namelesstavern.net

Fun times ahead people.

The NFL officially notified its players union on Tuesday that it will opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement, which could lead to a season without a salary cap in 2010 and a possible lockout in 2011.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3404596

I read that one of the small print options when they opt out is that it now makes initial contracts 6 years, instead of 4

I dunno, NFL in general is so rich, they all have to sit back and realize they can't let the NFL go the way of MLB

I think one of the things they want to change is to put in a real hard and fixed salary scale for 1st round picks. Right now, people getting drafted first overall are getting more money than anyone else at their position, pretty much, which screws veterans, and makes those early picks insanely risky, cause lots don't work out.

I think they stand a good chance of getting union buy-in on this one too, though the agents will throw a hissy-fit, as lower rookie contracts means more money that can go to the veterans.

-Arlos

I'm not entirely sure how I'm supposed to take this yet, good or bad.

it jsut means they need to get a new contract done by 2011, instead of 2013

lots of time to get it sorted out

So generally a non-issue for the most part?

I was trying to figure out if this was big news or not and that's why I was slightly confused.

it's been pretty much known for the last couple of weeks that the owners were going to do this

obviously, there's still a chance that either/both side(s) will get greedy and we'll lose a season

I would not be happy.

Arlos wrote:I think one of the things they want to change is to put in a real hard and fixed salary scale for 1st round picks. Right now, people getting drafted first overall are getting more money than anyone else at their position, pretty much, which screws veterans, and makes those early picks insanely risky, cause lots don't work out.

I think they stand a good chance of getting union buy-in on this one too, though the agents will throw a hissy-fit, as lower rookie contracts means more money that can go to the veterans.

-Arlos

The owners are bitching about recouping signing bonuses too. Mike Vick walked with 16.5 mil and the owners wanna be able to get that back if the player doesnt play.

the biggest thing the NFL needs to do (imo) is move to 100% guaranteed contracts

not these huge looking loaded contracts that they can opt out of after 1-2 years

just retarded

now they talking about removing a preseason game and adding a 17th reg season game.


thoughts?

money grab

lol thats exactly why they want to do that. not alot of interest in preseason, and goodell thinks it will help league revenue

Another huge hurdle in the negotiations will be small-market teams wanting a share of the profit that large-market teams make to allow all teams to stay competitive.

Griever wrote:Another huge hurdle in the negotiations will be small-market teams wanting a share of the profit that large-market teams make to allow all teams to stay competitive.

how's that different from now?

What? I don't get what you mean.

I assume you might have been confused by how I worded my statement. If so, what I mean is that small-market owners will pose a problem in getting the new CBA completed unless within that agreement it resolves the issue of them not making enough money to stay competitive with large-market franchises.

I for one do not agree that small-market franchises should be able to piggy-back off of the success of large-market franchises.

that's because you're stupid


the whole of the NFL is served by having a strong league

baseball is the gayest sport in existence because 5-6 teams can buy the majority of the good players

having incredible parity around the league makes it interesting every season, for the vast majority of teams

Of course parity is great. I did not say that I disagreed with parity. So don't jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth.

What I disagree with is small-market franchises leeching off of success of large-market franchises. The profits that a franchise make are through saavy business dealings and smart marketing. And keep in mind high-profits dont always lead to success in the NFL. Look at my favorite team for example, the Redskins. They are currently the second richest franchise at $1.5 billion dollars and were just beat out by the Cowboys last year (I'm guessing because of their new stadium). So all that money and how much success have we had? Exactly.

Small-market franchises need to learn to do their own business and make their own money. If they can't, then they need to move to better market locations like many other franchises have before them. I just don't believe in bringing socialism into the NFL.

The NFL has always shared revenue. It's one of the things that MADE the league. It has been a bedrock element of the NFL at the very least since the AFL/NFL merger.

The current argument is what additional revenue sources that some teams have come up with will get shared.

Revenue sharing is one of the brightest decisions ever made in the league. They'll get this ironed out, as no one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

-Arlos

what are you considering small market?

Griever wrote:Of course parity is great. I did not say that I disagreed with parity. So don't jump to conclusions and put words in my mouth.

What I disagree with is small-market franchises leeching off of success of large-market franchises. The profits that a franchise make are through saavy business dealings and smart marketing. And keep in mind high-profits dont always lead to success in the NFL. Look at my favorite team for example, the Redskins. They are currently the second richest franchise at $1.5 billion dollars and were just beat out by the Cowboys last year (I'm guessing because of their new stadium). So all that money and how much success have we had? Exactly.

Small-market franchises need to learn to do their own business and make their own money. If they can't, then they need to move to better market locations like many other franchises have before them. I just don't believe in bringing socialism into the NFL.

Its based on team value. Compare the Dallas Cowboys ($1.5 billion) to the Minnesota Vikings ($782 million).

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/13/nfl-te ... _land.html

Edit: After looking over some of the numbers its based off of revenue as well. The Redskins make $312 million in revenue a year where the Vikings only make $182 million a year.

Something else to note, a big reason the owners opted out of the current CBA is because they believe players are getting too much money from revenue sharing. The whole goal of the owners is to decrease the salary of NFL players so that the franchises get a larger share of the revenue instead of small-market teams taking revenue from large-market teams.

Of course that is one of the solutions large-market teams are trying to push so save their own profits.

Griever wrote:Something else to note, a big reason the owners opted out of the current CBA is because they believe players are getting too much money from revenue sharing. The whole goal of the owners is to decrease the salary of NFL players so that the franchises get a larger share of the revenue instead of small-market teams taking revenue from large-market teams.

Of course that is one of the solutions large-market teams are trying to push so save their own profits.

I don't think your comprehension is too high here


right now ~60% of league revenues go to players

they want more of a 50/50 split

that said, even the shit NFL teams make huge money
I think they just want to firm up what goes into the big pool to divide up

I think most of the owners are smart enough to realize that they make more money overall when the entire league is strong

No matter what, a man has every right and will try his hardest to keep all that he earns. There is no owner in the NFL that wants to to see the money that he earns go to other franchises who didn't earn it. Point blank. They may have to settle for it, sure. But there is no way they willingly want to do it for the sake of the NFL and out of the kindness of their hearts. Deep down, its not about the game, its about the money. The NFL is still a business.

Smaller franchise teams not getting more money would negatively effect the NFL how? Would it put teams out of business? Nope. Teams will move, like they always have, to cities that have a larger market and will support the team. New Orleans, for instance, lets say they get into financial trouble and cannot bring in as much revenue as they need to bring in. Guess what happens? They move to Los Angeles. They are now in a bigger market, with a higher population and more tourism. Wow, not having a higher percentage of profit sharing going to a small-market team would really hurt the NFL if a scenario like that occurred...

There are cities out there that would kill to have an NFL team. Hell, even back in 2006 Schwarzenegger wanted TWO NFL teams in L.A. I'm sorry but if your city just can't support your franchise then why should you stay there and demand other franchises help you?

I think you're missing the point, but whatever