World's Most Boring Thread: The CBA

[Smidgeon]

What I said was correct as well.

Not this part-

That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

Sorry to be an ass, but it's not.

If 18% of the total revenue (9% from owners and 9% from players) is reallocated to costs that include and are for the benefit of the growth of the sport (new stadiums, advertising, developing international awareness), then yes, that statement is correct.

If you're talking just the 18% cut from the basis of the player salaries, it's irrelevant. If you start with the total revenue, it's relevant.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I said was correct as well.

Not this part-

That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

Sorry to be an ass, but it's not.

If 18% of the total revenue (9% from owners and 9% from players) is reallocated to costs that include and are for the benefit of the growth of the sport (new stadiums, advertising, developing international awareness), then yes, that statement is correct.

If you're talking just the 18% cut from the basis of the player salaries, it's irrelevant. If you start with the total revenue, it's relevant.

Those costs are currently all on the owners. As they should be. As they always have been. Labor unions don't pay owners' expenses. I think that's just the owners' way of trying to make their side look better.

It's like the Government trying to tell you that you aren't really paying more taxes, you're investing in America!

[Smidgeon]

What I said was correct as well.

Not this part-

That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

Sorry to be an ass, but it's not.

If 18% of the total revenue (9% from owners and 9% from players) is reallocated to costs that include and are for the benefit of the growth of the sport (new stadiums, advertising, developing international awareness), then yes, that statement is correct.

If you're talking just the 18% cut from the basis of the player salaries, it's irrelevant. If you start with the total revenue, it's relevant.

Those costs are currently all on the owners. As they should be. As they always have been. Labor unions don't pay owners' expenses. I think that's just the owners' way of trying to make their side look better.

It's like the Government trying to tell you that you aren't really paying more taxes, you're investing in America!

It isn't quite true to say that it's always been on the owners. While the lions' share has been, it was easier to get public funding for stadiums in the past. So the argument is that it's a new(ish) cost to both sides.

The other side of the equation (and this part is all speculation but kind of makes sense to me---maybe) is that the costs are expanding disproportionally. While under the old CBA $1 billion costs pre-pie cutting between owners and players was deemed fair, maybe more is necessary now. That part I don't know and I don't think anyone will know unless and until the owners open up their books for review.

[sharpe1027]

First, keep your opinions on my motives to yourself. Your opinions are unfounded seeing as you've never met me and have no idea how I process through ideas.

Boo Hoo. Coming from the guy who said "Anyone who says one or the other is oversimplifying" as if yours is the only opinion.

What I said was correct as well. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean my math was wrong.

What you said was:

"there's mathematically far more to this than just 9% versus 18%"

I showed you the math above, it's not very difficult.

So while 10%-5% is a 50% decrease, if there's a 50% raise that happens before that, 15%-10% is only a 33% decrease. That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

18% also takes into account the growth of the sport, for the exact same reasons. For example, if there is a 50% increase in revenue, than the 9.75% decrease is less than 9.75%, just the use the same math you applied to the 18% in your example. Before you go there, you were not wrong that the 18% could be looked at in absolute terms, but what you said was that the 9.75% was suddenly relevant because of that. Not true, it is subject to the same effect.

If you use total revenue as the basis point, the players are only losing 9% under the proposal. If, however, you use the proportion the players are currently getting as the basis point, then they're losing 18%.

The problem with your analysis is that both 9% and 18% originate from the total revenue. Go ahead and try to calculate how much money each represents, the only way to do it is to start from the total revenue for a particular year. Your arguments are all mixed up.

But not on the basis of total revenue like you declared earlier.

Really? How do you propose determining the actual amounts without knowledge of total revenue? You can't. Each of them are based upon and change with the total revenue. What I said is correct.

As to whether Florio was correct or not, he was only half right, but he wasn't all wrong. Relative to total revenue, the portion shouldered is 9%. Relative to existing salary, the pay cut would be 18%. Both are true statements.

Florio said that 18% was a misrepresentation. It is not. Florio was wrong to say that.

[Smidgeon]

First, keep your opinions on my motives to yourself. Your opinions are unfounded seeing as you've never met me and have no idea how I process through ideas.

Boo Hoo. Coming from the guy who said "Anyone who says one or the other is oversimplifying" as if yours is the only opinion.

At any point, did I conjecture why you disagreed with me? My statement and your statement are apples and oranges.

What I said was correct as well. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean my math was wrong.

What you said was:

"there's mathematically far more to this than just 9% versus 18%"

I showed you the math above, it's not very difficult.

I also showed you my math above. Was my math incorrect?

So while 10%-5% is a 50% decrease, if there's a 50% raise that happens before that, 15%-10% is only a 33% decrease. That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

18% also takes into account the growth of the sport, for the exact same reasons. For example, if there is a 50% increase in revenue, than the 9.75% decrease is less than 9.75%, just the use the same math you applied to the 18% in your example. Before you go there, you were not wrong that the 18% could be looked at in absolute terms, but what you said was that the 9.75% was suddenly relevant because of that. Not true, it is subject to the same effect.

I'm getting all confused on this one with so many numbers floating around in my head, so I'll concede this point for the sake of peace.

If you use total revenue as the basis point, the players are only losing 9% under the proposal. If, however, you use the proportion the players are currently getting as the basis point, then they're losing 18%.

The problem with your analysis is that both 9% and 18% originate from the total revenue. Go ahead and try to calculate how much money each represents, the only way to do it is to start from the total revenue for a particular year. Your arguments are all mixed up.

I don't believe my arguments are mixed up. Using the quote above, I'm saying that both perspectives can be stated accurately.

But not on the basis of total revenue like you declared earlier.

Really? How do you propose determining the actual amounts without knowledge of total revenue? You can't. Each of them are based upon and change with the total revenue. What I said is correct.

Okay, in my head, "on the basis of" means "the denominator of the equation".

As to whether Florio was correct or not, he was only half right, but he wasn't all wrong. Relative to total revenue, the portion shouldered is 9%. Relative to existing salary, the pay cut would be 18%. Both are true statements.

Florio said that 18% was a misrepresentation. It is not. Florio was wrong to say that.

I agree that saying "18% is wrong" isn't the complete story and because of that is an incorrect statement. But my overall point is that 9.75% = 18% depending on what you're looking at.

That's been my only point the entire way through.

[Administrator]

sharpe, if you can't argue your point without insults, then stop.

I would recommend that you spend some time looking at the math from Smidgeons perspective, he has a point that you're missing.

Smideon - well done. You gave a great explanation, backed with facts and explanation. We need more of that around here.

[get louder at lambeau]

What I said was correct as well.

Not this part-

That's why the 9.75% is relevant. It's because it takes into account the growth of the sport.

Sorry to be an ass, but it's not.

If 18% of the total revenue (9% from owners and 9% from players) is reallocated to costs that include and are for the benefit of the growth of the sport (new stadiums, advertising, developing international awareness), then yes, that statement is correct.

If you're talking just the 18% cut from the basis of the player salaries, it's irrelevant. If you start with the total revenue, it's relevant.

Those costs are currently all on the owners. As they should be. As they always have been. Labor unions don't pay owners' expenses. I think that's just the owners' way of trying to make their side look better.

It's like the Government trying to tell you that you aren't really paying more taxes, you're investing in America!

It isn't quite true to say that it's always been on the owners. While the lions' share has been, it was easier to get public funding for stadiums in the past. So the argument is that it's a new(ish) cost to both sides.

The other side of the equation (and this part is all speculation but kind of makes sense to me---maybe) is that the costs are expanding disproportionally. While under the old CBA $1 billion costs pre-pie cutting between owners and players was deemed fair, maybe more is necessary now. That part I don't know and I don't think anyone will know unless and until the owners open up their books for review.

New costs are not new to both sides, because this is not a 50-50 partnership. This is labor v management. All costs are on the owners no matter what, unless they are going to give the NFLPA stock in the teams. Whether or not they get public stadium financing has no bearing on it. The intention of this CBA recall and renegotiation is and always has been to decrease labor costs for NFL franchises. Owners argue a hardship in remaining profitable, but refuse to show the proof of their claim. If I was the NFLPA, I wouldn't have much sympathy for that point of view.

The owners are not losing money here; they are just not making as much as they think they can, and they think they can cut labor costs by leveraging their ability to survive a lockout against the players' ability to withstand one. If this was about growing the league, the owners wouldn't be threatening a lockout. Lockouts are pretty bad for growth.

[sharpe1027]

At any point, did I conjecture why you disagreed with me? My statement and your statement are apples and oranges.

Your oranges are no better than my apples.

I also showed you my math above. Was my math incorrect?

Nope, never said your math was wrong. Your statements and conclusions stemming from the math had some problems (see you concession below).

I'm getting all confused on this one with so many numbers floating around in my head, so I'll concede this point for the sake of peace.

How gracious of you.

I don't believe my arguments are mixed up. Using the quote above, I'm saying that both perspectives can be stated accurately.

The problem with your analysis is that both 9% and 18% originate from the total revenue.

Okay, in my head, "on the basis of" means "the denominator of the equation".

The 18% is calculated from the total revenue in just as 9% is calculated from total revenue. I admit I have no idea what is in your head.

Florio said that 18% was a misrepresentation. It is not. Florio was wrong to say that.

I agree that saying "18% is wrong" isn't the complete story and because of that is an incorrect statement. But my overall point is that 9.75% = 18% depending on what you're looking at.

That's been my only point the entire way through.[/quote]

Your point has also been that myself and others were wrong. Which is rather annoying since you based your argument upon what you admit is "in your head," rather than what I said.

[sharpe1027]

I have to laugh at the title of this thread given the heated debate. The original point of the thread was whether Florio was wrong that the statement was blatantly false.

The answer is pretty conclusive that it is not a false statement. Can you come up with different numbers? Sure. But 18% is a valid number. Florio's explanation shows a lack of basic math skills.

Mr. Admin, I hope can understand my frustration with a certain poster's continual attempts to argue. Either this poster is incorrect (even he admits that 18% is at least one way to look at it)...or the point this poster is arguing about has little to do with the original point of the discussion. To me it feels like the common thread of his arguments were a disagreement with particular points from my posts, rather than the main issue.

This is rather frustrating to deal with and did cause me to guess as to his true intentions. To the extent that my guess is wrong and is perceived as an "insult," I would apologize. Seriously though, that has to be one of the lamest insults ever.

[sharpe1027]

sharpe, if you can't argue your point without insults, then stop.

I would recommend that you spend some time looking at the math from Smidgeons perspective, he has a point that you're missing.

Smideon - well done. You gave a great explanation, backed with facts and explanation. We need more of that around here.

Since you removed my previous post. I truly would like to know what you consider an insult. If you can not explain yourself, how can you expect us to avoid repeating?

[pbmax]

Revenues next year are projected to decrease, if that happens to be the case the players net "take" would be less (and could be far less) than the 18% they are claiming.

Where did you hear that revenues are expected to decrease?

Even owners aren't making that claim. They are claiming costs (related to financing and new stadium costs) have risen faster than they projected. I have seen nothing about a revenue decline, even if you account for inflation.

[pbmax]

As for the 4.5% versus 9%, the owners are asking for 18% being reallocated to costs and 9% being shouldered by each side.

In the strict terms of this CBA proposal, that figure is incorrect. The players would (using 2009 dollars) take an 18% cut. That money flows back to top line revenue. That is, the money not paid to players under the new proposal compared to the old goes to a pool of revenue that is excluded from player revenue calculations.

All that money is available to owners. Now some amount of that money may be used to pay increased non-player costs, but we have no figures available to know what those costs are.

[Administrator]

sharpe, if you can't argue your point without insults, then stop.

I would recommend that you spend some time looking at the math from Smidgeons perspective, he has a point that you're missing.

Smideon - well done. You gave a great explanation, backed with facts and explanation. We need more of that around here.

Since you removed my previous post. I truly would like to know what you consider an insult. If you can not explain yourself, how can you expect us to avoid repeating?

I haven't deleted ANY posts. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The ONLY one here who is arguing is you. Smidgeon hasn't gone "after you" once. Referring to another post you made, I do mind you standing up for your point. Your tone "stinks". If you can't argue without getting personal and insulting, then stop. This was a very good spirited debate until you started that crap.

Thank you.

[Administrator]

As for the 4.5% versus 9%, the owners are asking for 18% being reallocated to costs and 9% being shouldered by each side.

In the strict terms of this CBA proposal, that figure is incorrect. The players would (using 2009 dollars) take an 18% cut. That money flows back to top line revenue. That is, the money not paid to players under the new proposal compared to the old goes to a pool of revenue that is excluded from player revenue calculations.

All that money is available to owners. Now some amount of that money may be used to pay increased non-player costs, but we have no figures available to know what those costs are.

I think you brought up a good point in this discussion. However, you can't use 2009 dollars to compare 2010 revenues and percentage splits. Right now, you can't calculate what the change will actually be, because you do not have 2010 revenues. Nor do we have all the provisions of the CBA to figure the exceptions to the agreed split.

If the union says "18%" you know it'll be less than that. If the NFL says "9%" you know it'll be higher than that. But, today, you can't fully calculate it.

[sharpe1027]

I haven't deleted ANY posts. I have no idea what you're talking about.

The ONLY one here who is arguing is you. Smidgeon hasn't gone "after you" once. Referring to another post you made, I do mind you standing up for your point. Your tone "stinks". If you can't argue without getting personal and insulting, then stop. This was a very good spirited debate until you started that crap.

Thank you.

Fair enough. I'll chalk it up to operator error on my part.

You accuse me of getting personal, insulting and starting crap. What insults? What is so personal? What is starting crap? Please take a minute and look through the thread. To state that I am the only one that is arguing is quite frankly BS.

The main point of the discussion is whether or not Florio was wrong. Smidgeon likes to poke holes and try to prove others wrong, which is fine. But if I still believe I am correct and point by point explain my position, is that starting crap?

You talk about "tone." Perhaps you are inferring things about the intent behind my posts? The vast majority of my posts are fact/logic based arguments. Perhaps by pointing out the inconsistencies of Smidgeon's posts my "tone" is perceived by you to be a bit rough. Still, I did not use a single name, wasn't calling him stupid or anything else to personally insult him (other than disagreeing and pointing out flaws).

If you are going to take sides and make suggestions, perhaps you should be a little more judicious in how you do so.