Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;807666]Let us look back at how Fed Ex Field came into existence.

Jack Kent Cooke wanted to build a stadium and put his name on it - - not sell naming rights. He tried to get land and zoning changes through the District government for about ten years offering a deal that he would pay for the stadium if they gave him the land and upgraded the road access to the stadium. The DC government never got around to doing anything thinking that he had nowhere else to go but to stay in RFK Stadium. [To those who think FedEx is old and out of date, you should have seen RFK...]

Cooke tried to get a deal done for a site in Alexandria VA but was stopped by a grass roots uprising there. He also looked at a site in Laurel MD; I do not recall what the stumbling block to construction there was.

After years of trying to get Cooke's attention, PG County contacted him at the height of his frustration. He was not getting any younger and if he was going to see his new stadium with his name on it before he croaked, he had to get moving.

Cooke and PG County came to a deal for land and road access; Cooke would build the stadium and he promised that the Redskins would play in that stadium or another stadium in PG County for a specified period of time. [I think that period of time was 30 years meaning the Redskins are "locked into" playing in PG County until about 2025 without a whole lot of legal wrangling.]

Because Cooke was old and wanted to see his stadium up and running before he died, Jack Kent Cooke Stadium was built fast and lots of corners were cut in order to get the stadium done as soon as possible. Cooke also wanted his stadium to be the biggest in the NFL so they built it big.

But the combination of "big" with "fast construction to get the job done ASAP" along with meager road access made Jack Kent Cooke Stadium a disappointing venue the day it opened. There have been changes to the stadium in the Danny Boy era, but adding amenities to Fed Ex Field is more like putting lipstick on a pig than anything else.

As with the ESPN ranking of the Redskins franchise almost at the bottom of the list for sports franchises, FedEx Field is indeed one of the worst stadium experiences in the NFL. Yes, there are worse; the stadiums in Oakland, New Orleans, Buffalo and Minnesota are more than bleak. But Fed Ex Field is clearly in the bottom 25% of the NFL stadiums and the likelihood that will change significantly in the next 5-10 years is small.[/quote]

Kinda off topic but I wonder why Cooke was so hard pressed for a new staduim? He knew he wasn't going to be around for many more years and he knew he wasn't leaving the team to his son John.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485]Lockout: Sources reveal details of proposed NFL CBA - ESPN[/url]

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485]Lockout: Sources reveal details of proposed NFL CBA - ESPN[/url]

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

lol Damn SS almost same time

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

If the low rev teams can't keep up then they need to sell their team and let it move where it can work in my opinion. Sorry but Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown do the bare minimum to market their team and generate revenue and I don't see why the other owners, the players or fans should suffer the loss of football because they are asshats. Let's remember...Mike Brown is no "Captain of Industry" he inherited the team and Wilson has run a virtual sweatshop for decades. Sorry but when the other 80% of the league is raking in cash and trying to advance the product and barnd I have no sympathy for those that are mucking it all up by half-assing it.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

This is excellent news (from Schefter's FB Page):

"Adam Schefter
More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents."

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=FRPLG;807574]He's not tied to it in the way you're referring other than by the fact that it is relatively new for a stadium. It's only now getting into it's middle age period.

And the thing that is keeping him in the stadium more than anything is the implosion in the real estate market[B] (since cities have figured out that stadiums are not the revenue generators they are made out to be). That land is worth a mint 10 years ago[/B]. Enough to build him a new stadium. Now...not so much.[/quote]

Not all stadiums generate revenue but I'm FedEx brings in pretty good money for the 8 to 10 games palyed there. You to remember all the taxes raised off food, rooms, beer, etc... for 90,000 people. Also that land 10 yrs back was in the middle of the shit and I'd say its worth allot more today then back when the stadium was built.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

48% sounds good to me. Im guessin they are going to agree to something in this ballpark so why not make it happen in the next few weeks instead of fighting for the next few months over a percent or 2.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

1-2 percent would be hundreds of thousands of dollars, right?

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=firstdown;807729]Not all stadiums generate revenue but I'm FedEx brings in pretty good money for the 8 to 10 games palyed there. You to remember all the taxes raised off food, rooms, beer, etc... for 90,000 people. Also that land 10 yrs back was in the middle of the shit and I'd say its worth allot more today then back when the stadium was built.[/quote]

What matters is how much it is worth today. He'd need the cash from it to fund building a new stadium. If he can't sell it for enough then he'll have to find other sources of funding. And the point is that cities aren't chomping at the bit to throw a bunch of money towards stadium construction/"urban renewal" projects since the revenue generated by the "renewal" has shown to be far less than expected in many cases around the country.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=hooskins;807742]1-2 percent would be hundreds of thousands of dollars, right?[/quote]You mean millions right? Fighting for 90-180 MILLION is probably worth it to both sides.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=FRPLG;807745]You mean millions right? Fighting for 90-180 MILLION is probably worth it to both sides.[/quote]

Is the bottle 48% full or 2% empty? :lol:

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

If its 9 bil, 1% is 9 mil dollars. (i hope, geez that BA in accounting was worth it)

If the league makes a profit of 18 bil (or was it 16 bil in the article?) in 2016, youre talking 18 mil per percent point.

Yeah 9 to 18 mil is alot in a vacuum of perspective, but consider the total dollar amounts, both parties have to lose alil to gain alil imo.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

Good way for the league to generate more $$

[url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-nfl-proposal-features-16game-thursday-night-schedule-20110621,0,2274581.story]NFL proposal reportedly features 16-game Thursday night schedule - chicagotribune.com[/url]

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=over the mountain;807747]If its 9 bil, 1% is 9 mil dollars. (i hope, geez that BA in accounting was worth it)

If the league makes a profit of 18 bil (or was it 16 bil in the article?) in 2016, youre talking 18 mil per percent point.

Yeah 9 to 18 mil is alot in a vacuum of perspective, but consider the total dollar amounts, both parties have to lose alil to gain alil imo.[/quote]

1% of 9 billion is 90 million. But your point is good.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

Guys breaking news. I'm so glad I'm the first one to post this
[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485]Lockout: Sources reveal details of proposed NFL CBA - ESPN[/url]

[QUOTE=Ruhskins;807727]This is excellent news (from Schefter's FB Page):

"Adam Schefter
More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents."[/QUOTE]

Local tailors are going to need a lot of cloth to introduce this years free agent class. C Jenkins, A Franklin, D Joesph. How sweet it is.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

What would we do without you Dirt

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=SmootSmack;807761]What would we do without you Dirt[/quote]

Probably be a lot better off.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;807763]Probably be a lot better off.[/quote]

I agree...wait what?

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

Dirtbag has surpassed 10,000 posts. Time for a party.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

I don't like this part:
"require teams to spend close to 100 percent of the salary cap"

Doesn't that mean current cheap team would now be forced to spend more cash on players? Ultimately, that changes the supply of cash for a fixed number of players....basic economics means more competition for players and higher salaries.
That hurts big spenders like the Skins and means cheap teams fans will be happier with new significant talent....but after a few years, they will have to say good bye to their teams as they move to LA for more revenue.

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

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=SBXVII;807563]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.[/quote]

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.

[b]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.”[/b]

[b]Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950.[/b] 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.

[url=http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/]The U.S. is the Most Overworked Nation in the World[/url]

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"

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=Shadowbyte;807793]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.

[b]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.”[/b]

[b]Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950.[/b] 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.

[url=http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/]The U.S. is the Most Overworked Nation in the World[/url]

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"[/quote]

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.


[quote=skinsnut;807791]
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[/quote]

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.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

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

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-20110621_report_barely_any_owner_opposition_to_proposed_cba]Report: Barely any owner opposition to proposed CBA - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=skinsfan69;807716]Kinda off topic but I wonder why Cooke was so hard pressed for a new staduim? He knew he wasn't going to be around for many more years and he knew he wasn't leaving the team to his son John.[/quote]

He wanted a big new stadium with his name on it because Joe Robbie - - then the owner in Miami - - had one.

He fully intended to leave the team to his son. However, he wrote his will in such an arcane way with the intention of avoiding as much estate tax as possible that it became impossible for John Kent Cooke to come up with the cash needed to buy the team from the estate and the trust that Jack Kent Cooke set up. In essence, Jack Kent Cooke was "too smart by half" when it came to his will...

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=Lotus;807796]Perhaps the owners are mostly happy with the currently discussed plan. Therefore perhaps we are reasonably close to a deal:

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=nfp-20110621_report_barely_any_owner_opposition_to_proposed_cba]Report: Barely any owner opposition to proposed CBA - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url][/quote]

Yes I think it may soon be time for a new thread

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=over the mountain;807747]If its 9 bil, 1% is 9 mil dollars. (i hope, geez that BA in accounting was worth it)

If the league makes a profit of 18 bil (or was it 16 bil in the article?) in 2016, youre talking 18 mil per percent point.

Yeah 9 to 18 mil is alot in a vacuum of perspective, but consider the total dollar amounts, both parties have to lose alil to gain alil imo.[/quote]

yeah no.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=Ruhskins;807727]This is excellent news (from Schefter's FB Page):

"Adam Schefter
More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents."[/quote]Fascinating news. It would have been very significant if players with three years were granted unrestricted free agency. A number of names in the 2008 draft would have been set to hit. Anyway, biggest name now on the market would have to be Sidney Rice.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;807801]Fascinating news. It would have been very significant if players with three years were granted unrestricted free agency. A number of names in the 2008 draft would have been set to hit. Anyway, biggest name now on the market would have to be Sidney Rice.[/quote]

I think the biggest name for the Redskins should be Paul Soliai, the NT from Miami. The guy is 27 years old, 6'4", 355 lbs and has played well in Miami. Here's the scouting report on him:

"He is a load at the point of attack. He is a short-area block gobbler at the nose tackle position. He is strictly a first- and second-down player in Miami's scheme. He has zero sacks in his first three NFL seasons. He is a player who is a load at the point of attack. He plays with good leverage. He shows first step explosiveness getting into blockers. He uses his hands well to discard and make plays in line. His limitations are rushing the passer and making plays outside the A gaps."

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

For big money, ultimately needs to answer the question "what will he do for me against the pass?" But Soliai can get it done on the interior as a complementary force.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=GTripp0012;807804]For big money, ultimately needs to answer the question "what will he do for me against the pass?" But Soliai can get it done on the interior as a complementary force.[/quote]

I don't know how expensive he'll get, but it'd be nice to have him clog up the middle and free up Kerrigan and Orakpo. I think our other big interior d-lineman can help out in rushing situations, heck, we can put Kerrigan or Orakpo as DEs in passing situations. I think it be nice to have an experienced young DT like Soliai.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

Nose tackles aren't supposed to run and get after the quarterback anyway. They're supposed to eat blocks and let the linebackers and maybe the defensive ends do the getting the quarterback. Most nose tackles have, like, 1 or 2 sacks a year.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=NLC1054;807807]Nose tackles aren't supposed to run and get after the quarterback anyway. They're supposed to eat blocks and let the linebackers and maybe the defensive ends do the getting the quarterback. Most nose tackles have, like, 1 or 2 sacks a year.[/quote]

And to add to this, many 4-3 DTs and 3-4 NTs aren't very interchangeable. The closest we had to a 3-4 NT on the team was Kemo, and that's a stretch to say this b/c he was hurt and had not played in a 3-4 defense for like 4 years (his previous team was Carolina a 4-3 team). Unless they are willing to gamble on one of the young DTs they drafted or Bryant, I think acquiring an experienced NT like Soliai would be a good move.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

No Shadowbyte, I meant it like I said it. Throughout history Americans have refused to take the low minimum wage jobs and hoping by not taking them it would force the business owner to raise the salary rate to a more acceptable rate. However there has always been a group of people to come along and take those job and pissing off the Americans, ie; the Africans ( although forced here), the Irish, the Scottish, the Vietnamese, now since the early 80's the Hispanics or Latin Americans.

Part of the reason owners hire the Hispanics is because they will do more work for less money then the Americans. Sound familiar? Americans not wanting to play a game of football for no less then 4.5 billion. No it's not the day labor job but it sure sounds the same when the players are demanding more pay or a bigger slice of the profit.

Pretty soon the owners will move their teams out of country to avoid paying the high taxes ( the Bills), then we will probably start seeing more foreign players playing for less money. That was my joke.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=NLC1054;807807]Nose tackles aren't supposed to run and get after the quarterback anyway. They're supposed to eat blocks and let the linebackers and maybe the defensive ends do the getting the quarterback. Most nose tackles have, like, 1 or 2 sacks a year.[/quote]Agreed, and those players just aren't that difficult to find. Big money NTs have to do it all.

Vince Wilfork doesn't get a lot of sacks, but he makes plays against the pass.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;807794]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


.[/quote]


Wrong, you make an awful big assumption here.

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=Ruhskins;807802]I think the biggest name for the Redskins should be Paul Soliai, the NT from Miami. The guy is 27 years old, 6'4", 355 lbs and has played well in Miami. Here's the scouting report on him:

"He is a load at the point of attack. He is a short-area block gobbler at the nose tackle position. He is strictly a first- and second-down player in Miami's scheme. He has zero sacks in his first three NFL seasons. He is a player who is a load at the point of attack. He plays with good leverage. He shows first step explosiveness getting into blockers. He uses his hands well to discard and make plays in line. His limitations are rushing the passer and making plays outside the A gaps."[/quote]

Miami did use the Franchise Tag on him. Now, we don't know that it will still apply, but I think that is an indication that Miami isn't letting him go without a fight.

[url=http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-02-24/dolphins-use-franchise-tag-on-nt-soliai]Dolphins use franchise tag on NT Soliai - NFL - Sporting News[/url]

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

Does anyone think that a ruling from Doty (on the TV deals) or from 8th District CoA would derail the process that is happening now? I am just curious because clearly either of those could happen at any point now. Do the negotiations have enough steam to get over one side or the other being handed an unexpected or major victory, such as the DCoA siding with the players or Doty awarding an incredibly small amount?

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[url=http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30186109]The Daily Shoutout - CBSSports.com[/url]

Re: Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;807831]Does anyone think that a ruling from Doty (on the TV deals) or from 8th District CoA would derail the process that is happening now? I am just curious because clearly either of those could happen at any point now. Do the negotiations have enough steam to get over one side or the other being handed an unexpected or major victory, such as the DCoA siding with the players or Doty awarding an incredibly small amount?[/quote]

No.

We're almost there fellas. Free Agency is right around the corner. It's like March in July!