Notice: All Boston.com forums will be retired as of May 31st, 2016 and will not be archived. Thank you for your participation in this community, and we hope you continue to enjoy other content at Boston.com.

Mediation

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking11. Show harleyroadking11's posts

    Mediation

    the two sides have moved to this step. The Mediator will get the two sides talking again, but this is not binding arbitration.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Mediation

    are you saying the NFL and players Union have agreed to a mediator or are you suggesting they do. Either way I'm in complete agreement, when 2 sides are so far apart that a mediator can find common ground and at least bring them closer
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from CablesWyndBairn. Show CablesWyndBairn's posts

    Re: Mediation

    BBReigns would never agree to mediation with the likes of Whodewhodats and Underarms and the other nefarious non-Boston fan posters of the world.  He needs a daily fixin' of troll beatdowns to function, I'm convinced of it. 

    Oh, you meant the NFL and the players.  Well, that's great!  Mediation is a big step. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking11. Show harleyroadking11's posts

    Re: Mediation

    The two sides agreed to a federal mediator to get the talks moving again.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stommmper. Show Stommmper's posts

    Re: Mediation

    YEs, they brought in the Feds....Does that mean they cant video tape the negoiations? Opps, sorry I will save that for the field jokes.

    At least this is a step in the right direction, wouldnt want to loose any of that 9 billion pay check!
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking11. Show harleyroadking11's posts

    Re: Mediation

    Z ~ how are you? hope all is well..... This a good step but IMHO I don't believe this resolve anything, but it will lead to the arbitrator that will make things happen and make the decisions that need to be made.  18 games? profit sharing? rookie cap?   there is alot on the table.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from harleyroadking11. Show harleyroadking11's posts

    Re: Mediation

    stommper you kill me lol ....  memo to all memo receivers from the memo givers all memos will be adhered to to the L-E-T-T-E-R  or, or or,we will get very very mad and take stuff from yous
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stommmper. Show Stommmper's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    Z ~ how are you? hope all is well..... This a good step but IMHO I don't believe this resolve anything, but it will lead to the arbitrator that will make things happen and make the decisions that need to be made.  18 games? profit sharing? rookie cap?   there is alot on the table.
    Posted by harleyroadking11

    All joking aside it shows good faith that both parties wish to make a deal. If NFL owners have learned anything then they will get a CBA done. They are now on top of all sports including baseball, to squander this season would be foolish.
    From all I have read there are only 2 main situations, the 18 game season and the cap on rookies.
    I think all agree a rookie cap needs to get done, the 18 game season in my opinion is just a bargin chip for the owners to get the cap pressed into place.
    Besides, they can sell pictures of Brett Farve's  weeweee on ebay to make up ithe difference. Laughing

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from VirginiaPats. Show VirginiaPats's posts

    Re: Mediation

    Personally, if the players had any kind of brains they would settle on a 60/40 split thats better than any other profession could ever dream of getting from there company.
    I've been an NFL fan since i was born, but seeing the greed coming from the players and the owners if they don't come to an agreement and football is off the table, i'll do what I did to baseball, stop watching and caring. Same as i did with baseball back in 94-95. Havn't gone to a game, or watched one on TV nor cared about the Sox since then.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZachRudy. Show ZachRudy's posts

    Re: Mediation

    Sorry Stommmper, the Rookie salary cap and the 18 game season are secondary issues.  If they were the only issues then a deal would probably get done tomorrow.  The real issue is that the owners want the players to give back 1 billion dollars in revenue.  Quick overview: the NFL earns $9 billion.  1 billions goes to the owners straight off the top.  That money is supposedly used for operating expenses; stadium upkeep, litigation, etc...  The remaining 8 billion is split 60 / 40, players getting 60%, owners getting the other 40%.  That means the players get 4.8 billion while the owners get 3.2 billion plus the 1 billion off the top, or 4.2 billion.  Basically, the owners want 2 billion of the top for operating expenses. 
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from NEGAME2. Show NEGAME2's posts

    Re: Mediation

    Best news I've heard since January first!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Mediation

    Let's see, my company splits the revenue with employees at a 100 - 0 ratio.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from carawaydj. Show carawaydj's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    In Response to Re: Mediation : Unless you are self employed, I think you mean profits.  All companies split profits 100-0.  It's the secret to capital increase. Money for nothing. Well, money for work someone else has done usually.
    Posted by zbellino


    Many companies do split profits with their employees.  I can think of several people I know who receive profit sharing bonuses.  I myself was given stock by my last company.  Anytime a profit distribution went out I got something.  It is true that most do not though.  When people discuss the NFL, they seem to be speaking some weird business language.  Real profits are determined after paying for labor, not before.  The NFL is not arguing over profit sharing, they are arguing over revenue sharing.  The difference is not trivial.   The owners have every right to say the $1B set aside for operating costs is inadequate.  Considering the costs of things nowadays, it's not a great leap to imagine the NFL's operating costs exceeding $1B.  

    I will favor the entrepreneurs over the players.  The players come and go quite frequently.  The owners are the ones with the business smarts to bring us the NFL.  The owners are the ones who made the NFL what it is, and not a failure like the USFL and other attempts.  The players risk their bodies, but no more than many many other professions that pay much less.  The owners are the brains behind the NFL.  They risked their own significant wealth to make it what it is.  It is their business decisions that made it a success.  They have far more vested into the NFL than any player that has ever taken the field.  I think a 50/50 revenue split with an adjusted operating expense amount is hardly a raw deal.  They WILL be compensated for the extra games because if the league makes more money, that 50% becomes larger.  Perhaps they just need to adjust the salary of players already under contract a bit.  I'll be curious to hear what your take is should you ever start a successful business yourself.  

    All that said, I want to see some football next season.  I hope mediation helps that.  Whatever it takes.  No side is really going to be suffering no matter what the deal ends up being.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stommmper. Show Stommmper's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    In Response to Re: Mediation : Unless you are self employed, I think you mean profits.  All companies split profits 100-0.  It's the secret to capital increase. Money for nothing. Well, money for work someone else has done usually.
    Posted by zbellino
    I have to disagree with you here zbellino.  2 major companies I worked for gave not only profit sharing but bonus salaries to sales over and above my margins. Insurance companies, Defense Contractors, Industrial and Retail Sales all offer profit sharing and bonus stimulus to management if they are a good company wanting to keep employee's and expand,  if they didnt no one would work for them.
    I have owned my own company for the last 8 years with 16 employees. 30% of my profits go to employees that do an excellent job, without them I would not prosper.
    But as far as being in the NFL, the Players do NOT deserve the pay they get. As for saying well they only have a certain amount of time to make that money and put their bodies on the line, everyone does that everyday by getting into your car to drive to work.
    What is more important is learning how to structure and save the money you make. ANy business no matter what has a certain life expectancy to make the most money, the NFL Players are no different.
    If Im making 2 to 5 Million Dollars a year for 3 to 5 years and wind up broke then its my own fault due to being stupid and ignorant for not getting proper advice of investment stratergy.
    You can get Football playing athletes all over the world, you cannot find billionaire owners in each and every college, the point being greed will kill the players and their own stupidity will make sure for not tending to their finances which they are fortunate to have. Like Tom Brady said, they all make too much money as players.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stommmper. Show Stommmper's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    Sorry Stommmper, the Rookie salary cap and the 18 game season are secondary issues.  If they were the only issues then a deal would probably get done tomorrow.  The real issue is that the owners want the players to give back 1 billion dollars in revenue.  Quick overview: the NFL earns $9 billion.  1 billions goes to the owners straight off the top.  That money is supposedly used for operating expenses; stadium upkeep, litigation, etc...  The remaining 8 billion is split 60 / 40, players getting 60%, owners getting the other 40%.  That means the players get 4.8 billion while the owners get 3.2 billion plus the 1 billion off the top, or 4.2 billion.  Basically, the owners want 2 billion of the top for operating expenses. 
    Posted by ZachRudy
    I understand what you are saying but in my opinion I dont blame the owners, but it has come to this due to their own foolishness.   Im an ex union guy and I think the players are insane.   You dont go around making anywhere from 1 million to 15 million a year and worry that your boss is making too much more than you.  They should concentrate on how not to live beyond their means and proper money management.
    If I were the owners I would shut the NFL down and not bring it back until it was totally restructured. Again this is the owners fault for paying to much and creating this mess. No player is worth 5 million a year let alone 15 million. Tom Brady is a prime example telling it like it is that the players make too much money.
    Everyone cries about the poor players, try being an owner for a week and see what headaches come up compared to missing a tackle.
    Between Baseball and Basketball, they almost ruined sports in this country to watch, football is very enjoyable to watch as a fan, but to sit and hear how the poor players only making 3.5 billion in shared pay, espically when this country is in the condition it is is, it's shamefull

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    Nobody "deserves" the pay they get. Pay is set, more or less, by the market--i.e., by supply and demand.  The reason the players make so much is there's a large demand for guys who can play NFL calibre football and a very short supply.  It's that simple.  Get over the "deserve" concept and any moral arguments about who takes more risks or who works harder or or anything like that.  They have nothing to do with how pay is set. Supply and demand (and to some degree negotiating strength) are all that determine pay. "Deserve" has nothing to do with it. 

    As far as who's more essential to football being a success--owners or players--that's a purely subjective call, generally based on one's own biases.  In reality, the sport doesn't exist without either of the two groups. Both are essential. Most of the players couldn't run teams and most of the owners couldn't play a snap on the NFL fields they own.  More than that, both groups include a large number of highly accomplished people who have had to work very hard to get where they are today.  That's true of both players and owners.  And in both groups there are a few guys who were helped by a lot of luck too.  I don't think you can look at these two groups and make generalizations about the individuals within them or make blanket statements that one group is better or worse than the other.  They are a lot of different individuals--most of whom are quite accomplished in their own chosen profession, some of whom are admirable people who got where they are for all the right reasons and some of whom are donkey's backsides who got there despite being jerks (or maybe because they are jerks, since being an aggressive SOB can sometimes be very profitable).

    But when it comes to who gets paid more or less, it's not about who's good or bad, anyway.  It's about supply and demand and to some degree negotiating power. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    I' Financially speaking and IMO the unions are way out of control and ruining this country.
    Posted by Sam-Adams

    Only 6.9% of private sector workers are in unions, Sam.  The other 93.1% are non-unionized. The idea that unions are sending private sector jobs overseas is laughable.  Jobs are going overseas because executives making tens of millions of dollars a year and Wall Street investors know that Chinese and Indian labor is a lot cheaper than American labor, unionized or not. 


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from EASON11. Show EASON11's posts

    Re: Mediation

    I hope they strike and the owners and players lose millions...........stingy priicks!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    Every single american can do the same thing if they want.

    Well, every single american with a billion dollars in the bank, at least, can buy a football team.

     Did the union help Mr. Kraft when they built the stadium? 
    Posted by Sam-Adams


    The union existed long before Kraft made his investment--and his investment would have been a heck of a lot more risky if the talent level and popularity of the game hadn't reached the heights it had when Kraft bought the team. If NFL teams didn't pay as well as they did, it's questionable whether the game would be as profitable for owners as it is. Let's face it, people watch the game because it's so good and to a large degree that's because the players are so good and that, in turn, is due in large part to the huge investment teams are making to acquire and develop talent. We have football here in Canada and it's hard to fill the stands--because the talent level isn't nearly as good as the NFL's talent level. It's a lot easier to sell out Bills games when they play in Toronto than Argos games. When the product is player talent, making a strong investment in that product helps build a profitable business. Going cheap and hiring any old guy out of college isn't going to bring in billions in revenue from the public.  

    Bob Kraft did take some risk in buying the Patriots--but Kraft isn't taking crazy risks with his money.  A good business man like Kraft takes calculated risks, not wild ones.  The Pats were an underperforming business in one of the best and largest sports markets in the world. Bob Kraft had the money and the interest--and he saw the opportunity. That's great for him and for us as fans. I have no problem with him making a lot of money.  But that doesn't mean the players don't have a right to demand money too. Without them the NFL is just as impossible as a business as it is without owners.  Even Bob Kraft knows that. That's why he thinks it's a worthwhile investment to pay Tom Brady $78 million dollars for five years of work.  Tom Brady helps pack the stadium, sell millions of dollars worth of advertisements and millions more in branded products, and helps secure billion-dollar TV deals.  All in all, it's a pretty good investment--for Tom and for Bob.  They need each other.  All we're talking about now is how the 9 or 10 billion dollars gets split between the two.  Hopefully the mediator can work out an arrangement that all are happy with.  There's too much money to be made for either side to dig in its heels too deep.








     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    AZ, couldn't the same be said in the reverse. Let the players walk and use the existing infrastructure with new employees? 
    Posted by Sam-Adams


    Sure, you could let the players walk.  But the reality is good players make a huge difference in the popularity of the league and in the competitiveness of individual teams--and therefore in the ability of teams to generate revenue and profit.  As I've said elsewhere, the reason the players make a lot of money is simple:  low supply of top level talent and high demand.  The NFL's business gets financially stronger the better the players are. And that requires NFL teams to pay a lot.  Playing the games with second-rate talent (at second-rate salaries) will get you the CFL, not the NFL.  


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    Still, missing why the average NFL team needs an owner to do that?
    Posted by zbellino



    Well, good owners do make a difference, I think.  But the NFL has a lot of bad owners too.  Kraft is a very good owner in my opinion, who's made good investments that have improved the product for everyone.  Snyder, on the other hand, is a guy who should be spending his substantial fortune elsewhere.  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    Z/Prolate, I'm not the smartest person when it comes to big business and it get s even worse with the financial structure around them. Maybe I shouldn't have commented because I don't understand the arguments as well as I should. I thought this was about the players union getting upset about the division of monies generated by the league. The owners were taking the lions share and the players union wanted more due to the fact that they're the product producing the revenue. I also understood another issue to be the addition of two more regular season games and that the players would want to be compensated for that. ??
    Posted by Sam-Adams

    Fair enough Sam.  By way of background, the owners and players signed a deal that was supposed to last through 2012.  However, there was a clause that allowed the owners to vote to end it early.  They did that and therefore it is the owners who've decided to get out of the deal, not the players. The owners are complaining that the deal they signed back in 2006 doesn't give them enough money and they want to renegotiate. The players were fine staying with the current deal through its term in 2012.  Blaming the players for causing this labor dispute really isn't fair. It's the owners who didn't like the agreement they signed in 2006.  The players are quite willing to keep it in effect for another two seasons.



     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from futbal. Show futbal's posts

    Re: Mediation

    The NFL is a salary capped (ie, cost structure is fixed) monopoly. Not too shabby for the Comrades known as the owners. Also, the Comrades (owners) can cancel contracts at a whim (NFL contracts for the msot part are cancelable after the current year); not too shabby for  the Comrades. Other than greed there really is no case for the owners to increase their gross profit margin from 47% now to 53% under their proposal.  At least basketball and to some extent baseball can make a case that their sports are trully going global and at some point thier leagues could expand overseas (ie, expansion of the market that needs investment capital). Anyway, the players should hold firm, they are the talent; count on one thing however; when then the compromise comes, look for the rookie salary cap.; it's always easiest for the rank and file to scr$w over the next generation.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Mediation

    In Response to Re: Mediation:
    I don't see how players in the NFL are much different than actors in hollywood. Both are 100% the product but you don't see them taking percentages of what a film takes in. They take their $5M up front and if the movie bombs tough luck to the studio right? Do they chip in with set construction? And as far as players starting their own league vs. owners getting new players it's not even a topic for conversation. Where do you think Brady and Manning came from? How much revenue will Alumni stadium get you? How much are charging for a ticket?
    Posted by Sam-Adams


    Movie stars frequently negotiate a percentage of the box and royalties on DVDs as well as a fixed payment.  The big stars can make $20 or $30 million per film.

    And they get body doubles to take any big hits!
     
Sections
Shortcuts