Who is most at fault for this CBA mess?

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%.

Dental specialist make 50% or more. Many cosmetic dentists make more than 50% of production. Top notch hair salons pay their best over 50% of production.

And we all know they are talking about shared revenue. The owners don't want to open up their books so other ownerS see how much they are pulling in bc the small market owners will flip their wig and want a
Piece of that pie too.

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%.

Neither does NFL

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by BobS:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by chico49erfan:

Without the owners there would be no such product. This is big business. Sorry players, but you need to accept that.

It is in this only that fans side with the Yorks.

It's fascinating to me to see this thread play out the dichotomy of labor vs. management we see in the world at large. One side believes in the divine right of kings and that people should know their place in the natural order of things while the other side believes in a democratic world where rights belong to everyone equally. The former sees the owners as the product while the latter sees the players as at least as important.

Democratic? I think you defined socialism. Also a king was born into his power and it can only be taken away by force. The original owners of the NFL built the product up with their own money and sweat. Current owners may have inherited their money or earned it themselves, irregardless that, own NFL franchises, which are a business. What I find interesting is the players getting a defined % of the revenue, and a lot of people are ok with that acting like the players are the only employees paid by the team. If the players are more important than the owners let them all quit and form their own league. Most of them aren't even of average intelligence and couldn't run a hot dog cart* if left to their own devices. The players need the owners more than the owners need them. Jerry Jones would find other business ventures to occupy his time and money and I am sure would do well. What would a guy like Chris Johnson of the Titans do with out the NFL? Jail would be my guess, I am sure he isn't smart enough to do something you could teach an 8 year old.

* No offense to anyone who owns a hot dog cart, in the right location I have heard you can make $150,000 a year. Just a reference to a business that isn't real hard to run.

No, democratic is what I meant. And I used the correct word. See below. Democracy is primarily about rights while the other two systems are primarily about property.

But remember, as a royalist you are siding with the Yorks (and against Patrick Willis).

communism
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

socialism
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

democratic
pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. USA and Canada are democracies.
2. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
3. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
4. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Based on those definitions, I think socialism would best describe the players side. Instead of having an owner of the team, the community (aka workers) own the team instead. The owners paid about a billion dollars (or forgo a billion dollars each year they decide not to sell) for the team, and now the community decides they want to take control of the team instead.

Originally posted by fryet:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by BobS:

Originally posted by Paul_Hofer:

Originally posted by chico49erfan:

Without the owners there would be no such product. This is big business. Sorry players, but you need to accept that.

It is in this only that fans side with the Yorks.

It's fascinating to me to see this thread play out the dichotomy of labor vs. management we see in the world at large. One side believes in the divine right of kings and that people should know their place in the natural order of things while the other side believes in a democratic world where rights belong to everyone equally. The former sees the owners as the product while the latter sees the players as at least as important.

Democratic? I think you defined socialism. Also a king was born into his power and it can only be taken away by force. The original owners of the NFL built the product up with their own money and sweat. Current owners may have inherited their money or earned it themselves, irregardless that, own NFL franchises, which are a business. What I find interesting is the players getting a defined % of the revenue, and a lot of people are ok with that acting like the players are the only employees paid by the team. If the players are more important than the owners let them all quit and form their own league. Most of them aren't even of average intelligence and couldn't run a hot dog cart* if left to their own devices. The players need the owners more than the owners need them. Jerry Jones would find other business ventures to occupy his time and money and I am sure would do well. What would a guy like Chris Johnson of the Titans do with out the NFL? Jail would be my guess, I am sure he isn't smart enough to do something you could teach an 8 year old.

* No offense to anyone who owns a hot dog cart, in the right location I have heard you can make $150,000 a year. Just a reference to a business that isn't real hard to run.

No, democratic is what I meant. And I used the correct word. See below. Democracy is primarily about rights while the other two systems are primarily about property.

But remember, as a royalist you are siding with the Yorks (and against Patrick Willis).

communism
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

socialism
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

democratic
pertaining to or of the nature of democracy or a democracy.

de·moc·ra·cy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. USA and Canada are democracies.
2. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
3. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
4. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Based on those definitions, I think socialism would best describe the players side. Instead of having an owner of the team, the community (aka workers) own the team instead. The owners paid about a billion dollars (or forgo a billion dollars each year they decide not to sell) for the team, and now the community decides they want to take control of the team instead.

The NFL received an exemption from anti trust laws about 50 years ago that gave them the right to negotiate TV contracts on behalf of all teams. There is also a clause in the old CBA granting revenue sharing with the players. This is not new, nor is it socialistic, democratic, or any other politicalistic category. It is a contract, or rather, a series of contracts between interested parties. It's easy to blame one side or the other but the reality of the situation is that there is more money coming in and they are battling for their share...whatever that share will be after the current bargaining process is concluded.

Fair will be whatever they can agree to.

Personally, I think that the NFL should reorganize in a way that would not risk a anti-trust lawsuit. No Draft. Shared TV revenue. Richer teams are taxed to give some money to the poorer teams.

Once you do those things, and teams are slightly on the same playing field, then the weaker teams will have several things to offer the valuable rookies. More money since they don't have that many successful veterans. Chance for immediate starting. The better teams will have to spend more money to retain their veterans, plus will have fewer holes in their roster, meaning that rookies would have to wait their chance to play.

Originally posted by fryet:
Personally, I think that the NFL should reorganize in a way that would not risk a anti-trust lawsuit. No Draft. Shared TV revenue. Richer teams are taxed to give some money to the poorer teams.

Once you do those things, and teams are slightly on the same playing field, then the weaker teams will have several things to offer the valuable rookies. More money since they don't have that many successful veterans. Chance for immediate starting. The better teams will have to spend more money to retain their veterans, plus will have fewer holes in their roster, meaning that rookies would have to wait their chance to play.

That sounds like a horrible product. So teams would have to "recruit" college players? Wow, that wont lead to major inequities...

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.

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).

[ Edited by Oakland-Niner on Mar 14, 2011 at 22:16:33 ]

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.

i love inside jokes. i hope to be a part of one someday.

...and i agree with what you're saying too.

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.

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.

I agree. The reason these guys get paid soooo much is bc there is a huge drop off in talent in terms of replacing a starter.

If this wasn't so, we would be watching Candian football on prime TV as well.

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:

Originally posted by fryet:
Personally, I think that the NFL should reorganize in a way that would not risk a anti-trust lawsuit. No Draft. Shared TV revenue. Richer teams are taxed to give some money to the poorer teams.

Once you do those things, and teams are slightly on the same playing field, then the weaker teams will have several things to offer the valuable rookies. More money since they don't have that many successful veterans. Chance for immediate starting. The better teams will have to spend more money to retain their veterans, plus will have fewer holes in their roster, meaning that rookies would have to wait their chance to play.

That sounds like a horrible product. So teams would have to "recruit" college players? Wow, that wont lead to major inequities...

Yes, they would have to recruit players - what is so bad about that? They already do that with the veterans. Some teams will be able to offer more money. Others may be able to offer starting positions. Since all teams have limited resources of money and starting positions, I think you will find that things tend to balance out.

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

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.

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.