Rock out with your Lockout

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

I say screw both sides and start a league were they play for the passion of the game like the old days.

What are we talking about? The 1920s?

[sportscurmudgeon]

What is missing from the dynamic of the negotiations is precisely the voice of the fans that is loud and clear here.

Fans want football so they want a resolution to these "issues" immediately. But the fans have no voice in the negotiations even though all of the $$$ that all these folks are fighting over come from the pockets of the fans - - and the taxpayers in cities that have funded stadiums for teams.

The fans pay the freight but the players and the owners decide whether or not the fans - - the one's paying the freight may I remind you - - get to see games next year.

That is what is wrong with this picture. Put fans in the room with the power of the dollars and this would be fixed in a flash.

The NFL expects to take in revenues just under $9B this year. Player salaries and benefits amount to just under 60% of that revenue or just under $5.4B.

And those folks can't figure out how to share that pie so that everyone gets a fair share? Give me a BREAK!

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SFREDSKIN

I say screw both sides and start a league were they play for the passion of the game like the old days.

The Lingerie Football League is definitely passionate and, just like Red Grange, its players wear lacy underwear.

[warpaint]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

There are many people involved in football games outside of the players who depend on the games to pay their bills

O.K. with this said what is better for them? The general workers that are never seen. Is it better for the owners to come on top or the players?

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by warpaint

O.K. with this said what is better for them? The general workers that are never seen. Is it better for the owners to come on top or the players?

It's better for there to be games, so I'll say the players

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by warpaint

O.K. with this said what is better for them? The general workers that are never seen. Is it better for the owners to come on top or the players?

Owners. The FO, maintenance and team people are paid out of the owners pockets, not the players %. If teams are really struggling they will cut team staff before they cut player salaries so they still try to field a competitive team.

My question to those supporting the players is; do the players give back some of their salaries if the team doesn't hit their revenue goals or loses $$$ (Buffalo, Jax, Detroit, Cincy, etc.)? Of course not. Who takes the ultimate financial risk, the owners.

Good read:
The Most Valuable NFL Teams - Forbes.com

From the article:
At the other end of the scale, the NFL's low-revenue teams are struggling to keep pace with their big-market competition. The NFL's 10 least valuable teams all declined in value over the past year, led by the Jacksonville Jaguars, which fell 16% to $725 million. The Jags lost 17,000 season ticket holders following a disappointing 5-win, 11-loss season in 2008. The poor support forced the Jaguars to have all but one of its games blacked out locally on TV. The Jags boosted their season ticket base for the upcoming season, but did it with heavily discounted tickets.

The Detroit Lions (owned by auto scion William Clay Ford) are one of only two teams to lose money ($2.9 million) last season on an operating basis (the Miami Dolphins lost $7.7 million). This marks the third time in four years the Lions have posted an operating loss.
The team is burdened with a hefty debt load of $350 million thanks to the Lions' contribution to the $440 million Ford Field, which opened in 2002. The Lions have struggled to sell tickets since becoming the first NFL team to ever finish winless in a 16-game season in 2008. The Lions had half of its eight home games blacked out last year as it failed to sell out 72 hours before kickoff. The team cut ticket prices on 19,000 seats for this season in hopes of boosting attendance.

Also, looking at the Packers' numbers, their profit was down 52% in 2010. League-wide, total team values fell 2%.

Like any negotiation there will be trade-offs on each side, it shouldn't be too difficult to resolve though:

- 18 games - No way.
- Owners fund better after playing career health coverage. - Absolutely
- Rookie wage scale - Absolutely
- Players take a slight % cut of approx. 5% instead of 18%

CBA done, how hard was that?

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I hate this argument. Let's really step back and look at this. Anyone can be a cop or a firefighter. Most people on this board could study/train for a year and become a cop or fireman. None of us could become world class athletes. What these players have are special skills that they hone, either for free or pay [tuition, equipment costs, etc], until the age of 20-21ish. Then they are given a very short career span to make money. Their routine work day includes far more violence and danger than the typical cop and fireman as well. I'm not saying service people don't face danger, but I'm arguing over the course of a week, a football player has a far higher risk of being seriously injured. Most of these guys get a short amount of time in the NFL, it's important they're well compensated.

I second that...

It's all based on the principles of supply and demand. If you think athletes are being paid too much it's in your best interest to NOT pay attention or monetarily support the sport. If you're the type of person who can't stop watching football then STOP complaining about the absurd amount of money in the game. If you feel that strongly about the comparasion between the pay of NFL athletes and community employees please don't reference how much you love and are knowledgable about the game because you are then part of the problem and are being hypocritical.

Simple solution for all of those holier than thou when it comes to the compensation...STOP watching, talking and knowing everything about it.

...I can't do that, that's why I'm at peace with the just payment for said demand.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by warpaint

O.K. with this said what is better for them? The general workers that are never seen. Is it better for the owners to come on top or the players?

What's best for them is that both sides reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Why is this such a difficult thing? Because both sides are acting out of greed. Everything else is just smoke.

[hooskins]

SmootSmack, I know that the many that depend on NFL to pay their bills includes you and ESPN. I completely understand that, and I understand the residual impacts of the league. But you can't say out of all Americans employed the majority of them are dependent on the NFL for employment. I would venture to say you could not even make such a claim for the plurality of employed Americans.

No football next year would impact many Americans but not a plurality.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by hooskins

SmootSmack, I know that the many that depend on NFL to pay their bills includes you and ESPN. I completely understand that, and I understand the residual impacts of the league. But you can't say out of all Americans employed the majority of them are dependent on the NFL for employment. I would venture to say you could not even make such a claim for the plurality of employed Americans.

No football next year would impact many Americans but not a plurality.

Honestly, it won't have as big an impact on me as it would many of my colleagues. I'm actually a bit more screwed by an NBA lockout. If anything, an NFL lockout may help me if it increases interest in college football.

But when did I ever say the majority are dependent on the NFL?

[hooskins]

Yeah, you never said majority. We just need to define "many".

But a lockout in the NFL has to have secondary impacts on your position. Perhaps not immediate but eventual.

[skinsfan69]

I don't know much about all these complex issues but I'd have to side with the players. Isn't the argument that the owners say they're losing money? And the union is saying open up the books to prove it? and the owners aren't willing to do so. Don't the owners make a shit load of $ off the TV money? I just find it hard to believe that owners are losing money with revenue sharing and tv deals.

[skinsfan69]

Not sure I would even watch the NFL if they do what they did in 87 and have scab games.

[SolidSnake84]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Not sure I would even watch the NFL if they do what they did in 87 and have scab games.

Scab games is what we need. America loves the NFL and the league needs to field replacement teams if they refuse to agree to a new CBA....

Can they even use replacement players?? Someone earlier said that replacement players are forbidden.

EDIT: I answered my own question. The linked article says that the league may indeed use replacement players...

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SolidSnake84

Scab games is what we need. America loves the NFL and the league needs to field replacement teams if they refuse to agree to a new CBA....

Can they even use replacement players?? Someone earlier said that replacement players are forbidden.

EDIT: I answered my own question. The linked article says that the league may indeed use replacement players...

They can use replacement players if...

1) The Owners agree to play a 2011 season under a new set of NFL rules
2) The NFLPA, when given the option to play under those (non-collectively bargained) rules, opts instead to strike.

Then replacement players (non-NFLPA members) can be used.