Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII
1) If the owners opted in on the CBA then they would be agreeing to the same CBA they have had, giving the players 59% of the income which when originally signed only 2 or 3 clubs were against. Now all are in agreement that they gave the players too much.
So when you say the "owners" opted out of the CBA, I'd say your only partially correct. Did the owners give a proposal that would make the players balk? Yes. But I'm almost sure the players were the ones who "decertified" 6 hours prior to the deadline. So to me although the owners more than likely were going to opt out, the players kinda beat them to it. So go ahead and blame the players.
2) I honestly am not well knowledged enough on this subject to argue the point. I'll honestly say some of the Union stuff baffles me, but if I'm kinda getting your point the owners were not allowed to talk to the players or their agents during the lockout. I'd assume there is nothing against teams conducting business otherwise.
|
First that 59% should be 53%. You forget that the owners take 1 billion off the top so they are essentially splitting 8 billion, not the 9 that is brought in.
Truthfully, I have no issue with the owners opting out of the CBA. However, when you back out of a agreement and claim you are having loss of profits(even though your revenue has increased each year), then you need to be able to show (and prove) that to the people you are dealing with. If they can prove it, then by all means the players should concede some of the revenue back to owners for expenses.
My personal belief is this without seeing the books. There is absolutely no way that player income is the reason they are having loss of profits even though revenue has increase annually. My guess is the reason why owners are losing profits is because owners are bad businessmen. Let's take a look at who's losing money.
Al Davis - Raiders?
Wayne Weaver - Jaguars?
Mike Brown - Bengals?
Wonder why? Bad business decisions from owners?
NFL Labor Talks Hinge on Growth Issue - WSJ.com
This is a good read. Talks about how the NFL has probably hit it's ceiling for revenue and it's probably right. Inflation is sky high, and look no further than the price of gold to see that.
Quote:
|
The one thing NFL owners care most about—the market value of their franchises—can only increase if revenues do. Increased revenues also give prospective NFL owners more confidence that they're making a solid investment as opposed to a vanity purchase
|
Sounds to me if owners want more money to expand their empire, they should be making better business decisions instead of stupid ones. Nobody told Snyder to set the market for DTs at 15million a year and a 100 million contract. Nobody twisted Al's arm to sign Russell to a 40 mil guaranteed contract, or any other over paid talent he's brought to that team. Should players take a cut because owners are making bad decisions? Hell no.