Let's Negotiate... (1 Viewer)

[Lucky Lefty]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players..

Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?

More questions for the owners...

Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)?

Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?

What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?

What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

 

[az_prof]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players.. Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?More questions for the owners...Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)? Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

If I am the players, I am willing to compromise on the following:a) Drug Testing (it's good for the game and the players and as long as everyone is tested, then in the end, no one really loses except cheaters)b) Rookie salary cap; heal yeah. Those first round pick mostly don't deserve it anyway.Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.In return I want:a) more money for Seniors retirement and healthcareIf the Owners insist on extra two games THENa) We split the extra profits 50/50b) Cut one year from FADeal done.

 

[Lucky Lefty]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players.. Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?More questions for the owners...Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)? Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

If I am the players, I am willing to compromise on the following:a) Drug Testing (it's good for the game and the players and as long as everyone is tested, then in the end, no one really loses except cheaters)b) Rookie salary cap; heal yeah. Those first round pick mostly don't deserve it anyway.Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.In return I want:a) more money for Seniors retirement and healthcareIf the Owners insist on extra two games THENa) We split the extra profits 50/50b) Cut one year from FADeal done.

Agree... I would be willing to add two games for extended healthcare

 

[cheese]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players.. Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?More questions for the owners...Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)? Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

If I am the players, I am willing to compromise on the following:a) Drug Testing (it's good for the game and the players and as long as everyone is tested, then in the end, no one really loses except cheaters)b) Rookie salary cap; heal yeah. Those first round pick mostly don't deserve it anyway.Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.In return I want:a) more money for Seniors retirement and healthcareIf the Owners insist on extra two games THENa) We split the extra profits 50/50b) Cut one year from FADeal done.

As an owner, there is no way I would accept this. You really aren't adding much money to my pockets here. All you're offering is to take half of the difference between weeks 17/18 and weeks 3/4 of preseason and then I have to pay more into retirement and healthcare. I don't really care that much about drug testing. That one is setup to be one of my concessions, so you offering it to me isn't worth that much. Cutting the one year from FA the rookie wage scale are mostly a wash to me. Basically, how is the deal better than the current CBA that I locked you out to avoid using any longer?The bottom line here is money of course, and you're offering very little of it unless you can quantify the additional revenue of the 18 game schedule for me and that number is HUGE compared to whatever it is you're asking to be added to retirement/healthcare.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players..

Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?

More questions for the owners...

Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)?

Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?

What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?

What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

If I am the players, I am willing to compromise on the following:a) Drug Testing (it's good for the game and the players and as long as everyone is tested, then in the end, no one really loses except cheaters)

b) Rookie salary cap; heal yeah. Those first round pick mostly don't deserve it anyway.

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

In return I want:

a) more money for Seniors retirement and healthcare

If the Owners insist on extra two games THEN

a) We split the extra profits 50/50

b) Cut one year from FA

Deal done.

I'd agree to much of this. The salary cap number, I'd go back to what the owner's last offer was and start there as part of negotiating. I would have fixed increases in the cap, rather than increases based on a percentage (which I believe was the substance of the last model) with some allowance for an increase if growth outpaces the increases by a set amount (and similarly, some reduction if revenues drop by a significant amount).

 

[az_prof]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players.. Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?More questions for the owners...Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)? Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

If I am the players, I am willing to compromise on the following:a) Drug Testing (it's good for the game and the players and as long as everyone is tested, then in the end, no one really loses except cheaters)b) Rookie salary cap; heal yeah. Those first round pick mostly don't deserve it anyway.Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.In return I want:a) more money for Seniors retirement and healthcareIf the Owners insist on extra two games THENa) We split the extra profits 50/50b) Cut one year from FADeal done.

As an owner, there is no way I would accept this. You really aren't adding much money to my pockets here. All you're offering is to take half of the difference between weeks 17/18 and weeks 3/4 of preseason and then I have to pay more into retirement and healthcare. I don't really care that much about drug testing. That one is setup to be one of my concessions, so you offering it to me isn't worth that much. Cutting the one year from FA the rookie wage scale are mostly a wash to me. Basically, how is the deal better than the current CBA that I locked you out to avoid using any longer?The bottom line here is money of course, and you're offering very little of it unless you can quantify the additional revenue of the 18 game schedule for me and that number is HUGE compared to whatever it is you're asking to be added to retirement/healthcare.

No, you wouldn't be paying any extra for healthcare and retirement; that money would come from the rookie cap.And getting half the revenue from two extra games is worth tens of millions of dollars to each owner. Why should the players agree to play extra games, putting themselves at greater risk and working more, for less money? If you are going to extend the season you have to find a way to do it so that their long term health gains some protection and then you have to split the money. Why would they agree to anything less?

 

[KCitons]

Gentlemen, I am Mr Moneybags (fake attorney at law) I currently represent approx 15 million NFL fans. It seems that you have left us out of the negotiations.

If you end this lockout and get back to normal business we...

promise to follow the NFL, Teams, and Players with puppy dogged looks. (we will even use some as role models for our kids)

promise to shell out whatever insane amount of money DirecTV puts as a price to watch our favorite teams each Sunday.

promise to take out a second mortgage to take our families to a ball game, due to skyrocketing ticket prices, parking scams, and concessions.

promise to continue buying jerseys with our own names on the back. Hoping someone will think I am actually a 5'2" 190lb, balding NFL player.

If you continue to drag this process out into the season and games are missed we....

will probably find a local college, high school, or semi pro team to follow. And realize that they play for the love of the game and not the money

(our kids my actually see us as a role model)

will take the extra money from not have to buy NFL Sunday Ticket and buy something useful. Like paying off that second mortgage from last years tickets and food.

won't buy any more jerseys, instead we will buy gym memberships. And instead of being 5'2" balding fat guy, I will be a 5'2" balding skinny guy.

As you can see, your delay in agreeing on a new CBA is only hurting the fans. (who really doesn't want to watch semi pro sports and who really doesn't want to join a gym?)

 

[cheese]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players..

Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?

More questions for the owners...

Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)?

Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?

What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?

What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

If I am the players, I am willing to compromise on the following:a) Drug Testing (it's good for the game and the players and as long as everyone is tested, then in the end, no one really loses except cheaters)

b) Rookie salary cap; heal yeah. Those first round pick mostly don't deserve it anyway.

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

In return I want:

a) more money for Seniors retirement and healthcare

If the Owners insist on extra two games THEN

a) We split the extra profits 50/50

b) Cut one year from FA

Deal done.

As an owner, there is no way I would accept this. You really aren't adding much money to my pockets here. All you're offering is to take half of the difference between weeks 17/18 and weeks 3/4 of preseason and then I have to pay more into retirement and healthcare. I don't really care that much about drug testing. That one is setup to be one of my concessions, so you offering it to me isn't worth that much. Cutting the one year from FA the rookie wage scale are mostly a wash to me. Basically, how is the deal better than the current CBA that I locked you out to avoid using any longer?The bottom line here is money of course, and you're offering very little of it unless you can quantify the additional revenue of the 18 game schedule for me and that number is HUGE compared to whatever it is you're asking to be added to retirement/healthcare.

No, you wouldn't be paying any extra for healthcare and retirement; that money would come from the rookie cap.And getting half the revenue from two extra games is worth tens of millions of dollars to each owner.

Why should the players agree to play extra games, putting themselves at greater risk and working more, for less money? If you are going to extend the season you have to find a way to do it so that their long term health gains some protection and then you have to split the money. Why would they agree to anything less?

I don't necessarily think they should although the term "less" is obviously relative to the amazing deal they have now. As an owner (in this scenerio), I think the players would have a better chance fighting the 18 games than the less money part of it. If you choose to have some of that money come from revenue from extra games, you can't additionally argue that the extra games are a problem. You are the one choosing to add the extra games as a way for us to get more money. If you want to scrap that and just give me more of the existing money, that works too. Your choice.I'm aware that isn't equal in terms of who is giving what, but its never going to be an equal compromise that takes us from a hugely pro-player CBA to one where we are both happy.

 

[JFurby]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

 

[Lucky Lefty]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

Isn't that a risk you take in business acquisition? I understand we received the bigger slice of pie the first time around and know some adjustment will need to be made. So here a question... In order to get permanent healthcare what are we going to need to give up?

 

[FUBAR]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.

I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.

My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

What billionaire buys a franchise without researching the actual return? Granted, he probably thinks he can change things. You're not going to get much sympathy with this. You bought in while understanding the dynamics involved. It's a risk you accepted.

I just don't get why the owners should get more money.

 

[AlexanderSupertramp215]

when you break it down, the owners' 40% equals $3.2 billion and the players' 60% equals $4.8 billion. add the extra billion off the top and it's owners - $4.2 billion and players - $4.8 billion. the owners say they need more money, but why? assuming another $9 billion next season, and the owners get $2 billion off the top and split 50/50, all of a sudden the owners get $5.5 billion to the players' $3.5 billion. why do the owners NEED that $2.6 billion swing, all the while, adding 2 more games that puts the players at a much higher risk to injure themselves? the owners and players both need each other, but the owners need the players more. if the players all decide to go to the UFL, it won't be long before that league overthrows the NFL. the NFL cannot be as successful taking the leftovers. so if the owners are refusing to open their books and prove why they need more money, as a player, I'm not willing to budge. it just comes off as greedy. and as a player, I don't want to hear about money for new stadiums when a large portion of the league has gotten a new one in the past 10 years, and a lot of them are being sizably paid for by the fans through city and state taxes.

 

[Lucky Lefty]

I'll take the 2.6 billion swing for permanent healthcare..

 

[simmonjm]

when you break it down, the owners' 40% equals $3.2 billion and the players' 60% equals $4.8 billion. add the extra billion off the top and it's owners - $4.2 billion and players - $4.8 billion. the owners say they need more money, but why? assuming another $9 billion next season, and the owners get $2 billion off the top and split 50/50, all of a sudden the owners get $5.5 billion to the players' $3.5 billion. why do the owners NEED that $2.6 billion swing, all the while, adding 2 more games that puts the players at a much higher risk to injure themselves? the owners and players both need each other, but the owners need the players more. if the players all decide to go to the UFL, it won't be long before that league overthrows the NFL. the NFL cannot be as successful taking the leftovers. so if the owners are refusing to open their books and prove why they need more money, as a player, I'm not willing to budge. it just comes off as greedy. and as a player, I don't want to hear about money for new stadiums when a large portion of the league has gotten a new one in the past 10 years, and a lot of them are being sizably paid for by the fans through city and state taxes.

The owners took a bad deal during the last CBA negotiation to avoid a lockout. The owners want to be rewarded for their last good faith negotiation and feel it is their turn for a sweetheart deal problem is that the players have grown accustomed to their concessions. The owners will win in the end because of the inability of the players to manage their money. I remember Sports Illustrated ran an article with something like 50% or more players going broke after their career is over. No way can the players last in a lockout. With that in mind here is what I think should happen:-18 game season-owners recieve all of the revenue from the extra 2 games in addition to 1 billion off the top -better healthcare and retirement benefits-Olympic style drug testing-Rookie Salary capSure this deal is slanted towards the owners but they hold all the leverage.

 

[cheese]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.

I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.

My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

What billionaire buys a franchise without researching the actual return? Granted, he probably thinks he can change things. You're not going to get much sympathy with this. You bought in while understanding the dynamics involved. It's a risk you accepted.

I just don't get why the owners should get more money.

More than what? The fundamental problem here is you are using the last CBA as a baseline. A CBA that, as others have said, was never close to what the owners should have and COULD have gotten. Even if you dont want to give me any credit as an owner for giving you the upper hand to avoid this last time, lets at least agree to throw the old one out and start negotiating from scratch. Now, tell me again why you deserve 4B or more here and, maybe more importantly, why I should give it to you?

 

[renesauz]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.

I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.

My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

What billionaire buys a franchise without researching the actual return? Granted, he probably thinks he can change things. You're not going to get much sympathy with this. You bought in while understanding the dynamics involved. It's a risk you accepted.

I just don't get why the owners should get more money.

Sure I acepted the risk....because I knew I could negotiate for a better deal with you guys, and improve the outlook.

 

[Novice2]

My offer that you walked out on and sued me still stands.

Why did you quit?

Why did you sue me?

Why do you hate America?

 

[Lucky Lefty]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.

I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.

My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

What billionaire buys a franchise without researching the actual return? Granted, he probably thinks he can change things. You're not going to get much sympathy with this. You bought in while understanding the dynamics involved. It's a risk you accepted.

I just don't get why the owners should get more money.

More than what? The fundamental problem here is you are using the last CBA as a baseline. A CBA that, as others have said, was never close to what the owners should have and COULD have gotten. Even if you dont want to give me any credit as an owner for giving you the upper hand to avoid this last time, lets at least agree to throw the old one out and start negotiating from scratch. Now, tell me again why you deserve 4B or more here and, maybe more importantly, why I should give it to you?

You need us to justify the premium prices you are charging the fans to see the best the football on the planet. You're kidding yourself if you think fans will go pay $80 a ticket to semi-pro caliber players. We need each other and that's a fact... Yes numbers clearly show we got the better end of the last deal, players 4.8b and and 4.2b... How about flipping it for the next deal with a opt-out clause? owners 4.8b (54%) players 4.2(46%)... We'll give back additional 500mil or play a 18 game season for permanent healthcare...

 

[GregR_2]

We have plenty FBG members that are "pro-owners" & "pro-players", so let's have some fun and do a little role playing. Just looking for well-though out replies and not smart a-- answers, no personal shots or attacks and the English professors please put the red grading pens away. If this has already been done, let me know so I can delete it... Again it all in fun, and I'll do my best (along with the other members) to represent the players..

Players thoughts is this we made 9 billion last year, it was split 60% players & 40% owners (with a extra billion going to the owners). Now you want a addition billion and want it to be 50-50 split correct? (close to 20% cut) Why? Can you justified this request?

More questions for the owners...

Why are you forcing this issue with a (lockout)?

Why can't we negotiate in good faith and allow the players to workout and communicate with the coaches?

What is the major problem with the CBA deal we had in 2006?

What is the main issue that needs to be address for a new CPA?

Yes. We've been allowed that same $1 billion off the top to pay for operating expenses (henceforth OE) since at least 2006. It may have been that same amount going even further back in time, I wasn't able to find a reference that indicates what was allowed for OE in 2005 and previous years of the CBA.But just working from the 2006 number... inflation has risen 11% from 2006 through 2011 (http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Calculator.asp). That means that if everything else about our expenses stayed constant, we would need $1.1 billion today just to continue paying off the same parts of the business before we got into splitting the other revenue. At the same inflation rate, come 2016 we would need $1.2 billion to pay off the same set of expenses.

However, that assumes our expenses have remained the same fixed events. They haven't. We have new stadiums, we have the NFL Network, we have new ventures along the lines of the Packers Hall of Fame. As part of our previous CBA we have a good faith agreement with the players to grow revenues. There is no additional money set aside for us to do this with, all of the expense incurred comes out of our 40% of the remaining revenue split. So when it cost us $100 million to start up NFL Network (actual cost spent by the NFL), we had to spend that out of our pockets, and then the first day that we get $1 back in advertising fees or cable subscription fees, the players get 60% of that dollar and we got 40%. At that rate, NFL Network has to bring in $250 million in revenue before our startup costs are paid off, and we're still out of pocket the operating expenses for the number of years NFL Network had to actually run to bring in that first $250 million.

In short, you're asking us to stick to the same $1 billion to pay for OE that we were allowed in 2006 when we made $5.8 billion a year, without accounting for the increased costs of expenses due to inflation and due to owner reinvestment in the business to grow it to over $9 billion in 2010. In 2006 our chunk of the pie was $1b + 40% of $4.8 = $2.9b or %50 of the revenue. Today it is $1b + .4 * $9b = $4.2b or 47% of the revenue, and a larger percentage of our piece is going towards expenses now than it was 5 years ago. Our total piece of the pie shrinks because the portion set for operating expenses is a fixed amount. We are investing a large amount of money in new stadiums and expect that to continue. You cannot expect us to continue to foot the bill for all of the growth and at the same time watch our proportional amount of revenue shrink.

We the owners made a mistake agreeing to the current CBA extension in 2006. We did it rather than have a work stoppage then. We've learned from our mistake, we gave more than the business should have, and if it takes standing firm and not continuing the business until the players agree to rectify the inequality in the situation, we're willing to do so.

If we didn't lock out the players and allowed workouts while we negotiate, it would be under the current CBA. If we did so, the players would then use it against us in court as evidence the NFL is able to operate under the current CBA provisions when doing so continues this downward spiral we're on with operating expenses. It makes little sense for us to allow things to continue under the 2006 agreement when we have a legal right to opt out of it and lock the players out.

 

[FUBAR]

Give back more total money? Ummm why? No way.

Nobody would ever be as candid as I'm about to be in negotiations but I am attempting to show the mindset of one group of owners...I'm one of a few new owners that bought a franchise in the past 3 years. I didn't just fall into a heap of cash; I built it through successfully managing real estate and other businesses. As such, I have an expected return on the billion dollars I just put into buying my franchise. Under the past CBA, the annual return I've been getting is lower than what I expect for a billion dollar investment. For the like-minded businessmen owners in the group, this whole ordeal is that simple.

I can already anticipate the rebuttal. You will all claim that I can sell my franchise for $1.5B in a few years for a huge return. It is this very speculation that caused me to overpay for my franchise in the first place. If profits aren't keeping up with the rise in franchise values, the newest owners likely bought at the top of a bubble. The best way to remedy the situation is to make the business more profitable by trying to raise revenues (extra games) and cut costs (players make up more than 50% of my costs). If I cannot successfully increase profits through these measures, there is a very real chance that I could have to sell my franchise for less than I paid for it in the future.

My franchise is not bleeding cash or in financial distress but I have an obligation to shareholders, including myself, to maximize profits.

What billionaire buys a franchise without researching the actual return? Granted, he probably thinks he can change things. You're not going to get much sympathy with this. You bought in while understanding the dynamics involved. It's a risk you accepted.

I just don't get why the owners should get more money.

More than what? The fundamental problem here is you are using the last CBA as a baseline. A CBA that, as others have said, was never close to what the owners should have and COULD have gotten. Even if you dont want to give me any credit as an owner for giving you the upper hand to avoid this last time, lets at least agree to throw the old one out and start negotiating from scratch. Now, tell me again why you deserve 4B or more here and, maybe more importantly, why I should give it to you?

Why would I start from scratch? A working agreement has been in place, that's where I start. Call it unfair if you want to, but you can't tell me owners didn't make money during it. Bottom line here, give long-term healthcare and retirement benefits - what do you demand in return?

 

[FUBAR]

when you break it down, the owners' 40% equals $3.2 billion and the players' 60% equals $4.8 billion. add the extra billion off the top and it's owners - $4.2 billion and players - $4.8 billion. the owners say they need more money, but why? assuming another $9 billion next season, and the owners get $2 billion off the top and split 50/50, all of a sudden the owners get $5.5 billion to the players' $3.5 billion. why do the owners NEED that $2.6 billion swing, all the while, adding 2 more games that puts the players at a much higher risk to injure themselves? the owners and players both need each other, but the owners need the players more. if the players all decide to go to the UFL, it won't be long before that league overthrows the NFL. the NFL cannot be as successful taking the leftovers. so if the owners are refusing to open their books and prove why they need more money, as a player, I'm not willing to budge. it just comes off as greedy. and as a player, I don't want to hear about money for new stadiums when a large portion of the league has gotten a new one in the past 10 years, and a lot of them are being sizably paid for by the fans through city and state taxes.

Good post, but it will take awhile for any league to overcome the NFL. Too much momentum, stadiums, etc. in the NFL's favor. Plus, many players would cross over (at least the current college players).

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Great post Greg

 

[fatness]

Yes. We've been allowed that same $1 billion off the top to pay for operating expenses (henceforth OE) since at least 2006.

I don't believe that is correct. I believe each year the owners were allowed to deduct operating expenses off the top before sharing the remainder of the revenue, and that each year operating expenses increased. Last year they hit $1 billion.

 

[GregR_2]

Yes. We've been allowed that same $1 billion off the top to pay for operating expenses (henceforth OE) since at least 2006.

I don't believe that is correct. I believe each year the owners were allowed to deduct operating expenses off the top before sharing the remainder of the revenue, and that each year operating expenses increased. Last year they hit $1 billion.

Did some research and I think you're right. Reading the portion of the CBA itself that defines Total Revenue was painful, but I did spot a few places where it was talking about percentages of this or that related to stadium funding or other ventures. Also I found an article that mentioned the expense credit broke the $1 billion point the last 2 seasons, which suggests it is changing over time.

 

[fatness]

Did some research and I think you're right. Reading the portion of the CBA itself that defines Total Revenue was painful, but I did spot a few places where it was talking about percentages of this or that related to stadium funding or other ventures. Also I found an article that mentioned the expense credit broke the $1 billion point the last 2 seasons, which suggests it is changing over time.

After I posted that I went looking for where I had read it before and came up dry. So thank you for doing better detective work than I did.