egami
Posts:5061
 |
| 05/20/2008 10:29 AM |
 Alert
|
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true
No surprise here, really. In a nutshell, the owners want more revenue back. Owners claim that 59% of the profit goes to players. So, is that before Jerry Jones stadium figures or after? I can see where that 10% might of gone. 
 |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3311
|
| 05/20/2008 1:08 PM |
Alert
|
I saw a similar article yesterday about this same subject. I say more power to the owners.
These players will take and take until they drive the upper middle class out of their seats. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/20/2008 1:15 PM |
Alert
|
We may agree on this one...right now I am siding with owners, overall. Although there are things on both sides of the CBA that need addressed.
My guess is if players give up salary we'll see that taken out on the rookies with a rookie salary cap implemented. Which I would be for if structured right. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/20/2008 3:20 PM |
Alert
|
| Well, at least we'll have the next 3 years of uninterrupted NFL football. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
SeahawksSB42champs
Posts:1151
|
| 05/20/2008 4:55 PM |
Alert
|
| Maybe some of the former players will have bum-rushed Gene Upshaw and eliminated him from the gene pool by then... |
|
|
|
|
Fergie
Posts:377
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/20/2008 8:23 PM |
Alert
|
| The Upshaw thing still doesn't make sense to me...I don't see why they are trying to run him out unless they are afraid he's in bed with the owners. Which, based on the last negotiations, I don't see that. He's got them to where they are now which is better than I'd of ever dreamed. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
SeahawksSB42champs
Posts:1151
|
| 05/20/2008 11:55 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Fergie on 05/20/2008 6:01 PM Posted By SeahawksSB42champs on 05/20/2008 4:55 PM
bum-rushed Gene Upshaw and eliminated him from the gene pool Well, the rich get richer and the drunks get drunker. That was twisted thought clearly illustrated. 
Obviously, the shock therapy to get over your multiple pathetic personality disorder isn't working, Dwight the Manipulated.
You might try increasing the voltage and standing in a pool of water next time. |
|
|
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/21/2008 8:30 AM |
Alert
|
Matt Ryan, 6 years - $72MM.
And then they wonder why the players absorb 60% of the revenue. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/21/2008 8:40 AM |
Alert
|
Well, yeah, but it's the guaranteed that is the "meat". I think that was like $33.75M. Most of those back-loaded big deal tend to get re-worked if the player stays that long.
Still a decent amount of pocket change though.
I thought Marion Barber got a pretty sweet deal in his new contract. He got a 7-year, $45M, $16M guaranteed, but $21M was actually front loaded in the first 3 years of the deal. Thanks to the uncapped 2010, no doubt. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/21/2008 1:31 PM |
Alert
|
| Regardless, the owners have set the bar, and now they want to b!tch about profitability? |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/21/2008 1:44 PM |
Alert
|
I am not sure what you mean by the owners setting the bar. This past CBA negotiation process is admittedly the first one I've followed closely, but the way I see it is the owners took the high road last time around to keep peace and to not jeopardize killing the Golden Goose. On paper, the players earned almost 60% of the "profit" pie since the last extension. Imo, that's extremely ridiculous. Owners are the ones that have the bulk of the long term investments and risks...we're talking about infrastructure, assets and operational costs which are rising, so imo I have no problem with owners taking home the majority piece of the actual profit pie.
Granted, I haven't see a breakdown of the numbers...I'd like to see what factored into determining the dollar figures, but at a 10,000 foot level, that's the way I view the situation. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/21/2008 2:07 PM |
Alert
|
By setting the bar, I mean they continue to cave to these outrageous contracts, which "sets the bar" higher for the next guy or the next owner. Ryan's deal was for more than Jamarcus Russell's, who sat out half the season to get his, AND was the number one pick.
It just seems a little ridiculous to me is all.
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Fergie
Posts:377
|
| 05/21/2008 2:20 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 05/21/2008 1:31 PM
Regardless, the owners have set the bar, and now they want to b!tch about profitability?
I disagree...three years ago a group of owners b1tched vehemently about salaries and how they are effecting the overall sport and no one listened but rather commented with the stereo-typical "greedy owners" mentality.
I think the owners feared then and still do now a strike and the memory of the impact of the last strike is still fresh amongst the long term owners in the league.
Greed from Upshaw and his "dogs after meat" players union is killing the NFL.
|
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/21/2008 2:26 PM |
Alert
|
Well, it's the "slippery slope"...and, it's the exact reason that the NFLPA head Gene Upshaw won't put that sacrificial lamb on the table. He knows that rookie contracts are arguably the largest driving force historically that have moved the overall profit pool to the players advantage. A rookie cap would wreak havoc with their future negotiating.
However, like I said, it's the slippery slope...when the original CBA was put together this wasn't an issue, so it's not totally the fault of the owners. It was an unintended consequence and it has to be addressed, but even if we agree on that fact I don't think you can blame the entire shift of the money pool on a handful of overpaid rookies. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/21/2008 4:23 PM |
Alert
|
It has gotten out of hand because contracts continue to be agreed to. Each record contract sets the bar for the next. Am I wrong about that?
The bigger problem is that these contracts, with guaranteed money, are being given to unproven players in the NFL. I have no problem rewarding a guy for a proven track record. But the Jamarcus Russell's and the Matt Ryan's? Cmon. Play a down, and then lets talk.
The issue is the guaranteed money. The incentives are bogus in my mind, since most have already gotten their huge payday from the get go. My theory, a "reasonable" base, loaded with performance incentives. That is the only fair way......but we'll never see that now. It's too far gone.
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Bugeater
Posts:971
|
| 05/21/2008 10:32 PM |
Alert
|
| While it's way too early to panic about this, I do see trouble ahead for the NFL. I think its biggest problem is over-expansion, there isn't enough talent to go around. You have to overpay just to get marginal free agents, and that drives up salaries across the board. The rookie contracts are a problem as well...the owners have their work cut out for them to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
Bugeater
Posts:971
|
| 05/21/2008 11:43 PM |
Alert
|
| Bump |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/22/2008 7:57 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 05/21/2008 4:23 PM
It has gotten out of hand because contracts continue to be agreed to. Each record contract sets the bar for the next. Am I wrong about that?
Did I not just acknowledge that rookie contracts are a problem? I've mentioned that here dozens of times. We aren't at issue on that aspect.
The bigger problem is that these contracts, with guaranteed money, are being given to unproven players in the NFL. I have no problem rewarding a guy for a proven track record. But the Jamarcus Russell's and the Matt Ryan's? Cmon. Play a down, and then lets talk.
Again, we agree on this mostly...rookie salary caps are another topic, but I wouldn't be for a full-fledged NBA style rookie cap I don't think.
The issue is the guaranteed money. The incentives are bogus in my mind, since most have already gotten their huge payday from the get go. My theory, a "reasonable" base, loaded with performance incentives. That is the only fair way......but we'll never see that now. It's too far gone.
First off, my point on rookie salaries...
While they are problematic, and we agree on that, I don't think we agree on the impact they have on the disparity in revenue between owners and players in the current CBA.
In short, rookie salaries are A problem, but not THE problem that got it here.
It's only a handful of rookies making the BIG, BIG bucks. So in that light, it's a very small dollar amount in and of itself.
The bigger issue is the way those contracts drive the overall market, but the Russell/Ryan contracts, themselves, aren't tipping the balance.
Also, your proposal for incentive-based contracts can't work under the current CBA either. I used to think along that same line until I learned that most incentive-laden contract dollars count against the cap.
So, until the NFL allows teams to retro-actively apply incentive dollars from a previous year to the current year cap...I don't see this happening except in special cases (Terrell Owens, Pac Man type cases and even then its dicey).
|
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/22/2008 10:19 AM |
Alert
|
I guess I'm talking about salaries in general and not just rookie salaries. Look at what Oakland did this spring? They raised the salary bar for mediocre players.
Look, I'm not suggesting its all the owner's fault that they are only getting 40% of the pot pie profits, but their hands are certainly not clean. |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|