+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. (/Thread-Owners-have-enough-cash-to-sit-out-2011-even-after-court-ruling)
Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - mdrake34 - 03-14-2011 11:28 AM
Now they're saying the owners have enough money for a year long lockout, that the $4 billion in tv money they Judge Doty said they couldn't get was in case the lockout lasted into 2012. Great. I wonder if that much cash on the books was why the owners didn't want the union to see their books?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6215282
The NFL's owners have enough money saved to carry them through a lost 2011 season -- even without the so called "lockout insurance" television rights revenues that might not be available after being successfully challenged by the locked-out players, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
Unnamed NFL officials with direct knowledge of the league's budget plans told the newspaper that the owners would only need the contested $4 billion in TV rights money if the lockout stretches into the 2012 season.
Mike and Mike in the Morning
ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter talks about the latest with the NFL labor situation. Schefter doesn't expect anything to change for the next few weeks.
More Podcasts »
"There was a clear and premeditated plan to lock out the players," George Atallah, the deputy executive director of the NFLPA, told the newspaper, pointing to the owners' stockpiling of cash.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge David Doty backed the players in their fight over the so-called "war chest" of broadcast revenue that the union contends is leverage the NFL is wielding against it in the labor fight.
The union accused the NFL of failing to secure the maximum revenue possible when it restructured broadcast contracts in 2009 and 2010, and claimed the deals were designed to guarantee owners enough money to survive a lockout. The union argued this violated an agreement between the sides that says the NFL must make good-faith efforts to maximize revenue for players.
A hearing, yet to be scheduled, will be held to determine potential damages for the players as well as an injunction involving the TV contracts.
Unable to decide how to divvy up $9 billion a year, NFL owners and players put the country's most popular sport in limbo this weekend by breaking off labor negotiations hours before the collective bargaining agreement expired. At midnight, as Friday became Saturday, the owners locked out the players -- creating the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 and putting the 2011 season in jeopardy.
Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney II told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the players never even considered the owners' final proposal Friday.
More From ESPN.com
Bryant The business of the National Football League is currently at an impasse, but the game of football is very much alive. Will fans wake up to the power they hold? Story
NFL Anger and disappointment were the predominant emotions throughout the football world and beyond after the NFL players' union decertified Friday, hours before the expiration of their collective bargaining agreement with the league. Story
Reilly Even if the NFL season never happens, there still will be winners and losers, writes Rick Reilly. Blog
Munson The NFL's labor impasse with its players and a lockout is the result of long-term strategic planning by the team owners and their commissioner, writes Lester Munson. Column
NFLPA NFLPA executive George Atallah breaks down how the players and the union view the crucial talks. Story
• PDF: The lawsuit
• Impact: Team by team
• Munson: Glossary & who's who
• Aiello: Outline of league's problems
• NFL labor history since 1968
• NFL Labor: Topics page
"What we offered them, there's no reason why they wouldn't take it and look at it," he told the newspaper. "They could have said 'That's not enough, we need more.' That wouldn't have been surprising. But, to not even take it, I'm not sure what purpose that served.
"That was probably another indication they weren't that interested [in negotiating]. It made us think this was their plan all along."
A lockout is a right management has to shut down a business when a CBA expires. It means there can be no communication between the teams and current NFL players; no players -- including those drafted in April -- can be signed; teams won't pay for health insurance for players.
On Friday, the union decertified, meaning it declared itself out of the business of representing players. In exchange for giving up their rights under labor law, the players are able to take their chances in court under antitrust law.
That paved the way for 10 players, including MVP quarterbacks Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, to sue the owners in federal court in Minneapolis in a class-action claim. The players also sought an injunction to block a lockout -- even before one had been imposed.
The antitrust suit -- forever to be known as Brady et al vs. National Football League et al -- attacked the league's policies on the draft, salary cap and free-agent restrictions such as franchise-player tags.
If that injunction is granted, the NFL is likely to play the 2011 season with no salary cap, using the same restrictions on player movement the league had in 2010, The Washington Post reported. Sources told the newspaper that the league would use that system since the players agreed to it in the last CBA and therefore might withstand an antitrust challenge.
In 2010, only players with six years of service were eligible for unrestricted free agency and all other players were considered restricted free agents. In a normal capped year, players needed only four years to gain unrestricted status.
This offseason, NFL teams protected themselves by giving restricted tenders to numerous players, who likely would be unrestricted free agents if a CBA had been agreed upon.
Along with no salary cap, there wouldn't be a salary floor under an uncapped year. Also, the "final eight" rules would again be in effect, placing restrictions on signing free agents for the eight teams that played in the divisional round.
It could take a month for there to be a ruling on the union's injunction request, and antitrust judgments should take longer.
However, even if the lockout is lifted by injuction, the NFL could appeal the ruling and ultimately shut down the sport again.
Bob Batterman, the NFL's lead outside counsel, predicted that the lockout, even if lifted temporarily, would return until there's a deal.
"There may be some sloppiness this week in terms of injunctions and stays," Batterman told the Wall Street Journal. "When it all plays out, the lockout will remain in place and the union will be back at the bargaining table."
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - The Falcon Jedi - 03-14-2011 11:50 AM
I dont care any more. There will be no football this season, Ive already accepted that.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - papachaz - 03-15-2011 02:16 AM
I'm blaming the players union at this point. name ONE freaking business where the employees have the right to see open financial records for the company....anyone? go in to your boss tomorrow, and tell them you want to see the companies books so you'll know how much they're making so you can base your request for a raise on that. see what happens.
for now, i'm blaming the players more than the owners. each NFL team is a freakin BUSINESS, and a business that isn't out to profit as much as they can, won't be a business for long. screw the NFLPA and the smith who is in charge of them. they were making progress until that ass DEMANDED the owners open the books. what an asshole
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - Jesus - 03-15-2011 07:51 AM
All i have learned from this is that millionaires and billionaires have it much harder than the rest of us, even with guarranteed money.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - The Falcon Jedi - 03-15-2011 01:26 PM
The players i follow on twitter dont seem to care. All they twit about is shooting hoops, going to clubs, watching NCAA on tv... not one player other than Tony Gonzalez has even mentioned the labor dispute.
I dont care about the NFL any more now. Im just here to social network at this point.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - Jesus - 03-15-2011 01:57 PM
(03-15-2011 01:26 PM)The Falcon Jedi Wrote: The players i follow on twitter dont seem to care. All they twit about is shooting hoops, going to clubs, watching NCAA on tv... not one player other than Tony Gonzalez has even mentioned the labor dispute.
I dont care about the NFL any more now. Im just here to social network at this point.
The only people the labor struggle affects are the top shelf players making all the money. When you see who walks into courtrooms and make threats its Manning, Brady and Brees. They have the most to lose. Once their contract is void everything is gone. They're losing a lifestyle. The players have more to lose than the owners yet they are making the most demands.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - Swift Is a Die Hard - 03-15-2011 02:57 PM
(03-15-2011 02:16 AM)chazmataz Wrote: I'm blaming the players union at this point. name ONE freaking business where the employees have the right to see open financial records for the company....anyone? go in to your boss tomorrow, and tell them you want to see the companies books so you'll know how much they're making so you can base your request for a raise on that. see what happens.
for now, i'm blaming the players more than the owners. each NFL team is a freakin BUSINESS, and a business that isn't out to profit as much as they can, won't be a business for long. screw the NFLPA and the smith who is in charge of them. they were making progress until that ass DEMANDED the owners open the books. what an asshole
Your misinformed BIG TIME
Name another company that your the product ? Players are the product . The fans are not coming to see the owners or production from a assembly line . Just cause you can't see your owners financial gains doesn't mean shit there are important people that are paid way above your pay grade that can see there owners financial gains cause they are reason for it or part of it or even maintaing those gains .
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - Paulitik - 03-15-2011 08:02 PM
Let me get this straight, the owners have enough money to not have a season, but at the same time are in such a bind that if they don't get a bigger share, they will have to force a lockout if the players don't take less money.
People are actually on the owners' side? Unbelievable. Sheep.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - Drathdon - 03-15-2011 09:06 PM
(03-15-2011 08:02 PM)Paulitik Wrote: Let me get this straight, the owners have enough money to not have a season, but at the same time are in such a bind that if they don't get a bigger share, they will have to force a lockout if the players don't take less money.
That tells me that the players are getting too much (their last agreement they were given more than they should have been). When the owners can profit without a season just by cutting player pay, but cannot with a season and player pay, the player pay is too much overhead for a business to thrive. You think they deserve to risk billions just to make millions? Why shouldn't the players take some of the risk? They are guaranteed a percentage, so if the league makes more, the players will too. The players are just now wanting an unequal distribution, placing themselves before the owners. Their ego is costing us all.
(03-15-2011 08:02 PM)Paulitik Wrote: People are actually on the owners' side? Unbelievable. Sheep.
Calling people names just because you cannot dig deeper to the truth does not make your lack of an argument more persuasive.
RE: Owners have enough cash to sit out 2011, even after court ruling. - Paulitik - 03-15-2011 09:42 PM
(03-15-2011 09:06 PM)Drathdon Wrote: That tells me that the players are getting too much (their last agreement they were given more than they should have been). When the owners can profit without a season just by cutting player pay, but cannot with a season and player pay, the player pay is too much overhead for a business to thrive. You think they deserve to risk billions just to make millions? Why shouldn't the players take some of the risk? They are guaranteed a percentage, so if the league makes more, the players will too. The players are just now wanting an unequal distribution, placing themselves before the owners. Their ego is costing us all.
Calling people names just because you cannot dig deeper to the truth does not make your lack of an argument more persuasive.
Is the NFL in financial trouble? No, they've never been more successful. The players want justification. That's all. They have never said they wouldn't agree to the lesser share, just not without seeing the proof that the owners have a justification for it.
The only real competition between teams is on the field and convincing FAs that they have the best chance of winning. Revenue sharing, that owners agreed upon negates any argument of competitive advantage between teams.
People are painting themselves into a corner because of their conservative ideals of ownership's power when every fact negates their argument. The NFL is not like any other business, the lockout is 100% on the owners and there has been no argument laid out on why a lockout is necessary. The NFL has had the greatest success it's ever had under the previous CBA. The players aren't threatening to strike, and the owners have plenty of money, so why is it necessary when an agreement can be made while Football is still being played?
Stubbornness and the sense of entitlement that causes people to think that because someone is titled "owner" has dictatorial power is keeping the fans from getting to have a football season. It's insane.