Who do you side with?

[eva4ben-gal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741866' post='993375']
I dont think anyone really believes thats what they want, I think thats an extreme stance for the purpose of pulling the owners to a better "middle number".

Said it before in the other thread, I think you could get a deal done tomorrow if the owners completely opened their books today (even if they only opened them to an arbiter)
[/quote]
The players have been the most manipulative group in their proceedings and in relation to the media because they know they are going after something they don't deserve. The owners should absolutely NOT have to open their books to their EMPLOYEES who are demanding a raise. It's the same as the Mike Brown-Carson Palmer debate - do you give in and set a very bad precedent or do you dig in your heels and stick up for what is right?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Who Dey Time' timestamp='1305741960' post='993378']
You can argue that and I might agree with you to a point but it still doesn't address the issue of labor costs (players) rising at a far faster rate than revenues which is the big issue in this negotiation.
[/quote]


And if contracts were guaranteed and teams didnt have the right to cut or renegoiate players for finical reasons I'd be in complete agreement with you.

[eva4ben-gal]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741866' post='993375']
I dont think anyone really believes thats what they want, I think thats an extreme stance for the purpose of pulling the owners to a better "middle number".

Said it before in the other thread, I think you could get a deal done tomorrow if the owners completely opened their books today (even if they only opened them to an arbiter)
[/quote]
The players have been the most manipulative group in their proceedings and in relation to the media because they know they are going after something they don't deserve. The owners should absolutely NOT have to open their books to their EMPLOYEES who are demanding a raise. It's the same as the Mike Brown-Carson Palmer debate - do you give in and set a very bad precedent or do you dig in your heels and stick up for what is right?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305742028' post='993381']
plus, revenue sharing makes sense to a point. You seem to want to use it as a crutch.


Revenue sharing should exist to keep a competitive balance in the league. It should NOT exist to compensate for out of control player salaries and benefits.
[/quote]


Revenue sharing doesnt exist for out of control player salaries. There is a cap, that cap is or should be a percentage of all revenue, if teams spend to that cap they have to make the hard choices on player contracts.

THAT is the problem. The Dan Snyders of the world were rewarded with an expansion of the cap.

[Tigris]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1305739464' post='993345']
Logic fail.

In your example, the players should be represented by the t-shirts, not the register monkey.

Demand of t-shirts goes up, so should the price.

You forget that the owners were the ones who were driving the price of the players up with stupid contract offers. Players can't offer themselves stupid deals. The owners have themselves to blame.

You just got your ass SERVED.
[/quote]

The players may sell, but ultimately it's the game, which would be my t-shirts. You wouldn't go buy a Graham Harrell jersey if he worked at Walmart greeting people as they walked in... well, maybe you would - creep.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305742134' post='993383']
The players have been the most manipulative group in their proceedings and in relation to the media because they know they are going after something they don't deserve. The owners should absolutely NOT have to open their books to their EMPLOYEES who are demanding a raise. It's the same as the Mike Brown-Carson Palmer debate - do you give in and set a very bad precedent or do you dig in your heels and stick up for what is right?
[/quote]


I completely disagree with this. In a collective bargaining situation ownership and unions should have the right to completely see all the finical information.

[mongo]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305741866' post='993375']
Said it before in the other thread, I think you could get a deal done tomorrow if the owners completely opened their books today (even if they only opened them to an arbiter)
[/quote]

I don't (and I still haven't decided if it's a demand that should be met. It's a tough dilemma to sort out). Aside from just being complicated to sort through, perception is going to have both side pointing to the same numbers and telling different stories. In the long run, opening the books might be a good idea. Who knows. However, I don't believe it would make anything easier...

[sois]

[quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305741872' post='993376']
The Locos would sell out if they got all of the Patriots but not to Patriots fans. It would be Locos fans that wanted to jump on the bandwagon before the team won the title.
[/quote]

The Locos are back to back champions. They already won the title. So the only other explanation would have to be world class talent. Right?

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='mongo' timestamp='1305742514' post='993390']
I don't (and I still haven't decided if it's a demand that should be met. It's a tough dilemma to sort out). Aside from just being complicated to sort through, perception is going to have both side pointing to the same numbers and telling different stories. In the long run, opening the books might be a good idea. Who knows. However, I don't believe it would make anything easier...
[/quote]


Right but is that the point of an arbiter (or in this case the courts)?

[Tigris]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305740305' post='993354']
Im curious, what do you view as the risks of the owners?
[/quote]
They risk their livelihood and well being by starting a company with millions of dollars, of course.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305742475' post='993388']
The players may sell, but ultimately it's the game, which would be my t-shirts. You wouldn't go buy a Graham Harrell jersey if he worked at Walmart greeting people as they walked in... well, maybe you would - creep.
[/quote]


But if there were another T-Shirt shop with better quality T-Shirts would you continue to buy the T-Shirt you currently do?

[Tigris]

[quote name='eva4ben-gal' timestamp='1305740525' post='993356']


The t-shirts are the game of football. Players can come and go and the game still goes on. If all of the current players retired out of protest then the league would fill with lesser players, the product would suffer, but the same teams would still play the game by the same rules and fans would still watch because in the long run it's football they love, not the individual players.
[/quote]

Right on. I didn't read this before I posted my response. I could have just quoted you and been done with it.

The jerseys don't represent the player. The jerseys represent the company, the Cincinnati Bengals. The players are turned on over a number of things. Carson, Chad, Dillon, etc... send 'em off, but you still love your Bengals. Players are fun, but they aren't what make you love your team. Getting off track with this, I know - I'm just saying.

[Bengals1181]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305742376' post='993386']
[b]Revenue sharing doesnt exist for out of control player salaries.[/b] There is a cap, that cap is or should be a percentage of all revenue, if teams spend to that cap they have to make the hard choices on player contracts.

THAT is the problem. The Dan Snyders of the world were rewarded with an expansion of the cap.
[/quote]



ahhh, but that's what you just suggested it should do. I cited the packers as an example of a team who's profits have gone down over the last 4 years, in large part due to increased player salaries. And your suggestion was that if the league is still making a profit, then the owners need to find a better way to do revenue sharing to offset the decline in individual team profits.


That's complete BS.

[mongo]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305742668' post='993392']
Right but is that the point of an arbiter (or in this case the courts)?
[/quote]

Absolutely. I just don't think it will make things easier. It's obviously a different
situation, but I can't think of the last time numbers cleared up an argument on
these boards. Old should be the first to admit numbers and stats aren't truth.
They're just weapons to toss around... And when both sides are throwing numbers
at each other, no arguments really get settled easier or faster.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Bengals1181' timestamp='1305742995' post='993396']
ahhh, but that's what you just suggested it should do. I cited the packers as an example of a team who's profits have gone down over the last 4 years, in large part due to increased player salaries. And your suggestion was that if the league is still making a profit, then the owners need to find a better way to do revenue sharing to offset the decline in individual team profits.


That's complete BS.
[/quote]


That's what I would be suggesting if the contracts were guaranteed and everyone didnt have access to the same dollar amount salary cap, yes, they arent.

It's BS in the belief in the eyes of the capitalist. My argument is that the NFL isnt a capitalist system, and I dont think anyone really wants it to be ESPECIALLY if your a Bengals fan.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305742937' post='993395']
Right on. I didn't read this before I posted my response. I could have just quoted you and been done with it.

The jerseys don't represent the player. The jerseys represent the company, the Cincinnati Bengals. The players are turned on over a number of things. Carson, Chad, Dillon, etc... send 'em off, but you still love your Bengals. Players are fun, but they aren't what make you love your team. Getting off track with this, I know - I'm just saying.
[/quote]


Nobody loves an inferior product, if they did we wouldnt have been so angry about the 90s Bengals and demanded better from Mike Brown.

[quote name='mongo' timestamp='1305743045' post='993397']
Absolutely. I just don't think it will make things easier. It's obviously a different
situation, but I can't think of the last time numbers cleared up an argument on
these boards. Old should be the first to admit numbers and stats aren't truth.
They're just weapons to toss around... And when both sides are throwing numbers
at each other, no arguments really get settled easier or faster.
[/quote]


I dont disagree with that, but that's why you need the impartial party.

[Tigris]

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1305740852' post='993362']
No way, people watch the NFL cause it's the best of the best. If that wasn't the case, the UFL and CFL would be jam packed with fans. Minor league baseball stadiums would be just as full as MLB stadiums.

People don't love football just because it's football. Watching dudes do think you could never dream of is why people love football. Watching a bunch of fork lift operators line up at DT for the Bengals is not inspiring and doesn't draw tickets. Well, they might sell one ticket if one of them was real fat and could do a backflip
[/quote]

The rules in other leagues aren't even the same. Teams and the NFL spend millions to advertise their product to every person available every day. Forklift operators is a very stretched example. You would still get great football even if you took every NFL player right now and banned them for life.

If the CFL had a team in Cincinnati that had a huge stadium, millions of followers, and advertising out the ass as well as an annual massively aired draft, video game, jerseys everywhere, etc., don't you think it would have been more appealing to you as a kid and quite possibly would have made you latch on like you did with the Bengals? The CFL doesn't have the firepower to do a tenth of what the NFL does. Take all the NFL stars and send them to the UFL. I guarantee that the NFL attendances would not drop and they would not suffer at all. You plug and go. Field a winning team in the NFL and your seats and jerseys sell - no matter what shithead is advancing the ball.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305743618' post='993404']
The rules in other leagues aren't even the same. Teams and the NFL spend millions to advertise their product to every person available every day. Forklift operators is a very stretched example. You would still get great football even if you took every NFL player right now and banned them for life.

If the CFL had a team in Cincinnati that had a huge stadium, millions of followers, and advertising out the ass as well as an annual massively aired draft, video game, jerseys everywhere, etc., don't you think it would have been more appealing to you as a kid and quite possibly would have made you latch on like you did with the Bengals? The CFL doesn't have the firepower to do a tenth of what the NFL does. Take all the NFL stars and send them to the UFL. I guarantee that the NFL attendances would not drop and they would not suffer at all. You plug and go. Field a winning team in the NFL and your seats and jerseys sell - no matter what shithead is advancing the ball.
[/quote]


And that's exactly why the players cant just up and leave. The other leagues dont bring in the same revenue. Thus if they left they might get more control over their contracts in a different league because they have the superior talent but they would lose money.

The question would then be would you follow the superior product thus taking money away from the NFL and putting it into the other league which would over time increase the revenue of the other league to the level of the NFL today.

The question comes to this.

If there was another league with 32 teams in the same cities but the other league now had all the current NFL players, which league would you follow?

I dont follow the Cincinnati Bengals. I follow the Bengals because they are in Cincinnati.

[Tigris]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305742216' post='993384']
And if contracts were guaranteed and teams didnt have the right to cut or renegoiate players for finical reasons I'd be in complete agreement with you.
[/quote]
If the player can't agree to the terms of his employer, then he needs to find work elsewhere.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305744066' post='993407']
If the player can't agree to the terms of his employer, then he needs to find work elsewhere.
[/quote]


Which happens all the time in FA.

Were talking about the league on a whole though.

[|westside bengal|]

I dont think you can take sides. That is the problem. It is a partnership or it is nothing.

For those you side with the owners ask yourselves this: Where do you draw the line about maximizing profits?

What about the big market teams that don't want to share their revenue? What if Jerry Jones or Dan Snyder or owners of NY teams just say fuck you Cincy, Buffalo, Kansas City, Charlotte and the other 10-12 small market teams and stand up say it's our right to maximize our profits and we are not sharing anymore? What then? Are you ready to go back to NFL with 12-16 big market teams?

And the players have issues too. My biggest gripe with them is their "want it now" attitude. They haven't done near enough for the old timers who made this game what it is. And with 78% of NFL players bankrupt within 2 years of retirement I would be fighting for some sort of better retirement plan or deferred compensation.

IMHO.

[bengalsfansince68]

First...enough about the t-shirts! Your tees have absolutely nothing to do with collective bargaining in the NFL.
Reading this whole thing has put me a little on edge. I can't back this up with a link and I don't really remember which channel, but there was a discussion of this on a news/business type channel on XM Radio.

As they explained it, the real problem here is that the owners invested a significant percentage of their slice of the gigantic pie in bad real estate ventures and are scrambling to make up for it by taking back the previously negotiated numbers. Hardly surprising to me.

The history of owner-player negotiations span a century and several different sports. The owners have always been trying to screw the players on money at every turn, throughout. I forget the player but back in the forties or fifties a player won a triple crown in MLB and got a 20% cut shoved up his ass by the monopolistic owner. The owner did it because he could and players had absolutely no recourse until Curt Flood and some other players were forced to sue to be treated fairly. Since Flood, the owners have been on the wrong side of the law every single time this stuff goes to court and if I were betting, I'd sure put my money on them being on the wrong side again.

Just remember guys... Marge Schott cried poverty throughout her reign but when Tim Sabo sued and she was finally forced to open her books, her deceit was apparent.

[Tigris]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1305742822' post='993394']
But if there were another T-Shirt shop with better quality T-Shirts would you continue to buy the T-Shirt you currently do?
[/quote]

Yes, definitely.

They would have to charge more because it would cost more to make their shirts. That would turn me off. Plus, it won't happen because the advertising and ability to present the store in a positive manner (out of the owner's pocket) and get the name out there will always be far greater than any sort of store that would open and be a competitor.

Saying another league will get the cream of the crop is crazy. You never hear of a player wanting to grow up to play in the CFL. It's all about the NFL and the TEAMS that represent it.

[Jamie_B]

From the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html

[quote]NFL owners want guarantees no other business provides

I'm not sure why NFL players and fans should pay the estate taxes for Daniel Snyder's children, along with the little Bidwills and Maras. That's one way to think of the current NFL labor dispute. The owners are worried that $9 billion isn't enough revenue growth, and their heirs might someday have to fly commercial. So they're demanding that everybody pony up.

That's really what this is all about. The owners are lucky that the collective bargaining process is so convoluted, and the language of their argument with the players is hard to understand. Because when you peel away the headachy legal terms and expose their real position, it can be summed up very simply: They believe they are entitled to make money every year, even in the midst of disastrous recessions. They think they are owed a living.



They also think your money is actually their money. Or at least, it used to be yours, before you paid it at the box office, paid it at the concessions, paid it in the parking lot, and paid it in countless other ways - from those deplorable "seat licenses" to tax breaks and public funds for new stadiums and renovations, where they can charge you even more.

What are owners really owed in return for their investments? That's what fans must decide, in weighing whose side to support in the impending lockout and labor impasse, which, judging by the belligerent maneuvering of the past week now, likely will last many months and disrupt next season. The core issue is this: Owners resent the fact that a lot of your money is going into the pockets of players, instead of into their own. They contend the players are overpaid, and they are threatening to lock them out as of March 4 if they don't agree to a significant cut. They say this is a necessary step to ensure future profitability.

But in what other industry do business owners act so entitled to make money every year into the limitless future? According to Forbes, the NFL's revenue has increased 43 percent since 2006 to $9.3 billion. Under the current agreement, the first billion goes to the 32 owners right off the top, while players receive a 60 percent split of revenues after that. Now the owners are demanding another billion off the top.

Who exactly is more overpaid? To repeat, the argument is over money that comes out of the fans' pockets. The only question is who should get more of it, the owners or the players that the fans pay to see? After all, they don't pay to see Snyder smoke a cigar, or consult with media advisors.

The owners justify their position by decrying rising "player costs." Player compensation has doubled since 2003, but that's because the wealthiest owners have driven up the market for their stars. Pete Rozelle's wife once observed that, "every owner I ever met thinks he's just two players from winning the Super Bowl."

The cost argument really should be an internal quarrel between the owners. If some of them aren't making enough money, or are even losing money - if some of them built sports palaces and some didn't - whose fault is that? Maybe they don't need a better collective bargaining agreement. Maybe they need a budget.

Yet the owners quite clearly want the players to pick up the tab for some of their excesses - and the fans, too. On Tuesday, Commissioner Roger Goodell made it plain once again that the real driving force behind the owner demands is that they want to free up revenue for "innovation and growth," namely the "costs of financing, building, maintaining and operating stadiums." But bigger stadiums may well mean more expenses shifted to the fans.

What's more, they appear to be digging in, judging by their latest actions. Last week; they walked away from a bargaining session; this week; they filed a charge against the players' union with the National Labor Relations Board. One day, they refuse to talk; the next, they accuse the other side of not negotiating; and then, the next say that the season could be in jeopardy if a deal isn't reached soon.

What's really going on? The suspicion here is that the league owners are simply tempted to see if they can do as well in labor negotiations as the NHL did in improving its financial condition with a lockout a few years ago. But there is a big difference between the NFL and the NHL: Hockey is not nearly so profitable, and the lockout and the accompanying risk of alienating their fans were therefore worth it.

As long the NFL is raking in $9 billion and so many owners are clearly making money, it's pretty difficult for them to claim to be on the high ground, or to cry poor.

It's not like they're the airline industry, or even hockey.

So far they have utterly failed to make the case that they are so financially imperiled that players should make sacrifices for them, or fans either. For one thing, they continue to refuse to open their books, presumably because the results could be embarrassing.

Disclosure of their real conditions might reveal just how ungenerous they are with the players they claim to care about. Or it might reveal just how mercilessly hard they are working to strip every dime out of the fans.

The next time a league official claims the players make "outrageous sums," as Goodell does, fans should ask themselves the following questions: How much are owners making? And how much of that is due to government subsidies?

Are teams really in danger of losing money - or do they merely crave unlimited "growth?" Would a new labor agreement work for or against the interest of the ticket-buyers? If the owners win a billion-dollar concession from players, what will they do with the money? Will prices go down?

Do they really need a new deal - or have they been getting a sweetheart one all along?[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Tigris' timestamp='1305745836' post='993418']
Yes, definitely.

They would have to charge more because it would cost more to make their shirts. That would turn me off. Plus, it won't happen because the advertising and ability to present the store in a positive manner (out of the owner's pocket) and get the name out there will always be far greater than any sort of store that would open and be a competitor.

Saying another league will get the cream of the crop is crazy. You never hear of a player wanting to grow up to play in the CFL. It's all about the NFL and the TEAMS that represent it.
[/quote]


Right but again there is no other T-Shirt shop here and the government is essentially saying that your shop gets an exemption to the rules of capitalism because of it, so why shouldn't you have to give up something like the right of your employees to see your books because of it?