Skip to content

Strahan on players missing games: “They wouldn’t be able to sustain”

Michael Strahan, New York Giants' Steve Smith, and Atlanta Falcons' Tony Gonzalez Compete in the Vaseline MEN Keep Your Grip Challenge Getty Images

NFL owners and players don’t really believe they are losing much during a lockout yet.  If they did, they would move faster to end the stalemate.

The players are hoping they can win in court and get the best deal possible.  If that doesn’t happen, FOX analyst Michael Strahan wonders how players would cope.

“Put it this way, if it goes into the season where you are missing checks, that hurts the players at this point,” Strahan said via Ohm Youngmisuk of ESPNNewYork.com.  “They wouldn’t be able to sustain. There are a lot more players first of all; secondly, they are not as rich as the owners. They are not going to be able to sustain as long as the owners would if it came down to a battle of the checkbook.”

Strahan’s words highlight the fact players aren’t really missing much in the offseason.  Sure, some bonuses will be lost and/or delayed.   But would you care about getting a work stoppage settled during a part of the year you are basically working for free?

The real pain on both sides doesn’t come until August and September.  That’s why nothing that has happened so far in the labor mess is particularly a surprise.

Permalink 17 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Union
17 Responses to “Strahan on players missing games: “They wouldn’t be able to sustain””
  1. mick730 says: Apr 1, 2011 11:19 AM

    Well, from the perspective of a Green Bay fan and shareholder, it would be terrible for the 2011 season to be missed considering the talent and potential Green Bay has on the roster.

    Having said that, it’s clear to anybody with an ounce of common sense that the old CBA is unsustainable for the Packers.

    Last year, the Packers net profit figure was 5.2 million dollars. The numbers for the fiscal year that just ended yesterday, 31 March, will be out in a couple of weeks. My guess is the Packers will show a net profit number smaller than last year. So, if the 2011 season is nixed, the Packers, strictly from a fincanial standpoint, will lose somewhere south of five million dollars. On the other hand, of the players on the current roster, 11 are schedule to earn more than 5 million dollars this season individually. Each of them will lose that and more, to say nothing of the other 49 players who will lose their salaries and benefits to boot. (53 man roster plus 7 man practice squad)

    So for me, in the long term view as a Packer fan, it is best for the team to get the league and the union to agree to a deal that is sustainable for the Green Bay franchise.

  2. duanethomas says: Apr 1, 2011 11:25 AM

    True. The players have no leverage if they lose in Judge Nelson’s court. If the lockout goes into the season its game, set & match owners. The players will be getting pressure from their wives/girlfriends, agents, advisers and everyone else on the gravy train. You think Dez Bryant can afford to miss game? The owners want to destroy the players and get a deal that favors them all the way. The players won’t be happy and this labor strife will continue until a CBA is ratified that both sides will say is fair. That may take years and the next 2 CBA’s.

  3. emperor83 says: Apr 1, 2011 11:28 AM

    WELCOME, ONE AND ALL TO THE BEN ROETHLISBERGER USED CHEVY SUPER-SALE!!!

  4. berniemadoffsides says: Apr 1, 2011 11:30 AM

    The players will cave in August… they’ll *have* to. Players like Dez Bryant will be guest stars on “Pawn Stars”, then living off food stamps.

  5. emperor83 says: Apr 1, 2011 11:48 AM

    berniemadoffsides says: Apr 1, 2011 11:30 AM

    The players will cave in August… they’ll *have* to. Players like Dez Bryant will be guest stars on “Pawn Stars”, then living off food stamps.
    ————————————————-

    Yeah, and that’s just to afford the bus ticket back to Dallas…

  6. souldogdave says: Apr 1, 2011 11:51 AM

    So this is a giant game of “Chicken”.

  7. goodjet says: Apr 1, 2011 11:58 AM

    I’m surprised !! —- I’m surprised I even give a crap anymore —– Both sides are pathetic but it’s the players that really make me want to puke the most — I’ll still watch some games but I’m never buying another thing that has to do with any these selfish greedy players — Not a hat or a jersey —- Nothing — And that’s a fact —- I have no respect for any of these people anymore —- None —- Zero —- Less Then Zero

  8. thetruth845 says: Apr 1, 2011 12:51 PM

    mick730…the losses the Packers suffered last year have zippo to do with football. This is what no one seems to get. The owners invest. Real estate, stocks, etc. That’s where they lost the money. No team lost money because of NFL expenses.

    Quote from Forbes….
    The only NFL franchise owned by the public took a big hit from asset devaluations during the past year. The Green Bay Packers net income fell 80% last year, to $4 million, due in large part to a $50 million decrease in the value of its investment portfolio. It is believed most of the team’s investments are in stocks and real estate. But the team’s balance sheet remains rock-solid with shareholders’ equity of $233 million and total liabilities of just $65 million

  9. mick730 says: Apr 1, 2011 1:35 PM

    Nobody wrote, nor has anybody said, that the Packers had a loss last year. In the first year of the just expired CBA, the Packers net profit was 35.8 million dollars. That was 2006. In 2007, the figure fell to 20 million dollars. Last year, the net operating profit, was 5.2 million dollars, as I wrote. The net profit was the 4 million dollars you quoted. The 1.2 million dollar difference takes into account booked losses on investments.

    As far as the shareholders equity, that is irrelevant for the Green Bay franchise, as anybody knows. The team has I believe, 235 million dollars in reserves, the the value of the team is irrelevant, as it cannot be sold. The stock is not tradeeable, and whatever value the team has upon dissolution, the prcoeeds go to the local VFW in Green Bay. So, it does not matter in the least for the Packers or their fans, the dollar value of the franchise. The Packers are unique in football; they cannot be sold. The Cowboys can be sold, as can the Vikings, Bears, Lions, Giants, Jets, evereybody else. But for Green Bay, the team cannot be sold nor can it be moved.

    And the 235 million in cash reserves is it. You can see that a net profit of 5.2 million dollars will not cut it going forward. Sure, the team can fund operating losses out of the cash reserves for a while, but evenetually that’s a no go.

    Even someone who cherry picks numbers from a Forbes article should be able to understand that fact.

  10. thetruth845 says: Apr 1, 2011 2:01 PM

    “Even someone who cherry picks numbers from a Forbes article should be able to understand that fact.”

    Umm…The Packers had FOOTBALL revenues of $232million and FOOTBALL expenses of $141million. The net revenue was lower because of what was stated earlier. Thats not “cherry picking”.

    You’re only off by $85.8million so I won’t insult you back. That’s close enough in my book. Nice work.

  11. smoker32 says: Apr 1, 2011 2:06 PM

    Players have had a 2 year notice that a lock-out was going to happen if an agreement was not reached. No excuse if the players did’nt manage their money. Way too much time is being wasted on this subject when a deal will be done before one game is lost.

  12. therealsmiley says: Apr 1, 2011 3:00 PM

    That’s not so. Owners have debt and must make payments on those debts in a timely fashion and a lack of revenue doesn’t help the ol’ cash flow. Hail!

  13. moggy6actual says: Apr 1, 2011 3:13 PM

    I think this will end up very bad either way it goes. If the players prevail on April 6, that’s going to open up the league to a LOT of anti-trust stuff that will be difficult to put a lid on. That’s not good for anyone except for a few top players and a few of the ‘richer’ teams.

    If the players lose on April 6, the owners will make them eat a bad deal, just as the owners ate a bad deal in 2006.

  14. thetruth845 says: Apr 1, 2011 3:26 PM

    What is this fascination with the 2006 deal? The players and owners have been splitting the revenues 50/50 give or take 1% for over 20 years. The owners saw the projected growth of the league more than doubling over the next decade and want to curb the %s. That’s what this is all about. Any other “issue” is semantics.

  15. lawyermalloy says: Apr 1, 2011 4:09 PM

    When the new CBA is finalized the “END DATE”
    should be August 15th.

  16. mick730 says: Apr 1, 2011 4:50 PM

    “You’re only off by $85.8million so I won’t insult you back. That’s close enough in my book. Nice work.:

    Now you’re just pulling numbers from where the sun doesn’t shine. The Packers have had their net profit year over year drop from 35.8 million dollars in 2006 to 5.2 million dollars for fiscal year 2010. And in 2010, the Packers had their highest revenue total in franchise history, but their expenses, primarily player salaries have increase by an average of 15% per year.

    Record revenues, but declining profits. Does that not strike you as a problem? The union mentality seems to be, ‘ well, when you start losing money for several years, then come to us and maybe we can talk about things’.

    That’s what unions did to steel, the auto industry, American manufacturing and public education. I dont’ want them to do the same thing to the Packers.

  17. thetruth845 says: Apr 3, 2011 12:34 PM

    “And in 2010, the Packers had their highest revenue total in franchise history, but their expenses, primarily player salaries have increase by an average of 15% per year.”

    Bro…do you just omit everything the counters what you are saying? Yeah…salaries went up. So did profits from TV contracts. Each team got 125million from TV alone. Again, maybe this will sink in because the factual numbers don’t seem to be hitting home, NFL TEAMS ARE NOT LOSING MONEY ON FOOTBALL RELATED EXPENSES. Its all there in black and white. Google any team and their expenses and you cant miss it. I don’t get whats so difficult to understand. Its like talking to a 5 year old.

Leave a Reply

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