Do you side with the Players or the Owners on the CBA issue?

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 10:08 AM

I must also point out a couple of major misunderstandings in the opening post.

Originally Posted by 44Champs

Basically, it boils down to the players wanting to make more money (via uncapped salaries),

The players are not requesting anything additional or different in the terms of salary. It was the owners that executed opt-out option on the final year on the previous CBA, because they wanted to reduce the percentage of revenue going to the players. The players didn't want more money, they only wanted what they were already getting. They are even willing, and supportive, of instituting a rookie wage scale like the NBA. The uncapped salary of 2010 was a term of the owner's opting out of the CBA.

Originally Posted by 44Champs

the owners want to keep more of the revenue in their pockets. According to the current CBA, at least 50% of the revenue that owners earn MUST go towards player contracts. With uncapped salaries, that figure could significantly cut into the owner's pockets.

Once again, uncapped salaries are not an issue at all. The cap will remain in any new CBA. The issue is the percentage of revenues going toward the players' salaries. The owners want to cut that percentage by 18% and they are prepared to lock the players out to get that done. The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit. They have no concern over the jobs of thousands of NFL support people like concession workers or ticket takers. It is all about billionaires wanting to squeeze every drop out of the cash cow called the NFL. How is any of this fair?

neugey · 01-27-2011, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

. The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit.

You know, the more I think about it, maybe we should be blaming the television executives. Why in the world would they sign a contract to pay the NFL money even if no games are played on their stations? Not even scab strike games?

The owners and NFL are essentially being subsidized by the TV networks in this strike. Their power to hold out over the NFLPA will be immense. I would think that over this time, the TV networks will lose a ton in advertising revenue and ratings. Why they would sign a deal like that is beyond me. Maybe they are so many programs and so much revenue to go around with other programming they don't notice or care??? Would like to do more research on this.

AsylumGuido · 01-27-2011, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by neugey

You know, the more I think about it, maybe we should be blaming the television executives. Why in the world would they sign a contract to pay the NFL money even if no games are played on their stations? Not even scab strike games?

The owners and NFL are essentially being subsidized by the TV networks in this strike. Their power to hold out over the NFLPA will be immense. I would think that over this time, the TV networks will lose a ton in advertising revenue and ratings. Why they would sign a deal like that is beyond me. Maybe they are so many programs and so much revenue to go around with other programming they don't notice or care??? Would like to do more research on this.

Why? Because the NFL is a money maker for everyone involved. The owners hold so much power that they can force the networks into that type of deal.

neugey · 01-27-2011, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by AsylumGuido

Why? Because the NFL is a money maker for everyone involved. The owners hold so much power that they can force the networks into that type of deal.

Yeah, and I bet the TV Networks each signed off on a bad deal because they didn't want to be left out at the table with the other competitor networks getting their slice of the pie. And the NFL and DirectTV are in bed together.

This could be nasty.

View Poll Results: Do you side with the Owners or the Players on the CBA issue?
OWNERS - they take the risks and drive the business	17	53.13%
PLAYERS - they do all the work on the field and provide the entertainment to the fans	15	46.88%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

01-27-2011, 10:08 AM	#1
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,484	I must also point out a couple of major misunderstandings in the opening post. Originally Posted by 44Champs Basically, it boils down to the players wanting to make more money (via uncapped salaries), The players are not requesting anything additional or different in the terms of salary. It was the owners that executed opt-out option on the final year on the previous CBA, because they wanted to reduce the percentage of revenue going to the players. The players didn't want more money, they only wanted what they were already getting. They are even willing, and supportive, of instituting a rookie wage scale like the NBA. The uncapped salary of 2010 was a term of the owner's opting out of the CBA. Originally Posted by 44Champs the owners want to keep more of the revenue in their pockets. According to the current CBA, at least 50% of the revenue that owners earn MUST go towards player contracts. With uncapped salaries, that figure could significantly cut into the owner's pockets. Once again, uncapped salaries are not an issue at all. The cap will remain in any new CBA. The issue is the percentage of revenues going toward the players' salaries. The owners want to cut that percentage by 18% and they are prepared to lock the players out to get that done. The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit. They have no concern over the jobs of thousands of NFL support people like concession workers or ticket takers. It is all about billionaires wanting to squeeze every drop out of the cash cow called the NFL. How is any of this fair?

01-27-2011, 02:19 PM	#2
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,820 Blog Entries: 13	Originally Posted by AsylumGuido . The killer is that the owners will still get paid by the television contract whether any games are played or not. In fact, their expenses will be reduced so they will make even more profit. You know, the more I think about it, maybe we should be blaming the television executives. Why in the world would they sign a contract to pay the NFL money even if no games are played on their stations? Not even scab strike games? The owners and NFL are essentially being subsidized by the TV networks in this strike. Their power to hold out over the NFLPA will be immense. I would think that over this time, the TV networks will lose a ton in advertising revenue and ratings. Why they would sign a deal like that is beyond me. Maybe they are so many programs and so much revenue to go around with other programming they don't notice or care??? Would like to do more research on this.

01-27-2011, 02:55 PM	#3
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,484	Originally Posted by neugey You know, the more I think about it, maybe we should be blaming the television executives. Why in the world would they sign a contract to pay the NFL money even if no games are played on their stations? Not even scab strike games? The owners and NFL are essentially being subsidized by the TV networks in this strike. Their power to hold out over the NFLPA will be immense. I would think that over this time, the TV networks will lose a ton in advertising revenue and ratings. Why they would sign a deal like that is beyond me. Maybe they are so many programs and so much revenue to go around with other programming they don't notice or care??? Would like to do more research on this. Why? Because the NFL is a money maker for everyone involved. The owners hold so much power that they can force the networks into that type of deal.

01-27-2011, 03:17 PM	#4
neugey Hu Dat! Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 6,820 Blog Entries: 13	Originally Posted by AsylumGuido Why? Because the NFL is a money maker for everyone involved. The owners hold so much power that they can force the networks into that type of deal. Yeah, and I bet the TV Networks each signed off on a bad deal because they didn't want to be left out at the table with the other competitor networks getting their slice of the pie. And the NFL and DirectTV are in bed together. This could be nasty.