rumored NFL lockout in 2011

Originally posted by hondakillerzx:
strike year could be interesting. if theres replacement players a really s**tty team could win a superbowl if they just recruit good scrubs lol

It would really show the quality of coaching, might actually be pretty fun!

Not as fun as the real deal though, that's for sure.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by NFLLockout:
Guys, I wanted to come in here on behalf of the NFLPA and let you know that there's a petition going on at NFLLockout.com right now to block the lockout: http://www.nfllockout.com

The lockout is a very real thing, even though no one wants it to happen. Why not do your part to prevent it? Sign your name to the petition so the owners know just how strong the fan outcry is against the lockout!

How about a petition to remind players of the gravity! I'm for signing a petition of both sides but if you read through that page it was very biased towards the players. I'm not signing a petition that strengths the players bargaining chips. BOTH players and owners need to get their Sh*t together.

edit: this is also a good read on the subject.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-12-23-nfl-nflpa-negotiations_N.htm

I think the NFLPA need to be very careful about how greedy they want to be.

This. When it is billionaires fighting millionaires for an even bigger share of the cake, I don't see why the working man should encourage or assist either side. BOTH sides have lost their connection with the fans and are glutting themselves on television money.

Players and Owners: carry on this way and destroy your sport through sheer named greed. Wake up.

how is the (potential) lockout the players fault?

I know you "think" NFL teams each just rack up billions of dolalrs and throw the change at the players but get this:

Quote:
The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

So the Green Bay packers profited 10 million while Julian Peterson profited 18mil last season. I think both sides need to stop the demagoguery and work together because if there is a hold out there will be a back lash against these rich men.

I'm not for the owners or the players I'm for the side that seeks reasonable compromise. I also always grow weary of the "poor union" folks now a days. Both sides can be just as bad, the thing is that it isn't black and white. Not all unions are microorganisms slowly killing their hosts and not all Owners are trying to get a way with creating sweatshops.

Finally it said that the average operating income of each NFL team was 33 mil which increased 1 mil 3%... How much did the draftee's contract increase over this last year, 20%? That 33mil is before : (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) which I'm sure take a healthy chunk out of that.

Ever wonder why NFL teams just can't wave a wand and build a stadium or get the financing to do so? Well if we extrapolate a home mortgage over thirty years you monthly payment at 2.5% interest is going to be roughly 4.5mil...

I just want to say, i'm not one side or the other. I definitely don't thin there is a poor victim side to this. I just want them to get it done and allow Harbaugh enough time to install an offense.

forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

i don't "think" anything: I think (no quotations; I'm actually doing it, with my brains) that not included in the operating costs is the $$ that the owners make from advertising, licensing, and television deals. So I'm not impressed.

While I do think that there are problems with some NFL contracts (namely rookies; there needs to be a wage scale there) and the NFLPA certainly got a good deal for its members, I think its absurd to think that the players should take a smaller percentage of the income they generate to pay for new stadiums--many of which, at least until very recently, were publicly funded. In what other business would it be ok for management to renege on a contract in order to get labor to pay for a new factory?

Don't let the large contracts of NFL players fool you into thinking that they are greedy or doing something wrong in here. The owners chose to lock them out because they thought labor got a better deal than they did--bully for them, but i disagree with their position and their tactics.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by NFLLockout:
Guys, I wanted to come in here on behalf of the NFLPA and let you know that there's a petition going on at NFLLockout.com right now to block the lockout: http://www.nfllockout.com

The lockout is a very real thing, even though no one wants it to happen. Why not do your part to prevent it? Sign your name to the petition so the owners know just how strong the fan outcry is against the lockout!

How about a petition to remind players of the gravity! I'm for signing a petition of both sides but if you read through that page it was very biased towards the players. I'm not signing a petition that strengths the players bargaining chips. BOTH players and owners need to get their Sh*t together.

edit: this is also a good read on the subject.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-12-23-nfl-nflpa-negotiations_N.htm

I think the NFLPA need to be very careful about how greedy they want to be.

This. When it is billionaires fighting millionaires for an even bigger share of the cake, I don't see why the working man should encourage or assist either side. BOTH sides have lost their connection with the fans and are glutting themselves on television money.

Players and Owners: carry on this way and destroy your sport through sheer named greed. Wake up.

how is the (potential) lockout the players fault?

I know you "think" NFL teams each just rack up billions of dolalrs and throw the change at the players but get this:

Quote:
The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

So the Green Bay packers profited 10 million while Julian Peterson profited 18mil last season. I think both sides need to stop the demagoguery and work together because if there is a hold out there will be a back lash against these rich men.

I'm not for the owners or the players I'm for the side that seeks reasonable compromise. I also always grow weary of the "poor union" folks now a days. Both sides can be just as bad, the thing is that it isn't black and white. Not all unions are microorganisms slowly killing their hosts and not all Owners are trying to get a way with creating sweatshops.

Finally it said that the average operating income of each NFL team was 33 mil which increased 1 mil 3%... How much did the draftee's contract increase over this last year, 20%? That 33mil is before : (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) which I'm sure take a healthy chunk out of that.

Ever wonder why NFL teams just can't wave a wand and build a stadium or get the financing to do so? Well if we extrapolate a home mortgage over thirty years you monthly payment at 2.5% interest is going to be roughly 4.5mil...

I just want to say, i'm not one side or the other. I definitely don't thin there is a poor victim side to this. I just want them to get it done and allow Harbaugh enough time to install an offense.

forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

i don't "think" anything: I think (no quotations; I'm actually doing it, with my brains) that not included in the operating costs is the $$ that the owners make from advertising, licensing, and television deals. So I'm not impressed.

While I do think that there are problems with some NFL contracts (namely rookies; there needs to be a wage scale there) and the NFLPA certainly got a good deal for its members, I think its absurd to think that the players should take a smaller percentage of the income they generate to pay for new stadiums--many of which, at least until very recently, were publicly funded. In what other business would it be ok for management to renege on a contract in order to get labor to pay for a new factory?

Don't let the large contracts of NFL players fool you into thinking that they are greedy or doing something wrong in here. The owners chose to lock them out because they thought labor got a better deal than they did--bully for them, but i disagree with their position and their tactics.

So you think the players deserve more money against those evil wealthy owners. Look as reported in a few articles, the NFLPA is doing nothing but play in the media and position to best its self out of this. They are not interested in working together with the evil filthy rich owners haha. Poor players, lets give them baseball salaries those poor kids.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by NFLLockout:
Guys, I wanted to come in here on behalf of the NFLPA and let you know that there's a petition going on at NFLLockout.com right now to block the lockout: http://www.nfllockout.com

The lockout is a very real thing, even though no one wants it to happen. Why not do your part to prevent it? Sign your name to the petition so the owners know just how strong the fan outcry is against the lockout!

How about a petition to remind players of the gravity! I'm for signing a petition of both sides but if you read through that page it was very biased towards the players. I'm not signing a petition that strengths the players bargaining chips. BOTH players and owners need to get their Sh*t together.

edit: this is also a good read on the subject.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-12-23-nfl-nflpa-negotiations_N.htm

I think the NFLPA need to be very careful about how greedy they want to be.

This. When it is billionaires fighting millionaires for an even bigger share of the cake, I don't see why the working man should encourage or assist either side. BOTH sides have lost their connection with the fans and are glutting themselves on television money.

Players and Owners: carry on this way and destroy your sport through sheer named greed. Wake up.

how is the (potential) lockout the players fault?

I know you "think" NFL teams each just rack up billions of dolalrs and throw the change at the players but get this:

Quote:
The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

So the Green Bay packers profited 10 million while Julian Peterson profited 18mil last season. I think both sides need to stop the demagoguery and work together because if there is a hold out there will be a back lash against these rich men.

I'm not for the owners or the players I'm for the side that seeks reasonable compromise. I also always grow weary of the "poor union" folks now a days. Both sides can be just as bad, the thing is that it isn't black and white. Not all unions are microorganisms slowly killing their hosts and not all Owners are trying to get a way with creating sweatshops.

Finally it said that the average operating income of each NFL team was 33 mil which increased 1 mil 3%... How much did the draftee's contract increase over this last year, 20%? That 33mil is before : (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) which I'm sure take a healthy chunk out of that.

Ever wonder why NFL teams just can't wave a wand and build a stadium or get the financing to do so? Well if we extrapolate a home mortgage over thirty years you monthly payment at 2.5% interest is going to be roughly 4.5mil...

I just want to say, i'm not one side or the other. I definitely don't thin there is a poor victim side to this. I just want them to get it done and allow Harbaugh enough time to install an offense.

forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

i don't "think" anything: I think (no quotations; I'm actually doing it, with my brains) that not included in the operating costs is the $$ that the owners make from advertising, licensing, and television deals. So I'm not impressed.

While I do think that there are problems with some NFL contracts (namely rookies; there needs to be a wage scale there) and the NFLPA certainly got a good deal for its members, I think its absurd to think that the players should take a smaller percentage of the income they generate to pay for new stadiums--many of which, at least until very recently, were publicly funded. In what other business would it be ok for management to renege on a contract in order to get labor to pay for a new factory?

Don't let the large contracts of NFL players fool you into thinking that they are greedy or doing something wrong in here. The owners chose to lock them out because they thought labor got a better deal than they did--bully for them, but i disagree with their position and their tactics.

So you think the players deserve more money against those evil wealthy owners. Look as reported in a few articles, the NFLPA is doing nothing but play in the media and position to best its self out of this. They are not interested in working together with the evil filthy rich owners haha. Poor players, lets give them baseball salaries those poor kids.

i never said "poor players" or that they deserve more money. where do you get that? I think they make a fair wage based on the business they generate.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by NFLLockout:
Guys, I wanted to come in here on behalf of the NFLPA and let you know that there's a petition going on at NFLLockout.com right now to block the lockout: http://www.nfllockout.com

The lockout is a very real thing, even though no one wants it to happen. Why not do your part to prevent it? Sign your name to the petition so the owners know just how strong the fan outcry is against the lockout!

How about a petition to remind players of the gravity! I'm for signing a petition of both sides but if you read through that page it was very biased towards the players. I'm not signing a petition that strengths the players bargaining chips. BOTH players and owners need to get their Sh*t together.

edit: this is also a good read on the subject.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-12-23-nfl-nflpa-negotiations_N.htm

I think the NFLPA need to be very careful about how greedy they want to be.

This. When it is billionaires fighting millionaires for an even bigger share of the cake, I don't see why the working man should encourage or assist either side. BOTH sides have lost their connection with the fans and are glutting themselves on television money.

Players and Owners: carry on this way and destroy your sport through sheer named greed. Wake up.

how is the (potential) lockout the players fault?

I know you "think" NFL teams each just rack up billions of dolalrs and throw the change at the players but get this:

Quote:
The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

So the Green Bay packers profited 10 million while Julian Peterson profited 18mil last season. I think both sides need to stop the demagoguery and work together because if there is a hold out there will be a back lash against these rich men.

I'm not for the owners or the players I'm for the side that seeks reasonable compromise. I also always grow weary of the "poor union" folks now a days. Both sides can be just as bad, the thing is that it isn't black and white. Not all unions are microorganisms slowly killing their hosts and not all Owners are trying to get a way with creating sweatshops.

Finally it said that the average operating income of each NFL team was 33 mil which increased 1 mil 3%... How much did the draftee's contract increase over this last year, 20%? That 33mil is before : (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) which I'm sure take a healthy chunk out of that.

Ever wonder why NFL teams just can't wave a wand and build a stadium or get the financing to do so? Well if we extrapolate a home mortgage over thirty years you monthly payment at 2.5% interest is going to be roughly 4.5mil...

I just want to say, i'm not one side or the other. I definitely don't thin there is a poor victim side to this. I just want them to get it done and allow Harbaugh enough time to install an offense.

forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

i don't "think" anything: I think (no quotations; I'm actually doing it, with my brains) that not included in the operating costs is the $$ that the owners make from advertising, licensing, and television deals. So I'm not impressed.

While I do think that there are problems with some NFL contracts (namely rookies; there needs to be a wage scale there) and the NFLPA certainly got a good deal for its members, I think its absurd to think that the players should take a smaller percentage of the income they generate to pay for new stadiums--many of which, at least until very recently, were publicly funded. In what other business would it be ok for management to renege on a contract in order to get labor to pay for a new factory?

Don't let the large contracts of NFL players fool you into thinking that they are greedy or doing something wrong in here. The owners chose to lock them out because they thought labor got a better deal than they did--bully for them, but i disagree with their position and their tactics.

So you think the players deserve more money against those evil wealthy owners. Look as reported in a few articles, the NFLPA is doing nothing but play in the media and position to best its self out of this. They are not interested in working together with the evil filthy rich owners haha. Poor players, lets give them baseball salaries those poor kids.

i never said "poor players" or that they deserve more money. where do you get that? I think they make a fair wage based on the business they generate.

maybe you didn't, but I think that's the angle being taken by some entities to include NFLPA. I feel like the new union leaders of NFLPA are more worried about setting a tone of strength rather than actually approaching the CBA with a reasonable state of mind, while placating to the media that its the greedy owners holding this process up.

I truly believe that the cost is currently too much for the owners and that's why they exercised a clause to end the CBA earlier than original and now the unions are trying to drive up that operating clause.

I think that we should not go to an 18 game season, but inorder to do that the player costs would have to come down or their benefits would have to be reduced. Remember that their benefits don't come out of their 60% it comes out of the owners 40%. In an article it posted that the over a period of time the nfl made 3.6 bil, the players got 2.6 bil and the 32 teams split the remaining 1 bil in which they had to pay EBITA (earnings before interest, taxes, and amortization) and the player benefits, plus you can only imagine to cost of the FO and the small departments. The cost of player benefits comes to roughly 1/8 of the player payroll.

Anyways, the more I read up on this the more I feel that the owners are trying to work this thing out to optimize the NFL while the players are more concerned about themselves and not so much about optimizing the NFL.

Unfortunately in this country we have created a negative connotation towards the owners of big business when juxtaposed with unions. Initially during the industrial revolution ti was necessary but in today's modern age we can easily find as many villains and heroes on both sides of the lines. But when there is an aura of negativity towards one side it is easy to use social pressure against them whether it is justified or not.

i'm not saying "poor players" but you are definitely saying "poor billionaire owners." The problem in this country isn't that we have a negative connotation with wealthy corporate billionaires, but that we have a negative connotation with organized labor and worker's rights in general. Its disgusting that in this country people automatically are against labor--organized or otherwise--when there is a disagreement like this. Its pathetic.

High wages, benefits, retirement, are all dirty words, it seems. People are hammering the government to create jobs but no one seems to want anyone to have jobs that actually pay them anything or offer any benefits, and if someone has such a job, well, then, they're a greedy bunch of a*****es.

from what I have heard, without a CBA, thhere are no trading players under contract.

But there should be a FA period, atleast thats how I was hearing it from Adam Schefter.

From what I have read and heard, the players are willing to back off the 60% figure to some lesser number. The debate is over how much.

Other issues include the percentage that owners would contribute to veteran benefits - those players that played before benefits were available. That is one owners have been willing to assume, but again, the issue is how much.

All of these issues are things that they have discussed in general terms but the sticking point is the 18 games schedule of regular league games. Owners claim the must have it in order to pay what the players want and players are opposed because they feel it will cause more injuries and shorter careers. Several team player reps have said that until/unless the 18 game proposal is taken off the board there will be no agreement. Both sides seem very entrenched on this issue. Since the number of games impacts the cash flow at every level, there can be no agreement until they know what the cash flow is going to be. All the percentages and numbers are impacted.

It looks like it will be a quiet summer at training camps around the league...at least until the replacement players come in.

Originally posted by dj43:
From what I have read and heard, the players are willing to back off the 60% figure to some lesser number. The debate is over how much.

Other issues include the percentage that owners would contribute to veteran benefits - those players that played before benefits were available. That is one owners have been willing to assume, but again, the issue is how much.

All of these issues are things that they have discussed in general terms but the sticking point is the 18 games schedule of regular league games. Owners claim the must have it in order to pay what the players want and players are opposed because they feel it will cause more injuries and shorter careers. Several team player reps have said that until/unless the 18 game proposal is taken off the board there will be no agreement. Both sides seem very entrenched on this issue. Since the number of games impacts the cash flow at every level, there can be no agreement until they know what the cash flow is going to be. All the percentages and numbers are impacted.

It looks like it will be a quiet summer at training camps around the league...at least until the replacement players come in.

I do not like the 18 game schedule, I think the NFL is at a good point with 16 games and that the adjustment would mess with the past. They need to think of something to bring more fans to the preseason games.

Originally posted by dj43:
From what I have read and heard, the players are willing to back off the 60% figure to some lesser number. The debate is over how much.

Other issues include the percentage that owners would contribute to veteran benefits - those players that played before benefits were available. That is one owners have been willing to assume, but again, the issue is how much.

All of these issues are things that they have discussed in general terms but the sticking point is the 18 games schedule of regular league games. Owners claim the must have it in order to pay what the players want and players are opposed because they feel it will cause more injuries and shorter careers. Several team player reps have said that until/unless the 18 game proposal is taken off the board there will be no agreement. Both sides seem very entrenched on this issue. Since the number of games impacts the cash flow at every level, there can be no agreement until they know what the cash flow is going to be. All the percentages and numbers are impacted.

It looks like it will be a quiet summer at training camps around the league...at least until the replacement players come in.

i f**king hate the idea of an 18 game schedule.

But that's an interesting sticking point, given that players salaries for preseason games are much less than their salaries for regular season games, while ticket prices are the same. I know they rarely sell out the preseason games, but I find it hard to believe that they are really losing that much money on the current season schedule.

Go here, sign the petition, and do your part to stop this blackout from happening!

NFL LOCKOUT

Yeah, that'll stop it

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Yeah, that'll stop it

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Yeah, that'll stop it

And because the owners are definitely the only ones at fault in all this.

Originally posted by pantstickle:
Yeah, that'll stop it

lol