NFL, NFLPA Call Off Thursday CBA Talks

[wrecker]

The owners have prepared for fan backlash. The players haven't. I remember a report early on that suggested owners were prepared for a year off from football. Now I'm not sure if they're prepared for the fan reaction to such an event, but they could still survive a year. I highly doubt the players are prepared for this lockout, but that's life.

What is occurring now has probably hurt some sales already, and we'll see more. Fans won't want to buy new jersey's, sports packages, etc. Local bars will suffer, because many live on the amount of money that is generate by sales during the football season.

Things are leveling out, and other entertainment options may benefit. Baseball, basketball, MMA, hockey...they all have gains to be made while the NFL suffers. Fans, we have choices, and my choice is to do what I do in the offseason. Sleep, drink and be merry...and work too.

Owners are prepared for a year off of football but are they prepared for a year of football with no fans?

[Destino]

Lavar made a good point about perception. We all know what players make and it's out there in front of us at all times because of the salary cap and because it's public knowledge. We don't have clue 1 about what Dan Snyder takes home from the skins each year. That certainly has an effect on perception from fans.

Perhaps this is why the teams are so hesitant to share their books with anyone. We all are mad at rich players and no one has any facts allowing for a discussion like "Dan already makes X and wants MORE?!" Which would certainly occur if we could see what the owners all take home.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Owners are prepared for a year off of football but are they prepared for a year of football with no fans?

I would imagine if they are ready for a year with $0 revenue they can survive a season with less revenue than normal. Also, let's be honest, for the most part...if football is being played on Sundays, people will regain interest pretty quickly. I can posture all I want during the off-season, but if the games are being played this fall on Sunday afternoons, am I really going to take a nice walk/tune in to watch bowling/go to a museum instead?

[texasthunder]

The NFL said it would not comment on CBA meetings at this point. The league did confirm that Commissioner Roger Goodell has canceled an owners' meeting scheduled for next Tuesday in Philadelphia.

The collapse of the talks came as a surprise. The two sides got together Wednesday for the second time in five days, the previous negotiations taking place in Dallas on Saturday before the Super Bowl.

Neither Atallah nor NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith would comment on why Thursday's session was called off.

Owners opted out of the current CBA in 2008 and are seeking a bigger cut of the league's revenues, which are roughly $9 billion, as well as a rookie wage scale. They also want to increase the regular season by two games to 18, while dropping two preseason games.

The players are happy with the status quo.

The Sports Business Journal reported, citing a source, on Thursday that the NFLPA made major concessions on a rookie wage scale in order to move the talks along. The Sports Business Journal also reported that Smith sent players an internal memo stating that a rookie wage scale proposal amounts to "a Veteran Wage Scale."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81e3b6ff/article/nfl-union-mum-on-why-second-bargaining-session-canceled-?module=HP_headlines

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I forgot about the Franchise tag being a sticking point. Any clues on whether getting rid of that and RFAs are part of what the Union is demanding? I'd have to imagine it is, but of course whether or not the owners want to give up that much power is a huge question mark.

It's all window dressing. The revenue sharing is the sticking point. They are at least a billion dollars apart right now.

Revenue is allegedly $9 Billion, but the owners are almost certainly lying about that. $1 Billion gets credited to the league. The players and owners split the remaining $8 Billion. The NLFPA gets 60 percent of that $8 Billion now or $4.8 billion. The owners split $3.2 plus the $1 Billion. In other words, the owners get $4.2 Billion.

The players propose 50/50 on the $9 Billion. The owners want a $2 billion credit and then a 50/50 split.

That means that the owners are asking for the players share to go from $4.8 to $3.5 billion. With 2 extra games.

The owners proposal is a 27 percent pay cut combined with a 12.5 percent increase in time on the job.

And this is done when the league has never appeared healthier from the outside. It's an insane offer. It's insulting. Ignore the fact that this is a billionaires versus millionaires debate. They want a 27 percent pay cut combined with more games.

Think of it this way. Imagine you have a contract with your boss where you get 20 percent of the money the company makes. During your time there, the company has doubled in clients and it's stock price has tripled. You are discussing opening an office in London. And the main reason is that you are doing such a good job.

Your boss then comes to you and says, You need to take 15 percent while working 10 hours a day. You ask why and he says, I can't tell you. But it's really important. You ask, Am I doing a bad job? He says, No, I still love working with you. I just need you to earn less while working more. Would you take the deal?

[Conn]

It makes sense that a rookie wage scale would eventually bring down FA prices and in effect create a psuedo "veteran wage scale".

[TD_washingtonredskins]

They want a 27 percent pay cut combined with more games.

Does a new rookie wage scale off-set any of that pay cut? What I mean is, if first-rounders go from making $50M guaranteed to $10M, doesn't that add up pretty quickly? If that makes up a good portion of that 27% pay cut, some or most of the veterans are really not losing much money, right? Or am I completely missing something?

[GhostofSparta]

It's all window dressing. The revenue sharing is the sticking point. They are at least a billion dollars apart right now.

Revenue is allegedly $9 Billion' date=' but the owners are almost certainly lying about that. $1 Billion gets credited to the league. The players and owners split the remaining $8 Billion. The NLFPA gets 60 percent of that $8 Billion now or $4.8 billion. The owners split $3.2 plus the $1 Billion. In other words, the owners get $4.2 Billion.

The players propose 50/50 on the $9 Billion. The owners want a $2 billion credit and then a 50/50 split.

That means that the owners are asking for the players share to go from $4.8 to $3.5 billion. With 2 extra games.

The owners proposal is a 27 percent pay cut combined with a 12.5 percent increase in time on the job.

And this is done when the league has never appeared healthier from the outside. It's an insane offer. It's insulting. Ignore the fact that this is a billionaires versus millionaires debate. They want a 27 percent pay cut combined with more games.

Think of it this way. Imagine you have a contract with your boss where you get 20 percent of the money the company makes. During your time there, the company has doubled in clients and it's stock price has tripled. You are discussing opening an office in London. And the main reason is that you are doing such a good job.

Your boss then comes to you and says, You need to take 15 percent while working 10 hours a day. You ask why and he says, I can't tell you. But it's really important. You ask, Am I doing a bad job? He says, No, I still love working with you. I just need you to earn less while working more. Would you take the deal?[/quote']

I was never on the owners' side to begin with (because I knew they opted out, thus causing this situation), but if that's the case than **** the owners. I wish there was a way we the fans could demand the owners open their books. Maybe the players need to move ahead with their anti-trust suit.

[Conn]

Does a new rookie wage scale off-set any of that pay cut? What I mean is, if first-rounders go from making $50M guaranteed to $10M, doesn't that add up pretty quickly? If that makes up a good portion of that 27% pay cut, some or most of the veterans are really not losing much money, right? Or am I completely missing something?

I'm not going to do the math, but I find it hard to believe that you're going to find almost $1.5 billion in those rookie pay-cuts.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It makes sense that a rookie wage scale would eventually bring down FA prices and in effect create a psuedo "veteran wage scale".

That does make sense...but we also have to realize that the teams are the ones paying players. If ALL 32 owners thought that salaries were getting out of control, what would keep them from lowering salaries anyway? Does that NFLPA "piece of the pie" mean that all salaries have to equal a certain amount at some point? If the owners really wanted to impose their power, they have the ability to set the market for any player. The top FA this year might get a high offer of 5 years/$10M...what could prevent that from happening if all 32 teams were in on it?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Does a new rookie wage scale off-set any of that pay cut? What I mean is, if first-rounders go from making $50M guaranteed to $10M, doesn't that add up pretty quickly? If that makes up a good portion of that 27% pay cut, some or most of the veterans are really not losing much money, right? Or am I completely missing something?

"Pay cut" may be the wrong word and the rookie may scale may alleviate this a bit, but you are still looking at very strong downward pressures on salaries while the owners walk away with an extra $1.3 billion dollars.

---------- Post added February-10th-2011 at 05:28 PM ----------

That does make sense...but we also have to realize that the teams are the ones paying players. If ALL 32 owners thought that salaries were getting out of control, what would keep them from lowering salaries anyway? Does that NFLPA "piece of the pie" mean that all salaries have to equal a certain amount at some point? If the owners really wanted to impose their power, they have the ability to set the market for any player. The top FA this year might get a high offer of 5 years/$10M...what could prevent that from happening if all 32 teams were in on it?

The player revenue portion determines the salary cap. Less money to the players means a smaller salary cap.

If the 32 teams agreed to lower salaries by refusing to top each other, they would be guilty of collusion and would need attorneys to defend the massive law suit that would be filed. (I original had written criminal defense lawyers, but that's wrong).

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I'm not going to do the math, but I find it hard to believe that you're going to find almost $1.5 billion in those rookie pay-cuts.

Yeah...good point. I guess I don't quite understand how it works. What exactly does it mean when they say that the owners get $4.5B and the players get $4.5B? Surely salaries don't always have to hit a specific amount league-wide. That must include money for other things. If so, it's not completely honest to say that players are taking a 27% pay cut. I need to educate myself more on where that $4.5B actually goes...

[GhostofSparta]

That does make sense...but we also have to realize that the teams are the ones paying players. If ALL 32 owners thought that salaries were getting out of control, what would keep them from lowering salaries anyway? Does that NFLPA "piece of the pie" mean that all salaries have to equal a certain amount at some point? If the owners really wanted to impose their power, they have the ability to set the market for any player. The top FA this year might get a high offer of 5 years/$10M...what could prevent that from happening if all 32 teams were in on it?

I think that's what the players accused the owners of last year: collusion. If that were to happen, then any player could legitmately win an anti-trust suit against the NFL, which is the last thing the owners want.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

The player revenue portion determines the salary cap. Less money to the players means a smaller salary cap.

OK' date=' so the cap is set by basically taking the amount allotted to the players and dividing by 32? If so, there's no rules that require teams to max out their cap. So, there is obviously a range in there. But I understand it a little better now. Thanks!

If the 32 teams agreed to lower salaries by refusing to top each other, they would be guilty of collusion and would need criminal defense attorneys.

Really? So, if a rookie starts his career at 5 years/$15M (let's say he's the #1 pick and that's the going rate with the new wage scale), why couldn't the owners decide that he's worth no more than $25M with his next contract? I don't mean that they nefariously meet somewhere and come to this agreement, but what if the 32 owners collectively believe that everyone is overpaid at this point (cases like Haynesworth are great examples) and that they need to reign things in somewhat? I guess what I'm getting to is this: What happens if all of that $4.5B isn't paid out now? What if player salaries only hit $3.5B and the owners just pocket the extra $1B now? Certainly that's their right if they don't believe their 53 players are worthy of $130M+ right?

---------- Post added February-10th-2011 at 04:36 PM ----------

I think that's what the players accused the owners of last year: collusion. If that were to happen, then any player could legitmately win an anti-trust suit against the NFL, which is the last thing the owners want.

Yeah...it just seems like a difficult thing to prove. How can a player making $25M claim he should be making $40M if all other potential employers don't value him above $25M? I get that they could claim collusion, but there are definitely cautionary tales the owners could reference to prove that salaries are getting to be a bit too high.

[MLiverpool]

I would imagine if they are ready for a year with $0 revenue they can survive a season with less revenue than normal. Also, let's be honest, for the most part...if football is being played on Sundays, people will regain interest pretty quickly. I can posture all I want during the off-season, but if the games are being played this fall on Sunday afternoons, am I really going to take a nice walk/tune in to watch bowling/go to a museum instead?

If the NFL disappeared, the owners would still have money. They're have to change their investments, but I highly doubt they'd go bankrupt, or close to it. Some players probably invested wisely, but the vast majority haven't and don't have the necessary skills to find a different career. Maybe MMA, since some have tried already and there is the sheer freak appeal of Japan that would love to see some of the behemoths get into the ring, but honestly that's not an option for most.

If there is no NFL, I'll find other things to do. Maybe not bowling, but we as fans will learn to adapt. I think we're in the best place, because there are other sporting businesses (baseball, soccer, basketball, MMA, hockey, boxing, etc). Those other industries are probably monitoring the NFL's situation and coming up with business plans to steal portions of the fringe fan away from the NFL. The hardcore NFL fan will return, those who've lead to the growth of the NFL may choose something else to entertain them. They may be more fickle, and may see this as a bunch of prima-donas being greedy.

I'd imagine both sides have to realize that 9 billion, or 8 billion may suffer some after the dust settles. Yes, there are some guaranteed money, but that's still short term. I'm talking about two o three years beyond this point, and five or ten years down the line. The fans growing up today may never grow to love football, all because of the greed of today. Hardcore fans will wish for yesterday and new fans will talk about other sports and how football disgusted them because of the lockout that occurred in 2010. Just all speculation, but I for one am disgusted. I will likely still follow the Redskins, but I may also balance my Sundays in the future with other activities. I may find other things to do. Football, like all industries, might finally hit it's wall and start its decline.

[GibbsFactor]

I'm not going to do the math, but I find it hard to believe that you're going to find almost $1.5 billion in those rookie pay-cuts.

Considering no more than 10 players are getting huge guarantees.

The owners want a lockout. They are greedy. I'm pretty sure we are missing games.

Trade all our picks should be all of our motto.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Yeah...it just seems like a difficult thing to prove. How can a player making $25M claim he should be making $40M if all other potential employers don't value him above $25M? I get that they could claim collusion, but there are definitely cautionary tales the owners could reference to prove that salaries are getting to be a bit too high.

It's not easy to prove, but that's why attorneys and forensic accountants make millions of dollars.

1985-1987Soon after being elected commissioner of baseball, Peter Ueberroth addressed the owners at a meeting in St. Louis. Ueberroth called the owners "damned dumb" for being willing to lose millions of dollars in order to win a World Series. Later, at a separate meeting with the general managers in Tarpon Springs, Florida, Ueberroth said that it was "not smart" to sign long-term contracts. The message was obvious--hold down salaries by any means necessary. It later emerged that the owners agreed to keep contracts down to three years for position players and two for pitchers.[5]

[edit] Collusion IThe free agent market following the 1985 season was different from any since the Seitz decision a decade earlier. Only four of the 35 free agents changed teams and those four were not wanted by their old team. Star players, such as Kirk Gibson, Tommy John and Phil Niekro, did not receive offers from other teams. The cover of the December 9, 1985 edition of Sporting News asked, "Why Won't Anyone Sign Kirk Gibson?"[6] George Steinbrenner offered Carlton Fisk a contract, then withdrew the offer after getting a call from Chicago White Sox chairman Jerry Reinsdorf. [7] Teams also reduced team rosters from 25 to 24 players.

By December, several agents smelled a rat, and complained to Major League Baseball Players Association president Donald Fehr. In February 1986, the MLBPA filed its first grievance (Collusion I).

[edit] Collusion IIThe free agent market following the 1986 season was not much better for the players. Only four free agents switched teams. Andre Dawson took a pay cut and a one year contract to sign with the Chicago Cubs. Three fourths of the free agents signed one year contracts. Star players that ended up back with their old team included Jack Morris, Tim Raines, Ron Guidry, Rich Gedman, Bob Boone, and Doyle Alexander.

For the first time since the start of free agency, the average major league salary declined. The average free-agent salary dropped by 16 percent, while MLB reported revenues increasing by 15 percent. This prompted the MLBPA to file a second grievance (Collusion II) on February 18, 1987. Even as this was happening, Ueberroth orderd the owners to tell him personally if they planned to offer contracts longer than three years.[5]

In the Collusion I case, arbitrator Thomas Roberts ruled that the owners had violated the basic agreement (September 1987).

[edit] Collusion IIIAfter the ruling, the owners changed their tactic, but not their intent. They created an "information bank" to share information about what offers were being made to players. Players affected included Paul Molitor, Jack Clark, and Dennis Martinez. In January 1988 the MLBPA filed its third grievance (Collusion III).

On January 18, 1988, damages were announced in the Collusion I case. Roberts determined damages of $10.5 million should be paid by the owners to the players. Seven of the fourteen 1985 free agents were awarded a second chance as "new look" free agents. They could offer their services to any team without losing their existing contracts. On January 29, 1988, Kirk Gibson signed a $4.5 million, three year contract with the Los Angeles Dodgers.

In October 1989, arbitrator George Nicolau ruled that the owners had violated the basic agreement in Collusion II. Nicolau determined damages of $38 million. "New look" free agents included Ron Guidry, Bob Boone, Doyle Alexander, Willie Randolph, Brian Downing and Rich Gedman.[8]

Collusion III damages were $64.5 million. Owners would also have to compensate for losses related to multi-year contracts and lost bonuses.

A final settlement of the three collusion cases was reached in November 1990. The owners agreed to pay the players $280 million, with the MLBPA deciding how to distribute the money to the damaged players.[9]

At that time, then-commissioner Fay Vincent told the owners:[10]

The single biggest reality you guys have to face up to is collusion. You stole $280 million from the players, and the players are unified to a man around that issue, because you got caught and many of you are still involved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_collusion

32 people ostensibly in competition with each other do not naturally all reach the same conclusion at the same time. If Andre Johnson was suddenly on the free market tomorrow and the highest offer he received from any team was less than what Wes Welker is making, something would be very very wrong.

If the same thing happened to EVERY star player, res ipsa loquitur.

[wildbill1952]

I'm not a lawyer (both of my parents had hearts and morals), but I thought collusion only applies if the "business" is subject to anti-trust legislation. I believe professional sports like the NFL are somehow exempted from that legislation. I know the MLB is.

As with any labor dispute, this is between the parties involved, with the fans and the the "little people" as ancillary casualties. I hate the thought of not watching the Redskin play, so, if forced to, I will cancel my NFL Sunday ticket, but really, my contribution will be miniscule. The owners already have the TV revenue guaranteed, so a lockout should allow them to make money anyway which bodes ill for the players. My sympathies traditionally lie with labor and not with management, so I side with the players. It seems the team owners are all making mega big bucks.

Still, no matter how this comes out, I don't think it's going to drop the price of an NFL Jersey, a ticket to get into the game, the yearly subscription to the NFL Sunday Ticket or even the cost for your favorite frosty beverage inside the stadium. But it would make my day to see Jerruh brought down a few notches, and it wouldn't bother me to see the same thing happen to an owner a little closer to home. JMHO.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I'm not a lawyer (both of my parents had hearts and morals), but I thought collusion only applies if the "business" is subject to anti-trust legislation. I believe professional sports like the NFL are somehow exempted from that legislation. I know the MLB is.

MLB paid over $200 million in fines for collusion in the late 80s.

[Darth Tater]

MLB paid over $200 million in fines for collusion in the late 80s.

IIRC, this is not collusion as defined by anti-trust (which has more to do with allowing businesses to screw their customers anyway) but collusion as defined by labor law.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

IIRC, this is not collusion as defined by anti-trust (which has more to do with allowing businesses to screw their customers anyway) but collusion as defined by labor law.

I think you are correct.This is outside my area of expertise.

Pro sports get confusing because their anti-trust exemptions apply to them as leagues as a whole. So, if the league set a ticket price above market value, there would be no collusion. There cannot be a price-fixing charge if you are not a trust.

However, when it comes to their employees, I think the individual teams within a league are not allowed to collude.

Unless I am mistaken, this is also why that law suit with the small apparrel company was so important. The questions is basically, are the teams themselves covered by the anti-trust exemption.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

32 people ostensibly in competition with each other do not naturally all reach the same conclusion at the same time. If Andre Johnson was suddenly on the free market tomorrow and the highest offer he received from any team was less than what Wes Welker is making' date=' something would be very very wrong.

If the same thing happened to EVERY star player, res ipsa loquitur.[/quote']

I see your point...but I think it COULD manifest itself over a longer period and more gradually. If there are too many Haynesworth-type signings and the NFL continues to make more and more money (inflating the salary cap), can't you see a time in the not-so-distant future when the owners don't believe that $100M+ contracts should be handed out?

So, if a few years from now the salary cap is over $150M but owners are skeptical about giving out those bigger contracts, wouldn't they be organically driving down the players' share by not maxing out their respective salary caps? When you factor in the rookie wage scale driving the salaries down for the younger players, I think we could see a time when no one maxes out their cap.

I'm not necessarily siding with the owners as I'm pretty sure they make plenty of money. But just because the league is more profitable, it doesn't entitle the players to always make more and more money...at least in my opinion. I would like to see the money go to ex-players who aren't millionaires or to philanthropy, but I doubt that is likely.

Do you think that, 5 years from now if the NFL makes $12B in revenue (I have no idea if it's possible, it's just a hypothetical), that the players are automatically entitled to an extra $1.5B (I'm assuming that would be their stance since they make half now)? That's not how any other business works...certainly not my company.

[Jeeb]

Yeah...good point. I guess I don't quite understand how it works. What exactly does it mean when they say that the owners get $4.5B and the players get $4.5B? Surely salaries don't always have to hit a specific amount league-wide. That must include money for other things. If so, it's not completely honest to say that players are taking a 27% pay cut. I need to educate myself more on where that $4.5B actually goes...

That's the thing, the owners are not too keen on opening their books, so you can't really see where all the money's going...etc. The financial records of the Pittsburgh Pirates leaked and as a very terrible baseball for what seems like forever..they still turn a pretty decent profit. So I'm not really apt to side with the owners at the moment.

[Mursilis]

It's all window dressing. The revenue sharing is the sticking point. They are at least a billion dollars apart right now.

Revenue is allegedly $9 Billion' date=' but the owners are almost certainly lying about that. $1 Billion gets credited to the league. The players and owners split the remaining $8 Billion. The NLFPA gets 60 percent of that $8 Billion now or $4.8 billion. The owners split $3.2 plus the $1 Billion. In other words, the owners get $4.2 Billion.

The players propose 50/50 on the $9 Billion. The owners want a $2 billion credit and then a 50/50 split.

That means that the owners are asking for the players share to go from $4.8 to $3.5 billion. With 2 extra games.

The owners proposal is a 27 percent pay cut combined with a 12.5 percent increase in time on the job.

And this is done when the league has never appeared healthier from the outside. It's an insane offer. It's insulting. Ignore the fact that this is a billionaires versus millionaires debate. They want a 27 percent pay cut combined with more games.

Think of it this way. Imagine you have a contract with your boss where you get 20 percent of the money the company makes. During your time there, the company has doubled in clients and it's stock price has tripled. You are discussing opening an office in London. And the main reason is that you are doing such a good job.

Your boss then comes to you and says, You need to take 15 percent while working 10 hours a day. You ask why and he says, I can't tell you. But it's really important. You ask, Am I doing a bad job? He says, No, I still love working with you. I just need you to earn less while working more. Would you take the deal?[/quote']

But as you previously posted, the owners want to go to the 18 game season, in order to (in theory) grow the overall revenue pot. Thus, even if the players' percentage was smaller, the actual amount itself would not be (or at least not MUCH smaller). Thus, you can't really say they'd have a 27 percent pay cut without knowing how much revenues would be over an 18 game season.

---------- Post added February-10th-2011 at 06:38 PM ----------

Do you think that, 5 years from now if the NFL makes $12B in revenue (I have no idea if it's possible, it's just a hypothetical), that the players are automatically entitled to an extra $1.5B (I'm assuming that would be their stance since they make half now)? That's not how any other business works...certainly not my company.

If the players play a major role in the enhanced popularity of the league (which I think we can all agree they do), then why shouldn't their cut grow as overall revenues grow? That only seems fair. I'm more sympathetic to players anyway because they're the ones putting their bodies on the line. An owner can be an owner for 20 or more years, but what player can play that long?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

If the players play a major role in the enhanced popularity of the league (which I think we can all agree they do), then why shouldn't their cut grow as overall revenues grow? That only seems fair.

A couple things...I think the NFL, more than any other sport, isn't all that dependent on players. Sure, we like them...but they change so often that the NFL might be the most team-driven league out there. Half the players are anonymous and even the stars come and go every 5 years. I'm almost convinced that if every current player retired today and we just populated the teams with new guys, the NFL wouldn't suffer all that much. Simply put, the players need the NFL more than the NFL needs the players (assuming there are other players willing to replace them).

I'm more sympathetic to players anyway because they're the ones putting their bodies on the line. An owner can be an owner for 20 or more years, but what player can play that long?

I do agree it's not necessarily fair, but labor isn't always fair. When your company doubles its revenue or profits, do you get your salary doubled? I don't. Again, I'm not trying to act like I'm siding with the owners, but they do seem to have the leverage. There's no rule out in the real world that everyone has to be treated equally. The owners are the ones who fronted the money and took the financial risks (albeit not much of one) to buy a team.