Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24
  1. #1
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    The problems with the current CBA

    I just wanted to open up a thread to discuss some of the issues with the looming lockout and the CBA. The past several years I have been sort of the designated "capologist" on another forum, and have studied the issue in some depth, including the financials of the Packers and all of the reports from Forbes magazine, everything Brandt has written on the subject, PFT, etc.

    Reading and listening to the rhetoric emanating from the various news articles, radio, etc. it has become obvious that most fans do not realize the depth and scope of the conumdrum that many teams face, not the least of which are those in the NFC north.

    Perhaps the largest misconception has to do with how the now infamous "pie" is divided between the owners and the players. There is a MAJOR problem with that pie, and because of the rhetoric of "billionares" vs. "millionares", "unions" vs. "owners", etc.

    WE are getting "played", by SOME of the owners, AND THE PLAYERS, because they know the truth as well.

    Zygi voted out of the CBA, as did Mark Murphy. The current CBA was unsustainable for both, and the biggest reason is that unshared league revenue is included in the calculation for determining the player's salary percentage, and that percentage is 59.8%

    This is a three-way fight. Team values league-wide DROPPED 2% from 2009 to 2010. 21 of the 32 teams saw their value decrease, 1 team (Green Bay, coincidentally) was unchanged, (several originally, now 1) and 10 teams value increased. The upper 3rd tier of teams are generating "huge sums" (Forbes) of cash, while the lower two-thirds play in small markets with low-revenue stadiums.

    That "huge sum" goes into the calculation for determining the "split-pie" for players salaries, but that money IS NOT SHARED with the other 2/3 of the teams.

    Most fans will say, "Well, just get the rich owners to share more fairly."

    It isn't going to happen, and the Jerry Jones' of the league have some damn good arguments for why. I will elaborate on that point later...

    Just know this. It is frustrating, no doubt, but it is NOT merely rich and greedy owners vs. not-so-rich but greedy players. More to come if this thread takes hold. Forgive me for being a Puker fan, but in this case, it might be helpful, again getting to the financials and my team's published financials, etc.

  2. #2
    seaniemck7's Avatar
    seaniemck7 is offline Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    1,453

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    I look forward to participating in this thread. I am frustrated over the lack of knowledge that most fans and some players have even at the most superficial level of the labor situation.

    My biggest concern right now is I don't think the owners, collectively, even know what they want. I don't think they have a consolidated plan. It's pure conjecture on my part, but that's just my gut feeling at this point.

    Thanks for starting the thread.

  3. #3
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    The link I am providing contains a wealth of knowledge about the league and the finances involved. If you are truly interested in the dynamics at play, spend some time looking at the various links contained, look at the individual teams' links, etc. While we don't KNOW for sure how accurate Forbes information is, I can tell you two things about it.

    The first one is that I have tracked the accuracy of their reports as related to the subsequent ACTUAL reports of the Packers over the years, and Forbes is A) pretty close, and B)a little more optimistic than the actual numbers turn out to be.

    The 2nd thing I can tell you is that the source of the information is derived from the folks that help the teams' GET THEIR LOANS, and I personally have come to the conclusion that the information is accurate, on a league-wide basis.

    http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10_land.html

    and...


    http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html



    You almost HAVE to be armed with the information contained there (as a fan) to start to understand some of the dynamics in play outside of the rhetoric.

    Here is the "boat" that the Vikings and Packers are "in"... this definitely includes the fans of these teams, imo

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/14/packers-financials-raise-specter-of-unshared-revenues

    Packers financials raise specter of unshared revenues
    Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 14, 2010, 2:26 PM EST
    In response to our item regarding the Packers’ claim that increases in player costs are outpacing revenue by a 2-to-1 rate, Ross Tucker of SI.com and Sirius NFL Radio and probably some other outlets we can’t think of at the moment raised a great point on Twitter.

    If the salary cap (which applied during the term of the Packers’ most recent fiscal year) arises from a fixed percentage of revenue, how can player costs be growing at twice the speed of revenues?

    Here’s the answer. Packers CEO Mark Murphy said that the team’s “local revenues” have been flat since 2007. So the growth has come from revenues shared by all teams. And because the salary cap and floor were determined by total revenues, shared and unshared, the small-market Packers are experiencing the pinch of other teams’ revenues driving up every team’s player costs.So when Murphy says that the current system creates a “non-sustainable model,” the real problem from the Packers’ standpoint arises from the fact that other teams are experiencing enough of a rise in local, unshared revenues to chew more deeply into the Packers’ total profits, since player costs are determined by the combined revenues of all teams.

    Thus, instead of taking money back from the players, the league should perhaps be revisiting supplemental revenue sharing, the current needs-based strategy for redistributing unshared money.

    Then again, that’s far easier said than done.

    Four years ago, owners squabbled loudly and repeatedly about revenue sharing, with guys like Cowboys owner Jerry Jones calling out Bengals president Mike Brown for failing to sell the naming rights to the stadium named after Brown’s father. The final combined labor/supplemental revenue sharing deal that was jammed through over the objection of only Brown and Bills owner Ralph Wilson gave players 59 cents of every dollar earned, and created the Band-Aid system for funneling money to the haves from the have mores.

    In the months leading up to the next new labor deal, the owners have managed to keep a lid on the deep differences regarding the ongoing problem of unshared revenues. And they’ll keep trying to do so, in the hopes of demonstrating a united front to the NFLPA. But the Packers’ situation points to a big part of the problem being not the money paid to players but the revenues shared — and not shared — by the 32 franchises.
    Interesting piece of trivia-

    The banks do not like the financial "model" of 2/3 of the franchises in this league...labor costs, ROI, etc.

    Forgive me, at present I do not have the link, but in my travels I'm sure I'll re-discover it, but I assure you I am not pulling it out of my ass...

    Rockmolder and Pack93z will tell you I can be extraordinarily boring with all this, but I'm confident they will also tell you I'm not talking totally out of that same ass I speak of...


    This one (issue) is tough, because the LCD amongst football fans is in fact low (OK, I'll include me- I'm a Packtard, after all :P ) that by the time you get to the truth everyone's eyes have long since glazed over-

  4. #4
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Here's a new one, but also an "entre" for another facet of the discussion...


    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/13/super-bowl-lawsuit-raises-interest-questions-regarding-revenue-sharing/

    Super Bowl lawsuit raises interest questions regarding revenue sharing
    Posted by Mike Florio on February 13, 2011, 4:43 PM EST
    The NFL and the Cowboys and owner Jerry Jones have been sued as a result of last Sunday’s Super Bowl seating fiasco. And with the league standing up to assume responsibility, even though the Cowboys’ fingerprints are all over the temporary seating situation, other teams are paying close attention to the manner in which the legal expenses and ultimate settlement/judgments will be handled.

    Expenses incurred by the league currently are shared equally by the 32 teams. With the league claiming responsibility for something that may have been the actual responsibility of the Cowboys, every franchise ultimately will share equally in the financial costs of cleaning up the Cowboys’ mess.

    It’s ironic, to say the least, that a potentially significant expense incurred by the Cowboys will be spread equally among all teams, given that Jones widely is believed to be the loudest voice against true revenue sharing.

    “Right now, we are subsidizing this market,” Jones said in August 2009 regarding the Vikings and the place they currently call home. “It’s unthinkable to think that you’ve got the market you got here — 3 ½ million people — and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing the market. That will stop. . . . That’s going to stop. That’s on its way out.”

    So Jones doesn’t want his team to subsidize other teams by sharing revenues, but other teams will potentially be subsidizing the Cowboys by sharing in the expenses arising from his ultimately failed effort to cram 103,986-plus bodies into his new stadium for Super Bowl XLV.

    If Jones hopes to have any real credibility when arguing against expanded revenue sharing, he needs to make it known to his partners sooner rather than later that he’ll bear full financial responsibility for the Super Bowl seating debacle.
    I just want to interject that Jones was speaking about SUPPLEMENTAL revenue sharing... I think you Vikes got approx. 20 million this year from that...

    The Pack has been paying into that fund as one of the 15 teams that do.

    The Pack has been everywhere from 7th (early on) to 15th (both latest and last known position) during that time frame... in revenues--

    The payout is tiered. Top 5 pay most, 2nd 5 , then 3rd 5.

    The Pack paid into the fund, (we don't know the current breakdown in exact $$$ amounts) and the Vikes took 20 mil out.

    Forbes says the Vikes made 17 mil in profits
    We know the Pack made 5

    There is irony in there, somewhere B)


    The fund for 2010 season was 220 million, from those 15 teams, and all evidence points to the Vikes having received 20 million. The reason we know it was 220 million is because the NFLPA successfully challenged the attempt by the owners to withhold those funds to the (9 or 10, it varies) teams.

    Do NOT confuse supplememtal revenue sharing with revenue sharing, or any of the other revenue sharing issues. It is a relative "drop in the bucket" in the big scheme, in the LEAGUE. It is only 2.42% of that big "pie". Of course it DOES impact the Vikes if eliminated- that is 20 mil lost.

    THAT is the $$$ that Jones was speaking of, and that seemed to get lost in the translation over at Minneapolis Star Tribune, at least from the comments section at the time...The point is, that is the "etymology" of his "talking point" that some might remember, and further, if some Packtard gives you grief, this is also what he/she is referring to, even if they don't know it :P

    I am not. As I have tried to convey, we (both teams) are mostly in the same "boat".

  5. #5
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    There are a lot of things broken about the current NFL model.

    With the potential loss of revenue sharing, owners like Jones will potentially see franchises fold as the cost to run begins to outstrip the incomes generated.

    Should be interesting to watch.

  6. #6
    Purple Floyd's Avatar
    Purple Floyd is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    16,646
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089427
    Here's a new one, but also an "entre" for another facet of the discussion...


    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/13/super-bowl-lawsuit-raises-interest-questions-regarding-revenue-sharing/

    Super Bowl lawsuit raises interest questions regarding revenue sharing
    Posted by Mike Florio on February 13, 2011, 4:43 PM EST
    The NFL and the Cowboys and owner Jerry Jones have been sued as a result of last Sunday’s Super Bowl seating fiasco. And with the league standing up to assume responsibility, even though the Cowboys’ fingerprints are all over the temporary seating situation, other teams are paying close attention to the manner in which the legal expenses and ultimate settlement/judgments will be handled.

    Expenses incurred by the league currently are shared equally by the 32 teams. With the league claiming responsibility for something that may have been the actual responsibility of the Cowboys, every franchise ultimately will share equally in the financial costs of cleaning up the Cowboys’ mess.

    It’s ironic, to say the least, that a potentially significant expense incurred by the Cowboys will be spread equally among all teams, given that Jones widely is believed to be the loudest voice against true revenue sharing.

    “Right now, we are subsidizing this market,” Jones said in August 2009 regarding the Vikings and the place they currently call home. “It’s unthinkable to think that you’ve got the market you got here — 3 ½ million people — and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing the market. That will stop. . . . That’s going to stop. That’s on its way out.”

    So Jones doesn’t want his team to subsidize other teams by sharing revenues, but other teams will potentially be subsidizing the Cowboys by sharing in the expenses arising from his ultimately failed effort to cram 103,986-plus bodies into his new stadium for Super Bowl XLV.

    If Jones hopes to have any real credibility when arguing against expanded revenue sharing, he needs to make it known to his partners sooner rather than later that he’ll bear full financial responsibility for the Super Bowl seating debacle.
    I just want to interject that Jones was speaking about SUPPLEMENTAL revenue sharing... I think you Vikes got approx. 20 million this year from that...

    The Pack has been paying into that fund as one of the 15 teams that do.

    The Pack has been everywhere from 7th (early on) to 15th (both latest and last known position) during that time frame... in revenues--

    The payout is tiered. Top 5 pay most, 2nd 5 , then 3rd 5.

    The Pack paid into the fund, (we don't know the current breakdown in exact $$$ amounts) and the Vikes took 20 mil out.

    Forbes says the Vikes made 17 mil in profits
    We know the Pack made 5

    There is irony in there, somewhere B)


    The fund for 2010 season was 220 million, from those 15 teams, and all evidence points to the Vikes having received 20 million. The reason we know it was 220 million is because the NFLPA successfully challenged the attempt by the owners to withhold those funds to the (9 or 10, it varies) teams.

    Do NOT confuse supplememtal revenue sharing with revenue sharing, or any of the other revenue sharing issues. It is a relative "drop in the bucket" in the big scheme, in the LEAGUE. It is only 2.42% of that big "pie". Of course it DOES impact the Vikes if eliminated- that is 20 mil lost.

    THAT is the $$$ that Jones was speaking of, and that seemed to get lost in the translation over at Minneapolis Star Tribune, at least from the comments section at the time...The point is, that is the "etymology" of his "talking point" that some might remember, and further, if some Packtard gives you grief, this is also what he/she is referring to, even if they don't know it :P

    I am not. As I have tried to convey, we (both teams) are mostly in the same "boat".
    Interestingly that 20 million dollars you gave to the Vikings was just about the amount of Brett's contract so in essence the Packers just paid for the salary of their former Qb who ultimately tanked our season and paved the way for your SB run. To me that seems like a pretty good ROI.

  7. #7
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    That's how I would "couch" the discussion were I in "smack-talk-mode", but the reality is that the Vikes received the 20 million from the supplememtal revenue sharing fund...

    I have actually read the CBA paragraph regarding the breakdown way back in 2006, and there have been references made about the Packers contribution in the past, but factually, the Pack did not contribute 20 mil to the fund this year.

    My best guess would be approximately 7 million. Again I need your forgiveness on not providing a link, and with the proviso that I am extrapolating from memory, e.g. when we were 7th in revenue, we gave 15 million, but the total fund was half what it was this year-- confusing as hell, but that is my best truthful answer.

    The "tightness" of "my" money (Packer fans are like this, you know ) did make it irritating as regards the unilateral pay raise to your QB, especially to me personally as the resident "capologist" in the small circle I travel amongst- with some knowledge of what was going on.

  8. #8
    marshallvike's Avatar
    marshallvike is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,469

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    Quote Originally Posted by "dfosterf" #1089433
    That's how I would "couch" the discussion were I in "smack-talk-mode", but the reality is that the Vikes received the 20 million from the supplememtal revenue sharing fund...

    I have actually read the CBA paragraph regarding the breakdown way back in 2006, and there have been references made about the Packers contribution in the past, but factually, the Pack did not contribute 20 mil to the fund this year.

    My best guess would be approximately 7 million. Again I need your forgiveness on not providing a link, and with the proviso that I am extrapolating from memory, e.g. when we were 7th in revenue, we gave 15 million, but the total fund was half what it was this year-- confusing as hell, but that is my best truthful answer.

    The "tightness" of "my" money (Packer fans are like this, you know ) did make it irritating as regards the unilateral pay raise to your QB, especially to me personally as the resident "capologist" in the small circle I travel amongst- with some knowledge of what was going on.
    don't crow too much about giving us money foster. remember you gave us Farve also.:laugh:

    By the way, nice thread.
    Why must you defend everything this FO does....to the point of making your self look like a yes man.

  9. #9
    dfosterf's Avatar
    dfosterf is offline Coach
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    987

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    NFP-Brandt - The rookie Sacrifice


    He has learned what the league and NFLPA proposed last week with respect to the rookies. He offers a compromise. Great article, imo

  10. #10
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: The problems with the current CBA

    DfosterF - your .sig file is too wide. It causes a bunch of what you write to be cut off on the right side of your posts.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Vikings Current Roster
    By marstc09 in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: 09-09-2009, 11:59 PM
  2. Your current wallpaper
    By El Vikingo in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-27-2008, 10:12 PM
  3. Current underrated Vikes
    By StillPurple in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 05:37 PM
  4. Current 08 Vikings
    By MindFreak in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-11-2008, 12:01 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-06-2006, 05:50 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •