Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer

[rbaloha1]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Jeff-Pash-reacts-to-DeMaurice-Smiths-criticism-of-NFLs-last-offer.html

Now we're talkin!

[Bretsky]

confused as I thought you were the far side hater of the owners

[SkinBasket]

the worst deal in the history of professional sports

So what's worse? Slavery or the worst deal in the history of professional sports? Apparently the worst deal in the history of professional sports, according to Smith.

The kind of childish, idiotic statements being made by the players and their "representatives" only underscore how impossible negotiation with them is by reasonable, able-minded, educated people. It must have been like talking to monkeys.

[gbgary]

...and everytime someone from the nfl makes a statement about what was offered they're called liars. don't know what to believe.

[Tony Oday]

What is the players proposal?

[rbaloha1]

What is the players proposal?

litigation

[Lurker64]

litigation

Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.

[rbaloha1]

Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.

Its no different than the owner's always wanting a lockout. Both sides followed through. Please do not respond with blah blah. Mahalo.

[Smidgeon]

What is the players proposal?

Interesting question to which I haven't yet heard an answer. In my opinion, the player's proposal is probably "status quo" to the last deal (not the last year). Everyone knows the owners opted out because they thought the deal favored the players too much. So I would imagine the players are using the last deal as their starting point. Now, since they haven't really seemed to counter-propose anything, I don't think their position has changed.

[Bretsky]

Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.


FIVE CLAP WINNER POST IMO

[rbaloha1]

FIVE CLAP WINNER POST IMO

a member of the echo chamber chimes in.

[Lurker64]

Its no different than the owner's always wanting a lockout. Both sides followed through.

The key distinction is that from the NLRB's perspective, lockouts are legitimate. They're identical to strikes, except they're perpetrated by management and not labor. But there's nothing a priori unacceptable about a lockout, since one can always be avoided (and ended) by negotiating and it's the NLRB's goal to encourage such. The NLRB, however, has a vested interest in preventing sham-decertification-coupled-with-lawsuit as a negotiating practice since it is an inherently unfair negotiating strategy (and it ties up federal courts with an issue that should really just be resolved in a board room).

In principle, if a union should be allowed to strike then management should be allowed to lock out labor. If one isn't allowable, then the other shouldn't be either.

[rbaloha1]

You are correct under Pash's opinion, "A lockout is accepted practice under labor law, and that collective bargaining, rather than litigation, remains the best way to settle the sides' differences."

[gbgary]

here is a copy of the commish's letter...

http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110317/letter_goodell_3_17_2011.pdf

here is a copy of the player's response to it...

http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19/the-players-respond/#more-1245

[rbaloha1]

here is a copy of the commish's letter...

http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110317/letter_goodell_3_17_2011.pdf

here is a copy of the player's response to it...

http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19/the-players-respond/#more-1245

I heard about this on espn radio with John Clayton and Andrew Brandt. Brandt contends the owner's latest "proposal" are the "easy give" items in terms of pension and player safety. Revenue split will always remain the key and most contentious issue.

Currently only counsel from each side can negotiate until the April 6 hearing. Brandt stated litigation speeds up the process as opposed to negotiation only. According to Brandt

Lockout illegal -- 2010 contract remains and the 2011 season can start. Negotiations concurrently restart for a new CBA . Thank goodness Gov. Walker is involved.
Lockout legal -- Negotiations for a new CBA can resume ASAP.

[bobblehead]

Thank you for making the owner's case for them. The NFL's charge before the NLRB is that union bargained in bad faith all along, with no actual interest in getting a deal done and instead preferring litigation. If the NLRB agrees with you, this will potentially undo the NFL's decertification and put the union in a significantly disadvantageous position, staring up at a lockout that they have no recourse to end beyond bargaining.

THE PARTY OF NO!!!!

[rbaloha1]

More stuff from Brandt who studied the "proposal." The salary cap increase is paid to pensions -- not to current player salaries. TV revenue in several years is scheduled to increase from $4 billion to $8 billion. Future proposed salary caps are unreflective of this increased TV revenue.

[Lurker64]

From what I've been able to glean, the kerfuffle over the salary cap proposed last friday is a microcosm of the whole mess.

So the league initially proposes a salary cap structure, and the players propose a more generous one. Last friday, the league says essentially "okay, well... what about this number in the middle?" and what the league presented did not address how the cap might grow if the game grows beyond projections. So instead of asking "well, we might be able to work with that provided the cap increases x% of the total money the league makes beyond projections" the NFLPA presumed that the league was saying "you get none of any money above and beyond projections" and storms out in a huff to file a lawsuit.

I've honestly never seen two groups of adult men, with highly paid lawyers on staff to advise them, less capable of actually communicating with each other.

[mraynrand]

The players' response had the language and stance of a temper tantrum. "You didn't address this and this and this." Well, make a counter offer. For example, what if Moodys is wrong? What is your offer for percentage share of revenue.

If anyone knows of a responsible counter-offer that the players made, I'd appreciate the link. Otherwise, I have to believe those who said the players were interested in forcing litigation from the start.

[rbaloha1]

The players' response had the language and stance of a temper tantrum. "You didn't address this and this and this." Well, make a counter offer. For example, what if Moodys is wrong? What is your offer for percentage share of revenue.

If anyone knows of a responsible counter-offer that the players made, I'd appreciate the link. Otherwise, I have to believe those who said the players were interested in forcing litigation from the start.

Players always wanted litigation since according to Brandt it speeds up the negotiating process. Again its no different than the owners always wanting a lock-out to prevent the 2010 contract being enforced for the 2011 season. Show me the money!

[Lurker64]

Players always wanted litigation since according to Brandt it speeds up the negotiating process. Again its no different than the owners always wanting a lock-out to prevent the 2010 contract being enforced for the 2011 season. Show me the money!

Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.

The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)

[rbaloha1]

Litigation does not speed up the negotiating process. Negotiating speeds up the negotiation process. The players want litigation because they think they can get the best deal that way. Not because it's fair, or because it's efficient, but because that's how they think they can get the best deal. Like the lockout, it's just about creating leverage.

The interesting thing about the litigation strategy, is that if it backfires on the players they will have given the league a whole lot of leverage. Litigation carries risk for everybody involved (except the lawyers.)

B.S. The owners wanted to stall through negotiations. Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6. Brandt stated on espn radio everything is in place for an agreement -- its early in the negotiating process and both sides do not want to show their hand too early.

Litigation forces the owners to negotiate on more than just the easy takes.

[Patler]

here is a copy of the commish's letter...

http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110317/letter_goodell_3_17_2011.pdf

here is a copy of the player's response to it...

http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19/the-players-respond/#more-1245

WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.

All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:

Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."

I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.

[Lurker64]

Major issues shall be resolved on April 6 due to litigation not negotiating. True negotiating starts after April 6.

If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.


Brandt stated on espn radio everything is in place for an agreement -- its early in the negotiating process and both sides do not want to show their hand too early.

Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.

[rbaloha1]

If you think that anything is actually going to be decided on April 6, you seriously don't understand how the legal system works. Hearings for a preliminary injunction blocking a lockout *start* on April 6, to say nothing about the time it takes to reach a decision, and inevitable appeals (whichever side loses here will appeal). The actual details of Brady v. NFL won't be heard for months. A deal could get done by negotiating well before that.



Could you link to the podcast of the show? Or at least the name of the show, and the date and approximate time? This is at odds with everything that he's written for the NFP.

Dude, you do not understand the process according to Brandt. E-mail him. Seriously -- things can not always be explained with your mathematical equations.

Arrogant owners and Show Me the Money Players can not be easily resolved with formal negotiations.

If Mr. Smith hired you as a paid consultant how would you advise him in obtaining the best deal possible for the players?

[Lurker64]

When you assume that two sides in a negotiation are fundamentally unwilling to budge, then yes... litigation is pretty much your only means of forcing the other side to agree with you. However, assuming that two parties are fundamentally unwilling to budge in a negotiation defeats the actual purpose of negotiation. Obviously the owners were willing to budge, and if the players weren't then that bodes poorly for their ability to fend off the "sham decertification" charges.

One shouldn't get involved in negotiation unless one is willing to negotiate, and if you can't find anybody on your side who is actually willing to negotiate, then you really need to reconsider your stance.

[SkinBasket]

WOW! I am absolutely flabbergasted at the players response! If anyone needed more evidence that the NFLPA was not negotiating, but stalling, this letter is proof.

All players did was complain, criticize and demean offers put on the table by the owners. Not so much as a comment about a counteroffer from the players. Nothing that the players did in an effort to narrow the gap. It appears the "negotiations" went like this:

Players: "Make an offer"
Owners: "Here's a proposed framework."
Players: "Not good enough. Make a better offer."
Owners: "How about this?"
Players: "Nope, still not acceptable."
Owners: "Maybe this?"
Players: "Still not good enough. See you in court."

I would have expected the players to respond by explaining how they, in good faith, had tried to work toward a settlement. They offered absolutely no evidence of that.

Once again, it really appears that neither the players or their representatives had the mental capacity to negotiate. This letter evidences that the player position has been little more than "you didn't give us what we demanded." I don't think it was a communication problem, as someone suggested earlier. I think it was a understanding problem on the players part, of what exactly was being offered, what the consequences of the offer or litigation are (just like a couple folks here), and that when they broke from negotiations, they needed a plan to move forward that didn't involve making idiots out of themselves and their position on a daily basis. Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.

[swede]

Like I said, like dealing with monkeys. Greedy monkeys.

Simian Rice?

[swede]

Chimp Bailey? Frank Gorilla?

[Pugger]

To me it is becoming obvious the players want things to stay as they were in the old CBA and the owners say their profits are dropping because of player costs so they opted out. The ONLY thing I care about is what is good for the Green Bay Packers and I fear the players are hell bent on eliminating the salary cap and revenue sharing. As Packer fans we should be leary of this!

[mraynrand]

To me it is becoming obvious the players want things to stay as they were in the old CBA and the owners say their profits are dropping because of player costs so they opted out. The ONLY thing I care about is what is good for the Green Bay Packers and I fear the players are hell bent on eliminating the salary cap and revenue sharing. As Packer fans we should be leary of this!

I agree:

http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2008/denis_leary/denis_leary_03.jpg

[RashanGary]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.

DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.

I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.

[Lurker64]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand.

"The books" are almost never opened in collective bargaining negotiations. Are you saying that fair deals are never actually accomplished during collective bargaining?

[RashanGary]

I'm saying in litigation they will open the books so the NFLPA would be idiots to just agree to this. Take it all the way. It's their best bet and damn right that's where they wanted to go once they realized the owners were not going to let them see the numbers. Players are getting what they want. Owners aren't. The legal system is on the players side.

[Patler]

The NFL not opening their books shows they were never serious about agreeing to a fair deal that both sides can understand. They want the players to sign something when they don't know if it could have been better or not.

DeMaurice Smith is clearly an amateur compared to the NFL when it comes to public relations. It's too bad, I think he's the more reasonable party. Not opening the books is preposterous. Just take it to litigation where they'll sign a deal with full disclosure. Smart move, but the NFL chose it by not even being reasonable.

I'll bet the players do better with litigation than this deadline offer. Any takers? I hope it stretches into the season. I'd like to see the owners lose a couple billion and then get bent over in court.

There is a fundamental question everyone is ignoring:

If the player's income has increased by 100% in 10 years (which it basically would have under the owners proposal), is it fundamentally unfair if the owners profits grew by 125% (or more) in that same time frame?

You seem to suggest that it is, that fairness is achieved only if the owners profits grow no faster than the players'. I disagree.

[RashanGary]

We don't even know what fairness is, how to measure where it's been or how to predict where it's going, oh unless you take Jerry Jones word in good faith. No thanks, if I'm leading the NFLPA, I'm doing exactly what DeMaurice Smith is doing. Litigation, litigation, litigation. I think they're satisfied with not saying a word to the NFL right now. It's the NFL squirming, putting out these big press releases about how bad and mean DeMaurice Smith was.

[Lurker64]

I'm saying in litigation they will open the books so the NFLPA would be idiots to just agree to this. Take it all the way. It's their best bet and damn right that's where they wanted to go once they realized the owners were not going to let them see the numbers. Players are getting what they want. Owners aren't. The legal system is on the players side.

Why are you so convinced that the books will be opened in litigation. Discovery is an extremely contentious process, and by my count the NFL has better lawyers. It's entirely possible that, in discovery, the NFLPA will get less financial transparency than they were offered at the bargaining table.

To assume that the legal system is on the player's side is simply wrong. The legal system is on nobody's side. That's why it's an effective recourse for resolving disputes, since it's (in principle) unbiased.

[Patler]

We don't even know what fairness is, how to measure where it's been or how to predict where it's going, oh unless you take Jerry Jones word in good faith. No thanks, if I'm leading the NFLPA, I'm doing exactly what DeMaurice Smith is doing. Litigation, litigation, litigation. I think they're satisfied with not saying a word to the NFL right now. It's the NFL squirming, putting out these big press releases about how bad and mean DeMaurice Smith was.

If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.

[RashanGary]

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

[RashanGary]

If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.

In the world of negotiating, I don't think the NFL will have a very easy time convincing a shrewd and well trained professional that it's fair. It is where it is right now. Moving forward or backward is harder to accomplish than staying the same. I think that's what the NFL is trying to do, take a step forward with their profits. The NFLPA has the job of keepign it the same or getting better on their end. A lot of money is on the line and the players want to take it to litigation where they believe they'll get their best deal. Why is everyone so mad about that?

[Lurker64]

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

I agree with the supposition that the NFLPA believes that they will get a better deal in court.

What I am questioning, however, is whether the NFLPA will actually get a better deal in court.

It's entirely possible that the NFLPA loses in court, and has to accept a much worse deal, which is why I support negotiation over litigation. Litigation carries risk, negotiation doesn't.

What I am hoping is that the NFLPA simply hopes to use the initial courtroom decisions to move leverage and thereby get a deal done. However, if Judge Nelson doesn't find that granting a preliminary injunction blocking the lockout is appropriate (after all, no game checks are being lost) I'm not sure what the NFLPA will do now that they've lost considerable leverage in this gambit.

[Patler]

You guys can be open to the possiblity that the NFLPA really believes they'll get a better deal in court and that's why they're doing this.

I am convinced they believe the lawsuit is to their advantage. I have been arguing all along that they stonewalled the negotiation process to get to where they are right now. However, I am not convinced that it will work out the way they hope, if litigation carries through to the end. It might be that all the players want is the uncertainty of litigation, hoping it will cause the owners to relent on a few more issues. Filing the action doesn't mean they want it carried through to the end necessarily.

[ThunderDan]

here is a copy of the commish's letter...

http://a.espncdn.com/media/pdf/110317/letter_goodell_3_17_2011.pdf

here is a copy of the player's response to it...

http://www.nfllockout.com/2011/03/19/the-players-respond/#more-1245

What complete shit by Goodell. Writing a letter to the players telling them this stuff. There was one reason Goodell wrote this letter and one reason only, he is trying to set the players against themselves.

When someone starts a letter the way Goodell did and then starts lecturing about all the OWNERS were giving up you can tell it's a BS piece of garbage. The NFLPA shouldn't have even responded with a letter. They should have written a letter to the players addressing the points and said nothing to the owners.

Goodell states in the letter that their is only one way to resolve the differences and that is in goodfaith. That there needs to be mutual respect and open communication. But the owners make claims on how the are losing profitablility but will only the show the players a fraction of the total financial picture from their books and records. If the owners are truely losing their ability to make profit show the players. As long as the players are only able to negotiate while knowing part of the picture the commish's letter and promous rhetoric is simply puffery. Empty words hoping to sway public opinion and split the players.

[Lurker64]

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

[ThunderDan]

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

The intention of that letter was never to get the players back to the table. Why lecture to the players then about everything the OWNERs were giving up? If he was sincere that is not the letter he should have sent.

The battle is going to court, everyone knows this. No letter by Goodell can change that. And as much wishing and thinking that Goodell has the best interest in the sport he simply doesn't. He is the watchdog for the OWNERs.

[Brandon494]

So what's worse? Slavery or the worst deal in the history of professional sports? Apparently the worst deal in the history of professional sports, according to Smith.

The kind of childish, idiotic statements being made by the players and their "representatives" only underscore how impossible negotiation with them is by reasonable, able-minded, educated people. It must have been like talking to monkeys.

You on the side of rich white folks, who would have ever thought?

[RashanGary]

Goodell wants, like every NFL fan should want, for the players to return to the bargaining table. That's the quickest and least acrimonious way to end this. The only way to get the players to return to the bargaining table is for internal pressures in the NFLPA to encourage their leadership to return to the bargaining table. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the letter Goodell sent.

All they have to do is give the full financial picture to teh players and it would already be done. If this is how the NFL wants it, this is how they'll get it. Disclosure or litigation. It's up to them. The owners chose this. The players are using good common sense. Teh last time they went to court the financials were shown. Whether posters here agree or not, they think they're going to get a better deal.

I'm sure they'd rather the owners just show the financials and they get back to the bargaining table, but if they won't I think they're ready to miss a season and go to court over this.

[SkinBasket]

You on the side of rich white folks, who would have ever thought?

You trying and failing to make this about race, who would have ever thought?

[Patler]

All they have to do is give the full financial picture to teh players and it would already be done. If this is how the NFL wants it, this is how they'll get it. Disclosure or litigation. It's up to them. The owners chose this. The players are using good common sense. Teh last time they went to court the financials were shown. Whether posters here agree or not, they think they're going to get a better deal.

I'm sure they'd rather the owners just show the financials and they get back to the bargaining table, but if they won't I think they're ready to miss a season and go to court over this.

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.

[Brandon494]

You trying and failing to make this about race, who would have ever thought?

Not really hard to do with the material you post on this board.

[SkinBasket]

Not really hard to do with the material you post on this board.

Then quote me.

You've demonstrated your outstanding ability to race bait and call others racist when your arguments fail. It's easy, right? Painting me with my own words to show the world I'm a racist can't be that hard, eh?

Unless, of course, you're full of shit.

[sharpe1027]

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.

Good observation. If the players think their hand is really strong in litigation, they might have wanted to play their hand. The Owners have a lot of potential liability.

[Guiness]

If you are responding to my last question, you lost me with your answer. The number doesn't matter. Is it fair if the owners profits grew more than the players' income, when the players income doubled in 10 years? Keep in mind we are not talking about low paying jobs ro begin with.

I don't think 'fair' is the right word to use when it comes to these negotiations. Kind of like your thread asking how much is fair profit for the owners. By my estimation, both sides are getting well beyond 'fair'.

I don't like your fundamental question about the player's income increase being enough. Are you suggesting they're getting enough, and they should be happy? Yes, players have seen enormous salary increases, and I assume owners have seen enormous profit increases. The problem is that the owners want to roll back the number the player's salaries are calculated from, but won't tell them why.

[RashanGary]

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.

What do you think they really want?

[Patler]

I don't think 'fair' is the right word to use when it comes to these negotiations. Kind of like your thread asking how much is fair profit for the owners. By my estimation, both sides are getting well beyond 'fair'.

I don't like your fundamental question about the player's income increase being enough. Are you suggesting they're getting enough, and they should be happy? Yes, players have seen enormous salary increases, and I assume owners have seen enormous profit increases. The problem is that the owners want to roll back the number the player's salaries are calculated from, but won't tell them why.

I thought it was clear that "fair" in these discussions means the owners relative to the players and the players relative to the owners.

Does it matter if they roll back the manner in which the number calculated from is determined, if the net effect is really a substantial increase to the players? As I mentioned previously, giving the owners more off the top to increase Total Revenue (however defined in a new CBA) can result in an even greater income for players.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone, or blindside them after they respond. I will restate my last question:

As between the owners and the players, is it only "fair" to the players if the owners profits increase no more percentage-wise than the players income? Or, yet another way, - If the players experience a huge increase, is it fundamentally unfair to the players if the owners' profits increase by an even larger percentage?

[Patler]

I have a suspicion that even if the owners HAD given the full financial disclosure asked for by the players, the players would have found another roadblock to a negotiated settlement, decertification would have followed and the suit still filed. The players target is more than the owners financials, and they think their road to what they really want involves the courts for at least part of that trip.


What do you think they really want?

As I stated before, it could be any number of things. Eliminating the salary cap, and abolishing or further limiting the use of franchise tags and other restrictions on player movement (ERFAs, RFAs, etc.) would seem to be the most likely targets for them. If I had to pick one, it would probably be the salary cap, which the union probably sees as an artificial ceiling on the total money that the league will spend on players.

[RashanGary]

As I stated before, it could be any number of things. Eliminating the salary cap, and abolishing or further limiting the use of franchise tags and other restrictions on player movement (ERFAs, RFAs, etc.) would seem to be the most likely targets for them. If I had to pick one, it would probably be the salary cap, which the union probably sees as an artificial ceiling on the total money that the league will spend on players.


I think the best way to get the most money is to grow the league and keep it on top. Parity helps with that. 18 games would help with that. Revenue sharing helps with that. The NFL has been so successful it seems in large part because they put growing the league in front of all else. That and the product rocks.

If they want to do away with the cap, I think a tax system like basketball would be effective at giving a couple teams a slight edge while still maintaining parity. They could also make the 5th year unrestricted instead of the 4th to keep players with their teams longer and give them more time to work out deals.

I do think having the most popular teams in it a little more than the others is good for the league too. Cinnci probably has 1/10 or less of the fans Dallas has. The NFL benefits when Dallas is good.

0.01-5.00% over cap = 30% tax on anything over
5.01-10.00% over cap= 50% tax . . . .
10.01-15.00% over cap = 70% tax
15.01 - 20.00% over cap = 100%
20.01 - 25.00% over cap = 200%
25.01 - 30.00% over cap = 300%
30.00 - 40.00% over cap = 400%
40 - 50 = 500%


I think this would allow for the teams with the most money (fans) to spend slightly more, keeping the NFL more interesting to more people, but not so drastically unfair that the small teams can't be in it every year too if they have a good GM and coach leading the way.

Baseball has one team spending 30 mil and another spending 300 mil. Comparing that to my proposal, you'd probably see the smallest teams around 100 mil with the cap at 150 mil and the largest teams at 180 mil. Small teams win in baseball against a much wider gap in spending. This would keep parity, but also have more fans interested more often.

If my main goal is growing the league (money pot), this would be my proposal.

[Pugger]

What complete shit by Goodell. Writing a letter to the players telling them this stuff. There was one reason Goodell wrote this letter and one reason only, he is trying to set the players against themselves.

When someone starts a letter the way Goodell did and then starts lecturing about all the OWNERS were giving up you can tell it's a BS piece of garbage. The NFLPA shouldn't have even responded with a letter. They should have written a letter to the players addressing the points and said nothing to the owners.

Goodell states in the letter that their is only one way to resolve the differences and that is in goodfaith. That there needs to be mutual respect and open communication. But the owners make claims on how the are losing profitablility but will only the show the players a fraction of the total financial picture from their books and records. If the owners are truely losing their ability to make profit show the players. As long as the players are only able to negotiate while knowing part of the picture the commish's letter and promous rhetoric is simply puffery. Empty words hoping to sway public opinion and split the players.

Isn't going to litigation a way for the players and their reps to get the OWNERS against themselves?

I truly do not give a rat's azz about either side - I only care about what will help the only team in the NFL that I give a damn about stay competitive in the future and bring home more Lombardi trophies.

[SkinBasket]

Baseball has one team spending 30 mil and another spending 300 mil. Comparing that to my proposal, you'd probably see the smallest teams around 100 mil with the cap at 150 mil and the largest teams at 180 mil. Small teams win in baseball against a much wider gap in spending. This would keep parity, but also have more fans interested more often.

This might be one of the dumbest things you've ever posted.

There is no parity in baseball. There are brief exceptions which are quickly overwhelmed by the norm. If you want 10 of the 12 play-off teams to be the same every year, then by all means, lets have a system like baseball. It'll be very exciting for the largest markets with the richest owners every year to wait to see which 1 or 2 teams from the bottom 2/3 of the league they be playing that year.

If you haven't noticed, money buys wins (if it didn't, teams wouldn't pay more for the better players). Wins build marketable popularity. Popularity generates money. You should be noticing a circular pattern about now. Here, just in case you didn't:

Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity -> Money -> Wins -> Popularity ->

[RashanGary]

Go re-read my post, skinbasket. If you don't change your perception of what I said, we really can't have a conversation. I can't write words clear enough for you to understand them, or maybe you just skimmed and missed it.

[RashanGary]

My proposal does this:

Lowers the minimum cap (so the smallest teams can sit on theri cash if they like)
Keeps a relatively similar tax threshold
Has teirs of tax penalty for teams who go above

If your caps are 100m minimum, 150 tax threshold and a sliding scale from there that makes it very hard to spend drastically more than the other teams. Here's an example of what I think 32 teams would probably look like


4 teams between 100 and 110M
6 teams between 110 and 120M
8 teams between 120M and 140M
8 teams between 140M and 150M (pack would be here, spending just less than the top teams, but still could break the threshold if they thought they were on teh cusp)
4 teams between 150M and 160M
2 teams between 160M and 180M

Obviously this is just a starting point, the % and numbers will change, but this is the concept. Teams who want to skimp can skimp (but only to a degree). Teams who want to do everything in their power to win, will be able to because nobody is spending drastically more than anyone else. And teh teams with the most money can spend it, keeping the most popular teams a little more relevant.

Over the long run, I think this plan brings parity and a slight advantage to the largest markets. I think that grows the pie larger because it keeps the most fans interested more of the time, while still keeping the lower teams relevant.

As far as the players concerns, when they get more money, it's really coming at expense of the richest teams. Make those rich teams feel like their getting something for their money rather than sharing so much and the motivation to pay more goes up too.

[RashanGary]

Baseball richest team spends 1000% more than poorest team.
My proposal the richest team spends 80% more than the poorest team.

Except for the owners who really want to skimp, everyone is in teh same spending range. If football is a 10 out of 10 in sharing money and baseball is a 1 out of 10, my proposal would be about a 3 out of 10. Essentially, the rich have a slight advantage, the poor a slight disadvantage, but everyone is competitive and more fans are interested more of the time so the total pie grows, providing more money for everyone.

[Guiness]

Isn't going to litigation a way for the players and their reps to get the OWNERS against themselves?

I truly do not give a rat's azz about either side - I only care about what will help the only team in the NFL that I give a damn about stay competitive in the future and bring home more Lombardi trophies.

That's a different take, Pugger. Nice to see some different conjecture.

It's no secret that Jerry Jones and some of the other owners of rich franchises begrudge the revenue sharing. Put the owners in a room, and they'll tear each other to pieces. If the CBA was thrown out in its entirety, its possible the owners would not come to another similar agreement, and the NFL could end up with a MLB-like system. Certainly in that situation, some players would stand to make a lot more.

Here's another thought on the hidden agenda bandwagon. What about guaranteed contracts? The NFL is unlike other pro-sports leagues in that they don't guarantee contracts. That is certainly something that would be desirable to the players.

[Patler]

Here's another thought on the hidden agenda bandwagon. What about guaranteed contracts? The NFL is unlike other pro-sports leagues in that they don't guarantee contracts. That is certainly something that would be desirable to the players.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that really is for the union. It would not change how much is spent on the players, it would just alter who gets the money that is spent. Presumably, in the current situation, money saved on a terminated contract that is not guaranteed ends up being spent on signing another player.

That said, the owners last proposal did offer some significant compensation for players the year after they are cut. Sort of a transition payment back to the real world.

[SkinBasket]

Baseball richest team spends 1000% more than poorest team.
My proposal the richest team spends 80% more than the poorest team.

Except for the owners who really want to skimp, everyone is in teh same spending range. If football is a 10 out of 10 in sharing money and baseball is a 1 out of 10, my proposal would be about a 3 out of 10. Essentially, the rich have a slight advantage, the poor a slight disadvantage, but everyone is competitive and more fans are interested more of the time so the total pie grows, providing more money for everyone.

You make a lot of assumptions with your model that real life has proven to the contrary about spending and competition. See baseball. Again.

[Lurker64]

The salary cap should not be a "$x for you guys and $y for you other guys" (where x≠y) situation. It should be a hard cap that everybody is bound to.

Also, JH be careful. You're doing the thing that the players rejected strenuously with the league's final proposal. The league gave a program where the cap was just pegged as a dollar figure, rather than as a function of total revenue. It's management's assertion that the salary cap should just be a number that is bargained collectively, it should not be a function of the total dollar amount (since the league sees into a future where revenue is like $50b, and projecting forward the minimum salary would be like $3m). Labor, on the other hand, wants to set the cap as a percentage of total revenue so if the league grows so does the pie, no matter how big the league grows.

So if you agree with labor, you can't just "peg the cap"... they reject that on principle.

[RashanGary]

So if you agree with labor, you can't just "peg the cap"... they reject that on principle.

The cap # would be a percentage of the revenue and everything else based off that.


Essentially, I'm trying to give Jones and Snider the chance to spend a little more, but nothing over the top. I'd like to keep it closer to football than baseball, but I do think a slight edge to the most popular teams makes the NFL more profitable overall. More people watch when the cowboys are on. They have more money. Let them have a small edge. They deserve it and the NFLwould profit from it.

go away skinbasket, your opinion has been noted and is no longer needed.

[Lurker64]

I'm trying to give Jones and Snider the chance to spend a little more, but nothing over the top. I'd like to keep it closer to football than baseball, but I do think a slight edge to the most popular teams makes the NFL more profitable overall. More people watch when the cowboys are on. They have more money. Let them have a small edge. They deserve it and the NFLwould profit from it.

I disagree strenuously. People will watch the Cowboys when they're on, whether or not they're good. So if you want to increase profitability, you should give the edge to a team that wouldn't draw eyeballs and asses when they're not good, but will when they are. That way you have more total eyeballs and asses glued to your product. A better system would be to give nobody an edge, which is essentially the current system.

Remember, the NFL has built an extremely popular sport based on a framework of punishing the successful teams and propping up the weak ones. Propping up the successful teams and punishing the weak ones would undermine the NFL greatly.

The extent of "different teams are treated differently" that the owners will agree to is "limited revenue sharing." They'll never agree to let the Steelers have a higher cap than the Ravens, and they shouldn't.

[RashanGary]

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

The way those teams spend, they'd screw it up with a few more dollars anyway. Ted could beat Jerry Jones with 20% tied behind his back and it would feel that much sweeter.

I see your point too. It might be better the way it is. It might be better with a small financial tilt toward the teams with the large fan bases. Hard to say until it's done. My vision says the new way would be better. Yours says otherwise. I'll stand by my hunch, but I could be wrong too.

I know skinbasket doesn't understand what I'm saying, but I hope you can see it's a small difference, nothing like baseball. Just a little more rope for the idiot cowboys (and teams like them), that's it. The operative words are small(tile) and little(more rope). Don't mistake those for, "just like baseball"

Baseball is horrible, but that doesn't mean there aren't small things they have right, or at least in the right direction. Things aren't either all right or all wrong.

[Freak Out]

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

What? Well shit...lets just take the WWF model and modify it for the NFL.

[Freak Out]

http://whatconsumesme.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-o-matic/cache/af38f_1241399064714842.jpeg

[Lurker64]

'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

There are plenty of reasons to hate teams that have nothing to do with those teams having an unfair advantage.

You hate the Cowboys because Troy Aikman is somehow on the top FOX announcing team, and is as biased an announcer as we've ever seen. Plus, Jerry Jones is essentially one of those fans who thinks he can do a better job than NFL GMs, except he's a billionaire so he actually bought a team and gets to play at GM.

You hate the Redskins because: You Read This Article about their owner (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder/).

You hate the Patriots because: In the eyes of the media, they can do absolutely no wrong. They're smarter than everybody else and even when the hoodie fucks up he's brilliant.

You hate the Raiders because: Their owner is an undead monstrosity: http://media.baycitizen.org/uploaded/images/2011/2/al-davis-2/lightbox/Al%20Davis.jpg

You don't need to tilt the playing field to make teams hateable. When you add to the fact that everybody's going to hate their division rivals, the fact that the media and asshole billionaires make certain teams eminently hateable is enough.

[Bossman641]

Sorry JH but I completely disagree with your proposals. The reason the NFL is so popular is because it is exactly what the MLB is not. The few teams that have no chance in the NFL are stuck in that position because of poor front offices. The multiple teams that have no chance in the MLB are in that position because they don't have the financial resources to compete.

[Guiness]

Remember, the NFL has built an extremely popular sport based on a framework of punishing the successful teams and propping up the weak ones. Propping up the successful teams and punishing the weak ones would undermine the NFL greatly.


Some might disagree with that over the last decade. A top 5 draft pick, and the top overall in particular has been an albatross as often as not. Bloody sea bloody bird bloody Albatross (flavour)

[Guiness]

There are plenty of reasons to hate teams that have nothing to do with those teams having an unfair advantage.

You hate the Cowboys because Troy Aikman is somehow on the top FOX announcing team, and is as biased an announcer as we've ever seen. Plus, Jerry Jones is essentially one of those fans who thinks he can do a better job than NFL GMs, except he's a billionaire so he actually bought a team and gets to play at GM.

You hate the Redskins because: You Read This Article about their owner (http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/articles/40063/the-cranky-redskins-fans-guide-to-dan-snyder/).

You hate the Patriots because: In the eyes of the media, they can do absolutely no wrong. They're smarter than everybody else and even when the hoodie fucks up he's brilliant.

You hate the Raiders because: Their owner is an undead monstrosity:

You don't need to tilt the playing field to make teams hateable. When you add to the fact that everybody's going to hate their division rivals, the fact that the media and asshole billionaires make certain teams eminently hateable is enough.

Damn that's a funny article about Snyder. But that's not really Davis, is it? Cripes, I recognize him from the Plants Vs Zombies game!

[Lurker64]

Damn that's a funny article about Snyder. But that's not really Davis, is it? Cripes, I recognize him from the Plants Vs Zombies game!

That's really Al, that was a picture from January of this year, I believe.


Some might disagree with that over the last decade. A top 5 draft pick, and the top overall in particular has been an albatross as often as not. Bloody sea bloody bird bloody Albatross (flavour)

Well, the "high picks are a penalty" thing has really developed recently, which is why the owners went after a rookie salary structure this offseason (and they'll still probably get what they want). But that being said, the penalty is really only for *missing* on high draft picks. I'm pretty sure the Lions are happy with Suh, the Falcons are happy with Ryan, the Browns are happy with Thomas etc. despite what those guys are getting paid.

[Guiness]

Well, the "high picks are a penalty" thing has really developed recently, which is why the owners went after a rookie salary structure this offseason (and they'll still probably get what they want). But that being said, the penalty is really only for *missing* on high draft picks. I'm pretty sure the Lions are happy with Suh, the Falcons are happy with Ryan, the Browns are happy with Thomas etc. despite what those guys are getting paid.

reasonably happy with them...and they'd be happier if they were being paid a reasonable amount. I'm sure St-Louis is pleased with Bradford's play - but he was the highest paid player in the league this year. He wasn't that good!

We haven't seen a trade out of the top 5...even the top 10 positions in how long? Other than Manning for Rivers, which was only a couple of spots, teams have picked in their spots. I think it's because the teams picking have no choice - no one wants those. Thompson put on a good game day face, but given his style, do you not think he would've traded away the pick that got us Hawk?

[Lurker64]

We haven't seen a trade out of the top 5...even the top 10 positions in how long?

Jets traded #17, #52, and random players to Cleveland to move up to #5 to get Mark Sanchez in 1999. Other than that, it doesn't really happen.

I agree with your basic argument. The NFL should not be punishing bad teams, and that's why we really need a rollback in top draft pick salaries either from a rookie wage scale (likely) or teams standing up to players' agents (significantly less likely).

[SkinBasket]

go away skinbasket, your opinion has been noted and is no longer needed.

Excellent way to defend your "proposal." God forbid someone point out your idea doesn't work on both a fundamental and a practical level.

But really, giving the teams with the richest owners a 2-1 advantage on the field is a wonderful idea. I'm sure it would promote "parity." Just like baseball.

[RashanGary]

Excellent way to defend your "proposal." God forbid someone point out your idea doesn't work on both a fundamental and a practical level.

But really, giving the teams with the richest owners a 2-1 advantage on the field is a wonderful idea. I'm sure it would promote "parity." Just like baseball.

I see you and Lurker's points. They're valid, but don't compare 20% over the cap and 80% over the lowest team to baseball where the Yankees are 1000% over the lowest team. 10 times. That's ridiculous. Yeah, I'm going a touch in that direction, but I like that some teams spend a little more. I think it makes you prouder of your regular spending team and makes you relate to them more. It makes you hate teh big boys more and laugh harder when they fail. I think Jones will be much more willing to give a way 100 million dollars if it's in a tax where he's actually getting a competitive advantage. I also think it could keep more fans interested more of the time.

I think you guys are suffering from all or nothing syndrome. You're mistaking one step in the direction for a full change to baseball philosophy. I don't think baseball is a good comparison to what I'm saying. I think basketball is better. You'll see in basketball only a few teams go over the tax threshold and they're not really very good anyway. And then they have the guaranteed contracts. That is bad for basketball. Dumb spenders are dumb spenders. It's just that much sweeter when they loose. When you can spend 1000% of the lowest team, yeah, that means teh Yankees are always in it, but i don't think this idea would do that, not at all. In fact, I think it could make the Cowobys and Redskins suck even more at times. There would likely be longer restricted phases with this type of setup and they'd always be old and overpriced.

[SkinBasket]

I see you and Lurker's points. They're valid, but don't compare 20% over the cap and 80% over the lowest team to baseball where the Yankees are 1000% over the lowest team. 10 times. That's ridiculous. Yeah, I'm going a touch in that direction, but I like that some teams spend a little more. I think it makes you prouder of your regular spending team and makes you relate to them more. It makes you hate teh big boys more and laugh harder when they fail. I think Jones will be much more willing to give a way 100 million dollars if it's in a tax where he's actually getting a competitive advantage. I also think it could keep more fans interested more of the time.

I think you guys are suffering from all or nothing syndrome. You're mistaking one step in the direction for a full change to baseball philosophy. I don't think baseball is a good comparison to what I'm saying. I think basketball is better. You'll see in basketball only a few teams go over the tax threshold and they're not really very good anyway. And then they have the guaranteed contracts. That is bad for basketball. Dumb spenders are dumb spenders. It's just that much sweeter when they loose. When you can spend 1000% of the lowest team, yeah, that means teh Yankees are always in it, but i don't think this idea would do that, not at all. In fact, I think it could make the Cowobys and Redskins suck even more at times. There would likely be longer restricted phases with this type of setup and they'd always be old and overpriced.

Again it comes down to basic principals. The better players make more money. A team that spends twice as much as another team (or most of the league) buys twice the talent. Talent translates into wins. Wins translate into popularity, marketing, and profits. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. The rich buy more talent. The poor are forced to trade or let their talent walk.

People watch the NFL because of the any given sunday mentality. Parity. Your theory that economic disparity leads to competitive parity somehow is not only counter-intuitive and logically flawed, but has also been disproven by other leagues.

[Bossman641]

JH, don't you think that allowing some teams to spend more than others, even if you don't consider the difference large, to be a slippery slope? Why even open pandora's box?

[Patler]

Again it comes down to basic principals. The better players make more money. A team that spends twice as much as another team (or most of the league) buys twice the talent. Talent translates into wins. Wins translate into popularity, marketing, and profits. The rich get richer. The poor get poorer. The rich buy more talent. The poor are forced to trade or let their talent walk.

People watch the NFL because of the any given sunday mentality. Parity. Your theory that economic disparity leads to competitive parity somehow is not only counter-intuitive and logically flawed, but has also been disproven by other leagues.

There is also a tendency for the poorer teams to overpay mediocre talent when the poorer team finds that it is approaching a level of competitiveness. They have a hole to fill, can't land a top player because they can't afford it, so they go after a so-so player they hope will take a step up. A prime example is the Brewers contract a few years back with Jeff Suppan. They paid him to be the ace of their staff even though he had never shown that type of ability. A few short periods of success, sure, but not enough consistency for the contract he received. But, he was the best the Brewers could afford at the time they signed him, and at that they had to overpay him to get him to come to Milwaukee.

The really bad part is that when the so-so player continues to play that way, his overly generous contract further drags down the team, who then can't afford to keep home-grown talent they otherwise might have been able to for a few years at least.

[RashanGary]

Very few teams will choose to be at the bottom, and very few teams will be able to spend 20% over the cap. It would still be filled with parity. It's a small carrot for the richest teams, not a key to dominate.

Hey, we agree to disagree. I'm sure it's going to stay the same anyway, but it's discussion.


It would be similar to me cutting teh Yankees and Redsox salaries by 50% Sure they'd still be spending a little more than most teams, but it would be a big step forward for baseball, making it more competitive. I'm not convinced complete financial equality is the best, but a step toward it helps. The way all of baseball hates teh yankees is kind of cool.


As far as sports leagues go, my proposal is very high on financial equality. It's a lot more like the current football setup than it is the baseball setup. Tax thresholds may not be hard caps, but the way I drew them, they pretty much are. It just gives the richest of the rich enough rope to pay the price for 4 players to get one. Taxes suck.


I think people are angry at baseball and can't see how disimilar this is to it. I'd be willing to scale it back by half, but giving the Cowboys and Redskins the chance to pay for one mroe player at a very high tax price. I like it.

[Smeefers]

I'm with the giant group of people who are against JH on this one. No way would I want that. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't like the idea. Someone back there said that the NFL punishes those who do good and rewards those who do poorly, and I think that's a great way to go about it. Now, if the taxes you collected on the higher payed teams went to the lower payed teams player salary or something like that, we might have something to talk about.

[Smidgeon]

Jets traded #17, #52, and random players to Cleveland to move up to #5 to get Mark Sanchez in 1999. Other than that, it doesn't really happen.

I agree with your basic argument. The NFL should not be punishing bad teams, and that's why we really need a rollback in top draft pick salaries either from a rookie wage scale (likely) or teams standing up to players' agents (significantly less likely).

Sanchez has been around for a decade? ;)

[Guiness]

While I don't like JH's idea, I can see it coming true.

There is a vocal, powerful minority of owners who do not want to share all the revenue, and want to allowed to spend the money they make themselves. Something like this might be their compromise solution.

[RashanGary]

I'm with the giant group of people who are against JH on this one. No way would I want that. I understand where you're coming from, I just don't like the idea. Someone back there said that the NFL punishes those who do good and rewards those who do poorly, and I think that's a great way to go about it. Now, if the taxes you collected on the higher payed teams went to the lower payed teams player salary or something like that, we might have something to talk about.

That's exactly what it does. It pays gets divvied up to the teams below the cap (tax threshhold) It's a way for Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder to part with more money. Just plain sharing it is hard for them to do, but give them one player, even if the tax is 5X the amount, they're still giving it away, but at least they feel like they have a slight advantage.

The key is to keep the advantage slight, just enough where the rich teams can buy one mroe guy or something like that.


You keep the rich owners willing to pay into the system far more than their fair share by giving them a small edge.
You keep the players happy because teams can choose to go over the cap
You keep the fans happy because there is still more parity than any major sports league beside Hockey

[Pugger]

There is also a tendency for the poorer teams to overpay mediocre talent when the poorer team finds that it is approaching a level of competitiveness. They have a hole to fill, can't land a top player because they can't afford it, so they go after a so-so player they hope will take a step up. A prime example is the Brewers contract a few years back with Jeff Suppan. They paid him to be the ace of their staff even though he had never shown that type of ability. A few short periods of success, sure, but not enough consistency for the contract he received. But, he was the best the Brewers could afford at the time they signed him, and at that they had to overpay him to get him to come to Milwaukee.

The really bad part is that when the so-so player continues to play that way, his overly generous contract further drags down the team, who then can't afford to keep home-grown talent they otherwise might have been able to for a few years at least.

This.

[RashanGary]

While I don't like JH's idea, I can see it coming true.

There is a vocal, powerful minority of owners who do not want to share all the revenue, and want to allowed to spend the money they make themselves. Something like this might be their compromise solution.

Thanks for seeing hwo it could make sense. I actually think it would make teh league stronger (more money.)

[RashanGary]

This.

This is what you should not be looking at. It's nothing like baseball.

[Pugger]

The NFL has grown in large part because they have a good product that people love. The current system is part of it, but I'd like a league where a couple teams spend a little more money and everyone hates them.

The way those teams spend, they'd screw it up with a few more dollars anyway. Ted could beat Jerry Jones with 20% tied behind his back and it would feel that much sweeter.

I see your point too. It might be better the way it is. It might be better with a small financial tilt toward the teams with the large fan bases. Hard to say until it's done. My vision says the new way would be better. Yours says otherwise. I'll stand by my hunch, but I could be wrong too.

I know skinbasket doesn't understand what I'm saying, but I hope you can see it's a small difference, nothing like baseball. Just a little more rope for the idiot cowboys (and teams like them), that's it. The operative words are small(tile) and little(more rope). Don't mistake those for, "just like baseball"

Baseball is horrible, but that doesn't mean there aren't small things they have right, or at least in the right direction. Things aren't either all right or all wrong.

Baseball is horrible because of a lack of parity. I can't understand any Packer fan that would be open to a system like MLB. The ONLY reason why the Packers have been so successful is because of the cap and revenue sharing.

[RashanGary]

JH, don't you think that allowing some teams to spend more than others, even if you don't consider the difference large, to be a slippery slope? Why even open pandora's box?

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large. It's a way to get the big owners to open up their pocket books, an incentive. It would suck if it ever got anything like baseball. I agree to that. I won't even watch the Brewers because they can't truly compete.

[gbgary]

a soft cap would be a bad idea. the hard cap, and revenue sharing, is what's made the nfl the greatness that it is.

[RashanGary]

Baseball is horrible because of a lack of parity. I can't understand any Packer fan that would be open to a system like MLB. The ONLY reason why the Packers have been so successful is because of the cap and revenue sharing.

That's why what I proposed was nothing liek baseball. Compare it to basketball if you want a comparison, but even then, a 5 man game and guaranteed contracts make that very different too. Block out the baseball thing. Think of Jerry Jones getting teh chance to buy one more player at the expense of millions and millions of dollars being given to the other teams. One guy won't help Jones. We'll still destroy them as long as we have Ted.

[RashanGary]

a soft cap would be a bad idea. the hard cap, and revenue sharing, is what's made the nfl the greatness that it is.

I'd disagree with that. It's a part of the success, but football would be as great or greater if Jones and Snyder had one more guy on their teams. If that's what it takes for them to share their revenue, it's a good thing. I still think they'd blow it.

[RashanGary]

Hockey has had a hard cap and they haven't been a dominant league. That's because pepole like the sport of football better. Let's not call football a success because they have the one and only successful financial model. Football was created a long time ago and has grown into America's favorite sport. The momentum was already there in teh 60's 70's and 80's before they created the current business model. Football is something people like to watch and play. It's a great sport. I don't think it's smart to assume it's perfect. Nascar keeps changing and they keep growing. Change isn't always bad.

[Patler]

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large. It's a way to get the big owners to open up their pocket books, an incentive. It would suck if it ever got anything like baseball. I agree to that. I won't even watch the Brewers because they can't truly compete.

The problem is, once you start down a road like that there generally is no turning back, and you go further and further until you get to exactly where you don't want to be. Once you individualize the differences, taking money directly from one team and giving money directly to another you establish a caste system, with the lower ones beholding to the upper ones for their continued existence. The upper ones become even more powerful and get their way even more, so the small difference will be increased with successive changes and the "tax" will become smaller. You will get closer and closer to baseball.

While there are differences now, and some subsidies of the poorer by the richer, the structure tends to equalize the influence of the haves and have nots. The haves are not as capable of bullying through their wishes as they will be when the have nots are beholding and subservient to them.

Nothing good will come from making the NFL more about some owners than about other owners by letting the richer teams use their money to control the poorer teams.

[Freak Out]

The $$$ has changed dramatically since those decades and for one reason only.

[SkinBasket]

Maybe it is. I'm saying keep it small and make the tax large.

Which would relegate your system to insignificance.

[Lurker64]

I think what you're missing JH is that the other major sports want to have a system more like the NFL. Hockey locked their players out for an entire season in order to get a more NFL-like system. Baseball wanted to get a more NFL-like system, which lead to the players strike and the cancellation of a World Series. Basketball is about to lock their players out in order to get a more NFL-like system.

Why would the NFL want to emulate these other, less successful sports, that wish their economic model were more like the NFL's?

[Guiness]

Thanks for seeing hwo it could make sense. I actually think it would make teh league stronger (more money.)

I didn't say it made sense. I said I can see how it would happen :lol:

I'm with most of the others here thinking it's a horrible idea, and as Patler pointed out, the thin edge of the wedge.

I am Canadian. There is very little football in my blood, it runs cold for hockey. The parity of the football is what attracted me. I was heartily disillusioned to watch my favorite NHL team rip a championship winning squad to shreds, and sell the pieces off to the highest bidder. Toronto and New York had coaching and scouting budgets that would cover the entire player payroll of the have-nots. It just wasn't fun to watch (well, except that Toronto never did win the Stanley Cup).

Sometimes when I look at revenue sharing and the cap, I laugh to think how Un-American it is. It's counter to capitalistic thought, probably closer to pure Marxism than anything else I've seen!

[Cheesehead Craig]

Unless Joe opens up his financials, we're gonna decertify PackerRats.

Then the site will become like the JSO boards which we all want anyways.

[swede]

Jets traded #17, #52, and random players to Cleveland to move up to #5 to get Mark Sanchez in 1999.

That is a lot to give up for a thirteen-year-old.


(Edit...Smidge beat me to the punch.)

[Lurker64]

That is a lot to give up for a thirteen-year-old.


(Edit...Smidge beat me to the punch.)

Should have just written "back in '9"... the last digit is the only one that matters!

[Pugger]

I didn't say it made sense. I said I can see how it would happen :lol:

I'm with most of the others here thinking it's a horrible idea, and as Patler pointed out, the thin edge of the wedge.

I am Canadian. There is very little football in my blood, it runs cold for hockey. The parity of the football is what attracted me. I was heartily disillusioned to watch my favorite NHL team rip a championship winning squad to shreds, and sell the pieces off to the highest bidder. Toronto and New York had coaching and scouting budgets that would cover the entire player payroll of the have-nots. It just wasn't fun to watch (well, except that Toronto never did win the Stanley Cup).

Sometimes when I look at revenue sharing and the cap, I laugh to think how Un-American it is. It's counter to capitalistic thought, probably closer to pure Marxism than anything else I've seen!

Isn't this what the Marlins did after they won the world series?