Steve Bisciotti cries poor, for other owners (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

I think Steve B means well, but it's never (IMHO) a good idea to have an owner out there making statements for a constituency he really doesn't belong to. I know he's of the mind that all 32 owners are united against the NFLPA; which has historically been the case in labor negotiations, but I wonder if this time it's going to be different b/c, as he alludes, the financial health of the ownership has reportedly never been more disparate. There are teams that are raking in the dough, have great leaseholds on their stadiums, and can happily spend to the max cap and then some (in the form of big cash bonuses), and then there are teams that are struggling to stay profitable. Could be an ugly labor situation this time out, I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4884627

 

[ICON211]

With the television revenues I find it hard to believe there is even one team that does not make a profit.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

To me, this negotiation is as much about owners vs. owners (alleged haves/have nots) as it is about owners vs. players.

 

[Jason Wood]

To me, this negotiation is as much about owners vs. owners (alleged haves/have nots) as it is about owners vs. players.

That's exactly right Anthony. While I'm certainly hopeful this will all get settled at the 11th hour as these kinds of things usually do, I am much more pessimistic about a clean outcome than in times past.*** Teams are saddled with debts that need to be serviced and can't be refinanced easily*** The stratification among owners and their economic well being is more pronounced than ever*** You have a new NFLPA head who obviously wants to make a name for himself, and has no history with the commissioner*** You have a new commissioner who wants to prove he's worthy of being Tags' successor, and has no history with the NFLPA head*** You've got mounting evidence and need for retired players that wasn't something that was a major sticking point in prior CBA negotiationsMessy, messy, messy

 

[Dexter Manley]

This is exactly why Goodell issued a gag order.

 

[Sammy Traveller]

To me, this negotiation is as much about owners vs. owners (alleged haves/have nots) as it is about owners vs. players.

That's exactly right Anthony. While I'm certainly hopeful this will all get settled at the 11th hour as these kinds of things usually do, I am much more pessimistic about a clean outcome than in times past.*** Teams are saddled with debts that need to be serviced and can't be refinanced easily*** The stratification among owners and their economic well being is more pronounced than ever*** You have a new NFLPA head who obviously wants to make a name for himself, and has no history with the commissioner*** You have a new commissioner who wants to prove he's worthy of being Tags' successor, and has no history with the NFLPA head*** You've got mounting evidence and need for retired players that wasn't something that was a major sticking point in prior CBA negotiationsMessy, messy, messy

 

[Sweet Love]

While I agree that 32 teams makes for a nice round number when considering divisions, etc., up until the Texans came into the league this was not the case. I know it would kill fans if teams up and left or folded, but if they can't make it in a certain city, I see no reason why they should stay. It killed me when the Hrtford Whalers left town, but the truth is, the paying fanbase was just not there. If smaller cities in baseball can get fans to 81 home games, I see no reason why an equally popular sport can not fill their stadium for 8...I realize there is a difference in ticket prices between the two, but baseball has random games on a Tuesday at 2pm...football is almost always on the weekend or after hours (unless you work in retail).

 

[Rovers]

Saw Mawae and the new guy with the overbite, new "head" of the NFLPA on Inside the NFL.

I have a lot of problems with their attitudes. They want the owners to completely open their books down to the last details. They seem to think they own the league, not the owners. What gives them the right to demand a percentage of profits, while assuming no risk? What happens if the next TV contract isn't so sweet? The owners will have to eat that risk. Please don't give me the nonsense about garanteed contracts, that's what signing bonuses are for.

Then that over bite guy kept on siting some report done by Forbes which said the "average team" makes 31 mil a year. There are no "average teams". Each team has it's own debt burden, it's own market size. And just how did Forbes come up with their numbers, and why does the NFLPA hang their hat on it like it's indisputable fact? Then they want to use the Packers as their model, because it's a small market team but has to show the books because they are publically owned. The Packers don't have a stadium to pay any financing on.

What privatley owned company ever opens it's books to employees? Especailly when the minimum wage is what now, over $400,000 a year give or take? The owners, rightfully so want to be sure small market teams can compete.

I got so annoyed with the players in MLB I flat out quit being a baseball fan. I used to be as fanatical about baseball as I am about the NFL. Now we have to pay for PSL's while filthy rich players grab for even more money?

The NFLPA claims that the owners want to cut salaries by 18%. Even if thery do, the players are rich by most standards. These players are about to poop on the table they eat from. The players want to help the NFL retirees? But they want that to come from the owners too.

I think there WILL be a lockout in 2011, and I don't know if I will come back to the game after that. And I blame the players.

 

[goldfinger]

I think Steve B means well, but it's never (IMHO) a good idea to have an owner out there making statements for a constituency he really doesn't belong to. I know he's of the mind that all 32 owners are united against the NFLPA; which has historically been the case in labor negotiations, but I wonder if this time it's going to be different b/c, as he alludes, the financial health of the ownership has reportedly never been more disparate. There are teams that are raking in the dough, have great leaseholds on their stadiums, and can happily spend to the max cap and then some (in the form of big cash bonuses), and then there are teams that are struggling to stay profitable. Could be an ugly labor situation this time out, I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4884627

The biggest problem with an uncapped year is not that there won't be a cap, but that there won't be a floor. This would be an opportunity for teams to unload big salaries in order to return to profitability. That would go along with what Biscotti is saying, and it also means that the owners would welcome an uncapped year.

 

[Sweet Love]

I think Steve B means well, but it's never (IMHO) a good idea to have an owner out there making statements for a constituency he really doesn't belong to. I know he's of the mind that all 32 owners are united against the NFLPA; which has historically been the case in labor negotiations, but I wonder if this time it's going to be different b/c, as he alludes, the financial health of the ownership has reportedly never been more disparate. There are teams that are raking in the dough, have great leaseholds on their stadiums, and can happily spend to the max cap and then some (in the form of big cash bonuses), and then there are teams that are struggling to stay profitable. Could be an ugly labor situation this time out, I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4884627

The biggest problem with an uncapped year is not that there won't be a cap, but that there won't be a floor. This would be an opportunity for teams to unload big salaries in order to return to profitability. That would go along with what Biscotti is saying, and it also means that the owners would welcome an uncapped year.

Goldfinger is dead on with this point. We often think that teams will go from roughly 120mm to 150+ without a capped year. My guess is that you will see about 10 teams go over the 120-125 (whtever th cap is at now) and the other 22 will go under. Some by maybe 5-10mm, but some will go much less. My guess is that you will see a couple of teams lower than 70mm if this happens. In baseball, you have teams making less than all-star players alone, and these teams could all use the excuse that they are clearing space for 2011 (see the NBA). If the NY Giants were to do this (for example), absolutely nothing would change as they would still have a wait for season tickets and could save 50mm in just one year.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

They want the owners to completely open their books down to the last details.

Well, what else are you going to do? Take the owners at their word?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

To me, this negotiation is as much about owners vs. owners (alleged haves/have nots) as it is about owners vs. players.

That's exactly right Anthony. While I'm certainly hopeful this will all get settled at the 11th hour as these kinds of things usually do, I am much more pessimistic about a clean outcome than in times past.*** Teams are saddled with debts that need to be serviced and can't be refinanced easily*** The stratification among owners and their economic well being is more pronounced than ever*** You have a new NFLPA head who obviously wants to make a name for himself, and has no history with the commissioner*** You have a new commissioner who wants to prove he's worthy of being Tags' successor, and has no history with the NFLPA head*** You've got mounting evidence and need for retired players that wasn't something that was a major sticking point in prior CBA negotiationsMessy, messy, messy

Woodrow, what exactly are you disagreeing with that SB said? Other than the title of your thread, that is. I agree with just about everything & that ain't homerism.

 

[greenroom]

Saw Mawae and the new guy with the overbite, new "head" of the NFLPA on Inside the NFL. I have a lot of problems with their attitudes. They want the owners to completely open their books down to the last details. They seem to think they own the league, not the owners. What gives them the right to demand a percentage of profits, while assuming no risk? What happens if the next TV contract isn't so sweet? The owners will have to eat that risk. Please don't give me the nonsense about garanteed contracts, that's what signing bonuses are for. Then that over bite guy kept on siting some report done by Forbes which said the "average team" makes 31 mil a year. There are no "average teams". Each team has it's own debt burden, it's own market size. And just how did Forbes come up with their numbers, and why does the NFLPA hang their hat on it like it's indisputable fact? Then they want to use the Packers as their model, because it's a small market team but has to show the books because they are publically owned. The Packers don't have a stadium to pay any financing on. What privatley owned company ever opens it's books to employees? Especailly when the minimum wage is what now, over $400,000 a year give or take? The owners, rightfully so want to be sure small market teams can compete. I got so annoyed with the players in MLB I flat out quit being a baseball fan. I used to be as fanatical about baseball as I am about the NFL. Now we have to pay for PSL's while filthy rich players grab for even more money? The NFLPA claims that the owners want to cut salaries by 18%. Even if thery do, the players are rich by most standards. These players are about to poop on the table they eat from. The players want to help the NFL retirees? But they want that to come from the owners too. I think there WILL be a lockout in 2011, and I don't know if I will come back to the game after that. And I blame the players.

So if your boss came to you and told you had to take a pay cut of 20% you would not question why? And the NFLPLA gives back to the owners 1 billion dollar, but they want them to take a paycut?The real battle is between owner vs owner like baseball. But yet the NFL just went in front of the Supreme Court and said that the NFL is one unit so it should not matter if one team struggles and one gets paid more since they are one unit.

 

[kaa]

I think Steve B means well, but it's never (IMHO) a good idea to have an owner out there making statements for a constituency he really doesn't belong to. I know he's of the mind that all 32 owners are united against the NFLPA; which has historically been the case in labor negotiations, but I wonder if this time it's going to be different b/c, as he alludes, the financial health of the ownership has reportedly never been more disparate. There are teams that are raking in the dough, have great leaseholds on their stadiums, and can happily spend to the max cap and then some (in the form of big cash bonuses), and then there are teams that are struggling to stay profitable. Could be an ugly labor situation this time out, I would be lying if I said I wasn't worried.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4884627

The biggest problem with an uncapped year is not that there won't be a cap, but that there won't be a floor. This would be an opportunity for teams to unload big salaries in order to return to profitability. That would go along with what Biscotti is saying, and it also means that the owners would welcome an uncapped year.

Just watch, some team will "go thru the floor" and dump all their good players, and then win their conference. The media goes crazy over such a great story. Then they get blown out in the super bowl.

 

[kingmalaki]

Saw Mawae and the new guy with the overbite, new "head" of the NFLPA on Inside the NFL. I have a lot of problems with their attitudes. They want the owners to completely open their books down to the last details. They seem to think they own the league, not the owners. What gives them the right to demand a percentage of profits, while assuming no risk? What happens if the next TV contract isn't so sweet? The owners will have to eat that risk. Please don't give me the nonsense about garanteed contracts, that's what signing bonuses are for. Then that over bite guy kept on siting some report done by Forbes which said the "average team" makes 31 mil a year. There are no "average teams". Each team has it's own debt burden, it's own market size. And just how did Forbes come up with their numbers, and why does the NFLPA hang their hat on it like it's indisputable fact? Then they want to use the Packers as their model, because it's a small market team but has to show the books because they are publically owned. The Packers don't have a stadium to pay any financing on. What privatley owned company ever opens it's books to employees? Especailly when the minimum wage is what now, over $400,000 a year give or take? The owners, rightfully so want to be sure small market teams can compete. I got so annoyed with the players in MLB I flat out quit being a baseball fan. I used to be as fanatical about baseball as I am about the NFL. Now we have to pay for PSL's while filthy rich players grab for even more money? The NFLPA claims that the owners want to cut salaries by 18%. Even if thery do, the players are rich by most standards. These players are about to poop on the table they eat from. The players want to help the NFL retirees? But they want that to come from the owners too. I think there WILL be a lockout in 2011, and I don't know if I will come back to the game after that. And I blame the players.

If we had a signed deal and you wanted to opt out and ask me to take 18% less, then yes.....I would like to see your books or get some kind of justification for this. Especially if I knew you just signed a huge deal...like a $5B TV contract.Most private companies can easily replace their employees and have the same product. That isn't the case for the NFL. And the players do take risks...with their future health. It's why so many retired players are screwed and why they truly deserve every penny they get, similar to boxers. The average employee isn't getting his head pounded in every week.

 

[Rovers]

Saw Mawae and the new guy with the overbite, new "head" of the NFLPA on Inside the NFL. I have a lot of problems with their attitudes. They want the owners to completely open their books down to the last details. They seem to think they own the league, not the owners. What gives them the right to demand a percentage of profits, while assuming no risk? What happens if the next TV contract isn't so sweet? The owners will have to eat that risk. Please don't give me the nonsense about garanteed contracts, that's what signing bonuses are for. Then that over bite guy kept on siting some report done by Forbes which said the "average team" makes 31 mil a year. There are no "average teams". Each team has it's own debt burden, it's own market size. And just how did Forbes come up with their numbers, and why does the NFLPA hang their hat on it like it's indisputable fact? Then they want to use the Packers as their model, because it's a small market team but has to show the books because they are publically owned. The Packers don't have a stadium to pay any financing on. What privatley owned company ever opens it's books to employees? Especailly when the minimum wage is what now, over $400,000 a year give or take? The owners, rightfully so want to be sure small market teams can compete. I got so annoyed with the players in MLB I flat out quit being a baseball fan. I used to be as fanatical about baseball as I am about the NFL. Now we have to pay for PSL's while filthy rich players grab for even more money? The NFLPA claims that the owners want to cut salaries by 18%. Even if thery do, the players are rich by most standards. These players are about to poop on the table they eat from. The players want to help the NFL retirees? But they want that to come from the owners too. I think there WILL be a lockout in 2011, and I don't know if I will come back to the game after that. And I blame the players.

If we had a signed deal and you wanted to opt out and ask me to take 18% less, then yes.....I would like to see your books or get some kind of justification for this. Especially if I knew you just signed a huge deal...like a $5B TV contract.Most private companies can easily replace their employees and have the same product. That isn't the case for the NFL. And the players do take risks...with their future health. It's why so many retired players are screwed and why they truly deserve every penny they get, similar to boxers. The average employee isn't getting his head pounded in every week.

Number one, there is no "signed deal". The CBA has expired. Plenty of people have taken pay cuts. Few of them make millions the way players do. Even at the NFL minimum, players make plenty of $. Owners have all of the financial risk. It isn't like players could not do something else for a living... they just don't want to, given how much money they can make as a player. They make their own injury risk choice. Most of these guys have already gotten a free college education. Salaries have gone out of control already. Heck, I can't even afford the PSL cost anymore, never mind a game ticket. NFL teams can't trim salary costs like other businesses through layoffs. The owners are trying to recover from a previous mistake, the 60% deal in the last CBA. An 18% pay cut would mean the players are still getting half. They are darned lucky to be able to play in this league, and they are about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Number one, there is no "signed deal". The CBA has expired. Plenty of people have taken pay cuts. Few of them make millions the way players do. Even at the NFL minimum, players make plenty of $. Owners have all of the financial risk. It isn't like players could not do something else for a living... they just don't want to, given how much money they can make as a player. They make their own injury risk choice. Most of these guys have already gotten a free college education. Salaries have gone out of control already. Heck, I can't even afford the PSL cost anymore, never mind a game ticket. NFL teams can't trim salary costs like other businesses through layoffs. The owners are trying to recover from a previous mistake, the 60% deal in the last CBA. An 18% pay cut would mean the players are still getting half. They are darned lucky to be able to play in this league, and they are about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

A league with no players would be pretty damn interesting. Do you envision it like one of those commercials with animation instead of actors? Or more like a virtual reality gig - where it's all done with computer simulation? Just write the owners and explain to them how you're willing to pay, say, half the current going rate for a PSL to see that product and...What's that? You want to watch live human beings? Oh. Well, sorry then. Looks like you'll have to await the results of this thing called a 'business negotiation' between two equally wealthy and powerful interests who both have a right to pursue what they perceive as their interests.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

The real battle is between owner vs owner like baseball. But yet the NFL just went in front of the Supreme Court and said that the NFL is one unit so it should not matter if one team struggles and one gets paid more since they are one unit.

 

[Rovers]

Number one, there is no "signed deal". The CBA has expired. Plenty of people have taken pay cuts. Few of them make millions the way players do. Even at the NFL minimum, players make plenty of $. Owners have all of the financial risk. It isn't like players could not do something else for a living... they just don't want to, given how much money they can make as a player. They make their own injury risk choice. Most of these guys have already gotten a free college education. Salaries have gone out of control already. Heck, I can't even afford the PSL cost anymore, never mind a game ticket. NFL teams can't trim salary costs like other businesses through layoffs. The owners are trying to recover from a previous mistake, the 60% deal in the last CBA. An 18% pay cut would mean the players are still getting half. They are darned lucky to be able to play in this league, and they are about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

A league with no players would be pretty damn interesting. Do you envision it like one of those commercials with animation instead of actors? Or more like a virtual reality gig - where it's all done with computer simulation? Just write the owners and explain to them how you're willing to pay, say, half the current going rate for a PSL to see that product and...What's that? You want to watch live human beings? Oh. Well, sorry then. Looks like you'll have to await the results of this thing called a 'business negotiation' between two equally wealthy and powerful interests who both have a right to pursue what they perceive as their interests.

What's with the condescending tone? Where did I even hint at a league with no players? Yes, they have the right to persue their self interests, but both sides actually have the gumballs to say "it's about saving the integrity of the league"? They don't care one bean about the league, other than the fact it is the vehicle to serve their puroses, which is to grab as much money as possible while screwing the fans. Who put a burr in your shorties?