Who is "greedy" here?

[rskinsfan10]

I keep reading members here say that Upshaw and the players are greedy and are at fault here. I've also read people say that Upshaw isn't working in the best interest of the players.

I just saw Upshaw say that under the current agreement, the players receive 59.8% of revenues. The owners offered something around 56%. So with revenues climbing, the owners actually expect the players to take LESS in the future then they already are making, while they themselves not only pocket the difference in those percentages along with the other revenue increases?

I'm curious, why are so many of you quick to piss on the players and Upshaw when it becomes increasingly clear that they are simply trying to at the minimum maintain what they are currently receiving? It would be different if the league was losing money. Under that scenario, I would think that everyone would need to bite the bullet. That's not the case however.

[PennSkinsFan]

I keep reading members here say that Upshaw and the players are greedy and are at fault here. I've also read people say that Upshaw isn't working in the best interest of the players.

I just saw Upshaw say that under the current agreement, the players receive 59.8% of revenues. The owners offered something around 56%. So with revenues climbing, the owners actually expect the players to take LESS in the future then they already are making, while they themselves not only pocket the difference in those percentages along with the other revenue increases?

I'm curious, why are so many of you quick to piss on the players and Upshaw when it becomes increasingly clear that they are simply trying to at the minimum maintain what they are currently receiving? It would be different if the league was losing money. Under that scenario, I would think that everyone would need to bite the bullet. That's not the case however.

Yeah I saw that too kenny. Actually heard earlier today that the disagreement holding everything up though is not even between NFLPA and NFL owners,but between small rev owners and big rev owners. Don't know how true that is. Think I heard it on Total Acess.

[HAWGZHEAD]

I don't think we will get the real story until it is all over with. Personally I think it is revenue squabbling myself, but the players deserve the money they are asking for, they are the ones out their on the field. The players are the product they are what the owners are selling. Chicken and the egg arguement I guess.

LMAO, rskinfan10.

[hail2skins]

Good question. I missed part of the story on Sportscenter when they said the NFL's union laison made a statement.

I don't know who to believe here. If revenues have increased then the percentage could stay the same and it will be more money. The only thing I could offer is that the owners lowered the percentage because the revenues (TV revs) increased dramatically. I don't know if I'm making sense here but that's the only thing I could think of. I'm not placing blame because I believe there's enough to go around.

[Fathead]

I keep reading members here say that Upshaw and the players are greedy and are at fault here. I've also read people say that Upshaw isn't working in the best interest of the players.

I just saw Upshaw say that under the current agreement, the players receive 59.8% of revenues. The owners offered something around 56%. So with revenues climbing, the owners actually expect the players to take LESS in the future then they already are making, while they themselves not only pocket the difference in those percentages along with the other revenue increases?

I'm curious, why are so many of you quick to piss on the players and Upshaw when it becomes increasingly clear that they are simply trying to at the minimum maintain what they are currently receiving? It would be different if the league was losing money. Under that scenario, I would think that everyone would need to bite the bullet. That's not the case however.


The difference being it was 59.8% of a smaller pie. Some revenue was not included in the old deal that now would be. increase the pie, the rate goes down .

[redskinz#1fan]

Yes they are offering a smaller %, because now they will be pulling the money from a bigger pot. So the players will still be getting more money in the end, just on paper the % will be smaller. Well this is how I understand it.

[hail2skins]

The other part is Gene is saying 60% is 60% no matter what the revenues are. Don't offer us less.

[redskin_rich]

To answer this in the simplest way, all of them are greedy.

I am not sure about the numbers but I think the 59.8 that the players got in '05 was the highest of a growing number. It was lower before that and increased each year. Now they are trying to settle on a number and I think a compromise is in order. 58-59 sounds good to me.

Again, I am not sure about this but either way, the alternative is going to hurt the players more than the owners.

[Chief Seeway]

I think owners wanting new stadiums has something to do with it also.

[rskinsfan10]

The difference being it was 59.8% of a smaller pie. Some revenue was not included in the old deal that now would be. increase the pie, the rate goes down .Under that theory, the owners collect a bigger increase then the players. Either way, the players increase isn't in line with current levels. Let's not forget, they are the ones that actually provide the product. Why exactly should they accept that?

[Fathead]

Under that theory, the owners collect a bigger increase then the players. Either way, the players increase isn't in line with current levels. Let's not forget, they are the ones that actually provide the product. Why exactly should they accept that?


The owners were keeping all of the money not in the formula before, now they are sharing it, so it would seem that the players would need to offer something back due to that. At least in where I learned about negotiations.

[Chief Seeway]

Under that theory, the owners collect a bigger increase then the players. Either way, the players increase isn't in line with current levels. Let's not forget, they are the ones that actually provide the product. Why exactly should they accept that?

Here's another question. NFL is entertainment so should the players be paid solely on performance?

[rskinsfan10]

Here's another question. NFL is entertainment so should the players be paid solely on performance?Not unless that same standard is going to be held for all forms of entertainment, including other sports leagues.

[BandWagon]

I think for me, I tend to side with the owners on this sort of thing. First, off though, I really don't know who to believe, so I'm "cautiously" siding with the owners. I think the reason why I tend to do this is because I think the owners have invested a lot of money in purchasing this teams, (some) have huge obligations with leases for facilities. They take sole responsibility for pricing, marketing, branding...all those decisions that ultimately lead to success of the franchises and collectively the league. Tags statement recently about investing in enterprises that have led to the success of the league. I think about all the outreach programs, NFL Europe, Punt Pass and Kick...there's a lot of investment going on there....

So I guess in a nutshell I really view the players as employees and since I stand for free markets and enterprise, the owners, in my mind, have stronger footing on which to stand in these discussions. I respect the players rights to holdout or strike, etc. as their counter balance and I respect the rights of the owners to field replacement players. The players risk their health, but really have no where near as much of their financial health at risk as owners.

Hope that helps explain where I "tend" to position myself in these deals.

[rskinsfan10]

The owners were keeping all of the money not in the formula before, now they are sharing it, so it would seem that the players would need to offer something back due to that. At least in where I learned about negotiations.What money are the sharing that they weren't sharing before?

[LadyNRedskinsfan]

so what does the other .2% equal out to monetarily?

[rskinsfan10]

so what does the other .2% equal out to monetarily?I've heard that each percentage point equates to $10mil per team.

[Chief Seeway]

Not unless that same standard is going to be held for all forms of entertainment, including other sports leagues.

I'm all for it but it will never happen.

I'm curious if other unions are run like this. Auto, electricians, plumbers, etc.

[Fathead]

What money are the sharing that they weren't sharing before?



The whole local revenue bit the owners keep whining about sharing. The reason the whole sharing bit is a problem is that now that would be included in the formula to figure out what the players get, and the small teams say they would have to pay more percentage wise than the large teams.

So local revenue is now in the formula, so the players have a bigger pie. So the owners said we're giving you this, so you cut the percentage slightly and the balance stays close to what has been working. I'm not saying the owners are playing friendly, but it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to drop the percentage slightly.

[Chief Seeway]

I think for me, I tend to side with the owners on this sort of thing. First, off though, I really don't know who to believe, so I'm "cautiously" siding with the owners. I think the reason why I tend to do this is because I think the owners have invested a lot of money in purchasing this teams, (some) have huge obligations with leases for facilities. They take sole responsibility for pricing, marketing, branding...all those decisions that ultimately lead to success of the franchises and collectively the league. Tags statement recently about investing in enterprises that have led to the success of the league. I think about all the outreach programs, NFL Europe, Punt Pass and Kick...there's a lot of investment going on there....

So I guess in a nutshell I really view the players as employees and since I stand for free markets and enterprise, the owners, in my mind, have stronger footing on which to stand in these discussions. I respect the players rights to holdout or strike, etc. as their counter balance and I respect the rights of the owners to field replacement players. The players risk their health, but really have no where near as much of their financial health at risk as owners.

Hope that helps explain where I "tend" to position myself in these deals.

This sums up my stance as well.

[hail2skins]

The whole local revenue bit the owners keep whining about sharing. The reason the whole sharing bit is a problem is that now that would be included in the formula to figure out what the players get, and the small teams say they would have to pay more percentage wise than the large teams.

So local revenue is now in the formula, so the players have a bigger pie. So the owners said we're giving you this, so you cut the percentage slightly and the balance stays close to what has been working. I'm not saying the owners are playing friendly, but it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to drop the percentage slightly.Has it been decided that local revenues would be included? The pie is bigger because of the new tv deals.

[Dolla Bill]

Who is greedy? The fans.

:D

[rskinsfan10]

The whole local revenue bit the owners keep whining about sharing. The reason the whole sharing bit is a problem is that now that would be included in the formula to figure out what the players get, and the small teams say they would have to pay more percentage wise than the large teams.

So local revenue is now in the formula, so the players have a bigger pie. So the owners said we're giving you this, so you cut the percentage slightly and the balance stays close to what has been working. I'm not saying the owners are playing friendly, but it doesn't seem terribly unreasonable to drop the percentage slightly.Did I miss something? I thought that local revenue wasn't in the pie, and that is the reason why the owners themselves cannot agree. Are you assuming that it is/will be included?

[Fathead]

Has that been decided that local revenues would be included? The pie is bigger because of the new tv deals.

All of this is how I understand things:


From what I've read, the percentage the players would get in a new deal is formulated from "total football revenue" which includes local revenue, rather than the "defined gross revenue" from before.


This is what is causing the small owner's problem. Let's say that the new formula says the teams have to pay 50 mil from the local revenue stream. Each of the 32 teams would need to pay 1.5 mil or so. Well, the Cardinals only made 5 mil in local revenue, while the skins made 70 mil in local revenue. Bidwell whines that he's paying 30% of his revenue while Snyder only pays 2%.



But like I said, I don't think the owners are being friendly, but I don't think the players are either.

[hail2skins]

All of this is how I understand things:

From what I've read, the percentage the players would get in a new deal is formulated from "total football revenue" which includes local revenue, rather than the "defined gross revenue" from before.

This is what is causing the small owner's problem. Let's say that the new formula says the teams have to pay 50 mil from the local revenue stream. Each of the 32 teams would need to pay 1.5 mil or so. Well, the Cardinals only made 5 mil in local revenue, while the skins made 70 mil in local revenue. Bidwell whines that he's paying 30% of his revenue while Snyder only pays 2%.

But like I said, I don't think the owners are being friendly, but I don't think the players are either.This is not how I understand it.

[Fathead]

that's how I had explained to me. I could be wrong. If I am, I apologize.

[hail2skins]

Mort just said there's a proposal from the NFLPA that includes 59.5% of the revenues with cash over cap issues included.

Also, he reported Arrington is no longer a Redskin. Arrington paid $4 million to the Skins to become a free agent.

[Fathead]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095

this story talks about how the players want local revenue added to the formula, and how the small teams are whining about it.

[hail2skins]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2354095

this story talks about how the players want local revenue added to the formula, and how the small teams are whining about it.Yeah, but it doesn't mean it's there yet.

[Fathead]

I've not seen anything that says the owners are against the change, just that the small teams are whining.

[akhhorus]

They're both greedy. They've got the most profitable sport in human history, sitting on over 2 billion a year in profit and they can't work something out? I blame the owners as much as I do the players. If they don't work something out, they'll both pay the penalty.

[Emmanouel8]

If your a socialist the owners are greedy, if you're a capitalist the players are. I'd say the players have more to lose in all of this than the owners, they've proved that before. If it were up to me I'd erase the cap all together, that way we'd be in the Super bowl every other year at least.

[Axegrinder]

The NFLPA is trying to get the best deal possible for "all" of the players.
After all,they're the ones who are putting their bodies on the line.
What's the average NFL career? 2.something years?

On the management side,they hold all the financial risks.
Players come and players go,but the teams carry on.
It is a business,but you have to know your role within the league.

I have a seperate set of issues with the NFL:

I think that they should up the payday for the playoffs and the SuperBowl,where it becomes a major incentive for all teams to get there.
In the old days,that was the biggest of all paydays.
Now,the players are being paid,regardless if they make the postseason or not.The same should hold true for the owners.

My other issue is officiating.
The NFL can throw all this CBA stuff out the window if the games are being decided by poor officiating.

[smoak]

Right now I hate both sides and I am about to look for a hobby or something else I can do with my Sundays in the fall. I blame the Players Union, and I blame the Owners. I just want a resolution.

[RedskinsDave]

I actually support the players for the most part. I think Upshaw has taken a lot of chances with their side and I posted a thread about the players having more to lose because they still do. As a fan, the players winning means there will be a cap but at a reasonablt high number. I think that's fair.

[bgforever]

I keep reading members here say that Upshaw and the players are greedy and are at fault here. I've also read people say that Upshaw isn't working in the best interest of the players.

I just saw Upshaw say that under the current agreement, the players receive 59.8% of revenues. The owners offered something around 56%. So with revenues climbing, the owners actually expect the players to take LESS in the future then they already are making, while they themselves not only pocket the difference in those percentages along with the other revenue increases?

I'm curious, why are so many of you quick to piss on the players and Upshaw when it becomes increasingly clear that they are simply trying to at the minimum maintain what they are currently receiving? It would be different if the league was losing money. Under that scenario, I would think that everyone would need to bite the bullet. That's not the case however.

Gotta admit, upon my misread or the information flow not being updated at the time it first came out, in Yahoo.com/sports, showed the opposite. So naturally I took a leak. Now as far as after the correction, I backed off, and did my under the rock routine :)

The original read was players offered 58.2 - 58.5 and I thought geez, that's a good medium between the two parties. However, Upshaw fired back and stated that is a misprint or whatever because the closest these guys offered was only a .4 increase from what their original offer of 56.2 to the NFLPA.

I will refrain from this leaking at these guys and find a tree next time.