Are Rookie Salaries the Reason for the Break in Negotiations?

[Craic]

Notice how this is just about the right time for the talk to break down, just the same day that this memo was sent out.

Personally, I LOVE the league's position.


The union sent a memo Thursday to player agents updating the status of discussions on a rookie wage scale. A union proposal to decrease the maximum length of rookie contracts to four years for players selected in the first three rounds, and three years for players chosen after that, also included a limit on financial incentives and salary escalators that could be included in rookie deals.
Those limits would, the NFLPA claims, provide the cost certainty the league is seeking for its rookie salary pool.
According to the memo seen by The Associated Press, the NFL's response was a five-year wage scale with base salary escalators. That would virtually eliminate individual negotiation of rookie contracts.


Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/02/10/labor-talks.ap/index.html#ixzz1DhAnAd8k

[NJarhead]

I doubt it. From what I understand both sides agree on the cap. I can't speak intelligently on either sides real feelings about rookie contract limits.

The main reason for the shut down in communications was the players plan for 50% of the revenue.

[stillers4me]

I doubt it. From what I understand both sides agree on the cap. I can't speak intelligently on either sides real feelings about rookie contract limits.

The main reason for the shut down in communications was the players plan for 50% of the revenue.

The players asked for 50% because the owners won't show their accounting books. They offered the 50/50 option in lieu of the owners proving why they say they are not making enough money and expect the players to take what is in essence, an 18% paycut. The players say, if you want us to take a paycut, then show us why. I don't feel that's an unreasonable request.

So the owners are shutting down the business until the players agree to the paycut. That's different that the players striking to get more money/benefits.

[Craic]

It seems however, that they are miles apart on rookie contracts as well.

NFLPA: 5 years to four years, limited financial incentives, and limited salary escalators.
League 5 years wage scale with base salary escalators PERIOD.

I know we keep hearing about the revenue- But I think that is more of a shell game by both sides. It is easier in public to argue something simple, rather than to get the outside world on your side for "salary escalators" and "wage scale restrictions". It is a case of the whole ball of wax being the issue, but one side pulls out the issue they think will get the most press support and blames the other side in the press for it, to try and put pressure on the other side to agree to everything.

[NJarhead]

The players asked for 50% because the owners won't show their accounting books. They offered the 50/50 option in lieu of the owners proving why they say they are not making enough money and expect the players to take what is in essence, an 18% paycut. The players say, if you want us to take a paycut, then show us why. I don't feel that's an unreasonable request.

So the owners are shutting down the business until the players agree to the paycut. That's different that the players striking to get more money/benefits.

That's not my understanding of the 50% request. But there is no way I will ever agree that the employee is entitled to 50% of the revenue generated. Especially considering that they will not be sharing the burden that the owners have with stadiums, facilities, coaches salaries and on and on. The employees should be happy with no 17th and 18th game, a rookie pay scale and no more than 30% of the revenue IMO.

[Craic]

That's not my understanding of the 50% request. But there is no way I will ever agree that the employee is entitled to 50% of the revenue generated. Especially considering that they will not be sharing the burden that the owners have with stadiums, facilities, coaches salaries and on and on. The employees should be happy with no 17th and 18th game, a rookie pay scale and no more than 30% of the revenue IMO.

And on the 50% issue, that is exactly what it is,

the players are asking for either the books to be opened, or 50% BEFORE costs.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Go to your local grocery store, and as the worker if the corporation will open their books. No business I have EVER worked for, chooses to "open their books". The owners took the risk, they get the rewards. If the players don't like it, then quite, go start your own league, take all the risks, and then get the pay you want.

Until then, be happy with your million plus year contracts.

[zulater]

I think in order to get rid of that idiot arbitrator David Doty they have to allow this CBA to expire. So new new deal until this one's over, but I predict they'll get something done long before games are threatened.

[steelreserve]

And on the 50% issue, that is exactly what it is,

the players are asking for either the books to be opened, or 50% BEFORE costs.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Go to your local grocery store, and as the worker if the corporation will open their books. No business I have EVER worked for, chooses to "open their books". The owners took the risk, they get the rewards. If the players don't like it, then quite, go start your own league, take all the risks, and then get the pay you want.

Until then, be happy with your million plus year contracts.

Pretty much every multibillion-dollar business is publicly traded, and therefore by definition is required to "open its books." So, um .... no.

Yes, I know the NFL isn't publicly traded, but the argument that no company anywhere will do that is just beyond absurd.

[KeiselPower99]

I think we will have a new CBA before the Draft. As much as I hate Goodell he wont have the labor issues affect the biggest NFL day in the offseason.

[pepsyman1]

Pretty much every multibillion-dollar business is publicly traded, and therefore by definition is required to "open its books." So, um .... no.

Yes, I know the NFL isn't publicly traded, but the argument that no company anywhere will do that is just beyond absurd.

The only reason those books are open in publicly traded companies is because it's a requirement. Billion dollar private companies don't open their books to the public or the employees as a general rule...and even though NFL teams are big business in terms of dollars, they are not big companies individually in terms of personnel and number of employees. They are small to medium size companies in terms of structure and aren't publicly traded...the fact that the players get such a big cut of the revenue is absurd. If you started your own company tomorrow and hired 50 people and paid them a large salary, would you then turn around and give them 40-50% of your net revenues as well? I think not. I have respect for the owners who put a lot of effort into their franchise to give it a good shot at winning, but it is still a business and I wouldn't fault any business for trying to make a reasonable profit.

[7willBheaven]

I doubt it. From what I understand both sides agree on the cap. I can't speak intelligently on either sides real feelings about rookie contract limits.


This

[Craic]

Pretty much every multibillion-dollar business is publicly traded, and therefore by definition is required to "open its books." So, um .... no.

Yes, I know the NFL isn't publicly traded, but the argument that no company anywhere will do that is just beyond absurd.

Not at all. If you are a PUBLIC corporation, that is one thing.
But please, show me the last privately owned business, that has opened their "books" and showed their employees the finances, when the employees have been negotiating their salary. THAT, my friend, is absurd

[Steeldude]

the players should get 0% of the revenue. the players get their ridiculous paychecks...now shut up and do your jobs.

[Craic]

I wonder if we are going to end up seeing a hockey type outcome-- Where a certain amount of money is put away, and the dispersed at the end of the year based on profitability.

[NCSteeler]

I thought the players percentage of the profits is what made up the salary "pool" cap which in turns drives pay. I don't think it is money they get on top of their salary. I think it is divided amongst health benefits and salary cap.

[Craic]

I thought the players percentage of the profits is what made up the salary "pool" cap which in turns drives pay. I don't think it is money they get on top of their salary. I think it is divided amongst health benefits and salary cap.

That may be, my point is just that I think we will see something to that effect-maybe even a retirement package based on years of playing time?

[NCSteeler]

New info on the " Rookie" salary proposal


But, according to Liz Mullen of the SportsBusiness Journal, a memo from the NFLPA said that what owners are seeking is much more. Mullen wrote via Twitter that the NFL, in a "Rookie Wage Scale" proposal, is looking to lower the minimum salary for all players with 4 or 5 years of experience. The proposal moves far beyond rookie wages and into a larger chunk of player payroll. Instead of just seeing cuts to first round Draft picks, it would move into players that already have shown some level of NFL experience.

[NCSteeler]

Not at all. If you are a PUBLIC corporation, that is one thing.
But please, show me the last privately owned business, that has opened their "books" and showed their employees the finances, when the employees have been negotiating their salary. THAT, my friend, is absurd

See my post in the NFL section on this. The owners are clearly crying poverty and all the union really is doing is saying "we'll help you out, but your gonna have to show us how poor you really are" Sounds fair enough to me.

[86WARD]

Absolutely not. That doesn't need to be worked out right now. All they need to do is agree to it and then negotiate that at a later date. It's definitely not a sticking point in the negotiations. It's actually one of the "smaller" things that they would be stuck on.

[Steeldude]

See my post in the NFL section on this. The owners are clearly crying poverty and all the union really is doing is saying "we'll help you out, but your gonna have to show us how poor you really are" Sounds fair enough to me.

the players often cry poverty too. if the players want the owners' type of money then they should go buy a team. the players are extremely overpaid. they deserve 0% in revenue sharing. if they don't like it then scrap them all and start over.

[86WARD]

The players aren't the ones paying themselves. The owners are the ones paying them the money. You can't possibly blame the players for taking as much as they get...lol.

It all starts with the owners opening their books.

Record TV ratings, Huge merchandise sales, attendance was decent, yet the owners want to cry poverty. Prove it...open the books and then they can go from there...

[Steeldude]

The players aren't the ones paying themselves. The owners are the ones paying them the money. You can't possibly blame the players for taking as much as they get...lol.

It all starts with the owners opening their books.

Record TV ratings, Huge merchandise sales, attendance was decent, yet the owners want to cry poverty. Prove it...open the books and then they can go from there...

why should they open their books? the players are overpaid. no one should get a million dollars to play football.

you are right, you can't blame the players for being greedy and wanting another person's money, but you can't blame the owners for not wanting to give their money away when they are already extremely generous.

[Craic]

Absolutely not. That doesn't need to be worked out right now. All they need to do is agree to it and then negotiate that at a later date. It's definitely not a sticking point in the negotiations. It's actually one of the "smaller" things that they would be stuck on.
I disagree,

Actually, I am coming to believe it is at the very CENTER of the negotiations-and one of the absolute sticking points. Why? See the next two quotes.


It seems however, that they are miles apart on rookie contracts as well.

NFLPA: 5 years to four years, limited financial incentives, and limited salary escalators.
League 5 years wage scale with base salary escalators PERIOD.

I know we keep hearing about the revenue- But I think that is more of a shell game by both sides. It is easier in public to argue something simple, rather than to get the outside world on your side for "salary escalators" and "wage scale restrictions". It is a case of the whole ball of wax being the issue, but one side pulls out the issue they think will get the most press support and blames the other side in the press for it, to try and put pressure on the other side to agree to everything.


New info on the " Rookie" salary proposal

But, according to Liz Mullen of the SportsBusiness Journal, a memo from the NFLPA said that what owners are seeking is much more. Mullen wrote via Twitter that the NFL, in a "Rookie Wage Scale" proposal, is looking to lower the minimum salary for all players with 4 or 5 years of experience. The proposal moves far beyond rookie wages and into a larger chunk of player payroll. Instead of just seeing cuts to first round Draft picks, it would move into players that already have shown some level of NFL experience.




As a result, the way I am reading it, if the owners get what they want, then the first 5 years of a players' career is completely scheduled, without any type of negotiation. That means, that a player will only have 2 contracts to negotiate if they have the average NFL career.

Furthermore, the entire payroll of a team is cut down tremendously due to renegotiated contracts in years 3, 4, and 5. They no longer have to renegotiate them. Instead, they get to allow the player to play for the scheduled amount without worry.

On top of that, teams would then release veterans, bringing in 2, 3, 4 year FA's (cuts from other teams) that are 2 or 3 string players because they don't have to negotiate THEIR contracts either. The amount each team pays in salary would reduce, possibly by up to 20% or more.

That is the LAST thing the NFLPA wants. Give in on this one issue, and the owners have all their wishes handed to them on salary reduction. I'd even bet that they'd give in on an 18 game season in order to get this through.

No, the more I think about it, the more I see this issue being central to negotiations-because the owners proposal, put it smack in the middle.

[TMC]

The rookie salary cap is a negotiating ploy for the union. What everyone has to realize, the rookies have no voice in this. They are not members of the union until after they are drafted. If the rookies are paid less, that leaves more money under the cap for veteran players.

Right now, the first half of the 1st round inks 6 year deals. The second half of the 1st round inks 5 year deals. For the union to ask for less than 5 years shows they are creating sticking points. I understand why. You have issue here, you act like it is a big deal, you cave here now, when you want something later, you expect them to give back.

As for the actual numbers being banded about, the real sticking point is in the first round. To be honest, players are locked in to a team now for 4 years because of restricted free agency. So, after the first round, it really does not matter. In fact, some of the numbers being tossed out, the owner's plan favors those players taken later as it pays later picks better than the current system and the system put out by the NFLPA. Again, the real sticking point is in the first round. In the financial comparisons for the first round, they use the 9th pick, BJ Raji, to compare the numbers. Raji actually signed a 5 year deal for $22.5M. The NFLPA proposes a 4 year deal for $18M. Well, Raji's actual deal averaged $4.5M per season. The NFLPA wants $4.5M per season. Where is the break? The owners proposed a 5 year deal for $8.6M. If you look at the 19th pick (Jeremy Maclin), he averaged $2.5M per season. The NFLPA wants $2.5M per season. No break. The owners deal is 5 years, $6.7M. Now, that is much less than the $2.5M, but the drop from 9th to 19th is much less significant.

Here is where I think the owners have to give:
1. They have to put more cash out. If the 9th pick got $4.5M per, you need to be closer to $3M. The key is bringing the top 5 picks in line. So, they have to up the cash some, but not greatly, and keep it spread out through the draft, not have the massive drop off. So far, they have done that.

2. They have to continue to pay the signing bonus in a lump sum up front. It is the players guaranteed money. If they suck and you cut them, they lose. You have to keep that money up front or guarantee it somehow. The owners want no guarantees. The NFLPA wants injury guarantees. That is not such a horrible request. IMO, you give them minimum salaries and a signing bonus. The up front signing bonus is the "guarantee". Then, you can guarantee the minimum salaries (which is not much) for injury only.

The NFLPA has to give here:
1. They want too much cash. The NBA has it right. You get drafted here, you get paid this. You can completely do away with negotiations, coming to camp late, agents, the whole mess of getting rookies signed. Find a middle point on the numbers, make it happen. You give here to get it back later. They want to move the savings to veterans, the rookie performance pool, and to retirement. That is fine. But, in order to move money, you have to give it up.

2. They have to give up on the 4 year crap. The owners currently have 6 years for the top 16 and 5 years for the bottom 16 in the first round. Now the NFLPA is wanting to reduce that. The owners are already giving up a year for the top 16. To allow them to keep the bottom 16 at 5 is not unreasonable. The NFLPA points to a potential reduction in market value of 60% if this happens, but that is crap. They are already locked in via restricted free agency for 4 seasons. For all the guys that are paid well via the RFA tag, there are plenty that do not get offers. By making it 4 years, the bonus money is increased to cover the loss. It is just spread out across the board. The NFLPA is using smoke and mirrors to create a negotiating point.

3. The NFLPA needs to give the owners the 3-year "no negotiations of rookie deals" clause. It is 2 now. But, since you are for moving the years to 4, the extra year is meaningless. Teams would not be interested in negotiations prior to 3 anyway, so they are looking to stop the sitting out for more cash after 2 seasons. The impact should be minimal, maybe 1 player a year.

This could be hammered out pretty easily, but they are posturing for the bigger fight, which is the overall split of cash.

And, I disagree that the owners should open their books. They own the business. There are two types of owners, those that have done it forever and built this league, like the Rooneys and those that paid millions and millions of dollars to buy a team. Both types have huge investments. If we assume that the average cost of an NFL franchise is $800 million, then an owner could place $800M in the stock market and expect a 10% return on his investment. That is $80M. The Packers books are open to the public because they are the NFL's only open stock team. They made $20M in profit last year. That is $2.5%. You could open up a savings account at a local bank and get that...with a free toaster.

So, what incentive do the owners have to build new stadiums, hire great trainers, buy uniforms, buy planes, new equipment, practice facilities, training facilities, hire great doctors, and do all those things? Why would you do it only to have the players take the lion's share of the revenue?

The players better realize this. I would guess that 85% of the owners made millions prior to getting involved in the NFL. They did not do this by screwing some players, they did it by screwing people that know how to screw people. The players can push and find themselves out of work while the owners just go back to making money in other areas. Sure, it would hurt the Rooneys and teams like that, but you can bet that the players won't make $5M per season at UPS or Wachovia.

The salary cap has doubled in the past 10 years and the players refuse to give some back. While you may see front office people get laid off and buildings close down, the total value of an NFL team drop, the owners are still loaded. They will continue to pay the rent and make money. The players, on the other hand, if they have not prepared, will be looking for employment elsewhere. They will be turning in those cars they leased or are failing to cover the payments on.

The owners have hinted that the 57.5% the players is getting is too great, even though they get $1B off the top. They stated they need $2B off the top to cover expenses and make it sound like 57.5% of what is left (that is termed "total revenue" by the CBA) is fine. What I would suggest is the owners get 20% of true total revenue off the top for expenses. The players would then get their 57.5% of the adjusted total revenue. The 2011 NFL revenue is expected to be $9.7 billion dollars. That would give the owners $1.8 billion off the top and as it grows, so does their expense cut. The players would get 57.5% of that or $4.54 billion dollars which would put the 2011 NFL cap at $141.9 million per team.

The owners do not get their full $2B. The players take a cut, but since they did not see a cap last year (it would have been roughly $140M), they would take that 1 year "no raise" to the cap.

Both sides give, it is a plan that continues to divide the cash as the pot grows. The best deal will be one where both sides feel they got screwed.

[NCSteeler]

Problem with the draft and slotting money with a five year deal is, players will have a hard time ever realizing their potential. manning would have been just becoming a FA in his MVP season and by the proposed deal he would have been earnign peanuts.

[TMC]

Problem with the draft and slotting money with a five year deal is, players will have a hard time ever realizing their potential. manning would have been just becoming a FA in his MVP season and by the proposed deal he would have been earnign peanuts.

Peyton Manning was MVP in 2003 and 2004. He was drafted in 1998. So, a five year deal would have been 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. He would have hit free agency prior to his MVP season.

As it currently stands, they would have had him for 6 seasons (which the Colts did, he inked a 6 year rookie deal).

And, for every Manning, there is a Ryan Leaf, David Carr, or other bust that still gets paid. Peyton's 2nd contract dwarfed his first and his first deal was almost $50M for 6 seasons.

While some will suffer, when you think that every round past the first will be better compensated, it takes all the top heavy money and evens it out. Look at a guy like Tom Brady compared to Peyton Manning. Brady earned less than $1M over his first three seasons combined. Would it not be fair to pay these guys as well?

The players have to be willing to reduce the first round cash.

[86WARD]

why should they open their books? the players are overpaid. no one should get a million dollars to play football.

you are right, you can't blame the players for being greedy and wanting another person's money, but you can't blame the owners for not wanting to give their money away when they are already extremely generous.

They should open their books because they are bitching that they aren't making money. The players already offered to give up 10% and have asked to see them to begin negotiations...

[86WARD]

I disagree,

Actually, I am coming to believe it is at the very CENTER of the negotiations-and one of the absolute sticking points. Why? See the next two quotes.

It's definitely an issue. But it's not the reason for the Break in Negotiations. It's not an issue that needs to be hammered out immediately...they can agree on having the cap, then move to the next issue. It's not something to stick on. With an issue like that, they could even agree to negotiate that within the next year beginning with the 2012 draft class.

The owners don't have to pay the players millions...the first overall pick could get $1,000,000 if the owners decide that's what they want to pay and go from there. There's nothing to say who is going to get paid what. Obviously, the players and agents go off of last year/this years contracts, however, if the owners decide not to put out that cash, there's nothing that says they have to and there is really nothing the NFLPA can do about it. The guaranteed money is one of the biggest issue with the rookies.

[NCSteeler]

Peyton Manning was MVP in 2003 and 2004. He was drafted in 1998. So, a five year deal would have been 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. He would have hit free agency prior to his MVP season.

As it currently stands, they would have had him for 6 seasons (which the Colts did, he inked a 6 year rookie deal).

And, for every Manning, there is a Ryan Leaf, David Carr, or other bust that still gets paid. Peyton's 2nd contract dwarfed his first and his first deal was almost $50M for 6 seasons.

While some will suffer, when you think that every round past the first will be better compensated, it takes all the top heavy money and evens it out. Look at a guy like Tom Brady compared to Peyton Manning. Brady earned less than $1M over his first three seasons combined. Would it not be fair to pay these guys as well?

The players have to be willing to reduce the first round cash.

The article I read said the NFL wants rookies to be slotted for five years, even if they are cut from the active roster and signed by another team. I think that is a big sticking point for the NFLPA.

[GodfatherofSoul]

the players should get 0% of the revenue. the players get their ridiculous paychecks...now shut up and do your jobs.

So, if your boss comes to you with a 30% paycut, you'll just "shut up and do your job"? We don't have 40 hr weeks, minimum wage, and overtime because industry just loves us so much. People in this country have a fundamental lack of understanding of how labor disputes work.

[GodfatherofSoul]

AS for the NFLPA objection to rookie contracts, I heard this rationale a few years back. Agents have been sucking a lot of money out of the salary cap pool for untested rookies and getting them long contracts at that. When you drop $50 million on a first round pick (who might be a bust), that means more veterans (who have a higher minimum) lose roster slots. So, the front office has to fill in that roster gap with cheaper rookies, sophomores, and juniors. The NFLPA wants to push the contract balance back towards veterans and away from the Leinerts and Vince Youngs.

[Craic]

So, if your boss comes to you with a 30% paycut, you'll just "shut up and do your job"? We don't have 40 hr weeks, minimum wage, and overtime because industry just loves us so much. People in this country have a fundamental lack of understanding of how labor disputes work.

True, but sadly, labor unions have a fundamental lack of understanding in this country that it isn't 1890, children aren't getting their hands cut off in mining and factory accidents after working 14 hours a day while getting paid with company certificates to be spend at the company store.

The most poisonous, We Management, You Worker, lack of sick time and feeling unsafe at the workplace (from fellow employees screaming at others), was in a union job. NEVER, not ONCE did I see that kind of idiocy when I worked non-union jobs, and I was paid better, with better sick time as well. More often than not, unions today pollute the work place.

The NFLPA is a good example.

[GodfatherofSoul]

True, but sadly, labor unions have a fundamental lack of understanding in this country that it isn't 1890 and children aren't getting their hands cut off in mining and factory accidents after working 14 hours a day and getting paid with company certificates to be spend at the company store.

Not in *this* country, because our companies are moving labor to places that don't have the protections we do.

[Craic]

Not in *this* country, because our companies are moving labor to places that don't have the protections we do.

Yep, because the price of labor here is outrageous. Why SHOULD a company pay 3 times as much to have the same product made at the same quality here as somewhere else? Makes absolutely no sense. Then, that product must sell for three times as much, which means that the lower economic classes have much less buying power.

So when is the NFL going to move overseas? Oh wait-NFL europe :chuckle: Ok, not ALL the same quality :wink02:

[NCSteeler]

Yep, because the price of labor here is outrageous. Why SHOULD a company pay 3 times as much to have the same product made at the same quality here as somewhere else? Makes absolutely no sense. Then, that product must sell for three times as much, which means that the lower economic classes have much less buying power.

So when is the NFL going to move overseas? Oh wait-NFL europe :chuckle: Ok, not ALL the same quality :wink02:

I've been union and I'm currently not union, both ways have benefits. But Apple pays some chinese kid $6.18 to assemble an Iphone, the same thing would cost 28-30 dollars here, Apple's profit per Iphone is somewhere between 300-500 depending on what business journal you subscribe to. Now why is it so F'ing unreasonable for Apple to employ a thousand Americans building Iphones? Do these companies realize the more they outsource the less we can buy?

So what your saying is that as long as we send good jobs over seas which puts many here out of work or in lower paying jobs, it's all good because the chinese/pakistan/vietnam imports are now affordable to the guy that got put out of work in the first place?


Anyhow, back on topic, the rookie wage scale would basically prevent a 3rd year guy who get's cut from shopping his services to the highest bidder, he would be at a fixed salary till his fifth year, just doesn't sound right to me.

[LLT]

And on the 50% issue, that is exactly what it is,

the players are asking for either the books to be opened, or 50% BEFORE costs.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Go to your local grocery store, and as the worker if the corporation will open their books. No business I have EVER worked for, chooses to "open their books". The owners took the risk, they get the rewards. If the players don't like it, then quite, go start your own league, take all the risks, and then get the pay you want.

Until then, be happy with your million plus year contracts.

This isnt entirely accurate.

The NFL takes 1 Billion dollars off the top for operating expenses before the rest of the profit is shared between the owners and players. The NFL would now like to take an additional one Billion off the top for a total of 2 Billion dollars. The players want the NFL to open the books and prove that operating costs have gone up 100%. Its not the owners books they are questioning (in this case) but rather the NFL's books.

That being said...it IS the owners who are pushing for this 1 Billion dollar increase...probably as a means to off set the 15/17 revenue split that causes the top tier teams to pay the lower tier teams and not actually because of cost increases.

The underlying problem is that this scenerio shows the commisioner to be a puppet of a handful of owners, instead of being a representative of the owners/players/fans. The job of the commisioner has alsways been to do what is good for the league....not just the owners. Goodell fails miserably on 2 of the 3 responsibilities he was handed.

[Craic]

I've been union and I'm currently not union, both ways have benefits. But Apple pays some chinese kid $6.18 to assemble an Iphone, the same thing would cost 28-30 dollars here, Apple's profit per Iphone is somewhere between 300-500 depending on what business journal you subscribe to. Now why is it so F'ing unreasonable for Apple to employ a thousand Americans building Iphones? Do these companies realize the more they outsource the less we can buy?

So what your saying is that as long as we send good jobs over seas which puts many here out of work or in lower paying jobs, it's all good because the chinese/pakistan/vietnam imports are now affordable to the guy that got put out of work in the first place?


Anyhow, back on topic, the rookie wage scale would basically prevent a 3rd year guy who get's cut from shopping his services to the highest bidder, he would be at a fixed salary till his fifth year, just doesn't sound right to me.

Simple- Because the bottom line responsibility of a business, is to make money. Not to employ people. When that gets confused, the business as a whole suffers ends up failing. That is true not just of employment, but of ANYTHING that gets in the way of the bottom line. Now, there are different THEORIES about how to make money in such a way that the bottom line is more sustainable through the years-how you treat employees and thus, the quality of product put out, the reputation of the company, etc.

But the bottom line is the bottom line.
___________________________________________
But as you say, back on topic. I have no problem with a rookie wage scale. I do however, think, especially if they go to an 18 game schedule, that the rosters should increase by 5-8 players.

You know, I'd even be open to some kind of deal where every player drafted 4th round or higher MUST get paid for 5 years. Heck, up the roster to 80 players with 50 suited per game-with a rule that 4th round picks and higher must be paid for five years, whether cut or not. If cut and picked up from another team, the other team assumes the pay.

Rounds 5-7 may be cut, and if so, are free to negotiate contracts. OR, 5 draft pics of every draft must be signed, regardless of round. THEY then must be paid for five years, and those who are cut, can negotiate contracts-with a limit of 120% of what they came in for (to stop players from dogging it, getting cut, then moving to another team and performing for a much better contract).

[Craic]

This isnt entirely accurate.

The NFL takes 1 Billion dollars off the top for operating expenses before the rest of the profit is shared between the owners and players. The NFL would now like to take an additional one Billion off the top for a total of 2 Billion dollars. The players want the NFL to open the books and prove that operating costs have gone up 100%. Its not the owners books they are questioning (in this case) but rather the NFL's books.

That being said...it IS the owners who are pushing for this 1 Billion dollar increase...probably as a means to off set the 15/17 revenue split that causes the top tier teams to pay the lower tier teams and not actually because of cost increases.

The underlying problem is that this scenerio shows the commisioner to be a puppet of a handful of owners, instead of being a representative of the owners/players/fans. The job of the commisioner has alsways been to do what is good for the league....not just the owners. Goodell fails miserably on 2 of the 3 responsibilities he was handed.

You bring up a good point LLT. Is the NFL supposed to represent the Owners, or the players, or the sport itself between the owners and players? If the league was asking for a billion itself, not the owners, then I would fully agree with you. The league would have to produce it since it is the middle party between the owners and players, taking money from both. But it seems, that the money being taken, is for the owners. As a result, when it is all said and done, it is still the owners books that, IMO would have to be opened. Because the league itself, only has the money to spend which is given back to them from the owners. After all, all the TV contracts, etc. are split between the owners, with a portion taken to run the league-which the owners agreed upon, I believe, at a owners meeting. It is those meetings which control the league.

So it is still about the owners books.

Honestly, I do think it is a ploy by the union to dig their heals in, in such a way that the public can get behind it. Think about it, it is a nice 3 word slogan that can sit nicely in the brain. Easy to remember, and copied from politics (we heard it quite a bit in the California recall- Open the books!).

I also think that the owners are foolish if they take don't see that the league is much better off if they and the players are all "on the same team" no pun intended.

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yep, because the price of labor here is outrageous. Why SHOULD a company pay 3 times as much to have the same product made at the same quality here as somewhere else? Makes absolutely no sense. Then, that product must sell for three times as much, which means that the lower economic classes have much less buying power.

So when is the NFL going to move overseas? Oh wait-NFL europe :chuckle: Ok, not ALL the same quality :wink02:

Slave labor is pretty cheap, too. Our country has taken a moral stand how we treat our workers. You know why everyone wants to sell their stuff here? Because we have 40 hr work weeks and time off that gives our workers time and energy to engage in recreation. We have infrastructure like roads, cable lines, mail, and power to every house that creates markets for our goods. Our country has made an investment in our people. China doesn't. We used to have trade laws protecting our markets from people who don't care about poisoning their environments, killing their workers, child labor, and 60-80 hour work weeks. Now, the Free Market means our country has to compete against indentured servants working in sweatshops.

The last 30 years of our economic history proves your comment is wrong. Are you paying less for anything (except your depreciated house)? The more we deregulate, the more workers get involved in a race to the bottom. Wages in this country have stagnated for about 10 years now. And, we're losing labor rights at the same time. Just remember, there's always a peasant somewhere willing to do your job half as good for 1/10 the price.

[86WARD]

http://www.steelersuniverse.com/forums/showthread.php/7060-Sources-Agreement-reached-on-rookie-wage-scale?highlight=rookie+wage

I've also read reports that they did not agree upon a wage scale...