Help me out here... (we can keep this brief...) (1 Viewer)

[dtc]

Owners:
"We're partners in this endeavor. We require more of an initial cut since costs have risen. You (our partners) will make the same $$ you were making, and we'll keep the extra ten-plus percent in revenue. (1 billion dollars)

Players:
"Oh, we think not."

and the battle began.

Pretty close, but here's another part. Last year the money to split was $8bn. This year, it's $9bn and the offer presented some time back was actually for players to get more money in cap this year than last year so it's not like they're losing anything except percentage points. They're actually continuing to increase, but at a decreasing rate.

In other words, instead of players' salaries raising 10-15% per year, they'd be more like 5.

I see why there's an argument and a need for a deal, but I just don't see how the players are suffering any sort of injustice for the owners to decide to keep paying them more money.

 

[AceTW]

Pretty close, but here's another part. Last year the money to split was $8bn. This year, it's $9bn and the offer presented some time back was actually for players to get more money in cap this year than last year so it's not like they're losing anything except percentage points. They're actually continuing to increase, but at a decreasing rate.

In other words, instead of players' salaries raising 10-15% per year, they'd be more like 5.

I see why there's an argument and a need for a deal, but I just don't see how the players are suffering any sort of injustice for the owners to decide to keep paying them more money.

Gotcha.. But... I have also read somewhere in this big mess that it was said that the cap was proposed to go back to 2007 levels and start increasing again? Whether it's factual or not may not matter if it was simply a proposal that was declined, but it would indicate an attempt on the NFLs part to create a "pay cut" for the players.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

The percentage split comes after a withholding by the owners for operating costs. In the last CBA it was $1 Billion. In other words, the owners keep the first billion in revenue and then the rest is subject to the percentage split.

The owners are asking for a bigger retention.

So why dont the owners show proof that the economics have changed so they can get a bigger cut and we can get back to some freakin football.

 

[saintlad]

So why dont the owners show proof that the economics have changed so they can get a bigger cut and we can get back to some freakin football.

Correct me if I am wrong but....

There are 31 teams in the NFL that are privately owned, they don't have to show their books if they don't want too.

Only the Packers are required because they are owned by the public.


If you had your own business, would you want to show your books to any employee who asked ????

 

[AceTW]

Correct me if I am wrong but....

There are 31 teams in the NFL that are privately owned, they don't have to show their books if they don't want too.

Only the Packers are required because they are owned by the public.


If you had your own business, would you want to show your books to any employee who asked ????

Hmm. If that "employee" was my partner......

 

[Zardnok]

Correct me if I am wrong but....

There are 31 teams in the NFL that are privately owned, they don't have to show their books if they don't want too.

Only the Packers are required because they are owned by the public.


If you had your own business, would you want to show your books to any employee who asked ????

I keep seeing this argument about showing your books to an employee, but the players are not just employees, they are also the product.

Pretty close, but here's another part. Last year the money to split was $8bn. This year, it's $9bn and the offer presented some time back was actually for players to get more money in cap this year than last year so it's not like they're losing anything except percentage points. They're actually continuing to increase, but at a decreasing rate.

In other words, instead of players' salaries raising 10-15% per year, they'd be more like 5.

I see why there's an argument and a need for a deal, but I just don't see how the players are suffering any sort of injustice for the owners to decide to keep paying them more money.

OK, let's work through a little exercise here. Your boss pays you on a commission basis. You get 57% of the profits. He gets the rest. Now your boss negotiates a deal that decreases the profits he makes, ergo reducing your commission, and postponing those profits until a later date when you will not be getting paid a commission, would you be upset?

Further, your boss decides that your 57% commission is too much and wants to reduce the amount you are getting paid even further. He doesn't want to show you why the 57% is too much, but your boss is telling you he is losing money, despite buying a new yacht, and you are going to have to take a pay-cut. The only proof he is willing to give you that he is losing money is his own word and you are supposed to take him at it. You know, because he is such a fine honorable business man and all, despite intentionally structuring your last big business deal so you got screwed on the front side and he got rich on the back side.