Court engaged in "settlement talks", court-ordered mediation for next week cancelled!

[jtm]

The players aren't business men, they would hire them in creating a league of their own. I am not sure who would take over and give the answers though. They don't need to be able to afford the stadium. BOA does and some PSL and/or tax payers and could go public like most teams do. Organizing a new league does take a lot of time and money and I think it looks more like a mess than a viable option.

I know you aren't arguing for the players starting their own league, but you bring up a good point that some haven't thought about. If the players started their own league they would have to run it or hire others to run it. Either way they would run it into the ground. They would run it into the ground themselves or you would have someone they hired run it into the ground for them. They would get so taken advantage of it would be ridiculous. There are Bernie Madoffs all over the place - especially with billions of dollars exchanging hands.

[Porn Shop Clerk]

I'd be on the players side if they were willing to share their endorsement deals with the league and other players.

[Davidson Deac II]

Letting players control a League would be about as successful as when our country started letting politicians and bankers micro mange our economy. They would run it into the ground.

Thats my main issue with players demanding so much money. In a perfect world you would take profit and divide that down the middle but the CBA as it was demanded players get 60% of the revenue (money made before subtracting expenses) which is just ridiculous to me.

It would be more like letting message board posters control the economy. ;)

[ElIngeniero]

There is so much anti-player sentiment on this board...There's two sides to this issue--and it's impossible for any person outside of the negotiations to truly know who is at fault here. Realistically, only the owner's TRULY know all their own numbers and the players are simply working off of estimates.

The players put the MF games on hold they day the walked out of the March 11 session. Which was their plan all along. If the players were bargaining is such great faith. List me ONE, just one counteroffer. JUST ONE!!!! Come on, get online, shouldn't take you too long being your the genius of NFL Labor dispute. You'll be looking a long time because there isn't one. The Lockout was a countermove the the Sham of a Decertification.

See above. The owner's know the numbers and won't grant the NFLPA access to those numbers so the NFLPA is, in a sense, flying blind through these negotiations. Would you sell your home or business without having a thorough valuation? Also, you call the NFLPA's tactic of decertifying a sham yet ignore the fact that the owner's have been preparing for a lockout since negotiating with TV networks in 2008? The owner's traded income that would be shared by the players with income that wouldn't be shared by the players in the event of a lockout. Thus the anti-trust lawsuit. Yet people still think the owner's wouldn't be shady enough to manipulate the profit so they can take larger cuts off the top?

The Players got a great deal on the 2006 CBA and they know it. It is why they want the lockout lifted so they can keep the 2010 rules in place while they sucked as much of of the NFL as they could. The owners opted out of the 2006 CBA because it was a bad deal.

The owner's have convinced you that they opted out of a crappy deal. Unless you are an owner or have access to their financials, you can't really know that--but it sounds like you've convinced yourself that you can.

It doesn't really matter what percentage the players get. IMO they shouldn't dictate what amount the owners pay them. Don't give me this garbage about if they didn't have the football players they wouldn't have a business. If I or anyone else didn't have their employees we wouldn't have a business. But you see there will always be employees that will work for the salaries that the company dicate. Just like the NFL. You could drop the salaries down to 300,000 per player. Know what sooner or later they would ALL COME BACK. We'll never see that happen but players will play.

The player's aren't dictating anything right now. They are suing for lost revenue that would have been split with them had the owner's not taken kickbacks from the TV networks in effort to buy their lockout insurance for this year. The owners are claiming that revenues are up and player expenses have also increased...so growth will be limited and players should take a paycut to allow for 'growth'. The reality is that employees nor employers dictate fair market value. Supply/demand does. If salaries were dropped to $300,000 per players, other markets (leagues) would open up and players would join those. And customer's aren't as likely to pay first-rate money for a second rate league. You'd see the collapse of the NFL and rise of another league. Granted, the NFL understands this much better than you or I do and thus will only be dropping salaries enough to make it beneficial to them without causing players to seek other leagues. The same tactics are used by big oil. Oil prices shoot up and then slowly trickle back down. Oil companies know that the demand is there to charge $5/gallon for gas...but people will only bear that for so long before seeking alternate fuel sources and drastically reducing overall demand.

Narrow perspective.....LOL... It is as simple as this. The players want to control the NFL not the owners. The Players are like a poor car owner. Get a brand new car, never change the oil, never wash it, never maintain it and expect it to last forever. Then try give it to their kids to work with, only to know it is far beyond repair. The players could careless what will happen in the NFL in 2020.

Yeah...the player's opted out of the cba because they didn't have enough control of the NFL....

IMO the players should have to pay for the own insurance. They make 1.9 mil a yr (on the average) What's a couple grand a month. They want a retirement plan. Invest in it like every other American does. They play this game because they love it. 75% of the players that come into the NFL have injuries and conditions that they got in college before they signed a contract with the NFL.

This is asinine. The player's negotiating their own insurance would mean they'd pay A LOT MORE overall. At 2 mill a year, they bank 6 million average throughout their career which, to most americans, would be comfortable. But they dedicate their lives and bodies to this career. They aren't all geniuses but in general, they work hard to be the best at their craft. They should be compensated fairly. 300k/year or 900k throughout their career is laughable as that wouldn't even cover most people's retirement...let alone a lifetime of medical problems stemming from your job.

The owners do a great service by giving them insurance, veteran benefits and other amenities too many to list.

Again, thankfully the owners and NFL realize that it's only fair to provide players with these perks...I don't claim to side with the owners or the players....I mostly just want football. But the NFL and owners have done a great job of marketing their plight when the facts and their actions over the last few years have been MUCH more shady than the players.

Could the players afford a paycut? Absolutely. Should the player's accept a paycut without owners providing proof behind their reasoning? Absolutely not.

What I think SHOULD happen, is this: Instead of taking 1 Billion off the top, the owner's should take a percentage. Costs will likely rise with revenues and a lump sum of 1 billion (or 2 billion, as the owners desire) wouldn't account for these costs--resulting in another opt-out/potential lockout. This should be a percentage of total revenue just like the players.

I'll leave you with this

Per http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81edda24/article/league-players-disagree-on-interpretation-of-revenue-figures (all the way at the bottom of the article), the players took took 51.1% of revenue in 2005, 52.7% of revenue in 2006, and 50.7% of revenue in 2009. Note that the website also manipulates the wording to make it seem like player expenses increased to 61% in 2006 and beyond.

The core of the NFL is it's players--without the best players, they wouldn't be putting the best product on the field, period. They sell a product based on their people just like a design firm sells a product produced by the best employees it can field. A typical income statement will show that the employee expenses are typically 50% of revenue.

[Happy Panther]

I know you aren't arguing for the players starting their own league, but you bring up a good point that some haven't thought about. If the players started their own league they would have to run it or hire others to run it. Either way they would run it into the ground. They would run it into the ground themselves or you would have someone they hired run it into the ground for them. They would get so taken advantage of it would be ridiculous. There are Bernie Madoffs all over the place - especially with billions of dollars exchanging hands.

There are plenty of people who could successfully run a league for the players if they abandoned the NFL.

[ElIngeniero]

Unrelated--but I brought it up in another thread but really didn't dig into it very deep:

When making a decision or negotiating as a business owner, it's always best to be playing out every scenario as many steps ahead as possible. I'm sure the owners have already played out this scenario and knew how they wanted to proceed. If the owners and players don't reach a deal, many people think that the players will give in first because they live lavishly and can't fund their lifestyles for too long. The flaw in this, however, is that the owner's also realize there is a 'break-even' point in which their own lockout will cost them more than signing a player-friendly deal.

The 4 Billion they were hoping for from TV deals would have likely made it easy for the owners to outlast the players because they would essentially be paid MORE for NOT having a season than if they actually did have a season. Consider the following:

We'll assume 9 billion in revenue and 50% player expenses leaves the owner with 4.5 Billion to pay all bills, marketing, management, vendors, etc. Let's assume all things equal to the Green Bay Packer's who reported 20 Million profit. That's 20M x 32 = 640 Million vs 4.5 Billion.

Granted, these are rough numbers and I'm sure some of the more respectable owner's would still pay their staff...but the reality is, much of the 4.5 billion would be paid to outside vendors and marketing firms that wouldn't see NEARLY that amount in a year in which no games are played.

However--none of that happened so now the owner's are financing the lockout alongside the players (unless they have another undisclosed tactic they are relying on). I've seen 11% as the paycut amount the owners are requesting of the players. Assuming 11% and the 640 Million calculated above (640Mx11%), the owners will see 70.4 Million in additional profit each year or 352 Million over the next 5 years (assumed CBA duration).

9 Billion divided by 20 games is 450 Million per game missed. Granted, preseason games would likely generate MUCH LESS revenue per game. However, my guess is that missing the entire preseason + 1-2 games of the actual season would cost more than the lockout.

Just a quick note--I know my numbers are likely not representative of what the owners are working with but I'm certain that the owner's have done some sort of internal analysis such as this one and I'm inclined to believe that, at most, the owner's won't miss more than a few regular season games.

[ElIngeniero]

While reading my wall of text above, I offer this distraction.

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Kakfrbu2Rsc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ElIngeniero]

Also, I would assume that the league has already found replacement players in the event that a cba isn't worked out.

Assume that mid-season, a cba is worked out and our teams are back at work--how would you feel about rooting for your team who inherited their record from scabs? A superbowl win would have an asterisk by it.

Also consider the player jersey sales--a Carolina Panther #52 Jersey wouldn't fetch the same price as a Beason Jersey.

That's why you can't say that the player's are just employees--they are also a huge part of the product.

[Porn Shop Clerk]

So form two leagues and have a super superbowl and make fugtons of cash right?

Right?

[ElIngeniero]

Interesting response...especially since it's sarcastic.

The reality is, two leagues is a horrible deal for the owners and football in general. Consider football of the 1960's when players were drafted, not by talent, but because the nfl or afl might 'think' that the player wouldn't sign with their league. Also, players would sign with both leagues--creating even more headache. A unified league is good for owner's and players alike.

[jtm]

There are plenty of people who could successfully run a league for the players if they abandoned the NFL.

Who? I can assure you whoever that person is would end up wanting the same thing the NFL owners want or they would embezzle most of the players' money. Either way, it won't work.

A bunch of players that have no business sense couldn't even be trusted to find the right people to manage the NFL. I don't think you are crediting the owners with the fact that the NFL is as great as it is today because they have done a great job getting it to this point. Do you really think anyone would know who Tom Brady is without the NFL?

[ElIngeniero]

I know you aren't arguing for the players starting their own league, but you bring up a good point that some haven't thought about. If the players started their own league they would have to run it or hire others to run it. Either way they would run it into the ground. They would run it into the ground themselves or you would have someone they hired run it into the ground for them. They would get so taken advantage of it would be ridiculous. There are Bernie Madoffs all over the place - especially with billions of dollars exchanging hands.

Seems like a pretty certain view of a pretty uncertain possibility.

What's more likely than the player's starting their own league is that other rich businessmen who would LOVE the opportunity to own a team, yet haven't received blessings from the NFL to form one, would likely put together teams and offer players a better long-term agreement than what is currently offered. You'd have something similar to the AFL/NFL situation.

If the players and owners can agree on one thing, it is that they have a pretty sweet goose egg right now and doing something so risky that it may put that goose egg at risk would take a LOT of animosity from one side towards the other.

[jtm]

Assume that mid-season, a cba is worked out and our teams are back at work--how would you feel about rooting for your team who inherited their record from scabs? A superbowl win would have an asterisk by it.

If our scab team can win more than 2 games or potentially get us to the playoffs, I would root very loudly based on the performance from last year. :D

[jtm]

Seems like a pretty certain view of a pretty uncertain possibility.

What's more likely than the player's starting their own league is that other rich businessmen who would LOVE the opportunity to own a team, yet haven't received blessings from the NFL to form one, would likely put together teams and offer players a better long-term agreement than what is currently offered. You'd have something similar to the AFL/NFL situation.

If the players and owners can agree on one thing, it is that they have a pretty sweet goose egg right now and doing something so risky that it may put that goose egg at risk would take a LOT of animosity from one side towards the other.

I guess we can agree to disagree because I don't think any new businessmen would give the players a better deal. It is tough to speculate because there are so many factors that are not determined with out hypo.