Richardson ...Lockout Article

[CatMan72]

The NFLPA knows the court is the only leverage they have in this and they are about to lose that when the owners win the appeal.

Once the owners win the appeal, it's just a matter of how long the players can hold out until they have to make a deal... this has been the owners strategy from day 1, millionaires will go broke long before billionaires.

[Montsta]

The day throws of people pay $60 for a $2 jersey just because it has your name on it and you do a service that maybe 100 other people in the country could even attempt, this could happen for you.

A) Good luck finding a jersey for $60.

B) If you saw my baskets, I think you'd be pretty impressed. :D

[panthers55]

There's a reason they're not showing. Remember how the Pirates were in so much financial trouble but then Deadspin got a copy of their numbers?

Yeah. Notice the owners aren't saying that they're losing money. They just keep saying it's "unsustainable" which is French for "I'm really greedy."

Actually I understand in the last proposal to the players that 10 teams agreed to open up their books. The players refused that saying they wanted all the books and they tried to dictate what they felt should be included. They wanted what they believe was full disclosure. So to say the owners refused to open up the books is not true at all.

The players could have come back with a different proposal or try to compromise but instead chose to walk away and decertify. At every turn they have largely refused to offer alternatives on the only real issue here which is how much money they will get. All the other issues like a rookie cap, etc isn't the big issue. The owners aren't losing money but feel like they want a fixed cap not a moving cap. Their issue about excluding more money from the deal- reportedly another billion is to cover the costs of increased operations and expenses. The owners from what I have read feel like their costs have increased so that their 50% is actually growing as a number but shrinking as a percentage of profits. Which by the way is exactly what the players are beefing about. They know their cap and ultimately their money will increase under the owner's last proposal but want to keep the same 50%. Hence the impasse.

[panthers55]

I'm constantly amazed by those who know nothing about what proposals are presented are seemingly so well versed in the specifics. Only the NFLPTA and the NFL know what those proposals are and any reports to the contrary are nothing but speculation and hype. Only a select few players know what is being discussed and they, like the owners, will not negotiate in the press.

I can absolutely guarantee that no matter how much less the players take of the profit is, there will be no relief for the fans in ticket prices, PSL prices or Sunday Ticket prices. To think otherwise is tomfoolery because they know what you paid for it before and you will do so again (the Saints just announced a sellout this year DESPITE the lockout).

For any fan who wants football to be played THIS year, you will hope for a decision AGAINST the owners. Because they have the keys to the lockout and have been preparing since the 2006 agreement to interrupt the 2011 season as leverage against the NFLPA. The secret agreement between the NFL and the TV partners giving the league $4B in loans if a season is preempted tells you that this labor issue was premeditated. The draconian cut in roster salary last year by a number of teams (including ours) tells you this was premeditated. The owners are willing to sacrifice this year of revenue partially because the damage they inflict will be long forgotten by the 2014 TV contract negotiations that mean more to the league than the stadium revenue.

In the end none of us are going to see any benefit from the CBA negotiations, except that we get to see our favorite players and team play. As soon as the ink is dry none of us will care one whit about this agreement and that's the way it should be.

hate away..

I am amazed at posters who ridicule what other posters say without knowing what those other posters know or don't know. Then they go on with what they think are specific parts of the negotiations essentially doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

Your logic is flawed if you think that an agreement against the owners will help football or ensure it is played. All that ensures is that they will opt out of the next agreement as soon as they can, feeling they got screwed again. So we will play this out again in a few years.

What you don't get and apparently many don't get is that a good compromise isn't one where one side wins and the other side loses. Usually a compromise doesn't make either side happy because they both give up things they want. But in the end they recognize that it is a fair agreement that both sides can live with.

The biggest problem on both sides is that people think like you and want to win at the expense of others.

[firstdayfan]

I get so tired of hearing players referred to as "the product". This is stupid...I don't watch football bc of the players. I watch it for two reasons...1) because I love football and 2) because I love the panthers. Saying that the players are the product is like saying that the guy stacking fruit in a grocery store is the product.

Think about it like this...most of us watch college football and those player cycle in and out every 4 years or so. We might like players more than others just like you might like one waiter over another...but we are there for the food.

We don't watch to see players, we don't pay to see players, we pay to be excited and have passion for something. About the only way you could consider the players a "product" would be fantasy football...which I still love for reasons not player related.

[SorthNarolina]

I get so tired of hearing players referred to as "the product". This is stupid...I don't watch football bc of the players. I watch it for two reasons...1) because I love football and 2) because I love the panthers. Saying that the players are the product is like saying that the guy stacking fruit in a grocery store is the product.

Think about it like this...most of us watch college football and those player cycle in and out every 4 years or so. We might like players more than others just like you might like one waiter over another...but we are there for the food.

We don't watch to see players, we don't pay to see players, we pay to be excited and have passion for something. About the only way you could consider the players a "product" would be fantasy football...which I still love for reasons not player related.

I don't understand that at all:confused:

It's entertainment and they are the entertainers. The only reason I watch the NFL and follow it closer than college is the talent level and complexity. The players make the NFL what it is vs. the CFL, UFL, or AFL.

I would classify the players as individual capital. Without them the NFL can't produce entertainment on the level that's expected. You're right that they aren't the product but that doesn't really change their huge role in the NFL.

[firstdayfan]

I don't understand that at all:confused:

It's entertainment and they are the entertainers. The only reason I watch the NFL and follow it closer than college is the talent level and complexity. The players make the NFL what it is vs. the CFL, UFL, or AFL.

I would classify the players as individual capital. Without them the NFL can't produce entertainment on the level that's expected. You're right that they aren't the product but that doesn't really change their huge role in the NFL.

I understand but they are employees...even a singer produces the music. We are paying for music not the artist. Like I said some people love certain singers but ultimately if you heard a good song you would buy it regardless. I get your point and it's a good one but I just don't get calling them a product. They are employees who help "create" the product if you will.

[DaveThePanther2008]

I am amazed at posters who ridicule what other posters say without knowing what those other posters know or don't know. Then they go on with what they think are specific parts of the negotiations essentially doing exactly what they accuse others of doing.

Your logic is flawed if you think that an agreement against the owners will help football or ensure it is played. All that ensures is that they will opt out of the next agreement as soon as they can, feeling they got screwed again. So we will play this out again in a few years.

What you don't get and apparently many don't get is that a good compromise isn't one where one side wins and the other side loses. Usually a compromise doesn't make either side happy because they both give up things they want. But in the end they recognize that it is a fair agreement that both sides can live with.

The biggest problem on both sides is that people think like you and want to win at the expense of others.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what is going on. I HAVE seen a list of what was offered back before the players walked out. It seemed pretty reasonable to me.

Like telling a kid to try a fruit or vegetable he/she has never tasted before. Going to continue say NO NO NO NO, regardless of what you offer them to eat it.

This is what the players did. They had their strategy, they have had it since they brought D. Smith onboard. 2 years or so ago. In fact they tipped their hand back two years ago when they said that if a new deal wasn't signed (which we didn't know back then wasn't gonna happen) they would not agree to a salary cap.

The Owners IMO opted out of a terrible deal, knew they couldn't sustain it and wanted to get on the right track. The players knew and still know they got the better end of the deal and expect status quo and the owners can suck it up.

Next Friday hopefully we will have a direction. I truly hope the Courts see the SHAM that the players are playing and tell them the decertification is bogus and get back to the bargaining table and BARGAIN.

[ElIngeniero]

The Owners IMO opted out of a terrible deal, knew they couldn't sustain it and wanted to get on the right track. The players knew and still know they got the better end of the deal and expect status quo and the owners can suck it up.

Next Friday hopefully we will have a direction. I truly hope the Courts see the SHAM that the players are playing and tell them the decertification is bogus and get back to the bargaining table and BARGAIN.

You think the owner's opted out of a 'terrible' deal only because that's what they lead you to believe. The only things the public sees should indicate otherwise--but the NFL PR department is doing a fantastic job of making the owners seem like the victims. They haven't opened the books yet claim they are so financially imperiled that they want the players AND fans to make sacrifices. What sacrifices have the owner's made? They are demanding that taxpayers pay more and more for PRIVATELY OWNED stadiums (1.2 Billion for the new meadowlands, 1.7 Billion for Cowboys stadium, 1+ billion estimated for new vikings stadium). I, for one, wouldn't mind accepting such a 'terrible' deal that allows me to live as lavishly as most owner's do.

Revenues are up, profit is down and owner's claim that down profits are primarily due to player expenses. I say prove it. If the player's really are pocketing 57% of the money as the owners say, it shouldn't be hard to show on a financial statement.

As a business owner, manipulating profit/losses is as simple as writing a bonus check. Not saying that all owner's are doing this--but it seems pretty likely that at least some would. And opening that can of worms may get a CBA worked out, but it would certainly cause some strife and regulatory headaches for the owners.

[Panthers_Lover]

I understand but they are employees...even a singer produces the music. We are paying for music not the artist. Like I said some people love certain singers but ultimately if you heard a good song you would buy it regardless. I get your point and it's a good one but I just don't get calling them a product. They are employees who help "create" the product if you will.

No, we're paying for BOTH. I love the music, but there's a difference between hearing one song by the Rolling Stones themselves, and that same song covered in a downtown nightclub by some no-name band.

[SevenSixes]

I am amazed.. blah, blah, blah

Your logic is flawed.. blah, blah, blah

What you don't get.. blah, blah, blah

The biggest problem on both sides is that people think like you and want to win at the expense of others.

Do you go to a car dealership and say "I'd like to take this car @ 20K, but I'll pay 30K just to make this a fair deal.."? If so, I have a dealership for you to visit. Win / Win..

The owners have all the leverage and all the time. You can't reach a deal when one side doesn't have to move by your own reasoning. So if it up to the owners, we won't have football in 2011 because that is how they have elected to 'negotiate' with the NFLPA.

Personally I want to see football this year, so I'm rooting for both sides to have something to 'loose' so they will see the value in ending this 'negotiating' strategy.

BTW- I've got $2,800 that says my season tix won't cost one penny less next year or the year after.

[firstdayfan]

No, we're paying for BOTH. I love the music, but there's a difference between hearing one song by the Rolling Stones themselves, and that same song covered in a downtown nightclub by some no-name band.

Kinda just proved my point...you'll pay to hear the no name cover band bc you like the song. It might not be as good but you still are there for the music.

[teeray]

You think the owner's opted out of a 'terrible' deal only because that's what they lead you to believe. The only things the public sees should indicate otherwise--but the NFL PR department is doing a fantastic job of making the owners seem like the victims. They haven't opened the books yet claim they are so financially imperiled that they want the players AND fans to make sacrifices. What sacrifices have the owner's made? They are demanding that taxpayers pay more and more for PRIVATELY OWNED stadiums (1.2 Billion for the new meadowlands, 1.7 Billion for Cowboys stadium, 1+ billion estimated for new vikings stadium). I, for one, wouldn't mind accepting such a 'terrible' deal that allows me to live as lavishly as most owner's do.

Revenues are up, profit is down and owner's claim that down profits are primarily due to player expenses. I say prove it. If the player's really are pocketing 57% of the money as the owners say, it shouldn't be hard to show on a financial statement.

As a business owner, manipulating profit/losses is as simple as writing a bonus check. Not saying that all owner's are doing this--but it seems pretty likely that at least some would. And opening that can of worms may get a CBA worked out, but it would certainly cause some strife and regulatory headaches for the owners.

The owners offered to show their books to a third party that was agreeable to both sides for the last 5 years. The players didn't want a third party and requested the last 10 years (a time frame which is completely unnecessary and was only requested for political cover to decertify). And if a third party certified their findings on the owners books and they lied or manipulated they would be on the hook for fraud so I doubt they would fudge the numbers in the owners favor.

So they offered to prove it, and the NFLPA refused.

Most major corporations get tax breaks in the millions or even billions by state governments and many are also subsidized by the federal government. Often times they are tax exempt and are given land to build their buildings free of charge. Is there a difference??

Both the players and owners live pretty lavish lifestyles. The owners however carry all the risk and expenses.

As far as manipulating profit/loss that is serious fraud and I doubt anyone would do that.

The real negotiations won't really start until a counter proposal is on the table. Until then the NFLPA will continue to piss on our legs and tell us it is raining.

[carolinarolls]

Kinda just proved my point...you'll pay to hear the no name cover band bc you like the song. It might not be as good but you still are there for the music.

Agreed. There are plenty of decent enough "artists" out there who are more than willing to take the place of a butt hurt current "artist" for half the gig price. What's more is that there will be plenty of fans to fill the stadium. Maybe not the same fans, but it will be full.

I do not think the interest will drop off that much if every player who played a down last year was wiped from this season.

There is a huge difference between fantasy leagues and the real thing. The game will remain the same. New stars will be born. New jersey's will be sold. Everyone is replaceable. The truth about it all does hurt but the facts are that people love football. They love it at all levels. just like I enjoy myself at a HS game with no D-1 prospects on either team, I would enjoy the NFL with practice squad rosters and scabs.