PackFanWithTwins
13 years ago
The biggest issue the Owners/League had with the previous CBA is that the players had to big of a chunk and with salary increases, they are/were having difficult times trying to keep increasing the revenue so the cap could be raised, so the next player could one up the last guy.

Here is a solution that should fit both sides. Instead of basing the Cap on a prediction of what revenue might be, base in on the known value of the year prior. Be that 50% or 60% or something else. Then instead of contract specifying 10million for some player, allocate them a percentage. Each team has to allocate between 90% and 100% creating the min, max salaries for teams.

Now assume the cap was determined to be 100 Millon. If the QB for that year was under contract to get 5.25%, he would get 5.2 million. If the previous year was bad and the cap only ended up at 90 million, the player would only get $4.725 million.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
Formo
13 years ago
I like this. Simple and makes sense.

But then, I'm not a numbers guy.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Pack93z
13 years ago
The issues that are on the table are so much deeper than the percentage of Operating Revenue so to speak.

Currently, as I understand it, the yearly CBA contract pools all shared revenue, a Billion is clipped off the top to establish the "Operating Revenue".

That billion is to cover fixed costs like stadium expenses and hard costs to the owners.

What as they are discussing this new CBA the owners now want the One Billion to become 2 Billions, based on rising expenditures, such as labor costs and energy hikes.

Then they are willing to stay at the 58/42 split that is in place today.. 58 percent of Operating Revenue to the Players. This is where your cap talk comes into play, which your idea would be an excellent solution.

Now of course there are a plethora of other issues such as rookie wage scales that will redistribute where player costs are spent.. basically more going to the proven players and a lower risk to the Owners on unproven players.

The Players in turn are looking to protect their chunk of the pie and extended benefits past playing.. additionally a improved retirement package for players.

Going back to the Operating vs Total revenue costs...

I forget the year in which they were talking about this.. but the total revenue was around 10 Billions.. a credit of a billion brought the operating revenue to the 9 Billion dollar ball park.. adding another Billion to that formula would equate a net loss to the players share of 11%.. less than the much talked about 18%.

Darin Revell did a nice job explaining why they owners are looking for the extra Billion.. Debt overhead. Between stadium financing (Jerry Jones) and debt from Purchasing franchises that are erroding the Owners profit margins.

If I am a player.. I can accept the stadium debt as a shared cost to the good of the game.. however why should a player be responsible for the inability of an owner to have the capital to effective purchase and then operate a team. If you didn't have the means to purchase the team without a heavy debt margin, what in the world are you doing purchasing the team.

The underlying issue here that you can gather from the tea leaves is that you have the 1 Billion dollar pie that isn't being equally shared by the franchises due to supplemental revenue sharing to the team with lower gate draws.. our neighbors to the West come to mind.. you have them getting an extended chuck of the Billion dollar credit because they are losing money in their stadium. So you have a bit of conflict within the ownership group handing over this issue as well.

In a nutshell.. IMO.. it is going to take a considerable amount of time for one side or the other to give (Owner open the books or the Players accept this extended credit of some sort of negotiated level).

We the fans, the ones the ultimately make this roll just stand on the sidelines and accept it. Or will we?
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
Excellent posts by both of you. Here is an article by the venerable Chris Mortensen on the situation.

Sources: NFL-union talks canceled
 

By Chris Mortensen
ESPN
Archive

NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith briefed club player representatives in a conference call Wednesday night, detailing his version of the abbreviated session that ended far earlier than the seven hours that were scheduled between the two sides in an effort to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before the current one expires at midnight March 3.

Consequently, a five-hour second negotiating session scheduled for Thursday was canceled, and no further meetings have been proposed. Also, the NFL notified teams and owners Thursday that a scheduled owners meeting in Philadelphia next Tuesday has been canceled, sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton.

"We wish we were negotiating today," NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah said. "That's all I can say."

Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."

At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.

Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before they split "total revenue" with players.

Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion credit.

To simplify talks, a player source said the union told the owners' negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league's financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of "all revenue," which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of "total revenue."

A union source said that if the NFLPA accepted the owners' current proposal, it would receive a little more than 40 percent of all revenue.

Smith said in an interview with ESPN last week that a 40 percent to 42 percent share of all revenue would represent the smallest percentage of a players' share by any professional sports union.

In addition to the flat 50 percent share of all revenue, players are willing to grant additional credits to any franchise that reinvests in stadium improvement, a mechanism to motivate clubs to grow revenues, a player source said.

The union believes by taking a flat 50 percent share, it would eliminate the need to audit every expense clubs invest in order to offset credits built into the current CBA and the model proposed by owners going forward.

Smith also sent an e-mail, obtained by ESPN, to NFL agents on Thursday outlining the owners' latest rookie wage-scale proposal in January. He detailed how far apart the two sides are, and in an attached memo dated Jan. 26, said the NFL's latest proposal "is a veteran scale, not a rookie scale."

The NFL's owners continued to propose a five-year wage scale for first-rounders, four years for other drafted players, and no individually negotiated contracts. But, according to Smith, the owners added "league-wide base salary escalators."

Smith wrote that the owners' latest offer "makes the proposal worse not only for rookies, but for veteran players with three to five years in the league -- the core of our membership."

Also, players would not be able to renegotiate their contracts or agree to extensions until three years after they were drafted. Signing bonuses would be fixed, paid over the length of a contract and subject to forfeiture "if the player does not toe the Club's line in every way," Smith wrote.

In late September, the NFLPA proposed maximum four-year contracts for players drafted in the first three rounds, and three-year contracts for other drafted players.

The NFLPA's proposal also provided for individually negotiated contracts instead of the owners' proposed set salaries. In addition, a cap would be placed on rookie contract incentives and escalators. The money saved then would be used for a bonus pool for veteran players and rookies who outperformed their contract.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process. Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal."

Meanwhile, the NFLPA continued to present its side of the argument to the public. The union was a guest of American Rights at Work, which brought in a beer vendor from Ford Field in Detroit as part of a news conference in the nation's capital aimed at demonstrating the effects a lockout would have on the economy.

"Football and other major sporting events are some of the only things that bring people to downtown Detroit after 5 p.m.," said John Marler, who has worked at the stadium since 2007.

Kimberly Freeman Brown, executive director of American Rights at Work, said the NFL and union are fussing over many of the same issues faced by many workers: pay cuts, longer working hours, workplace safety and health care. She said a lockout would have an impact on 150,000 jobs and cause more than $160 million in lost revenue in every city with an NFL team. She called a potential work stoppage "something that could potentially have devastating consequences on our quality of life and our mental health."

"For many fans, football is just that deep to us," Brown said.

Atallah defended the union's public relations tactics.

"It is important for us to stand with the people who are here on this panel, not for any publicity issue or publicity stunt," Atallah said. "This is real life for us. This is a reality that these people face."

Chris Mortensen is ESPN's senior NFL analyst. Information from the Associated Press was used in this report.


UserPostedImage
PackFanWithTwins
13 years ago
(9B - 1B) X .58= 4,640,000,000
9B - 2B = 7B X .58 = 4,060,000,000
9B X .50 = 4,500,000,000

So the players offer lowered their take 140M or about 4+ million per team. I don't think that was enough of an insult to make the Owners walk. The rumor that they are holding out to get rid of that MN judge may be part of it.

Like I suggested, switch the salaries to % of the cap and base cap on Previous year. Then get in and talk about the rest. Adjust every existing contract to a % based on projected growth over the term, which will show what % is used by each team each upcoming year and how much room is remaining % wise. If 18 games is put through, 7% before 18 games and 7% after just means more money for the players and owners both. This would greatly reduce the constant one uping money wise which may also get the growth of salaries under control.

Get rid of the creative contracts, no more bogus incentives to move forward. No more signing bonus. Instead guarantee a percentage of contracts for injury. if injured in year 2 of 5 the final 3 should have maybe 20 or 30% guaranteed, and counted against the cap like Signing Bonuses spread across the length before.

This type of agreement gives both owners and players a pretty equal desire to grow revenue, where players didn't really care because they had that number on paper.
The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!
DakotaT
13 years ago
It doesn't make much difference to me about the money; but what I want to see done is that the veteran players of the league are taken care of medically and financially. Yes, it's too bad that some of these guys squandered millions, but dammit - they are modern day gladiators and deserve to be looked after - especially in a sport as lucrative as the NFL.

And yes 93Z, the Vikings are still welfare case gutter whores, even if you say it more eloquently.
UserPostedImage
Formo
13 years ago


And yes 93Z, the Vikings are still welfare case gutter whores, even if you say it more eloquently.

"DakotaT" wrote:



Says King socialist gutter whore himself.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
DakotaT
13 years ago


And yes 93Z, the Vikings are still welfare case gutter whores, even if you say it more eloquently.

"Formo" wrote:



Says King socialist gutter whore himself.

"DakotaT" wrote:



Bite me, I pay plenty of taxes, I just don't cry about it like you Baby Rush.
UserPostedImage
Formo
13 years ago


And yes 93Z, the Vikings are still welfare case gutter whores, even if you say it more eloquently.

"DakotaT" wrote:



Says King socialist gutter whore himself.

"Formo" wrote:



Bite me, I pay plenty of taxes, I just don't cry about it like you Baby Rush.

"DakotaT" wrote:



Nope. You'd rather pay more (and tell others how to spend their money, too).
UserPostedImage
Thanks to TheViking88 for the sig!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
13 years ago
Gee, you guys are starting to go offtopic more often than I do.

:)
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (4h) : The Seattle Seahawks defeat the Chicago Bears 6-3. Jason Myers had 6 RBIs for Seattle while Cairo Santos had 3 RBI for Chicago
beast (5h) : Not nessarily, he might of been injured either way. He's playing about 50% of the games the last 4 years
Zero2Cool (11h) : If they'd been more patient with him, he'd be back already. Putting him out there vs Bears caused him to tweak it and here we are.
packerfanoutwest (11h) : well this is his last season with the PAck, book it
beast (13h) : Sounds like no Alexander (again), I'm wondering if his time with the Packers is done
Zero2Cool (19h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.
Mucky Tundra (26-Dec) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore
packerfanoutwest (25-Dec) : Feliz Navidad!
Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!
beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won
Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (23-Dec) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (23-Dec) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (23-Dec) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (23-Dec) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
6m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

56m / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Dec / GameDay Threads / bboystyle

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Dec / Random Babble / beast

24-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.