Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Sports Lounge (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=97)
-   -   NFL players raising hell about Pay Cut (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69419)

Zeus 03-06-2010 03:35 PM

NFL players raising hell about Pay Cut
 
http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ut/?ref=sports


Quote:

In the waning hours of the N.F.L. salary cap Thursday, the players’ union released a letter sent by Pete Kendall, the union’s permanent player representative at labor negotiations, to all players that said the owners’ latest proposal is “a dramatic reduction in player compensation, which is not justified given the NFL’s unprecedented growth and their failure to provide meaningful financial data relating to their expenses.”

No new negotiating sessions were scheduled and the N.F.L. heads into an uncapped season Friday – and toward a lockout next March – with little common ground found in early talks. That is not unusual early in any labor fight. But for the last several weeks, the source of contention has been the impact in real dollars of the league’s proposal to give an additional 18 percent in revenue to owners in the form of credits off the top of the revenue pool.

That, they say, would account for soaring stadium costs and to spur continued investment in things like the NFL Network that, owners contend, ultimately generate more revenue. The union said the players would have to take an 18 percent pay cut. The league said the reduction from the percentage of revenue players currently receive to what they would receive under the proposal would be closer to 9 percent and that, with a rookie wage scale redistributing money to veterans and the expected continued rise in revenue generated, no player would lose money.

In his letter, Kendall, a former Jets offensive lineman who recently retired, provided specifics of management’s most recent proposal. The proposal calls for an additional 18 percent in credits for management off the NFL’s total revenue (owners already receive $1 billion off the top of the revenue pool), to account for expenses like stadium construction. The proposal would allow players to continue to receive nearly 60 percent of remaining revenue, as the previous collective bargaining agreement provided.

Players contend, though, that because the revenue pool would be diminished by the credits given to owners, there would be a 10.44 percent reduction in the salary cap, according to Kendall’s letter. As an example, Kendall writes that a cap of $116 million per club as calculated under the existing deal, would be reduced to $95.12 million under the league’s proposal.

“If the impact of the proposal were to be spread evenly over all player salaries and benefits across the league, each player would have to take a cut of 18 percent in salary and benefits,” Kendall wrote.

Without providing specifics, Kendall’s letter said the union’s current proposal would allow teams to have increased deductions for costs incurred to generate new revenue and that the union has proposed additional credits for stadium construction and revenue.

“But we should not and will not agree to pay for items such as expenses to operate practice facilities or for travel costs as the owners have included in this 18% proposal,” Kendall wrote.

The N.F.L. responded several hours later with a statement saying owners were looking for a system that allows for continued investment to grow revenues.

“NFL player compensation has almost doubled in the last decade because of investments made by the clubs,” the statement said. “If we continue to invest and grow, current players will have higher compensation, former players will have higher benefits, and fans will enjoy a better game. Expenses for NFL franchises have risen faster than revenue in the current agreement and the economics must be adjusted. But, as we have repeatedly emphasized, constructive and creative negotiations can lead to a balanced agreement that will not reduce current player salaries.”
What do you guys think about this? I think NFL players should stop their bitching.

You show me one NFL player who can't support his family because he isn't paid enough. One. A single player.

These guys make insane amounts of money for playing a game... and on top of that, they choose to do it. They choose this Career path just like anyone else chooses theirs.... because they are good at it and have an interest in playing the game. Judging from the increase in Salary Cap (from when it was first implemented in 1994 till 2009) the players salary has tripled the rate of inflation... These guys have nothing to complain about.

Michael_Js 03-06-2010 04:19 PM

AMEN!!! Give me a freakin break! The problem is their careers don't last long and they do nothing to save & invest the HUGE amount of $$$ they make. So, of course they complain that they need MORE $$$ That's the main reason I don't support any sports...

PQ 03-06-2010 06:37 PM

I'm on the players side on this one.

BackinBlackSS/RS 03-06-2010 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus (Post 1555514)
What do you guys think about this? I think NFL players should stop their bitching.

You show me one NFL player who can't support his family because he isn't paid enough. One. A single player.

These guys make insane amounts of money for playing a game... and on top of that, they choose to do it. They choose this Career path just like anyone else chooses theirs.... because they are good at it and have an interest in playing the game. Judging from the increase in Salary Cap (from when it was first implemented in 1994 till 2009) the players salary has tripled the rate of inflation... These guys have nothing to complain about.

:word: I could not have said it better.

PQ 03-07-2010 11:11 AM

So I can sign you to a 5 years contract and you can't go anywhere else and play if I say you can't. But I can FIRE your ass or cut you for minimal compensation.

Don't sound right.

Orange5thGen 03-07-2010 11:16 AM

:suicide:Crying about only making Millions....WTF How about all the millions of people out of work in the US let alone people like me that have taken a 20% pay cut to have a job.....

DGthe3 03-07-2010 12:06 PM

While some star QB's have those mega contracts, the guys on the line don't make nearly as much. And as much as the best paid QB's make, the owner makes an awful lot more. So I don't agree in this case. Ordinarily I'd tell pro athletes to quit griping, they're getting paid to play a game which they used to be willing to play for free. Cutting their pay just so the owners can boost their revenue? Nope.

Zeus 03-07-2010 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGthe3 (Post 1557957)
While some star QB's have those mega contracts, the guys on the line don't make nearly as much. And as much as the best paid QB's make, the owner makes an awful lot more. So I don't agree in this case. Ordinarily I'd tell pro athletes to quit griping, they're getting paid to play a game which they used to be willing to play for free. Cutting their pay just so the owners can boost their revenue? Nope.

I think there are certainly scenarios where player salary has past unrealistic and has moved to the realm of insane... Specifically surrounding the Rookie signings. Teams who don't want to blow 50 million on an unproven prospect (see Raiders and Jamarcus Russel) now have to trade away their high first round picks, all because the salaries of incoming rookies have gotten so out of hand.

PS. The second highest paid position in the league is a Left Tackle...Offensive Lineman.

DGthe3 03-07-2010 12:39 PM

This pay cut isn't about reducing owners cost, its about increasing their revenue. Huge difference between the two.

Zeus 03-07-2010 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGthe3 (Post 1558041)
This pay cut isn't about reducing owners cost, its about increasing their revenue. Huge difference between the two.

One in the same actually

DGthe3 03-07-2010 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeus (Post 1558048)
One in the same actually

No they aren't. It make work out that way when looking at profit but they aren't the same at all. If the owners were stugling and running their franchise at a loss, thats a very valid argument to reduce cost. But if one of the goals is to fund new mega stadiums ... I have a very hard time supporting it.

Zeus 03-07-2010 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DGthe3 (Post 1558086)
No they aren't. It make work out that way when looking at profit but they aren't the same at all. If the owners were stugling and running their franchise at a loss, thats a very valid argument to reduce cost. But if one of the goals is to fund new mega stadiums ... I have a very hard time supporting it.

So your more about the intentions of the owners. I can get behind that.

What I was saying is that regardless of whether their bottom line is black or red, less $$ given to player salary is more $$ to run the rest of their business.

Mailman 03-10-2010 02:35 PM

I am a huge football fan as is my hubby! However, I can't see spending the insane $$$ to go and watch a game. It costs a couple of hundred dollars for a family to watch a game in person at the stadium not to mention water is $6 a bottle. :yikes:

I have a really difficult time feeling badly for people who make lots of money (admittedly $100,000 is a low salary for a NFL player) for basically playing a game. I also think that the contracts of unproven 'superstars' right out of college is just way out of whack. Why doesn't the league institute a set price for rookies all across the board--this would make everyone's life so much easier. It gives the players time to mature and gives the teams the opportunity that they need for each player who makes the transition to the NFL. I have two words to support my statement: Ryan Leaf. 'nuff said.

rmpackers 03-10-2010 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mailman (Post 1571560)
I am a huge football fan as is my hubby! However, I can't see spending the insane $$$ to go and watch a game. It costs a couple of hundred dollars for a family to watch a game in person at the stadium not to mention water is $6 a bottle. :yikes:

I have a really difficult time feeling badly for people who make lots of money (admittedly $100,000 is a low salary for a NFL player) for basically playing a game. I also think that the contracts of unproven 'superstars' right out of college is just way out of whack. Why doesn't the league institute a set price for rookies all across the board--this would make everyone's life so much easier. It gives the players time to mature and gives the teams the opportunity that they need for each player who makes the transition to the NFL. I have two words to support my statement: Ryan Leaf. 'nuff said.

I have to agree with most of this.
We don't spend an insane amount to go to a pro football game. The minium wage in the NFL is 300K, but it's all gone tomorrow if you wreck your knee on Sunday. As an admittedly "part" owner in the Packers, we will have a tough time surviving this. Our fan base keeps us alive, there is no billionaire owner to bail us out. And yes, the biggest problem is the astronomical salaries for "superstar" rookies. They need to start at base for the first year, bonuses for performance are OK if limited and then prove yourself.

2ndgenz28 03-10-2010 02:53 PM

It doesn't matter what the players get, the owners make more.

and its real simple, those who make the money get the money, its the player folks pay to see, not owners in million dollar stadium boxes.

So the players get the majority of said money maid.

Now if you want them to make less, force owners to charges less for tickets n tshirts so it trickles down right and everyone makes less / payless.

I see a strike coming.

2010 2-Tone 03-10-2010 03:17 PM

I agree with Mailman. When you go to a game and have a 4 person family, it will cost you about $300.00 just for the tickets, $20.00 to park and eats could run you 60 to 80 more. You are looking at around $400.00 which is RAPE!!!! I do agree the owners don't need to make anymore but the players don't either. Make it more affordable for familys to go to the game and they would increase revenues that way. This next part is interesting. This is the league minimum with no NFL experience:

In 2008, $295k
In 2009, $310k

In 2010, $325k

In 2011, $340k

In 2012, $355k

The NFL Players Union and the NFL owner's usually construct a new "minimum salary" deal every 4 or 5 years.




*** These numbers are accurate but are for players with zero years experience, i.e. rookies. The amounts go up with player experience, topping out at $845,000 in 2009 for players with 10 or more years experience. Also, unlike some or much of the money in the very high dollar contracts of the top players, none of this money is guaranteed. You have to play to get it.


Here's the whole chart through 2010:




Credited Seasons 2008 2009 2010


0 $295,000 $310,000 $325,000


1 $370,000 $385,000 $400,000


2 $445,000 $460,000 $475,000


3 $520,000 $535,000 $550,000


4-6 $605,000 $620,000 $635,000


7-9 $730,000 $745,000 $760,000


10+ $830,000 $845,000 $860,000

The_Blur 03-10-2010 03:27 PM

Does it matter? Regardless of whether pay is cut, a large number of these athletes will get endorsement deals outside of their contracts, adding millions to their income.

I also have trouble believing that owners have trouble paying for anything, especially considering the gargantuan mounds of cash spent on team sponsorship and stadium advertising.

There's a lot of money in sports, and this just rearranges that functionless money. Imagine if half the money invested in sports went toward medical research, feeding the hungry, or helping the helpless.

mlee 03-10-2010 03:34 PM

Meh... they'll work it out...

Zeus 03-11-2010 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Blur (Post 1571865)
Imagine if half the money invested in sports went toward medical research, feeding the hungry, or helping the helpless.

The money exists because people pay to see the sports that they love... if you gave away half of that money to any number of more noble causes you'd see a huge drop off in revenue.

and yes... I understand that you weren't meaning that they should do that literally.

DGthe3 03-11-2010 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Blur (Post 1571865)
There's a lot of money in sports, and this just rearranges that functionless money. Imagine if half the money invested in sports went toward medical research, feeding the hungry, or helping the helpless.

Not really a good battle to pick here ... there are plenty of other more obvious, and more useless, ways of spending money.

2010 SSRS 03-11-2010 08:34 AM

The seats are always full at the big games.

Ghost of Vincent Price 03-11-2010 08:42 AM

If the players dont like they shouldnt play. Someone else would step up for that amount of money asap. Nobody stopped them from becoming doctors or business execs. Why shouldnt the owners decide how much they want to offer players? The make money off jersey sales and endorsements also. F them.

Zeus 03-11-2010 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost of Vincent Price (Post 1574652)
If the players dont like they shouldnt play. Someone else would step up for that amount of money asap. Nobody stopped them from becoming doctors or business execs. Why shouldnt the owners decide how much they want to offer players? The make money off jersey sales and endorsements also. F them.

:word:

DGthe3 03-11-2010 03:47 PM

I guess the billionaires need the money more

jrc1122 03-11-2010 03:57 PM

It is a private organization, with private workers (players)

The boss sets the wage, if you won't do it for that wage, you should look elsewhere for employement.

If the boss (owner/ CEO etc) is making huge profits while paying peanuts (percentage wise) to their workers, the workers should think about looking for new work.

If players refuse to play for those wages, no game takes place, no game = no tickets= no money for the owner.

If the owner thinks he can recruit quality replacements that people will pay (the same amount) to watch-- then the boss will likely try to fill the slots. If not, the boss will need to negotiate with the skilled workers an agreed upon wage. They need each other- No owner= no stadium. No players = no revenue.

So- No I don't believe in salary caps. Your qualities and what you bring to the table determine what you make.

When you see 6 and 7 figure incomes, it is easy to say "they make enough" -- but in reality who am I to say you make too much. If I think you charge too much for your product, I will not buy it.
________
Volcano Digital


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.