Fans suing owners?

[Bossman641]

Yep, but the fact that some owners are willing to spend more simply means that the players are valued that high on the free market. The true worth of a player is determined by the highest bidder. How is inflated player salaries anyone's fault but the people that agree to pay the salaries. Players try to get as much money as they can and owners try to give out as little as possible. The teams salary figures have by-and-large not been set by the CBA as they spend more than they are required. What justification do the owners have for their own inability to understand that if they pay players more they have higher expenses?

A short-sided way of looking at it.

Let's not forget the owners are by and large competitive people and want to win. Not only could this competitiveness bring out their willingness to spend more, they also grow the franchise worth by having a successful team. As the owners see it, what is kicking in an extra $5-10M in a very strange uncapped year when the possible payoff is a SB and seeing the value of the franchise increase.

It would take more than 1 year before you would start to see teams purposefully decrease player salaries significantly.

[bobblehead]

I am sorry but this makes absolutely no sense to me. Could you please state more clearly. What partnership are you referring to the public and the owners?

The players and owners silly. I have seen it argued that this is some sort of a partnership and the players weren't mere employees. That they are entitled to a certain % of the profits.

If that is the case, if their business partners (the owners) get sued, the players should have to come out of pocket and pay a certain % of the bill no?

[mraynrand]

If the owners were in such a dire financial situation, why were they still spending more than they had to on player salaries?

Maybe to win a Championship?

[Tarlam!]

In terms of player spending there are examples of where it has worked out great (Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, - paying your own, Charles Woodson, Julias Peppers - UFAs) and plenty where the players just sucked (Albert Haynsworth).

Now, take a Player like Bert when he went to NY; his jersey sales led the market, same happened when he went to the Vikes. And, there's no denying his season with them increased the revenue for both of those franchises significantly.

So, players like Manning, Brady and Woodson put you in the running for a deep playoff run (extra revenue) and help sell a tonne of merchandise and a player like Peppers is pretty good to build a DL around and make your team competitive.

What I like a lot about TT's approach is he seems to be an accurate value definer coupled with an outstanding judge of character.

[mraynrand]

Many of them weren't in the uncapped year. There were at least three teams that were beneath the former cap floor. I wish I could find the breakdowns I've read, but I can't at the moment.

That's the thing - not all owners are equal. For some, the team is a plaything, for others it's everything. Some want to throw everything they can to win a championship, while others aren't that involved. Some want to make money off it - grow the franchise and sell it. Some think they are watching football on TV up in their luxury box and ask their grandchildren to change the channel to "Days of Our Lives." One owner is embalmed. It's not easy to put every owner in the same basket.

[sharpe1027]

A short-sided way of looking at it.

Let's not forget the owners are by and large competitive people and want to win. Not only could this competitiveness bring out their willingness to spend more, they also grow the franchise worth by having a successful team. As the owners see it, what is kicking in an extra $5-10M in a very strange uncapped year when the possible payoff is a SB and seeing the value of the franchise increase.

It would take more than 1 year before you would start to see teams purposefully decrease player salaries significantly.

Then that is a business decision based upon future growth and they still cannot complain about not making short term profits.

[sharpe1027]

Maybe to win a Championship?

So why complain about profits if they are more concerned about a championship. It was their choice.

[mraynrand]

So why complain about profits if they are more concerned about a championship. It was their choice.

Maybe the owners who are complaining about lack of profits aren't the same owners as those willing to spend everything for a championship.

[Patler]

If the owners were in such a dire financial situation, why were they still spending more than they had to on player salaries?

Many of them weren't in the uncapped year. There were at least three teams that were beneath the former cap floor. I wish I could find the breakdowns I've read, but I can't at the moment.

3 out of 32 is many? So there are only 3 owners that could correctly value the business side of payroll and profits? Seems most of the owners were "overspending" despite not having enough profit. If they are the ones overspending, why should we feel bad about their lousy profits?

One uncapped year hardly indicates much. Teams still had long term contracts to deal with. The fact that 3 of 32 (or whatever the # is) had payrolls less than the former floor is very significant, in my opinion.

[mraynrand]

Then that is a business decision based upon future growth and they still cannot complain about not making short term profits.

Sure they can. Because a lack of short term cash is a problem. So is opening the floodgates to unsustainable player salary increases. From what I'm reading, it's a pretty tough business to gage what player pay amounts are optimal, especially since the owners and the team situations are all so different. But the proposed salary increases by the owners seemed like a reasonable starting point that should have been negotiated in earnest.

[Smidgeon]

Maybe the owners who are complaining about lack of profits aren't the same owners as those willing to spend everything for a championship.

Maybe they're just complaining that it's becoming decreasingly possible to both pursue a championship via paying good players and show a decent profit.

[Patler]

Owners could have sidestepped all these issues if they agreed to renew the previous contract.

Comments like this are confusing. There was no expired CBA to renew. If the owners had been satisfied with the last CBA, they would have allowed it to run its full term of a couple more years and would not have opted out early. They wouldn't even be facing the issue yet.

However, had they let it run to 2012, wouldn't the players have likely asked for more in a new CBA? Wouldn't the owners have asked for other changes? When is an expired CBA ever simply "renewed"? There are always terms to negotiate and change. Each side has issues they want considered.

If you are suggesting that the owners should simply capitulate to the players demands, why shouldn't the players capitulate to the owners instead?

[swede]

Maybe they're just complaining that it's becoming decreasingly possible to both pursue a championship via paying good players and show a decent profit.

Advantage Green Bay.

[rbaloha1]

Comments like this are confusing. There was no expired CBA to renew. If the owners had been satisfied with the last CBA, they would have allowed it to run its full term of a couple more years and would not have opted out early. They wouldn't even be facing the issue yet.

However, had they let it run to 2012, wouldn't the players have likely asked for more in a new CBA? Wouldn't the owners have asked for other changes? When is an expired CBA ever simply "renewed"? There are always terms to negotiate and change. Each side has issues they want considered.

If you are suggesting that the owners should simply capitulate to the players demands, why shouldn't the players capitulate to the owners instead?

In order to prevent the player's litigation the owners should have renewed with slight tweaks -- rookie wage scale and a better retirement system.

[Lurker64]

In order to prevent the player's litigation the owners should have renewed with slight tweaks -- rookie wage scale and a better retirement system.

If the league is really so dissatisfied with the last CBA (which remember, the president of the NFLPA admitted was unbalanced in favor of the players) they would have had to ask for more than a few tweaks. Particularly since fully half of the tweaks you list are things that the players want and not the owners want.

Ultimately, it's the players who appeared to want to have their cake and eat it too. Since they wanted to reduce offseason programs, reduce OTAs, limit padded practices, lifetime medical coverage, a pension increase for retired players, increase post-career benefits and programs, and yet all of these things cost money and they were unwilling to to actually make financial concessions for any of this.

Generally in labor negotiations offers of the form "we will cut your pay but increase your benefits" are at least seriously considered. An offer to increase benefits by management should be greeted with some concessions by labor.