JR condescending to Peyton Manning during CBA meeting?

[Urrymonster]

1 team does not represent 32. You cannot and should not make such HUGE financial decision and changes based on using 1/32 of data to reflect the full 100%.

It can be argued that since Green Bay is publicly owned there is less incentive to make more and more $$$ vs owners of the other 31 who has major incentive to maximize their profits.... For that reason alone green bay is an anomaly to the sample that should not be used to reflect the whole sample population.

Of course you don't make that assumption, but the NFLPA rep's fully recognise that one of the oldest franchises is losing money. Their whole standing is that the NFL revenue is going up so their profits have to be as well. Green Bay is living proof that isn;t happening.

As I pointed out in my other post, its very likely (although suggestive thoughts on my behalf) that the NFL owners recognise that the handful of super powered financial teams really cloud the team to team finances. However the NFLPA will jump on that saying the NFL as a whole is a fine, despite some of the teams relying solely on the revenue generated by teams such as the Cowboys.

Oh and any company, public or private is about making the business profitable, NOT losing money season after season. To claim otherwise is just grasping at straws.

[theyhateme45]

Here is something that probably rings quite close to the truth.

The owners likely don't want their books opened as it will likely show that 'overall' the NFL is doing fine, however that it is mainly supported by the revenue sharing of the massive teams such as the Cowboys.

Now, any team, should be able to balance their books without the aid of other teams. That is pretty sensible economics. However as the NFL employs revenue sharing the players will see it as a non issue that the smaller market teams are struggling to stay in the black.

So the owners are doing the sensible thing by trying to make each team self sustaining, however as the NFL is ok as a complete business opening the books will only bring more confusion and ammunition for the NFLPA.

I agree that could quite possibly be the Owners angle. That's why the players want proof, because if the issue is one of revenue sharing between owners the players do not feel they should give up more $$$ just to help solve owners financial disagreements/sharing between each others.

But if the NFL overall profits are declining, and they lack capital to invest back in the team, then I BELIEVE they would be more willing to give the NFL more credits thus the NFLPA taking a smaller %.

This is why I don't think the players are dumb because they know this.

[beastson]

Just ugh... that's all I can say

[Urrymonster]

I agree that could quite possibly be the Owners angle. That's why the players want proof, because if the issue is one of revenue sharing between owners the players do not feel they should give up more $$$ just to help solve owners financial disagreements/sharing between each others.

But if the NFL overall profits are declining, and they lack capital to invest back in the team, then I BELIEVE they would be more willing to give the NFL more credits thus the NFLPA taking a smaller %.

This is why I don't think the players are dumb because they know this.

Any business/team/company should be self sufficient. The revenue sharing should be to prevent any one team have such a huge advantage over others.

This is the issue with setting a 'cap' for each team, as each team will always have different resources to pull from and different income. It's nothing to do with the owners disagreeing and completely to do with the set amount each team has to devote to players salaries. It prevents smaller market teams from fielding a cheaper but still competitive team, whilst being self sufficient. Rather it forces those teams to either relocate, sell up or rely on their 'big brothers'.

If the owners open up everything, the big teams will cloud the true story for a lot of teams.

[theyhateme45]

...Oh and any company, public or private is about making the business profitable, NOT losing money season after season. To claim otherwise is just grasping at straws.

I'm only claiming that one could be more motivated than the other... So to use them as the representative of the entire population is flawed.

For example If you owned a Restaurant you may do more to maximize your profits than a Manager of a restaurant doing the same work as you, but just making a salary. Yes he will try to generate profits for the company to the best of his ability... But one maybe more motivated than the other and it MAY have an financial effect.

[Urrymonster]

I'm only claiming that one could be more motivated than the other... So to use them as the representative of the entire population is flawed.

For example If you owned a Restaurant you may do more to maximize your profits than a Manager of a restaurant doing the same work as you, but just making a salary. Yes he will try to generate profits for the company to the best of his ability... But one maybe more motivated than the other and it MAY have an financial effect.

There is still 'owners' these are called share holders.

The organisation is non-profit, yet is losing money. How are they possibly going to carry on with the same financial parameters in place?

The point is, the NFLPA have full access to a publicly owned team and can draw a lot from that, as certain costs etc will be representative for most teams.

All opening the books will do is give the NFLPA more ammunition to claim the current deal isn't a bad deal as the NFL as a whole is fine. So opening them achieves nothing when the NFLPA can easily dive straight into the Packers books.

[mountainpantherfan]

MPF, so you don't think the owners are fighting for their money too? Money that DWARFS what even guys like Peppers and Manning make?

I'm not denying that players are greedy. We all are. But the owners are some of the greediest in America. The NFL is in one of the best business states of any organization in the country and they're in absolutely no danger of that changing.

We will have to respectfully disagree then.

I'm not biased to owners though. I'm biased to the team. The players hold no role in the future of the team, the owners do.

NFL owners are owners to make large amounts of money. Right now not many of them are making large profits with their teams. Owners like Snyder and Jones and Allen and Richardson use profits and cash flow from their other businesses to help in their NFL operations. Most are barely over operating expense.

And if the owners, those greedy owners decide that their other businesses are better profit makers, why would these greedy men continue to operate? I get that the owners are greedy, I also get that statisfying the owners is more important in the long run than statisfying the players.

It doesn't make me sleep better at night that I'm supporting these greedy bastards. But they are the ones who give me the NFL and that makes my Sundays, and pretty much every day of the year, a lot better.

[frash.exe]

Not the kind of thing I like hearing.

Will say again thought that I think Richardson is the "designated a--hole" among the owners, and he seems fine with that. But don't make the mistake of thinking that means he's a lone wolf here.

It's deluded to think that the rest of the owners are just sitting back there willing to compromise and Richardson is screwing it up. If they didn't support him in this, it wouldn't be happening.

they could simply be using him as a lightning rod

that way, they get the deal they want, and he looks like a jackass that nobody wants to play for, less competition to get in-demand free agents

[theyhateme45]

Any business/team/company should be self sufficient. The revenue sharing should be to prevent any one team have such a huge advantage over others.

This is the issue with setting a 'cap' for each team, as each team will always have different resources to pull from and different income. It's nothing to do with the owners disagreeing and completely to do with the set amount each team has to devote to players salaries. It prevents smaller market teams from fielding a cheaper but still competitive team, whilst being self sufficient. Rather it forces those teams to either relocate, sell up or rely on their 'big brothers'.

If the owners open up everything, the big teams will cloud the true story for a lot of teams.

However, the NFL salary cap and what the players get is based on the NFL Owners as a whole, Not just what the NFL Salary cap should be to make the least profitable NFL team have good profits with no help from other teams.

You can't take one without the other. If owners and the NFLPA want to mandate that all teams pays their player X $$$ amount (Which is not how any business/team/company works... those places can set their own expenses), then you have to have revenue sharing among the owners....

Otherwise the NFL operates like the MLB and allows each team to act as its own company/team/organization whatever. Set their own expenses, pay whatever amount they want towards payroll, and control their profits.

[SorthNarolina]

JR could be a little more humble and respectful.

[Urrymonster]

However, the NFL salary cap and what the players get is based on the NFL Owners as a whole, Not just what the NFL Salary cap should be to make the least profitable NFL team have good profits with no help from other teams.

You can't take one without the other. If owners and the NFLPA want to mandate that all teams pays their player X $$$ amount (Which is not how any business/team/company works... those places can set their own expenses), then you have to have revenue sharing among the owners....

Otherwise the NFL operates like the MLB and allows each team to act as its own company/team/organization whatever. Set their own expenses, pay whatever amount they want towards payroll, and control their profits.

You missed my point.

There are a handful of mass market teams that dwarf all the others, yet balance out the NFL financially.

If you have 3/4 of the teams barely covering costs, losing money WITH the revenue sharing, then the financial model in place is BAD regardless.

The revenue sharing is there as an 'equaliser' of sorts, whilst allowing the cap to be in place. If only a few teams can actually handle that amount of revenue being given tot he players, then the team SHOULDN'T open their books as it gives the NFLPA leverage to state the NFL as a whole is coping fine. However it's clear it's not sustainable and will only result in teams having to be sold or relocated.

Season after season there are several teams who are thought to be considering relocating. That's just not sustainable.

I really don't understand why people have such an issue with the owner's making a lot of money. It is their money after all (mainly). These teams are the possession of these men, not the cities they reside in or the players. They SHOULD get the biggest slice of the pie.

[theyhateme45]

There is still 'owners' these are called share holders.

The organisation is non-profit, yet is losing money. How are they possibly going to carry on with the same financial parameters in place?

The point is, the NFLPA have full access to a publicly owned team and can draw a lot from that, as certain costs etc will be representative for most teams.

All opening the books will do is give the NFLPA more ammunition to claim the current deal isn't a bad deal as the NFL as a whole is fine. So opening them achieves nothing when the NFLPA can easily dive straight into the Packers books.

You think the Packers book can be a representation of the entire 32 franchises, I do not. But that's with everything, as an Auditor if I am told to vouch for the accuracy of a specific account and have to use sampling, I could not pick just 1 item and test that for attributes and say it represents the whole.

Also it is the NFL making these claims about profits, lack of capital to invest (Which I tend to believe is true). So it is up to them to prove it on paper. They are asking for change so proof should be on them. I don't think the players should make changes based on good word faith from the owners...

If you want to have honest negotiations and get things done for us and the game then Negotiate in honesty. If you say the NFL is having declining profits show it.... Don't say it if that is not the case. Just my opinion. The players are not dumb, and should not get bullied into giving back billions of dollars because of words from the owners and one open book from the Green Bay packers.

[Sandy Claws]

JR could be a little more humble and respectful.

If you 100 % believe Feeley and ignore the fact that the players benefit from portraying the owners in this light.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass if Manning & Brees are butt hurt.

[mountainpantherfan]

You think the Packers book can be a representation of the entire 32 franchises, I do not. But that's with everything, as an Auditor if I am told to vouch for the accuracy of a specific account and have to use sampling, I could not pick just 1 item and test that for attributes and say it represents the whole.

Also it is the NFL making these claims about profits, lack of capital to invest (Which I tend to believe is true). So it is up to them to prove it on paper. They are asking for change so proof should be on them. I don't think the players should make changes based on good word faith from the owners...

If you want to have honest negotiations and get things done for us and the game then Negotiate in honesty. If you say the NFL is having declining profits show it.... Don't say it if that is not the case. Just my opinion. The players are not dumb, and should not get bullied into giving back billions of dollars because of words from the owners and one open book from the Green Bay packers.

Actually, the players gave the owners permission to do exactly that without proof in the last CBA.

Some may say that Upshaw and Tagliabue are being missed but those to assholes created this situation and then quickly resigned before the true outcomes of their "great work" was discovered.

The last CBA should have never given the players as much as it did nor should it have given the owners the out it gave them. Bad on both ends and those two are the ones to blame.

But, in the end, the players gave the owners the right to end the last CBA and start anew.