Commanders Post at The Warpath  

Home | Forums | Donate | Shop




Go Back   Commanders Post at The Warpath > Commanders Football > Locker Room Main Forum

Locker Room Main Forum Commanders Football & NFL discussion


Ongoing CBA discussions

Locker Room Main Forum


View Poll Results: Who do you blame for the CBA mess?
Owners 24 26.67%
Players 24 26.67%
Both 42 46.67%
Voters: 90. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-15-2011, 07:13 PM   #1
skinsfaninok
Warpath Hall of Fame
 
skinsfaninok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UNITED STATES
Age: 39
Posts: 36,242
Re: Ongoing CBA discussions

Jerry Jones’ gesture may have set the stage for decertification | ProFootballTalk
__________________
“Mediocre people don’t like high achievers, and high achievers don’t like mediocre people.”
― Nick Saban
skinsfaninok is offline  
Old 03-16-2011, 08:22 PM   #2
NC_Skins
Gamebreaker
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,747
Re: Ongoing CBA discussions

Owners are so quick to point out that it's players cost that are cutting into their expenses. How do we know it's not their wasteful spending or stuff they should be claiming as personal? This statement best describes why the NFLPA need to see the books, and I don't blame them. I mean the full books, not the "audited" versions that don't show shit.

Quote:
If the NFLPA was going to give owners any more revenue credits, the union felt strongly that the league had to show its hand. Show how much teams were spending (and wasting, perhaps). Over the past few days, I've had union officials (more than one) give me examples of how money is wasted by teams, and how some expenses that clubs claim as football expense should be personal expenses. And at the end of the day, the union simply didn't trust that teams' financial records weren't riddled with such wasteful spending.

Read more: Full access to financial statements at core of NFL labor issues - Peter King - SI.com



I still don't see why nobody has commented on arguably the most telling evidence in this whole debate that I posted earlier.
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

Quote:
But, in looking at these teams, the reason for some – not all – of declines Operating Income can be tied to activities on the business side.



Quote:
But, the complexities as to why there would be losses has to be tied to more than just saying, “because we said so.” The Forbes numbers paints two pictures: incredible growth for some clubs, while others have not grown at the same pace. That points to an internal matter for the league’s owners to handle, more than saying it solely rests on the shoulders of increased player salaries.
When Forbes comes out and presents evidence and says exactly what some of us are saying, it's a pretty convincing argument to this debate and the sole reason they should show the books if they want to back up their claim of it being the player expenses.
NC_Skins is offline  
Old 03-16-2011, 09:58 PM   #3
Slingin Sammy 33
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Ongoing CBA discussions

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
I still don't see why nobody has commented on arguably the most telling evidence in this whole debate that I posted earlier.
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

When Forbes comes out and presents evidence and says exactly what some of us are saying, it's a pretty convincing argument to this debate and the sole reason they should show the books if they want to back up their claim of it being the player expenses.
I apologize for being a bit harsh in some of my responses to you earlier in the thread. Thanks for the correction you posted earlier, doesn't happen a lot here or on any forum, so props to you.

You've mentioned this Forbes article a few times so I finally have a few minutes to give my take on it.
- You portay this as being Forbes magazine's position. It is not. This article was done by a free-lance contributor, Maury Brown. This is one analyst's opinion, nothing more.
- Your table indicates "Operating Income", I and others, have referenced profitability which is the more important number of any business at the end of the day.
- The article also mentions the Packers profitability numbers which I referenced to back up my point about declining profits.
- The article also mentions that there are teams running in the red.
- The author advocates increased revenue sharing.....(wealth redistribution anyone). Each of the 32 teams in the NFL are there to make as much profit as possible while putting a competitive product on the field (their levels of success at profit/competitiveness vary greatly). There is already a good deal of revenue sharing and a salary cap in place to help the teams in weaker markets or with weak profitability. If I was Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Robert Kraft, etc. I wouldn't want to give up my profits to help other less successful owners unless there was a risk in my bottom line to not doing so.

I agree the books are not going to be 100% clean, but I'll bet they're a lot cleaner than is being portrayed. Maybe the NFL and NFLPA should look at a different model to work with for splitting the revenue.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
We have no official affiliation with the Washington Commanders or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.44448 seconds with 12 queries