PDA

View Full Version : THE NFL ....I dont fully understand whats going on ??



RAIDER
03-22-2011, 05:18 AM
Hi there i am hoping you guys can enlighten me on the NFL .
What is actually going on ?
Is there going to be a season this year ?

As i really dont fully understand the arguements on either side

Cheers from a confused Brit whose trying to explain this to other confused Brits on whats going on :blush:

Strmchsr
03-22-2011, 09:20 AM
Well, to put it in the most simple terms, a bunch of spoiled millionaires are having a spitting match with a bunch of other spoiled millionaires.

To give a more detailed answer, the NFL brings in about 9 billion in revenue each year. A formula is used to split this revenue between the owners and the players. Currently, the owners take 1 billion off the top before the formula is applied. Now they are asking for 2 billion to help cover stadium building and update costs. The players are whining and complaining that they would only get a share of 7 billion.

Other issues are that the owners wanted to go to an 18 game regular season schedule and eliminate 2 meaningless pre-season games in order to generate more revenue. The players feel they get banged up enough over 16 games. I agree with the players on this one. I don't like pre-season, but 16 is enough.

A final issue is the owners want a rookie wage scale to keep draft picks from getting paid all these millions when they haven't done anything yet. Don't know why the players are whining about this one because it would mean the established players would actually get paid a little more.

Will there be a season? Who knows. Things are going into the American legal system right now and that's going to mess everything up. It could take so many paths and take so long that I seriously doubt there will be a full season. Maybe a partial one. I hope I'm wrong. I'd hate to lose the season because both sides are being so greedy. The players are now playing from a serious position of weakness, though. Not every NFL player makes millions, and even those that do still live a lifestyle where they are living paycheck to paycheck. The owners built up a "war chest" and made sure they are going to be fine through this lockout, but the players are going to start feeling a serious pinch once they start missing paychecks. They'll probably end up with a worse deal than if they negotiated fairly last month. But they wanted to do the legal route instead. I think the players are going to lose big.

The player's union "de-certified" (even though they are still acting like a union) so that they could go to court earlier, so they may get struck down in court. The owners have locked out the players, meaning they have shut down all operations and aren't paying anyone. The players have sued the owners saying the owners can't legally lock out the players. The owners have counter-sued saying the players didn't legally de-certify as a union so their lawsuit is illegal. No way to know how this will turn out.

And don't worry. Most Americans are confused, too. :D

DonaldsBFF
03-22-2011, 10:42 AM
They'll probably end up with a worse deal than if they negotiated fairly last month. But they wanted to do the legal route instead. I think the players are going to lose big.

Couldn't agree more. I have seen it twice now with companies in my hometown. Many years ago Caterpiller workers went on strike because "they weren't getting a fair deal," well the company left town. Then a few years back the same thing happened at Harley. The company almost left but in the end the workers were worse off then if they had just taken the original proposal. Not sure when these people are going to wise up and realize that they have it pretty good. They need to stop following the unions and understand that the unions are not the ones that give them the paycheck.
I sure hope they can get this worked out though as football has something good going right now and this won't be good for popularity. Plus I don't know what I will do without football. Fall won't be the same without it.

kakn7294
03-22-2011, 10:51 AM
Well, to put it in the most simple terms, a bunch of spoiled millionaires are having a spitting match with a bunch of other spoiled millionaires.

And don't worry. Most Americans are confused, too. :DThese two statements just about sum it up the best!

Ian
03-22-2011, 11:14 AM
I think it's a bit more nuanced than what's been said so far ...

Basically, yes ... the owner's want to take another $1 billion off the top of the total revenue pie (more on that concept in a minute) before sharing the money out with the players. The players are basically saying, "Look we were fine with the CBA we had. You guys opted out. If you want us to take less money, make your case. Just prove to us that you're all making less money, because we don't see it."

One other important thing to note is that the actual definition of the $9+ billion in NFL revenue is a bit ambiguous. There are most definitely streams of revenue that individual teams take advantage of that aren't included in that pie. Things like local radio deals, local sponsorships (THE OFFICIAL CAR DEALER OF THE NEW YORK JETS, etc. etc.), stadium parking revenue, and other related items aren't included in the total revenue calculation.

Of course, by the same token the players also draw individual sponsorship revenue deals, too.

But basically everyone needs to remember that there was a CBA in place and the owners opted out of it. The players really aren't asking for anything additional. They're asking for the status quo or, alternatively, if they're going to make concessions for things like the rookie wage scale (which make no mistake ... both sides want and will easily agree on) or the extended season, then they want potentially a bigger share of the revenue pie.

But really all those other things like the longer season and the rookie wage scale ... that's just window dressing. The absolute core of this rotten apple is the owners saying to the players, "We want to take back $1 billion of your revenue pie, because we're making less money." and the players saying, "Okay great. We're open to discussing that. Just prove to us that you're actually making less money." and the NFL going, "Uh ... err ... ummm ... errr ... well ... no."

Scar
03-22-2011, 01:19 PM
But really all those other things like the longer season and the rookie wage scale ... that's just window dressing.I would call them "bargining chips." Of course the players would agree to a wage scale, but the longer they can "say" they don't, they can use it as in "you give this up, we'll give that up."


Another thing you don't here too much about is that there is also infighting amongst the owners.

Ian
03-22-2011, 04:03 PM
Another thing you don't hear too much about is that there is also infighting amongst the owners.Oh yeah ... there are some owners that operate their franchises like any typical business, with profit as the first (and pretty much only) priority.

Then you have other owners who care a lot more about the game and winning and their football legacy.

I'm pretty sure everyone can figure out on their own how that would result in some in-fighting.

Hammer
03-22-2011, 08:39 PM
I think it's a bit more nuanced than what's been said so far ...

Basically, yes ... the owner's want to take another $1 billion off the top of the total revenue pie (more on that concept in a minute) before sharing the money out with the players. The players are basically saying, "Look we were fine with the CBA we had. You guys opted out. If you want us to take less money, make your case. Just prove to us that you're all making less money, because we don't see it."

One other important thing to note is that the actual definition of the $9+ billion in NFL revenue is a bit ambiguous. There are most definitely streams of revenue that individual teams take advantage of that aren't included in that pie. Things like local radio deals, local sponsorships (THE OFFICIAL CAR DEALER OF THE NEW YORK JETS, etc. etc.), stadium parking revenue, and other related items aren't included in the total revenue calculation.

Of course, by the same token the players also draw individual sponsorship revenue deals, too.

But basically everyone needs to remember that there was a CBA in place and the owners opted out of it. The players really aren't asking for anything additional. They're asking for the status quo or, alternatively, if they're going to make concessions for things like the rookie wage scale (which make no mistake ... both sides want and will easily agree on) or the extended season, then they want potentially a bigger share of the revenue pie.

But really all those other things like the longer season and the rookie wage scale ... that's just window dressing. The absolute core of this rotten apple is the owners saying to the players, "We want to take back $1 billion of your revenue pie, because we're making less money." and the players saying, "Okay great. We're open to discussing that. Just prove to us that you're actually making less money." and the NFL going, "Uh ... err ... ummm ... errr ... well ... no."

Ian explained the situation perfectly. I bolded some of his points for emphasis. This is NOT a strike. The players were happy with the agreement that was negotiated a few years ago. If the owners need the money, prove it. I'm not taking Jerry Jones or Jeffrey Lurie's word for it.


Another thing you don't here too much about is that there is also infighting amongst the owners.
Excellent point! There is not uniform agreement within the owners. The really big market teams resent revenue sharing with the smaller market teams.

Oh yeah ... there are some owners that operate their franchises like any typical business, with profit as the first (and pretty much only) priority.

Then you have other owners who care a lot more about the game and winning and their football legacy.

I'm pretty sure everyone can figure out on their own how that would result in some in-fighting.

I'll take it a step further. It is not just that some owners care more about the game, but that there isn't any way for some of them to generate more revenue in their markets. I'm not talking about a small market team like Jacksonville, which does not have the fan base to support a franchise. I'm talking about small market teams like Green Bay and Buffalo, which have large, loyal fan bases and play in front of decent crowds. There isn't any way for them to create anymore revenue.

gueli
04-02-2011, 05:17 AM
I also thought that part of what the owners want is a reduction of the percecentage of the 'revenue pie' that is players salaries...not just the billion or so off the top

The problem with the rookie contract thing- most people who play in the nfl play for 5 or less seasons. The players 'sacrifice' their bodies during this time. and the nfl contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.

Now, this lockout has been predicted since last year.
In the end, the only people getting hurt are the NFL fans. and it stinks


:twocents:

Ian
04-02-2011, 09:05 AM
The problem with the rookie contract thing- most people who play in the nfl play for 5 or less seasons.Yeah, but I think (although I may be wrong) that a portion of the money they're planning on saving from the reduced rookie salaries is going towards taking better care of ex-players so maybe you'd still be able to get some money even if you only played a few seasons, got hurt, and had to retire.

But yeah with the NFL being the only player union that doesn't have guaranteed contracts, I find it pretty hard to believe the owners would push for more. They should talk to owners in MLB or the NBA and see how they feel about the sweetheart deal NFL owners have!

Hammer
04-02-2011, 12:47 PM
The problem with the rookie contract thing- most people who play in the nfl play for 5 or less seasons. The players 'sacrifice' their bodies during this time. and the nfl contracts are not worth the paper they are written on.


Average years of service for a NFL player is just over 3 years. Players who retire now get lifetime health benefits if they play 4 years. That number is not a coincidence ;).


Yeah, but I think (although I may be wrong) that a portion of the money they're planning on saving from the reduced rookie salaries is going towards taking better care of ex-players so maybe you'd still be able to get some money even if you only played a few seasons, got hurt, and had to retire.


The stipulation that the owners want to put in for that, though, is only for players who retired after 1993. The owners say that this is because players after that date are the ones who made the NFL take off :unsure: . So players like Wilbert Montgomery , Tommy MacDonald, or Chuck Bednarik (get well soon, Concrete Charlie) would not get that money.

Ian
04-02-2011, 04:32 PM
Which is sort of ironic, Christine, because those are also the guys who made no money while playing.

princessgirls
04-04-2011, 12:23 PM
This is one strike that is just GREED based, and in this economy, you are going to be hard pressed to gain sympathy.

I live in Northern NJ...HOME to both the JETS and GIANTS, the economic fall-out that will impact my area is HUGE, and I don't give a RIP about the owners, I'm thinking of the little guy working at the stadium to feed his family as an extra job. The bars in the area who depend on the football crowd every Sunday. This isn't funny at all. The people who work hard bringing us the games for the TV networks. Not the announcers, the guy actually running the cables and wires and setting up the equipment. WHY...because the owners want a BIGGER slice of the pie? In tough economic times??? Good Luck gaining sympathy.
I do hope for a resolution. I think the loss of football is NOT GOOD for the players, and more so for the FANS, who fuel this whole greed machine.
Anyway...just my two cents.
I saw a Giants Player in Outback with his family a few Saturdays ago...and thought to myself, smart man. Taking the family out, and not spending more than the AVERAGE AMERICAN FAMILY!! Anyway...
Julie:mickey:

RAIDER
04-13-2011, 04:37 AM
Dear all who have replied back ,thankyou for clearing the waters on this question ,

However is there an actual deadline date on whether the NFL season is a go or no go ?

Cheers

WDWfanatic742
04-13-2011, 05:07 AM
Nope, they could announce a CBA next week or after the season.

The judge ordered the two sides back to the table and that starts Thursday. I still think that we won't see anything before the draft, I'm guessing before June they get the CBA done either by mediation or court order.

Scar
04-19-2011, 05:02 PM
However is there an actual deadline date on whether the NFL season is a go or no go ?Training camps open the end of July. I would think they need a CBA by mid July for everything to start on time. If they don't have one by mid August, the season would certainly be delayed. It's anyone's guess when the season would be cancelled but I would say around October 1, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen... too much money involved.

MarkC
04-19-2011, 07:36 PM
The 2011 schedule is released in 25 minutes from this post time. I hope they play.

I would like to correct an earlier comment. Its billionaires arguing with millionaires.

meldan98
04-19-2011, 07:43 PM
The frightening thing about this is national financial impact that this is going to have, if an agreement isn't in place and the season doesn't happen.

There was an article the other day on the web about the financial impact of the lock out and it would be devistating. The hit to Dish Network, Direct TV and snack and beverage companies around the country could have significant impacts to communities. Imagine how much money these companies make during the football season that are going to be a big fat zero when there aren't games going to be played. Think of the impact this will have on the revenue numbers for the Walt Disney Company when they aren't making any money on ad revenue. Companies that lose significant revenue could lay off thousands of people to make up for that lost revenue.

Sorry I'm being doom and gloom, but these owners and players are not thinking about the big picture here. They need to quickly get this resolved and get back to work.

princessgirls
04-20-2011, 11:09 AM
I'm really really worried about the economic impact, the trickle down effect is HUGE.

Keeping the faith alive that this will work itself out.
Julie:mickey:

princessgirls
04-20-2011, 04:45 PM
NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell issued a statement today that said: He is confident that the 2011 NFL season will go on as scheduled and the labor dispute will be resolved.

OK Roger...Not feeling as confident as you!

Julie:mickey:

Scar
04-20-2011, 07:11 PM
The NFL has announced that talks are adjourned until May 16.

Apparently they (both sides) are not in any big hurry to get this done. :shake:

Scar
04-25-2011, 10:40 PM
Judge Orders End to NFL Lockout, Appeal Expected
Published April 25, 2011 | Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minnesota A federal judge on Monday ordered an end to the NFL lockout, giving the players an early victory in their fight with the owners over how to divide the $9 billion business.

U.S. District Judge Susan Richard Nelson said she was swayed by the players' argument that that the lockout, now in its second month, was causing irreparable harm to their careers.

The plaintiffs "have made a strong showing that allowing the League to continue their 'lockout' is presently inflicting, and will continue to inflict, irreparable harm upon them, particularly when weighed against the lack of any real injury that would be imposed on the NFL by issuing the preliminary injunction," Nelson wrote.

The NFL promised an immediate appeal.

"We will promptly seek a stay from Judge Nelson pending an expedited appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals," the league said. "We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes. We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal."

Owners imposed the lockout after talks broke down March 11 and the players disbanded their union. A group of players filed the injunction request along with a class-action antitrust lawsuit against the league.

The owners argued it was their right to institute the lockout and suggested Nelson didn't have jurisdiction while the National Labor Relations Board considers an unfair labor charge filed by the league that players didn't negotiate in good faith.

Nelson disagreed, and said the NLRB proceeding shouldn't be used to affect the court case here.

Nelson heard arguments on the injunction at a hearing on April 6 and ordered the two sides to resume mediation while she was considering her decision. The owners and players, who failed to reach consensus after 16 days of mediated talks earlier this year, met over four days with a federal magistrate but did not announce any progress on solving the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987.

They are not scheduled to meet again until May 16, four days after another judge holds a hearing on whether players should get damages in their related fight with owners over some $4 billion in broadcast revenue.

And now comes Nelson's decision to lift the injunction.

"The public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales," she wrote. "And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football -- who have a strong investment in the 2011 season -- is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation."

If her ruling stands, it is still unclear exactly what happens next. The collective bargaining agreement has expired, so how the league would handle free agency, trades and offseason workouts at team headquarters, all of which were banned under the lockout, remains to be seen.

The NFL even argued to Nelson that stopping the lockout would open all 32 teams up to additional antitrust claims simply for working together to solve the labor dispute. Antitrust claims carry triple damages for any harm proven, meaning hundreds of millions of dollars are at stake.

But with appeals expected, the fight seems likely to drag on through the spring and, possibly, into the summer. The closer it gets to August, when training camps and the preseason get into full swing, the more likely it becomes that regular season games will be lost.

"Tomorrow is going to come regardless of what we do here, so we have to work within that framework," Hall of Famer Carl Eller, a plaintiff, said after one of the recent mediation sessions.

"In order to have a season, preserve a season, prepare for a season, those are real consequences."

And the antitrust lawsuit is pending, too, with lead plaintiffs that include MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. The suit has been combined with two other similar claims from retirees, former players and rookies-to-be, with Eller the lead plaintiff in that group.

Granting the injunction swings some of the leverage to the players' side, which could actually bring the two sides closer to a resolution, according to Seth Borden, a labor law expert at McKenna, Long and Aldridge in New York.

"It's still going to boil down to the way the parties view their respective positions and respective leverage," Borden said. "Until the league and the players feel like they're at the point of no return for next season, progress will be slow toward that overall resolution."

WDWfanatic742
04-25-2011, 11:34 PM
:joy:

...then hears that it still will take a few weeks for an appeal...

:angry:

At the very least they can play without a CBA. This ain't over, although we get the draft in three nights...

Ian
04-26-2011, 09:19 AM
From what I hear, the immediate questions (i.e. what does this really mean???) should be resolved today or tomorrow at the latest.

Apparently, the owners are sort of feigning confusion and are planning on asking the judge for clarification on what this means. There's a chance that as early as today the judge could basically order the NFL to start the season, which would mean a go for trades, signings, etc.

Which, as an Eagles fan, would be huge because we need to trade Kolb ASAP!

princessgirls
04-27-2011, 10:14 AM
While watching the News this morning, I saw that The Giants are allowing their players starting today to use their training facilities which had been previously locked.

JETS so far have not.

A tad bit of hope this morning...

Julie:mickey:

WDWfanatic742
04-28-2011, 01:59 AM
So with the judge denying the stay for the NFL, I'm interested in what they will decide in their morning meeting on what they are going to do since the draft is in the evening. It'll be interesting if they allow free agency to start again before the draft. Tomorrow is going to be insane I think...

WDWfanatic742
04-28-2011, 02:26 PM
Tomorrow at 8am the players will be able to show up for OTA's/Workouts, pick up playbooks, and meet with coaches.

There is another court that is looking at staying the decision and will announce their ruling in a couple of hours. If the stay is denied, they should announce their plans for transactions and the like tomorrow...

princessgirls
04-28-2011, 03:02 PM
The NFL apparently has been BEAT at their own game!!!

WAY TO GO PLAYERS!!!!:thumbsup:

Hope that things will now resume, without greedy delays.

Julie:mickey:

Scar
07-22-2011, 12:16 PM
Well, here it is 3 months later and still no agreement. If this thing doesn't get done soon, they'll have to cancel a pre-season game or two at the least.

Pagan
07-22-2011, 01:13 PM
I may be in the minority but I'm at the point where I almost don't care if they play or not anymore.

Bring on hockey...

Scar
07-22-2011, 01:32 PM
I have no choice but to care... I don't like hockey... and I'm a Mets fan. :(

Epc0tphr34k
07-25-2011, 08:13 AM
today could be the day the lock out ends. players supposedly voting via conference call. *fingers crossed*

RAIDER
07-26-2011, 04:14 AM
today could be the day the lock out ends. players supposedly voting via conference call. *fingers crossed*

I am with you on that :thumbsup:

Greenlawler
07-28-2011, 05:10 PM
It's over let's talk football.....been gone for a while. Did the mods clean out this board? Are we just going to have one NFL thread now?

Haynesworth to the Patriots :sick: he's going to be a monster.

Hassleback to the Titans........with Johnson, Britt, a good O-Line, and Cook people may be surprised at how good the Titans offense is.

Scar
07-28-2011, 05:27 PM
Hassleback to the Titans........with Johnson, Britt, a good O-Line, and Cook people may be surprised at how good the Titans offense is.Maybe... we'll see if Britt can stay out of jail.

Ian
07-29-2011, 10:22 PM
Eagles land the prize free agent of this off season in Nnamdi Asomugha!

Boy, he's going to look great lining up across from DRC. But it's going to be tough when we have to play the nickel and put perennial Pro Bowl corner Asante Samuel out there. :cool:

Greenlawler
07-30-2011, 03:10 AM
Maybe... we'll see if Britt can stay out of jail.

Sad but True.

Epc0tphr34k
07-30-2011, 03:14 PM
Boy, he's going to look great lining up across from DRC. But it's going to be tough when we have to play the nickel and put perennial Pro Bowl corner Asante Samuel out there. :cool:

agree 100%