shallyshal Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 the latest public comments by tagliabue today say directly that the problem is not one of revenue sharing by owners, but of greed on the part of the players and their unreasonable demands. anyone believe that line? if it true, then synder is not the villain that the press is making him out to be, plus this may end up being much more protracted than anyone suspected. a lot of players are going to be out on the streets and we could end up seeing a similar version to replacement players in the coming year tagliabue also said it was not about the difference between 56 and 60 percent. i thought they had already included many of the new revenue streams inthe CBA proposal. this is different. get ready for a long one, i think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatant Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Takeo Spikes is on ESPNNEWS blaming the owners for not striking a revenue sharing deal. He said the players want 60 percent and he thinks that is reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatant Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Also, do you have a link, people are probably going to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 but Peter King said it was Snyder and Jones not wanting revenue sharing :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1SkinsFan Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 but Peter King said it was Snyder and Jones not wanting revenue sharing :doh: figures he'd say that. Only the Iggles fan. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Tagliabue works for the owners; he is almost always going to take their side in the dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feeshta Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 It is and always has been an issue of owners vs. players. First and foremost the owners are offering 56.4% of shared revenues to be designated for the players the player want 60%. Neither side is budging. That is the true holdup right now. The revenue sharing disputes have nothing to do with this part of the equation. Once again the media has been way off base as far as the accuracy of their reporting, up till now at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Tagliabue works for the owners; he is almost always going to take their side in the dispute. Exactly the Union was not going to agree to any deal untill the Owners agreed to the revenue sharing, they are related. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Redskin Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I thought the problem was that under the current CBA the players recieve 65% of the profits which was fine a few years back before the NFL became such a huge money maker. So think of it the players were recieving 65% and now the owners want them to move down to 56.2% that is a huge jump. I think this factor has to be taken into account whan looking at this situation. So the players already see the 60% they are looking to get as a reduction. I'm not siding with either just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 It is and always has been an issue of owners vs. players. First and foremost the owners are offering 56.4% of shared revenues to be designated for the players the player want 60%. Neither side is budging. That is the true holdup right now.The revenue sharing disputes have nothing to do with this part of the equation. Once again the media has been way off base as far as the accuracy of their reporting, up till now at least. The revenue sharing ties directly to the 60%. Even some owners have said that. How can they agree on a percentage when 60% will impact others more which is why the revenue sharing is the key to all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Tagliabue works for the owners; he is almost always going to take their side in the dispute. Ding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think its all Terrell Owens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatant Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think its all Terrell Owens. You know what's the only funny thing about this whole situation. TO isn't going to get crap for a deal.:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz13 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I thought the problem was that under the current CBA the players recieve 65% of the profits which was fine a few years back before the NFL became such a huge money maker. So think of it the players were recieving 65% and now the owners want them to move down to 56.2% that is a huge jump. I think this factor has to be taken into account whan looking at this situation. So the players already see the 60% they are looking to get as a reduction. I'm not siding with either just saying. The players got 65% of defined gross revenues which did not include local revenues. The 56% is of total revenues which is a much larger pot. 65% of DGR makes the cap what it is now 94.5M. 56.2% of total revenues would make a cap of well over 100m. This is a huge increase even though it is a smaller %, because it is from a much larger pot. The owners are being more than fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldskool Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Takeo Spikes is on ESPNNEWS blaming the owners for not striking a revenue sharing deal. He said the players want 60 percent and he thinks that is reasonable. 60% of revenue is insane! Thats why he plays foosball and hits people for a living and doesnt wear a suit and tie. If a business pays more than 40% of its gross revenue in salary, its doomed to go belly up, and last time I checked the NFL is a business. What a tool. :doh: the players are going to be the end of this league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 the latest public comments by tagliabue today say directly that the problem is not one of revenue sharing by owners, but of greed on the part of the players and their unreasonable demands.anyone believe that line? if it true, then synder is not the villain that the press is making him out to be, plus this may end up being much more protracted than anyone suspected. a lot of players are going to be out on the streets and we could end up seeing a similar version to replacement players in the coming year tagliabue also said it was not about the difference between 56 and 60 percent. i thought they had already included many of the new revenue streams inthe CBA proposal. this is different. get ready for a long one, i think I almsot started a new thread on this too, shally, but i posted it in another thread i had going...it worth its own thread...i thought tags was very candid and straight up...and the latest news is good no matter what...if nothing else its more time to plan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winslowalrob Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Management and labor always blame the other side. Because of my crazy pro-labor streak, I always blame management. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. And Oldskool, the NFL has done fine by paying its players over 40%. It isn't filing for bankruptcy or anything . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzSkinsFan63 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 60% of revenue is insane! Thats why he plays foosball and hits people for a living and doesnt wear a suit and tie.If a business pays more than 40% of its gross revenue in salary, its doomed to go belly up, and last time I checked the NFL is a business. What a tool. :doh: the players are going to be the end of this league. no the officials are already doing that... to continue this train of thught though Im guessing 56.2% would amount to 110mil salary cap this season..thus the expectation of the increase when the new CBA is agreed upon. I went to my boss and said hey I want 60% of what you make on me..he laughed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC4 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 This is all due to one issue: GLOBAL WARMING Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 60% of revenue is insane! Thats why he plays foosball and hits people for a living and doesnt wear a suit and tie.If a business pays more than 40% of its gross revenue in salary, its doomed to go belly up, and last time I checked the NFL is a business. What a tool. :doh: the players are going to be the end of this league. No, it is just going to mean that a whole lot of young guys are going to get a shot while names you know get to watch them do it. Football has survived a lot through the years, it will survive this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 This is all due to one issue:GLOBAL WARMING damn hippy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.