tier of its own when it comes to negotiating with cable providers. Sports rule the media world.
 
CalBear said:
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
Click to expand...
Its business and its not uncommon. Tells nothing more than people want a respect of privacy. Does your boss ask you for your cell phone usage history when it doesn't bear any factor into your job?
Oh, the horrible plight of the billionaire! Something must be done--they're at risk of losing their family's Carribean islands and their offshore bank accounts!
Click to expand...
I really don't know why anyone posts just to be sarcastic unless you're just jealous that they DO have these things they have worked for but..thanks for reading.
 
Shutout said:
CalBear said:
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
Click to expand...
Its business and its not uncommon. Tells nothing more than people want a respect of privacy. Does your boss ask you for your cell phone usage history when it doesn't bear any factor into your job?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the financials have some bearing here. The owners want a new split because they say their profits are down. You don't think their financial statements hsve any bearing in that discussion, eh?
 
Jeff Pasquino said:
Joe Summer said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything???
Click to expand...
What incentive do the owners have to field a team at all? $4 billion in pure profit with almost zero expenses = $125 million per owner. How many owners are making $125 million a year right now?? Not very many, I'd bet. They should just shut down football until the TV contract money runs out.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is the bean-counter approach that I've seen many companies take and it is a terrible, terrible approach. It's actually a trap to do this. Think of it this way - the accountants see that a company pulls in $100M in a year over costs but they spend $20M on sales guys and $30M on marketing. One of them decides that they should just "trim the fat" and get rid of the sales department and marketing to get $50M more income for the next year. That's a great plan - for the short term. Without sales growth / support and marketing, the $100M dries up to $25M - thus the "$50M savings" cost the company $75M in profits.Short term "gains" are often detrimental to long term company health.
Click to expand...
That's why the Japanese auto industry has done better over the past several decades than the US ones. The US companies make plans for the next 5 years while the Japanese form plans for the next 20-30 years.
 
Shutout said:
CalBear said:
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
Click to expand...
Its business and its not uncommon. Tells nothing more than people want a respect of privacy. Does your boss ask you for your cell phone usage history when it doesn't bear any factor into your job?
Click to expand...
The owners are claiming that the players need to give back more money because they (the owners) are having financial difficulties. Of course it factors into the situation. If I show up at noon every day and claim that I'm on my cell phone with customers all morning, you'd better believe my boss will be interested in seeing some proof of that.
Oh, the horrible plight of the billionaire! Something must be done--they're at risk of losing their family's Carribean islands and their offshore bank accounts!
Click to expand...
I really don't know why anyone posts just to be sarcastic unless you're just jealous that they DO have these things they have worked for but..thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives.
 
CalBear said:
Shutout said:
CalBear said:
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
Click to expand...
Its business and its not uncommon. Tells nothing more than people want a respect of privacy. Does your boss ask you for your cell phone usage history when it doesn't bear any factor into your job?
Click to expand...
The owners are claiming that the players need to give back more money because they (the owners) are having financial difficulties. Of course it factors into the situation. If I show up at noon every day and claim that I'm on my cell phone with customers all morning, you'd better believe my boss will be interested in seeing some proof of that.
Oh, the horrible plight of the billionaire! Something must be done--they're at risk of losing their family's Carribean islands and their offshore bank accounts!
Click to expand...
I really don't know why anyone posts just to be sarcastic unless you're just jealous that they DO have these things they have worked for but..thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
 
CalBear said:
Shutout said:
CalBear said:
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
Click to expand...
Its business and its not uncommon. Tells nothing more than people want a respect of privacy. Does your boss ask you for your cell phone usage history when it doesn't bear any factor into your job?
Click to expand...
The owners are claiming that the players need to give back more money because they (the owners) are having financial difficulties. Of course it factors into the situation. If I show up at noon every day and claim that I'm on my cell phone with customers all morning, you'd better believe my boss will be interested in seeing some proof of that.
Oh, the horrible plight of the billionaire! Something must be done--they're at risk of losing their family's Carribean islands and their offshore bank accounts!
Click to expand...
I really don't know why anyone posts just to be sarcastic unless you're just jealous that they DO have these things they have worked for but..thanks for reading.
Click to expand...
Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives.
Click to expand...
Calbear - I do appreciate your football discussions, but your statement above shows the envious environment you must have grown up in. It is sad that this lame line gets run out every time anyone "rich" is discussed. Some of the sentiment to "your only rich if your family had money" came from the previous decades. But it has become very clear with the explosion of entrepreneurial successes since the 1980's, that the vast majority of the top 5% of the wealthy have earned it in the last 20 years. Many of the newer owners fit into this category, so broad brushing all of the owners as the classic lazy wealthy that only have money due to family is way off base and not based in reality.
 
Ksquared said:
Calbear - I do appreciate your football discussions, but your statement above shows the envious environment you must have grown up in. It is sad that this lame line gets run out every time anyone "rich" is discussed. Some of the sentiment to "your only rich if your family had money" came from the previous decades. But it has become very clear with the explosion of entrepreneurial successes since the 1980's, that the vast majority of the top 5% of the wealthy have earned it in the last 20 years. Many of the newer owners fit into this category, so broad brushing all of the owners as the classic lazy wealthy that only have money due to family is way off base and not based in reality.
Click to expand...
OK, here's the rundown:Arizona: Bill Bidwell (inherited)Atlanta: Arthur Blank (Home Depot)Baltimore: Steve Biscotti (aerospace)Buffalo: Ralph Wilson (actual football pedigree)Carolina: Jerry Rchardson (restaurants)Chicago: Virgina McCaskey (inherited)Cincinatti: Mike Brown (inherited)Cleveland: Randy Lerner (inherited)Dallas: Jerry Jones (oil)Denver: Pat Bowlen (inherited)Detroit: William Ford (inherited)Green Bay Packers: Publicly heldHouston: Bob McNair (Enron)Indianapolis: Jim Irsay (inherited)Jacksonville: Wayne Weaver (shoes)Kansas City: Clark Hunt (inherited)Miami: Stephen Ross (real estate)Minnesota: Zygi Wilf (real estate)New England: Bob Kraft (paper)New Orleans: Tom Benson (autos, banking)NY Giants: John Mara/Steve Tisch (inherited)NY Jets: Robert Wood Johnson IV (inherited)Oakland: Al Davis (actual football pedigree)Philadelphia: Jeff Lurie (movies)Pittsburgh: Dan Rooney (inherited)San Diego: Alex Spanos (inherited)San Francisco: Jed York (inherited)Seattle: Paul Allen (Microsoft)St. Louis: Stan Kroenke (married a Walton)Tampa Bay: Malcolm Glazer (real estate holding)Tennessee: Bud Adams (actual football pedigree)Washington: Dan Snyder (marketing)So, of 31 NFL owners, 14 inherited or married into their money or the team. Only three have earned most of their money in pursuits directly related to football (the AFL founders).
 
Jason Wood said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
zed2283 said:
Jason Wood said:
zed2283 said:
Maybe the NFL is looking to put DirecTV out of business so they can take over Sunday Ticket on NFLN.Also, always on the side of the owners. It's their league, they agreed to a crappy CBA extension and now they want it back. If the players don't like it, go play somewhere else.
Click to expand...
DirecTV is a $35 billion media company, the NFL can't put it out of business. Not to mention DirecTV just extended their agreement with the NFL for $4 billion per year through 2014.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have said out of the football business. You're right though, I had forgotten about the recent extension.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, but I would dare say that at least 1/3 if not more subscribers are DirecTV subscribers solely for spots -and that's dominated by the NFL Sunday Ticket.
Click to expand...
Which is why DirecTV spends $4 billion a year to secure the rights. And also, tangentially, why ESPN is in a tier of its own when it comes to negotiating with cable providers. Sports rule the media world.
Click to expand...
I'm quite aware of this Woodrow - but if the NFL takes away the golden goose that is the differentiator between DirecTV and Dish Network and the other lesser satellite providers then it will really take away from their business. DirecTV can charge more for their services because they have the NFL ticket. I know that I can get a much cheaper deal for satellite TV from Dish Network but all I really care about in the NFL Ticket package, forcing my choice to DirecTV.
 
CalBear said:
Ksquared said:
Calbear - I do appreciate your football discussions, but your statement above shows the envious environment you must have grown up in. It is sad that this lame line gets run out every time anyone "rich" is discussed. Some of the sentiment to "your only rich if your family had money" came from the previous decades. But it has become very clear with the explosion of entrepreneurial successes since the 1980's, that the vast majority of the top 5% of the wealthy have earned it in the last 20 years. Many of the newer owners fit into this category, so broad brushing all of the owners as the classic lazy wealthy that only have money due to family is way off base and not based in reality.
Click to expand...
OK, here's the rundown:Arizona: Bill Bidwell (inherited)Atlanta: Arthur Blank (Home Depot)Baltimore: Steve Biscotti (aerospace)Buffalo: Ralph Wilson (actual football pedigree)Carolina: Jerry Rchardson (restaurants)Chicago: Virgina McCaskey (inherited)Cincinatti: Mike Brown (inherited)Cleveland: Randy Lerner (inherited)Dallas: Jerry Jones (oil)Denver: Pat Bowlen (inherited)Detroit: William Ford (inherited)Green Bay Packers: Publicly heldHouston: Bob McNair (Enron)Indianapolis: Jim Irsay (inherited)Jacksonville: Wayne Weaver (shoes)Kansas City: Clark Hunt (inherited)Miami: Stephen Ross (real estate)Minnesota: Zygi Wilf (real estate)New England: Bob Kraft (paper)New Orleans: Tom Benson (autos, banking)NY Giants: John Mara/Steve Tisch (inherited)NY Jets: Robert Wood Johnson IV (inherited)Oakland: Al Davis (actual football pedigree)Philadelphia: Jeff Lurie (movies)Pittsburgh: Dan Rooney (inherited)San Diego: Alex Spanos (inherited)San Francisco: Jed York (inherited)Seattle: Paul Allen (Microsoft)St. Louis: Stan Kroenke (married a Walton)Tampa Bay: Malcolm Glazer (real estate holding)Tennessee: Bud Adams (actual football pedigree)Washington: Dan Snyder (marketing)So, of 31 NFL owners, 14 inherited or married into their money or the team. Only three have earned most of their money in pursuits directly related to football (the AFL founders).
Click to expand...
So using your math, 17 of the 31 did not inherit their money. How does this back up your claim that "Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives" when the MAJORITY are self made? The fact that is wasnt football related is irrelevant to whether or not the money was "earned" but nice try at a distraction. And instead of just letting your crazy statement die, you came back to prove just how wrong you were?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
netnalp said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
Joe Summer said:
Jeff Pasquino said:
The TV package for 2011 is over $4B to the owners EVEN IF THEY DON'T PLAY THE SEASON.What incentive do the owners have to give the players much of anything???
Click to expand...
What incentive do the owners have to field a team at all? $4 billion in pure profit with almost zero expenses = $125 million per owner. How many owners are making $125 million a year right now?? Not very many, I'd bet. They should just shut down football until the TV contract money runs out.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but this is the bean-counter approach that I've seen many companies take and it is a terrible, terrible approach. It's actually a trap to do this. Think of it this way - the accountants see that a company pulls in $100M in a year over costs but they spend $20M on sales guys and $30M on marketing. One of them decides that they should just "trim the fat" and get rid of the sales department and marketing to get $50M more income for the next year. That's a great plan - for the short term. Without sales growth / support and marketing, the $100M dries up to $25M - thus the "$50M savings" cost the company $75M in profits.Short term "gains" are often detrimental to long term company health.
Click to expand...
That's why the Japanese auto industry has done better over the past several decades than the US ones. The US companies make plans for the next 5 years while the Japanese form plans for the next 20-30 years.
Click to expand...
That's one viewpoint, but US companies tend to spend more on marketing and less on engineering (at least that was the way it was when Toyota became dominant). Japanese carmakers let the cars market themselves more than US carmakers, which is why Toyotas were a more reliable and better designed product overall - while Ford / Chevy / GM inundated our eyeballs with commercials.
 
atl3695 said:
So using your math, 17 of the 31 did not inherit their money. How does this back up your claim that "Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives" when the MAJORITY are self made? The fact that is wasnt football related is irrelevant to whether or not the money was "earned" but nice try at a distraction. And instead of just letting your crazy statement die, you came back to prove just how wrong you were?
Click to expand...
Well, ok, instead of "very few," it's half. Modifying statements based on facts is what intelligent people do. Making personal attacks is what incompetents do.
 
CalBear said:
atl3695 said:
So using your math, 17 of the 31 did not inherit their money. How does this back up your claim that "Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives" when the MAJORITY are self made? The fact that is wasnt football related is irrelevant to whether or not the money was "earned" but nice try at a distraction. And instead of just letting your crazy statement die, you came back to prove just how wrong you were?
Click to expand...
Well, ok, instead of "very few," it's half. Modifying statements based on facts is what intelligent people do. Making personal attacks is what incompetents do.
Click to expand...
Where was the personal attack? Intelligent people get their facts before they make a statement thereby limiting the needed modifications.The NFL is a business and the owners have a right to look at it that way. It is no one's decision but theirs what is "enough" money or what is "fair". The NFL doesnt "owe" fans football any more than McDonald's owes us Big Macs.
 
atl3695 said:
...So using your math, 17 of the 31 did not inherit their money. How does this back up your claim that "Very few of the NFL owners have worked for anything in their lives" when the MAJORITY are self made? The fact that is wasnt football related is irrelevant to whether or not the money was "earned" but nice try at a distraction. And instead of just letting your crazy statement die, you came back to prove just how wrong you were?
Click to expand...
:( :goodposting: Calbear, how does 17/31 = "very few of the NFL owners"? Would you please answer?
 
Why wont the owners show their books to the players union?

You're a pretty crappy union and foolish if you take pay cut just because they say their not making as much as they used to.

I suggest people read the players view on this at nfllockout.com they make some good points. It's hard to side with the owners after reading.

 
roadkill1292 said:
I always support the players in their disputes with the owners. Always. Let the revolution begin. The NFL is overdue a giant kick in its ###.
Click to expand...
I'm the complete opposite. I always support the owners. So go ahead with your revolution. You remember what happened to Robespierre, right? :thumbup:
 
CalBear said:
Shutout said:
Many of the top companies in the world do not "open their books" (which should not be confused with making financial statements available to the public).
Click to expand...
The NFL owners are not making financial statements of any sort available to the public. They're not required to, but the fact that they don't want to do it is telling.
A lot of people are calling the owners greedy but you have to remember: this is a business and the vast majority of big businesses exist for the purpose of making a profit. These owners have a love of their game but they are also business people. If you worked your whole life (or was your family's business over generations) to run a successful business, you would likely be more in tune to what the owners are saying. Remember, at some point, it was them, not us, that put their family's life on the line and invested, took the risks, wrote the multi-million dollar checks that they stood good for.
Click to expand...
Oh, the horrible plight of the billionaire! Something must be done--they're at risk of losing their family's Carribean islands and their offshore bank accounts!
Click to expand...
It's hard for me to get behind a Cal-Berkeley guy that is rooting for the common man. I mean, duh.
 
ConstruxBoy said:
It's hard for me to get behind a Cal-Berkeley guy that is rooting for the common man. I mean, duh.
Click to expand...
NFL players are hardly "the common man." But they clearly are at much higher risk than any of the owners. Every time an NFL player steps on the football field, he could be facing an injury which would cut his earning potential by a factor of 100, for the rest of his life. What's the risk a billionaire owner is taking? He might have to sell one of his yachts?
 
I guess I could get behind the owners if it that meant I wouldn't have to pay an arm and a leg for tickets to a stadium that I helped pay for. If TV is king then prevent blackouts. Get butts in the seats by not gouging us at the gates and then get even more TV money for Sunday's games.

I just don't see that happening, so why should I not despise the owners for taking My Precious away from me?

 
CalBear said:
So you're saying that if the players work 12.5% more, they might be able to keep the same salary. What a deal!
Click to expand...
They wouldn't be working 12.5% more. They'd be playing 12.5% more regular-season games (with some increase in regular-season practices as well — less or more than 12.5% depending on whether an additional bye week is added). That would be at least partially offset by having fewer preseason games, and perhaps fewer offseason workouts and/or a shorter training camp. Even if there were no reduction in OTAs, training camp, or the preseason at all, however, it would not simply turn a 16-game season into a 18-game season. Including OTAs, training camp, and the preseason, it would turn a 27-week/year job into a 29-week/year job (or whatever the correct numbers are) — less than a 12.5% increase — even without taking playoffs or voluntary offseason workouts into account.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CalBear said:
San Diego: Alex Spanos (inherited)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how many of the others are wrong, but that one definitely is. Spanos was dirt poor for the first 27 years of his life. "In his early years, Alex Spanos worked night and day, seven days a week in his father’s bakery. His growing family was struggling to make ends meet on $40 a week." (link) "His business career began in 1951 with an $800 loan that enabled him to buy a truck and start his own catering business. With his entrepreneurial genius, he moved quickly into the fields of real estate and construction, where he became an industry leader." (link)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Scoresman
My 2025 NFL Team Offense Rankings
Replies
1
Views
301
Scoresman
Scoresman
T
travdogg's favorite values as of 7/21
Replies
44
Views
3K
Deamon
Deamon
socrates
Crazy Early Dynasty Rookie PPR Draft Board (2023 Updated Rankings Page 5)
3 4 5
Replies
213
Views
24K
socrates
socrates

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top