Skip to content

John Mara’s comments about negotiations confirm serious communications issues

NFL LABOR FOOTBALL AP

In the nine days since talks between the NFL and the players’ union collapsed, various conflicting reports and statements have emerged regarding the resumption of negotiations.

The owners have made it clear that they want to continue talks immediately.  The players have sent more mixed signals than a broken CB radio.  (We say that with full appreciation that 72.75 percent of the audience has no idea what a CB radio is.)

On Saturday, the players spelled out the protocol for resuming talks in a letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell:  “As you know, the players are represented by class counsel in the Brady litigation, with the NFLPA and its Executive Committee serving as an advisor to any such settlement discussions. If you have any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues in that case, you should contact Class Counsel.”

A day later, Giants co-owner John Mara told reporters gathered in New Orleans for the league meetings that it’s his understanding the players are waiting until April 6, the date of a court hearing on the motion to lift the lockout, to continue discussions.  Mara said he wants to continue talking now.

But there should be no ambiguity.  The players have invited the NFL to contact the lawyers representing the class action.  They are Barbara Berens and Justi Rae Miller of Berens & Miller in Minneapolis, Timothy Thornton of Briggs & Morgan, James Quinn and Bruce Meyer of Weil, Gotsha & Manges or New York, and Jeffrey Kessler, David Feher, and David Greenspan of Dewey & LeBoeuf in New York.  That’s eight different lawyers whom the NFL can call in order to get this process started.  Their phone numbers are at the bottom of the complaint.

Once the lawyers are contacted, the NFLPA* will be involved in the discussions in an advisory role.

So if John Mara truly wants to get talks rolling, John Mara needs only to tell someone to pick up the phone and call.  It can’t get any simpler than that.

We’re not sure why it’s gotten so complicated, unless the owners don’t actually want to negotiate.

Permalink 68 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New York Giants, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
68 Responses to “John Mara’s comments about negotiations confirm serious communications issues”
  1. scytherius says: Mar 20, 2011 6:51 PM

    The fans support the players by 2-1 and the Owners know it:

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20110311/SPORTS03/103110340/Poll-Fans-support-players-over-NFL-owners

  2. tubal22 says: Mar 20, 2011 6:54 PM

    Did you have to post this blurb to get DeMaurice DeSmithus on your show tomorrow?

  3. palinforpresidentofnorthkorea says: Mar 20, 2011 6:58 PM

    “That’s eight different lawyers whom the NFL can call in order to get this process started.”

    Telephoning eight opposition lawyers who are preparing for Court is a sure path to a quick settlement?

    Best article ever written!

  4. toe4 says: Mar 20, 2011 6:59 PM

    I’m guessing that the owners and the players believe that if they sit back and say “we want to negotiate and they don’t” enough times people will believe them.

    Well…. Presidents from both parties have been elected on that technique…

    but their downfall is that we football fans are a whole lot more passionate about who is the third receiver on our fantasy team than we are about who the President is.

  5. duanethomas says: Mar 20, 2011 6:59 PM

    1st Bishes!

  6. spartaninnh says: Mar 20, 2011 6:59 PM

    Breaker, breaker, one-nine….

    Okay, I guess that just leaves me in the 27.25% that does know the reference…..

  7. dolphan343 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:01 PM

    *We’re not sure why it’s gotten so complicated, unless the owners don’t actually want to negotiate.*

    Ummm….the owners, I believe, have made the latest proposal in this “negotiations”. The next step is to get a counter proposal or at the least meet and discuss what is acceptable or the degree of difference of the aspects of thgis proposal. They have asked the players to discuss. Are you suggesting they should now call one of these lawyers to give them more runaround and avoid them further with vague comments that this isnt acceptable?

  8. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 7:04 PM

    “John Mara needs only to tell someone to pick up the phone and call. It can’t get any simpler than that. …unless the owners don’t actually want to negotiate.”

    Well Roger?
    Do you or don’t you?

  9. ttommytom says: Mar 20, 2011 7:07 PM

    CB = West Virginia cell phone

  10. tiredofthestupid says: Mar 20, 2011 7:07 PM

    “We’re not sure why it’s gotten so complicated, unless the owners don’t actually want to negotiate.”

    What? You mean all these PR moves and pandering to the fans might have been disingenuous? The owners might try something like this to get fans to put pressure on the players because the fans have no idea what is really going on?

    All in an effort to get the terms most favorable for the owners?

    Say it ain’t so!

  11. moggy6actual says: Mar 20, 2011 7:07 PM

    Is there a legal reason that the owners must contact the players? If not, can’t the players contact the owners first? Just asking.

  12. medtxpack says: Mar 20, 2011 7:09 PM

    if im one of those 8 lawyers, id pick up the damn phone, if nothing else, it wouldget things rolling and the first one to do that wont get burned in the media….

  13. joe6606 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:10 PM

    “unless the owners don’t actually want to negotiate.”
    ——————————————
    ding, ding, ding we HAVE a winner.

    /spit owners

  14. rowbear says: Mar 20, 2011 7:10 PM

    It’s complicated because you’re talking about a bunch of idiots with big egos who don’t realize how good they all have it.

  15. R.H. says: Mar 20, 2011 7:14 PM

    Mike, I was going to ask this earlier, but you have alluded to it in this story.

    How is it that the Players Association and the players themselves are still talking in public (and appear not to be on the same page) and Goodell and the owners have kept quiet?

    Do you think that theposturing and talking trash in public is going to make any inroads in any continuation of talks?

    Thanks!

  16. scudbot says: Mar 20, 2011 7:16 PM

    What could the owners possibly gain by trying to negotiate a deal through lawyers who have a vested interest in continuing litigation against them for as long as they can?

  17. wryly1 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:18 PM

    Let’s be clear and accurate. There were NOT ‘negotiations’ that collapsed. Negotiations haven’t even begun yet. There were some rounds of non-binding mediation – an entirely different animal. Furthermore, we know the owners who truly ARE in favor of a negotiated settlement were not present or involved, it was only a handful of the hard-liners. Also, Commisioner Goodell does NOT have the authority to make an agreement on his own. the Commisioner is employed by the owners.

  18. ampats says: Mar 20, 2011 7:19 PM

    Breaker breaker 19,

    Smokey ahead at mile marker 116. Memories of driving down 95 in college.

  19. rovibe says: Mar 20, 2011 7:19 PM

    I just prank called all those attorneys’ offices and left messages on their voice mail pretending to be Tom Brady. I told them to go ahead and drop the suit and get back into negotiations immediately.

    When the lockout ends in the next few days, the rest of you can thank me.

  20. WingT says: Mar 20, 2011 7:20 PM

    Nice article Mike.

    It will be interesting to hear from the owners as to why they aren’t contacting the lawyers representing the class action.

    April 6th is just around the corner. Either the Players or the Owners will have a stronger bargaining position once the court rules.

    I’m betting the players win in court and they will wear the owners out in negotiations afterward.

    Close the deal now Owners, while you at least are on a level field with the players.

  21. jc1958cool says: Mar 20, 2011 7:21 PM

    the owners opted out and then played hard ball!
    now they want to keep talking because it went to court! too bad so sad, i hope the playes really stick it to them!

  22. crubenst says: Mar 20, 2011 7:22 PM

    Bringing 1 extra lawyer into the negotiations would complicate things let alone EIGHT more lawyers from EIGHT different law firms. If you ask me this is a passive aggressive move by the players to stall negotiations until after April 6th. And if they really wanted to negotiate, couldn’t those 8 lawyers make the first move and contact the NFL?

  23. nflfan101 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:27 PM

    Again, you blame the owners. The players’ lawyers (has it even been declared to be a class action case by the court?) could easily pick up the phone and call. They don’t want to negotiate. It’s the players, stupid.

    One thought on communications, I wonder if the players’ lawyers even explained to the players how mediation works. The player reps were complaining about sitting around and not talking directly with the owners. They were blaming the owners for the waiting. But that is how mediation often works. The owners had to sit and wait also.

  24. endzonezombie says: Mar 20, 2011 7:29 PM

    I’ve been saying what Mike said for days – and earning plenty of thumbs down for saying it.

  25. 4jack4 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:30 PM

    The richer and bigger they become the more disfunctional they get. Trust me, rich people do NOT think like ‘Joe Sixpack’

  26. thefiesty1 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:49 PM

    So call already. Then you will find out that the eight + lawyers are getting ready to go to court on April 6th and don’t have time to visit right now. The owners could make an appointment with them at a later time if they wish. If the players had any intention of meeting instead of going to court they would meet any time and any place but they’d rather go to court.

  27. mike11119 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:51 PM

    show the books??? hell just have the government take it over then give it to the players union ..LIKE GM.

  28. tgbu says: Mar 20, 2011 7:51 PM

    How many professions are there in the world were employees make 50% of the revenue. kinda leaning towards the owners on this one, a little.

  29. tubal22 says: Mar 20, 2011 7:53 PM

    I’d be shocked if any of those 8 lawyers know that they now represent the NFLPA*.

    I don’t think anyone knows who is speaking for the NFLPA* at this point.

  30. 44kyle says: Mar 20, 2011 8:02 PM

    I think this whole mess is mostly about communication. Both sides are so busy it’s the other side’s fault that they haven’t taken the time to understand what the other side wants and is willing to do. They should get together IN PERSON (as many Owners and Players/Reps as possible) with a mediator who has taken the time to get this info and can relate it to each side as CLEARLY and CONCISELY as possible. Then they need to ask each other questions through the mediator to get the positions clear.

  31. stoutfiles says: Mar 20, 2011 8:02 PM

    Another article of “Who should we support?”

    Let’s be honest, the fans support only one side…the fans. We don’t care if the owners or players win/lose, because in the end if they play football they all win. They all make much more money then they would if we, the fans, weren’t spending most of our extra money supporting the game. Especially the players, I’d love to see them try and fall back on their “degrees”.

    I wish that everyone would just boycott the NFL for a year to show both sides who’s really in charge, the customer. Maybe ticket prices, food, merchandise wouldn’t all be so ridiculously expensive. Maybe they’d consider our thoughts during all this instead this PR crap.

    I’m making a dent, albeit a small one, by not going to any football games or buying any merchandise. They likely won’t notice, but if everyone had the guts to do it, we’d see some changes.

  32. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 8:03 PM

    ttommytom says: Mar 20, 2011 7:07 PM

    “CB = West Virginia cell phone”

    How do you know the toothbrush was invented in West Virginia?

    Had it been anywhere else, it’d be called a teethbrush…

  33. 44kyle says: Mar 20, 2011 8:08 PM

    ^^^^^ 2nd sentence should read: Both sides are so busy SAYING it’s the other side’s fault.

  34. jcaro5566 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:11 PM

    For all you idiots pulling for the players, what do you think is going to happen to your ticket prices if they get their way?

    I have never heard of ticket prices going up to meet an owners profit requirements or greed, but I have seen them rise as a direct result of trying to meet a players contract demands.

  35. hail2tharedskins says: Mar 20, 2011 8:18 PM

    The players nor their lawyers have any interest in negotiating right now. There is no ambiguity on that point. They are putting all their eggs in the “block the lockout” basket. If the players were truly interested in negotiating right now, they wouldn’t be telling the owners to contact their lawyers in the media (thats just PR). They would tell their lawyers to contact the owners and present a response to the owner’s last proposal. Or should the owners present their last proposal to the players’ lawyers in hopes that they have a different opinion of the deal (since NFLPA is no longer involved) and they might accept it? The bottom line is that the players never responded to the last offer, actually decertified while reviewing the offer, and have made no effort to respond (well accept in public), it is difficult to realize they are depending on the leverage gained from lifting the lockout before they resume negotiations. I understand why they want that leverage, but I also it backfires on them!

  36. jokendave says: Mar 20, 2011 8:26 PM

    I think they should settle it at the table instead of the media, and then maybe something would get done..

  37. commandercornpone says: Mar 20, 2011 8:28 PM

    the owners made an offer. duh opted to go to court. the players former union is doing much more posturing.

    and i would bet the players pack the polls too.

    the owners did not pull a sham decert, and they can hire other players anytime. it’s called leverage.

  38. rodge1 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:31 PM

    Owners shouldn’t have to do anything, they OWN the teams. They pay for hotels, transportation, equipment, player salaries, etc. If players aren’t happy then they should use their college degrees & intelligence to make better money like UPS delivery drivers or whatever makes them happier. At this point I’d love to watch “he-hate-me” play and not bitch. I bet he’d change his name to “he-pays-me-and-I’m-happy-to-have-a-job”

  39. vomitingliberals says: Mar 20, 2011 8:34 PM

    If you don’t want to pay…

    $8 beer
    $6 Hotdogs
    $5 Bags of peanuts
    $300 Direct TV: MONOPOLY
    Over priced merchandise
    PSL’s

    Then don’t allow the players to keep robbing their respective franchises blind! These costs are necessary to continue funding player salaries! The owners have no choice but to pass the cost of doing business to you the paying customer. Economics 101 people, wake up!

  40. saints25 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:45 PM

    Again, you blame the owners. The players’ lawyers (has it even been declared to be a class action case by the court?) could easily pick up the phone and call. They don’t want to negotiate. It’s the players, stupid.——————————————————————————————————————————Exactly,The players want talk,because there way over there head,The owners will WIN…

  41. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 8:49 PM

    @tgbu

    Try every lawyer firm in the freakin’ world.

  42. FinFan68 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:50 PM

    Basically, you are saying that if the league wants to continue “negotiations” they need to contact Tom Brady’s lawyer or one of the other lawyers representing the other nine players named in the suit. These players are no longer affiliated with the “defunct” NFLPA so saying the NFL should call them is a BS PR move. It is no more valid than the league saying that the players should call Eddie DeBartolo (former 49ers owner) if they would like to resume talks. Phone lines work both ways, by the way. The owners were the last side to make an offer. No counter was made. The ball is still in the players court. They think they will win and wanted Doty…but they didn’t get him. 50/50 odds at best for the players. They are calling the NFL a monopoly which is not the case any more. The team owns the rights for any player who wants to play in the NFL. Players are relatively free to take their services to play football for the UFL…but they don’t want to because the pay is so much better in the league that they are taking to court. Their whole case is contingent upon the NFL being a monopoly. Last I checked, NFL = 1 league; UFL = 1 league. Monopoly =1; NFL + UFL = 2 leagues and by definition is not a monopoly. If the players think they have a slam dunk case that will get them triple damages they could get their feelings hurt at this level and/or the appeal.

  43. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 8:53 PM

    @tubal22

    They are not and they never claimed to be and nobody claimed that on their behalf.

    The NFLPA* sent a letter to the owners replying to the owner’s invitation to talk and said “we cannot talk for the players, call one of these numbers to reach the folks that can”.

  44. zaggs says: Mar 20, 2011 8:59 PM

    First off Vrabel, a signatory to that union response letter said he wanted to talk directly to owners. That was obviously a lie or Vrable was misinformed.

    Another player rep said the window was closed.

    Now its “talk to these 8 new people who haven’t been in all the talks”

    Mara said about talking to players, not the union, not their reps (holy english comprehension fail batman).

    A settlement to an anti-trust lawsuit, and a new CBA may not be the exact same thing.

  45. redskin1 says: Mar 20, 2011 9:00 PM

    I AM WITH YOUTGBU,TRY GOING TO YOUR BOSS AND ASK HIM FOR A LEAST 50 PERCENT OF HIS PROFITS,HES THE ONE WITH THE INVESTMENT IN HIS BUSINESS

  46. cdiggy says: Mar 20, 2011 9:00 PM

    So the owners offered a proposal and the PA got up and walked away from the table and decertified, which really got the ball rolling. The owners say they want to resolve this, right? Now the players basically say “talk to my lawyer”? Yeah, if I was an owner that’s just what I’d do. If I close my eyes I can actually see that happening….. When you tell somebody to contact your lawyer it is pretty much assumed that your going right for the jugular… Give me a break.

  47. hajtrucking says: Mar 20, 2011 9:05 PM

    I have the same problem with my CB whenever some other trucker wants to tell me the scale is open or closed.

  48. glen1904 says: Mar 20, 2011 9:17 PM

    Mike must not read the boards, “unless the owners don’t really want to negotiate” if he did he would know that these owners are captains of industry, pillars of society and to big to fail. It’s clear by the post that most here feel if the players would only allow these billionaires to make a couple more billion a year it would be great for the players because it will TRICKLE DOWN like it has for us in the real world the last 30 years.
    well maybe it hasn’t work in the real world for us but I’m sure it would in the NFL. We just like the jersey anyway!!?

  49. 3octaveFart says: Mar 20, 2011 9:18 PM

    jcaro5566 says: Mar 20, 2011 8:11 PM

    “I have never heard of ticket prices going up to meet an owners profit requirements or greed”

    /ROAR

  50. Kave Krew says: Mar 20, 2011 9:31 PM

    I agree more with @stoutfile and way less with @sscytherius

    The fans are in favor of the fans…..as in: end this crap and get back to football.

    I don’t think the fans are 2-1 in favor of the players nor the owners. There is always a tendency to support Joe Average in any labor issue, but this is so very different. There’s nothing average about either side in this face-off.

    Reality Check:
    The owners and the players only want to USE the fans for their own agendas in this battle. Other than that, they can give a rats blank.
    When it’s resolved, they will only care that we pay the extra dollars it will take to finance the gains in the new contract as well recover any losses.

  51. donttouchthedirtypenny says: Mar 20, 2011 9:46 PM

    A trial lawyer named “Gotsha”? How appropriate.

  52. realfann says: Mar 20, 2011 10:20 PM

    @commandercornpone

    Seems like you are admitting the owners are packing the polls.

    Interesting.

  53. endzonezombie says: Mar 20, 2011 10:26 PM

    “A Bloomberg National Poll conducted March 4-7 showed 43 percent of those surveyed side with the players and 20 percent with the owners”

    In response to the post linking to a national poll showing the fans support the players 2:1, THIS site voted a 29-106 disapproval. I guess the league shills here are upset with the reality check. ^o^

  54. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 10:49 PM

    Horrible economy, less people spending, higher unemployment, businesses cutting back (Dallas Cowboys still can’t get a corporate sponsor)… and with recent stadium constructions, it’s really not a surprise the owners felt they needed to push for a better deal for their long-term business health.

    The players still made headway in the mediation against the owners, so why they didn’t at least give a counter-proposal doesn’t sit well with fans who wanted these guys to work it out.

    I think it’s a risk for the players over the long run especially. The last CBA gave the NFL stability and profitability which grew the pie. A new one would have assured the same for another decade. Now who knows? Might end up killing the goose.

  55. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 10:51 PM

    endzonezombie… that poll was evidently taken at ESPN headquarters… I really don’t believe it now. I’d like to see how it was worded and what people would say now.

  56. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 10:58 PM

    Rasmussen said 65% of fans weren’t following the negotiations.

  57. Deb says: Mar 20, 2011 11:09 PM

    There’s your answer, Mike: The owners don’t actually want to talk.

    scytherius, thanks for posting that stat about the fans supporting the players. It blows my mind to keep seeing people come on here and cheer on the owners to win the the court battle to prevent the injunction stopping the lockout because if the owners win that court battle, we won’t have any football this year. :roll: I’ve done searches on many of the pro-owner commenters who suddenly started flooding this site, and most registered within the last week. Gee, wonder who put them up to that?

    Mike … I was flipping around for something to watch the other night and wound up with Smokey and the Bandit. It was CBs all over the place! ROFL

  58. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 11:18 PM

    ArrowheadPride.com
    1,300 votes, 58 percent blame both sides, 21 percent blame the players and 19 percent blame the owners.

    ProFootballTalk.com
    over 48,000 votes, 37 percent blaming both sides, 38 percent blaming the players and 24 percent blaming the owners.

    Pretty big sample, so the 2:1 claim is suspect now.

  59. southmo says: Mar 20, 2011 11:24 PM

    Deb…..

    I registered because I got tired of the reading the blind support for the players, and I wanted to vent some frustration.

    So to be perfectly honest, it’s probably people like you who “put me up to that.”

  60. 6thsense79 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:36 PM

    jcaro5566 says:
    Mar 20, 2011 8:11 PM
    For all you idiots pulling for the players, what do you think is going to happen to your ticket prices if they get their way?

    I have never heard of ticket prices going up to meet an owners profit requirements or greed, but I have seen them rise as a direct result of trying to meet a players contract demands.
    ——————————————–
    Then you sir are the idiot. You show an utter lack of understanding as it comes to the NFL and how they price their tickets. Do you think PSL was initiated in NY because of player salaries? No they came about to help finance the billion dollar stadium the owners choose to build.

    Also I’ve explained this already and I’ll explain it again……NFL player salary is directly tied to Revenue. As most people already know $1 billion of NFL salary first goes to the team for expenses afterwards the revenue is split 40% owners and 60% players. Do you know what this means my simple minded friend? It means the only way for player salary to increase significantly is if revenue goes up. In 2006 NFL revenue was $6billion….under the CBA the split for that year was players $3 billion ($6billion – 1billion) * .6 . The owners get $3billion.

    In 2010 with a 50% increase in revenue to $9 billion the players got ($9billion – 1billion)*.6 = $4.8billion….and the owners got $4.2 billion.

    So both owners and players made over $1billion more in 2010 than they made in 2006….So please tell me how in the world you can blame player salary for rising ticket prices??? It’s rediculous. Revenue rises…players and owners make billions….Revenue drops…players and owners make less.

    Regardless what side, if any, you take on this at least try and make a somewhat intelligent argument to back up your points. You just make yourself silly because these numbers are all over the internet and anyone could easily run the numbers to show how silly your argument is.

  61. dolphan343 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:42 PM

    There is also a pol on cbssortline

  62. dolphan343 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:42 PM

    *poll*

  63. 6thsense79 says: Mar 20, 2011 11:44 PM

    vomitingliberals says:
    Mar 20, 2011 8:34 PM
    If you don’t want to pay…

    $8 beer
    $6 Hotdogs
    $5 Bags of peanuts
    $300 Direct TV: MONOPOLY
    Over priced merchandise
    PSL’s

    Then don’t allow the players to keep robbing their respective franchises blind! These costs are necessary to continue funding player salaries! The owners have no choice but to pass the cost of doing business to you the paying customer. Economics 101 people, wake up!
    ————————————–
    Another idiot….See my previous post breaking down how the revenue sharing works in the NFL and why it’s rediculous to blame player salary on what you consider over priced tickets etc…..I got nice numbers in there. You talk about Econonimics 101 but you don’t seem to know a thing about Economics. It is nearly impossible for player salary to be the reason for the things you listed especially in a league with no guaranteed contracts and no mandatory salary floor……Also since player salary and owner’s cuts are tied to revenue that means if player salary goes up significantly total revenue has gone up significantly and revenue paid to the owners goes up significantly….Econ 101 give me a break…I sure hope you’re not the professor.

  64. 6thsense79 says: Mar 21, 2011 12:01 AM

    southmo says:
    Mar 20, 2011 10:49 PM
    Horrible economy, less people spending, higher unemployment, businesses cutting back (Dallas Cowboys still can’t get a corporate sponsor)… and with recent stadium constructions, it’s really not a surprise the owners felt they needed to push for a better deal for their long-term business health.

    The players still made headway in the mediation against the owners, so why they didn’t at least give a counter-proposal doesn’t sit well with fans who wanted these guys to work it out.

    I think it’s a risk for the players over the long run especially. The last CBA gave the NFL stability and profitability which grew the pie. A new one would have assured the same for another decade. Now who knows? Might end up killing the goose.
    ————————
    southmo that is just the point. A lot of the things you listed are true….bad economy, new stadiums, etc….And despite all that the league still made more money in 2010 than the league ever made at any point in its history. Not only that but owners made about $1.2 billion more in 2010 than they made in 2006 when the contract was first signed. So in the worst economy in years owners made over a billion dollars more than they made when they first signed the CBA in 2006. Those are numbers any other pro league in the country would absolutely kill for. So what exactly are the expense that’s killing the owners? It definitely isn’t player salary for reasons I’ve already mentioned. No one in this league is losing money. This isn’t the NBA.

  65. Deb says: Mar 21, 2011 12:41 AM

    @southmo …

    Well, whether I’m working or posting, as a writer, my goal is to inspire a reaction :)

    And my support is never blind. You may not agree with my opinions, but they’re well-researched.

  66. dolphan343 says: Mar 21, 2011 1:34 AM

    6thsense79 says:

    Also I’ve explained this already and I’ll explain it again……NFL player salary is directly tied to Revenue. As most people already know $1 billion of NFL salary first goes to the team for expenses afterwards the revenue is split 40% owners and 60% players. Do you know what this means my simple minded friend? It means the only way for player salary to increase significantly is if revenue goes up. In 2006 NFL revenue was $6billion….under the CBA the split for that year was players $3 billion ($6billion – 1billion) * .6 . The owners get $3billion.

    In 2010 with a 50% increase in revenue to $9 billion the players got ($9billion – 1billion)*.6 = $4.8billion….and the owners got $4.2 billion.*

    ————————————————————-
    Now if you project ahead a few years in the current scenario if the revenue is 15 billion the players take 8.4 bill. and the owners take 6.6 bill.

    This may have somthing to do with why they opted out of this.

  67. amr71 says: Mar 21, 2011 2:26 AM

    Deb, no one put me up to being here … except for all the fools who keep saying they support the players, having no understanding of the economics at play. The status quo is financially unsustainable. This is a fight for the long-term financial health of the NFL. The players, in their greed, are determined to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

    Not to mention that if I were an owner, I’d be ticked off too if I got only 40% of revenues but had to pay 100% of the costs.

  68. amr71 says: Mar 21, 2011 2:29 AM

    “Revenue rises…players and owners make billions….Revenue drops…players and owners make less.”

    No, actually, that’s the problem. Revenue rises, players make more, but overall team profits go down because the players are making SO MUCH money. That’s the core of the problem.

Leave a Reply

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