Larry Foote asks "How in the heck are they laying people off?"

[zulater]

'How the heck are they laying people off?'
Foote became angry when he read in a Detroit newspaper about the Lions forcing employees to take unpaid furloughs because of the lockout. Many teams have done this, including the Baltimore Ravens, who this week rescinded a 25 percent pay cut for office staff and repaid them the money after it became public.

"That's ridiculous. We all know through this lockout owners aren't losing money, they're making money," Foote said. "They pay us $1,000 a week just to work out. Roster bonuses haven't been paid."

They also don't have to pay health insurance, contribute to the pension fund, pay for medical issues, pay for lunches during the spring workouts and much more.

"To lay people off to save money," Foote exclaimed. "I don't know who they're trying to fool. How the heck are they laying people off? I don't get that part. That ain't right right there. That's affecting people's lives; they're not making millions of dollars, many of them are going check to check.

"It's the first time I actually got mad when I read that the other day. They're going too far. That's ridiculous now. The owners are starting to make themselves look like the big companies that move people outside the country. I'm not talking about the Rooneys, I know what they're cut from."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11149...#ixzz1NvMbHZy4


Great points by Larry Foote. So many stupid or emotionally misguided quotes by players gain traction in the national press, it's a shame a thought provoking question such as this, with the great follow up points he made goes virtually ignored. It's a great question that while it's been grazed upon slightly by some, no member of the press that I know of has pointed out that if anything the owners expenses during this lockout are less than they'd normally be, so laying off office staffers and asking assistant coaches, trainers etc.. to take a reduced check at this point is obscene.

Another good question would be how does Roger Goodell allow owners to do something this stupid to begin with? If you're trying to be p.r. savvy and win the battle of public opinion how does this help? The money being "saved" by these teams doing this is spit in the ocean relative to the overall operating costs of doing business, if Goodell had any fucking brains he'd issue a cease and desist order to all those teams doing so at this point and ban those thinking of it from doing so in the immediate future.

[stillers4me]

It's all a part of the NFL's "look what the players are causing us to do" PR angle.

[steeldawg]

Then get to the table and make a deal.

[Craic]

Great points by Larry Foote. So many stupid or emotionally misguided quotes by players gain traction in the national press, it's a shame a thought provoking question such as this, with the great follow up points he made goes virtually ignored. It's a great question that while it's been grazed upon slightly by some, no member of the press that I know of has pointed out that if anything the owners expenses during this lockout are less than they'd normally be, so laying off office staffers and asking assistant coaches, trainers etc.. to take a reduced check at this point is obscene.

Tell me, why have a host of people coming to work, just to sit around doing nothing? Sometimes you lay people off because there is no work left to do.
Don't forget, many of these owners have rent/mortgage to pay on the stadiums they play in, that gets very expensive, very fast. They also have contracts they still have to pay out on, probably including medical staff contracts, PR contracts, etc. etc.

Add on top of that the fact that the entire TV deal is up in the air since the courts struck that down. The owners have no idea how much they're going to get from those contracts now, and THAT, is the major income maker.

So, doing the math. No income from the TV deals to date, no idea when income from actual game revenue will begin, still have to pay out on a number of business contracts including rent or mortgage. Then, before they get paid any of that, their going to have to go into free-agency and also into the signing of draft picks, and throw out a lot of cash up front as signing bonuses.

No, I don't think it's beyond reasonable at all for teams to be laying off employees. it's amazing just how much we've bought into the proletariat/bourgeois philosophy without any regard to the financial reality that owners also have to deal with. I'm not saying that they're having to count every penny. But they are having to count every dollar. Especially when owners that have investments in other things are finding those investments are also going south in this economy. Things like the double-dip real estate markets, tax raises to offset spending increases for social programs, etc. etc.

I agree with you Zu that it is good to see Larry actually articulating reasonable thoughts rather than some of the stupidity we've seen lately. But I don't agree with him. There is an entirely different side of the business which neither he, nor we have any idea about.

[suitanim]

Well, the unions have job banks. They basically pay people to not work, indefinitely (I'm not joking...GM union employees were paid as much as $77 an hour to do....................nothing). In 2005 there were TWELVE THOUSAND WORKERS in this program.

He may have a point...

[zulater]

Tell me, why have a host of people coming to work, just to sit around doing nothing? Sometimes you lay people off because there is no work left to do.
Don't forget, many of these owners have rent/mortgage to pay on the stadiums they play in, that gets very expensive, very fast. They also have contracts they still have to pay out on, probably including medical staff contracts, PR contracts, etc. etc.

Add on top of that the fact that the entire TV deal is up in the air since the courts struck that down. The owners have no idea how much they're going to get from those contracts now, and THAT, is the major income maker.

So, doing the math. No income from the TV deals to date, no idea when income from actual game revenue will begin, still have to pay out on a number of business contracts including rent or mortgage. Then, before they get paid any of that, their going to have to go into free-agency and also into the signing of draft picks, and throw out a lot of cash up front as signing bonuses.

No, I don't think it's beyond reasonable at all for teams to be laying off employees. it's amazing just how much we've bought into the proletariat/bourgeois philosophy without any regard to the financial reality that owners also have to deal with. I'm not saying that they're having to count every penny. But they are having to count every dollar. Especially when owners that have investments in other things are finding those investments are also going south in this economy. Things like the double-dip real estate markets, tax raises to offset spending increases for social programs, etc. etc.

I agree with you Zu that it is good to see Larry actually articulating reasonable thoughts rather than some of the stupidity we've seen lately. But I don't agree with him. There is an entirely different side of the business which neither he, nor we have any idea about.

Preach, I've been very much pro owner in this dispute, but nickle and diming people who've put in the middle of this through no fault of their own isn't the way to win the all important support of the fans in this dispute. When this thing's settled there's already going to be some ill will that's going to have to be overcome between the owners and the fans, beating up the peons is only going to make that chasm wider.

Also if this is such a neccessity for the poor widdle owners, then why aren't the Steelers doing it? The Steelers owners are the least wealthy in the league according to Forbes magazine, but somehow the Steelers can manage without screwing over the little guys.

[Craic]

Preach, I've been very much pro owner in this dispute, but nickle and diming people who've put in the middle of this through no fault of their own isn't the way to win the all important support of the fans in this dispute. When this thing's settled there's already going to be some ill will that's going to have to be overcome between the owners and the fans, beating up the peons is only going to make that chasm wider.

I've split this post into two, because this part, you'll get absolutely no argument from me on. Regardless of the financial issues, it looks bad. Baseball took a few years to overcome the ill will. I don't know if Hockey has yet from it's strike in 94, let alone the last one.

Also if this is such a neccessity for the poor widdle owners, then why aren't the Steelers doing it? The Steelers owners are the least wealthy in the league according to Forbes magazine, but somehow the Steelers can manage without screwing over the little guys.

Remember the story about Ralph Wilson and Rooney? Wilson built his stadium. It was a grand, marvelous thing. He turned to Rooney and asked, "What do you think?" Rooney said, "Great, but what happens when you can't fill it anymore?"
Granted, I have really shorthanded the story. But the essence is there. In other words, the Steeler ownership has always been a conservative ownership, which means they are not as susceptible to fluctuation, because they don't take big risks. It's all about exposure. Those ownerships that are more exposed, are going to have to cut back. Do I doubt that some owners may be taking advantage? No.

But once again. It is a business. A business does not exist to provide jobs. It exists to provide a product. If it takes a lot less employees to move the product, then the employees are let go. That is the ugly reality. I can't fault the business owners at all for that.

Would I do it personally? No. Personally, I'd probably try to find a good middle ground. But that's me.

[steeldawg]

Tell me, why have a host of people coming to work, just to sit around doing nothing? Sometimes you lay people off because there is no work left to do.
Don't forget, many of these owners have rent/mortgage to pay on the stadiums they play in, that gets very expensive, very fast. They also have contracts they still have to pay out on, probably including medical staff contracts, PR contracts, etc. etc.

Add on top of that the fact that the entire TV deal is up in the air since the courts struck that down. The owners have no idea how much they're going to get from those contracts now, and THAT, is the major income maker.

So, doing the math. No income from the TV deals to date, no idea when income from actual game revenue will begin, still have to pay out on a number of business contracts including rent or mortgage. Then, before they get paid any of that, their going to have to go into free-agency and also into the signing of draft picks, and throw out a lot of cash up front as signing bonuses.

No, I don't think it's beyond reasonable at all for teams to be laying off employees. it's amazing just how much we've bought into the proletariat/bourgeois philosophy without any regard to the financial reality that owners also have to deal with. I'm not saying that they're having to count every penny. But they are having to count every dollar. Especially when owners that have investments in other things are finding those investments are also going south in this economy. Things like the double-dip real estate markets, tax raises to offset spending increases for social programs, etc. etc.

I agree with you Zu that it is good to see Larry actually articulating reasonable thoughts rather than some of the stupidity we've seen lately. But I don't agree with him. There is an entirely different side of the business which neither he, nor we have any idea about.

I agree with this 100%

[BigNastyDefense]

While the owners are millionaires at the least and billionaires at the best, their NFL teams are still a business and they still have budgets to run on.

The owners currently are not paying player salaries, insurance, among other things. However some are paying deferred salaries during the lockout because it's money owed from past seasons.

The owners know that once the lockout ends, they will have to pay the signing bonuses, roster bonuses, and other monies owed to the players that were not payed during the lockout. So they can't just go and spend that money because they know it will eventually be spent.

Also, there are people who have no job to do because of the lockout. So the owners aren't going to pay them money to do nothing.

And there are other contracts that they have to make good on during the lockout. Advertising contracts, PR people, lawyers (who are getting paid a lot since the players want to drag everything through the courts).

Not to mention the coaching staffs are also being forced to take pay cuts. It's not just the little people behind the scenes.

Also, the owners have promised to make up the money lost to these people if the season starts on time. It will either be repaid or the people will get extra days off (I am assuming with pay) to make up for it.

So in the end, if players are feeling bad for those employees who are getting laid off or pay cuts.....then leave the court rooms and negotiate a new CBA and get the new league year started. The onus is on the players, the owners are willing to negotiate.

[zulater]

While the owners are millionaires at the least and billionaires at the best, their NFL teams are still a business and they still have budgets to run on.

The owners currently are not paying player salaries, insurance, among other things. However some are paying deferred salaries during the lockout because it's money owed from past seasons.

The owners know that once the lockout ends, they will have to pay the signing bonuses, roster bonuses, and other monies owed to the players that were not payed during the lockout. So they can't just go and spend that money because they know it will eventually be spent.

Also, there are people who have no job to do because of the lockout. So the owners aren't going to pay them money to do nothing.

And there are other contracts that they have to make good on during the lockout. Advertising contracts, PR people, lawyers (who are getting paid a lot since the players want to drag everything through the courts).

Not to mention the coaching staffs are also being forced to take pay cuts. It's not just the little people behind the scenes.

Also, the owners have promised to make up the money lost to these people if the season starts on time. It will either be repaid or the people will get extra days off (I am assuming with pay) to make up for it.

So in the end, if players are feeling bad for those employees who are getting laid off or pay cuts.....then leave the court rooms and negotiate a new CBA and get the new league year started. The onus is on the players, the owners are willing to negotiate.

Again, I think you're missing the overall point of who's not doing this. That would be the Steelers, who have the least wealthy ownership group in the league.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...richest-owner/

Forbes is out with its annual list of the richest people in the world, and Seahawks owner Paul Allen checks in at No. 37, making him the NFL’s richest owner, with a net worth of $13.5 billion.

Allen, who founded Microsoft with his pal Bill Gates in 1975, is more than $10 billion richer than the second-richest owner, Stephen Ross of the Dolphins, who checks in at $3.4 billion.

Some NFL players have objected to the league’s current labor relationships being described as “millionaires vs. billionaires,” as plenty of NFL players aren’t millionaires. But it’s also worth noting that a lot of NFL owners aren’t billionaires; according to Sports Illustrated the poorest NFL owner is Pittsburgh’s Dan Rooney, who owns only a portion of the Steelers and has a net worth of $150 million

So for the teams that are doing this it's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of wont. Anyway for someone who's trying to sell the players and the public on the perception that the lockout isn't about the owners greed, this isn't a good way to go about it.

[Craic]

So for the teams that are doing this it's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of wont. Anyway for someone who's trying to sell the players and the public on the perception that the lockout isn't about the owners greed, this isn't a good way to go about it.

But Zu, that is a very large assumption. Once again, the total amount of wealth does not, in anyway, highlight who should or should not be laying people off. I know (knew) people who were millionaires, but they were living week to week. Why? Because all that worth was tied up in their home, or business, or investments.

Just because someone is worth 600 million, doesn't mean they HAVE 600 million. It means if they sold whatever is valued, then they would get it. However, that valued amount is very nebulous. I had a 65 mustang that was valued at 50,000 dollars. However, it only sold for 37,000. Now, put a couple more zero's on the end of that. Then take 20, 30 percent off it for total devaluation in this economy.

Then add the contracts and obligation they are still required to pay. My argument is that the Rooneys, not being as rich, probably were a lot more frugile in getting into those contracts as well. All of that equates to billionaires having cash flow problems and having to lay workers off.

[zulater]

But Zu, that is a very large assumption. Once again, the total amount of wealth does not, in anyway, highlight who should or should not be laying people off. I know (knew) people who were millionaires, but they were living week to week. Why? Because all that worth was tied up in their home, or business, or investments.

Just because someone is worth 600 million, doesn't mean they HAVE 600 million. It means if they sold whatever is valued, then they would get it. However, that valued amount is very nebulous. I had a 65 mustang that was valued at 50,000 dollars. However, it only sold for 37,000. Now, put a couple more zero's on the end of that. Then take 20, 30 percent off it for total devaluation in this economy.

Then add the contracts and obligation they are still required to pay. My argument is that the Rooneys, not being as rich, probably were a lot more frugile in getting into those contracts as well. All of that equates to billionaires having cash flow problems and having to lay workers off.

That's one guess I suppose. Mine is that the Rooney's haven't resorted to layoffs, forced furloughs, and pay reductions because they're more decent and have some genuine concern for working class people.

[Craic]

That's one guess I suppose. Mine is that the Rooney's haven't resorted to layoffs, forced furloughs, and pay reductions because they're more decent and have some genuine concern for working class people.

Why I'd like to believe that, it doesn't match up. The head of the Steelers franchise is a shrewd, hard core lawyer. Bottom line numbers are bottom line numbers, period. The business reality speaks much more to what I posted, on top of which, the other owners all made decisions based on the fact that they thought they'd have income from the TV deal. So if the players want to yell and scream about it, they also have to remember that it was their own union that took millions of dollars out of the pockets of the owners, money that could go to pay these workers to come in and sit around for 8 hours doing nothing.

[suitanim]

Why I'd like to believe that, it doesn't match up. The head of the Steelers franchise is a shrewd, hard core lawyer. Bottom line numbers are bottom line numbers, period. The business reality speaks much more to what I posted, on top of which, the other owners all made decisions based on the fact that they thought they'd have income from the TV deal. So if the players want to yell and scream about it, they also have to remember that it was their own union that took millions of dollars out of the pockets of the owners, money that could go to pay these workers to come in and sit around for 8 hours doing nothing.

Nobody seems willing to discuss the union. Sort of odd...

[zulater]

Nobody seems willing to discuss the union. Sort of odd...

Don't you mean "trade assocciation"?

[SMR]

Don't you mean "trade assocciation"?

lol

[suitanim]

I will say this: If a Wal-Mart worker can't work the register for some reason, a replacement can be trained and in place in a few days.

NFL players (and I mean REAL NFL-caliber talent) are hard to find, and harder to replace. They shouldn't have a union, but I can see why they do...

[Craic]

Don't you mean "trade assocciation"?

touche!