Skip to content

Report: Owners made concessions during recent talks

AP I MEX Mexico Money Found AP

Though the reality of oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has interrupted the fantasy of a labor deal being secretly negotiated amid boxes of deep dish pizza (eaten, of course, with plastic utensils), our buddy Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reports that the owners made concessions during the two days of not-so-secret meetings in Chicago.

Freeman writes that “[n]o one will say exactly what the concessions are but significant ones have been made and the players believe they are genuine.”  Freeman speculates that the owners are “continuing to come down significantly” from the demand that the owners receive another $1 billion off the top (in addition to the original $1 billion) before application of the 59.6-percent formula.  “The players always believed this was an outrageous demand and the players were right,” Freeman says.

Though it’s possible that the talks have reverted to the 2006 formula, which is based on money off the top with the players getting nearly 60 percent of the remainder, the March 11 offer from the NFL reflected the new formula the two sides had been discussing — a “pegged cap” based on specific team-by-team salary cap numbers each and every season, with the players also wanting to share in any money over and above the projections on which the predetermined cap numbers were based.

The concept of the “true up” has been the sticking point, with the players interpreting the absence of a true up provision in the March 11 offer as an indication that the league won’t share any of the excess, and with the league assuming that a response from the players (which to date hasn’t come) would include a proposal regarding the true up.

Regardless of the specific formula used, the heart of the dispute centers on the players’ belief that they should forever receive 50 cents of every dollar of revenue generated, regardless of the total dollars of revenue generated.  The owners believe that, as the total dollars pass $10 billion per year and commence the inevitable climb toward $20 billion, the players should take a smaller piece of this perpetually growing pie.

Perhaps the owners are now willing to keep that number closer to 50 percent than 40 percent.  One way or the other, Freeman’s report suggests that something has happened to get the players’ attention.  With money being the primary issue in dispute, it’s safe to say that something had something to do with the manner in which the money will be shared.

Permalink 106 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
106 Responses to “Report: Owners made concessions during recent talks”
  1. asyd1827 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:09 PM

    A billion dollars is a lot of money

  2. skoobyfl says: Jun 3, 2011 3:09 PM

    50 / 50 when you get married & divorced usually gets you out of the courts.

  3. kc4life7 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:11 PM

    Thumbs up if you think it should be 60/40, thumbs down if you think it should be 50/50

  4. ebenezergrymm says: Jun 3, 2011 3:14 PM

    The owners shouldnt concede a damn thing. What kind of employee gets 50 cents of every dollar his company makes? The players are overpaid crybabies. Keep them locked out until they start to learn some of the realities of life for normal people, like worrying about where the money is going to come from. Let a few more take out some crazy high interest loans. I want to taste their tears.

  5. chc36 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:15 PM

    This is some of the best news I’ve heard recently as far as this goes. Sounds like progress to me.

    I really don’t know who to support or who should get what. I think the plays deserve a large portion because they are the ones out their doing the work but the owners are paying for travel, board, equipment, etc for the players so I can see why they would need a little more.

  6. mightygiants says: Jun 3, 2011 3:17 PM

    The heart of the dispute is the owners insistence that the players take huge pay cuts in light of record increases in revenue. To suggest the problem is with the players is simply disingenuous.

  7. spartyfi says: Jun 3, 2011 3:18 PM

    I think the owners should tell them to stick it when it comes to the “true up” philosophy!

    Last time I checked, employees DO NOT determine their wages. If the players are smart, keep the “True Up” out and put in an opt out for 5 years from now. Then you opt out and “True Up” based on the new numbers. The players share in ZERO financial risk so I don’t think they should determine how much of the pie they get. Of course, that’s just me.

  8. chc4 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:20 PM

    Cue the absurd, bombastic statement from De Smith.

    Last I checked the owners have shown a willingness to NEGOTIATE. Would be nice if De would too.

  9. 305phinphan says: Jun 3, 2011 3:20 PM

    Thumbs up if you think the Jets blow

  10. hobartbaker says: Jun 3, 2011 3:21 PM

    UPDATE….Apparently the owners actually “served” concessions to the players. Including ample amounts of beer and wine with the burgers, fries, onion rings, chicken wings, etc. being devoured with gusto. NOW there may be progress.

  11. pacificamjr says: Jun 3, 2011 3:22 PM

    the owner need to realize that the players COULD EASILY START THEIR OWN LEAGUE, AND WE’D ALL WATCH. THE VALUE IN THE NFL IS THE TALENT

  12. chc4 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:24 PM

    The heart of the dispute is the owners insistence that the players take huge pay cuts in light of record increases in revenue. To suggest the problem is with the players is simply disingenuous.
    _______________________________
    Totally false and misleading. It’s one thing to be pro-union but you lose all credibility when you make stuff up. With the way revenues continue to grow there will be no pay cut. The only ones getting scalped are the draftees and they aren’t in the union yet anyway… which is why De Smith is willing to grant a rookie pay scale.

  13. thephantomstranger says: Jun 3, 2011 3:24 PM

    Nice for the players that the owners keep offering them a better deal without the players ever responding.

  14. steelersmichele says: Jun 3, 2011 3:24 PM

    As a show of good faith, now the players need to make a concession.

  15. chc4 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:27 PM

    pacificamjr says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:22 PM
    the owner need to realize that the players COULD EASILY START THEIR OWN LEAGUE, AND WE’D ALL WATCH. THE VALUE IN THE NFL IS THE TALENT
    _________________________________
    Seriously dude? Then why haven’t they already done it? Do you know how much $ owners invest in their organizations? There isn’t a player in the league that has enough $ to own/bankroll a team. You clearly are not a business major.

  16. tommyf15 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:27 PM

    I wouldn’t qualify the owners slashing their demands as being a “concession”.

    kc4life7 says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:11 PM
    Thumbs up if you think it should be 60/40, thumbs down if you think it should be 50/50

    The problem is there’s no universally “fair” or “right” percentage. This is why I’m in favor of a free market system where each individual owner decides what he wants to spend.

  17. ljl2 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:27 PM

    the whole “employee” argument doesn’t have merit when the “employees” are also the product.

  18. stevecmh says: Jun 3, 2011 3:28 PM

    If this is true, it’s good news for sure.

    From the comments thus far, it seems that many folks here are more extreme than the owners themselves.

    If the owners decide to sweeten their offer to the players, who are you to say that’s wrong?

    After all, haven’t you been saying all along that this should be negotiated, not litigated?

    FYI, this is what real negotiations look like…

  19. wlubake says: Jun 3, 2011 3:28 PM

    Progress will come when we actually have a headline involving player concessions. Then we will know both sides are serious about solving this mess.

  20. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 3, 2011 3:31 PM

    So now you’re criticizing the players if they DO make progress with the owners?

    Who said the players never made an offer? i’m pretty sure the players have made offers in the last 2 years.

    You have to remember that the new CBA is 80% agreed upon. It’s the money part that they are hammering out now.

    No players, no games, no billion dollar revenue.

  21. playingtheponzi says: Jun 3, 2011 3:31 PM

    It seems to me that, practically, it’s in the best interest of both parties that changes go the other way – as revenues increase, player percentage increases (based on the assumption that profit is increases). In return for granted players more upside potential, owners receive risk protection by having players take a smaller percentage if revenues decrease (based on the assumption that ownership carries significant fixed costs that don’t change with revenue fluxuation).

    I imagine no one is considering this notion because the prospect of declining revenue seems preposterous. But, as much as the NFL hates to admit it, this is a one-country sport. And this is a country crossing into economic decline, imho. As Monty Python would say, “no one prepares for the Spanish Inquisition!”

  22. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 3, 2011 3:32 PM

    It’s not like they were starting from scratch the last two days…

  23. Kaz says: Jun 3, 2011 3:33 PM

    I’m still waiting for the players to make some concessions. I’ve yet to hear any….. A proposal…. Something.

  24. waldoampere says: Jun 3, 2011 3:35 PM

    “The owners shouldn’t concede a damn thing. What kind of employee gets 50 cents of every dollar his company makes?”

    Employees who are the absolute best in the world at what they do. And employees who just about everyone else wants to watch work.

  25. packerrube13 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:36 PM

    pacificamjr,

    Which of these genius players has enough money to fund such an undertaking? The cost for medical staff, coaches, travel expenses, team food, front office personnel, equipment, and stadium rental, amongst many other high cost expenses?

    Unless you think Brady can get his wife to fund this league, you’re an idiot. Now stop posting on a football site if you know nothing about said sport.

  26. bearskoolaid1985 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:36 PM

    Reading these types of articals I really beleave had the players not decertified a deal would already be done.
    I blame Kessler (the NFL hating lawyer) for pushing his own hitler like vision on to the players and I blame De Smith for listening to him.
    The players should DEMAND that Kessler should be fired ASAP and negotiating should start TODAY.

  27. stevecmh says: Jun 3, 2011 3:36 PM

    “Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”

    “Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms—oh damn!”

  28. mistrezzrachael says: Jun 3, 2011 3:37 PM

    First off…Freeman is the biggest LOSER out there..followed closely by albert Breer…so never trust that boys’ words.

    Find it hard to believe that the owners would make huge concessions, as thats what stated all this crap w/the last CBA.

    But if you ask DEB [ honorary Pres. of chambermaid union] she’d tell you this was all caused by owners failing to negociate w/union.

    Bottom line is players are getting POOR advice…and are going to get hammered.

  29. bhindenemylines says: Jun 3, 2011 3:37 PM

    ebenezergrymm & spartyfi,

    You guys don’t get it. You cannot compare this situation to a simple Company/Employee relationship, such as a guy flipping burgers at fast food restaurant or a teller working for a bank where these people get paid based on the amount of hours they work.

    This is more of a commission relationship. The owners opened this can of worms when they agreed to profit sharing. They agreed to give the players X amount of the money the league makes. Now that they are making more money, they want to give the players less.

    Why should they take less money than before when the league is making more than ever???

    If a fast food restaurant makes more money, the owner keeps all of it because of the agreement he has with his employees.

    If a car dealership makes more money than the salesmen make more money because they are due thier commission from their sales.

  30. kevinfromphilly says: Jun 3, 2011 3:37 PM

    Guys like spartyfi are so wrong about this, it’s incredible. To think of the players as “employees” is absurd. Employees make the products that companies sell for profit. In the NFL, the players ARE the product. Comparing the NFL to a production company that makes TV shows would be more accurate than anything else. When shows like “Friends” or “Three and a Half Men” make a ton of money, the stars get huge paychecks, and you don’t see any of them getting locked out by the producers (except for Mr. Adonis DNA). And you certainly don’t hear any jackoffs crying that they should shut down the show because the stars make too much money.

  31. deegizzle says: Jun 3, 2011 3:38 PM

    Last time I checked, employees DO NOT determine their wages. If the players are smart, keep the “True Up” out and put in an opt out for 5 years from now. Then you opt out and “True Up” based on the new numbers. The players share in ZERO financial risk so I don’t think they should determine how much of the pie they get. Of course, that’s just me.

    ————

    And this is exactly why the players are in court. If they’re going to be treated like most other employees that don’t determine their own wages, then they want to have the same anti-trust rights that comes along with that. I.E. Not being forced to be drafted to a team, not be subject to being restricted from taking another job when their contract runs out, not being traded, etc.

    Anyone who presents the “you and I can’t do it so why should they argument” totally does not understand antitrust exemptions and why this situation should not be compared to most other companies.

    …And for the record, I am on the owners side in this.

  32. rc33 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:40 PM

    Gee, what a coincidence.
    No lawyers = progress. Whod’ve thunk it, right?

    Insert “what do you call a thousand Lawyers chained to the bottom of the ocean?” joke here.

  33. buffalohogan says: Jun 3, 2011 3:40 PM

    This just in, DeBag Smith says “this is the third worst offer in sports history”

  34. goombar2 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:40 PM

    I love the talent, and think it plays an important role…

    But so does the management. So do the coaches… Its not just an either or thing. Come on guys, get it together and get it done… If not for the fans, then for the money. This is just stupid.

  35. chc4 says: Jun 3, 2011 3:41 PM

    ljl2 says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:27 PM
    the whole “employee” argument doesn’t have merit when the “employees” are also the product.
    ___________________________________
    Without wealthy owners willing to pump huge money into their organizations there is no product. What people fail to realize is that a $10 billion industry like the NFL must make a profit. If teams weren’t hugely profitable nobody would want to own them and then the players would be flipping burgers. If Exxon makes a $1m profit it would be a disaster for them. But if the Panera Bread location on the street corner makes a $1m profit it’s an unbelieveable year. It’s all relative.

  36. SpartaChris says: Jun 3, 2011 3:45 PM

    ljl2 says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:27 PM
    the whole “employee” argument doesn’t have merit when the “employees” are also the product.
    =================================
    I’d argue it’s the team itself, the brand as a whole, that is the product. The players are merely employees who help make it work.

    Think about it: When John Elway or Dan Marino stopped playing the game, did people suddenly stop cheering for the Broncos or Dolphins? When Montana left SF and went to KC, did SF fans stop cheering for them?

    The answer is nope. Fans went on to cheer for the next guy. And the guy after that. They continued to support their team.

    If the players are the product, fans would leave when the players left. Since this doesn’t happen, my contention is it is the TEAM itself that is the product. The players happen to be a critical component in making the product work.

  37. kevishu says: Jun 3, 2011 3:50 PM

    So if the players want 50% of profits (or something like that), are the players willing to take a slight paycut during a year where profits may be lower? It almost sounds as though the players want the best of both worlds… higher pay as long as profits increase, but also guaranteed pay if profits decrease, which puts the burden on the owners to absorb ALL of the loss on a lower profit year. Or perhaps I don’t know the whole deal that’s the players are pushing for. I guess, let’s just hope a deal gets done soon and never mind the details. :)

  38. derekjetersmansion says: Jun 3, 2011 3:53 PM

    @Sparta Chris

    Most fans are bandwagon fans. They like the team, sure, but the most visible part is the players.

    If your theory is right, Lebron James leaving Cleveland would have been met with indifference. Players sell jerseys and merchandise.

  39. mizzouram says: Jun 3, 2011 3:56 PM

    chc4 says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:27 PM
    Seriously dude? Then why haven’t they already done it? Do you know how much $ owners invest in their organizations? There isn’t a player in the league that has enough $ to own/bankroll a team. You clearly are not a business major.
    ————————————————–
    You clearly don’t watch semi-profootball. Every year there are business men wanting to break into the aristocracy that is the NFL.

    Are you telling me there are 32 more smart rich guys out there, willing to take over another company’s already wildly successful product and sell to a public that can’t get enough of it? Get real.

    Owners need to realize that, while they are important, they are as disposable as the players are.

  40. truenblue says: Jun 3, 2011 3:56 PM

    — So if the players want 50% of profits (or something like that), are the players willing to take a slight paycut during a year where profits may be lower? —

    Uhm, they’re looking for 50% of the revenues. So if the revenues go down, so does their cut.

    —the whole “employee” argument doesn’t have merit when the “employees” are also the product. —

    Apparently some people on the interwebbings are unaware that America is now a service economy rather than a widget economy. They’ve been hiding in a cave for the last 30 years or something, I guess. Or perhaps listening to a whole lot of AM talk radio.

  41. nolanorth says: Jun 3, 2011 3:57 PM

    Why is always the owners conceding in these talks? To me they have always been in the right and now more then ever it seems they’re the only ones wanting to get this done.

    If the players keep being so ignorant (look up D-Smith) and want to hold out a year then the owners should renege on all the offers they made and screw the players for good!!

  42. duanethomas says: Jun 3, 2011 3:59 PM

    Well well you don’t say………………………I guess the thougt of missed payments on those Billion dollar stadiums have become a reality. Training camp sites are calling and want to know should we book something else? Owners are making concessions aka caving. LoL. As I said earlier there will be a settlement in about three weeks, and the players have made their point. No matter what you pro-owner butt kissers want, you do not have any money on the line. Jerry Jones & Robert Kraft are leading the charge to settle. They can’t afford to miss one game of revenue. This is funny. Players Won. Football in 2011.

  43. childressrulz says: Jun 3, 2011 4:00 PM

    You people are nuts. The talent could form it’s own league. Join forces with the arena league combine all talent and form twenty teams. Sell shares like the packers did. It wouldn’t be the NFL at first but eventually it could be. I can say this. I will watch wherever the talent goes.

  44. vetdana says: Jun 3, 2011 4:05 PM

    The owners believe that, as the total dollars pass $10 billion per year and commence the inevitable climb toward $20 billion,

    $20 billion !!…….By the time we get to here….only the Oil Sheiks from the Middle East will be able to afford the price of a ticket !!..Ahh…do they like football ?

  45. childressrulz says: Jun 3, 2011 4:06 PM

    kevishu says: Jun 3, 2011 3:50 PM

    So if the players want 50% of profits (or something like that), are the players willing to take a slight paycut during a year where profits may be lower? It almost sounds as though the players want the best of both worlds… higher pay as long as profits increase, but also guaranteed pay if profits decrease, which puts the burden on the owners to absorb ALL of the loss on a lower profit year. Or perhaps I don’t know the whole deal that’s the players are pushing for. I guess, let’s just hope a deal gets done soon and never mind the details. :)
    ____________________________________
    In a down year the players would be taking a pay cut. For those that can’t due math like this guy let me help you out. 50% of 1 dollar is 50 cents. 50% of 4 million is 2 million. Sounds as though the player might be accepting some risk after all.

  46. truenblue says: Jun 3, 2011 4:08 PM

    – Why is always the owners conceding in these talks? To me they have always been in the right and now more then ever it seems they’re the only ones wanting to get this done. —

    Uhm, hate to break it to you but the players were conceeding from the very outset. The players highest offer was always to keep the existing system as is which has made each and everyone one of them filthy rich. It’s the owners who were looking for the “game changer” and the 18 game schedules, and 1 Billion off the top and yaddda, yadda, yadda without offering anything in return.

    So yeah, owners are conceeding more because they asked for a hell of a lot more.

  47. armchairgm9 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:11 PM

    And still the players haven’t even offered to make any type of concession…

  48. w8rh3wk5 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:17 PM

    people arguing that the players are greedy and dont deserve a say in how in the money is divided is WRONG…..the players are not employees like you and me. They have collective bargined and the league can decide where the players play via free agency rules, trades, draft,etc…. Because of that…. the players get an equal say.

  49. stevez51 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:18 PM

    New owners would have the same player problems as now. A player run league would fold because they would argue over who’s in charge, salaries,etc. They would never play a game.

  50. aasukisuki says: Jun 3, 2011 4:20 PM

    Previous deal was 60/40 after the owners took 1 billion off of the top (and that only includes football related revenue)

    So 9 billion – 1 billion = 8 billion

    Owners get 3.2 billion + 1 billion = 4.2 billion

    Players get 4.8 billion

    4.2 billion / 32 owner groups = 131,250,000 a year

    4.8 billion / ~1700 players = 2,823,529 a year

    The owners bitching because they are only making 128 million more dollars a year than the average player will be making.

  51. jlb10 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:29 PM

    pacificamjr says: Jun 3, 2011 3:22 PM

    the owner need to realize that the players COULD EASILY START THEIR OWN LEAGUE, AND WE’D ALL WATCH. THE VALUE IN THE NFL IS THE TALENT
    ____________________
    no way the players are able to form their own league. IF it was so easy why haven’t the players done it? IF it is so easy why has every other pro football league in this and every other country failed?
    these idiot players cannot even run their own finances successfully how the hell are they going to run a league?

  52. packerrube13 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:30 PM

    Childressrulz you’re as ignorant as your friend pacificamjr. There is NO way this make believe league happens. Stop playing pretend.

    Combine with the arena league? I truly hope your career choice doesn’t depend on any sort of intelligence. Not only are the rules different, but the fields are much smaller.

    The foolishness and ignorance of some of the unemployed idiots posting from their mom’s basement really baffles me. Please describe the business plan for this arena league merger with the Players Union. (Which no longer exists)

    Also, no league can ever be done how my Packers did it, selling off shares. No one would buy these shares. They bought GB shares because they were apart of something (big) already established. Your idea has them buying shares in teams that don’t exist, in a league that’s only in your head.

    People, please think before you post. Much appreciated.

    Packerrube out.

  53. spikeit2times says: Jun 3, 2011 4:37 PM

    OY! You people and the “NFL players are not regular employees” argument. And the “they are the product” argument.

    The Players are NOT the product; the game is the product, the players produce the game using the tools, facilities, and training their employers provide them. Just like any other employer provides the same means to produce a product.

    The players ARE regular employees just like I am. If I were to be freed of my job, I would be”restricted” for 6 months in that I could not take an equilivent position with a competitor. This not only restricts what positions I can take, but also what employers (teams) can hire me. That is a highly regular aspect of employment in the blue collar fields of employment.

    Please stop with your idioctic claims without knowing how things really work.

  54. kevishu says: Jun 3, 2011 4:39 PM

    truenblue, your argument that “the whole “employee” argument doesn’t have merit when the “employees” are also the product.” is backwards. If anything the players in the NFL are more the product of the NFL than employees in a company, service based or widget based. Employees are selling services provided by company, and can be replaced easier than star athletes in their respective professions. Remember, people watch sports to watch their favorite athletes, at least to a certain degree. People don’t buy products or services because the product was designed/built or sold to them by their favorite engineers/laborers, or salespeople, respectively.

    This isn’t to say NFL players make the sport. And certainly they can be replaced, simply because everything and everyone can be replaced no matter what he/she does. But it’s not nearly as transparent of an operation in professional sports as your implying.

  55. spikeit2times says: Jun 3, 2011 4:42 PM

    Oops! Thought I edited that differently before submitting, but…

    ** that is a highly regular aspect in the white collar fields of employment, even if not in the blue collar… **

  56. thephantomstranger says: Jun 3, 2011 4:42 PM

    childressrulz says:
    Jun 3, 2011 4:00 PM
    You people are nuts. The talent could form it’s own league. Join forces with the arena league combine all talent and form twenty teams. Sell shares like the packers did. It wouldn’t be the NFL at first but eventually it could be. I can say this. I will watch wherever the talent goes.
    _________________

    Typical Packer fan. You don’t really care about your team. You’ll cheer for whatever is put in front of you.

  57. preludetosmack says: Jun 3, 2011 4:44 PM

    If there is a “true up” formula, shouldn’t there also be a “true down” formula?

    If the players are such partners, and the owners miss the projected revenue, I can see not adjusting the hard salary caps down for the season that’s underway, but the next season and all those subsequent should be reduced.

    Further, I contend they shouldn’t give the players an even 50-50 split of the additional revenue, since the NFLPA* had the opportunity to argue about the projections pre-newdeal and if the owners exceed those projections, they should get something extra for themselves… maybe if the base projected revenue ends up being a 50-50 split, the “true-up” should be 60-40 advantage owners, or maybe even 65-35.

    If the league misses the projected revenue, they should share equally the drop in revenue (lower profits and salary cap, thus salaries) because if by some magic ju-ju the revenue pool shrinks, it’s not going to be something that’s purely the owners fault… the players must be causing the league some harm too.

    I don’t think the owners were wrong to ask for an extra $BIL off the top, because honestly, it’s no business what an employer makes to the employees… employees deserve to get paid whatever their market value is… outside of whatever the owners are willing to pay them, the players don’t have a lot of options. So if the owners want to offer less, players should take it or find better.

    With all of the concessions the owners have been forced to make already, the new deal isn’t going to be all that different from the last deal… if that’s the case, don’t expect labor peace for long… if it wasn’t good enough then, it won’t be now… let the players all hi-five themselves for ‘winning’ and while they go blow their wad celebrating, the owners will be preparing for the next lockout and war.

    Players, if they truly respect those who came before and expect to pave a path for those to come, should make some concessions and let the overall deal come close to what was on the table in March. NO PLAYER had to take a pay cut, NOT ONE!… that’s not much of a concession.

  58. jackfnburton says: Jun 3, 2011 4:48 PM

    Just. End. This. Madness. Now.

  59. endzonezombie says: Jun 3, 2011 4:49 PM

    The pro owner shills on here are so unbelieveably stupid. This thread is about concesssions that the owners made to get closer to a CBA agreement. FOOTBALL FANS should be quite happy with this news, but many of the owner shills are NOT football fans. They don’t care about football as much as they care about crushing the players. Idiots. I hope all football fans on this site recognize the shills for what they are: troublemakers who want a lockout and no football played until the players are crushed.

  60. preludetosmack says: Jun 3, 2011 4:50 PM

    @truenblue

    Actually, the players have specifically requested HARD caps per team set by the projections… so you saying, “Uhm, they’re looking for 50% of the revenues. So if the revenues go down, so does their cut. ” is FALSE.

    They are saying they want 50% of the revenues, and they want their 50% based on ‘X’ revenue in year 2011, ‘Y’ revenue in 2012, ‘Z’ revenue in 2013, etc. Each year’s revenue is pre-projected and the cap is a hard cap that is pre-determined… that’s why there would need to be a ‘true-up’, but also why there should be a ‘true-down’.

    If it was just 50% of revenues without a predefined projection, the true-up wouldn’t be a discussion (but neither would pre-determined hard-caps… which the players want).

  61. willycents says: Jun 3, 2011 4:51 PM

    The players are what is sold as product so they deserve a high percentage of the gross? Entertainment is what they sell(players in action).
    So, split the pie based on successful movies and give everyone the percentage based on that model. Oh hell no, the players would scream.

    The movie “Spiderman 2″ cost $200M to produce, not counting advertising and distribution cost. The salary outlays for the movie, including producers, directors, actors, and all support people, were $52M, or about 26%. So much for comparing the NFL players percentage to other major entertainment items

  62. vikescry1 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:52 PM

    the players also wanting to share in a money over the projections…. so if there under the projections are they going to give some back? just curious…

  63. kidder95 says: Jun 3, 2011 4:54 PM

    Gotta love the stupidity of comments on this blog.

    The same group that beat the drum for the owners not conceding a thing to the players then go and thumb down free markets suggestions.

    All you owner/player lovers are socialist… and you don’t even know it!

    That is really funny.

    Free markets must really scare people. Soon someone will hold a sign “Power to the corporation… screw the people” (sarcasm intended).

    Most people on this blog have no idea what a free market is.

  64. redsghost says: Jun 3, 2011 5:01 PM

    You know what? GIVE them the 60%. But now, the teams don’t have to pay those contracts. Why should they pay the players AND give 5 billion per year to them as well?
    Give the 60% to the Union and have the Union pay them and their benefits.

  65. aigraiders says: Jun 3, 2011 5:02 PM

    kevishu says: Jun 3, 2011 3:50 PM

    So if the players want 50% of profits (or something like that), are the players willing to take a slight paycut during a year where profits may be lower?
    ———————-

    worst, the players are already getting cut for any year in which the owner feel the player is no longer fitting in their plans. How many NFL contracts make it to its original term?

  66. redsghost says: Jun 3, 2011 5:03 PM

    childressrulz says:Jun 3, 2011 4:00 PM

    You people are nuts. The talent could form it’s own league. Join forces with the arena league combine all talent and form twenty teams. Sell shares like the packers did. It wouldn’t be the NFL at first but eventually it could be. I can say this. I will watch wherever the talent goes.

    And you don’t think Jones, Snyder, Kraft and others won’t buy those teams as well? Of course they would and we’d be back to square one.

  67. kidder95 says: Jun 3, 2011 5:03 PM

    The judges in this case would need to rule for Capitalism. To rule otherwise would put the court at liable for enforcing anti-trust laws, and be revoked by Superior Court of law.

    They have to rule for free markets… for all sport.

    Thus, both the players AND the owners OF ALL SPORT would lose.

    Owners would lose existing revenue streams:
    - Draft
    - Free Agency
    - Salary Cap
    - Shared Television Rights

    The players would lose:
    - Salary Cap Floor
    - Guaranteed Medical

    Retired players would lose:
    - Pension (Say hello to 401k)

  68. aigraiders says: Jun 3, 2011 5:05 PM

    SpartaChris says: Jun 3, 2011 3:45 PM
    The answer is nope. Fans went on to cheer for the next guy. And the guy after that. They continued to support their team.
    —————-

    Actually, how much money do you think the Bengals and Lions would make if there was no revenue sharing in the league? The fans going to the Lions game now are excited because they finally have good players on that team. Without revenue sharing, the Lions and Bengals would have folded many years ago. The players play a very important role in the marketability of any team.

  69. redsghost says: Jun 3, 2011 5:08 PM

    kevinfromphilly says:Jun 3, 2011 3:37 PM

    “When shows like “Friends” or “Three and a Half Men” make a ton of money, the stars get huge paychecks, and you don’t see any of them getting locked out by the producers (except for Mr. Adonis DNA). And you certainly don’t hear any jackoffs crying that they should shut down the show because the stars make too much money.”

    You may be close to being right comparing TV Actors making millions with athletes making millions BUT
    Last I looked CBS doesn’t give 60% of it’s profits to the actors.

  70. vtsquirm says: Jun 3, 2011 5:24 PM

    Why should they take less money than before when the league is making more than ever???
    ——————————————-

    2 reasons:

    #1, the owners realize that they were screwed in the last deal and they won’t agree to the same deal again

    and
    #2, the players will make more money, even at a reduced %, than working anywhere else.

    Like it or not the players are replaceable. don’t want to work for the NFL? FINE! Remember the USFL? they had some big name stars making nice salaries for a couple years… what happened to that league? IT FAILED.

  71. bradwins says: Jun 3, 2011 5:43 PM

    ebenezergrymm says:

    Jun 3, 2011 3:14 PM

    The owners shouldnt concede a damn thing. What kind of employee gets 50 cents of every dollar his company makes? The players are overpaid crybabies. Keep them locked out until they start to learn some of the realities of life for normal people, like worrying about where the money is going to come from. Let a few more take out some crazy high interest loans. I want to taste their tears.

    ——————————–

    Um…I’m not sure which employees get 50% of what their company makes, but if more did you can bet that the economy would be in better shape. The problem with the economy is not that the rich people aren’t getting enough, its that the middle class isn’t getting enough. The more the middle class shrinks and struggles the worse off everyone else will be in the long run.

    Maybe this argument is not an appropriate analogy for the NFL labor dispute, because everyone involved there is a “rich guy”, relatively speaking. But, hey, you brought it up.

  72. TIM says: Jun 3, 2011 5:53 PM

    What is new about this articles headline ???
    The owners have made several concessions over 2 Months ago and are still waiting for the union to even give them 1 counter proposal.
    Now the owners are giving even more ??? I guess the owners are so fairminded and are bending so far over backwards to try to make a fair deal that if the players just refuse to be reasonable for a while longer the owners will keep making concessions until they finally just sign the ownership of their teams over to D Smith ? LOL !
    Come on players,wise up and realize that Smith and your union are lieing to you about almost everything and the owners are trying to be fair and just want a fair CBA and just want to play football .

  73. thefiesty1 says: Jun 3, 2011 5:59 PM

    As long as they keep DeMo out of the negotiations some progress can be made and there will be football again, soon.

  74. mathsimillion says: Jun 3, 2011 5:59 PM

    the owner need to realize that the players COULD EASILY START THEIR OWN LEAGUE, AND WE’D ALL WATCH. THE VALUE IN THE NFL IS THE TALENT
    ___________________________________

    One of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. The players can’t manage their own money, stay out of jail or even invest it properly. How are they going to start a new league? Who will own the teams and run them? Who will pay the bills? The players refuse to give up any money for expenses like this so how will this work again? I guess they’ll just play backyard ball and hope everyone comes to watch? Oh and where do they play the local high school? The owners are the owners for a reason. they know how to make a profit on a business. They have talent too and its for investing and putting out products people want to buy (for the most part). Players can be replaced if needed. There are tons of college players who know that playing in the NFL at minimum salary is still better than any other job they have a shot at. The talent will always be there.

  75. willycents says: Jun 3, 2011 6:02 PM

    aasukisuki says:Jun 3, 2011 4:20 PM

    Previous deal was 60/40 after the owners took 1 billion off of the top (and that only includes football related revenue)

    So 9 billion – 1 billion = 8 billion

    Owners get 3.2 billion + 1 billion = 4.2 billion

    Players get 4.8 billion

    4.2 billion / 32 owner groups = 131,250,000 a year

    4.8 billion / ~1700 players = 2,823,529 a year

    The owners bitching because they are only making 128 million more dollars a year than the average player will be making.
    ————————————————-
    Aaaaa …dude, now multiply the single player salary by the 53 players on each roster and get the true number that the owners are making. Don’t try to baffle us with bs.

  76. pdxpanther says: Jun 3, 2011 6:04 PM

    Wait, behind closed doors meetings with no mass media knowledge? How does Michael Silver feel about these secret meetings?

  77. TIM says: Jun 3, 2011 6:20 PM

    Bradwins:
    No,if more companies employees got 50% + of what the company makes it would be bad for the economy because those companies would soon go out of business since the owners would not have the capital to plow back into their business to make it grow and be profitable etc ,and all their employees would soon be unemployed.
    You sound like an ignorant Socialist or even a Communist.

  78. nard100 says: Jun 3, 2011 6:24 PM

    ebenezergrymm says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:14 PM
    The owners shouldnt concede a damn thing. What kind of employee gets 50 cents of every dollar his company makes? The players are overpaid crybabies. Keep them locked out until they start to learn some of the realities of life for normal people, like worrying about where the money is going to come from. Let a few more take out some crazy high interest loans. I want to taste their tears.
    ————————————————–
    Are you high? Try this on for size, aside from there being NO football, WHEN the owners lose in court, it will be worth TRIPLE damages. Tom Brady’s lawsuit alone could pay 2.1 billion dollars. If that were to happen, (and remember the owners started this) the players would get paid and the rest of us would be doing the crying as sports in this could country would never be the same. Trust me the owners wil capitulate long before the players would. it’s time for the owners to put a deal on the table that is more reasonable and get it done. Now.

  79. nard100 says: Jun 3, 2011 6:37 PM

    truenblue says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:56 PM
    — So if the players want 50% of profits (or something like that), are the players willing to take a slight paycut during a year where profits may be lower? —

    ————————————————

    Umm, if they are paid a PERCENTAGE and the revenues are down, then obviously the amount goes down even if the percentage doesn’t.

    Also, the NFL continues to make record revenues even in a terrible economy, so let’s stop talking about the “risk” of the owners.

  80. bsandcs says: Jun 3, 2011 6:41 PM

    aasukisuki says:
    Jun 3, 2011 4:20 PM
    Previous deal was 60/40 after the owners took 1 billion off of the top (and that only includes football related revenue)

    So 9 billion – 1 billion = 8 billion

    Owners get 3.2 billion + 1 billion = 4.2 billion

    Players get 4.8 billion

    4.2 billion / 32 owner groups = 131,250,000 a year

    4.8 billion / ~1700 players = 2,823,529 a year

    The owners bitching because they are only making 128 million more dollars a year than the average player will be making.
    —————————————————– that 131,250,000 does not just go into the owners’ pockets. it is responsible for paying the salaries every single coach, front office staff, stadium employee and league employee, as well as all the operating expenses marketing efforts, charitable endeavors and every other component of the NFL. the players portion, on the other hand, is pure profit.

  81. david7590 says: Jun 3, 2011 6:46 PM

    @305phinphan:

    From the fan of a team that hasn’t won a playoff game since Clinton was President. You guys got lucky in 08 on a cupcake schedule now you can’t even get back to .500. Your fair weathe rfans will stay away in droves in 12. Enjoy the blackouts.

  82. david7590 says: Jun 3, 2011 6:46 PM

    @305phinphan:

    From the fan of a team that hasn’t won a playoff game since Clinton was President. You guys got lucky in 08 on a cupcake schedule now you can’t even get back to .500. Your fair weather fans will stay away in droves in 12. Enjoy the blackouts.

  83. truenblue says: Jun 3, 2011 6:49 PM


    Bradwins:
    No,if more companies employees got 50% + of what the company makes it would be bad for the economy because those companies would soon go out of business since the owners would not have the capital to plow back into their business to make it grow and be profitable etc ,and all their employees would soon be unemployed.
    You sound like an ignorant Socialist or even a Communist. —-

    You sound like the type of person habitually labels people as socialists and communists without knowing a damn thing about either one other than what your AM Talk radio huckster tells you.

    Here’s a hint for you … since 90% of the American economy is service based, most companies pay over 50% in labor. If you don’t think that’s reasonable, you’ve obviously never had to staff in healthcare or IT.

  84. truenblue says: Jun 3, 2011 6:55 PM

    – kevishu says:
    Jun 3, 2011 4:39 PM
    truenblue, your argument that “the whole “employee” argument doesn’t have merit when the “employees” are also the product.” is backwards. If anything the players in the NFL are more the product of the NFL than employees in a company, service based or widget based—-

    Evidently the NFL owners disagree with you, because they LOVE to hand out million dollar contracts every year to the highest marquee players. They love it so much they break their own self imposed tampering rules to be the first ones in line to hand out multi-million dollar contracts to the biggest name players on the first first minute of the first day of free agency. That’s how much they LOVE handing out multi-million dollar contracts to the biggest name players. They do so for a reason.

    When Peyton Manning retires, watch how the RCA Dome just magically stops becoming an automatic sell out despite the fans being offered the same “product”.

  85. tudefit says: Jun 3, 2011 7:00 PM

    I agree with those who say the players get their salaries, and damn good ones. Why should they also get profit sharing? I don’t care if they got it before or not. Are they willing to share in any losses?

    Why would anyone come on here and defend this? How are these players being denied anything? Get real.

  86. pacificamjr says: Jun 3, 2011 7:04 PM

    you morons,
    the players simply divide up into teams based on the same team theyre on now. college stadiums would love the revenue on sundays, and have all the staff in place. they simply need to find 32 colleges that will rent their stadiums out (out of over 100 div. 1 college teams). the UFL could run the league, sponsors would come forward, and 100% of profits go to players. youre gonna tell me youd rather watch replacement players than NFL players on a team with a dif name?
    AS SOON AS RUMORS OF THE LEAGUE FORMING STARTED TO TRICKLE IN, THE OWNERS WOULD CAVE IN A SECOND YOU IDIOTS!!!

  87. SpartaChris says: Jun 3, 2011 7:04 PM

    derekjetersmansion says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:53 PM
    @Sparta Chris

    Most fans are bandwagon fans. They like the team, sure, but the most visible part is the players.

    If your theory is right, Lebron James leaving Cleveland would have been met with indifference. Players sell jerseys and merchandise.
    ===================================
    Oh, fans certainly care about the players, and my example doesn’t rule that out. We saw that with the whole Brett Fraud saga. Packers fans were livid when he went turncoat and put on purple. But in the end, Packers fans still cheered for and celebrated the Packers, which is my point. The fans didn’t leave just because Favre did. Some, a very small majority went on to root for Favre in purple, but the overwhelming majority remained Packers fans.

    To use your example, Cleveland fans didn’t suddenly become Heat fans when Lebron took his talents and douchiness to South Beach. Cavs fans are, by and large, still Cavs fans.

    While the players are a critical component of the team itself, no single one of them is bigger than the team. Players come and go, but fan loyalty does not. This is why the players are *not* the product, but are merely a cog in the wheel that makes up the product- the team itself.

  88. aa937allen says: Jun 3, 2011 7:25 PM

    The owners are idiots! They wanted and picked this fight. I hope the courts hammer the dip wad owners. They negotiate t.v money to come in even if no season and players get nothing.

  89. SpartaChris says: Jun 3, 2011 7:28 PM

    aasukisuki says:
    Jun 3, 2011 4:20 PM
    Previous deal was 60/40 after the owners took 1 billion off of the top (and that only includes football related revenue)

    So 9 billion – 1 billion = 8 billion

    Owners get 3.2 billion + 1 billion = 4.2 billion

    Players get 4.8 billion

    4.2 billion / 32 owner groups = 131,250,000 a year

    4.8 billion / ~1700 players = 2,823,529 a year

    The owners bitching because they are only making 128 million more dollars a year than the average player will be making
    ==============================
    The owners also have a myriad of additional expenses that severely undercut their profit margin. Stadium overhead, travel expenses, including hotels, private planes, meals, etc, ALL the salaries of ALL the employees from ticket takers to security to concessions to groundskeepers to training staff, not to mention taxes, which alone is probably 25-30% of their income. Suddenly that number gets a lot smaller.

  90. SpartaChris says: Jun 3, 2011 7:31 PM

    aigraiders says:
    Jun 3, 2011 5:05 PM

    Actually, how much money do you think the Bengals and Lions would make if there was no revenue sharing in the league? The fans going to the Lions game now are excited because they finally have good players on that team. Without revenue sharing, the Lions and Bengals would have folded many years ago. The players play a very important role in the marketability of any team.
    ================================
    Not sure where I said anything about revenue sharing.

    I correctly stated the TEAM is the product, NOT the players, and gave examples to support my claim. Not sure what that has to do with revenue sharing.

  91. majoraider says: Jun 3, 2011 7:43 PM

    Thumbs up if you think the Raiders are the best team in the NFL.

    Thumbs down if question your sexuality.

  92. autumnwind999 says: Jun 3, 2011 8:40 PM

    ebenezergrymm says:
    Jun 3, 2011 3:14 PM
    The owners shouldnt concede a damn thing. What kind of employee gets 50 cents of every dollar his company makes? The players are overpaid crybabies. Keep them locked out until they start to learn some of the realities of life for normal people, like worrying about where the money is going to come from. Let a few more take out some crazy high interest loans. I want to taste their tears.

    ————————-

    The first flaw with your logic is that there is not an employee (singular) asking for 50 cents of every dollar his company makes. Since there are more than 50 players per team it’s more like less than one cent of every dollar the company makes.

  93. st0n3r78 says: Jun 3, 2011 8:43 PM

    I disagree with this decision. I think the players get MORE than enough already. They do NOT pay anything to upkeep the stadiums, buy equipment (pads, helmets etc), they dont pay the payrolls, they dont pay for squat. Most players dont even live up to their contracts, or hold out demanding more $$ when they SIGNED a contract. Screw them, let them work ordinary jobs like most and learn to sacrifice to make ends meet. Im so sick of this i dont make enough money to play 16 games of football a year crap.

  94. clownburger says: Jun 3, 2011 9:55 PM

    The most important thing is that

    1. There is a salary cap
    2. There is a rookie pay scale/salary cap

  95. tradeassociation says: Jun 3, 2011 11:52 PM

    You folks who make this “they are employees!” nonsense should

    A. oppose the NFL salary cap
    B. oppose the draft
    C. oppose revenue sharing
    D. oppose the anti-trust exemption that makes A, B, and C possible

    If you want them to act like employees, treat them like employees. Stop using the draft to limit where they can work, stop using the salary cap to limit how much they can make, and stop forcing good owners who know how to run their businesses and make money to share their hard-earned cash with Mike Brown and Bill Bidwill, so that guys like Brown and Bidwill would be forced to sell their teams to one of the MANY better businessmen out there who would field much better teams and generate much more revenue.

    You guys can’t argue for free market economics on one hand and demand that the NFL maintain its socialist setup on the other. It makes you a bunch of hypocrites.

  96. hedleykow says: Jun 4, 2011 2:35 AM

    @tradeassociation

    Good comment, brother.

  97. laxer37 says: Jun 4, 2011 4:17 AM

    The NFL is not a player driven league. The average playing career is less than 3 years. When the NFL used replacement players people still watched and rooted for the no-names wearing their team’s uniforms.

    Players are the interchangeable tires on the machine. The league and the owners are in for the long haul and need to protect their investment.

  98. w8rh3wk5 says: Jun 4, 2011 7:43 AM

    @spikeit2times….. the players are not like u! The players are not free to sign with any team. They have 4 or 6 year contracts when they are drafted and they have no say in where they start work out of college. As a regular employee you can chose where to work, how long u wanna work there, and u can leave anytime u want.

  99. som1com says: Jun 4, 2011 2:54 PM

    kevinfromphilly says: Jun 3, 2011 3:37 PM

    “Guys like spartyfi are so wrong about this, it’s incredible. To think of the players as “employees” is absurd. Employees make the products that companies sell for profit. In the NFL, the players ARE the product. Comparing the NFL to a production company that makes TV shows would be more accurate than anything else. When shows like “Friends” or “Three and a Half Men” make a ton of money, the stars get huge paychecks, and you don’t see any of them getting locked out by the producers (except for Mr. Adonis DNA). And you certainly don’t hear any jackoffs crying that they should shut down the show because the stars make too much money.”

    The problem with your argument, and others like it is this, the player/product you mention are getting nowhere near 50 percent of the total revenue.

    Not even Mr. Winning himself was making 50 percent of the total revenue generated by his show, and he is said to have (has been) the highest paid actor in television.

    As for the other who posted the car dealer/salesmen scenario, yes, the salesmen do make a nice commission, but their commission approaches nowhere near 50 percent of the revenue the dealership makes.

  100. axespray says: Jun 5, 2011 7:53 AM

    “the heart of the dispute centers on the players’ belief that they should forever receive 50 cents of every dollar of revenue generated, regardless of the total dollars of revenue generated.”

    Which means if you’re an owner of a “bling making company”, you can expect a 10 billion dollar increase in revenue in the near future.

  101. rbro83 says: Jun 5, 2011 2:41 PM

    In a service business, where the services of the employees are the primary product, employee salaries can often exceed 70%-80% of revenue. So 50% is not unreasonable on the face of it. The only way to know if it should be less than that, or more, would be to see the owner’s financial statements. Otherwise, to have an opinion what the right number is, isn’t based on anything.

  102. puntpasskick says: Jun 5, 2011 11:34 PM

    vtsquirm says:
    Jun 3, 2011 5:24 PM

    2 reasons:

    #1, the owners realize that they were screwed in the last deal and they won’t agree to the same deal again

    and
    #2, the players will make more money, even at a reduced %, than working anywhere else.

    Like it or not the players are replaceable. don’t want to work for the NFL? FINE! Remember the USFL? they had some big name stars making nice salaries for a couple years… what happened to that league? IT FAILED.

    ——————————————————–

    The owners agreed to the 2006 deal and were never forced to do so under any conditions; you’re also wrong about the players being replaceable because the quality of the NFL product would go way down while fans would turn away in droves…

    The players have known since the 2008 opt out that the owners were coming to set things “their way again” and impose a lockout as a strategy to get the players to crumble when the NFL is making more money than ever before and for some reason people wholeheartedly agree with this…

    However, when the players respond with decertification as their strategy, it’s suddenly their fault that this mess is happening and many PFT posters want the players to “be thankful just because they’re pro athletes” and just be happy with whatever the owners give them….

    LMFAO at this reasoning when it’s the owners greed that started all of this in the first place, all because they were stupid enough to give up major concessions to a union and they didn’t realize the earning potential that the NFL was soon to have…

  103. miguelito65 says: Jun 7, 2011 5:26 AM

    mightygiants says: Jun 3, 2011 3:17 PM

    “The heart of the dispute is the owners insistence that the players take huge pay cuts in light of record increases in revenue. To suggest the problem is with the players is simply disingenuous.”

    I thought I read somewhere, maybe here on PFT, I’m not sure, that said the money was going to be shaved off by creating a rookie wage scale? The veterans would not be affected, but there wasn’t going to be any more 50 million dollar deals permitted for players that have never played a snap.

    If that’s the case, then the “players” you speak of would NOT be taking a “HUGE PAY CUT” would they? I could be wrong on this btw, I just thought I read that or saw that reported here on PFT or ESPN or something. Don’t get me wrong mightygiants, I’m not bashing your post or anything like that.

    No one should EVER be asked to take a pay cut, unless it’s temporary to save a company from default IMO. So if a pay cut for the veterans is something the owners want, then the owners are dead wrong and the players should prevail. But if they owners want to restructure the rules for how they deal with these unproven college kids, then all for the owners. But something keeps telling me that the “truth” is somewhere in the middle and that the owners are not “evil” and the players are not “greedy”. I think each entity is doing what it thinks is best for their respective long-term survival, nothing more, nothing less.

  104. miguelito65 says: Jun 7, 2011 5:32 AM

    tradeassociation says: Jun 3, 2011 11:52 PM

    Let’s stick it to the man! Wait, if we do that and the man collapses, who would we work for? I have yet to meet a poor person who was responsible for paying anyone’s salary. As soon as you find the one that does, let me know and I’ll eat crow. Otherwise “tradeassociation” go back to your union allied with socialists and enjoy your life in mediocrity.

  105. tomcous says: Jun 7, 2011 10:36 AM

    The Owners take the “Financial Risk” …

    The Players take the “Physical Risk” …

    Neither one of those should trump the other in my opinion. I am a small business owner and can not imagine paying hazard pay or anything close to that …

    That said I completely understand the Financial Risk side of the argument …

    If the 2006 formula allows for a forecasted operational cost … and the players travel, housing and training expenses are included within that equation then this thing should be close enough to get done!

    To fight over the rest and put other jobs at risk is down right pathetic. For that I think the owners actions are appalling.

  106. kane337 says: Jun 14, 2011 9:28 PM

    Taco’s are good.

Leave a Reply

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