Who is most at fault for this CBA mess?

Originally posted by blizzuntz:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by 49ersMyLife:

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by dj43:
I have never heard of any business that spends even 50% of their revenue on salaries. NONE. Most are less than 30%.

Well, I am prepared to bet that businesses like brokerages and merchant bankers do.

The players are the main asset of the individual franchise.

No, the stadium and the training facilities are the main assets. There is far more money tied up in those assets than in players.

I think your perception of the relationship is inaccurate. This isn't a normal employer/employee relationship. This is far more like a partnership business model. One guy has the cash the other the talent. It's not like we are talking about a guy working at 7-11 (would you like a beef jerky stick with your Hustler, sir?) Inside joke. Both are at the 99 percentile of humanity in the resources they posses (cash/physical talent).

Excellent. I don't know why ppl are comparing players like your normal everyday employee in any business.

Also, a lot of owners don't even own the stadium. The cities do.

Just going to make the point about the stadiums. Thank you

Stadiums are depreciable assets and teams use them 8 days a year. The other 357 days are open for rent.

I would watch NFL players play on a HS field as long as it is on TV. But I will not watch Arena league and Candian league scrubs play on a NFL stadium field.

boom shaka laka

how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

I keep hearing this 60%. This 60% has to be split 53 ways. The remaining 30% or so is split one way. I`m sorry you only made a 100 mill this year Mr. NFL Owner. Thats f**king rough.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

different situation is different

Originally posted by CoachingMatters:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

I keep hearing this 60%. This 60% has to be split 53 ways. The remaining 30% or so is split one way. I`m sorry you only made a 100 mill this year Mr. NFL Owner. Thats f**king rough.

um, do you think that the other percent goes straight to the owner, do you realize that he still has to pay ammoratization, taxes, and interest and after that he then has to pay for the benefits package for the players? Also do you think that everybody working for the front office is under the salary cap? There a whole slew of people who are on the payroll as well. Probably alot more people go under the Owner's payroll then there is in the NFLPA. I would actually presume to say that there's thousands more that split the 40% then there is that split the 60%.

Finally who do you think finances the whole thing. Somebody has to have large amount of money (to risk) to make the move required to set up this system. With out them nobody makes any money. In my eye's that deserves the most money and it should not be predicated upon past profits made by these individuals. To those who say the NFL isn't a risk better do a quick search to see how easy it is to run a billion dollar industry into insolvency.

Get real, with out the owners there is no NFL!

You get my worse reasoning of the day post award.

edit: your award doesn't even get to be grammatically correct

edit:edit: 100-60=40

edit:edit:edit: I don't think any owner even sniffed 100mil. If you think about it 100milx32 = 3.2bil. After paying the players roughly 5.4Bil that leaves roughly .4bil to pay for every thing else to include every nfl front office ticket master, beer man, coach, head coach, gm, pres of football operations, and interest/morgtage on stadium league wide. Any idea what 3% of 1bil is? (Dallas stadium) 30mil. Oh ya and the owners still have to pay roughly 30mil per team for player benefits.

edit:edit:edit:edit: I'm not surprised you reasoned yourself to that post.

[ Edited by Shorteous on Mar 15, 2011 at 13:40:37 ]

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

different situation is different

that's a way to reason out of reasoning.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

different situation is different

that's a way to reason out of reasoning.

how is it reasonable to use an entirely different situation to try and change somebodies mind?

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

different situation is different

that's a way to reason out of reasoning.

how is it reasonable to use an entirely different situation to try and change somebodies mind?

There's a parallel there Hdud.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

different situation is different

that's a way to reason out of reasoning.

how is it reasonable to use an entirely different situation to try and change somebodies mind?

There's a parallel there Hdud.

not really. the owners opted out of a deal during the most profitable stretch in league history saying they were losing money and refusing to prove it. your "parallel" situation doesn't account for that.

I don't understand how any objective person can conclude the answer is anything other than "both".

I'm going to guess that many of you are letting your politics shade your judgment.

Originally posted by Overkill:
I don't understand how any objective person can conclude the answer is anything other than "both".

I'm going to guess that many of you are letting your politics shade your judgment.

well, if the question is "who is most at fault," then the answer can't be "both." And since it was the owners who initiated the labor dispute, the only logical answer is that the owners are "most at fault" for the CBA mess.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Overkill:
I don't understand how any objective person can conclude the answer is anything other than "both".

I'm going to guess that many of you are letting your politics shade your judgment.

well, if the question is "who is most at fault," then the answer can't be "both." And since it was the owners who initiated the labor dispute, the only logical answer is that the owners are "most at fault" for the CBA mess.

Yeah, I got which side your on. Its kinda hard to miss.

But things are being discussed as though the two sides are worlds apart in the "most at fault" business, imo. I have a hard time believing, after all the comments in this thread, that many think its a 51/49 issue.

Most are saying the "only logical answer" is X, or "I don't see how you can side with Y". I don't understand how ppl can completely fail to see the other side of the argument.

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by CoachingMatters:

Originally posted by Shorteous:

Originally posted by maximill15:
how do people think that players are at fault?!?!?!? they were content with the current cba WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD FOR ANOTHER 2 YEARS, but the owners opted out!

Not saying it's the 60% the players get now, would you feel the same way if the players held out because they wanted to get a better deal. Say they were given 40% and felt under valued in the deal, would you fault them for causing a work stoppage for a 5% in crease to 45% of the money before aibt?

I keep hearing this 60%. This 60% has to be split 53 ways. The remaining 30% or so is split one way. I`m sorry you only made a 100 mill this year Mr. NFL Owner. Thats f**king rough.

um, do you think that the other percent goes straight to the owner, do you realize that he still has to pay ammoratization, taxes, and interest and after that he then has to pay for the benefits package for the players? Also do you think that everybody working for the front office is under the salary cap? There a whole slew of people who are on the payroll as well. Probably alot more people go under the Owner's payroll then there is in the NFLPA. I would actually presume to say that there's thousands more that split the 40% then there is that split the 60%.

Finally who do you think finances the whole thing. Somebody has to have large amount of money (to risk) to make the move required to set up this system. With out them nobody makes any money. In my eye's that deserves the most money and it should not be predicated upon past profits made by these individuals. To those who say the NFL isn't a risk better do a quick search to see how easy it is to run a billion dollar industry into insolvency.

Get real, with out the owners there is no NFL!

You get my worse reasoning of the day post award.

edit: your award doesn't even get to be grammatically correct

edit:edit: 100-60=40

edit:edit:edit: I don't think any owner even sniffed 100mil. If you think about it 100milx32 = 3.2bil. After paying the players roughly 5.4Bil that leaves roughly .4bil to pay for every thing else to include every nfl front office ticket master, beer man, coach, head coach, gm, pres of football operations, and interest/morgtage on stadium league wide. Any idea what 3% of 1bil is? (Dallas stadium) 30mil. Oh ya and the owners still have to pay roughly 30mil per team for player benefits.

edit:edit:edit:edit: I'm not surprised you reasoned yourself to that post.

Where are you getting your numbers at? Because you have no idea what you are talking about. You should give yourself an award for lack of general NFL knowledge.

The last capped year was 128 million per team. 128 mil x 32 teams is just under 4.1 billion. Where do you get and additional 1.3 billion in players salaries?

And that 4.1 billion is assuming teams spend every penny which they dont. I think we were about 20 mill under the cap alone.

The last capped year(2009-2010) was under 4 Billion in players salaries.

You arent even worth the effort because all of your numbers are way off base and its painfully obvious you are just trolling!

[ Edited by CoachingMatters on Mar 15, 2011 at 14:21:36 ]

Originally posted by Overkill:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by Overkill:
I don't understand how any objective person can conclude the answer is anything other than "both".

I'm going to guess that many of you are letting your politics shade your judgment.

well, if the question is "who is most at fault," then the answer can't be "both." And since it was the owners who initiated the labor dispute, the only logical answer is that the owners are "most at fault" for the CBA mess.

Yeah, I got which side your on. Its kinda hard to miss.

But things are being discussed as though the two sides are worlds apart in the "most at fault" business, imo. I have a hard time believing, after all the comments in this thread, that many think its a 51/49 issue.

Most are saying the "only logical answer" is X, or "I don't see how you can side with Y". I don't understand how ppl can completely fail to see the other side of the argument.

yes, my bias is always towards labor and it takes a pretty strong case to dissuade me from that. i see the owners argument but its not enough to convince me, in a broad sense, that they are "right" or "justified."

the players are responsible in that they didn't take the owners last offer, which was actually a pretty good one, IMO. the financial transparency is the big sticking point, and you can blame the NFLPA for stubbornness on that issue. so, sure, both sides have made stances that are questionable (at best) and both are stubborn and both have done things that led to the current impasse. still, the owners canceled the CBA crying money trouble while the league was enjoying its most profitable stretch ever while in the midst of a major recession. hard to have sympathy for their position.