Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal

[SmootSmack]

Someone said here back in March (maybe it was me, but I think it was someone like FRPLG maybe) who said when it really came down to it we'd see that the owners have their own problems within their own ranks, because there's such a division between haves and have-nots. Or better said, the spends and spends-nots

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Someone said here back in March (maybe it was me, but I think it was someone like FRPLG maybe) who said when it really came down to it we'd see that the owners have their own problems within their own ranks, because there's such a division between haves and have-nots. Or better said, the spends and spends-nots

It may or may not have been me but the revenue sharing issue is the elephant in the room that the owners ignore. In fact there's a pretty good argument to be made that they've perpetrated this entire lockout in an attempt to not have to work out the revenue sharing. Maybe not consciously, but out of necessity because the divisions on revenue sharing are deep seeded, insidious and maybe impossible to fix. Not sure I blame owners like Jones, Snyder and Kraft when the Ralph Wilsons of the world refuse to even try to make extra money by perhaps selling the naming rights to his stadium instead of being vain enough to just keep his own name on it. Why should Jerry and Danny split the money they got for selling the naming rights when Wilson won't?

[Shadowbyte]

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Shadowbyte

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

Keep in mind a lot of people were simply siding with whoever they felt could end the lockout early. When the players started pursuing a more court driven strategy and didn't seem interested in negotiating people started siding with the owners.

Technically its the owners fault to begin with, seeing as how they decided to lock the players out but for now the fans in general will side with whoever seems more likely to end bring an end to this tragedy of an offseason (ie whoever's not avoiding negotiations and working through the courts).

[Paintrain]

Originally Posted by Shadowbyte

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

Many of these fans also love the mantra that playing is a privilege not a right and if players don't like it they can find another line of work. Well guess what, so is owning a team. If you don't like what your peers are choosing to do in order to keep a $9 BILLION industry going, then sell your team. If not then STFU and sign on the dotted line.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Shadowbyte

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

EXACTLY!

The greedy American employee always wanting more money and forcing the owner to turn to cheap labor which has spawned the ever growing hord of South Americans jumping our boarders trespassing and taking the jobs from the American worker so they can send money home to South America to support their families leaving Americans with out jobs and income to support their families. The next thing we will hear is the owners moving their businesses to foreign countries in order to get away from the taxes and the next thing you know sweat shops.

Oh sorry.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

EXACTLY!

The greedy American employee always wanting more money and forcing the owner to turn to cheap labor which has spawned the ever growing hord of South Americans jumping our boarders trespassing and taking the jobs from the American worker so they can send money home to South America to support their families leaving Americans with out jobs and income to support their families. The next thing we will hear is the owners moving their businesses to foreign countries in order to get away from the taxes and the next thing you know sweat shops.

Oh sorry.

[Shadowbyte]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

EXACTLY!

The greedy American employee always wanting more money and forcing the owner to turn to cheap labor which has spawned the ever growing hord of South Americans jumping our boarders trespassing and taking the jobs from the American worker so they can send money home to South America to support their families leaving Americans with out jobs and income to support their families. The next thing we will hear is the owners moving their businesses to foreign countries in order to get away from the taxes and the next thing you know sweat shops.

Oh sorry.

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.

The U.S. is the Most Overworked Nation in the World

I'm sure you meant to say greedy corporations correct? If not, please provide some facts to back your "greedy American worker un-informed-statement"

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Shadowbyte

At least 134 countries have laws setting the maximum length of the work week; the U.S. does not.

In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week.

According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”

Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not. Someone is profiting, it’s just not the average American worker.

The U.S. is the Most Overworked Nation in the World

I'm sure you meant to say greedy corporations correct? If not, please provide some facts to back your "greedy American worker un-informed-statement"

Funny thing is most of the "work" we do is sitting around the office. Usually people that are working more then 40 hours per week every week are procrastinating. Of course if you leave work early you look bad even if unlike your coworkers you actually finish your work when you're at work.

Then again there are people like doctors who are literally seeing patients all day and nurses who are pulling 12 hour shifts but I genuinely believe that a lot of the "work" we do is sitting in the office racking up hours.

Originally Posted by skinsnut

I don't like forcing owners to spend their revenue if they don't want to.
Outspending the competition is our biggest advantage.
Having that advantage removed by legal mandate is just plain wrong.

I'd be pissed if I owned a low revenue team, not having a choice of how much I spent?....ridiculous

I understand what you're saying but when you have owners like Bill Bidwell who is charging players for meals and putting chain locks around Gatorade refrigerators, well safe to say in some cases its necessary. Fans don't deserve that.

Also with respect to the Bidwell family Michael Bidwell (the son) has completely turned around the culture of that organization from penny pincher to honest competitor.

[Lotus]

Perhaps the owners are mostly happy with the currently discussed plan. Therefore perhaps we are reasonably close to a deal:

Report: Barely any owner opposition to proposed CBA - NFL - Yahoo! Sports

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Funny thing is most of the "work" we do is sitting around the office. Usually people that are working more then 40 hours per week every week are procrastinating. O


.

Wrong, you make an awful big assumption here.

[FrenchSkin]

Interesting how this lockout can lead to society issues: since this sports obeys to capitalist rules, we shouldn't be surprises that each side is trying its' best to have the biggest possible part of the cake (assuming the invisible hand will make the best reality for everybody) ... but, one could say that maybe everything shouldn't be for sale (for example the name of a stadium) or that owners and players should have the same goal: to entertain people (which logically leads to making a lot of money anyway, don't worry).

[sportscurmudgeon]

If you take some time to read about the history of the NFL, you will soon learn that the commissioners of the 50s and 60s came up with the concept of revenue sharing for the league as a way to grow the product. Back then, the Giants in NY and the Bears in Chicago were the big money teams and the commissioners convinced those owners to share large portions of the league's revenues equally among all the teams.

That led to competitive balance.

Many would argue that competitive balance led to more interesting opportunities to wager on NFL games (legally or illegally) with point spreads and that fueled the great expansion of the NFL creating the economic juggernaut that it is in 2011.

Note that it was the RICH owners who acceded to the revenue sharing concept and it remains in the control of the RICH owners to create a revenue sharing system that will work for the league. The smaller revenue owners cannot - - in reality - - make that happen.

Danny Boy is in a position where he could exert some leadership here on the part of the RICH owners because he - - unlike some other high revenue owners - - also owns his stadium. However - and let me be as diplomatic as I can here - -, Danny Boy is nowhere near the "most respected owner" among the group of 32. He can play an important role in forging a deal here but he will have to mend a LOT of fences in the owner's room and with some of the NFL front office execs. And one of the problems is that Danny Boy seems to be far more adept at tearing down fences than mending them...

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

If you take some time to read about the history of the NFL, you will soon learn that the commissioners of the 50s and 60s came up with the concept of revenue sharing for the league as a way to grow the product. Back then, the Giants in NY and the Bears in Chicago were the big money teams and the commissioners convinced those owners to share large portions of the league's revenues equally among all the teams.

That led to competitive balance.

Many would argue that competitive balance led to more interesting opportunities to wager on NFL games (legally or illegally) with point spreads and that fueled the great expansion of the NFL creating the economic juggernaut that it is in 2011.

Note that it was the RICH owners who acceded to the revenue sharing concept and it remains in the control of the RICH owners to create a revenue sharing system that will work for the league. The smaller revenue owners cannot - - in reality - - make that happen.

Danny Boy is in a position where he could exert some leadership here on the part of the RICH owners because he - - unlike some other high revenue owners - - also owns his stadium. However - and let me be as diplomatic as I can here - -, Danny Boy is nowhere near the "most respected owner" among the group of 32. He can play an important role in forging a deal here but he will have to mend a LOT of fences in the owner's room and with some of the NFL front office execs. And one of the problems is that Danny Boy seems to be far more adept at tearing down fences than mending them...

I could be wrong but I don't know why I get the feeling your slightly wrong and that the whole revenue sharing was probably requested and possibly helped to be intstituted by the teams who were making the least to assist them in keeping their teams running. I'm sure the Rich owners decided it was the best thing to do to keep football growing.

Another note.... Snyder does not own his stadium. Last I knew he was under a contract to stay in Fed Ex and which is why he didn't agree to a new stadium back in DC or to move to VA because he is stuck in Fed Ex for another 10 or mabe it's 9 yrs now. So as I have said before fans look at the Skins and immediatly think all the teams are doing as well monitarily when in fact the Skins are one of the best money making teams in the NFL. Not all teams are in the same situation, BUT..... even though they are doing well monitarily keep in mind the owner has to pay rent, or a mortgage, or pay off loans in order to keep the stadium. Which by the way costs money and if the fans are starting to feel the pinch from the bad economy and are losing their homes then I can onl guess that they are not renewing their season tickets which means there is no guarenteed income and they are scared about a possible loss of revenue which might effect the overall 9 bill they are receiving......ie; why they are requesting another 1 bill from the players in order to ensure the team does not get screwed in the end when the income drops and the really good teams can't send as much to the total revenue for the really bad teams.

[MTK]

Pete Rozell helped come up with revenue sharing in the 60's

Economy in NFL History

And Snyder definitely owns FedEx, it's one of the reasons the Skins are so highly valued, because the stadium is factored in.