PDA

View Full Version : Labor Talks break off again sunday night


BlitzburghRockCity
03-05-2006, 06:39 PM
ESPNEWS just showed an update on the bottom line that talks broke off again sunday night... :dang:

The owners cant get their collective heads out of their collective asses to agree with each other on revenue sharing let alone try and agree with the players. Usually these things are held up by the players but this time is the NFL.

pittsburgh$teelersfan
03-05-2006, 07:44 PM
yep I just saw that mean these darn people need to get this stuff over with.These stuf is driving me nuts I can not make heads or tails I just can't wait to the steelers resign ike taylor.

DIESELMAN
03-05-2006, 10:01 PM
ESPN.com reports NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw claims the NFL offered the players a percentage of revenues that was less than they received over the past 12 years. Upshaw said, "After suggesting we extend the waiver deadline from six o'clock to ten this evening, they gave us a new proposal which was worse than their prior offer. Quite naturally, we rejected that proposal and saw no need to continue meeting. Under our previous cap agreement, we got just less than 60 percent of all of the revenues. The NFL now wants us to cut that percentage to less than 57 percent. Given the enormous revenue growth the NFL is experiencing, I am not about to give back gains which we have made in the past." Upshaw continues to blame high revenue clubs and the revenue sharing issue as the main reason negotiations kept breaking down.

rowedf
03-05-2006, 10:18 PM
It's retarded man, really pisses me off how the big market owners are going about this, really lame.

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
03-05-2006, 10:39 PM
Its ashame that sports is all about money.
I would love to see footbal for what its worth......football....the love of the game....loyal players to loyal teams..........

BlitzburghRockCity
03-05-2006, 10:42 PM
And just when we all thought the NFL was still above any other sports organization and cared more about the sport itself and the fans more than the NBA, MLB, or NHL.. the reality sets back in that the NFL cant even get along with itself now..

hardwork
03-05-2006, 11:17 PM
It's retarded man, really pisses me off how the big market owners are going about this, really lame.

It isn't necessarily the big market owners. It's also the owners who have set up a well run organization. And that includes, as has been mentioned, teams like NE, and Pittsburgh. Although I haven't heard personally where the Steelers stand on this issue.

For example, and I'm pulling these figures up from memory without looking them up. NE I think has a revenue stream of around 250 mil(or is it 350?). About 120 mil of that comes from the profit sharing plan as its in place now. That means the Patriots organization is pulling in around, if they're 250 mil, 130 mil on their own. Now take a team like Phoenix. I don't think they're pulling in much more then 20 or so mil over the 120 profit sharing. Now some of the reason for the Cardinals low revenue is due to their location. But, a lot of it is due to the fact that their owner is a lazy sumnabitch. Why the hell should NE or Pittsburgh subsidize that ***hole?

tony hipchest
03-05-2006, 11:31 PM
It isn't necessarily the big market owners. It's also the owners who have set up a well run organization. And that includes, as has been mentioned, teams like NE, and Pittsburgh. Although I haven't heard personally where the Steelers stand on this issue.

For example, and I'm pulling these figures up from memory without looking them up. NE I think has a revenue stream of around 250 mil(or is it 350?). About 120 mil of that comes from the profit sharing plan as its in place now. That means the Patriots organization is pulling in around, if they're 250 mil, 130 mil on their own. Now take a team like Phoenix. I don't think they're pulling in much more then 20 or so mil over the 120 profit sharing. Now some of the reason for the Cardinals low revenue is due to their location. But, a lot of it is due to the fact that their owner is a lazy sumnabitch. Why the hell should NE or Pittsburgh subsidize that ***hole?

the steelers games are some of the highest rated games on tv nowadays. steelers merchandise made up 40% of sales last year. the steelers got a very descent advertising deal with heinz co. the rooneys have more to gain with siding with the rich majority than anyone, especially considering their only business is football (they own a racetrack or 2). unlike j. jones or d. snyder, the rooneys dont have big oil money or dot com money to back them.

the rooneys however side with the smaller teams. they realize they arent bigger than the nfl. they dont want to bite the hand that feeds them. while i understand the rich owners view in a capitalistic society the rooney are usually spearheading all issues that are for the betterment of the league rather than individual owners (see the rooney rule and minority interviewing policies). in this matter, since i dont know as much as the businessmen who make it all work, i have to side with the rooneys and share their viewpoint. im pretty sure having been involved in the league for more than 70 years, they will put the league first. snyder and jones have only been around for less than 17 years. it makes since why rooney is one of the most respected owners around.

hardwork
03-05-2006, 11:49 PM
the steelers games are some of the highest rated games on tv nowadays. steelers merchandise made up 40% of sales last year. the steelers got a very descent advertising deal with heinz co. the rooneys have more to gain with siding with the rich majority than anyone, especially considering their only business is football (they own a racetrack or 2). unlike j. jones or d. snyder, the rooneys dont have big oil money or dot com money to back them.

the rooneys however side with the smaller teams. they realize they arent bigger than the nfl. they dont want to bite the hand that feeds them. while i understand the rich owners view in a capitalistic society the rooney are usually spearheading all issues that are for the betterment of the league rather than individual owners (see the rooney rule and minority interviewing policies). in this matter, since i dont know as much as the businessmen who make it all work, i have to side with the rooneys and share their viewpoint. im pretty sure having been involved in the league for more than 70 years, they will put the league first. snyder and jones have only been around for less than 17 years. it makes since why rooney is one of the most respected owners around.

Yeah well that's all nice and folksy, and blue collar. And it gives the Rooneys, and by extension you, that common touch, (you'll excuse me if I don't shed a tear for motherhood and apple pie) but it doesn't address the issue that the NFL has some bonehead owners who need to get their act straightened out and stop sucking off the common tit.

SteelersWyo
03-06-2006, 12:55 AM
Revenue sharing aside why should the owners have to give 60% + to the players? Do you get to tell your boss how much of HIS company's money you should be paid? I didn't think so.

tony hipchest
03-06-2006, 08:56 AM
Yeah well that's all nice and folksy, and blue collar. And it gives the Rooneys, and by extension you, that common touch, (you'll excuse me if I don't shed a tear for motherhood and apple pie) but it doesn't address the issue that the NFL has some bonehead owners who need to get their act straightened out and stop sucking off the common tit. well atleast now youve heard where the rooneys stand on the issue. this is an easy topic to ride the fence on because both sides have favorable views. but,since im not a capologist or billion dollar business owner who understands all the workings of the matter i will have to side with the view of the rooneys as being the correct one. sure there are those bonehead owners (cinci and arizona have been working to be less boneheaded). once they get up and running like the better teams they will have more revenues to share. but perhaps them collectively sucking off the teat is better than the alternative where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. like suit has said, if jerry jones had his way the players would start looking like the driving billboards in nascar. without the revenue sharing we could see a team like minnesota moving every 5 years always thinking the grass is greener on the other side.

if the nfl wants to keep delivering the best product in sports it has to put its foot down and not allow these wal-mart style dot com business men to put the ma and pop grocery store owners out of business. after all dan snyder cant just buy a football team cause he wants one. he had to be voted in by the nfl and the rest of the owners. it stands to reason he will have to play by their rules.

rowedf
03-06-2006, 03:12 PM
The fact is the steelers are NOT a big market team, its nothing against the team, its their market area, and Pittsburgh's is no where near a big market. It's just numbers.....Savarn explained it perfectly last week. It's primarily about advertising when determining the markets value. A 500 dollar radio advert in Pittsburgh is 5,000 dollars in NY or LA, etc......thats why those teams want more money in the sharing, because their markets demand it.

83-Steelers-43
03-06-2006, 04:00 PM
Breaking News: It was just reported on the local news (Channel 11) that the players and owners have reached an agreement but the owners have not stated an agreement has been reached.

Supposedly the cap is higher. No number was given.

Suitanim
03-06-2006, 04:12 PM
Good news, I hope. When players and owners publicly squable over mega-bucks, it alienates the fans and hurts the sport, regardless. Baseball suffered, basketball suffered, and hockey may never recover.

83-Steelers-43
03-06-2006, 04:42 PM
Keep in mind John Fedko broke the story, he's tied with Paul Alexander as the biggest tool in local sports talk.

tony hipchest
03-06-2006, 05:00 PM
Breaking News: It was just reported on the local news (Channel 11) that the players and owners have reached an agreement but the owners have not stated an agreement has been reached.

Supposedly the cap is higher. No number was given. i think the number that the owners will be giving up is 59. something% gene upshaw said they wouldnt budge below 60% this would put the cap at about 104 mil. saw this on espn.

Atlanta Dan
03-06-2006, 05:52 PM
There is not yet a deal - the deal Tagliabue and Upshaw have signed off on will be submitted to the owners on Tuesday.

There was no deal following the latest round of "it's done, it's not done" reports on Sunday. On Monday, it was clear the decision would come down to whether the owners would accept a revised revenue sharing, an issue for which they've been squabbling among themselves for more than two years.

The NFL will submit the union's latest request for about 60 percent of total revenues to the 32 owners and let them decide whether they will accept it, extending the agreement which runs out after the 2007 season.

Tagliabue can recommend approval, but he does not have a vote. If the 9 wealthiest teams hang together and vote against the new CBA, then Tags does not have the necessary 24 out of 32 votes. The proposal presumably includes a definition of what is "revenue" of which 60% will go to salaries. I do not believe whatever definition of revenue that is in the proposed CBA previously has been cleared with a 3/4 majority of the owners.

No indication of how the "cash over cap" issue (rich teams paying bigger bonuses in a 1 year lump sum and then amortizing it over several years to annually and significantly be over the cap amount in actual $$ paid in any one year) is handled.

I will be interested to see if some rich team owner like Robert Kraft or the owners of the Eagles or Browns says they are on board with the p[roposed deal prior to Tuesday's meeting.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/football/nfl/03/06/bc.fbn.nfllabor.ap/index.html

tony hipchest
03-06-2006, 05:57 PM
it looks like the 59% deal was an act of good faith by gene upshaw that they are flexible and willing to negotiate and get something done whereas previously he stood the hard stance that the p.u. wouldnt accept anything below 60%. watch them meet in the middle at 58% zzzzzzzzzzz

Atlanta Dan
03-06-2006, 06:33 PM
The % is red herring; it is what goes into the "revenue" pot out of which some % goes to the players that is the issue. Players want a bigger pot, but the question is whether each team should pay equally into the pot and how $$ get taken out of the pot.

Take the Cardinals and the Redskins. The Bidwells are widely regarded as the worst owners in football and pretty much limit their revenue to tickets from not selling out their stadium and the TV money. Danny Snyder is a jerk, but he has the Redskins revenues north of $300 million through a privately financed stadium, aggressive revenue enhancements, and developing new revenue streams. In addition, the Bidwells are legacy owners that paid very little to get a franchise when they started out as the Chicago Cardinals, whereas Snyder paid hundreds of millions (which he needed to finance and is still paying off) to buy the Redskins.

In terms of sharing "revenue," should both Bidwell & Snyder be required to throw everything into the revenue pot? The argument against the Bidwell argument of absolutely yes is that Bidwell is a leach who has done nothing to grow the value of his franchise and just wants to benefit from revenue streams developed by other owners. The argument against the Snyder argument of getting to keep revenue streams outside of tickets and TV rights is that the only reason Snyder could develop those streams is because he is part of a league of 32 teams that allows him to market access not just to the Redskins but to the NFL.

Combine that with the questions of whether a successful owner (Snyder) should be penalized for his success by not being able to pay a higher payroll through circumventing the cap with amortized salary bonuses (the cash over cap debate) against whether Bidwell should be rewarded by a hard cap that does not penalize him on the field for not being able to carry a bigger payroll with more talented players that the Redskin type teams can afford if unleashed from a hard cap.

In other words, how much inequality are you willing to stand to balance the collective good against the individual rewards for growing your business? The owners have been debating that for several years and I do not belive have yet worked it out.

Arguments can be made in support of both positions. I support more of the collective good, but that is not surprising since such a position enhances the competitive position of the small market Steelers.

83-Steelers-43
03-06-2006, 07:41 PM
Excellent reporting by John Fedko. Once again, how does this guy hold his job?

Suitanim
03-06-2006, 07:44 PM
Snyder's versus Bidwell's is rapidly becoming a moot point. We saw it in Cincy, when Brown was forced to invest in some infrastructure and try and win or lose the franchise. The days of some NFL owners being slumlords is about over.

If it was ALL about money, wouldn't the Cards owners be the first to suggest selling jersey space for ad revenue?

Atlanta Dan
03-06-2006, 08:04 PM
The wealthier owners are not on board. I had given up on Jerry Jones and Danny Snyder, but am concerned with this ESPN story that Pats owner Robert Kraft has emerged as the most vocal opponent of a new revenue sharing model under the proposed CBA.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2356310

Combine that with the NFL denying a Washington Post story that Tags told Upshaw he will recommend the owners accept the NFLPA proposal and I give up guessing to what will happen. I do not believe Tags can go back to Upshaw if the owners do not approve and ask for any major change in what goes into the revenue pot, only the % that goes to the players. It is not the % that teh rich owners are most concerned about, it is what they have to share.

I was listening to Ben's agent Leigh Steinberg while traveling today and Steinberg said agents for this year's high draft picks (Steinberg represents Matt Leinart) are voicing concerns top rookies will get screwed on $$ with no new CBA compared to last year's draft. Steinberg also said the key to NFL success has been about keeping the focus on the field, which will not be achieved by debating the CBA for the next several years.