Skip to content

NFL somehow ahead of last year’s season-ticket pace

nfl-tickets-minn-getty-large Getty Images

The good news for the NFL is that, despite the lockout, the league somehow is ahead of its 2010 pace for selling season tickets.  The bad news is that this gives the teams taking money away from non-player employees even less cause to continue to do so.

Daniel Kaplan of SportsBusiness Journal reports that owners received the surprisingly positive information last week at the quarterly meetings in Indianapolis.  The increase arose in part from an accelerated launch to the sales effort, given the looming lockout.  In other words, “Let’s get the money now from the folks who don’t realize there may not be football this year.”

Either way, the development gives the teams that have laid off and/or furloughed and/or reduced pay even less cause to do so, and we hope that more teams will do what the Ravens did last week and reverse course.

Permalink 111 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
111 Responses to “NFL somehow ahead of last year’s season-ticket pace”
  1. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 9:29 AM

    i’m sorry if there are no football operations occuring why should employees be paid? If my company did a lockout, and I had nothing to do I wouldn’t expect them to continue to pay me, I’d expect that I’d start looking for another job and they would cut my wages. Why can’t the employees quit and find another job?

  2. godofwine330 says: May 31, 2011 9:33 AM

    But so many of you are on the owners side. They cut pay and jobs of non-player employees, they haven’t lost any money yet, AND season tickets are selling at a much higher clip than they were last year when the season is up in the air. How any of you could be on the owners side.

  3. lbpackfan says: May 31, 2011 9:38 AM

    Nice picture…a hand of someone desperately trying to dump their Viking tickets I am sure…

    Thic pic also must be pre December, 2010 as the roof appears to still be up.

  4. joe6606 says: May 31, 2011 9:39 AM

    The owners’ arguments get weaker and weaker with those annoying little things called “the facts.”

    open your gd books NOW and lets get this cba hashed out

  5. mackie66 says: May 31, 2011 9:46 AM

    PFT, get real. My son in law is a master elecrtician. Over the past three yrs he has received 3 pay cuts. I dont hear you or other media types whinning about them taking pay cuts. And oh by the way, my son in law and wife (daughter) are losing their home.

  6. hawkeye6 says: May 31, 2011 9:48 AM

    Not that this is the sole reason, but I know at least three people who had “automatic debit” set up to pay their season tickets. The team automatically deducted the entire amount for their season tickets, and claimed they would return the money if there was no season. It was not the method they used for the previous year.

    Does that count as a sale? If all teams follow similar methods, then of course sales are up.

  7. fltharley says: May 31, 2011 9:51 AM

    i gave up my season tickets , i will not pay for roger goodells idea of making the national football league into a damn track meet. to hell with goodell . i really dont understand the supposed fan support for this crap goodel is doing. how can there be so many fans that want to watch a two hand touch league , it baffles me

  8. footballfan says: May 31, 2011 9:52 AM

    Obviously you have never had a real job! Companies lay off employees all the time due to lack of work. When I first hit the world of factory work they laid about 20 people off every winter due to lack of work. It happens for everyone else so it can happen to the NFL.

  9. realitypolice says: May 31, 2011 9:53 AM

    Keep shaking your fists in the air, fanboy, and prattling on about how you’ll “boycott” the NFL while you write those checks.

    Merchandise sales, by the way, are also not suffering. Jersey prices, in fact, have gone up, a sure indicator that sales are healthy.

    Way to demonstrate your anger in such a forceful way.

    You can almost hear Roger Goodell snickering with contempt when he talks about realizing how upset the fans are.

    Why are teams cutting costs when there doesn’t appear to be any dip whatsoever in revenues? Because they can. They have accomplished the near impossible: they have ZERO accountability to their customer base. NFL fans seem utterly incapable of voting with their wallet.

    So let the thumb’s down rain, fanboy, show me how angry you are.

    Just make sure to get those checks in on time.

  10. whitecastleisafoodgroup says: May 31, 2011 9:58 AM

    @hawkeye6 – yes, the NFL issued a league-wide policy on refunding any games that were canceled due to a lockout. The announcement is on USAToday.com and other sites.

    Now the interest on the cash between now an then … well … :/

  11. stixzidinia says: May 31, 2011 9:59 AM

    Just the kind of brainless lemmings the NFL was banking on in planning this lockout several years ago. These people buying tickets are the lowest common denominator in American society.

  12. hoobsher says: May 31, 2011 10:04 AM

    same situation with the salmon swimming upstream to die…..its just one of natures mysteries.

  13. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 10:05 AM

    Nobody is owed a paycheck because the boss is making money.
    The owners have the right to spend the money however they so choose. And if that means laying off people? so be it. dont have to like it or agree with it, but its not your money. They owe nobody a thing. THATS A FACT. IF the owner choose to shut it down to get their point across, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.

  14. nepats12 says: May 31, 2011 10:05 AM

    I hope LESS teams do what the Ravens did: waffle and cowtow like sheep. Way to look even more like an idiot Biscotti(sp).

  15. realitypolice says: May 31, 2011 10:06 AM

    I am stunned by the animosity towards working people shown on this site.

    Really, your daughter is losing her house and THAT is why you support owners dumping employees despite not losing revenue?

    Were your son-in law’s wages cut because the company he works for was doing well and reporting higher sales than last year at the same time?

    “Why can’t employees quit and find another job?” Really? In this booming economy?

    The business I own now doesn’t have any employees other than me and my wife, but I’ve owned businesses in the past that did have employees.

    And I did my best not to cut their pay or fire them when my company was making money and actually was showing revenue HIGHER than the previous year in the same month.

    Listen, you can be on the owner’s side in the CBA dispute without blindly feeling the need to defend every action they take.

  16. joe6606 says: May 31, 2011 10:14 AM

    “IF the owner choose to shut it down to get their point across, THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT”
    ————————————–
    stop trying to compare ownership of an NFL with ownership of a “normal” business.

    if an owner sucks and is lousy, or if they don’t comply with the NFL’s somewhat bizarre ownership rules, they can be FORCED to sell their team AGAINST THEIR WILL. (see MLB and the Dodgers, and likely the Mets).

    show be any other industry where the owner can be forced to sell their business?

    Goodell, if he truly represented us fans, should be telling the teams to show ALL of their financial records. immediately

  17. waynefontes says: May 31, 2011 10:17 AM

    A fool and their money are soon parted.

    Although I don’t think we’ll lose too many games this fall, if we lose any at all.

    Then again, maybe they could trade some of those tickets for tattoos… oh wait, that’s only for the semipro team in Columbus…..

  18. daveytheintern says: May 31, 2011 10:18 AM

    You would think NFL owners have more important things to do then comment on this post

  19. golonger says: May 31, 2011 10:18 AM

    biggerballz – are you really this stupid????

    Quite the opposite….if the NFL is still receiving revenue as usually, why are they cutting employees pay????

  20. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 10:23 AM

    I am stunned by the animosity towards working people shown on this site.
    Really, your daughter is losing her house and THAT is why you support owners dumping employees despite not losing revenue?
    Were your son-in law’s wages cut because the company he works for was doing well and reporting higher sales than last year at the same time?
    “Why can’t employees quit and find another job?” Really? In this booming economy?
    The business I own now doesn’t have any employees other than me and my wife, but I’ve owned businesses in the past that did have employees.
    And I did my best not to cut their pay or fire them when my company was making money and actually was showing revenue HIGHER than the previous year in the same month.
    Listen, you can be on the owner’s side in the CBA dispute without blindly feeling the need to defend every action they take.
    ————————————————–
    This is the change you voted for.
    the change you can believe in. dont tell me about how bad the economy is.
    My daughter can fend for herself…this is my money we are ultimately talking about. I dont want anybody telling me where my money is going to be spent….
    Which is what you are advocating when you try and tell the owners how they should spend their money.

  21. realitypolice says: May 31, 2011 10:43 AM

    airraid77 says:
    May 31, 2011 10:23 AM

    ————————————————–
    This is the change you voted for.
    the change you can believe in.

    I dont want anybody telling me where my money is going to be spent….
    Which is what you are advocating when you try and tell the owners how they should spend their money.
    ====================

    You’ve got me all wrong, sport, if you are painting me as an Obamacrat with the “change” remark.

    I’m a Libertarian. I completely agree that the owners have the right to spend their money any way they want.

    I’m not telling the owners how to spend their money.

    I am expressing my opinion about how they are doing it.

    Is that OK, champ, or is free speech not part of your agenda?

  22. tombrookshire says: May 31, 2011 10:44 AM

    OK, this makes sense. Team management is firing staffers who work in the office – marketing, accounting and customer service people, their own lockout is causing cash flow problems – but, surprise, revenues are up! So teams are just firing people, like my company did, to maximize profits, cut the cost of benefits and salary, and making people who are left work twice as hard because they have to do their job and the other guys job too. But wait, we have all these “Stepford” fans on this blog defending NFL owners and accusing players of greediness. The owners, part of a billion dollar corporation, are doing what every other American corporation does when wringing a few more dollars out of it’s business. It fires the working people and pays the CEO a bonus for doing such a good job boosting the bottom line! When the NFL became ENRON, it lost me as a fan.

  23. nolesshabitual says: May 31, 2011 10:46 AM

    mackie66,

    Is the blog called Pro Contractor Talk?

    I’m currently laid off in the trades too, with four month old babies (that’s right babies, twins)… believe it or not it actually makes me more sympathetic to the nonunion employees in this situation. If your son-in-law’s boss was taking in a higher volume of clients while his costs were virtually gone then someone should write an article calling him out for it. However you turn to a blog called “PRO FOOTBALL TALK” and read about thousands of people about to be in the same situation as myself or your son-in-law and your only response is why do we care? Seems fairly disingenuous.

  24. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 10:49 AM

    stop trying to compare ownership of an NFL with ownership of a “normal” business.
    if an owner sucks and is lousy, or if they don’t comply with the NFL’s somewhat bizarre ownership rules, they can be FORCED to sell their team AGAINST THEIR WILL. (see MLB and the Dodgers, and likely the Mets).
    show be any other industry where the owner can be forced to sell their business?
    Goodell, if he truly represented us fans, should be telling the teams to show ALL of their financial records. immediately
    ————————————————–
    they dont get approved to buy the team unless they play by league rules….thus if you dont like the rules? you dont buy the team…
    Once again their is no law….and the owners have no reason to show those books…..be careful what you demand, because they could demand it….FROM YOU.

  25. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 10:52 AM

    i just expressed my opinion….free speech goes to disagreements….if only our politicians would learn that…….Dont do a deb on me….call yourself a capitalist and then be an advocate of spreading the wealth.

  26. willycents says: May 31, 2011 10:53 AM

    @ everyone on this board

    The owners are looking at significantly reduced revenue IF there is no/abbreviated season this year. Yes, there are tickets being purchased by fans protecting their investment in seats at the stadiums. Most teams have waiting lists for season tickets. Don’t buy yours, and you lose your right to purchase a season ticket, ie, go to the end of the list and wait for your turn again.
    The dollars collected by the teams for these tickets are guaranteed to be returned to the purchasers for the games missed, if any.
    I, for one, balanced the risk/benefit value of my season ticket investment and came to the conclusion that I had virtually no risk by purchasing my season tickets (due to the guarantee of my money back), but, a significant risk of losing my right to purchase them if I did not pay for them (the next guys on the list get a shot at my tickets for the future).\
    So, in summation, even though the owners are currently collecting for the tickets, the money must be necessarily held in “escrow” until games start. It is not actually available to the teams to spend until such time as the games are actually played.

  27. contra74 says: May 31, 2011 11:03 AM

    lbpackfan says:
    May 31, 2011 9:38 AM
    Nice picture…a hand of someone desperately trying to dump their Viking tickets I am sure…

    Thic pic also must be pre December, 2010 as the roof appears to still be up.

    ————-
    You’re either a classless Packer fan or a Packer fan who is worried about the Vikings and is trying to rally support around his fear. Which one are you? Either grow up or let the adults speak.

  28. willycents says: May 31, 2011 11:10 AM

    @ airraid77

    “show be any other industry where the owner can be forced to sell their business?”

    Let’s see, how about McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, and any other business that owns a franchise. They all have certain “rules” to which they are contractually obligated to conform to or they lose their franchise. A very common condition applied when a franchise is purchased.
    Ever see a McDonalds selling anything not approved by the franchiser?

  29. golonger says: May 31, 2011 11:15 AM

    willycents – you have no idea what you are talking about…..there is no requirement that the funds be held in escrow…..at least based on timing of when games are played…that is ridiculous….

  30. majorseahawk says: May 31, 2011 11:17 AM

    The only reason they have sold more tickets is because they set these early deadlines for season ticket holders. They are preying on people’s hopes of their being a season in 2011. So it either you pay early, or miss out entirely. Given how crooked these owners have shown themselves to be lately, I wouldn’t be surprised if they screw over the fans and don’t give an entire refund of the money for cancelled games.

  31. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 11:17 AM

    @golonger you must be a moron, if there is nothing to do but twittle your thumbs at work the owners would be stupid not to cut costs. Maybe in the magical world you live in you have no work and they still pay you and give you raises.

  32. vikefan says: May 31, 2011 11:21 AM

    im sure mostly from detroit

  33. golonger says: May 31, 2011 11:22 AM

    airraid77 – ok, here’s an example. If there was one McDonald’s that consistantly had poor food and everyone complained, do you not think the main McDonald’s would do something about it????

  34. tmaczoozoo says: May 31, 2011 11:23 AM

    This is the PRO-PWNER forum.

    Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson… Dan Snyder… they have about 20 shill accounts here and flood the voting board.

    Not much else to do this summer, right?

    Oh and if I forgot to mention…

    Take your NFL and stick in your Hooka-Pipe!
    :D

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

  35. willycents says: May 31, 2011 11:23 AM

    @ golonger

    Did not mean to imply that the “escrow” was mandatory. Meant to imply that the owner had to protect those revenues in the event that he had to refund them to the purchasers.
    In a normal season, absent the current labor strife, the owners could have reasonable confidence that the games would be played, so they could reasonably utilize those funds. This year, they do not yet have that luxury, the games may not be played so they would wisely keep those funds in reserve to refund to the purchasers.
    Look at the sales revenues as an advance from the fans contingent upon the games being played. Only a poor businessman would, in the case of the NFL, spend money he might have to refund.

  36. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 11:25 AM

    I don’t get why people get emotional about the whole situation. Everyone is doing what they can to maximize the money they get. The players, the owners, the lawyers. This means colletaral damage for employees and fans. It’s not going to end until somone folds and both sides will play the victim card. In reality if the lockout effects your life seriously, you need to revaluate your life choices.

  37. realitypolice says: May 31, 2011 11:29 AM

    airraid77 says:
    May 31, 2011 10:52 AM
    i just expressed my opinion….free speech goes to disagreements….if only our politicians would learn that…….Dont do a deb on me….call yourself a capitalist and then be an advocate of spreading the wealth.
    =======================

    If you think my belief that not firing employees when you are posting higher “same month sales” figures than the previous year makes me an advocate of “spreading the wealth” and not a capitalist, then you understand neither business nor capitalism.

  38. megabeast37215 says: May 31, 2011 11:30 AM

    The Jags owner Wayne Weaver said on a radio show (available for download from the team website) that money for missed games will be returned WITH interest… FYI. Mr. Weaver has always been a fair and just owner… and was one of the three that stood up and said ‘this is a bad deal’ with the 2006 CBA, along with Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown. A lot of this could’ve been prevented if the other owners had listened to Mr. Weaver.

  39. georgeanderson2 says: May 31, 2011 11:30 AM

    The threats of losing your seats are the current sales pitch. Be curious to see the increase in ticket broker business. Teams are fine with dumping a life long fan in favor of a guy who is ready to put down his credit card. A broker has many reps on speed dial checking in on prime seats that have been dumped and they ready to pay in full. If no season, they get their money back and if there is one, you can now drastically mark up that seat. Its a win win for the ticket broker.

  40. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 11:33 AM

    NFL owner cash flow is up significantly year-to-year as we speak.

    Why? Because revenues have only been minimally reduced as no games / tv / etc has been missed. The fact that season tix are up means the only traditional revenue producing from 2Q is up year-to-year.

    Meanwhile, expenses are down as there are no signings of FA’s or draft picks.

    Every year up to now, 2Q was a killer because the owners were taking in minimal revenue while shelling out lots of cash to assemble the roster.

    This year, they don’t have to put that cash out there to players.

    If you look at cash flow, this is one of the best 2Q’s the owners have experienced…maybe of all-time.

  41. joe6606 says: May 31, 2011 11:33 AM

    “Let’s see, how about McDonalds, Burger King, Starbucks, and any other business that owns a franchise.”
    ——————————–
    an NFL owner is most like a franchisee, which means, that yes they have to comply with sets of rules established by the parent company.

    in this case, as I stated previously, if Goodell, acting in his role as “parent company” ordered the owners to open their books, or else they risk losing their team, I am sure he could do so. But he chooses to be the owner’s weak lackey and does nothing to faciliate these negotiations other than repeated telling us what we the fans want. (of which I’ve never met a single fan who wants ANYTHING he says we want)

  42. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 11:37 AM

    “So, in summation, even though the owners are currently collecting for the tickets, the money must be necessarily held in “escrow” until games start. It is not actually available to the teams to spend until such time as the games are actually played.”

    What, they put it in a lock box?

  43. willycents says: May 31, 2011 11:37 AM

    @ tmaczoozoo says:May 31, 2011 11:23 AM

    and we have here another paid employee of the NFLPA*. Unable to carry on an intelligent conversation so must instead resort to name calling and shilling the company line with no apparent intelligent thought.

    How much do you get paid for posting here by the NFLPA*…a couple bucks per post? Only way you can get any income, right?

  44. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 11:39 AM

    “if Goodell, acting in his role as “parent company” ordered the owners to open their books, or else they risk losing their team, I am sure he could do so. ”

    Goodell was hired by the owners to advance their interests. They own him. They tell him what to do.

    Don’t buy the PR-agency-created character of “Goodell as Keeper of the Game” canard. He’s an employee of the owners.

  45. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 11:42 AM

    “if Goodell, acting in his role as “parent company” ordered the owners to open their books, or else they risk losing their team, I am sure he could do so. ”
    Goodell was hired by the owners to advance their interests. They own him. They tell him what to do.
    ————————————————–
    Along with every other person working in the NFL.

  46. golonger says: May 31, 2011 11:43 AM

    willycents – you still dont get it. What fees/expenses are they paying out that they normal wouldnt have to payout and what fees are they NOT receiving now that they normally wouldnt receive?? If they have to refund ticket costs for every game played, guess what…….they dont have to payout anything either…….as one other posted mentioned, the owners are actually in a better position NOW than they would be if there were no labor issues. They dont have to payout to sign rookies yet they are still bringing in the usual ticket fees. Also, the current situation doesnt make it any more necessary to “escrow” ticket fees than it ordinarily would. (Which they dont do anyway).Your theories make no sense and do not add up…sorry!

  47. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 11:45 AM

    the owners should just have all employees flood the forums here instead of cutting their salaries. Because i’m sure that this one website is where everyone goes to get their NFL info and will determine who wins the labor dispute.

  48. golonger says: May 31, 2011 11:48 AM

    biggerballs……..You are the moron…….how are the owners “twidling there thumbs” any differently than they would during an ordinary season……..they are still preparing everything as if the season will happen (which they obviously have to do)……they havent closed up shop you idiot…….advertising and programs still have to be designed……money for season tickets is still collected and invested…….WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY NOT DOING MORON???

  49. aigraiders says: May 31, 2011 11:57 AM

    @Reality Police

    You get it my friend. I’ve been saying all along…how can an industry raking in record profits and claim the following.

    1. The status quo is not working!
    2. Let’s cut labor compensation and ask them to play 2 more games.

    I’ve never seen any company or industry in this country do it. I think the problem with a lot of pro-owners fans on this site is they unfortunately has the following syndrome.

    Because they root for the team, they somehow feel they are part of the team/ownership. You hear things like My Raiders, My Niners, Our team this our team that. They spend money on season tix and they feel they are part of ownership. These guys identify themselves more with the owners than the actual players. Unfortunately, I doubt the owners can identify with any of the fans. A famous guy (or infamous) to some once said this……”He identified himself with his master, more than the
    master identified with himself.”

    I’m quite certain fans spend a whole lot more at Target and Walmart each year than any nfl team and I dont hear them claiming ownership of either Target nor Walmart. Just the stupidity of it all.

  50. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 11:59 AM

    “WHAT EXACTLY ARE THEY NOT DOING MORON???”

    And, actually, in many cases delays and cancellations require MORE work than usual.

    The lease agreements on training camps need to be re-negotiated, adjusted, canceled.

    The ad campaigns need to be altered to reflect new caveats and assurances to ticket purchsers. Any print / tv / radio booked for June needs to be moved or canceled.

    Coprorate partners need to be dealt with, numerous contract contingencies need to be hammered out (i.e. telecasts or pre-season games).

    Not in all cases / across all functions, but I can tell you that when it comes to PR / marketing / advertising something like this means more work, not less.

  51. armchairgm9 says: May 31, 2011 12:05 PM

    @biggerballz – “Why can’t the employees quit and find another job?”

    Because they work in the NFL. These positions are some of the hardest to get. Think of it this way…If you’re the PR Director for an NFL team, you own 1 of only 32 positions of that nature in the country. With THOUSANDS of people who would love to have that position. You quit, you’re an idiot.

  52. contra74 says: May 31, 2011 12:07 PM

    OF COURSE they will charge tickets and OF COURSE there will be a season.

    Anyone go on StubHub to look at tickets for your teams games? An alert pops up saying that there is a lockout and that StubHub can sell tickets but can not guarantee the players which you will see. What this translates to is – yep, you guessed it – replacements. IF the owners decide to move forward with the season they can do so without the players and hire replacements. Sucks to have to pay full price to watch a bunch of scrubs.

  53. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 12:09 PM

    aigraiders…

    Actually, I think most of the animosity comes from resentment about guys making millions to play a game.

    What they ignore is that the players have rare skills that allow them to contribute to an enterprise that makes billions.

    It’s strange, these same people would never question why a spinal surgeon – who makes a ton of cash for this same reason – is well compensated.

    We can only speculate why they don’t make this distinction. But resentment over where their lives are in relation to these athletes surely plays a role.

  54. willycents says: May 31, 2011 12:12 PM

    @ golonger
    I am not saying that they have an increase/decrease in expenses. I am saying that they arewisely cutting expenses based upon their realization that games might be missed. The revenue from ticket sales is entered on the positive side of the ledger. The possible refund of that amount is entered on the negative side of the ledger as a potential liability, effectively cancelling each other out. They operate by analyzing the bottom line of each side of the ledger.
    Currently, with the possibility of no games, they are anticipating a lower incoming revenue stream due to the possible refunding of the ticket sales. Hence, they are cutting costs somewhat to try to ensure the financial viability of the business in the long run.
    A similar scenario would be: You sell your car to someone for $1000, he gives you ten $100 dollar bills, signs the paperwork, and says he will be back tomorrow to pick it up. That night your wife jumps in it , runs to Best Buy and buys a 50″ led television. On the way home, she crashes the car. Are you obligated to refund the other guys money, which you no longer have, or is it just tough sh*t to him?
    The owners are wisely preparing for the “car crash” on the tickets they are selling.

    I think I am doing a lousy job of getting my point across about planning for the future….lol…help

  55. aigraiders says: May 31, 2011 12:21 PM

    @moochzilla

    Finally, someone else mentions the skillset issue.

    You are 100% correct with your assessment above. That is the essence of the American Dream is it not? You get to pursue your own compensation depending on how rare your skillset is. The majority of the people on this blog at the very least has that 1 thing in common with the players but they dont even know it. We all seek the best comp package for our skillset.

  56. golonger says: May 31, 2011 12:23 PM

    willycents……companies dont make cuts based on what they THINK might happen…..they make cuts based on what IS happening NOW…….if every company made cuts based on what they THINK might happened, no companies would ever grow because there is always a weak spot in the economy up ahead…..do they cut NOW based on that possibly happening SOON? If they were getting say 40% less coming in because of slow ticket sales…i would understand……..that is not happening

    your “accounting” view is ridiculous…….you dont book entries based on possibilities. the funds received are an asset with an equal liability. If that liability goes away…..and jounal entry is made to offset both…….

    Your car scenario is totally irrelevant……has nothing to do with it…….if someone did that, they would be a moron….and a bad businessman…….

  57. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 12:24 PM

    willy – I think you are communicating it well enough.

    But a ton of expenditures are off the table – the FA and draftee signings. And revenue at this time was always minimal.

    So your revenue is flat to down slightly (even if we accept your take on the season tickets) and costs / expenses have plummeted to all-time lows.

    How do you reconcile that?

    It is OK to say they can layoff because they can and have the right.

    But I can’t handle the cynical, PR-directed play that puts the hurt on office staff…purely for show and to gain PR points.

  58. tombrookshire says: May 31, 2011 12:28 PM

    @aigraiders – you get it my friend and said it eloquently. A tip of the cap to you!

  59. golonger says: May 31, 2011 12:28 PM

    a better scenario would be Best Buy….selling TVs………if the economy is booming…….and TV sales are great……are they going to start laying off employees if they think people will at some point will stop wanting to buy TVs???….sure, they might have ideas on what they want to do regarding future inventories and would watch it closely, but they certainly arent going to reduce inventories NOW…if they are still selling TVs like mad……..

  60. golonger says: May 31, 2011 12:32 PM

    Yes, the NFL is laying off because they can and have an excuse to…….not because they NEED to for their bottom line………at this point.

  61. clownburger says: May 31, 2011 12:46 PM

    The owners DID offer to open the books.

    The Players said no.

    They owners offered a CBA deal.

    The Players said no.

    The owners are constantly asking the players to just sit down with them and TRY to work something out.

    The Players said no.

    A more than fair deal will be worked out within a week once the players decided to honestly negotiate.

    But they keep saying NO!

    Why the hell anyone is supporting these moron players is beyond me.

  62. Deb says: May 31, 2011 12:49 PM

    @biggerballz …

    League employees work year-round, not just during the season. They have as much to do right now as they did this time last season. Apparently you’re unaware of the sorry state of the job market, but why should loyal employees have to give up their jobs, 401(k)s, health care, and pension plans and risk long-term unemployment just because their employers have decided to padlock the doors on a healthy business for no reason other than to stick it to some business associates in a childish tantrum?

    That’s easy for you to say, but it’s not your job, is it? :roll:

  63. kevpft says: May 31, 2011 12:50 PM

    Well, so much for the fans sending a message to the NFL.

    Or rather, a message was sent – the same message that gets sent every year. The message is: “Just give us our football. We’ll do anything you say. Jerk us around, charge more for everything connected to live or TV football, create widespread financial risk for us by endangering the season, whatever, who cares – name your price, we’ll pay it, and the more you pile on to us, the faster we’ll pay it.”

    And we wonder why the owners and players are increasingly careless and callous about fans every year? We’re just a nuisance, an ATM machine that talks back sometimes, but still makes with the cash.

  64. willycents says: May 31, 2011 12:53 PM

    @ golonger
    I totally agree that, at this point, they do not need to lay anyone off/cut expenses. What I am saying is that they are PLANNING for no season and thence the decrease in revenues. The great possibility exists that they know something about the plans for the season that we do not, and are perhaps “tipping their hand.” All the pr and posturing aside, by both sides in the labor situation, are the owners indicating that they anticipate the season is lost, and are making the adjustments in staffing to reflect that knowlege?

    As applies to the Best Buy selling tv’s vice us buying them, Christmas is when the largest portion of tvs are sold, Does Best Buy stock, in March, the same amount of tvs that they stock in December? Nope, they plan for good sales months and bad sales months and adjust staffing and inventory accordingly.
    I agree with you that the car scenario would reflect a pair of morons involve, but, if you sell sometning and are unable to deliver it, you must be prepared to refund the price, either by savings or by borrowing. That is where I see the owners being in relation to the ticket sales.

  65. stixzidinia says: May 31, 2011 12:54 PM

    I guess Airraid wasn’t paying attention in 2007 when the economy was at rock bottom, over a year before Obama was elected.

  66. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 1:01 PM

    @golonger
    wow you must be mentally retarded not to realize that they have non essentail people who can be laid off. It’s not just the owner on the team, there are 100’s of people who do jobs that don’t need to be done. Equipment doesn’t need to be maintained after practice because there is no practice. God you really are retarded aren’t you, I mean do you think before you write or does everything just come right out of your head without filter?

  67. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 1:04 PM

    I guess Airraid wasn’t paying attention in 2007 when the economy was at rock bottom, over a year before Obama was elected.

    ————————————————–
    And what happened in the 08 elections?
    And that doesnt absolve obama of any blame. Unemployment has gotten worse, Gas prices are sky high, The world is more dangerous, food price are increasing almost daily…..and individual on all levels are increasingly being stolen…
    If the american public wanted a large govt? they would have vote for gore or kerry, If they want large govt, nov of 10 wouldnt have happened.

  68. marinofreakout says: May 31, 2011 1:10 PM

    are the tickets cheaper? (to account for any risk?). i doubt the increased sales are due to scheevy marketing, probably more a result of this year’s better economic environment.

  69. jutts says: May 31, 2011 1:17 PM

    So if the NFL is not a MONOPOLY, what is it?

  70. jutts says: May 31, 2011 1:24 PM

    Will someone please tell me why the players are doing any kind of working out at all? I mean, it looks to me that they are playing right into the owners hands. Seems stupid. I understand that these guys have been doing it for their whole lives,and that’s what atheletes do. But, to say that we are getting ready for the season is just nuts to me………WHY.

  71. moochzilla says: May 31, 2011 1:30 PM

    jutts…

    Because it reinforces their ideal PR narrative….they want to play and have a season, the owner’s don’t.

    The players have done an AWFUL job of establishing that the current scenario is a lockout as opposed to a strike. This helps in that regard.

    The owner’s ideal PR narrative is that the players are willfully destroying the league because they are greedy. They’ve been far less successful at establishing that – instead choosing to tap into raw and emotional anti-union resentment (a popular tactic of the era).

  72. aigraiders says: May 31, 2011 1:30 PM

    @TomBrookShire

    Thank you my friend. Still SMH at the owner defenders on here.

  73. jasonfinfan says: May 31, 2011 1:35 PM

    God people here are some neanderthals.. I bet 75 percent of those ticket sales came from the people on this site…

    Lets support the billionare scumbags who pawn off tickets non working tickets to people who want to keep their PSL’s.

    This is why America’s Debt is out of control.. This country is leading the world in idiot production.

  74. golonger says: May 31, 2011 1:36 PM

    willycents…….you still dont get it…….planning for a cyclical, known event which is 99% sure to occur (Christmas) is in no way, shape, or form the same as something that may or may not happen…..and odds are against happening……..and i can assure you the NFL is not “planning” on NOT having games……..too much to lose……not a chance!

  75. golonger says: May 31, 2011 1:45 PM

    biggerballz……i think you get the moronic poster award for the day……or you are a kid, one of the other. Businesses dont have non-essential employees you dolt, only govt…..the NFL is not govt. Do you think owners have a a few dozen people just sitting around doing nothing????are you kidding me?

    Also, if you think all teams do in the off-season is….LOL…..clean equipment…….well…..LOL….get back to recess!!!!

  76. kevpft says: May 31, 2011 1:53 PM

    @jutts, I get where you’re coming from. My guess is that once play does start again – this season or next – it’s once again every man out there competing for his job. Anyone who’s a step slow or off the mark in any way risks losing their spot, and in turn losing their entire job in the NFL. Who wants to take that risk?

    If every single player agreed to not work out, that would be one thing. But as soon as a few start training, everyone has to, just to keep up.

    The constant struggle to keep your place is one of those things that makes me feel some sympathy for elite athletes – though the amount of money they make is so far beyond most normal human beings that it’s inherently hard to feel too much sympathy. If I was making pro NFL money, I could quit any day and be set for life.

  77. rogerfromoz says: May 31, 2011 2:11 PM

    hey biggerballz and everyone else. the teams are working to SELL tix and SELL suites, etc. the coaches and players may not be doing dick, but the marketing and pr staffs sure are, especially if they are ahead of last years pace for selling tix. why layoff the people that are making $$ for you?

  78. airraid77 says: May 31, 2011 2:22 PM

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

    its source is at best extremely liberal, notice it takes an entire continent to overtake the united as the worlds largest economy. NOTICE the next largest country in terms of economy is less than half the size of the United states.
    The people of the united states are not the problem,US GOVT no not its limits.

  79. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 2:28 PM

    rogerfromoz

    i’m sure they aren’t laying off people like that, maybe reducing them or laying off guys who cut grass and clean equipment, I assume.

    Than again, non of this labor mess makes any sense so they may be just looking for an excuse to cut expenses.

  80. biggerballz says: May 31, 2011 2:32 PM

    golonger wow you must not have a job to spend so much time writing idiotic things. Have you ever even had a job? Maybe in the government they don’t ever fire anyone, but in the real world of PRIVATE business they fire and hire on whims and have every right to do so. So get over it you bleeding heart loser, you’re probably in the library using a computer while eating a twinkie wondering why no one will hire you and your retarded belief system.

  81. golonger says: May 31, 2011 2:50 PM

    biggerballz……LOL…..usually it is recommended that one know SOMETHING before deciding to comment on message boards……you are NOT qualified. Nothing you say makes any rational sense…..and you cannot put 2 words together to form a cohesive thought……you are sad my friend…….but entertaining!! LOL….now, get back to your classroom…pronto! LOL

  82. Deb says: May 31, 2011 2:51 PM

    @airraid77 …

    Now now … I’ve never claimed to be a capitalist while advocating spreading the wealth. I’ve simply sided with the players in this labor dispute. You’re the one who keeps applying–or I should say misapplying–economic and political labels to the NFL labor discussion.

    For the record, I believe in the democratic principle of one person/one vote … in the Biblical principle that the love of money is the root of all evil … and in the Bull Durham principle of long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days.

  83. camp69 says: May 31, 2011 3:04 PM

    The owner have lots of non-essential employees on the books, you know, girl friends, cronies, in laws and relatives. They can write them off as an expense and hide revenue from the players. If they were losing money and/or didn’t have things to hide, they would be on every talk show with their books opened wide. The owners are sleazy, heartless and greedy, that’s why they laid off employees.

  84. andrewfbrowne says: May 31, 2011 5:11 PM

    You cannot spend the money you collect in season ticket money without a gaurantee that there will be a season first. For all intents and purposes that has to go into escrow and cannot be touched.

    What if there is no season and you have to refund that money back to people and you do not have it because you paid the employees with it? You want to talk about legal battles.

    What this should show everyone is the margins for the NFL are a whole lot smaller than folks realize.

  85. golonger says: May 31, 2011 5:13 PM

    Deb…dont try too hard…….from past experience, i know you are one of the few in here with a brain…..not sure who i side with this one……neither really have it right……i dont side with the players because 70% of them are replaceable. Their whole argument of being irreplaceable is hogwash……..i own season tickets and i dont pay for them because of ANY of the players..it is becasue of the team.

  86. Deb says: May 31, 2011 6:54 PM

    @golonger …

    Hey there …

    Not sure what you mean by not trying too hard. This is no effort for me–I know where I stand. Like you, I follow my team and don’t hero-worship any players. When I talk about supporting the players, I mean as a labor force. I’m pro-labor as a rule and have supported the NFLPA since I was old enough to understand that the owners exploited players like farm animals for nearly a century. That doesn’t mean I’m thrilled with players who waste their money on strip clubs and bling. It doesn’t mean I don’t still respect the Rooneys and other ethical owners. But I believe the better argument is on the players’ side.

    Yes, there’s a compromise to be had here. Unfortunately, the owners–as a unit–did what they’ve always done: They went after this like lords of the manor. They planned their lockout strategy for two years believing the players would cave in to the pressure of being starved out. They dilly-dallied for months, refusing to engage in good-faith negotiations, rejecting a player proposal that would have put their piece of the revenue pie back to 2002 levels. They demanded an extra billion off the top, refused to provide data to support their demands, muddying the waters with nonsense about expanded season and loopy fines, pushed the players up against the deadline when they could react, then called what they assumed was the players’ bluff. It wasn’t. Recent court cases suggest the owners will not win a long-term court case, but they’re still expecting the players to cave before it goes that far.

    The players can’t return to the negotiating table without assurance from the owners that negotiating as a unit will not be used against them in the decertification suit. The owners refuse to provide that assurance. The owners can end this today by lifting the lockout, imposing last year’s rules, continuing the season, and giving the players the legal assurances they need to resume negotiating. Once a new agreement is in place, the players will drop the antitrust suits. It’s the owners–or enough of them to prevent the rest from acting–who are keeping this thing going. If the Eighth Circuit rules against them and lifts the lockout, maybe they’ll adjust their strategy. We’ll see.

    As for the players not being irreplaceable … oh, they can be replaced, all right. But there are 1700 players in the league and about 300 come out each year–most of whom don’t make it into the league. If the NFL suddenly fired every player–which would be the business equivalent of slicing through their own jugulars–it would take years to rebuild the league from scratch to the talent level we have now. But the owners aren’t going to commit mass suicide even if a lot of PFT commenters who don’t appreciate the skills of professional athletes think they should. That’s why they’re billionaires and the people saying “Fire them,” are making minimum wage. I think you’re smarter than that.

    Bottom line for me is that the owners are the ones demanding more money and have shut down the league to get it. They’re the ones causing the layoffs, etc., and none of it was necessary. If they’d negotiated in good faith, this would have been resolved months ago.

  87. vetdana says: May 31, 2011 8:10 PM

    The message is: “Just give us our football. We’ll do anything you say. Jerk us around, charge more for everything connected to live or TV football, create widespread financial risk for us by endangering the season, whatever, who cares – name your price, we’ll pay it, and the more you pile on to us, the faster we’ll pay it.”

    NFL Season Tickets- The Opiate of the people !

  88. Deb says: May 31, 2011 10:00 PM

    Boys, you can click all the thumbs down you want when I post that the owners and their hardball tactics shut down the league and the owners can lift the lockout anytime they choose. But it’s the truth whether or not you want to believe it. Despite your mind-boggling efforts to cement the plutarchy, the U.S. still allows regular citizens to voice their opinions no matter how muddleheaded they are. So the thumbs down are waiting. Carry on.

  89. golonger says: May 31, 2011 10:31 PM

    Deb – very well-written..as usual. But, I am afraid your prose will be lost in this classroom full of kids but………..I appreciated it.

    Thx

  90. golonger says: May 31, 2011 10:36 PM

    sorry andrewfbrowne, you are totally incorrect. Although true the NFL (or any organization) cannot ultimately keep funds they receive from tickets if they do not hold the event……there is absolutely no requirement they hold it in escrow. If the NFL wanted to spend the funds and provide any potential refunds from somewhere else, that is up to them…..

  91. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 12:04 AM

    @golonger …

    Thanks :)

  92. airraid77 says: Jun 1, 2011 4:44 AM

    deb, my comrade
    you are one hilariously funny liar.
    Once again, fairness doctrine? socialist under the guise of democrat party. religion out of the public? socialist party…you guessed it! also called the democrat party.Who uses the word racist to supress opinion more than the communist party?

    FACT: its the owners money. NOT THE PLAYERS, NOT FANS. Nobody put a gun to anybodies head to buy ticket or sign a contract.
    THE PLAYERS SIGNED THE SAME CBA THE OWNERS DID THAT ALLOWED EITHER SIDE TO BACK OUT OF THE AGREEMENT. Meaning that the players were stupid enough to let it happen.
    FACT:
    The union decertified to litigate, have yet submit a counter proposal.

  93. moochzilla says: Jun 1, 2011 8:35 AM

    “The union decertified to litigate, have yet submit a counter proposal.”

    This is untrue. Status Quo is, in fact, a counter-proposal.

  94. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 10:09 AM

    @airraid77 …

    Would it upset you terribly to learn I’m not a Democrat? :)

  95. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 10:12 AM

    @airraid77 …

    Would it upset you terribly to learn I’m not a member of the party of, a-hem, “subversives”? I have no party affiliation. Independent thinker.

  96. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 10:15 AM

    Oooo, PFT’s computer is slow this morning. When my first post didn’t show up, I figured they’d now banned the word “Democrat” and rewrote. So many innocuous words are banned here along with the obscenities … it’s hard to keep up.

  97. airraid77 says: Jun 1, 2011 10:34 AM

    would it upset you terribly if I said I am not a republican?
    You dont have to be with a political party to be a comrade. what you type, your views, your opinion makes you a comrade…..and I have no doubt you have done, and I doubt, little or no thinking of your own.

  98. eagleswin says: Jun 1, 2011 11:47 AM

    moochzilla says:Jun 1, 2011 8:35 AM

    “The union decertified to litigate, have yet submit a counter proposal.”

    This is untrue. Status Quo is, in fact, a counter-proposal.

    ————————–

    I disagree with that. Status Quo may be what the union proposes but that is no more than an initial proposal. They have not given an updated proposal (counter proposal) since then. The NFL has given several updated proposals since the start of negotiations. The NFLPA has not given a single updated proposal.

  99. eagleswin says: Jun 1, 2011 11:55 AM

    golonger says:May 31, 2011 10:36 PM

    sorry andrewfbrowne, you are totally incorrect. Although true the NFL (or any organization) cannot ultimately keep funds they receive from tickets if they do not hold the event……there is absolutely no requirement they hold it in escrow. If the NFL wanted to spend the funds and provide any potential refunds from somewhere else, that is up to them…..

    ———————-

    You really wrote a post whose only purpose is to take Andrew to task for a poor choice of words, all the while agreeing with his point?

    The NFL teams have to be prepared to refund the season ticket money until such a time as they know the games will happen. How they go about preparing for that possible eventuality is up to them. Therefore, they can not truly treat the money as revenue at this time.

  100. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 1:20 PM

    @airraid77 …

    Now that was disappointing. I have been accused of many things but never of following the crowd–any crowd, failing to think for myself, or fearing to stand alone for an unpopular position. You’re just wildly throwing poop at the wall and hoping something sticks. That doesn’t take any thought at all. Neither does the “comrade” stuff.

  101. airraid77 says: Jun 1, 2011 1:54 PM

    DEB,wrong again. My views make perfect sense.
    You are the one who has thought about your views dragged to their full conclusions. You are just spitting what you hear on the news 95 pct of which is extreme liberal. communistic thinking. I have no doubt you have not listened to the minority 5 pct.
    Ask yourself the simple if what I am proposing were to be passed in congress as law for every individual, would I like that law?
    The answer shockingly enough to any and all that support the players, the poor,the dis-enfranchised, blah blah blah, is that their is no way you would want those laws applied to you the individual.

  102. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 2:45 PM

    @airraid77 …

    Don’t presume to know where my views originated. I rarely watch network news, and when I do, I check all the networks to get a well-rounded sampling of coverage. I have a journalism degree and years of experience doing my own reporting so I know where to go for accurate information. I also spent more than four years living with combatants in ghetto projects in a guerilla war zone and am well aware how easily reporting can be distorted by lazy journalists and the intervention of governments and business interests.

    And I know how to listen to people with varying viewpoints because I’m smart enough to understand that no one side is all right or all wrong. That’s something which couldn’t possibly penetrate the pea brain of someone who stomps through blogsites calling everyone with whom he disagrees “comrade” and telling them how they think when he knows nothing about them. All you’ve done is demonstrate the pitifully limited scope of your own thinking.

    As for the so-called “liberal” media, the television networks are owned by monster corporations whose only agenda is to make more money. While individual journalists may lean toward social liberalism, the “media” in the larger sense is financially vested in maintaining the status quo.

    We all have our priorities, airraid77. You’ve made very clear in every post that your chief concern in life is money–helping the rich get as much as they can and passing laws that ensure they keep it. But money isn’t my Achilles’ heel. I’ve lived with the poor where we had to pool our resources for food and a place to sleep. I’ve had surgery under a socialized health plan. The red scare won’t work on me. Don’t bet your life on how I’d want the law applied.

  103. airraid77 says: Jun 1, 2011 3:15 PM

    I dont have to presume anything, deb, you type your views then try and hide behind titles such capitalist, not being a dem. THATS FACT. Your views, the ones you have typed, and undoubtedly voted for, spoken, make you what I have said you are. You just dont have the balls to say it.
    My views reflect how I want to live my life. I want every chance to get rich, and when I get the riches to be able to keep it.

  104. Deb says: Jun 1, 2011 3:44 PM

    @airraid77 …

    I’ve never made any effort to hide my political liberalism. As you’ve pointed out, anyone should be able to get that from my take on various issues. However, this is a football blog, and I don’t believe it’s an appropriate place for any of us to be whacking people over the head with our politics. You keep calling me a democrat, but I am vehemently opposed to the American party system, and therefore, have never been a registered member of any political party. That is a FACT, not some attempt at elusiveness. I have voted for and actively campaigned for candidates from both major parties.

    Capitalism is an economic system and I do not define myself in economic terms, so I do not understand why you keep saying I call myself a capitalist. That just isn’t a term I would use for self-description. I have said I believe in free markets–and I do with some restrictions. I strongly support government regulation of business and believe deregulation is directly responsible for our current economic crises. I do believe in some socialized programs, which the U.S. has had since long before I was born. The fire service, the police service, and Social Security are examples of government-sponsored programs that serve everyone regardless of personal wealth.

    My first loyalty is to my faith, and I believe the love of money is the root of all evil, and that we have a duty to help those less fortunate than ourselves.

    I’m female, so I don’t have balls. But I’m not afraid to speak my mind to you or anyone else. It just happens that my thoughts are a little more complicated than $$$$$$$.

  105. moochzilla says: Jun 1, 2011 5:32 PM

    airraid, 90% of the NFL is socialist / protectionist. To pretend it is pure capitalism is silly.

    It’s starting to sound uni-bomberish from you.

  106. moochzilla says: Jun 1, 2011 5:34 PM

    eagleswin,

    But the players are under no obligation to concede anything.

    Can they succeed in doing that? I dunno. But you play to win in business.

    This thought that the players should HAVE to be giving stuff up in a negotiation is just strange to me. In many negotiations I’ve been in the answer has been ‘no’.

  107. airraid77 says: Jun 1, 2011 6:16 PM

    airraid, 90% of the NFL is socialist / protectionist. To pretend it is pure capitalism is silly.
    It’s starting to sound uni-bomberish from you.
    ————————————————–
    I am all for it when it comes to the nfl being socialist.But in the broader terms its is income is capitalistic. because while the teams compete against each other, the league is in a fight for exsistance against other forms of entertainment in a capitalistic society. The nfl with its money can play by whatever rules it deems necessary. As can and should anyb buisness or person also be allowed to do under the laws of the us govt.
    Once again, I have no problem with the players wanting to keep their deal, I have problem with how they are going about it.
    d. smith is not in this for the players or football….anybody with common sense can see that. he destroys the owners, he also destroys the players.

  108. golonger says: Jun 1, 2011 11:55 PM

    eagleswin – aka dumbs#&t….if you knew anything about accounting, you would realize the total stupidity of what you said….the accounting treatment of revenues received from ticket sales for a future event is a considered a liability until the service is rendered. Yes, they don’t officially EARN that money until the games are played. But, that is no different now…lockout or not……..missed games are not. The only difference is the treatment at the time the games occur. This whole required escrow crap is just that….crap!

  109. moochzilla says: Jun 2, 2011 8:34 AM

    Aiirraid, but if they want to keep the status quo that means there are no givebacks / concessions to be made in the face of a cash hand-out to the owners ($1B then $500M). Which is why they were locked out.

    Consider that many of the owners ‘offers’ (healthcare and pensions) would have essentially been paid for by the players themselves with the $1B / $500M they were forking over. That’s why they didn’t counter – those proposals were a joke, as usual aimed at PR wins instead of agreements.

    Really, if the players wanted enhanced retirement benefits they could implement them themselves without changing the profit sharing arrangement, and it would cost them less than $1B or $500M.

    The owners have not offered much in return for a massive cash return.

    Furthermore, they have an anti-trust exemption, so they are under some restrictions that not every business is. It isn’t factually correct to say the can act unfettered like every business in America. And, again, the owners want that anti-truest exemption. It wasn’t forced on them.

    What, exactly, were your expectations for the players in this case?

  110. westcoastpackerfan says: Jun 3, 2011 4:08 PM

    To me this is proof that the fans in general don’t take the lockout seriously. There is a group of fans who are into the whole speculation thing, along with sites like this and NFL “insiders” like Schefter and Peter King always tweeting gloom and doom scenarios, but the average NFL Joe Blow fan doesn’t care and knows this will get worked out.

  111. db105 says: Jun 4, 2011 10:33 PM

    It would be nice if long time season ticket holders would boycott and lose their prime seats.

Leave a Reply

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