| Author |
Messages |
|
egami
Posts:5061
 |
| 05/22/2008 10:37 AM |
 Alert
|
Ok, but that's a result of the past CBA extension that the owners agreed to in order to maintain peace.
I won't even entertain the Oakland aspect in this discussion because 1. they are idiots and 2. we haven't actually seen what ripple effect that will or will not cause. There was speculation that it would, but in the past when contracts for players have been out of line that hasn't dictated adjustments to the rest of the league and I think that will be the case here.
However, even if talking salaries in general, I don't see how you're blaming owners when it's the players who were going to force the issue and force a lockout last time around if the extension wasn't passed. It's a catch 22, if the owners agreed to the extension then they have to pay players more to compete, if they don't then they kill the Golden Goose. Which is the lesser of two evils?
The fact is, the current CBA needs reworked in relation to operating costs and player salaries in todays market, not the market in which the original CBA was written.
And, I don't think I ever said the owners weren't at fault at any level. But your response, to me, suggested it was largely their fault for setting the bar, hence the discussion.
I am just saying, at this stage of the game, knowing what we know, I am siding with the owners. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/22/2008 10:53 AM |
Alert
|
I've had a problem with player salaries for a long long time. I think the amount of money they make for playing a game is ridiculous. There is no question the CBA needs reworked, and it definitley needs reworked in favor of ownership, all I am saying is it is difficult for me to listen to the owners cry, when, from my perspective, they have had a "hand in" these salaries getting "out of hand".
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/22/2008 12:20 PM |
Alert
|
| Imo, you can't lump all the owners together in that assumption and be fair about it. Take my team, Pittsburgh, for instance. We don't overpay, period. Buffalo and many smaller market teams are often well under the cap and very fiscally responsible. So, it's a bit unfair to paint them as the bad guys when it's the Kraft's, Joneses, Davises and Snyder's that are largely responsible for that. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Fergie
Posts:377
|
| 05/22/2008 7:13 PM |
Alert
|
| Smaller market teams have no choice. I don't think the name Kraft can be clumped in that group either. They spend accordingly, when you are winning you can afford to spend. It's those that continue to do so even when down that amaze me. Mr. Home Depot down in Atlanta is a classic example. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/23/2008 11:58 AM |
Alert
|
| Yeah, Kraft does belong on that list. New England is undoubtedly one of the smartest big spenders, but they are still annually one the big spenders and annually one of the teams that is closest to the cap. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/23/2008 4:21 PM |
Alert
|
I find it interesting that with the revenue sharing agreement, the players share in the revenues generated by luxury suites and naming rights.....which for those teams who have built new stadiums, that could be a sizeable piece. But what doesn't make sense is that the players apparently share in the gross revenue, and not any of the costs associated with financing such a venture.
Were the owner's attorneys asleep at the wheel on this deal? |
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
Omahan
Posts:3270
|
| 05/23/2008 6:24 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 05/23/2008 4:21 PM
But what doesn't make sense is that the players apparently share in the gross revenue, and not any of the costs associated with financing such a venture.
Were the owner's attorneys asleep at the wheel on this deal?
Now that makes dollars and sense! Maybe a complete ledger of all income and costs should be incorporated in the equation so the players can get schooled in "costs" of running a business.
With the ego's of players of this day being so "inner city" aligned. I seriously doubt that the players would care one bit if they knew.
Cruel world ruled by greed. |
|
|
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/23/2008 6:56 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Crit40 on 05/23/2008 4:21 PM
I find it interesting that with the revenue sharing agreement, the players share in the revenues generated by luxury suites and naming rights.....which for those teams who have built new stadiums, that could be a sizeable piece. But what doesn't make sense is that the players apparently share in the gross revenue, and not any of the costs associated with financing such a venture.
Were the owner's attorneys asleep at the wheel on this deal?
The flip side of that is that owners benefit from revenue far longer than players do on an individual basis. Also, players don't benefit from franchise increase in value nor the sale of the teams when they sell. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
Blackshirt
Posts:547
|
| 05/24/2008 12:56 AM |
Alert
|
It will be interesting to see how Goodell passes this test.
They have time to get it done.
Since he's not Gary Bettman or Bud Selig, he has a shot.
NFL owners are like every other owner, though. I agree with Crit. Is the pay too high? Probably.
But, it's market-driven and who sets the market? Owners.
And it's not as if the broadcast revenue has gone down lately.
Can't blame them for wanting to rework the deal. I would too in their situation.
But it's a little difficult to buy every dire claim they might come up with, either.
As long as they get it done so there's no strike, lockout or games with replacement players, I'll be fine. |
|
"Perhaps the worst thing that can happen is to reach into the refrigerator and come out with something that you cannot identify at all. You literally do not know what it is. Could be meat, could be cake. Usually, at a time like that, I'll bluff. "Honey, is this good?" "Well, what is it?" "I don't know. I've never seen anything like it. It looks like...meatcake!" "Well, smell it." (snort, sniff) "It has absolutely no smell whatsoever!" "It's good! Put it back! Somebody is saving it. It'll turn up in something." Thats what frightens me. That someone will consider it a challenge and use it just because it's in there." -- George Carlin |
|
|
Crit40
Posts:2338
|
| 05/27/2008 8:59 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By egami on 05/23/2008 6:56 PM Posted By Crit40 on 05/23/2008 4:21 PM
I find it interesting that with the revenue sharing agreement, the players share in the revenues generated by luxury suites and naming rights.....which for those teams who have built new stadiums, that could be a sizeable piece. But what doesn't make sense is that the players apparently share in the gross revenue, and not any of the costs associated with financing such a venture.
Were the owner's attorneys asleep at the wheel on this deal? The flip side of that is that owners benefit from revenue far longer than players do on an individual basis. Also, players don't benefit from franchise increase in value nor the sale of the teams when they sell.
They "own" the team. Players are "employees" who have a good "union". The players don't deserve to have their hands in every frick'in cookie jar associated with an NFL franchise.
If they want a part of every piece of the pie, then they should buy there own team.
|
|
Counting the Herd one hoof at a time. |
|
|
egami
Posts:5061
|
| 05/27/2008 9:34 AM |
Alert
|
| Never thought otherwise. |
|
Go Blue! |
|
|
|