Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[sharpe1027]

I think you get both. The guy has invested a lot in the product. Not everyone is psycho for the game the way we are here. Many are just there for the spectacle and the amenities. Jones is providing that and more. He wants to make money doing it. I don't blame him. What I don't like is when he goes too far to undermine the integrity of the league. But from his perspective, he as to deal with both players who want more and owners who are perfectly happy to let him pay for improvement in the NFL brand - and he's supposed to want to pay players more, let some owners get a free ride and be happy about it, taking less revenue?

You are right. Jones has his own perspective and what he has done may even be justified as being beneficial to the league. Still, the concept of giving more money to the owners instead of the players is not a simple (zero-sum) game that necessarily is best for the fans.

[mraynrand]

Still, the concept of giving more money to the owners instead of the players is not a simple (zero-sum) game that necessarily is best for the fans.

I agree. Any revenue distribution model that didn't include an increase in player payouts linked to league growth would be untenable. But that's the issue - what percent of growth should go to players and to owners - and how much to various owners. I think the league should pro-rate the distribution of profit (not to be used for player salaries) to owners based on their contribution to league growth, beyond some baseline profit sharing. Separately, a percent of revenue should be negotiated with players. Skimming a certain fixed amount off the top for owners seems misguided because it doesn't take into account growth or contraction of revenues.

[Tarlam!]

Good, well thought out post, Rand, IMHO.

[sharpe1027]

I agree. Any revenue distribution model that didn't include an increase in player payouts linked to league growth would be untenable. But that's the issue - what percent of growth should go to players and to owners - and how much to various owners. I think the league should pro-rate the distribution of profit (not to be used for player salaries) to owners based on their contribution to league growth, beyond some baseline profit sharing. Separately, a percent of revenue should be negotiated with players. Skimming a certain fixed amount off the top for owners seems misguided because it doesn't take into account growth or contraction of revenues.

I like the concept, but I think that trying to quantify "their contribution to league growth" might be difficult or impossible to implement correctly. Look at what happened with the current CBA, the players do not trust that the owners are correctly accounting for their expenses and the owners don't want to share that information. I can see a similar situation where owners are disputing who contributes more to the league growth.

Maybe they could work out an incentive plan where qualified investments (determined by the league as a whole) permit an owner to recoup their investment before sharing with other owners, or to at least not share the entire return from whatever they are investing in.

[bobblehead]

The catch here is that only ONE side has ANY incentive to look at the league going forward and its the owners. Every player in the NFL right now has a window to make as much as he can. That window is inside 10 years for all but a few of the youngest stars. None of the players are looking at the league beyond that time frame. The owners however wish to make money in perpetuity. They have every reason to stay on top and make it undesireable for another league to form.

I agree with Rand's take on Jerrah. He built a fancy new stadium. He is trying to get new revenues from nike. He is doing everything he can to maximize his business while some owners are coasting and benefitting from his efforts. I don't blame him to be honest, but I still don't like him.

[swede]

The catch here is that only ONE side has ANY incentive to look at the league going forward and its the owners.

This is so obvious, such a powerful dynamic in the conflict, and yet it is not often mentioned.

I often wonder why the agents do not take a longer view.

[swede]

Andrew Brandt, the former Packer Capologist, translates for us. I appreciate his telling us not to sweat it. All of the drama is still just negotiating that will end up with an agreement sooner or later.

Andrew Brandt is one smart geek

And a rather stunning development reported by Brandt's website--a development I hadn't heard about anywhere else. The NFL Coaches' Association filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the players. Wow.

Andrew Brandt's Super Cool Website

I wonder if the coaches are siding with the players with the idea that ending the lockout gets them full employment and full access to their players.

[Lurker64]

And a rather stunning development reported by Brandt's website--a development I hadn't heard about anywhere else. The NFL Coaches' Association filed an Amicus brief on behalf of the players. Wow.

Andrew Brandt's Super Cool Website

I wonder if the coaches are siding with the players with the idea that ending the lockout gets them full employment and full access to their players.

Well, the interesting thing is that the National Football League Coaches Association doesn't represent all (or any) of the coaches. The NFLCA couldn't get a single coach to sign onto their amicus brief, while every single coach of the Washington Redskins signed their name to a brief in support of the owners that decries the NFLCA's attempt to represent them without their permission. The New Orleans Saints coaches also went public saying that they didn't know anything about what the NFLCA was doing and they were not represented nor did they support the NFLCA.

It's not actually clear whether the NFLCA represents any coaches at all, despite the name of the organization.

[Guiness]

Well, the interesting thing is that the National Football League Coaches Association doesn't represent all (or any) of the coaches. The NFLCA couldn't get a single coach to sign onto their amicus brief, while every single coach of the Washington Redskins signed their name to a brief in support of the owners that decries the NFLCA's attempt to represent them without their permission. The New Orleans Saints coaches also went public saying that they didn't know anything about what the NFLCA was doing and they were not represented nor did they support the NFLCA.

It's not actually clear whether the NFLCA represents any coaches at all, despite the name of the organization.

The one name mentioned was a former WLAF coach I've never heard of...

[SkinBasket]

Well, the interesting thing is that the National Football League Coaches Association doesn't represent all (or any) of the coaches. The NFLCA couldn't get a single coach to sign onto their amicus brief, while every single coach of the Washington Redskins signed their name to a brief in support of the owners that decries the NFLCA's attempt to represent them without their permission. The New Orleans Saints coaches also went public saying that they didn't know anything about what the NFLCA was doing and they were not represented nor did they support the NFLCA.

It's not actually clear whether the NFLCA represents any coaches at all, despite the name of the organization.

More union bullshit.

[mraynrand]

Perception is reality. I could take a shit in a box and slap a guarantee on it that it was from an NFL coach, but all you'd get is a guaranteed box of shit. If you can get 30,000 'scientists' to sign a document claiming that man-made Global warming is 'true' and another 30,000 to claim that it is 'false,' then it must be true. Or False. The key is making sure that your 30,000 are heard from versus the other side. Then you win the PR battle and it helps win the legal battle. Who cares about reality, when all you care about is winning the legal battle?

[Guiness]

Perception is reality. I could take a shit in a box and slap a guarantee on it that it was from an NFL coach, but all you'd get is a guaranteed box of shit. If you can get 30,000 'scientists' to sign a document claiming that man-made Global warming is 'true' and another 30,000 to claim that it is 'false,' then it must be true. Or False. The key is making sure that your 30,000 are heard from versus the other side. Then you win the PR battle and it helps win the legal battle. Who cares about reality, when all you care about is winning the legal battle?

You're wrong there puppy. Take it from an old dog like myself, it means nothing unless you supply a 'Certificate of Authenticity'. Then it's good and proper shit.

Just had this conversation at lunch after seeing an advertisement for a replica of Kate Middleton's wedding ring, complete with, you guessed it, a CoA.

[mraynrand]

You're wrong there puppy. Take it from an old dog like myself, it means nothing unless you supply a 'Certificate of Authenticity'. Then it's good and proper shit.

Just had this conversation at lunch after seeing an advertisement for a replica of Kate Middleton's wedding ring, complete with, you guessed it, a CoA.

That would be a CoR - a Certificate of Replicity

[swede]

Michael Hunt figures that he'll be retired by the time bad CBA's kill the league, but he won't want to miss out on the game day buffets for the journalists this fall.

I guess we know where Michael Hunt stands...

[Tarlam!]

Michael Hunt figures that he'll be retired by the time bad CBA's kill the league, but he won't want to miss out on the game day buffets for the journalists this fall.

I guess we know where Michael Hunt stands...

As much as the players deserve to win this squabble the owners started, I can't see the players doing anything but eventually giving in if the lockout is upheld. Unfortunately, not enough of them are financially prepared to miss more than a paycheck or two. Not enough of them are willing to give up an entire season of a career that lasts, on average, less than four.

What an idiot!