• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

**Breaking news** Judge ends NFL lockout. Sides with players.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Deeko said:
So leave. If the players really are the product, and not what the NFL has created, form a new league. Nothing is stopping them. I'm sure NBC and TNT would be more than happy to pick up a pro football league headlined by Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. What is the NFL doing to keep this from happening?

I addressed the fatal flaw in Simmons' article - that they keep making more and more, yet they keep asking for more and more. They aren't making more and more - that's the point.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but the owners take more from the public, at least we watch the players and they sacrifice their bodies. The owners need to take from the players and lock them out BECAUSE THEY PUT PUBLIC MONEY INTO THEIR EXTRAVAGANT STADIUMS??? And please, like "extra jobs and tax revenue" makes up for the capital cost.

Certainly you need both parties to make a product that we all love, but honestly, fuck the owners, taking from the public and then just locking both players and fans out of it.
 
IAteYourMother said:
I'm sorry, but the owners take more from the public, at least we watch the players and they sacrifice their bodies. The owners need to take from the players and lock them out BECAUSE THEY PUT PUBLIC MONEY INTO THEIR EXTRAVAGANT STADIUMS??? And please, like "extra jobs and tax revenue" makes up for the capital cost.

Certainly you need both parties to make a product that we all love, but honestly, fuck the owners, taking from the public and then just locking both players and fans out of it.
Click to expand...

here's a crazy concept, you want the owners to take less from the public to have their stadiums up, maybe just perhaps the owners then in turn need someway to have extra funds to do that.
 
lupi said:
here's a crazy concept, you want the owners to take less from the public to have their stadiums up, maybe just perhaps the owners then in turn need someway to have extra funds to do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah crazy concept, only it's after you've built many new stadiums. So you take advantage of the public and then you fuck them. So I'm supposed to root for the owners here??
 
they just paid for one if not two on their own and have already pledged significant amounts for a third. Last I heard the owners submitted 2 proposals without response from the players, one the day they decided to decertify and another this last week while in the mandated bargaining session. why haven't we heard anything from the players other than we look forward to the next court date.
 
Deeko said:
I like Bill Simmons - but no, he did not nail it. The whole premise of his "hypothetical" revolves around the fact that the hypothetical owners keep making more and more profit. This is not the case in the NFL. Sure, revenue increases - but profit doesn't necessarily go in step. Running a stadium ain't cheap, neither is a training staff, coaching staff, scouting department, flights, insurance, taxes...need I continue?

Only one team has public financials - the Packers. A smaller market team, but a very popular, successful one. They made a meager $5 million in profit last year. That's it! That's less than six of their players earned by themselves!

I'm sure there are teams that make money - I doubt the Patriots or Steelers are hutting for money. However, look at the Cowboys - sure, I bet they make more than your average team, but they also just paid something like $750 million on a new stadium. And what about small market teams? Do you really think the Bills and Jaguars are keeping up with the big guys?

You might say "open the books and prove it", but as has been said...they really shouldn't have to, they're private companies. Plus, remember that they aren't just bargaining with the players, they also bargain with each other on revenue sharing deals, and I highly doubt each team wants to show their hand to the others.

Either way, its very disingenuous to assume that NFL teams are in the wrong here just because the owners are rich and the NFL generates revenue. Most owners made money through other means - Jerry Jones was an oil tycoon, for example, and a lot of their "wealth" is tied up in the assets of the team.
Click to expand...

This best post in the thread. I'm not exactly known as anti labor in P&N but it's unsound business practice to open your books to potential rivals and other teams most of all. Packers goes a long way to prove pro teams make diddly squat and it's more about power, image and prestige for your aimless billionaire than profit.

I wish owners would say fuck it though, we'll open them if we get half profits, players salary is other half, bet players would STFU real quick like. Fair is right down the middle, 50% capital 50% labor, I wager it's more like 10-30% capital and 70-90% goes to labor in NFL.
 
Last edited:
IAteYourMother said:
I'm sorry, but the owners take more from the public, at least we watch the players and they sacrifice their bodies. The owners need to take from the players and lock them out BECAUSE THEY PUT PUBLIC MONEY INTO THEIR EXTRAVAGANT STADIUMS??? And please, like "extra jobs and tax revenue" makes up for the capital cost.

Certainly you need both parties to make a product that we all love, but honestly, fuck the owners, taking from the public and then just locking both players and fans out of it.
Click to expand...

1) "Take" from the public? They took nothing - the public gave. If you don't like it, stand up to it. If you're lucky, it will end up like the Patriots, and the owner will find another way to finance it. If you aren't, you'll end up like Seattle and lose your team to a city that will pay. The important part is - they aren't taking anything, you're giving.

2) Generally, when the public finances these stadiums, guess who owns them? The public. The big, fancy new Cowboys stadium? Jerry Jones contributed about $700-$800 million. The city of Arlington put in about $325 million. Guess who owns it? I'll give you a hint - it ain't the old oil tycoon.
 
Deeko said:
However, most of them didn't get rich by being bad businessmen, so they're taking steps to ensure that their product is still profitable. Steps like not wanting to give Jamarcus Russell $60 million. Seems like a sound strategy to me.
Click to expand...

then why don't they just... i dunno... not give jafatass russell $60 million? nothing says you need to sign your draft picks, and given how the same teams tend to be in the first few picks of the draft every year, they'd be better off not signing those top picks.



anyway, the media seems to have completely missed the boat on this thing. congress yanked the power to issue injunctions in labor battles from the courts decades ago. the NFLPA decertified as a union and for some reason the trial court figured that was enough to make it not a labor battle. i would guess the NLRB has that power now.
 
ElFenix said:
then why don't they just... i dunno... not give jafatass russell $60 million? nothing says you need to sign your draft picks, and given how the same teams tend to be in the first few picks of the draft every year, they'd be better off not signing those top picks.
Click to expand...

Much like how the players want things like minimum salaries, the owners want things like maximum rookie salaries. If the players want to bargain collectively, well, the owners can take advantage of that too - its not a one way street.
 
ElFenix said:
then why don't they just... i dunno... not give jafatass russell $60 million? nothing says you need to sign your draft picks, and given how the same teams tend to be in the first few picks of the draft every year, they'd be better off not signing those top picks.
Click to expand...

there's a reason they want a rookie cap.

anyway, the media seems to have completely missed the boat on this thing. congress yanked the power to issue injunctions in labor battles from the courts decades ago. the NFLPA decertified as a union and for some reason the trial court figured that was enough to make it not a labor battle. i would guess the NLRB has that power now.[/QUOTE]

it was obvious a shame move as instead of negotiating as the players thought if they could keep fighting in the minnesota district court they would continue to win. seems the judges outside of minnesota also realized that.
 
This has nothing to do with the owners "ensuring a profit". They are doing just fine and taking almost zero risk, especially backed by the tax payer stadium subsidies and guaranteed TV revenues. Let me say that again: they have no risk. NFL player contracts are not guaranteed. The franchises themselves have inherent value because of the anti trust exemption and significant barrier to entry.

And the players are not asking for the books to be made public. They have repeatedly said that they would involve a third party auditor under strictest discretion.

Yet that doesn't stop the same tired "free market" (which is totally irrlevent to a league that has an antitrust exemption) talking points from being trumpeted by the same ideologues.

It is a very simple, very basic concept of negotiation. The owners have asked for very specific $ concessions from the players. Fine, they may be warranted, but that doesn't preclude the necessity for the owners to justify the claims like you would have to do in any arbitration. They don't want to, which leads to the very clear presumtpion that they have something to hide and/or they are lying/exaggerating.

And spare me the "shameful move" bullshit on the decertification. The players association has taken some poor stances in the past, but this time around they are not the culprits, the owners are. The players were willing to sit at the table andhonestly negotiate but the owners wouldn't. Then they locked the players out. Using your logic, that's the shameful move.

But hey, go ahead and spit out more tired irrelevent rhetoric and pound your chest some more. I am sure you think you're right, even though you quite simply are not.
 
Last edited:
TheAdvocate said:
This has nothing to do with the owners "ensuring a profit". They are doing just fine and taking almost zero risk, especially backed by the tax payer stadium subsidies and guaranteed TV revenues.
Click to expand...

hello jacksonville.

Let me say that again: they have no risk. NFL player contracts are not guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Let me say that again, none of the professional leagues have mandated guaranteed contracts.

The franchises themselves have inherent value because of the anti trust exemption and significant barrier to entry.
Click to expand...

Shows how little you know.

And the players are not asking for the books to be made public. They have repeatedly said that they would involve a third party auditor under strictest discretion.
Click to expand...

the absurdity of this statement is without limit.


It is a very simple, very basic concept of negotiation. The owners have asked for very specific $ concessions from the players. Fine, they may be warranted, but that doesn't preclude the necessity for the owners to justify the claims like you would have to do in any arbitration. They don't want to, which leads to the very clear presumtpion that they have something to hide and/or they are lying/exaggerating.
Click to expand...

Of recent count, through forms of arbitration the owners have offered 2 separate proposals. The count on player response is still sitting at 0.

And spare me the "shameful move" bullshit on the decertification. The players association has taken some poor stances in the past, but this time around they are not the culprits, the owners are. The players were willing to sit at the table andhonestly negotiate but the owners wouldn't. Then they locked the players out. Using your logic, that's the shameful move.
Click to expand...

lockout did not occur until after the players refused to negotiate further leaving the owners with no other options as the league year deadline had been reached without the players willing to negotiate.

But hey, go ahead and spit out more tired irrelevent rhetoric and pound your chest some more. I am sure you think you're right, even though you quite simply are not.
Click to expand...

maybe not, but at least I'm not as wrong as you.
 
lupi said:
Shows how little you know.


the absurdity of this statement is without limit.


maybe not, but at least I'm not as wrong as you.
Click to expand...

Irrefutable logic. Really, just crushing points. Where did you perfect your technique? Kindergarten?
 
They'll never cancel the (NFL) season, players would lose way too much. Absent of a sudden supreme Court decision that these lockouts are illegal, lockouts are here to stay.
 
lupi said:
They'll never cancel the (NFL) season, players would lose way too much. Absent of a sudden supreme Court decision that these lockouts are illegal, lockouts are here to stay.
Click to expand...

If the lockouts stay...there won't be a season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top