# No NFL 2011/2012



## Dave

It would appear that the NFL players association is getting ready to vote and fire the Union. The reason being is that the owners are wanting a bigger cut of the revenues and the players do not want to take a pay cut. As it stands now with the union in place the players are not allowed to sue the owners. If the union is out of the way, then the players can sue the owners. Also take note that the real reason the owners are pushing for a 18 game season is for more revenue funds. If the players vote out the union and are able to sue, then there could be a lock out for the 2011/2012 season.


----------



## Davenlr

Good, more college games to watch...real football.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

Dave said:


> .. Also take note that the real reason the owners are pushing for a 18 game season is for more revenue funds.


Umm... yah... what do you think it was for? More competition?

Based on the hundreds of articles out there on the topic... there is so much more to this then just one issue, but money is certainly the largest of them.

From this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-nfllabor

"The players currently get 59.6 percent of designated NFL revenues, a number agreed to in the 2006 CBA. The owners say that's too much, arguing that they have huge debts for building stadiums and starting up the NFL Network and other ventures, making it impossible to be profitable.

The NFL generates nearly $8 billion in revenues annually, with about $1 billion going to operating expenses. The owners get about 40 percent of the rest, but they want about $1.3 billion more before the players get their cut, and they'd like two more regular-season games to get more money out of the networks for everyone.
"

So there is no doubt that $$$ is probably the largest issue here.
And obviously, ultimately what ever works out... won't be good for any of us as fans. I haven't been to a pro-football game in about 3 years, and that last visit was on a half-price ticket... and even that was $$$.

Mix in the home experience watching games, going to see a game is the lowest on my list of options. Just not worth it. I would rather attend a college game, then a pro-game.

But also mix in the DL vs IR discussions, some of the health concerns.
It is a big big deal... that will dramatically impact the 18 vs 16 discussions.

Bottom line... I hope the Owners, the Union, and the Players are looking at the bigger picture....

People LOVE NFL football... love it. But... every day we get reminded how much these players get for playing a game, and how much these owners make on the teams....

This MONSTER statdiums were a BAD idea by the owners. Especially the ones that are dedicated for football... BAD BAD... and that is really impacting things.

The Dallas stadium is the glimmering example of it. That massive stadium wasn't necessary... A new one maybe, but it didn't have to be that.

Look at the Giants and Jets... I think they have it right... share a stadium. Flip/Flop weekends... keep the building and it's staff working for 16+ weekends, instead of half of that...

This is going to be an ugly ugly mess comes this summer.

And honestly, if the players start to sue the owners... NFL football as we know it, is over.


----------



## njblackberry

But the Jets and Giants funded their stadium off of the backs of their fans (which is better than off the taxpayers) and have absolutely ridiculous personal seat license (PSL) and have jacked up their seat prices.

Which is resulting in less than sold out stadiums.

I gave up my season tickets (which we've had since 1967) as I refused to pay an exhorbitant PSL and ticket prices....

There is definitely something wrong in the mix here.


----------



## WestDC

Looks like the "Golden Goose" is heading for the saluter house :lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I'll be very surprised if there is a lockout.

The NFL did have a replacement players season some years back... and the NBA had a mini-season one year not so long back... but I think the NHL proved to everyone just what is at risk when you lockout for a season. The NHL has not been the same since sitting out an entire season and finding out that even their biggest fans barely noticed.

The NFL does not want to have a missed season... and ultimately neither do the players for the same reason. It's also about the money for the players too... and while I'm usually for players getting the lionshare of the money since they are who make the sport work... they too have to be realistic about their own value and realize in this economy that people will choose food over football if it comes to that... and if the NFL misses part or all of a season, they just help fans find something else to do and need the league less.


----------



## SPACEMAKER

WestDC said:


> Looks like the "Golden Goose" is heading for the *saluter* house :lol:


WTF? Is that supposed to say "slaughter"?:lol:


----------



## Lord Vader

The recent Supreme Court ruling this summer that dealt with the NFL and individual team's licensing rights has a major impact upon the players' future actions. Not many realize this. Time will tell more, of course.


----------



## Dave

All the players can see right now is there ability to sue the owners. Under the current system set up I believe in 2006 or 2007 or there abouts. With the players union signing off on that agreement. The players were not allowed to sue the owners for any reason. Now there are at least four teams of players and growing daily that want to change this. The only way at the current time is to vote out the union. Also they would like to have the vote in before next summer. They do not want to have to look for the players from all the teams during the off season to get the votes. Since they are into the active season, they are trying to do it as soon as possible.


----------



## njblackberry

I personally find it very hard to root for millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners...


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

njblackberry said:


> But the Jets and Giants funded their stadium off of the backs of their fans (which is better than off the taxpayers) and have absolutely ridiculous personal seat license (PSL) and have jacked up their seat prices.
> 
> Which is resulting in less than sold out stadiums.
> 
> I gave up my season tickets (which we've had since 1967) as I refused to pay an exhorbitant PSL and ticket prices....
> 
> There is definitely something wrong in the mix here.


I also gave up my season tickets which were my father's then mine which I had for 49 years


----------



## bidger

Davenlr said:


> Good, more college games to watch...real football.


 Puhlease. "Real" football determines a National Champion by head-to-head playoffs and doesn't leave it up to computers.



njblackberry said:


> I personally find it very hard to root for millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners...


I can see it more from the players' side though. No one wants to work more and get paid less. It's unimaginable that an entity that makes money hand over fist couldn't get this resolved before a lockout. In this economy it's impossible to sympathize when an industry that's recession-proof walks away.

I've scaled my programming down to Choice Select, partly because the RSNs aren't that important to me. When it's all said and done, the NFL is my only "must see" Sport, but if they lock out I'm prepared to walk away too. Maybe do without pay TV entirely.

One last thing, "saluter" house:
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2007/07/04/1183543728_3657.jpg


----------



## Tom Robertson

bidger said:


> ...
> I can see it more from the players' side though. No one wants to work more and get paid less. It's unimaginable that an entity that makes money hand over fist couldn't get this resolved before a lockout. In this economy it's impossible to sympathize when an industry that's recession-proof walks away.
> ...


The thing is, generally speaking, only the "rookies" are likely to be being paid less--when compared to other rookie classes.

The amount of money given to players next year will still go up--just less than it would have gone otherwise.

And 18 games means a bigger TV pie of money to split for everyone.

I do understand the concern for injuries. I'd like to see the rosters enlarged to 60 plus 10 on the practice squad. They don't even have to increase the game-day number.

Lastly, thinking out loud for a moment, maybe something like a 4 game disabled list should be created, much like the physically unable to perform list, that can be applied even in mid-season.

Cheers,
Tom

Go Packers!!!


----------



## bidger

Tom Robertson said:


> The amount of money given to players next year will still go up--just less than it would have gone otherwise.


Not that our income is on a parallel with the pro athlete, but wouldn't you have an issue if your employer conveyed that message to you? And when you ask where the money that would have gone to you is now being directed and you're told the owners, would that lessen the blow?


----------



## Tom Robertson

bidger said:


> Not that our income is on a parallel with the pro athlete, but wouldn't you have an issue if your employer conveyed that message to you? And when you ask where the money that would have gone to you is now being directed and you're told the owners, would that lessen the blow?


I was just grateful that my income went up. And that I had some control of how my income improved year to year, ie. my own contributions would get me a promotion.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## njblackberry

Although I think both sides should just sit down and work it out, if an 18 game schedule is on the table, then the players deserve more money. I like the 16 game schedule.


----------



## TheRatPatrol

LOL. I'm doing more work for less money today. Got a pay cut 2 years ago, and haven't received a raise in 3 years. Its happening everywhere. We're in a recession. And these guys want more money on top of what they're already receiving now? Give me a break. 

They should be grateful for what they have. If they do strike I'll be done watching football for good.


----------



## fluffybear

TheRatPatrol said:


> LOL. I'm doing more work for less money today. Got a pay cut 2 years ago, and haven't received a raise in 3 years. Its happening everywhere. We're in a recession. And these guys want more money on top of what they're already receiving now? Give me a break.
> 
> They should be grateful for what they have. If they do strike I'll be done watching football for good.


This is why I no longer watch much sports. I use to be an avid fan of both Baseball and Football and then came the lock-out's and strikes and so on and that was it for me Today, I do not think I have actually watched an entire game in either sport in at least 20 years. I might flip by and catch a few minutes but for the most part I no longer care.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Congress should pass a law making it a felony with an ten year automatic prison sentence for anybody who is found making an owner of a football team pay these outrages rookies salaries. This of course does not applied to the Oakland Raiders.


----------



## jerrylove56

TheRatPatrol said:


> They should be grateful for what they have. If they do strike I'll be done watching football for good.


Perhaps you should look at the life expectancy rate for pro football players. Very short. The quality of life for all pro athletes is not good. The number of players with mega dollar contracts are small. Most only last for a couple of years and have to live with injuries the rest of their lives.

I'm tired of guys that whine about athletes making too much money. Sounds more like envy to me.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

jerrylove56 said:


> Perhaps you should look at the life expectancy rate for pro football players. Very short. The quality of life for all pro athletes is not good. The number of players with mega dollar contracts are small. Most only last for a couple of years and have to live with injuries the rest of their lives.
> 
> *I'm tired of guys that whine about athletes making too much money. Sounds more like envy to me*.


Then again...no one is twisting the arms of those people to go into that profession either...nor could most people.


----------



## Stuart Sweet

Of course it's envy. I'd love to make that much money.


----------



## yosoyellobo

Stuart Sweet said:


> Of course it's envy. I'd love to make that much money.


I would do it for half that much.


----------



## Tom Robertson

jerrylove56 said:


> Perhaps you should look at the life expectancy rate for pro football players. Very short. The quality of life for all pro athletes is not good. The number of players with mega dollar contracts are small. Most only last for a couple of years and have to live with injuries the rest of their lives.
> 
> I'm tired of guys that whine about athletes making too much money. Sounds more like envy to me.


Can I whine about athletes who whine? 

I don't begrudge anyone who legitimately makes a lot of money. (And I think entertainers, sports athletes, CEOs, etc. generally are legit.) Seems like anyone who is in the top 1% of their craft should be awarded. 

I do begrudge the athletes _and_ owners fighting over who gets the last bit of "LOTS of MONEY".

I understand owners are paying more for stadiums now. I understand athletes are putting their bodies on the line. I don't really understand Round 1 draftees getting tens of millions of dollars before they even tie their shoes. I think there needs to be a slightly better way to balance the wages across the whole team and more based upon performance.

By the way--the average time of service in the NFL is 2 years. So I do consider that as well.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon

There was an infamous quote years ago during an NBA players' strike where one wealthy player complained that he was barely able to feed his family on the millions of dollars he was making.

That didn't sit well.

In the current economic climate... it's hard to argue that NFL players "need" a raise. They might "deserve" one especially if the TV contracts go up or they go to an 18 game regular season... but "need" and "deserve" should be used appropriately.

I'm fine with billion-dollar industries paying their employees millions of dollars... but they shouldn't whine about being underpaid in quite the same way that a factory worker might do.


----------



## Dave

So the lockout has begun. The players have fired there union and negotiations have broken down. If anything it wil be a cheaper DirectV bill for some. For others it will be the temporary end of there favorite Sunday past-time. In the very end once again the valuable fans lose annother one to sports players and team owners.


----------



## Mark Walters

njblackberry said:


> I personally find it very hard to root for millionaire players fighting with billionaire owners...


FYI - most of the football players aren't millionaires. And the ones that are lucky enough to be usually don't have a dime by the time they retire.


----------



## Lord Vader

Dave said:


> So the lockout has begun. The players have fired there union and negotiations have broken down. If anything it wil be a cheaper DirectV bill for some. For others it will be the temporary end of there favorite Sunday past-time. In the very end once again the valuable fans lose annother one to sports players and team owners.


The players didn't fire their union. They opted for a strategic, but risky, move and decertified.

There will be a full 16-game season.


----------



## Lord Vader

Mark Walters said:


> FYI - most of the football players aren't millionaires. And the ones that are lucky enough to be usually don't have a dime by the time they retire.


That's because they're too stupid to invest their money for the future. They spend wildly with no thought of saving for the rest of their lives.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

All the historical work stoppages for the NFL in the past lasted between 24-52 days. I'm not worried.

The greed on both sides will subside and they'll get things done.


----------



## Doug Brott

I guarantee you that there will be football on Sundays this fall ... If it's not NFL, it will be College. Someone will move their game from Sat to Sun for more TV exposure.


----------



## Laxguy

Mark Walters said:


> FYI - most of the football players aren't millionaires. And the ones that are lucky enough to be usually don't have a dime by the time they retire.


Can't find any sympathy for that type at all. No one forces them to buy six houses, two Ferrarris, gamble or do drugs.


----------



## MysteryMan

This problem started decades ago when the owners decided to make six million dollar men out of players just to strengthen their teams, draw more advertising revenue, and line their greedy pockets.


----------



## fluffybear

Mark Walters said:


> FYI - most of the football players aren't millionaires. And the ones that are lucky enough to be usually don't have a dime by the time they retire.


Whose fault is it that they are not millionaires? 
The league minimum for a rookie is $340,000 with roughly a $50,000 a year increase for every year they play (10 year player's league minimum is $860,000).


----------



## sigma1914

I love the "overpaid millionaire athlete" argument some Joe Shmoes use. They fail to realize what a beating is put on their body and the work it takes to get to be good. The likelihood of getting in the pros is small & the likelihood of achieving financial security for afterwards is even smaller. Now, I'm *not saying *their jobs are more important or harder than those of teachers, military, police, and firefighters to name a few. But most workers in their cubicles don't need to worry about getting blasted in the knee and tearing his ligaments to shreds by a 245 pound linebacker running a 4.3 forty, thus ending his career.

As for the lockout, here's a well written explanation: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chi...dummies-the-2011-labor-dispute-explained.html


> *The Owner's Side*
> Once upon a time, stadiums and facilities were almost always at least partially funded by taxpayer dollars. In the county's current economic state, that practice is not considered viable anymore. Owners are essentially footing the bill for state of the art stadiums and facilities.
> But keep in mind; while these owners are filthy rich, it's not as if they're writing a check for a billion dollar stadium down in Dallas, Texas. Those facilities are mortgaged, and anything with that kind of price tag comes at a significant risk to the owners.
> They feel as if the players should have to assume a portion of that risk; as they will ultimately reap the benefits of increased revenues moving forward.
> 
> *The Player's Side*
> The problem the players have with that philosophy is that they are not stockholders in their team. They are an employee of that team. But more than that, they are an asset to that team. Let's face it, fans don't go to the stadium for the big screen TV hanging over the 50-yard line, they come to see the players play the game.
> 
> The players disagree entirely that they should be forced to assume risk associated with decisions made among ownership. In fact, when they hear the word risk, an entirely different thought comes to mind.
> After all, there is an inherent risk they assume every Sunday that the owners do not; injury. As one player put it, there is a 100% injury rate in the NFL. And while the players understand that condition going in, just as they assume it as a part of their role, the owners must assume financial risk as part of their role.
> 
> The players are not asking for anything more than they have received up to this point; the same amount of money, for the same amount of games.
> 
> *What Are the Other Issues?*
> Aside from the money, there is a myriad of other issues actually surrounding the discussions. Many of them are meaningless and most of them are simply being used as leverage. The league's proposed 18-game schedule will be a bargaining chip. The issues surrounding player safety will also be a bargaining chip.
> But aside from those, there are other tie-ins to the money aspect. The owners claim that they are essentially headed for financial ruin under the current deal, and anything other than drastic changes would spell disaster for their franchises. The players have asked the owners to prove that case and open up their books. The owners have refused. That lack of transparency may hurt the owners moving forward, especially if this issue hits the courts.
> The other main issue is implementing a rookie wage scale. While both sides agree that rookie salaries are getting out of control, they disagree on how to solve the problem. The players don't want to lose that money; they would simply like it to be spent on proven veterans. The owners refuse to guarantee that the money saved would be spent on vested players.


----------



## Earl Bonovich

sigma1914 said:


> I love the "overpaid millionaire athlete" argument some Joe Shmoes use. They fail to realize what a beating is put on their body and the work it takes to get to be good. The likelihood of getting in the pros is small & the likelihood of achieving financial security for afterwards is even smaller. Now, I'm *not saying *their jobs are more important or harder than those of teachers, military, police, and firefighters to name a few. But most workers in their cubicles don't need to worry about getting blasted in the knee and tearing his ligaments to shreds by a 245 pound linebacker running a 4.3 forty, thus ending his career.
> 
> As for the lockout, here's a well written explanation: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chi...dummies-the-2011-labor-dispute-explained.html


Sorry... still no sympothy.

The wear and tear that I see some of my friends in Construction and trades, and the risk they put themselves through for radically lower pay then football players. I friends that will have physical pain for the rest of their life because of things that happened to them on the job.

Even us cubical workers... Lower back, carpial tunnel, eye sight loss... there are risks in just about anything (and yes I will never compare my job to a professional football player)

At $300k a year for the min for a rookie. Proper management of their money... is key. It's not like they pay for most of their meals, their daily clothes. If they just buy a Chevy Malibu, instead of a Corvette... That $300k for a couple years... can leave them very comfortable for a several years after they play.

So cry me a river for these guys that are making $10k a MINUTE!!! To by definition, keep their bodies in perfect health and conditioning (when us average schmuks need to still find time outside of our work day to do it)... play a game at the highest level they can (which obviously most have a passion for... so they are doing something they want to do, which not many people can say they like their job)... get to travel, and all the other perks that come for the ride.

Same goes for the owners... I understand that they want to make money and it is a business... but the problem is (and is the problem with most of our society)... we all want more and more and more... and really... there isn't that much more out there to take.


----------



## Herdfan

One thing I don't understand is why there is a need for a lockout. The players are currently under contract and a new CBA is not going to change the current pay of any player. So basically the league will now function like baseball with no salary cap, but at least the small market teams make enough to be competitive.

I do think the CBA has provided all teams with a level playing field from the salary cap, but there needs to be a rookie cap and I for the life of me don't understand why current players fight this so hard. They are basically fighting for people who aren't even in the league and will be taking huge sums of money from the veterans. Rookies (think Ryan Leaf and JaMarcus Russell) getting paid huge amounts of guaranteed money before they play a snap is crazy. I am not against a rookie QB getting a large contract, but the guaranteed amounts are nuts. Make them prove themselves in the league first.


----------



## WestDC

1989 -the palyers union was deceritfied and the Union was reformed in 1993 after a contract was put together,

I don't think we missed a play or a game during those years.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

The NFL has also used substitute players to play games... and in this economy there will be a long line of people willing to play football if the league doesn't settle things.

So... while the NFL may be the ones locking out players (as opposed to a players' strike)... the NFL to some extent holds the final cards. While it is true fans pay to see the players... they specifically pay to see the NFL players. Put random people in a Washington or Dallas or whatever jersey, and fans will root for them moreso than if the current stars went and started a brand new non-NFL league.

So, the NFL ends up holding more of the cards currently.

I don't feel "sorry" on the concept of money with the players... but similarly can't have sympathy for the owners for the exact same reason... so once you take that out of the equation... it comes down to which side is being the most reasonable... and it had mostly seemed like the players were on the right side of this one.


----------



## djlong

My solution would be as follows...

18-game season? IN. The extra revenues go towards (among other things) expanding the rosters so that players have less risk per-game of injury.

Rookie salary cap? IN. Part of the money saved goes towards better a better pension system. WHen 40% of your employees declare bankruptcy, there's a problem that needs addressing.

"Open the books"? Meet you halfway. Allow an accounting firm to 'see the books' and act as an arbiter. Owners are afraid of tipping their successful finance hands to other, less-skilled owners. With an intermediary protecting some of the 'trade secrets' you can get some honesty out there.

Now go play


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Here's an e-mail I received this morning.

It lays out a number of the concessions that seemed to have been on the table from the NFL owner's side. Honestly...this would seem to indicate there was real substance going on in the talks. It also makes me wonder just how rigid the Players union has been in these discussions. All of these items would be *significant* "wins" for the Players.

Right now...it would be tough to understand why the players are still not talking at the table, unless they simply intended to walk all along.



> Dear NFL Fan,
> 
> When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players' financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.
> 
> The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
> 
> It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.
> 
> We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.
> 
> While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.
> 
> Yours,
> Roger Goodell


----------



## BudShark

If they were smart they wouldve reached a one to two year agreement. There will be little sympathy, understanding, or concern when people look at the economy, state of politics in the US, and Middle East, and natural disasters. Sometimes its best to realize you will come off as petty making an argument at a bad time. Right wrong or otherwise it is seen as millionaires fighting with billionaires over a few hundred million... And then the real news comes on. They are best to quickly and quietly resolve this.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

BudShark said:


> If they were smart they wouldve reached a one to two year agreement. There will be little sympathy, understanding, or concern when people look at the economy, state of politics in the US, and Middle East, and natural disasters. Sometimes its best to realize you will come off as petty making an argument at a bad time. Right wrong or otherwise it is seen as millionaires fighting with billionaires over a few hundred million... And then the real news comes on. They are best to quickly and quietly resolve this.


Well said sir. Agree.


----------



## fluffybear

sigma1914 said:


> I love the "overpaid millionaire athlete" argument some Joe Shmoes use. They fail to realize what a beating is put on their body and the work it takes to get to be good. The likelihood of getting in the pros is small & the likelihood of achieving financial security for afterwards is even smaller. Now, I'm *not saying *their jobs are more important or harder than those of teachers, military, police, and firefighters to name a few. But most workers in their cubicles don't need to worry about getting blasted in the knee and tearing his ligaments to shreds by a 245 pound linebacker running a 4.3 forty, thus ending his career.


I did not realize these men are forced to play football! Wait a minute, they aren't! They made a conscious choice to play and as such assume the risks that come with their job just as we poor shmoes make a decision on our chosen profession and as such assume the risks that come with it.

Yes, it is hard to get into the pro's but is it any different for us shmoes? You go out and apply for a job and find yourself in a room with several other people but only 1 person is getting the job. The simple fact of life not everyone is going to make it to the "pro's"

Why is it so hard to achieve financial security for these men? A player who earns nothing but the league minimum for 10 years will have been paid over 6 million dollars. Do you think there not achieving finical success might have something to do with the fact that they are no different then many shmoes out there who have zero idea on how to invest their money wisely? Maybe the NFL should do for it's players what Hollywood is doing for child actors! Hold back 25% of their wages and put it in a trust. This way when the player retires, he has a nest egg.


----------



## sigma1914

djlong said:


> ...
> 
> "Open the books"? Meet you halfway. Allow an accounting firm to 'see the books' and act as an arbiter. Owners are afraid of tipping their successful finance hands to other, less-skilled owners. With an intermediary protecting some of the 'trade secrets' you can get some honesty out there.
> 
> ...


I read and heard that "the books" are the biggest issue.

People need to realize that not all of the players in the league are multimillionaires like the Mannings, Brady, Rivers, etc. A friend of mine is a team captain & played 4 years, which is 1 year longer than the average career, and still makes a base salary around $650,000 a year. Take out taxes and his agent fees and that's not chump change he's left with at all, but his career could end at any moment...especially since he's on special teams.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

hdtvfan0001 said:


> All the historical work stoppages for the NFL in the past lasted between 24-52 days. I'm not worried.
> 
> The greed on both sides will subside and they'll get things done.





Doug Brott said:


> I guarantee you that there will be football on Sundays this fall ... If it's not NFL, it will be College. Someone will move their game from Sat to Sun for more TV exposure.


I hope you guys are right I want football on Sundays


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> I read and heard that "the books" are the biggest issue.
> 
> People need to realize that not all of the players in the league are multimillionaires like the Mannings, Brady, Rivers, etc. A friend of mine is a team captain & played 4 years, which is 1 year longer than the average career, and still makes a base salary around $650,000 a year. Take out taxes and his agent fees and that's not chump change he's left with at all, but his career could end at any moment...especially since he's on special teams.


The Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned franchise....the only one in the NFL, and rare among any sports period.

Their "books" are open every year to every shareholder, and published as well. In the end...having this open information is unique to the Packers, but actually only supports the owners views that the players are getting a fair shake. I don't see a single player on the roster being "underpaid".

Yes, there are some issues that need resolving...and the retired players in particular need more financial support (and that was offered by owners)...but it is pretty obvious that the NFLPA is about alot of talk and chatter...but really interested in milking out every nickle they can from the owners. All the other issues are a smokescreen.

As a team owner myself  (2 shares of Packer stock)... they aren't getting it from me. :lol:


----------



## sigma1914

fluffybear said:


> Why is it so hard to achieve financial security for these men? A player who earns nothing but the league minimum for 10 years will have been paid over 6 million dollars. Do you think there not achieving finical success might have something to do with the fact that they are no different then many shmoes out there who have zero idea on how to invest their money wisely? Maybe the NFL should do for it's players what Hollywood is doing for child actors! Hold back 25% of their wages and put it in a trust. This way when the player retires, he has a nest egg.


Simple answer: They're not taught how to manage money. Even every day 9-5ers don't know how to manage their 40k/year...look at the personal debt crisis we live in. 
Thankfully, former players and financial experts are working to help players manage their money better. Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel recently covered this situation.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> ...I don't see a single player on the roster being "underpaid".
> 
> ...


I do! Clay Mathews base salary was a mere $310,000. He's a beast.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> I do! Clay Mathews base salary was a mere $310,000. He's a beast.


He's a second year player with alot of incentives.

By the way...his 2010 salary is 3.050M... feel free to Google "Packer salaries" to confirm.

Yup - he's a beast, and about to get paid for it too. 

One added point.

Green Bay is the 2nd "youngest" team in the NFL...so one would think the impact of the rookie salaries, etc., as well as other issues would impact them alot. It hasn't.

This team has chosen for years to re-sign as many proven players as possible, and reward them for their performance.

That's probably a "maverick" concept to the NFLPA, but the fact that they will lose very few players from a Superbowl team (and just 1 assistant coach) tells you the formula works.

If the team is fair with the player, and the player performs and gets paid accordingly - everyone wins, including the fans. It works in Green Bay-perhaps a "lesson learned" for the rest of the league.


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> I do! Clay Mathews base salary was a mere $310,000. He's a beast.


Here's the details....underpaid....uh....nope.



> Clay Matthews, LB (first), 5 years, $9.925 million. Signing bonus: $800,000. Option bonus (paid March 2010): $3.72 million. Roster bonuses: $2.275 million. Base salaries: $310,000 in '09, $395,000 in '10, $660,000 in '11, $800,000 in '12 and $805,000 in '13. Cap number: $1.22 million


As one can see...."base salary" means little...except for salary cap purposes.


----------



## sigma1914

hdtvfan0001 said:


> He's a second year player with alot of incentives.
> 
> By the way...his 2010 salary is 3.050M... feel free to Google "Packer salaries" to confirm.
> 
> Yup - he's a beast, and about to get paid for it too.
> 
> ...


Oops, I had his 09 salary. I was just going by this... http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/Packers/salaries/2009


----------



## hdtvfan0001

sigma1914 said:


> Oops, I had his 09 salary. I was just going by this... http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/nfl/Packers/salaries/2009


No problem.

As shown in the stats I posted earlier....base salary has more to do with team cap numbers than it does for reflecting actual $$$ in a players pocket. Guaranteed $$$ up front goes right in the bank.

Where do we sign up? :lol:


----------



## SledgeHammer

Not that I care about football, but do you guys get your $350 or whatever insane amount it is now that you shelled out for NFL ST? Cuz last I remember the fine print said "No Refunds"?


----------



## Herdfan

SledgeHammer said:


> last I remember the fine print said *"No Refunds*"?


After the season starts. You can cancel anytime up to that point.


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> The Green Bay Packers are a publicly owned franchise....the only one in the NFL, and rare among any sports period.
> 
> Their "books" are open every year to every shareholder, and published as well. In the end...having this open information is unique to the Packers, but actually only supports the owners views that the players are getting a fair shake. I don't see a single player on the roster being "underpaid".
> 
> Yes, there are some issues that need resolving...and the retired players in particular need more financial support (and that was offered by owners)...but it is pretty obvious that the NFLPA is about alot of talk and chatter...but really interested in milking out every nickle they can from the owners. All the other issues are a smokescreen.
> 
> As a team owner myself  (2 shares of Packer stock)... they aren't getting it from me. :lol:


You sound like a "typical" owner, buying into the hubris and arrogance of the NFL. 

Yes, it "sounds" like the owners "might" have made some interesting offer--according to the owners. The players (and some/most of the press) aren't buying it.

The league is growing very nicely in all metrics. Revenues are up. Eyeballs are up. Interest is up.

So why should the players take a smaller gross dollar amount than before? I can understand a smaller percentage of a larger pie, but a smaller total of a larger pie? Not a chance. 

If the owners were sincere, they have to realize they dug this hole (if there really is one...) and gradually fix the hole in the same way they gradually dug the hole. Done right, no group should ever have to take a smaller total amount of dollars from the year before. Unless they cancel a few games. Then everyone gets to take a smaller total because the whole pie will be smaller--all out of greed.

This feels like a "make the union cave" negotiation to me. Has from day one, since it was the owners who backed out and threatened lockout.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> You sound like a "typical" owner, buying into the hubris and arrogance of the NFL.


Tom... !rolling

You owe me a non-sticky qwerty PC keyboard. 

That made me laugh so loud, I have at least an hour of cleanup ahead of me.


----------



## Tom Robertson

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Tom... !rolling
> 
> You owe me a non-sticky qwerty PC keyboard.
> 
> That made me laugh so loud, I have at least an hour of cleanup ahead of me.


Wait... Didn't you "play" this "game" knowing about the potential dangers to personal health and well being? And the non-existent pay and health benefits into your future? 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## hdtvfan0001

Tom Robertson said:


> Wait... Didn't you "play" this "game" knowing about the potential dangers to personal health and well being? And the non-existent pay and health benefits into your future?
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


:lol: ...make....it... :lol: ...stop.... :lol:....dad.... :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Stewart Vernon

I swear it seems like the players and owners are trying to compete to LOSE the public opinion support...

The players non-union has asked kids up for the NFL draft to not show up to shake hands and be on TV when they are drafted.

Besides the fact that these kids aren't yet in the NFL (until they sign)... this is asking kids to give up a dream of being a high draft pick and making that walk to the stage all over stuff that they currently have no voice in...

I was on the players' side more in the beginning... and the NFL hasn't helped its cause... but today's news of this request made on not-yet-players... has me scratching my head.


----------



## djlong

It's a less-violent version of union 'thugs' going on strike and physically preventing 'scabs' from coming and taking their jobs by setting up their picket line outside the parking lot of the factory.


----------



## DawgLink

The fact that the players thought the NFL draft idea would be remotely a good idea shows how absolutely clueless those people are that control the players union.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Stewart Vernon said:


> I swear it seems like the players and owners are trying to compete to LOSE the public opinion support...
> 
> The players non-union has asked kids up for the NFL draft to not show up to shake hands and be on TV when they are drafted.
> 
> Besides the fact that these kids aren't yet in the NFL (until they sign)... this is asking kids to give up a dream of being a high draft pick and making that walk to the stage all over stuff that they currently have no voice in...
> 
> I was on the players' side more in the beginning... and the NFL hasn't helped its cause... but today's news of this request made on not-yet-players... has me scratching my head.


One thing to remember is the "get invited to NY, walk across the stage on TV, shake hands, etc." is a new thing.

And the players association is not telling them to not go--they are educating them and letting them make up their own minds.

With a suitable alternative, this could work. Though almost anything that is broadcast will likely still enhance the NFL, so it's all moot.

On the other hand, the players need to also do the best for themselves. They are building their own brand. They need to control their own publicity.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## DawgLink

Tom Robertson said:


> And the players association is not telling them to not go--they are educating them and letting them make up their own minds.


Of course they are telling them not to go

I mean, I am not sure how anyone can take "Do not go....ok, well, we will have an event of our own" as them actually giving a choice to the players

Trent Dilfer and Tedy Bruschi both on ESPN Sportscenter the other night agreed that players NOT going to the players event would be behind the 8-ball with teammates and the Union.

If that isn't clear enough of a push, I am not sure what is


----------



## Stewart Vernon

DawgLink said:


> Of course they are telling them not to go
> 
> I mean, I am not sure how anyone can take "Do not go....ok, well, we will have an event of our own" as them actually giving a choice to the players
> 
> Trent Dilfer and Tedy Bruschi both on ESPN Sportscenter the other night agreed that players NOT going to the players event would be behind the 8-ball with teammates and the Union.
> 
> If that isn't clear enough of a push, I am not sure what is


Exactly... There are multiple problems in play here with the "request":

1. The soon-to-be NFL players are not yet players in the NFL... and as such, are not currently part of the labor dispute. Asking or encouraging them to do anything is in poor taste. Couldn't the owners just as well "encourage" agents not to take on new clients for similar reasons?

2. There is an implied "threat" that players who attend the draft will be ostracized by the current players once the dispute is over and a new contract in place. You can be sure that kids who attend the NFL draft will be noted and remembered and NFL players will treat them differently later.

3. IF we are to believe the union has disbanded... then there is no players' union... which means there is no union to request that not-yet-players do anything at all... You can't have it both ways... disband the union and you can't claim the future players.

4. These soon-to-be players will have ZERO say in the current negotiations. Even the ones who choose to comply and not go to the draft will not be in the union (union doesn't exist supposedly AND even if it did, the players are not in the union until they sign a contract with a team... and that can't happen until the new contract is in place!)... so there is no reason to place burden on players that you aren't going to allow to have a voice in the negotiations.

There are a lot more reasons that I'm not even remembering right now.

It's just poor form for the NFL players to try and involve people who aren't part of the current negotiations.

I would say the same thing IF the NFL began encouraging the new players not to sign with the Players' "Association" and encouraged them to start their own union. In fact... with the union supposedly disbanded... why couldn't the NFL start petitioning ALL players who disagree with the current leaders to form a new union of players and then enter a new NFL contract with that union!

How would them apples taste?


----------



## Tom Robertson

Stewart Vernon said:


> Exactly... There are multiple problems in play here with the "request":
> 
> 1. The soon-to-be NFL players are not yet players in the NFL... and as such, are not currently part of the labor dispute. Asking or encouraging them to do anything is in poor taste. Couldn't the owners just as well "encourage" agents not to take on new clients for similar reasons?
> 
> 2. There is an implied "threat" that players who attend the draft will be ostracized by the current players once the dispute is over and a new contract in place. You can be sure that kids who attend the NFL draft will be noted and remembered and NFL players will treat them differently later.
> 
> 3. IF we are to believe the union has disbanded... then there is no players' union... which means there is no union to request that not-yet-players do anything at all... You can't have it both ways... disband the union and you can't claim the future players.
> 
> 4. These soon-to-be players will have ZERO say in the current negotiations. Even the ones who choose to comply and not go to the draft will not be in the union (union doesn't exist supposedly AND even if it did, the players are not in the union until they sign a contract with a team... and that can't happen until the new contract is in place!)... so there is no reason to place burden on players that you aren't going to allow to have a voice in the negotiations.
> 
> There are a lot more reasons that I'm not even remembering right now.
> 
> It's just poor form for the NFL players to try and involve people who aren't part of the current negotiations.
> 
> I would say the same thing IF the NFL began encouraging the new players not to sign with the Players' "Association" and encouraged them to start their own union. In fact... with the union supposedly disbanded... why couldn't the NFL start petitioning ALL players who disagree with the current leaders to form a new union of players and then enter a new NFL contract with that union!
> 
> How would them apples taste?


Um... the draftees have PLENTY of involvement and say in this fight. With the lockout they can't sign, they can't negotiate, they are the ones who will have a rookie scale (in fact most of these will have the most impacted rookie scale since they are the most likely to be drafted in round 1 and with the first 16 picks), they might be free agents if the anti-trust is upheld, they can't workout, QBs can't go to QB school, etc.

Employers can't start a union. Kinda defeats the purpose...  I suppose they could _suggest _players start another union--but that tells the judge that even the NFL thinks the NFLPA has disbanded as a union. A road the NFL won't go down until the NLRB rules about the union status.

Players don't have to be in the union to affect one each others decisions. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Tom Robertson said:


> Um... the draftees have PLENTY of involvement and say in this fight. With the lockout they can't sign, they can't negotiate, they are the ones who will have a rookie scale (in fact most of these will have the most impacted rookie scale since they are the most likely to be drafted in round 1 and with the first 16 picks), they might be free agents if the anti-trust is upheld, they can't workout, QBs can't go to QB school, etc.


Read what I said again...

I never said the draftees weren't affected... I said they don't get a vote!

When are the draftees invited to the union meetings to vote? Are the draftees invited to join the anti-trust suit now that the union has disbanded?

The fact is... while a LOT of the negotiations will ultimately affect the draftees once they sign with the NFL... until they sign with the NFL, the draftees have no part in the negotiations. I am just as much a participant in the labor negotiations as the draftees at this point!

That was one of my points... the players "union" is suggesting and asking draftees to sacrifice something when they may never even get drafted anyway! Or may not get a contract... or may get a rookie scale that cuts their salary... and the draftees get ZERO input on any of these negotiations.



Tom Robertson said:


> Employers can't start a union. Kinda defeats the purpose...  I suppose they could _suggest _players start another union--but that tells the judge that even the NFL thinks the NFLPA has disbanded as a union. A road the NFL won't go down until the NLRB rules about the union status.


True... The NFL wants to first content the anti-trust suit on the basis that the union "disbanding" is fiction.

IF, however, the NFL loses that... then given the players' actions to suggest participation of non-NFL employees/players (the draftees)... IF things get nasty, I would not put it past the NFL to suggest to draftees and current players that do not like all the moves of the "union"... the NFL could suggest that they would be interested in negotiating with anyone, and IF a new union with different leadership was formed, perhaps they would negotiate with them first.

The point being... this "disbanding" can backfire IF all the players are not on the same page. It is a dangerous thing to disband your union unless you know all your players are on the same page. I'm not clear on whether they are or not.



Tom Robertson said:


> Players don't have to be in the union to affect one each others decisions.


True... but it does become more difficult to present a unified front.

Consider, for example, the anti-trust suit... Most of the named players you hear on TV are the big players like Manning or Brees or Brady... so... what if someone nudged all those players who are making "scale" by saying... hey, aren't you an NFL player too? Why isn't your name on that suit? Did anyone ask you what you wanted from the negotiations? Now that the union has disbanded, who is making decisions for your future?

It could get nasty if the fires are stoked.


----------



## Tom Robertson

Stewart Vernon said:


> Read what I said again...
> 
> I never said the draftees weren't affected... I said they don't get a vote!
> 
> When are the draftees invited to the union meetings to vote? Are the draftees invited to join the anti-trust suit now that the union has disbanded?
> 
> The fact is... while a LOT of the negotiations will ultimately affect the draftees once they sign with the NFL... until they sign with the NFL, the draftees have no part in the negotiations. I am just as much a participant in the labor negotiations as the draftees at this point!
> 
> That was one of my points... the players "union" is suggesting and asking draftees to sacrifice something when they may never even get drafted anyway! Or may not get a contract... or may get a rookie scale that cuts their salary... and the draftees get ZERO input on any of these negotiations.
> 
> True... The NFL wants to first content the anti-trust suit on the basis that the union "disbanding" is fiction.
> 
> IF, however, the NFL loses that... then given the players' actions to suggest participation of non-NFL employees/players (the draftees)... IF things get nasty, I would not put it past the NFL to suggest to draftees and current players that do not like all the moves of the "union"... the NFL could suggest that they would be interested in negotiating with anyone, and IF a new union with different leadership was formed, perhaps they would negotiate with them first.
> 
> The point being... this "disbanding" can backfire IF all the players are not on the same page. It is a dangerous thing to disband your union unless you know all your players are on the same page. I'm not clear on whether they are or not.
> 
> True... but it does become more difficult to present a unified front.
> 
> Consider, for example, the anti-trust suit... Most of the named players you hear on TV are the big players like Manning or Brees or Brady... so... what if someone nudged all those players who are making "scale" by saying... hey, aren't you an NFL player too? Why isn't your name on that suit? Did anyone ask you what you wanted from the negotiations? Now that the union has disbanded, who is making decisions for your future?
> 
> It could get nasty if the fires are stoked.


There is no union, so the draftees have the same say as any other player. "You want me, then pay me... But wait, you've locked me out."

And you put it they wouldn't be in the union until they sign, which is technically true but the contract they sign is very much affected by the union. They don't have to sign until the contract is right. They have say, after all they are the product just as much as any player.

As for decertifying, they had to now. If they waited until after the CBA was done, they had to wait 6 months to pull that trigger. That is their key leverage. (And by doing this now, there is a chance this will get settled before the season would start. If they had to wait 6 months, there is very little chance it gets settled.

See I think the owners don't have a clue: (all in my opinion)
1) They did not expect three very big names on the lawsuits.
2) They did not expect they would actually decertify.
3) They thought this would be quicker and easier.
4) They completely underestimated how D. Smith's transparency would work for the players. The players are much better prepared than anyone expected. (Even the agents were caught off guard at how well the players understand the whole situation.) 
5) They thought they could get the players to break apart now. But see players don't get any money now anyway. They are already prepared for a few months of no pay. They have no need to break yet. (Yeah, some big players might get a bonus--but they don't need the money immediately. and the little guys don't get anything so they are prepared too.)

So the owners keep acting like they can control things and bamboozle the players. But the players have hired some very, very good help. An investment bank, good lawyers, etc.

One last point. Class action lawsuits (which is part of what's going on) does not start immediately with all 1500 members of the class. The first 5 or more members file the lawsuit, then the judge certifies that this is a class lawsuit rather than individual lawsuits. So having 3 big names plus 6 other key names it all the players need right now. Then the rest join in. So don't be fooled that the players ain't in it on paper right now. 

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## lwilli201

I have to laugh when I hear owner greed when the top players, usually quarterbacks, are getting a very large chunk of a teams salary cap and wanting more. That is money that can be used to pay the other players a higher wage. Will Brees, Manning or Brady give up some of their money to help out, not a chance. They want more and more. How about a cap on the top players?


----------



## Dave

On the flip side we see a millionaire fan in Cleveland suing the Browns and players for the lock out because he can't buy his tickets. Also you may want to keep an eye on the rule changes being made. Kick-off moved back up to the 35 yard line. This will probably mean less touch-down returns and more touchbacks.


----------



## phrelin

From the LA Times:


> Judge Susan Nelson of the U.S. District Court in Minneapolis granted the request of the players for an injunction that forces NFL teams to continue football operations.
> 
> ...Nelson could have granted the injunction but issued a stay to keep the lockout in place until the appeal. However, she decided not to stay the decision, meaning the league must lift the lockout immediately and cannot put it in place while it waits for an appellate court's decision.


----------

