Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Email from Kevin Mawae "Let us play"

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

  • BroncoBreeder
    replied
    There is no contradiction at all. You are just looking at the players as equals to the owners and they are not.

    It's the same as a factory:

    You have the owner/owners that provide a place to work.

    You have the workers that work there.

    You have the union that screws both out of their money.

    You have the consumers that want the best product they can get at the cheapest cost they can get it at.
    Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 02-04-2011, 10:30 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brendan08901
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
    The players choose to play and all of them know the risks involved. They are offered a dollar amount and except it. If you don't want to take the risk, then take that free degree and go get another job.

    The owners are rich and everyone knows it. So What. The only thing players need to worry about is making the dollar amount they agreed to and not worry about how much the owner is raking in. Quit thinking that you deserve a piece of the "pie".
    See, you're contradicting yourself. You blame the players for the lockout because they refuse to play, yet at the same time you're telling them to not play if they don't agree with their pay. I also find it strange that you scrutinize the players for how much they make, yet at the same time say that how much the owners make is nobody's business.

    The bottom line is these players are valued for the millions they bring in. Everyone can get mad that cops and troops get payed less. But the fact is, anyone can be a cop or a soldier. A very select few can be NFL players. And with that same logic, the people who complain about the players salary and have season tickets are hypocrits. Because really, they are spending a lot more money to see football games than they are on cops' and soldiers' salaries, so you can just as easily say that they themselves value football more than the other jobs you mentioned.

    At the end of the day, the owners need to open up their books (TV contracts, Madden, Merchandise and Jersey's, Ticket and concession rev.) if they want us to believe that they are losing money and the players need to realize that in America, the owner is suppose to make the most money. And 18 games is just stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBreeder
    replied
    A individual PLAYER cap coupled with a team cap would actually help the majority of the players on a team earn more money. I know it would affect the stars (potential stars) huge payouts, but I believe for the whole, to more evenly spread out the money available to the team would be better.

    The STARS can always earn more money off endorsements than the anonymous players could ever hope to.

    EDIT: Once again I would like to remind everyone that being a Pro football player is a choice, not a right.
    Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 02-01-2011, 01:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    The owners don't set the cap. That is agreed to in the CBA which means it is a mutual agreement between owners and players.
    So, the owners have to ok the maximum amount of the cap?

    Which simply proves my point. It's not the players setting levels too high without the owners consent.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncos SB2010
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
    Well, in an owner's world, that's what would happen. In the real world the players association would refuse, since it would allow over time for the owners to prevent the players from negotiating a higher salary for themselves than what the owners set as the players cap.
    The owners don't set the cap. That is agreed to in the CBA which means it is a mutual agreement between owners and players.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncos SB2010
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
    You were doing ok until you brought up Vincent Jackson, who became a problem precisely because the owners decided to opt out of the CBA and the language of the current CBA contract for such a contingency came into play.

    And as I pointed out, the team CAN say no if they choose without a penalty. Technically, in Marshall's case, there shouldn't have been a problem. Marshall played 15 games and did well for us, but once he had his numbers and felt that another team would be happy to snap him up, he quit on his teammates.

    How do you deal with that in the real corporate world? In the real corporate world, you don't have this distraction since it's easy to replace someone. In the entertainment business, which I keep bringing up, you have to decide that you don't need the guy's lack of ethics and his nonsense and get rid of him, or you decide that you really DO need him despite his drama queen antics and you keep him, which is also part of supply and demand. The player has something that the team wants. The player can negotiate for what he feels is fair and if the team he's with doesn't want it, he can go elsewhere.
    Not true. If the player sits out, that is a penalty. If they end up having trade him, that is a penalty.

    The owners opted out of the CBA because it was a bad deal heavily favoring the players. When players demand more money the owners are in a lose-lose situation. They either pay him which creates more demands from other players or they don't pay him and lose the skills of a top player. All the power is in trhe hands of the player, they know that if they create enough of a problem someone will pay them whether it's on the same team or some other team. That has to be taken out of the system. Players sign contracts, they live up to them. Rookies have a set payscale and live up to rookie contracts. They want a big pay day do well and hit FA. The Agents of these players is what is causing a lot of the drama when dealing with contracts. If players were forced to live up to signed contracts, the agents wouldn't have as much power. You want to talk about people being overpayed in this league, it's the agents. They make, I believe, 10% of the player salary. You have 10 players under you, you get 100% player pay with no risk to yourself.
    Last edited by broncos SB2010; 02-01-2011, 11:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by BroncoBreeder View Post
    I was saying in an earlier post that there should be not only a team CAP, but also an implementation of a individual player CAP, too.

    Would this not be a good way to keep the large payouts to a single player down?
    Well, in an owner's world, that's what would happen. In the real world the players association would refuse, since it would allow over time for the owners to prevent the players from negotiating a higher salary for themselves than what the owners set as the players cap.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    I still fail to see how you can't see it's part of the problem.

    A team has X amount of dollars planned for 2010, they have all the guys they want under contract and they see they have Y amount of dollars to spend in 2011 and 2012 on FA and draft picks. Next thing you know one of their 2nd year players who still has 3 years left on his contract says he wants more money or he isn't playing.

    So, they have 3 options:

    1. pay him, which means their plans for future years as all messed up and now they have to cut one, or several, of the other guys they wanted to keep in order to sign a cheaper, less talented player to fill his spot.

    2. Trade him and lose one of their better players.

    3. Keep him on the team and not play him which causes a huge distraction and an empty roster spot.

    The player had a contract. He was happy with it when he signed it. Now all of a sudden he looks back and says hey, I could have had more money and now I want it. gimme gimme gimme. How is that fair to the team or the owners? A contract is a contract and should be lived up to, otherwise whats the point of a contract? Do owners have the right to lower pay or guaranteed money of underperforming players? Equal rights!!! If players think they will outperform a 4 year contract, they should sign a 2 year contract and hope they do well in order to hit a big payday in FA.

    This past year Vincent Jackson held out and I respected him for it. He said he signed a five year deal. He played his 5 years without complaint and did a great job, outplaying his contract. Then threw no fault of his own, the CBA fell through and he was automatically assigned a 6th year at about the same price as his previous pay, not allowing him to hit FA as was his right. He lived up to his side of the contract which is what all players should do. I think they should have the right to ask for a raise, as do all employess, but the Bosses should have the right to say no if they so choose without penalty.
    You were doing ok until you brought up Vincent Jackson, who became a problem precisely because the owners decided to opt out of the CBA and the language of the current CBA contract for such a contingency came into play.

    And as I pointed out, the team CAN say no if they choose without a penalty. Technically, in Marshall's case, there shouldn't have been a problem. Marshall played 15 games and did well for us, but once he had his numbers and felt that another team would be happy to snap him up, he quit on his teammates.

    How do you deal with that in the real corporate world? In the real corporate world, you don't have this distraction since it's easy to replace someone. In the entertainment business, which I keep bringing up, you have to decide that you don't need the guy's lack of ethics and his nonsense and get rid of him, or you decide that you really DO need him despite his drama queen antics and you keep him, which is also part of supply and demand. The player has something that the team wants. The player can negotiate for what he feels is fair and if the team he's with doesn't want it, he can go elsewhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • BroncoBreeder
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    I still fail to see how you can't see it's part of the problem.

    A team has X amount of dollars planned for 2010, they have all the guys they want under contract and they see they have Y amount of dollars to spend in 2011 and 2012 on FA and draft picks. Next thing you know one of their 2nd year players who still has 3 years left on his contract says he wants more money or he isn't playing.

    So, they have 3 options:

    1. pay him, which means their plans for future years as all messed up and now they have to cut one, or several, of the other guys they wanted to keep in order to sign a cheaper, less talented player to fill his spot.

    2. Trade him and lose one of their better players.

    3. Keep him on the team and not play him which causes a huge distraction and an empty roster spot.

    The player had a contract. He was happy with it when he signed it. Now all of a sudden he looks back and says hey, I could have had more money and now I want it. gimme gimme gimme. How is that fair to the team or the owners? A contract is a contract and should be lived up to, otherwise whats the point of a contract? Do owners have the right to lower pay or guaranteed money of underperforming players? Equal rights!!! If players think they will outperform a 4 year contract, they should sign a 2 year contract and hope they do well in order to hit a big payday in FA.

    This past year Vincent Jackson held out and I respected him for it. He said he signed a five year deal. He played his 5 years without complaint and did a great job, outplaying his contract. Then threw no fault of his own, the CBA fell through and he was automatically assigned a 6th year at about the same price as his previous pay, not allowing him to hit FA as was his right. He lived up to his side of the contract which is what all players should do. I think they should have the right to ask for a raise, as do all employess, but the Bosses should have the right to say no if they so choose without penalty.
    I was saying in an earlier post that there should be not only a team CAP, but also an implementation of a individual player CAP, too.

    Would this not be a good way to keep the large payouts to a single player down?

    EDIT: The big ROOKIE payouts are the problem. This is what's driving the actual good players to want bigger money.
    Last edited by BroncoBreeder; 02-01-2011, 11:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncos SB2010
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
    I agree that I didn't know that about the salary cap, that there was a minimum.

    However, it still doesn't change what I've said about players renegotiating their contracts and demanding larger and larger contracts not being part of the problem.
    I still fail to see how you can't see it's part of the problem.

    A team has X amount of dollars planned for 2010, they have all the guys they want under contract and they see they have Y amount of dollars to spend in 2011 and 2012 on FA and draft picks. Next thing you know one of their 2nd year players who still has 3 years left on his contract says he wants more money or he isn't playing.

    So, they have 3 options:

    1. pay him, which means their plans for future years as all messed up and now they have to cut one, or several, of the other guys they wanted to keep in order to sign a cheaper, less talented player to fill his spot.

    2. Trade him and lose one of their better players.

    3. Keep him on the team and not play him which causes a huge distraction and an empty roster spot.

    The player had a contract. He was happy with it when he signed it. Now all of a sudden he looks back and says hey, I could have had more money and now I want it. gimme gimme gimme. How is that fair to the team or the owners? A contract is a contract and should be lived up to, otherwise whats the point of a contract? Do owners have the right to lower pay or guaranteed money of underperforming players? Equal rights!!! If players think they will outperform a 4 year contract, they should sign a 2 year contract and hope they do well in order to hit a big payday in FA.

    This past year Vincent Jackson held out and I respected him for it. He said he signed a five year deal. He played his 5 years without complaint and did a great job, outplaying his contract. Then threw no fault of his own, the CBA fell through and he was automatically assigned a 6th year at about the same price as his previous pay, not allowing him to hit FA as was his right. He lived up to his side of the contract which is what all players should do. I think they should have the right to ask for a raise, as do all employess, but the Bosses should have the right to say no if they so choose without penalty.
    Last edited by broncos SB2010; 02-01-2011, 10:49 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    I think it is you who has no idea how the salary cap works. There is a team minimum. Here is some info from the NFL website in case you don't believe me.

    Q. Is there a Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year?
    A. There is no Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year. The Minimum Team Salary in 2009 is $107,748,000, meaning each team is required to allocate more than $107 million to player costs (not including benefits). The team salary cap in 2009 was $123 million.


    That shows that teams MUST pay at least 87% of the salary cap to player salaries.

    Here is more info


    Is there a Minimum Salary?


    Answer: Yep. Under the new CBA, the players are guaranteed 50% of Leaguewide Total Revenues. In the event that player costs are less that 50% of Total Revenues, then, on or before April 15 of the next League Year, the NFL shall pay an amount equal to such deficiency directly to the players.

    More specifically, beginning in 2006 each team had to pay a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 84% of the Salary Cap. Each year that percentage goes up by 1.2%, which means that it is 86.4% this season. However, the Minimum Team Salary cannot extend beyond 90% of the Salary Cap. Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Salary at the end of a league year has to be paid, on or before April 15 of the next league year, by the team(s) having such shortfall, directly to the players who were on that team's roster at any time during the season.

    When the last CBA was ratified by the owners, they added a contention that they be allowed to end the agreement early should they be dissatisifed with the arrangement. Many of the smaller market teams soon discovered what only two teams (Buffalo and Cincinnati) originally feared at the time of the ratification: the massive increases to the minimum salary (see below) for players has placed an overwhelming burden on some teams' abilility to make a profit. Rigid rules governing profit sharing haven't helped. Thus, the owners have agreed to end the CBA after the 2010 season. It will be interesting to see whether or not the NFL will bring back something like the DGR to calculate the salary cap -- or if the salary cap will still be in effect at all. (The concept of a Rookie Salary Cap has also been tossed about.) The dynamics are certain to change given that the chief architects of the existing CBA (Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw) are no longer in the picture.


    I am not the most educated person about all of the CBA issues but you don't even know the basics of the salary cap. How can anyone take what you seriously?
    I agree that I didn't know that about the salary cap, that there was a minimum.

    However, it still doesn't change what I've said about players renegotiating their contracts and demanding larger and larger contracts not being part of the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • broncos SB2010
    replied
    Originally posted by rogue719 View Post
    But the same is true of veteran football players. Once their rookie contract is up, they can go on the market, field the best prices and go to the team they thing will be the best for them, whether it be financially, getting a ring, etc. That's why the players hire agents, to help them get into a position and then negotiate the contract.



    Minimal amount? Define "minimal?" When you buy something for millions and then it's worth at least a billion, I think that profit is more than "minimal." But then, everything is relative. But then, these guys are already billionaires, so the money shouldn't be the primary objective. Yes, they should make money. If all sides don't make a good living, why do it at all? But the owners hardly need the money.

    Also, remember that an NFL franchise isn't like the standard corporation where your only objective is to make money. The Tampa Bay ownership used to be like that, and they lost games like crazy and people refused to buy tickets for their games. For years, the Bidwell family under patriarch Billy Bidwell ran the Cardinals like it was only a money-making venture and it was only when his sons came in and ran it like a team and didn't worry about profits as much did they get the personnel to be a contender and play late in the playoffs.



    Ok, you clearly don't understand the salary cap. There is no "MINIMUM" amount that must be spent. Only a maximum that can't be exceeded.

    The NFL, which is to say, the OWNERS, set the salary cap. THE OWNERS SET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN BE SPENT ON SALARIES. Then, the players jockey for how much of that amount they can get, but the amount spent on the team salary can't exceed that amount. That's the reason why players salaries aren't the issue here, at least the way you define it. If Revis wants to negotiate for a larger salary, he can't get too much without someone else's salary being cut, and if the team doesn't want to negotiate with them (such as when Marshall acted out demanding a new contract), the team doesn't have to. And had Marshall refused to come to training camp and been in violation of his contract, the league could have called for arbitration, a neutral party would sit down with Marshall and his agent and the team representative and the contract and gone over it with both parties looking for a way to come to a compromise. And even then, if the arbitrator cant' come up with a solution the team can choose to simply refuse to pay the player.

    THAT'S why players salaries, as you describe, are not the issue here.

    What IS at issue here is that the owners had negotiated before with the players association (union) that the players, as the marquee names that sell tickets, tv contracts and cause all the other merchandise to be sold, were entitled to 60% of the profits.

    Now, after years of this agreement, the owners have decided that they don't want the players association to get 60% of the profits. They want the players association (which is to say, the players) to get, say, 50% of the profits. Perhaps less. That is what is going to be the knockdown, drag out part of the CBA. Even the eighteen game season is secondary to that.

    And for that reason, the OWNERS opted out of the current agreement and are preparing to lock out the players in order to try to break the union's back.




    Two things here to address: First, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the NFL had RECORD REVENUES this past season, IN SPITE OF THE RECESSION. So, how can we have a "team doesn't bring in that much" situation? Second, breach of contract is a legal term. And legal possibilities would be an eventuality if the parties submitted to arbitration, as required by their contract, and then one of the parties refused to abide by the arbitrator's decision. (I suspect that this was one of the reasons that Plummer retired, rather than go to Tampa Bay or fight the issue with the league. The league could force him into arbitration and make him report to Tampa, but if he retires, they have no power)



    Not if the owners and league refuse to negotiate with the crybabies, like the Broncos refused to negotiate with Marshall.

    You keep bringing this up like it's an issue. The Broncos themselves showed why it wasn't an issue. Marshall is the textbook case.

    Marshall was a problem child with tons of issues and even some suspensions, but he demanded a new contract. Fans on the forums here demanded that management "pay the man," even though there was more than just money at issue, including Marshall's off-field shenanigans and suspensions.

    Marshall acted out in training camp. Marshall was suspended for training camp. Marshall was warned by his agent what he had to lose and he cleaned up his act somewhat and didn't act out again until he made his numbers in week 16, then promptly quit on his team before the final game.

    The Broncos refused to negotiate with Marshall.

    Instead, their options were: go with the current contract. Trade him. Give in to him. They chose to trade him, but part of that trade agreement was that whoever traded for Marshall had to give him a new contract.

    The Dolphins did. They didn't have to, but the Dolphins figured they had cap room and they wanted Marshall's talent, so the law of supply and demand (one of the basics of capitalism) came into play and the Dolphins signed Marshall to a new contract and gave up draft picks to the Broncos.

    Marshall's new contract was not, in any way, a reason for the current CBA.

    I don't know how I can explain this in any smaller terms.



    I've asked you this before and you still haven't responded: how can a millionaire be making more money than a billionaire who doesn't even need the money that comes in from the team?

    EDIT to add: Also, remember that the 60% is split up among ALL the employees, while you still get 40%, so you are still making more than your employees.
    I think it is you who has no idea how the salary cap works. There is a team minimum. Here is some info from the NFL website in case you don't believe me.

    Q. Is there a Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year?
    A. There is no Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year. The Minimum Team Salary in 2009 is $107,748,000, meaning each team is required to allocate more than $107 million to player costs (not including benefits). The team salary cap in 2009 was $123 million.


    That shows that teams MUST pay at least 87% of the salary cap to player salaries.

    Here is more info


    Is there a Minimum Salary?


    Answer: Yep. Under the new CBA, the players are guaranteed 50% of Leaguewide Total Revenues. In the event that player costs are less that 50% of Total Revenues, then, on or before April 15 of the next League Year, the NFL shall pay an amount equal to such deficiency directly to the players.

    More specifically, beginning in 2006 each team had to pay a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 84% of the Salary Cap. Each year that percentage goes up by 1.2%, which means that it is 86.4% this season. However, the Minimum Team Salary cannot extend beyond 90% of the Salary Cap. Any shortfall in the Minimum Team Salary at the end of a league year has to be paid, on or before April 15 of the next league year, by the team(s) having such shortfall, directly to the players who were on that team's roster at any time during the season.

    When the last CBA was ratified by the owners, they added a contention that they be allowed to end the agreement early should they be dissatisifed with the arrangement. Many of the smaller market teams soon discovered what only two teams (Buffalo and Cincinnati) originally feared at the time of the ratification: the massive increases to the minimum salary (see below) for players has placed an overwhelming burden on some teams' abilility to make a profit. Rigid rules governing profit sharing haven't helped. Thus, the owners have agreed to end the CBA after the 2010 season. It will be interesting to see whether or not the NFL will bring back something like the DGR to calculate the salary cap -- or if the salary cap will still be in effect at all. (The concept of a Rookie Salary Cap has also been tossed about.) The dynamics are certain to change given that the chief architects of the existing CBA (Paul Tagliabue and Gene Upshaw) are no longer in the picture.


    I am not the most educated person about all of the CBA issues but you don't even know the basics of the salary cap. How can anyone take what you say seriously?

    You also mention that the NFL had record breaking revenues. How were the expenses? Were they record breaking as well?
    Last edited by broncos SB2010; 02-01-2011, 10:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie Brown View Post
    How sad for the NFL Players.

    They just want to make sure their families get food on the table. Caviar for breakfast, caviar for snacks, caviar for lunch, caviar for dinner, and of course gold plated bathtubs. They need more money. That way they can bath in caviar instead of just eating it.

    Players make enough money as is. Sure, teams make lots of money. But, teams also have obligations such as stadium upkeep, ads, etc... Further, of course owners are supposed to make money. They OWN the team. The players WORK for them. So, it really shouldn't come as any surprise to anybody that the owners (the person that actually pays the players) would make more money than the players.

    NFL players should stop their pity parade and sign on the dotted line. There should be a rookie salary cap. There should be a cap for players. Nobody should be signing these $60 million+ contracts.
    Uh, some teams do and some teams don't. For example, Mile High stadium was mostly built by the taxpayers, not by Bowlen. Bowlen selected the design which included fewer regular seats and more luxury boxes. Money spent on regular seats is shared with the NFL while all the money from the luxury boxes goes to the owner. Right now Mile High sells out all it's regular seats and could sell more if they had them. Meanwhile a good number of the luxury boxes are empty at game time. No one purchased the right to watch the game from them.

    Also, team owners often get sweetheart deals from their local city, which wants the prestige of having an NFL franchise in their city. In many cases, the city provides the services that keep the maintenance and cleaning of the stadium.

    On top of that, there are nearly always a number of "corporate welfare" deals with the teams as there are with any large corporation that wants to move or stay in a city, because such organizations provide jobs. In the case of the Broncos there are jobs maintaining and cleaning the stadium, providing merchandise, selling merchandise, running the parking lots, etc etc. So, there are undoubtedly corporate welfare deals where the organization may pay less corporate tax than other entities that didn't get the deal, or less local taxes or other perks that are offered to keep the team in place.

    Bowlen got the new stadium built by taxpayers and one of the promises he had to make was that he wouldn't move the team for at least 20 years after the Broncos moved into the new stadium. The city wanted them here and Bowlen was able to make the deal.

    Please, let's not try to pretend that the poor, overburdened billionaires are hurting for money.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post

    Just saw this...
    In 1994 the cap was $34.6 million. In 2009 it was $128M...300%= increase in 15 years.
    And WHO sets the salary cap again? Oh, that's right, it's the League, AKA, the owners. If the owners didn't want to set the cap that high, could they vote and refuse to do so? Of course they could.

    Leave a comment:


  • rogue719
    replied
    Originally posted by broncos SB2010 View Post
    Who does Robin Williams work for? Oh yea...he doesn't have a boss. He is an independent contractor who fields offers and takes the ones he likes. In reality who makes the lions draw in the movie industry, the stars or the producers who put up the money to make the movie in the first place? If you think it's the stars you are sadly mistaken.
    But the same is true of veteran football players. Once their rookie contract is up, they can go on the market, field the best prices and go to the team they thing will be the best for them, whether it be financially, getting a ring, etc. That's why the players hire agents, to help them get into a position and then negotiate the contract.

    If the players take most of the money and the owners get a minimal amount, if any, what incentive is there to be an owner? The glory?
    Minimal amount? Define "minimal?" When you buy something for millions and then it's worth at least a billion, I think that profit is more than "minimal." But then, everything is relative. But then, these guys are already billionaires, so the money shouldn't be the primary objective. Yes, they should make money. If all sides don't make a good living, why do it at all? But the owners hardly need the money.

    Also, remember that an NFL franchise isn't like the standard corporation where your only objective is to make money. The Tampa Bay ownership used to be like that, and they lost games like crazy and people refused to buy tickets for their games. For years, the Bidwell family under patriarch Billy Bidwell ran the Cardinals like it was only a money-making venture and it was only when his sons came in and ran it like a team and didn't worry about profits as much did they get the personnel to be a contender and play late in the playoffs.

    I don't see how you can think the player salary isn't part of the issue. Teams have a salary cap. One that limits how much they can spend and one that limits how little they can spend. They are required to spend X amount of dollars on team salary every year.
    Ok, you clearly don't understand the salary cap. There is no "MINIMUM" amount that must be spent. Only a maximum that can't be exceeded.

    The NFL, which is to say, the OWNERS, set the salary cap. THE OWNERS SET THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT CAN BE SPENT ON SALARIES. Then, the players jockey for how much of that amount they can get, but the amount spent on the team salary can't exceed that amount. That's the reason why players salaries aren't the issue here, at least the way you define it. If Revis wants to negotiate for a larger salary, he can't get too much without someone else's salary being cut, and if the team doesn't want to negotiate with them (such as when Marshall acted out demanding a new contract), the team doesn't have to. And had Marshall refused to come to training camp and been in violation of his contract, the league could have called for arbitration, a neutral party would sit down with Marshall and his agent and the team representative and the contract and gone over it with both parties looking for a way to come to a compromise. And even then, if the arbitrator cant' come up with a solution the team can choose to simply refuse to pay the player.

    THAT'S why players salaries, as you describe, are not the issue here.

    What IS at issue here is that the owners had negotiated before with the players association (union) that the players, as the marquee names that sell tickets, tv contracts and cause all the other merchandise to be sold, were entitled to 60% of the profits.

    Now, after years of this agreement, the owners have decided that they don't want the players association to get 60% of the profits. They want the players association (which is to say, the players) to get, say, 50% of the profits. Perhaps less. That is what is going to be the knockdown, drag out part of the CBA. Even the eighteen game season is secondary to that.

    And for that reason, the OWNERS opted out of the current agreement and are preparing to lock out the players in order to try to break the union's back.


    If the team doesn't bring in that much, they lose money. You mentioned in a previous post that it's fair for a player to hold out and demand more money. They signed a contract. How is that not breach of contract that in any other business would be illegal.
    Two things here to address: First, as I've pointed out repeatedly, the NFL had RECORD REVENUES this past season, IN SPITE OF THE RECESSION. So, how can we have a "team doesn't bring in that much" situation? Second, breach of contract is a legal term. And legal possibilities would be an eventuality if the parties submitted to arbitration, as required by their contract, and then one of the parties refused to abide by the arbitrator's decision. (I suspect that this was one of the reasons that Plummer retired, rather than go to Tampa Bay or fight the issue with the league. The league could force him into arbitration and make him report to Tampa, but if he retires, they have no power)

    I also pointed out how salaries are climbing at 12%/year while income rises at 4%/year. How is that not a problem? When players cry and whine that they don't like their coach, or want to be the highest paid player ever and that salary gets topped every year when a guy signs a new contract, where does it end? They will be making $200M/7 years before too long. Out of control salaries is THE biggest problem with the NFL right now.
    Not if the owners and league refuse to negotiate with the crybabies, like the Broncos refused to negotiate with Marshall.

    You keep bringing this up like it's an issue. The Broncos themselves showed why it wasn't an issue. Marshall is the textbook case.

    Marshall was a problem child with tons of issues and even some suspensions, but he demanded a new contract. Fans on the forums here demanded that management "pay the man," even though there was more than just money at issue, including Marshall's off-field shenanigans and suspensions.

    Marshall acted out in training camp. Marshall was suspended for training camp. Marshall was warned by his agent what he had to lose and he cleaned up his act somewhat and didn't act out again until he made his numbers in week 16, then promptly quit on his team before the final game.

    The Broncos refused to negotiate with Marshall.

    Instead, their options were: go with the current contract. Trade him. Give in to him. They chose to trade him, but part of that trade agreement was that whoever traded for Marshall had to give him a new contract.

    The Dolphins did. They didn't have to, but the Dolphins figured they had cap room and they wanted Marshall's talent, so the law of supply and demand (one of the basics of capitalism) came into play and the Dolphins signed Marshall to a new contract and gave up draft picks to the Broncos.

    Marshall's new contract was not, in any way, a reason for the current CBA.

    I don't know how I can explain this in any smaller terms.

    Tell me this. If you owned a company and you paid your workers more than you made personally, how long would you be in business??
    I've asked you this before and you still haven't responded: how can a millionaire be making more money than a billionaire who doesn't even need the money that comes in from the team?

    EDIT to add: Also, remember that the 60% is split up among ALL the employees, while you still get 40%, so you are still making more than your employees.
    Last edited by rogue719; 02-01-2011, 09:04 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X