Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Email from Kevin Mawae "Let us play"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
    Nothing. That's something that can't be imposed and then force the players to give up something to make it go away. I'm done with Goodell. The random fines, the safety rules that ruin the game (and the amount of injuries just increased), the idea of a franchise in London and the 18 games. Just horrible. The NFL was good the way it was before Goodell started messing around.
    I edited my post if you care to respond to the edit. The fines and things I agree with you and the London thing plus overseas games but the revenue and player salaries is ridiculous. It is unfair to the owners, the league, and the fans that players want higher salaries that outpace the increase of revenues, especially the rookies.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
      I edited my post if you care to respond to the edit. The fines and things I agree with you and the London thing plus overseas games but the revenue and player salaries is ridiculous. It is unfair to the owners, the league, and the fans that players want higher salaries that outpace the increase of revenues, especially the rookies.
      The financial part is more complicated and I'm no expert in the area to provide any insight. I'm just speaking as a fan about what bothers me in today's NFL. To me, it looks like the money issue in pro football, to be fixed, will indeed depend on the players losing some power. We are seeing how the salaries are going for 1st round draft picks, and the situation can't go on and get worse each year. That's something that must change. In the end, veteran players want to see the rookies, unproven players, getting that kind of money, so they can use the value as a standard to negoatiate contract extensions for proven players.

      EDIT: What the NFL could do is propose a payment method heavily based on incentives, so the contract of a 1st round rookie gets richer as the guy plays better. Low base salary, lots of incentives. Let the guy produce to earn more money. But then you have to fight against player representatives like Domonique Foxworth, who said that rookies should be paid based on upside.
      Last edited by -Rod-; 01-30-2011, 09:50 PM.
      sigpic

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
        The financial part is more complicated and I'm no expert in the area to provide any insight. I'm just speaking as a fan about what bothers me in today's NFL. To me, it looks like the money issue in pro football, to be fixed, will indeed depend on the players losing some power. We are seeing how the salaries are going for 1st round draft picks, and the situation can't go on and get worse each year. That's something that must change. In the end, veteran players want to see the rookies, unproven players, getting that kind of money, so they can use the value as a standard to negoatiate contract extensions for proven players.
        seems like we are on the same page . I couldn't care less about the 16 or 18 game schedule, it's the pay and player demands that have to change, imo. The fines, excessive protection of WR and QBs has to go though.

        To me though, it doesn't seem like the players are willing to give up either. They don't want to change their pay or how they demand and don't want to change the number of games either. I understand asking for it since that is part of negotiating...ask for the moon first then drop down to a mutual agreement, I just don't see the dropping down part. But then I don't see much of anything on this issue outside of what is reported by the media
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
          The financial part is more complicated and I'm no expert in the area to provide any insight. I'm just speaking as a fan about what bothers me in today's NFL. To me, it looks like the money issue in pro football, to be fixed, will indeed depend on the players losing some power. We are seeing how the salaries are going for 1st round draft picks, and the situation can't go on and get worse each year. That's something that must change. In the end, veteran players want to see the rookies, unproven players, getting that kind of money, so they can use the value as a standard to negoatiate contract extensions for proven players.

          EDIT: What the NFL could do is propose a payment method heavily based on incentives, so the contract of a 1st round rookie gets richer as the guy plays better. Low base salary, lots of incentives. Let the guy produce to earn more money. But then you have to fight against player representatives like Dominique Foxworth, who said that rookies should be paid based on upside.
          The issue isn't money for draft picks. The players union and owners are in agreement on that (which is about the only thing they are at this point). It's about the money the veterans make that's the problem.

          Comment


          • #65
            Video from NFL.com about the CBA update:

            http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-super-...404/CBA-update
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Spartan82 View Post
              Im on the owners side. If the players dont like it, maybe they can go out and get a REAL job with real WORK (not game), and work a full 2 years just to earn half of what 1 game check would be....before taxes of course. They can also pay for their own heathcare. Yeah, my heart just hurts for the players. Maybe they should sit in a foxhole in Iraq or Afghanistan, then they can complain about their pay and whether or not they get enough.
              I agree 100% good post :thumb:

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by CoryWinget81 View Post
                If there is a lockout, it wont last longer than a year
                I doubt it last longer then 2 months if that most of the players go through their money fast. They have to play to keep all there goodies and party life up to date...

                Very few players save or invest there money just a few smart ones... the rest are usually broke within a year of leaving the NFL so no it wont last long and the Owners will get what they want because in the End all players are replaceable with ones that will agree and play like they are paid to do...

                Comment


                • #68
                  I feel ZERO I mean ZERO pitty for a Man who gets paid to play a childs game, even if it is dangerous, you knew that going in, you make millions shut up and play......
                  sigpic WHEC-724

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
                    The players/agents have been making demands every year for more money. It got to the point where the owners couldn't keep with the demands and thus opted out of the current CBA which was their right. In 2007, the #1 overall pick was JaMarcus Russel. He signed for 6 years for $61M and $32M guaranteed. 3 years later Bradford signs a 6 year deal for $78M and $50M guaranteed. That's a 28% increase in salary and a 56% increase in guaranteed money. In 3 years. Darelle Revis didn't like his contract, which he still had 3 years on, so he held out and re-signed for $46M/$32M guaranteed, more than double his original contract. This year, the first after signing his big deal, he had an average season at best. You don't see a problem with this?
                    I've already addressed this and you haven't responded. The reason this isn't a problem is the salary cap. The NFL (which in this case is made up of the owners) set the salary cap. If you have a big name who demands to renegotiate his contract, the team can either choose to renegotiate or they can refuse and in extreme cases they can take it to arbitration. And if they choose to pay more money to the big name player, that allows a smaller pot of money to be paid out to the rest of the team.

                    It's fair and it works.

                    And like the last time you brought it up, you mixed your apples and oranges. Jamarcus Russell was paid out of an old rookie salary system that will certainly go away during this coming CBA because the owners and the players association have agreed on it in principle. Your Revis example is an example of why the current system works. Paying Revis more money means that even if they wanted to pay someone else more money they are unable to because they would violate the salary cap.

                    I don't think what the owners are asking for is unreasonable.

                    1. Rookie salary cap. Everyone seems to agree on this, players and owners

                    2. 18 game schedule. If the players want more money than there has to be an increase in revenues. I don't know of a better way to increase revenues, do you? If they don't want the extra 2 games then they should have a pay cut or a pay freeze until revenues increase.
                    You keep bringing up player demands for more money and I've already explained why that isn't the problem with the current CBA. Am I not explaining it very well?

                    3. Percentage of revenue split. I am unsure where each side stands on this.
                    The players currently get 60% of the revenue and want to maintain that. They are the ones the fans pay to see play. They are the ones who get the injuries. They are the ones who have long term health problems after they stop playing.

                    The owners want to reduce it.


                    Items 1 and 2 seem fair to me. I don't know how you get the take it or leave issue.
                    Because there was already a system in place and contracts are made out and the current level of spending is in place. The OWNERS are the ones who opted out of the current deal, not the players. This isn't because of players demanding more money, but because owners, who saw record profits from the NFL this season while player injuries also were up, want still more of the pie than what they have and want to find a way to reduce the amount of money that the players get.
                    You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Gotta side with the owners on this one. There isn't another industry in the world where the employee makes more than the employer and for good reason; OVERHEAD.

                      Can you imagine what the team/owner has to pay out for the following?

                      A) Office space and employees that are not on the field. Now add the benefits for each of those employees.
                      B) Travel expenses for away games for the players, coaches, equipment, assistants.
                      C) Stadium costs/expenses - including staff that was not included previously
                      D) Insurance Premiums
                      E) Training facilities, training staff, team doctors, team dietitians, assistants, equipment managers and personnel.....
                      F) Marketing expenses
                      G) Player contracts

                      The owners are the one that shoulder almost all of the risks, it's their money that's tied up in the franchise not the players so they deserve the lions share of the profits.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by JCJE View Post
                        Gotta side with the owners on this one. There isn't another industry in the world where the employee makes more than the employer and for good reason; OVERHEAD.
                        How do you figure that the players who are at best millionaires are making more money than the employer who is a billionaire?

                        Can you imagine what the team/owner has to pay out for the following?

                        A) Office space and employees that are not on the field. Now add the benefits for each of those employees.
                        Normal for all large corporations.

                        B) Travel expenses for away games for the players, coaches, equipment, assistants.
                        Normal for all large corporations, including travel for events, like trade shows, travel for training. None of this is unusual for large corporations.

                        C) Stadium costs/expenses - including staff that was not included previously
                        Not only is this normal for anyone in the entertainment industry but also normal for large corporations that have multiple buildings in one campus or multiple buildings in multiple cities.


                        D) Insurance Premiums
                        Normal for all businesses.

                        E) Training facilities, training staff, team doctors, team dietitians, assistants, equipment managers and personnel.....
                        Specialized personnel specific to the type of industry is normal, as are the facilities. Whether it be movies, banking or other industries, this is not unusual.

                        F) Marketing expenses
                        Normal for all business entities.

                        G) Player contracts
                        Normal for large business entities.

                        The owners are the one that shoulder almost all of the risks, it's their money that's tied up in the franchise not the players so they deserve the lions share of the profits.
                        What risks? The NFL is the fastest growing sports/entertainment industry in the US. It had record profits in the last year in spite of the recession. There are only 32 teams and there are billionaires hoping that someone will put a team up for sale so that they can buy into the NFL.

                        Also, many of the owners are getting sweetheart deals from their city to get the taxpayers to help pay for the stadiums and in many cases the city picks up the tab for the maintenance of the facilities. Bowlen, for example, got the city of Denver to pay a large portion of the costs associated with building the new stadium through tax revenues for the promise that he wouldn't move the Broncos from Denver for at least 20 years. In Indianapolis, the city pays all the maintenance costs for the local NBA team at Conseco Field House.

                        Such "corporate welfare" isn't unusual in the US. In fact, it's the norm. It's one of the reasons that some companies relocate their facilities from one city to another is the number and amount of tax breaks they get from the new location that save them dollars and cents in the long term.

                        If anything, NFL owners get MORE breaks and incur LESS risk than most normal businesses for the prestige of having a local NFL franchise.
                        You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
                          How do you figure that the players who are at best millionaires are making more money than the employer who is a billionaire?



                          Normal for all large corporations.



                          Normal for all large corporations, including travel for events, like trade shows, travel for training. None of this is unusual for large corporations.



                          Not only is this normal for anyone in the entertainment industry but also normal for large corporations that have multiple buildings in one campus or multiple buildings in multiple cities.




                          Normal for all businesses.



                          Specialized personnel specific to the type of industry is normal, as are the facilities. Whether it be movies, banking or other industries, this is not unusual.



                          Normal for all business entities.



                          Normal for large business entities.



                          What risks? The NFL is the fastest growing sports/entertainment industry in the US. It had record profits in the last year in spite of the recession. There are only 32 teams and there are billionaires hoping that someone will put a team up for sale so that they can buy into the NFL.

                          Also, many of the owners are getting sweetheart deals from their city to get the taxpayers to help pay for the stadiums and in many cases the city picks up the tab for the maintenance of the facilities. Bowlen, for example, got the city of Denver to pay a large portion of the costs associated with building the new stadium through tax revenues for the promise that he wouldn't move the Broncos from Denver for at least 20 years. In Indianapolis, the city pays all the maintenance costs for the local NBA team at Conseco Field House.

                          Such "corporate welfare" isn't unusual in the US. In fact, it's the norm. It's one of the reasons that some companies relocate their facilities from one city to another is the number and amount of tax breaks they get from the new location that save them dollars and cents in the long term.

                          If anything, NFL owners get MORE breaks and incur LESS risk than most normal businesses for the prestige of having a local NFL franchise.

                          So everything else is normal EXCEPT the fact that the players (employees) get 60% of the revenue and the owners get to pay all of the overhead out of their 40%. That's the problem.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by JCJE View Post
                            So everything else is normal EXCEPT the fact that the players (employees) get 60% of the revenue and the owners get to pay all of the overhead out of their 40%. That's the problem.
                            Oh bologna!

                            Players never see one red cent of concessions, merch and parking at the stadium.

                            Owners never have to go get hurt on a field and have their cash ripped out of their hands.

                            Its a cash grab on both sides and both sides are just as equally guilty as the other.
                            sigpic

                            Hooray, beer!

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by JCJE View Post
                              So everything else is normal EXCEPT the fact that the players (employees) get 60% of the revenue and the owners get to pay all of the overhead out of their 40%. That's the problem.
                              And actually this is normal for the entertainment business, where the names are the draw and as such collect the lion's share of the revenue.

                              Remember that no one is buying a jersey with Bowlen's name on it. Bowlen's participation is not what brings people to the stadium to buy tickets.

                              As I've pointed out, Robin Williams makes a lot more as a standup comic than Gabriel Iglesias because Williams is a much bigger name on the marquee than Iglesias. Not only that, but Williams makes the lion's share of the revenue over anyone else in the organization.

                              Since it's an entertainment business and the players are the draw, it's not unusual for the players to get the lion's share of the money.
                              You Tell 'em Justice is coming. You tell 'em I'M coming!sigpic

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by CoryWinget81 View Post
                                Oh bologna!

                                Players never see one red cent of concessions, merch and parking at the stadium.

                                Owners never have to go get hurt on a field and have their cash ripped out of their hands.

                                Its a cash grab on both sides and both sides are just as equally guilty as the other.
                                Yet the owners run the risk of paying a guy like Doom and then not benefiting from his services for a season or more or they pay a bust like J Russell 30 million.

                                I agree that both sides are greedy; my point is the owners shoulder ALL of the expenses, the financial risks and overhead so the players can do what they do and that's play a game so the owners should keep more of the revenue.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X