Skip to content

King: Some owners would rather lose season than keep current system

pft-peterking_1000

Peter King led his MMQB column this Monday by saying that the “real work” in labor negotiations takes place in small meeting rooms and secret phone calls unknown to the media.

Florio asked King on Monday’s PFT Live if that was cause for optimism:

“I don’t think any of the major areas are getting closer,” King said.  “The biggest area right now is that I believe there are owners out there — prominent owners — that if the system isn’t fixed to where it was a lot closer to pre-’06 levels than it is now . . .  I think there are some owners would rather just lose the season.”

Gulp.  An important ingredient to avoiding a lasting work stoppage is having both sides truly understand how short-sighted a disruption would be.  A group of owners may be willing to live with a missed season if the players don’t give back from the current system significantly.

“[Some owners] hate this system that much,” King said.  “They would rather find another way to pay the mortgage on their stadiums . . . that’s how badly they want this system overturned.”

So much for looking for silver linings.

“I don’t think there is any real reason to be optimistic, although there are some conversations taking place that aren’t being taken place in the big meeting room,” King said.

Permalink 72 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
72 Responses to “King: Some owners would rather lose season than keep current system”
  1. grandpoopah says: Jan 17, 2011 1:30 PM

    If Goodell allows a work stoppage to happen, he needs to be fired immediately. He already should be fired for pussifying the game, but failing to get a labor deal done would be the last straw.

  2. zackd2 says: Jan 17, 2011 1:31 PM

    Tell the owners to open their books

  3. barrypftharrison says: Jan 17, 2011 1:33 PM

    It would be helpful to know how much the owners make a year. We hear every tiny detail of player’s contracts but no bottom lines for owners. That said, it is important to remember that it is a business BEFORE it is a sport. Remember World Football League?

  4. 23chameleons says: Jan 17, 2011 1:33 PM

    That sound you just heard was 32 million bubbles being burst.

  5. SteelTown6 says: Jan 17, 2011 1:34 PM

    “Some owners” translates to “Jerry Jones”

  6. randolph32 says: Jan 17, 2011 1:34 PM

    Peter King obviously knows how to work both sides of the aisle, and don’t think he wouldn’t be ‘planting a seed’ for the owners with the players with a report like that. That’s what the hard core owners want, at the very least they want the players to Believe that’s their feeling.

    …although it could very be a BIG GULP!

  7. fthrvic says: Jan 17, 2011 1:37 PM

    yeah, cause Jerry Jones wants that Taj Mahal sitting empty for a season….whatever

  8. coachstram says: Jan 17, 2011 1:41 PM

    We’re screwed.

  9. packattack1967 says: Jan 17, 2011 1:42 PM

    Good. The union is skating on thin ice. This league MUST have a rookie cap to survive. Bust the union if need be.

  10. zoxitic says: Jan 17, 2011 1:42 PM

    I smell the NFL getting ruined. Human beings are stupid.

  11. sirsupersouthern says: Jan 17, 2011 1:42 PM

    Well, there’s always the UFC…

  12. biggerballz says: Jan 17, 2011 1:42 PM

    Good maybe then they will learn not to be so greedy or they can go get 9 to 5 jobs like the rest of us.

  13. Moonman says: Jan 17, 2011 1:43 PM

    I wish we had more details as to what concessions the owners are demanding from the players. What exactly is it they want? They already have a system in place that’s rather friendly to them. No guaranteed contracts, extended control over players via the franchise tag without having to tax themselves with long term commitments to elite talent.

    So I guess now they want to lower the players’ ‘cut’. Take money away from them. I mean, I’m not privy to the league’s financials. So I can’t sit here and criticize either party, even if I may think the current system is owner-friendly.

    More info would be nice.

  14. felcus says: Jan 17, 2011 1:44 PM

    The players need to suck it up and play for what they can get. To anybody who actually works for a living: Does your boss open up the company books to you? Do you get to determine the terms of your employment? There is far too much greed with this whole thing – on both sides – but the owners win in the end because its their money. Actually its our money – the fans – but nobody cares about us.

  15. wallyhorse says: Jan 17, 2011 1:45 PM

    The owners I suspect really are short-sighted.

    All the owners need to remember is what happened to Major League Baseball after the 1994 strike canceled the World Series and also cost them some of the ’95 season, even though in my opinion one big reason for that strike was the fact the Pirates were in very serious danger of folding had they caved in at that point to what the players wanted (something that could have landed MLB in serious hot water with legislators in Pennsylvania who in my opinion seem to look at Pittsburgh as a “favorite son” had the Pirates actually folded, again at least in my opinion).

    Something similar to that strike could have lasting effects on the NFL that I think few realize right now could be the case, with the NHL ironically in a position to pounce and gain back a lot of people it lost following the lockout that cost them 2004-’05 season (a strike that in my opinion was also about a Pittsburgh team, as the Penguins had almost folded for the second time in less than a decade and probably would have were it not for that lockout making for serious changes in the NHL).

  16. jmac1013 says: Jan 17, 2011 1:48 PM

    There will be a work stoppage. The players won’t feel the pain until they don’t receive a game check in September.

  17. deadeye says: Jan 17, 2011 1:50 PM

    I’m all in favor of the owners getting a labor agreement that makes them happier. They are the ones spending hundreds of millions to own a franchise, at some point they should be able to make business decisions that they want or need. If the players don’t like it, go find another job that will pay you $500,000 per year, or higher.

  18. pigbladder says: Jan 17, 2011 1:50 PM

    if jurry jones or dan snyder are some of the bigger owners that want a lockout, that would be absurd. they are two of the bigger problems in the nfl, throwing money at free agents/players like it was candy.
    they are a whole lot of the problem, and then want the system to take care of their bad habits of trying to buy a championship.
    the owners built this monster, and now the monster needs more and more money to feed it, they should have been smarter in the first place.

  19. david7590 says: Jan 17, 2011 1:52 PM

    Next year will suck

  20. fin72 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:00 PM

    The players need to suck it up and play for what they can get. To anybody who actually works for a living: Does your boss open up the company books to you? Do you get to determine the terms of your employment?
    ————————————————

    In a partnership (which this is supposed to be), yes.

  21. savocabol1 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:03 PM

    Moonman says:
    Jan 17, 2011 1:43 PM
    I wish we had more details as to what concessions the owners are demanding from the players. What exactly is it they want? They already have a system in place that’s rather friendly to them. No guaranteed contracts, extended control over players via the franchise tag without having to tax themselves with long term commitments to elite talent.

    So I guess now they want to lower the players’ ‘cut’. Take money away from them. I mean, I’m not privy to the league’s financials. So I can’t sit here and criticize either party, even if I may think the current system is owner-friendly.

    More info would be nice.

    ______________________

    As merely only a fan of the game, why do we need to know anything? It isn’t our right to know any detail of what it on the bargining table. The media reports on these stories so much that it makes us think we should “have” to know everything.

  22. commoncents says: Jan 17, 2011 2:04 PM

    Greedy owners have put live football out of reach for most American’s. With another work stoppage, don’t be surprised if you lose a good precentage of your live crowd permanently. We don’t want to hear about your greed, we just want football!!

  23. qb19 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:16 PM

    One thing is for sure, it is wrong for the owners to force a season ticket “package” on the buyer that includes two meaningless home pre season games. I should be able to choose whether or not I want to pay for those games, but I currently do not have that choice. I am forced to buy the pre season games (as part of the package) and pay the same price as the regular season tickets. It’s just wrong.

    It’s like the TV “packages” when you have to buy Nickelodeon because it’s in the package that includes ESPN or the NFL Network.

  24. gorilladunk says: Jan 17, 2011 2:18 PM

    Love how everybody always blames Jerry Jones for everything. Don’t discount the owners in the northeast, Rocky Mountains, or west coast, either. There are SEVERAL owners who want the system blown up. Jerry probably has more to lose if there is no season next year than anyone. After all, over 750 million of HIS money is tied up in Cowboys Stadium.

  25. bearsfan624evr says: Jan 17, 2011 2:21 PM

    This NFL labor owner contract standoff just reflects our current global economic recession or downturn,
    if not a colossal good old fashion mexican standoff for both sides. P.King is on the money with owners who see these recession as prime opportunity for them to break union players contract. NFL owners probably see no downside to their position. Its win-win for them especially with our economy, they see NFLPA union not being able to withstand pressure of lost income on their side. The owners got paid by networks no matter what already. They look to see players union to blink first. We’ll now be able to at least see if Goodell has the cojones to fix this… otherwise its might be NFL network who wins out showing entire season of reruns in 2011 season. imagine that?? low overhead, maximum revenues, who u think is shaking now??… go bears…sorry for hometeam plug.

  26. burntorangehorn says: Jan 17, 2011 2:25 PM

    Owners are greedy. Players are greedy. They’re going to have the compromise, but it’s obvious from the fact that there’s not a new deal yet that they don’t feel any urgency.

    Oh well, the more entertaining brand of football–college–will play in 2011 regardless. Maybe you NFL fans would like to see what football looks like when there’s tradition involved?

  27. malee2 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:30 PM

    if jurry jones or dan snyder are some of the bigger owners that want a lockout, that would be absurd. they are two of the bigger problems in the nfl, throwing money at free agents/players like it was candy.

    ___________________________________

    I’m sorry but I am having a hard time trying to figure out where jerry jones throws money out like candy.. ok maybe Roy Williams, but usually free agency comes and goes and the Cowboys are relatively quiet. Dan Snyder, now there is a guy who throws away money.

  28. russrpm says: Jan 17, 2011 2:30 PM

    It’s funny that the 2 owners mentioned in the comments here, Jones and Snyder, as the ones who want a lockout the most, are in fact the owners who have shown that they will pay and overpay to try to get a winning team. I would expect that they would be all for a tough negotiating stance, but if you want to see who is for a lockout, look at Cleveland, Jacksonville, and Carolina in particular.

  29. lonespeed says: Jan 17, 2011 2:32 PM

    As I’ve said before…

    If the NFL can’t keep its ego in check, I’m walking, and just like the MLB, I’ll never go back.

    I have no sympathy for either side.

    They treat the fan base like an ever forgiving cash cow.

    They can have their $150.00 jerseys, their $20-30 parking passes, their $85.00 upperdeck face value tickets, their $8.00 beer, $6.00 hotdogs, their 20-plus minutes of commercials per hour, their Sirius NFL network and the rest of their nickle-and-diming.

    They created their problem. They can keep it.

    I hope other fans are willing to suck it up and punish the NFL with their wallets if they choose to go into a work stoppage.

  30. felcus says: Jan 17, 2011 2:34 PM

    “In a partnership (which this is supposed to be), yes.”

    THIS IS NOT A PARTNERSHIP! Players and the NFLPA convince themselves that this is a partnership. This is no way a partnership. There are owners and employees. Period.

  31. dmobin says: Jan 17, 2011 2:40 PM

    grandpoohba – the owners are the ones that put Goodell in place as commish in the first place. How will he get fired. Owners want work stoppage to keep player salaries down and get the rookie salary cap in place, they ain’t gonna fire him for giving them what they want!

  32. qb19 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:41 PM

    burntorangehorn, Pee Wee football is probably the MOST entertaining. But I think I still prefer the NFL.

  33. saberstud75 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:42 PM

    If the NFL owners and players do not think that a huge, long-term dropoff in revenue will result from a work stoppage they are naive. Go ahead and strike or let a work stoppage happen, I WILL FIND A NEW HOBBY!

    What the NFL dosn’t realize is that the group with the power isn’t the owners or the players… It’s the fans. Example MLB. They never recovered from the strike.

    Hey Jerry Jones. Have fun making the mortgage payment on your $1.2 Billion stadium for your crappy football team by making truck and pizza commercials… douche bag.

  34. scotchrocks says: Jan 17, 2011 2:44 PM

    It’s hard for some to see it this way, but you can’t compare the working conditions/salary/hours/benefits of your “9 to 5″ to that of the NFL. They aren’t the same industries and they have different sets of rules.

  35. geetee52 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:48 PM

    It is a shame that we as a fan base of over 100 million let 31 greedy owners and 1500 overpaid athletes dictate how tens of billions of our dollars are going to be divided up among themselves. To add insult to injury, the fact that we as the source of all the revenue has absolutely no say in the matter. The final slap in the face is that in addition to all this, we are then used as the bargaining chips and pawns in the dispute.

    Instead of us being terrified that they could steal the season from us, THEY should be the ones petrified that we would tell them to just shove their season where the sun doesn’t shine.

    This NFL is not free enterprise. It is a monopoly that is protected by routinely-practiced antitrust.

    If the ‘rules’ of ownership were changed to again allow the fans to purchase the teams from this point on (modeled after Green Bay), not only would the labor issues be resolved once and for all, we could eliminate the insane owner welfare/stadium competition and go back to a system where simple supply and demand are the determining factors.

  36. mikea311 says: Jan 17, 2011 2:50 PM

    heres a novel idea:

    the owners should tell the union they are done with them for good, they will be hiring scab players and the pros are allowed to come play without their union.

  37. wetdentist says: Jan 17, 2011 2:53 PM

    owners want 18 regular season games, but don’t seem to want to expand the active rosters for extra people on the sidelines . . . “where do you get the guys?”

  38. jc1958coo says: Jan 17, 2011 3:05 PM

    when ego driven owners- al davis, jerry jones,dan snyder give big $$$ to losers, jamarcus russel,albert haynesworth roy williams etc. thats the players fault!! stupid owners can blame who ever they want they’re owners of teams not the league!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  39. zackd2 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:05 PM

    “Good. The union is skating on thin ice. This league MUST have a rookie cap to survive. Bust the union if need be.”

    That’s not even an issue. The union will do a rookie cap tomorrow if the owners agreed to extend the rest of the contract.

    “heres a novel idea:

    the owners should tell the union they are done with them for good, they will be hiring scab players and the pros are allowed to come play without their union.”

    And pay fines for anti-trust violations too?

  40. iluvwikileaks says: Jan 17, 2011 3:13 PM

    I hope next season isn’t cancelled. It will ruin the Steeler’s opportunity to repeat;) :)

  41. charly0418 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:18 PM

    How much money did the owners paid to King in order for him to say this lie?

  42. dmobin says: Jan 17, 2011 3:19 PM

    saberstud75 – On the MLB strike reference, last I checked baseball has been experiencing record attendance levels since their last strike. Also have been experiencing record revenue levels. Fans of NFL will come back as they will soon forget about the strike and the media will make sure they push any return of football hard.

  43. billygoat says: Jan 17, 2011 3:21 PM

    @mikea311

    Heres another novel idea:

    When the owners tell the pros they are done with the union for good and hire scabs, they should start their own league and sign deals with the networks and stadiums.

    Which league do you think will be watched.

  44. arcaero says: Jan 17, 2011 3:29 PM

    There’s high school, college, and longerie football to fill my autumn…so the NoFunLeague? yawn…who cares?! I’ll just go fishing on Sunday. Once they realize life goes on without them…they will get a deal done.

  45. mick730 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:29 PM

    Earth to some of you fans:

    1. The NFL is not a “partnership” between the players and the owners.

    2. Nobody is forced to buy anything. If you don’t like paying for two preseason games in the NFL package, don’t buy the package, otherwise, shut up and write the check. That is the extent of your “rights”. You can choose to buy or choose not to. Other than that, you have no rights and you don’t deserve any.

    3. The NFL has had strikes and work stoppages in the past. None of those actions destroyed or damaged the game. For those of you threatening to burn your season tickets, or cancel your Directv packages, or to simply stop watching, go ahead, nobody cares. Somebody else will buy the tickets, subscribe to Directv or simply watch on newtork TV.

    4. For those demanding that the owners open their books, get a grip. Look at the Green Bay financial reports for the last several years. They’re all available to anybody who wants to take the time. Salaries as a percentage of total expenses and more importantly, team revenues, are skyrocketing. Gosh, who could have figured. Duh.

    The Players union now has a deal in place, since 2006, which gives them 56% of the gross. That leaves 44% to the owners for operating expenses, stadium mortgage payments, other debt services and last of all, profit. The players do not share in any of the expenses incurred to operate the team and the league, they simply demand everything off the top, and they have received it. The owners want to scale back the 56% to a more reasonable percentage. If the Packers are any barometer, they certainly need to do so.

    For those of you who complain about the cost of beer, hotdogs, tickets, NFL gear and the rest, remember that the players get 56% of what you are paying, the owners 44%. The difference is from that 44%, the owners have to pay all of the expenses and the overhead. They players pay for nothing.

  46. theytukrjobs says: Jan 17, 2011 3:31 PM

    If there was ever a good time for my Vikings to lose a season, now would be it. The two best teams in the NFC are in this division and we might be building a stadium on the Metrodome site, leaving them homeless for a season playing a turf team on the unheated soil of TCF Bank Stadium, nearly ensuring medocrity.

    Give them a year to build the stadium, or one less year to be homeless. And with a year off, teams that are good now have zero correlation of where they may eventually be, not to mention roster shuffling like we’ve never seen.

    Having the deck reshuffled when you are in last place isn’t the worst thing in the world.

  47. Moonman says: Jan 17, 2011 3:34 PM

    savocabol1
    As merely only a fan of the game, why do we need to know anything? It isn’t our right to know any detail of what it on the bargining table. The media reports on these stories so much that it makes us think we should “have” to know everything.
    —————–

    Merely a fan?

    The reason the sport operates is because of our financial input into the teams. Whether it be through merchandise or ticket & stadium purchases, we make the league ‘go’. So when I said it would be nice to know more about the situation – more pertinent details – what I mean is this:

    I would like to know why there may be a work stoppage or an all out suspension of the 2011 season for a league that I watch religiously and spend significant portions of my income on to see in person and wear team goods.

    Or I can just be a mindless drone and wait for the smart people to figure it out for my sorry, knuckle dragging back side.

  48. hebephrenic says: Jan 17, 2011 3:36 PM

    @ burntorangehorn

    As much as there are some good college football games with a rich tradition and history, there is also the games like Alabama vs Abu-Dabi Dental Academy blowouts.

  49. kazkal says: Jan 17, 2011 3:41 PM

    I gotta Support the owners here Both can make their case but at the end of the day the Owners are the Boss.Players should be happy with a rookie payscale because that alot would open up alot of money to the vets.

    1st pick overall? 5 years 25million 5 million guaranteed… then a 500k / 100k Drop off for every pick under that one.

  50. erikw65 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:41 PM

    As merely only a fan of the game, why do we need to know anything? It isn’t our right to know any detail of what it on the bargining table.
    ————————-
    No, you’re wrong and I’ll tell you why. Because we are the Consumers of their Product. Colin Cowherd has made this same point recently regarding FIFA and international soccer, saying how FIFA’s choice of Qatar to hold the World Cup- yeah it’s the World’s Cup, but Americans are a large part of the market, and we spend money on sports like no other consumers, so they need to take that into account.

    The same point is true here and I’m sure each side would agree with me, because they obviously have been jockeying for position so as not to be cast as the Bad Guy and that’s what this story is all about- PK has exposed the hidden sentiment that some Owners don’t want us fans to know about: that they care less about the sport we love than the money.

    Amazing how many fans don’t get what’s happening here at all or how they’re being taken for granted in this process!

  51. ijr213 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:44 PM

    Could we get a WikiLeaks sort of thing here? Can we know which owners actually believe this, if any? Personally, I’d like to know which ones before I go and get a cross or noose ready or that it’s even valid.

    But if it does happen to be valid, perhaps the public should take back what’s there’s. For instance, the stadiums that were built with tax dollars and not revenue from the team. Or perhaps not buying any tickets, memorabilia or watching any games of those teams would be a pretty strong message.

    The fans put the money in your pocket. Just because you’re a billionaire outside of football doesn’t mean we don’t mean anything.

  52. wallyhorse says: Jan 17, 2011 3:46 PM

    >>dmobin wrote:>>

    >>saberstud75 – On the MLB strike reference, last I checked baseball has been experiencing record attendance levels since their last strike. Also have been experiencing record revenue levels. Fans of NFL will come back as they will soon forget about the strike and the media will make sure they push any return of football hard.>>

    Baseball may be experience record attendance, but it still has never completely recovered from the 1994 strike either. I know quite a few people who walked out on baseball and never returned following that strike, and national TV ratings are WAY down to where the NFL this past season did the once-unthinkable since Sunday Night Football started full-season runs in 1990: Play the night of Game 4 of the World Series, as was done last year. Like with the NHL, MLB stands to gain back fans they lost in recent years if the NFL does go on strike.

  53. lasher1650 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:48 PM

    There is little doubt that Jerry Jones is the owner driving the hard-line stance. The fact that the Jones and non-Jones ownership factions are unable to get on the same page paralyzes any meaningful negotiations between the players and owners until said owners get their own house in order. Very afraid that the NFL devolves into a league of inequity creating a small market/large market circumstance ala MLB. The league is at an all-time high in terms of popularity, yet Jerry Jones seems hell-bent on killing (or at least maiming) the golden goose.

  54. oldhamletman says: Jan 17, 2011 3:50 PM

    this is the Nuclear option…. the difference is, they will definitely use it….

    this leak is the final warning for the players to get their head around the idea that they are employees

    mick370 hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that 56% of what we pay goes to players with no overhead other than their posse….. while the owners pay all the expenses of the game out of their 44%… what other business does that?

    Player pay, egos, and arrogance are all more delusional than ever… say goodbye to at least the first 6 games right now…..

  55. saberstud75 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:55 PM

    dmobin – Look at the MBL strike in terms of popularity and ratings, not just attendance and revenue.

    Prior to the strike, MLB was the undisputed national pasttime in the U.S. Now, the world series cannot even compete with regular season NFL football games, or NASCAR for that matter for ratings.

    I have talked to ALOT of former baseball fans that have never forgave the MLB for allowing a strike. Right or wrong, the average American will not understand giving up millions of dollars, to play a game, for the opportunity for more money.

    Best case scenario after a strike/work stoppage, the NFL will be set back 5-10 years minimum in terms of revenue. The stadiums that sell out will continue to do so after games resume, but most NFL revenue comes from prime time games on big networks and additional coverage like Sunday ticket and Redzone, and those sales will suffer.

  56. gtisme says: Jan 17, 2011 4:13 PM

    Not for the owners side or the players side. I’m for my side, the Fan side. And I’ll never understand those on this board who take a side other than our own. F’ the owners and F’ the players too!

    I am a HUGE fan, and even I will strike for a year if these idiots pull this crap. I truly hope the owners nor the union are arrogant enough to let this happen, it will cost them big time I can guarantee you that. Peeps wont put up with this crap in 2011, too many other things to do . Baseball never really recovered and that was the 90′s; The NFL is stronger but this is the wrong time for believing the fans wont revolt, we’ve had enuff bad news the past few years!

  57. schnalls says: Jan 17, 2011 4:24 PM

    I could see this realistically happen, and no deal in place until this time next year. The owners will hold out until they get what they want. They hold all the cards and know that all of us will come back like robots. There will not be the backlash like MLB had in the early 90s.

  58. savocabol1 says: Jan 17, 2011 4:24 PM

    As someone else put it nicely here, it doesn’t matter what YOU do. Someone else will come along and buy tix, merchandise, etc. Fans have more and more of an “entitled” attitude because of the media.

    I buy Ford cars, as a consumer does that mean I have a right to know what the union deal is between the production workers and the plants? Nope, unless I buy stock, which last time I checked only Green Bay has the ability to offer that.

  59. turgidsen says: Jan 17, 2011 4:26 PM

    lasher1650 says:
    Jan 17, 2011 3:48 PM
    There is little doubt that Jerry Jones is the owner driving the hard-line stance. The fact that the Jones and non-Jones ownership factions are unable to get on the same page paralyzes any meaningful negotiations between the players and owners until said owners get their own house in order. Very afraid that the NFL devolves into a league of inequity creating a small market/large market circumstance ala MLB. The league is at an all-time high in terms of popularity, yet Jerry Jones seems hell-bent on killing (or at least maiming) the golden goose.

    ______________________________________________________________________

    I naturally despise people like Jerry Jones ,Dan Snyder , Al Davis. However I can pretty much say with absolute certainty that they will do anything possible to prevent a lockout. I would imagine ,though , that someone like Jerry Richardson is willing to lose a season. His profit margin is small so he has less to lose.
    That being said When did Peter King become the final word on PFT? I remember when Peter King was being called out for being inconsiderate to radio announcers because they called out a philly wide receiver.

  60. stanklepoot says: Jan 17, 2011 5:08 PM

    grandpoopah says: Jan 17, 2011 1:30 PM

    If Goodell allows a work stoppage to happen, he needs to be fired immediately. He already should be fired for pussifying the game, but failing to get a labor deal done would be the last straw.
    ________________________________
    Goodell has no authority to allow or disallow a work stoppage. In this case, the commissioner is little more than a glorified intermediary. He can’t force either the owners or the players to sign a cba they don’t like. The most Goodell can do here is try to keep the piece and get both sides to talk to each other. Even that, however, is doomed to failure if one or both sides refuse to negotiate. Feel free to blame Goodell for the things he can control, but simply blaming him for everything that happens in the NFL is absurd. He doesn’t even get a vote at the end of the day in this situation. It’s up to the owners and the NFLPA to find a way to work together.

    Btw, am I the only one that thinks the “prominent owner” group is being headed by Jerry Jones? He’s been going around saying that a lockout won’t hurt the owners that much, and that the supplemental revenue sharing was going to be done away with. It seem to me like he’s looking for a chance to blow up the system. He appears to not only want to break the union, but to create a more defined pecking order amongst ownership that favors the larger market teams. I know Jones and Steinbrenner were friends, but if JJ remakes the NFL in MLB’s image, it will be the death of the NFL. When fans from smaller market areas know their teams are doomed to mediocrity by the system, they don’t tend to be too involved with the sport. Football is top dog because it has a devoted following all over the country.

  61. stanklepoot says: Jan 17, 2011 5:10 PM

    One more quick point. I’d love to see the NFLPA’s attempt to put the tv money basically in limbo in the case of a lockout succeed. Let’s see how eager Jones is to lose a season if he has to make all those payments on his Jones mahal with out all that tv revenue.

  62. stanklepoot says: Jan 17, 2011 5:20 PM

    fthrvic says: Jan 17, 2011 1:37 PM

    yeah, cause Jerry Jones wants that Taj Mahal sitting empty for a season….whatever
    _________________________
    You seem to be forgetting that with next to no labor costs, the tv revenue will more than pay for Jerry’s palace. Most of the tv revenue will need to be refunded, but that won’t happen until games are being played again. Oh, and the $1 Billion that Direct TV is paying for exclusive rights to the NFL Ticket package isn’t refundable. Direct TV will simply be paying $1 billion dollars for fewer (if any) games in the case of a protracted lockout. Some of the owners may also think they can leverage the networks desire to renew their contracts with the NFL to get those networks to not push for a full reimbursement of funds. If the NFLPA isn’t successful in having that money put in an untouchable fund, then I think that good ole JJ would love to spearhead a major overhaul to the system. The first step would be to force the players to capitulate. the next would be to find a way to shift even more power away from smaller market teams to larger market ones. Jones already irked some people in the NFL by declaring that supplemental revenue sharing was going to end before the owners even sat down to discuss the issue. Some of the owner might actually be better off in the end if they team up with the players to fight Jones, as opposed to teaming up with Jones to fight the players. That way they might avoid a Jones-led coup of the league itself.

  63. Deb says: Jan 17, 2011 5:28 PM

    If Peter King is sure of his information, let him start naming names. Too many of us–myself included–just assume Jerry Jones is the Big Bad Wolf in this scenario … and with good reason given his well-known hatred of the current CBA and public statements about the possibility of a lockout. But not even Jones could engineer this by himself.

    Why doesn’t King tell us exactly which owners are pushing for a shutdown and which are pushing for an agreement … so we’ll know where to direct our anger?

  64. stanklepoot says: Jan 17, 2011 5:32 PM

    felcus says: Jan 17, 2011 2:34 PM

    “In a partnership (which this is supposed to be), yes.”

    THIS IS NOT A PARTNERSHIP! Players and the NFLPA convince themselves that this is a partnership. This is no way a partnership. There are owners and employees. Period.
    _________________________
    excuse me, but without the players, what exactly do the owners own? A logo and some interesting real estate with a lot of seating. The players generate the product, and the owners market and distribute it. They need to act like partners or both sides lose. Let the owners try and put on games with replacement players again and see how well that works out for them. They’ll go from ruling the sports scene to being a bloated version of the UFL in no time flat.

  65. erikw65 says: Jan 17, 2011 5:37 PM

    mick370 hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that 56% of what we pay goes to players with no overhead other than their posse….. while the owners pay all the expenses of the game out of their 44%… what other business does that?

    No, Mick370 misrepresents reality. The NFL is in fact a NON-PROFIT, TAX-EXEMPT, government-regulated 501(c) Corporation, so you can throw your car company metaphor out the window.

  66. stanklepoot says: Jan 17, 2011 5:42 PM

    zackd2 says: Jan 17, 2011 3:05 PM

    “Good. The union is skating on thin ice. This league MUST have a rookie cap to survive. Bust the union if need be.”

    That’s not even an issue. The union will do a rookie cap tomorrow if the owners agreed to extend the rest of the contract.

    “heres a novel idea:

    the owners should tell the union they are done with them for good, they will be hiring scab players and the pros are allowed to come play without their union.”

    And pay fines for anti-trust violations too?
    ________________________
    and don’t forget, defend themselves against countless breach of contract lawsuits from the players. Meanwhile, season ticket and psl sales will plummet, as will tv ratings and stadium attendance. Going with replacement players would simply turn the NFL into a larger and unsustainable UFL overnight. Once that happened, the UFL or some other league would pop up to try and fill the void created by the NFL. The NFL dominates the football world because they have pretty much sole access to the best players. If the NFL put those players out on the street and opted to go with inferior talent, someone would try to challenge the NFL. They’ve beaten off similar challenges before, but if they give up their talent advantage, they could find themselves in a bad spot this time.

  67. steeelfann says: Jan 17, 2011 5:47 PM

    QUESTION: (sorry did not know where to post this)

    The Steelers had to kick from their own 15 yard line with a minute + left because Keamatu laid a late hit on someone after the Mendenhall TD. The Steelers squibbed it and the Ravens got fantastic field position.

    WHY COULD THE STEELERS NOT JUST KICK IT OUT OF BOUNDS and GUARANTEE RAVENS START AT 35 yard line? I was screaming for them to kick out of bounds and wondered if it legal to do so when kicking back due to a penalty or if the new line would be the 50 yard line or whatever. Seems to be me the intelligent play is to kick out of bounds.

  68. stanklepoot says: Jan 17, 2011 5:51 PM

    oldhamletman says: Jan 17, 2011 3:50 PM

    this is the Nuclear option…. the difference is, they will definitely use it….

    this leak is the final warning for the players to get their head around the idea that they are employees

    mick370 hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that 56% of what we pay goes to players with no overhead other than their posse….. while the owners pay all the expenses of the game out of their 44%… what other business does that?

    Player pay, egos, and arrogance are all more delusional than ever… say goodbye to at least the first 6 games right now…..
    _________________________
    Sorry, but that ignores the billions of dollars that the owners take off the top of the revenue in investment credits to help cover the cost of stadium construction and other activities. Oh, and if you think ticket and/or concession prices will drop if the players take a big cut in salary, then you’re out of your mind. This isn’t about making things more affordable, it’s about putting more money in the owners’ pockets. Prices will continue to climb as long as we’re willing to pay, regardless of what the players get paid.

  69. roccityrep says: Jan 17, 2011 5:52 PM

    As much as I hate the owners that are known to overpay for players….see Dan Snyder, the small market owners are effected by this CBA even more. In 2009 the salary cap was $128,000,000 which was 65% of the league shared revenue per team. So that leaves the owners with roughly $64,000,000 to operate the team, in some cases the stadium and pay the coaches and staff. Now imagine that you are paying your head coach another $5,000,000 of that money. In most cases you probably barely break even. That is where the stadiums come in. That is why there is PSL’s and Luxury Boxes. That is why Dallas, NY, NE, Miami and Chicago make more money. The larger markets have all that added revenue to spend. So that is what you get for buying a $700 million dollar sports franchise. I also happen to be an NFL season ticketholder and i get forced to buy 2 meaningless pre-season games. If the players don’t want a 2/18 game season then 2/16 is just fine with me!!

  70. ontboltfan says: Jan 17, 2011 6:02 PM

    The only real need here is for the fans and it is that each team have a salary cap so teams like BUF and CAR can compete w NY and CHI where their is a market size disadv.

    This ensures the quality of the product will be as good and cost the same anywhere, in a way like a regulated electricity system.

    Not desirable, but I could see the owners giving up on negotiations if the split to some of them is unaffordable. Wout an agreement and if the players don’t play under a last best offer it would be best for all to just decertify the union. Then the players could play for what is available and everything would operate the same more or less than if they were in a union. Ie the league would have rules in place for FA, salary levels etc.

    The key isn’t regulating the players, it is regulating the cap for the reasons above. Let the league commission have the final say in setting the split operating like an arbitrator in a way. Or even have an indep arbitrator hear all sides if is more partial.

  71. pfii63 says: Jan 18, 2011 10:19 AM

    Dear Owners,

    LOST SEASON = LOSS OF FANS = LOSS OF REVENUE

    Does that calculate with you idiots? I have never gone back to baseball after the strike. 17 years later and the game still has not recovered, and in fact lost ground to the NFL.

    Then again, maybe the owners are just baseball fans.

  72. pfii63 says: Jan 18, 2011 10:24 AM

    Sometimes the simplest and most obvious answers are the best ones.

    It was 60/40 owners and then went to 60/40 players… how about 50/50?

    They want 18 games to expand the revenue base? Then expand the rosters to 55 and take away the silly rules that only allows 45 to dress for each game.

    And while we are at it, if the owners really want to put the best product on the field, the might consider full-time officials and scrapping the current replay system. Why the hell are the coaches responsible for making sure that the officials do their jobs? The college replay system is far superior and doesn’t take away from the play on the field.

    As much as I love the NFL, these owners really haven’t got a damn clue.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!