Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

WP Jenkins: Serf and turf: The NFL as a feudal system


Mark The Homer

Recommended Posts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-housing-plan-owners-get-the-keys-fans-get-the-bills/2011/03/15/ABVOyCY_story.html

If the NFL owners want a fight over money, they can have one. The minute they announced they couldn’t live on their cut of $9.3 billion in revenue and locked out the players, threatening to cancel next season, they revealed their feudal-lord natures. They overreached. Instead of worrying about player salaries, they should worry about fans who are sick of being treated like serfs.

Here’s a good question: What right do owners have to padlock stadiums that taxpayers helped pay for?

...

Obviously, NFL owners don’t realize how good they’ve had it. Nor do they recognize how they look and sound to the rest of us when they rake in huge revenue but cry poor.

All of which should cause us to reassess our municipal relationships to the league. There is nothing inherently wrong with spending some public money for our entertainment — owners do make significant investments in their teams, and some of them may deserve help with long-term expenses and obligations. But that doesn’t mean we should fling hundreds of millions of government funds to preferred wealthy individuals, just so they can repay us with price gouging, and a shutdown.

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Articles like this are exactly why nobody will agree on which side to take. Great read, really puts some thing into perspective. I suspect next week there will be a new article making everyone hate the players, and the carousel will continue. Fact is, both sides are to blame. Nobody is any more at fault than anyone else. It is total greed on both sides, and we're the poor saps stuck in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Articles like this are exactly why nobody will agree on which side to take. Great read, really puts some thing into perspective. I suspect next week there will be a new article making everyone hate the players, and the carousel will continue. Fact is, both sides are to blame. Nobody is any more at fault than anyone else. It is total greed on both sides, and we're the poor saps stuck in the middle.

Um, no. The players were and continue to be happy to play for their current share of the NFL's revenue (~59.5%). The owners are the ones demanding more. The players risk their health and make much less than the owners; until that changes, I'm siding with the players here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, no. The players were and continue to be happy to play for their current share of the NFL's revenue (~59.5%). The owners are the ones demanding more. The players risk their health and make much less than the owners; until that changes, I'm siding with the players here.

Really? Nothing you just stated is true, other than the percentage. The players are demanding the owners not take a cut off the top, giving them another billion to divide. Last time I checked, asking for an extra billion was not the same thing as keeping things the same. Also, the players should make way less than the owners. If they make the same as the owners, are they going to share the bill for operating costs, marketing, salaries, etc.? Both sides are wrong in multiple ways. i have yet to see any evidence to tip me either way. That's why I urge people to read 100% of what each side is demanding, then compare it to the current deal. Do the research, don't rely on word of mouth, biased sources, or what someone on a message board says, because everything gets skewed the more the news travels. Take a look at the actual documents, and you will see both sides are making demands that can't, and shouldn't be met. Neither appears to understand the meaning of the word compromise.

For the record, even the NFLPA has acknowledged that they were the ones that refused to budge on their demands, as the owners gace in quite a bit to try and get something done, it just wasn't enough for the players. You have the NFLPA to thank for no football, not the owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Nothing you just stated is true, other than the percentage. The players are demanding the owners not take a cut off the top, giving them another billion to divide. Last time I checked, asking for an extra billion was not the same thing as keeping things the same. Also, the players should make way less than the owners. If they make the same as the owners, are they going to share the bill for operating costs, marketing, salaries, etc.? Both sides are wrong in multiple ways. i have yet to see any evidence to tip me either way. That's why I urge people to read 100% of what each side is demanding, then compare it to the current deal. Do the research, don't rely on word of mouth, biased sources, or what someone on a message board says, because everything gets skewed the more the news travels. Take a look at the actual documents, and you will see both sides are making demands that can't, and shouldn't be met. Neither appears to understand the meaning of the word compromise.

For the record, even the NFLPA has acknowledged that they were the ones that refused to budge on their demands, as the owners gace in quite a bit to try and get something done, it just wasn't enough for the players. You have the NFLPA to thank for no football, not the owners.

You're misunderstanding the two sides' positions. The current arrangement was for the owners to take a billion off the top for operating costs, and then split the rest roughly 40/60. The owners then proposed to take another billion off the top for increased operating costs, and then splitting the (smaller) pie with the players. The players are opposing taking that second billion off the top, but they never opposed that first billion, which was already part of the expired CBA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Nothing you just stated is true, other than the percentage. The players are demanding the owners not take a cut off the top, giving them another billion to divide. Last time I checked, asking for an extra billion was not the same thing as keeping things the same. Also, the players should make way less than the owners. If they make the same as the owners, are they going to share the bill for operating costs, marketing, salaries, etc.? Both sides are wrong in multiple ways. i have yet to see any evidence to tip me either way. That's why I urge people to read 100% of what each side is demanding, then compare it to the current deal. Do the research, don't rely on word of mouth, biased sources, or what someone on a message board says, because everything gets skewed the more the news travels. Take a look at the actual documents, and you will see both sides are making demands that can't, and shouldn't be met. Neither appears to understand the meaning of the word compromise.

For the record, even the NFLPA has acknowledged that they were the ones that refused to budge on their demands, as the owners gace in quite a bit to try and get something done, it just wasn't enough for the players. You have the NFLPA to thank for no football, not the owners.

What on earth are you talking about

The owners position has been to take back 1 billion dollars from the players

Currently the players get 59% AFTER a 1 billion dollar credit to the owners

So 9 billion in revenue

Owners get 1 billion off the top

Players get 59% of remaining 8 billion

Owners want ANOTHER 1 billion dollars

Therefore 2 billion off the top, so therefore splitting 7 billion

AND 2 extra games for the players

I wouldn't budge if I am the players either.

With how much the owners get in subsidies and the amount of money we spend on this game, these are some of the most arrogant men in America

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're misunderstanding the two sides' positions. The current arrangement was for the owners to take a billion off the top for operating costs, and then split the rest roughly 40/60. The owners then proposed to take another billion off the top for increased operating costs, and then splitting the (smaller) pie with the players. The players are opposing taking that second billion off the top, but they never opposed that first billion, which was already part of the expired CBA.

That's the problem, they do oppose that billion off the top now, that's what the owners' beef was from what I've read. The players want a 50/50 split with nothing off the top. The owners, during the meetings, were willing to go down to $335 million off the top, but the players had an all or nothing attitude about the zero off the top with a 50/50 split.

What on earth are you talking about

The owners position has been to take back 1 billion dollars from the players

Currently the players get 59% AFTER a 1 billion dollar credit to the owners

So 9 billion in revenue

Owners get 1 billion off the top

Players get 59% of remaining 8 billion

Owners want ANOTHER 1 billion dollars

Therefore 2 billion off the top, so therefore splitting 7 billion

AND 2 extra games for the players

I wouldn't budge if I am the players either.

See above. A few people are misunderstanding that the players are not in favor of keeping it the way it is, both sides are trying to get more money, and everyone is dumping on the owners like the players want it to stay the same, which isn't the case. I don't blame them for not wanting another billion taken off the top, but I think they should have gone with the owners proposal of lowering their asking price off the top to $335 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the problem, they do oppose that billion off the top now, that's what the owners' beef was from what I've read. The players want a 50/50 split with nothing off the top. The owners, during the meetings, were willing to go down to $335 million off the top, but the players had an all or nothing attitude about the zero off the top with a 50/50 split.

See above. A few people are misunderstanding that the players are not in favor of keeping it the way it is, both sides are trying to get more money, and everyone is dumping on the owners like the players want it to stay the same, which isn't the case. I don't blame them for not wanting another billion taken off the top, but I think they should have gone with the owners proposal of lowering their asking price off the top to $335 million.

Read again then, because you've got it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The split of "all revenue" is 57%-43%. 59.5% of $8.4B is $4.998B. That means with the $1B credit off the top, the owners make $5.4B (57%).

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 11:05 AM ----------

Sally nails it. Publically funded stadiums are extortion, and PSLs are grand theft.
Which means you are grateful to have Dan Snyder as an owner, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Articles like this are exactly why nobody will agree on which side to take. Great read, really puts some thing into perspective. I suspect next week there will be a new article making everyone hate the players, and the carousel will continue. Fact is, both sides are to blame. Nobody is any more at fault than anyone else. It is total greed on both sides, and we're the poor saps stuck in the middle.

Best post of this thread. Both sides suck. I'm on neither side. Just agree to a deal. The whole thing is childish at best.

And listen to what you guys are saying. Billions! Reallty? There are people out there that can't make ends meet. I work in a hospital and I screen all patients that are uninsured to see if they qualify for assistance with their bills. I've had 40 and 50 year old grown men cry in front of me because they are ashamed they can't afford this hospital stay. I've had patients refuse to pay even $100 co-pay because it would tap them out. Perspective is a wonderful thing eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which means you are grateful to have Dan Snyder as an owner, right?

Exactly, because after all it was Snyder and not JKC that built the current stadium entirely with his own money. It's not like whoever happened to get the team after JKC's passing would've had a brand new stadium that was fully paid off, that was all Snyder's doing. And if you think Snyder won't consider PSLs once the team reaches the above .500 mark again, you're delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides are wrong. Anyone who can't see that is not looking at the whole, complete picture. However, if anyone has read what was on the table last Friday during negotiations (it's been made public) before and while the union decided to shut it down, you would not be able to honestly deny that the owners gave way to almost all of the concessions that the players said they wanted, yet the players were not compromising at all.

Are they both at fault, YES. Is it the owners fault that we are in the state we are today? NO! The owners have backed down, tried to compromise (though, some of what they had originally asked for was crazy and started issues to begin with, don't forget that even the union and several players have admitted that the last deal was very much in favor of the players and not the owners. You can't fault the owners for seeking a deal that is more equal and favorable for them). The players and their narcissistic leader have done way more damage in the past two weeks then the owners have down in the past two months.

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 12:14 PM ----------

Exactly, because after all it was Snyder and not JKC that built the current stadium entirely with his own money. It's not like whoever happened to get the team after JKC's passing would've had a brand new stadium that was fully paid off, that was all Snyder's doing. And if you think Snyder won't consider PSLs once the team reaches the above .500 mark again, you're delusional.
It was all Snyder's doing. When he bought the team, Snyder also had to buy the stadium. So, yes, it was Snyder's money that paid for/paid off the stadium that JKC built. Facts are a wonderful thing. Try them out sometime!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides are wrong. Anyone who can't see that is not looking at the whole, complete picture. However, if anyone has read what was on the table last Friday during negotiations (it's been made public) before and while the union decided to shut it down, you would not be able to honestly deny that the owners gave way to almost all of the concessions that the players said they wanted, yet the players were not compromising at all.

Are they both at fault, YES. Is it the owners fault that we are in the state we are today? NO! The owners have backed down, tried to compromise

Hey now, be careful with those facts. I said almost the same thing and was accused of being an illiterate fool :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sally nails it. Publically funded stadiums are extortion, and PSLs are grand theft.
No. Grand theft is the owners deciding to lockout the players, rob fans of the excitement of free agency, and then STILL demand that season ticket holders pay them right now for games that may not ever happen. I didn't really think anything of it when the Giants announced they were going to defer collecting payments until the lockout was over. Because, obviously, there's no reason people should have to pay for NFL tickets when there may not be any NFL games this season. I was shocked when I found out today that the Giants were the only team in the NFL to do this. That's just plain despicable. I'm certainly not pro-players, but I think I'm actually starting to hate the owners now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Grand theft is the owners deciding to lockout the players, rob fans of the excitement of free agency, and then STILL demand that season ticket holders pay them right now for games that may not ever happen. I didn't really think anything of it when the Giants announced they were going to defer collecting payments until the lockout was over. Because, obviously, there's no reason people should have to pay for NFL tickets when there may not be any NFL games this season. I was shocked when I found out today that the Giants were the only team in the NFL to do this. That's just plain despicable. I'm certainly not pro-players, but I think I'm actually starting to hate the owners now.

Yes, but can you really blame the owners for fleecing fools? Not a single fan is forced to buy season tickets, so if they're dumb enough to give the owners indefinite interest-free loans, then whose fault is that? If people want to send me thousands of dollars in the hope that maybe I'll give them some game tickets next fall, I'd be happy to take the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides are at fault. As time goes by the players are really making themselves look bad with their handling of things.They should have taken the deal or at least tried to stay in negotiation a little further to try and get a little more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The split of "all revenue" is 57%-43%. 59.5% of $8.4B is $4.998B. That means with the $1B credit off the top, the owners make $5.4B (57%).

---------- Post added March-17th-2011 at 11:05 AM ----------

Which means you are grateful to have Dan Snyder as an owner, right?

Dan synder didn't build the stadium.

Dan Snyder strikes me as someone who would've moved the team to get a stadium if D.C. didn't build him one.

---------- Post added March-19th-2011 at 05:26 AM ----------

Both sides have faults. The issue coming to hand in 2011, instead of 2013, when the original contract expired; is solely on the owners. This fight was going to happen. It was just was a question of when? Remember, the owners opted out in 2008; it just wouldn't take effect until now. That's how the 2006 CBA agreement was written. Frankly, if there is an opt out by either side in the next CBA; it should be written that the CBA ends immediately when that occurs. This fight should've happened in 2008. The owners were dissatisfied with the last deal pretty much since Day 1.

I still hold the players position that if they want givebacks; then show the players the books.

I do believe there is a solution to expand the pie and not have to go to an 18 game season. I will post that solution in a separate thread. You figure 9.3 billion would be enough but the owners believe growing the pie by adding two more games. There are other ways to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...