Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:31 PM ET, 03/ 7/2011

Coin toss: Should NFL owners open their books?

By Washington Post editors

One of the main sticking points in the current NFL negotiations is how much information owners must give to players as evidence of their economic situation. What would you want to know about the Redskins, and other teams, that you don't know now? Should owners of private businesses--only the Green Bay Packers are publicly held--be required to give up that data when other private companies aren't?

Let us know what you think.

By Washington Post editors  | March 7, 2011; 12:31 PM ET
Categories:  Daniel M. Snyder  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Coin Toss: Are Skins building a top secondary?
Next: Baylor's Phil Taylor attracts Redskins' interest

Comments

Let me be the FIRST to say that they should.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 12:39 PM | Report abuse

I'm not looking at their books...wouldn't know what I was looking at anyway...maybe sween could take a peek.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Yes! If they are gonna cry poverty like they are then let's see just how much money you aren't losing!

Posted by: iubiquity | March 7, 2011 12:43 PM | Report abuse

No.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It only goes to show owners aren't being honest about their profits. If earnings are dwindling so rapidly then I would think they'd be eager to prove it. The fact that they aren't suggests otherwise.

Posted by: iubiquity | March 7, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Toin Coss Salad:
Private BusinessES? or BusineSS? Isn't that the whole debate right there? Seems the last ruling informs the owners that they're at least partially responsible for the NFLPA's welfare in their dealings. I would think transparency applies to the interests involved.

If it's one busineSS, then the NFLPA is a facet like all the teams. The portions that are shared should be shared alike.

__________________________
P[revious] T[opic]

305 has a few, but most are resident. The illegals start in North Broward and further north. Follows the migrant worker trade. As long as they have jobs, they're considered legal. [Don't get me started on the 'no americans will do the work' fight].

Wet Foot/Dry Foot still seems to apply whether through policy or happenstance, too.

Go Heat! lmao.

Posted by: DikShuttle | March 7, 2011 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Breaking News from Redskins Park, a toilet has been clogged up...

Posted by: monk811 | March 7, 2011 12:37 PM

It looks like PlayAction sold his sock puppet to Vic1. Too bad. monk811 was much better when he was PlayAction's sock puppet.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Hahaha, I still think it was better than your bad investment and fry joke.

SAVE THE BAD JOKES!!!

Posted by: monk811 | March 7, 2011 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Monk and PA were suck" puppets. It kind of goes with that joke about the Irish homosexuals: Michael Fitxpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael....

Posted by: RedSkinHead | March 7, 2011 12:47 PM

You're even funnier overseas RSH...seen any vampires or werewolves yet?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

It only goes to show owners aren't being honest about their profits. If earnings are dwindling so rapidly then I would think they'd be eager to prove it. The fact that they aren't suggests otherwise.

Posted by: iubiquity | March 7, 2011 12:48 PM

Owners should open their books the day after the players open theirs. They want more money. For what? They just waste what they already have. They're getting too much. They should give a lot back. The fact that the players won't disclose their finances is just proof that they're lying when they say they need more money.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Coin toss: Should NFL owners open their books?


Totally bad rhetorical question.

The owners are better about managing their money than the players are about keeping what they've earned.

Let's get a thread featuring the owners' argument versus the players argument with regard to the CBA.

That would be more interesting than tossing coins.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 12:54 PM | Report abuse

If they are asking for an extra $1 billion to cover operating expenses, then yes, they should provide evidence that they need it.

Posted by: Original_etrod | March 7, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Owners should open their books the day after the players open theirs. They want more money. For what? They just waste what they already have. They're getting too much. They should give a lot back. The fact that the players won't disclose their finances is just proof that they're lying when they say they need more money.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 12:53 PM | Report abuse


The players aren't asking for more money, the owners are.

Posted by: Original_etrod | March 7, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

No. But then I couldn't care less. I think there should be a lockout followed by open tryouts.

The owners will eventually feel the pinch and I know damn well the majority of the players will.

Forget about the NFL on the surface. Beneath that these are business men who would rather sleep with both Monk's fathers rather than be told what's what by their employees.

I care about my beloved 'Skins but I am also concerned with defending my fantasy football title.

Whatever.

By the way, didn't the 'Skins make the SB in the years of the last 2 work stoppages?

I'm not saying.....I'm just saying.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Actually, Monk and PA were suck" puppets. It kind of goes with that joke about the Irish homosexuals: Michael Fitxpatrick and Patrick Fitzmichael....

Posted by: RedSkinHead | March 7, 2011 12:47 PM

You are so talented RSH, way to chime in with a dumb joke. But it worked, you drew attention back to yourself, enjoy it.....

Posted by: monk811 | March 7, 2011 1:02 PM | Report abuse

If they are asking for an extra $1 billion to cover operating expenses, then yes, they should provide evidence that they need it.

--------

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Also, not all players are rolling in cash. The famous ones are, but a lot of fringe players need so much help, some veterans have talked of creating a fund to help those type of guys out in case of a lockout(From SI MMQB).

Posted by: BrokenClipboard | March 7, 2011 1:03 PM | Report abuse

This thing will get to the point where the owners will have to open the books.

If they are asked to open the books one of two things will happen:

1. The owners will agree to a new CBA quickly, to prevent showing what is in the books.

2. or, they really are losing money and this thing will last much longer and the lockout will happen.

I could see teams like Jacksonville losing money, with the blackouts and everything.

But I find it hard to believe that Washington, Dallas, Pittsburgh, Greenbay, New York etc. are losing money.

Quit building these new freaking stadiums. The Skins should have never moved from RFK.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Wow - RFK?! Really.

Now, I'm not saying I don't like a cozy stadium... but seats there come with free tetanus booster shots.

Zzzzingaaaaa

Posted by: DikShuttle | March 7, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

No. Why should they?

It's their privately run business and they don't have to open their books to anyone, unless they think it will benefit them.

If I ran my own business and a couple of my employees came to me and said "open your books for us - we want a raise", I'd probably say "GTH out of here, and I'll let you know by the end of the day if I want to keep employing you."

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The players aren't asking for more money, the owners are.

Posted by: Original_etrod | March 7, 2011 1:00 PM | Report abuse

The owner's want to cut what the players get from 60% down to around 42%.

I understand owners need money for a new stadium or improvements to existing stadium, maybe a new practice facility (hint hint), and I also understand the players wanting more because of the physical risks of the game.

I think if the players want more, they should be made to stick a certain percentage in an account when they first sign a contract and have to add to it every year.

They are all the time complaining about the retirement/disability issues and that the NFL isn't taking care of them, but to be honest, why should they if you just stick some of your MILLIONS of dollars away.

SAVE THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!!!

Posted by: monk811 | March 7, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I have a better question:

Should RI...errr TI.. tell us if the Skins are scouting Newton, Mallet or both tomorrow?

Answer: Yes!

Come on "No Spin" Jones don't let us down...You are entering an info drought akin to some of Reid's finest work.

Posted by: WaitingGuilty | March 7, 2011 1:12 PM | Report abuse

I opened a book once...never doing that again.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 1:14 PM | Report abuse

RFK? I can't believe you mean the actual stadium. I too wish the 'Skins were located inside DC but that wasn't even a football stadium.

Besides, remember the concrete tiers shaking during the heyday of the 80's? Yeah, I'm sure those would collapse - especially with the fat-bodies of today.

Level RFK and build a 100k seat football stadium with a retractable roof. Short of that, forget it and keep playing soccer and hosting Menudo concerts there.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Quit building these new freaking stadiums. The Skins should have never moved from RFK.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

I thought the public was paying for those? I doubt they want to open the books because they'll find out that their brother in law is being paid 8 million a year to be the assistant to the regional manager of mopping the men's room.

The owners are full of crap. They're rolling in dough. If they are using costs as a reason to cut salaries then yes they should have to open up the books and prove it.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse

The owners are full of crap. They're rolling in dough. If they are using costs as a reason to cut salaries then yes they should have to open up the books and prove it.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:19 PM | Report abuse


And do you think the players should have to submit a breakdown of all their personal finances to prove that they need as much money as they are currently making?

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

If they are using costs as a reason to cut salaries then yes they should have to open up the books and prove it.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:19 PM

Nicely said. Owners brought their costs into the discussion, so if they're willing to use it as justification it should be on the table. No one is asking the owners to lose money.

Share the risks, share the profits.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I think there are some pretty good examples in the stuff the Baseball owners were trying to pull over on everyone.

Great Deadspin article on that if anyone likes reading financial exposés.

http://deadspin.com/#!5615096/mlb-confidential-the-financial-documents-baseball-doesnt-want-you-to-see-part-1

Posted by: DikShuttle | March 7, 2011 1:24 PM | Report abuse

And do you think the players should have to submit a breakdown of all their personal finances to prove that they need as much money as they are currently making?

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

No, the players aren't trying to get an increase.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

The owners are full of crap. They're rolling in dough.


Yeah they are.

They don't have the pressure of guaranteed contracts like you do inthe MLB and NBA.

The vast majority of the players in the league aren't earning Clinton Portis money, trust me.

And because of the brevity of a players' careers, they never really have to pay out all that much in payroll relative to the talent gaining exeperience and years.

I'd say this time around, the players should win out--thing is, they will have to make some sort of concession.

And what that might be is anybody's guess.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

We already know what the players are making, down to the last ham sandwich.

Why shouldn't what owners make be part of the public relations battle being waged? Owners risk looking like secretive greedy pigs who make gajillions but cry poor. King predicts in this morning's MMQB they'll come clean. Somewhat. I think they have to, to win some PR cred.

Posted by: SonofNero | March 7, 2011 1:28 PM | Report abuse

No, they shouldn't. I doubt that anybody here has gone to the owner where they work and said "I need to see your books in order for me to work for you." and I doubt there are very many businesses that you would still be employed with after trying that.

Posted by: loudmouth | March 7, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

And what that might be is anybody's guess.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 1:26 PM

Last I heard they want the players to pay for their own cups (junk protectors)...doesn't seem like a big sticking point so this whole thing should be wrapped up soon.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

And do you think the players should have to submit a breakdown of all their personal finances to prove that they need as much money as they are currently making?

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:23 PM | Report abuse

No, the players aren't trying to get an increase.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:25 PM | Report abuse

That doesn't matter.

The players want to get paid at a certain level; the owners think they are getting overpaid. The employees (as a group) are making a bigger percentage off the business than the owners who put up the money, why is that OK? Why shouldn't the players have to submit their financial situations to justify the level of their salaries?

It shouldn't cut just one way.

Argue that both sides have to open their books or no one.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

No the players don't have a right to look at the books, just like the owners have no right to look at the players check books. Average career in the NFL 3 years. Ave salary ( I think ) is $600,000. Means $1.8 million in 3 years. Guy making $40,000 per year in regular job: Would take 40 years to make $1.8 million.

No to the 18 games unless you drop pre season games altogether, and raise roster limits to 65. Colleges don't play preseason games.

Players have to realize that fans cheer the uniform, not the player. In 1982 the players tried to put on their own games. Hardly anyone came.

Frankly, I am tired of both groups. Instead of dumb and dumber, it is greedy and greedier. I'll just play golf on Sunday.

Just some obeservations from an old guy who is fed up.

Posted by: rmcpks73 | March 7, 2011 1:35 PM | Report abuse

The players want to get paid at a certain level; the owners think they are getting overpaid.

The owners are trying to maintain extremely low wage costs, that's all.

The owners want a socialist, revenue-sharing financial structure for themselves, but free market "what have you done for me lately" economy for the players.

And out of that hypocrisy, some kind of deal must be struck.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Gotta say, the owners are a special breed. Right up the road from me, we have two awful stadiums, Candlestick (its back to that name) and whatever the Oakland venue is being called these days.

Will the two owners, whose current venues are all of 10 miles apart, come to a deal where they share a stadium -- saving about $1billion or so over ten years?

Nope.

Why?

Ego.

Two owners are willing to toss away $1billion by requiring 2 venues instead of 1 -- over ego. And yet, the owners say they need more $$ -- because its so expensive to build these new venues.

Ugh.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 1:41 PM | Report abuse

That doesn't matter.

The players want to get paid at a certain level; the owners think they are getting overpaid. The employees (as a group) are making a bigger percentage off the business than the owners who put up the money, why is that OK? Why shouldn't the players have to submit their financial situations to justify the level of their salaries?

It shouldn't cut just one way.

Argue that both sides have to open their books or no one.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it matter? The owners want to change the existing structure based on the claim that the cost are higher. The burden of proof is on them. I don't get your point. It makes no sense at all. No one is asking for the players to show them their books. No one cares. It's completely irrelevant. The players costs have nothing to do with their compensation.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse

Ordinarily, my view on disclosure would fall on the 'no' side, except that the owners are basing their case on the notion that they're losing a lot of money, and the players (and by extension, the public who generates all that revenue) therefore has a right to insist that they prove it.

Otherwise it's like the entertainment industry, where creative folks are constantly being jobbed out of their fair share because all the accounting is done by the studios and no independent body gets to review the numbers.

So yeah, owners, you need to open the books. You may own the team, but the NFL's near-monopoly is based on 'the public trust'.

Give the public something to trust.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Just some obeservations from an old guy who is fed up.

Posted by: rmcpks73 | March 7, 2011 1:35 PM

Hey beep...I think we may have found a Bridge partner for you!

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 1:47 PM | Report abuse

No one is asking for the players to show them their books.

That's 1,028 books that would have to be opened.

And for what purpose, again?

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

You can not build a 100K seat around here. No need to compete with Jery World.

A 68-72K seat stadium is good enough for a homefield advantage and for Snyder to keep stuffing his pockets from the brainwashed fans.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 1:50 PM | Report abuse

The players want to get paid at a certain level; the owners think they are getting overpaid.

The owners are trying to maintain extremely low wage costs, that's all.

The owners want a socialist, revenue-sharing financial structure for themselves, but free market "what have you done for me lately" economy for the players.

And out of that hypocrisy, some kind of deal must be struck.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse


"The owners are trying to maintain extremely low wage costs, that's all."

Well that's the sticking point. Can you prove/show/illustrate a "low wage" cost? Low compared to what? What the owners make? What I make? What other athletes make?

Is it hypocritical for the players to demand a socialist revenue sharing deal from the the owners, but fail to share wages between themselves? Should Peyton Manning have to give a sliver of his check to Justin Tryon every season?


Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I don't play bridge

Posted by: rmcpks73 | March 7, 2011 1:58 PM | Report abuse


Ex-Redskins Punter Wins Disability Benefits
http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/sports/DC-Punter-Wins-Unemployment-Benefits-117525148.html

Pro-Football Inc., the company that manages the Redskins, did not want to pay. They challenged the ruling, saying that Tupa was hired to play in Virginia, where the team's practice field is located, so the Maryland commission had no jurisdiction.

An appeals court rejected the Redksins' argument, writing, "It is clear that the purpose of Tupa's employment was to play in games, not to practice." The Redskins have been ordered to pay up.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

You can not build a 100K seat around here. No need to compete with Jery World.

A 68-72K seat stadium is good enough for a homefield advantage and for Snyder to keep stuffing his pockets from the brainwashed fans.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 1:50 PM |

Um, not only can you build a stadium holding that level of capacity, it's the only way Snyder would go. Besides, wouldn't the District of Columbia want as many fans coming to DC as possible? That's a lot more parking, metro and other commerce to come to town let alone the extra jobs necessary to run that size of a facility.

Not sure where you come up with the odd 68-72k seats anyway. You're leaving $$ on the table man. That's not what NFL owners do. Nor do they downsize like some retired baby boomer/empty nester. These guys build bigger, not smaller.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 1:59 PM | Report abuse

No one can logically defend the owners on this one.

Anyone trying to defend the ownners is trying to channel their inner Cowherd and Whitlock -- taking the unpopular stance for the sake of doing it.


These owners are greedy bastards. End of story. Redskins fans don't have to look far for evidence of that.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, I don't play bridge

Posted by: rmcpks73 | March 7, 2011 1:58 PM

My apologies rmcpks73...you made some good points...nevermind beep...I'll keep looking.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Of course it matters. Why wouldn't it matter? The owners want to change the existing structure based on the claim that the cost are higher. The burden of proof is on them. I don't get your point. It makes no sense at all. No one is asking for the players to show them their books. No one cares. It's completely irrelevant. The players costs have nothing to do with their compensation.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 1:44 PM | Report abuse


When the CBA expires there is no "existing structure". They can use the last CBA as a starting point, if they want.

But there's no prima facie default position that demands the status quo of the previous agreement and creates a "burden" for the party that wants to deviate from that agreement.

It's one thing to say that the owners could make a more compelling case for themselves if they were amenable to opening their books.

But they have no "burden" to do so. In the same way that a company has no "burden" to open its books to a private contractor, if the contract is up and the company wants to re-hire the contractor at a different wage.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

No one can logically defend the owners on this one.

Anyone trying to defend the ownners is trying to channel their inner Cowherd and Whitlock -- taking the unpopular stance for the sake of doing it.


These owners are greedy bastards. End of story. Redskins fans don't have to look far for evidence of that.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 2:00 PM |

Agreed. It's too bad the owners get the TV money no matter what happens. I'd like to see them squirm a little.....okay, A LOT.

Can't Mark Cuban and Teddy He-owns-this combine forces (again) and initiate a hostile takeover of the 'Skins?

How effing awesome would that be?

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Is it hypocritical for the players to demand a socialist revenue sharing deal from the the owners, but fail to share wages between themselves?

I never read anywhere where the NFLPA wanted the type of revenue sharing the NFL owners engage in.

The players see the money the league is raking in and simply feel the low-wage structure in place keeps them in one financial place while the league's revenues are growing towards another.

That's where the players see and beef about.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse

These owners are greedy bastards. End of story. Redskins fans don't have to look far for evidence of that.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 2:00 PM

Well Red...I guess you didn't see the email I posted earlier where they offered me ONE free ticket to the Tailgate Club if I renewed my season tickets...very generous.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Actually Personal_Fowl,

The owners do not get to keep the TV money:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14757584/federal-judge-nfl-cant-keep-tv-revenue

`

The owners need to get a deal done just as much as the players. The thing is if there is a lockout the owners will always sit prettier than the players, because they have all the money. No Salary cap = free market for the owners to decide how much money the players make.

Posted by: Vicc | March 7, 2011 2:10 PM | Report abuse

No one can logically defend the owners on this one.

Anyone trying to defend the ownners is trying to channel their inner Cowherd and Whitlock -- taking the unpopular stance for the sake of doing it.


These owners are greedy bastards. End of story. Redskins fans don't have to look far for evidence of that.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse


You can logically defend the owners. It's their money and their business, and they have every right to put the players out on the street once the CBA is up.

What you can't do is emotionally defend the owners.

But can you emotionally defend the players?

I'm not losing any sleep for millionaire ballers who play a game for a living, own 3 Escalades, wear golf-ball sized diamond studs, then complain about their paychecks and whine about their health care costs.

Emotionally - as far as I'm concerned, $crew both of these parties - owners and players alike.

But as far as the facts/reality of the negotiations go, the owners have the power, they always do, they always will, they will always win.

The moral of the story is: Be the owner in life, son. Not the employee.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:11 PM | Report abuse

You can not build a 100K seat around here. No need to compete with Jery World.

A 68-72K seat stadium is good enough for a homefield advantage and for Snyder to keep stuffing his pockets from the brainwashed fans.

Posted by: RedDMV | March 7, 2011 1:50 PM |

Um, not only can you build a stadium holding that level of capacity, it's the only way Snyder would go. Besides, wouldn't the District of Columbia want as many fans coming to DC as possible? That's a lot more parking, metro and other commerce to come to town let alone the extra jobs necessary to run that size of a facility.

Not sure where you come up with the odd 68-72k seats anyway. You're leaving $$ on the table man. That's not what NFL owners do. Nor do they downsize like some retired baby boomer/empty nester. These guys build bigger, not smaller.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl

Not buying that bigger is better.

An owner always want to be on the right side of the supply/demand curve. Lots of anecdotal evidence that Danny is approaching the wrong side of that curve with his 90k seat venue. A 75k seat venue would mean he'd still have a season ticket wait list -- which would give him significant pricing power.

Also, those additional 15k seats are the cheapest seats. $50 per seat for 15,000 seats is $7,500,000 per year (10 games). If you can raise the prices on your smaller venue by $10 per ticket because demand is higher -- you've get the same gate revenue.

There were lots of NFL games that didn't sell out in 2010 -- lots more that claimed to have sold out, but with large numbers of empty seats. If I'm an owner, I'm building a venue that I can sell out, not one where people can walk up to the gate on game day and get a decent seat.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 2:12 PM | Report abuse

I never read anywhere where the NFLPA wanted the type of revenue sharing the NFL owners engage in.

The players see the money the league is raking in and simply feel the low-wage structure in place keeps them in one financial place while the league's revenues are growing towards another.

That's where the players see and beef about.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:06 PM | Report abuse


The owners see the players taking a bigger cut of the revenue for themselves than the owners get.

And when you're the owner, that stops making sense to you at a certain point.

That's their beef.

If the players don't like it, they can make a living doing something else.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:15 PM | Report abuse

F the Insider (Will we have to take the 'R' out of 'RI'?)

Posted by: 4thFloor | March 7, 2011 10:55 AM

I subscribe to the theory that David Donovan called the WaPo to explain the Skins' new offensive strategy ... suing newspapers.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

If the players don't like it, they can make a living doing something else.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:15 PM

And then the owners don't have a business and make $0?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse

Be the owner in life, son. Not the employee.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:11 PM

Please, don't hit us with your big stick, Daddy. We promise we won't do it again, honest.

Posted by: SonofNero | March 7, 2011 2:20 PM | Report abuse

If the players don't like it, they can make a living doing something else.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:15 PM

And then the owners don't have a business and make $0?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:18 PM | Report abuse


There will always be more players available to the owners, then there are pro football teams available to the players.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Speaking of sticks...do we have any idea where the Hit Stick is...or if its still even around...I hope Big Mike don't take off with it!

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:23 PM | Report abuse

No one is asking for the players to show them their books.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 1:49 PM | Report abuse

I don't think we really want to see 'The Little Engine That Could' or 'Go Spot Go'. If I wanna see books from a Kindergarden reading level, I'd go to my son's room.

Posted by: monk811 | March 7, 2011 2:26 PM | Report abuse

I subscribe to the theory that David Donovan called the WaPo to explain the Skins' new offensive strategy ... suing newspapers.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 2:18 PM

I subscribe to a different theory, but not to the Washington Post.

If Donovan had called, the Post would have put that on Page 1 and would have named every one of their blogs Redskins Insider, Redskins Outsider, Redskins Bystander, Redskins Leftovers, etc. The Post has major envy that a minor rag like the CP is getting the big frivolous suit and all the attendant publicity.

This is a clear case of Mike Jones not wanting to be judged against the two giants who preceded him, Jasno, and Jason. It's just like a Redskin not wanting to don jersey #21.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

But as far as the facts/reality of the negotiations go, the owners have the power, they always do, they always will, they will always win.

The moral of the story is: Be the owner in life, son. Not the employee.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:11 PM

This way of thinking is precisely why unions exist.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 2:27 PM | Report abuse

I would much rather be in a smaller stadium.

Instead I'm stuck in 412 after my family has had season tickets for 50 years. I have to sit beside some drunk moron slurring profanity and asking if I'm a "real fan".

Besides, usually the people that sit next to me are passed out by halftime.

The Dallas game last year was the last time I can remember the gameday experience being pretty awesome.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

If the players don't like it, they can make a living doing something else.

Like gung ho Tea Party political talk, that sounds so bold...

..until it actually gets put in effect.

A lot of the guys making NFL money will go box, play baseball, do MMA, become Olympians, play basketball, run track, play hockey, or finish their education and enter the work force.

What does and arrgant owner of an empty stadium do 16 Fall Sundays after pounding his chest about 'rugged individualism' and 'capitalism'?

The NFL is a 9 billion dollar a year enterprise, and trust me, most owners could sell their teams at a very handsome profit.

The players are correct to say, let's share that cash flow abit more.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What with the bad news about long term consequences of head injuries and their IRECT link to professional football, if I were the OWNERS I'd be in a REALLY BIG HURRY to get a deal done that allowed this LIFE THREATENING enterprise to continue to exist at all.

The owners ain't risked sh*T for this game. F them.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

There will always be more players available to the owners, then there are pro football teams available to the players.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:22 PM

If they lockout all the best players in the world and replace them with scrubs...I'm not watching or going to any games...I'll be playing golf with rmcpks73 and beep-beep.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The moral of the story is: Be the owner in life, son. Not the employee.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:11 PM |

Yep. My dad always said, loosely of course, that "You won't ever get rich working for someone else."

My interpretation on that rule now is you can get rich working for someone as long as you provide something they can't get anywhere else.

Put me in the camp of folks who don't care about this situation in terms of winners and losers unless you're referring to the losers as the fans.

I hate unions of almost all types. Yep, that includes matrimony too.

Especially after banging yet another married chick this past Saturday night.

Hell if I'm gettin' played like that.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Instead I'm stuck in 412 after my family has had season tickets for 50 years. I have to sit beside some drunk moron slurring profanity and asking if I'm a "real fan".

Besides, usually the people that sit next to me are passed out by halftime.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:28 PM

Hey, I know you. It's all coming together now. 412. You wear that damned Glee sweatshirt and drink lemonade, don't you? You're on the third row, seat 13, right?

Well, we say you're not a real fan because you're NOT a real fan. And why do you want to watch the second half of the game anyway? Didn't get enough lemonade in the first half?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Would love nothing more than see the owners bring in scabs...and all you scab lovers can pay Dan Snyder top dollar to see them play.

LMAO!

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 2:34 PM | Report abuse

When the CBA expires there is no "existing structure". They can use the last CBA as a starting point, if they want.

But there's no prima facie default position that demands the status quo of the previous agreement and creates a "burden" for the party that wants to deviate from that agreement.

It's one thing to say that the owners could make a more compelling case for themselves if they were amenable to opening their books.

But they have no "burden" to do so. In the same way that a company has no "burden" to open its books to a private contractor, if the contract is up and the company wants to re-hire the contractor at a different wage.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

So what's your point? Nobody cares what the players costs are. It's still irrelevant. The owners can tell the players to take a pay cut. Then the players will tell the owners to STFU. At that point the owners are going to need to get the public support. That's why they will need to open the books. If they don't then the NFL could end up taking a hit like the other sports have. Baseball fell 20% and hasn't recovered. NHL was on life support and still can't get prime time games on network TV. I'd quit watching and buying merchandise if they locked out the players. I know I'm not alone on that. I'll just go up to Beaver stadium on Saturdays and go golfing on Sundays.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse

To me, the real issues are:

Rookie salary cap -- the owners want it and should get it.

Health care for former players -- its shameful the lack of care former players have had to live with. Both sides own this issue. And they need to own it in a big way.

Post NFL player life -- way too many players go broke or fail to make the transition to regular life. Helping these guys manage their finances/lives should be relatively cheap, but its important. This one is on the union.

Player safety -- It is a dangerous game, but doing a much better job of dealing with safety issues has got to be a part of any deal. The owners have a lot to give here. And 18 games isn't making the players safer.

Money -- No players, no show. So pay 'em. The owners are foolish to make the players into enemies, no one roots for the owner (especially ours). Keep making the game more successful and the money will keep growing. A lot of people get turned off by greed. Especially in a recession. Especially by billionaires crying poor. Who won't open their books.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 2:37 PM |

You forgot to list the 18 game sneezing. That's been on every list that I saw. The owners would love to have it.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 2:43 PM | Report abuse

The Green Bay Packers should open their books. They are a publicly owned franchise. All the rest of the teams...no. Their business is like any others. We don't ask to see privately owned companies' books nor do we have the right to. We do live in America, right?! Let's not start making different rules for different citizens...really bad precedent.

Posted by: DC2AZ99 | March 7, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Instead I'm stuck in 412 after my family has had season tickets for 50 years. I have to sit beside some drunk moron slurring profanity and asking if I'm a "real fan".

Besides, usually the people that sit next to me are passed out by halftime.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:28 PM

Hey, I know you. It's all coming together now. 412. You wear that damned Glee sweatshirt and drink lemonade, don't you? You're on the third row, seat 13, right?

Well, we say you're not a real fan because you're NOT a real fan. And why do you want to watch the second half of the game anyway? Didn't get enough lemonade in the first half?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 2:33 PM | Report abuse

Some dude that said he was from Duke was behind me last year. His friend had on a Giants jersey at the Dallas game. Was that you?

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:44 PM | Report abuse

I hate unions of almost all types.

Such is the national mood.

Thing is, no one in any union is making out financially like the folks the unions bargain against.

Most folks hate unions, but not the guard-gate old money oligrachy that controls the nation's wealth.

We're hating on police, teacher, firemen, government worker unions, but not a peep came out of the public two months ago when the very rich where extended a tax cut they didn't need.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

The owners see the players taking a bigger cut of the revenue for themselves than the owners get.

And when you're the owner, that stops making sense to you at a certain point.

That's their beef.

If the players don't like it, they can make a living doing something else.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:15 PM

Or playing for someone else. Some other league.

I haven't read about an owner yet who lost any money on their NFL investment. I've read about some players who've lost their marbles due to brain injury and mobility due to other injury.

The dispute is as old as humans living collectively. The king v the people who provide the goods and service that make the king the king.

Those who got in the way of Microsoft are gone now. History repeats itself.

My local face of the Owners is The Owner here in town. My opinions on the matter and all the other owners are shaped by that.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"But they have no "burden" to do so. In the same way that a company has no "burden" to open its books to a private contractor, if the contract is up and the company wants to re-hire the contractor at a different wage.
Posted by: p1funk"

And if the NFL were Best Buy or Home Depot, you might have a point. But there's a Player's Association involved that will portray the owners reluctance as a de facto admission of irregularity.

It's like in that film, "Social Network". Zuckerberg had the letter of the law on his side, but no jury would find that way because he was so damn obnoxious. So he had to settle.

Same thing with the NFL owners. A more obnoxious group would be hard to find.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Rookie salary cap -- the owners want it and should get it.

Health care for former players -- its shameful the lack of care former players have had to live with. Both sides own this issue. And they need to own it in a big way.

Post NFL player life -- way too many players go broke or fail to make the transition to regular life. Helping these guys manage their finances/lives should be relatively cheap, but its important. This one is on the union.

Player safety -- It is a dangerous game, but doing a much better job of dealing with safety issues has got to be a part of any deal. The owners have a lot to give here. And 18 games isn't making the players safer.

Money -- No players, no show. So pay 'em. The owners are foolish to make the players into enemies, no one roots for the owner (especially ours). Keep making the game more successful and the money will keep growing. A lot of people get turned off by greed. Especially in a recession. Especially by billionaires crying poor. Who won't open their books.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I agree with you on the rookie cap, the health care and keeping it at 18 games.

But as far as finances go, that's on the players.

I don't feel bad for someone who makes at minimum 500k a year and can't manage it.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Baseball fell 20% and hasn't recovered. NHL was on life support and still can't get prime time games on network TV. I'd quit watching and buying merchandise if they locked out the players. I know I'm not alone on that.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 2:35 PM

I'm guessing most of us here would jump right back in when action resumed..even after a lost season...but there would be tons and tons of marginal and potential new fans lost...maybe forever...in addition to lost revenue, market caps for the owners would take a huge hit...they are the ones on the hot seat here.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the guys making NFL money will go box, play baseball, do MMA, become Olympians, play basketball, run track, play hockey, or finish their education and enter the work force.


Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse


Just like they did in '82, eh?

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:49 PM | Report abuse

"The owners see the players taking a bigger cut of the revenue for themselves than the owners get."

But the owners 'own' the asset. The value of the franchise continues to increase -- pretty dramatically in some cases. The players don't get a cut of that.

It's like a for-profit hospital where most of the annual revenue is spent on staff. Doesn't mean the owners aren't getting rich. And that someday they'll turn that asset into a whole lot of cash.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"I don't feel bad for someone who makes at minimum 500k a year and can't manage it.
Posted by: iH8dallas"

No -- why should you? But you don't feel badly for Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones, either. And God knows they haven't demonstrated much ability to manage their money, either.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

The greed is 3-X as galling per usual because the owners enjoy monopoly status for their business, the value of which is based on taxpayer subsidies for the stadiums and created by players who mortgage their future health for the sake of the owners' enterprise.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

We're hating on police, teacher, firemen, government worker unions, but not a peep came out of the public two months ago when the very rich where extended a tax cut they didn't need.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:45 PM |

I hate all those unions you listed and it's interesting how the tax cut is only being described as being for the rich. The thing is, if it weren't passed, my taxes would have gone up - FACT. Now, I am not rich by my standards. Also, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans often equate to job growth rather than a business owner's actual paycheck if you know what I mean.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Some dude that said he was from Duke was behind me last year. His friend had on a Giants jersey at the Dallas game. Was that you?

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:44 PM

Nope. Couldna been me. I only acknowledge a connection to Duke on an anonymous blog. No Duke hats, T's, or jerseys in public. You think I wanna get my butt stomped?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:04 PM | Report abuse

So what's your point?

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 2:35 PM | Report abuse


My point is what it was at the beginning.

There's no "should" when discussing the owners opening their books.

There's "please could you", and there's "hey, why don't you?"

But those are different. There's no legal, moral, contractual or otherwise obligation that demands the owners "should" open their books.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't feel bad for someone who makes at minimum 500k a year and can't manage it.
Posted by: iH8dallas"

No -- why should you? But you don't feel badly for Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones, either. And God knows they haven't demonstrated much ability to manage their money, either.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I don't feel bad for any of them.

The only ones they are hurting are the fans.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

There will always be more players available to the owners, then there are pro football teams available to the players.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:22 PM

If they lockout all the best players in the world and replace them with scrubs...I'm not watching or going to any games...I'll be playing golf with rmcpks73 and beep-beep.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse


I forgot to mention...there will always be more fans too...

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

by players who mortgage their future health for the sake of the owners' enterprise.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 2:53 PM |

They actually "mortgage" it for the sake of ungodly high salaries, the likes of which they could never earn in any other legal profession. But you can keep believing that they're just doing it for the owners if it makes you feel angry.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Coin toss: Should NFL owners open their books?
By Washington Post editors
One of the main sticking points in the current NFL negotiations is how much information owners must give to players as evidence of their economic situation.

Let's put it this way. The average value of a NFL franchise has increased 400% since the last time labor and management butted butts over a CBA. It isn't necessary to "open the books" to know that the owners (and the players) are sitting on a cash cow and there is a Cow in Dallas that has his own nice little pile of loot. You can be sure that if there was evidence that the current division of revenue was favoring the players the owners' books would be flying open faster than a john's wallet in Vegas.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The NFL is a 9 billion dollar a year enterprise, and trust me, most owners could sell their teams at a very handsome profit.

The players are correct to say, let's share that cash flow abit more.

Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM

As I understand it, the players point is not about more cash flowing to the players, but instead just responding to the owners' point about more money flowing to the owners. The current deal (which netted $9B in THIS economy) has the first billion going to the owners before it gets split (players get more than 50% of the split) and the owners want an additional billion.

The league says it needs the additional billion to grow the league. [Personally, if they really want to keep the league growing, they should seek a percentage off the top, not a fixed amount, but they didn't ask me.] The owners say that their current billion is not sustainable to grow the league. The players just want to see the projections. This is where the owners of the Panthers mocked Peyton Manning about a revenue sheet.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the guys making NFL money will go box, play baseball, do MMA, become Olympians, play basketball, run track, play hockey, or finish their education and enter the work force.


Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse


Just like they did in '82, eh?

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:49 PM |

The highest percentage of NFL players/athletes couldn't get a job slicing meat in a deli.

Yeah, there are a few guys who would make it just like there would be in any sample of any population but come up with other way of making money like Haynesworth running drugs in his 4-mil yacht or Fred Smoot captaining Baltimore's Water Taxi, or Ray Lewes teaching wood carving classes or Jeff George teaching college-level "Leadership" courses.

In the immortal words of Tommy Flanagan, "Yeaaaahhhhhhh, that's the ticket!"

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Let's put it this way. The average value of a NFL franchise has increased 400% since the last time labor and management butted butts over a CBA. It isn't necessary to "open the books" to know that the owners (and the players) are sitting on a cash cow and there is a Cow in Dallas that has his own nice little pile of loot. You can be sure that if there was evidence that the current division of revenue was favoring the players the owners' books would be flying open faster than a john's wallet in Vegas.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 2:57 PM | Report abuse

Co-sign.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

meh. Play Foobaw.

Posted by: DikShuttle | March 7, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

A lot of the guys making NFL money will go box, play baseball, do MMA, become Olympians, play basketball, run track, play hockey, or finish their education and enter the work force.


Posted by: MistaMoe | March 7, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse


Just like they did in '82, eh?

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:49 PM |

The highest percentage of NFL players/athletes couldn't get a job slicing meat in a deli.

Yeah, there are a few guys who would make it just like there would be in any sample of any population but most would come up with other ways of making money like Haynesworth running drugs in his 4-mil yacht or Fred Smoot captaining Baltimore's Water Taxi, or Ray Lewes teaching wood carving classes or Jeff George teaching college-level "Leadership" courses.

In the immortal words of Tommy Flanagan, "Yeaaaahhhhhhh, that's the ticket!"

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Would love nothing more than see the owners bring in scabs...and all you scab lovers can pay Dan Snyder top dollar to see them play.

LMAO!

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 2:34 PM

Scabs? That is a novel way to upgrade our DL

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 3:02 PM | Report abuse

To me, the real issues are:

Rookie salary cap -- the owners want it and should get it.

Health care for former players -- its shameful the lack of care former players have had to live with. Both sides own this issue. And they need to own it in a big way.

Post NFL player life -- way too many players go broke or fail to make the transition to regular life. Helping these guys manage their finances/lives should be relatively cheap, but its important. This one is on the union.

Player safety -- It is a dangerous game, but doing a much better job of dealing with safety issues has got to be a part of any deal. The owners have a lot to give here. And 18 games isn't making the players safer.

Money -- No players, no show. So pay 'em. The owners are foolish to make the players into enemies, no one roots for the owner (especially ours). Keep making the game more successful and the money will keep growing. A lot of people get turned off by greed. Especially in a recession. Especially by billionaires crying poor. Who won't open their books.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Good analysis, zce. I'm with you on most of it.

I do disagree with your last point about the money and greed.

First, there has to be a rookie pay structure. Incentives can be paid for the rookies that play extensively.

Health care for former players-absolutely. And post-player life should be dealt with by the union. The union should get a cut of the proceeds to fund this. Part of each player contract should require contractually for funds to be set aside for the long-term benefit of each player...sort of like social security today, except there would be a much smaller pool. Payouts would be spread over the expected life of each player.

PLayer safety & 18 games...I think the roster size should be expanded beyond 53, so that players can have a required game off in addition to by-week each season. When they are nicked up, they take a week off, and there is an additional player to take place. It may require close to 60 on the roster, but that extra week off would help.

Owners and union need to be establishing the funds to take care of injured players, especially ones who can no longer work, due to their injuries.

Posted by: frediefritz | March 7, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention...there will always be more fans too...

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:55 PM

So assuming the players are locked out forever and replaced...you're going to watch second rate football...at the same prices...with the same ungodly number of commercials...and there will be millions of new fans to replace the millions that are lost? Ok

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse

This isn't even a contest. Siding with the owners in this dispute is siding with the worst forms of plutocracy we have in this country. Might as well tear up the Bill of Rights while we're at it and the Queen back to rule over us all.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

... Now, I am not rich by my standards. ...

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 2:53 PM

Very few people would admit that they are rich or, at least, rich enough.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:04 PM | Report abuse

... Now, I am not rich by my standards. ...

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 2:53 PM

Very few people would admit that they are rich or, at least, rich enough.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:04 PM |

I'm riiiiiiich biotch!

Signed,

Dave Chappelle

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Doesn't make much difference if the owners open the books or not.

It's not like they're going to be telling the whole truth (or anything like it) anyway.

Greedy bastards.

Posted by: Vic1 | March 7, 2011 3:07 PM | Report abuse

meh. Play Foobaw.

Posted by: DikShuttle | March 7, 2011 3:01 PM

= let them eat cake

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Very few people would admit that they are rich or, at least, rich enough.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:04 PM

You're talking to Personal_Fowl. He's claimed about eight times to be the richest guy on the blog. Luxury imported car, Georgetown pied a terre, CEO of his company, etc. So, he is one of the very few, except like today when he's not.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

People think that the popularity and wealth of the football industry is a factor that is going to be leveraged against the owners.

You couldn't be more wrong, and the opposite is true.

If the league were struggling financially and the popularity of the sport were in decline, then the owner's would be feeling the vice-grip squeezing on their footballs.

The owner's ship stack has grown considerably over the past decade.

When you have the big stack, you don't start playing tight and nervous, concerned that your precious stack might bleed away.

You use your big stack to lean on the guys with the little stacks and obliterate them.

Say what you want about guys like Jerry and Danny, but they know how to play with the big stack...that's why they're the owners and we aren't.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Some dude that said he was from Duke was behind me last year. His friend had on a Giants jersey at the Dallas game. Was that you?

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:44 PM |

It could have been. When they thawed me out I had a Rams jersey on but it was in tatters and since LA doesn't have a NFL team some east coast transplant gave me a Giants jersey to wear.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 3:09 PM | Report abuse

I don't feel bad for any of them.

The only ones they are hurting are the fans.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Yes they are hurting. Especially all the Redskins fans who have developed encephalopathy from banging their heads against the wall in frustration watching the Sh*t product Dan Snyder and his minions put on the field every year.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 2:37 PM

I agree with you on the rookie cap, the health care and keeping it at 18 games.

But as far as finances go, that's on the players.

I don't feel bad for someone who makes at minimum 500k a year and can't manage it.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 2:48 PM

I prefer keeping it 16 games, not sure if that's what you meant. As for taking care of the players and their finances, I said that is a union responsibility -- one they haven't done very well with historically. The owners can help (provide classes, certify money managers for the players, etc), but I don't think it should cost much $$ either way.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:55 PM

So assuming the players are locked out forever and replaced...you're going to watch second rate football...at the same prices...with the same ungodly number of commercials...and there will be millions of new fans to replace the millions that are lost? Ok

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:03 PM | Report abuse


I'm saying football will survive if you decide to play golf on Sunday instead of watch the games.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Would something please happen at redskin park...PLEASE!

"Well, the site is now called "Insider"."

Well, whats up with that?? Did Snidely claim another greedy coptright violation?? RIDICULOUS!! They've got Wizards Insider, Caps Insider, etc. What gives??

MistaMoe is actually Mistah-Christian-Ponder's -Agent..

Posted by: frak | March 7, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Very few people would admit that they are rich or, at least, rich enough.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:04 PM

You're talking to Personal_Fowl. He's claimed about eight times to be the richest guy on the blog. Luxury imported car, Georgetown pied a terre, CEO of his company, etc. So, he is one of the very few, except like today when he's not.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:08 PM |

Oh really? Dude you're so struggling. I am acutely aware of everything I type here. Mentioning that I reside in Georgetown and rock a European sedan and chill solo in a tastefully decorated home should make me stand out about as much as a blade of grass on the field of old RFK. There is no CEO in the outfit I am employed by so that's wrong too. So keep on hating. You're really only hating on yourself you dive ass. Lol.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

banging their heads against the wall in frustration watching the Sh*t product Dan Snyder and his minions put on the field every year.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:11 PM |

It would never occur to me to bank my head against the wall, but this does help to understand your whack-a-doodle rants.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I forgot to mention...there will always be more fans too...

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 2:55 PM

So assuming the players are locked out forever and replaced...you're going to watch second rate football...at the same prices...with the same ungodly number of commercials...and there will be millions of new fans to replace the millions that are lost? Ok

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:03 PM


Not only that, but some here would be happy to go to less qualified doctors in the event that hospital administrators (the owners) decide it's cheaper to get by with nurses and PAs rather than those uppity and demanding surgeons and so-called experts.

Similarly, lowering standards for police officers would ensure more (read: cheaper) people to enter the police academy, and you could pay them a lot less--i.e., lower taxes! Ditto for teachers and other government workers.

As I understand it from reading these posts, owners have all the power and taxes should never be raised... end of story.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

banging their heads against the wall in frustration watching the Sh*t product Dan Snyder and his minions put on the field every year.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:11 PM |

It would never occur to me to bank my head against the wall, but this does help to understand your whack-a-doodle rants.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:15 PM

Actually Frerotte began that pre-Snyder, right?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:16 PM | Report abuse

It's like in that film, "Social Network". Zuckerberg had the letter of the law on his side, but no jury would find that way because he was so damn obnoxious. So he had to settle.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 2:47 PM |

"Had to settle" is a strange way of putting it. They got $60 M for their share of a company that is today worth $30 billion. It was more like they were underfoot and he was paying them to get lost.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 2:47 PM |

"Had to settle" is a strange way of putting it. They got $60 M for their share of a company that is today worth $30 billion. It was more like they were underfoot and he was paying them to get lost.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 3:17 PM | Report abuse


Which is sort of how it's gonna play out between owners and players...

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Very few people would admit that they are rich or, at least, rich enough.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:04 PM

I'm rich enough for now. But hey, with my investments, I'll be a burden to all of you in a decade or so.

Posted by: zcezcest1 | March 7, 2011 3:20 PM | Report abuse

I'm saying football will survive if you decide to play golf on Sunday instead of watch the games.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:14 PM

I disagree...football of course...not the NFL as we know it...ehhh I suck at golf anyway...maybe I'll play horseshoes with iH8...no Glee though!

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Especially all the Redskins fans who have developed encephalopathy from banging their heads against the wall in frustration ...

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:11 PM |

This isn't good. We have had a lot of ominous stories about the players getting concussed and now it could be it's a problem for the fans also.

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

MistaMoe is actually Mistah-Christian-Ponder's -Agent..

Posted by: frak | March 7, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Hey, we've been pushing for Ponder since last year. If you watch him play he fits very well into a WCO. We started pushing for him before his elbow injury. That's the only reason he isn't going in the first round.

Posted by: PAskinsfan17 | March 7, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Bottom line:

Players need owners more than owners need players.

When that axiomatic truth changes, then maybe we can expect a new outcome from these negotiations.

Otherwise, the owners will end up getting more of what they want than the players will.

Time for a new thread if you ask me...

Now

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm saying football will survive if you decide to play golf on Sunday instead of watch the games.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:14 PM

I disagree...football of course...not the NFL as we know it...ehhh I suck at golf anyway...maybe I'll play horseshoes with iH8...no Glee though!

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:21 PM |

I'm surprised at the people who think this is anything more than a temporary battle.

This is why I hate unions. They don't fool ANYONE for long.

Abide by the formula:

Say no a million times....then say yes when you're sure you milked every last available drop. That way, you can say you did your job.

That's it, that's the formula.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

Players need owners more than owners need players.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:24 PM

Actually, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that NFL teams don't really need owners.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Beep -- let me know what other sort of brain trauma you suffered in your younger days or chemical you were exposed to that makes it seem "whack-a-doodle" to support the players and their union against obvious dipsh*ts like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:30 PM | Report abuse

disagree...football of course...not the NFL as we know it...ehhh I suck at golf anyway...maybe I'll play horseshoes with iH8...no Glee though!

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:21 PM | Report abuse

Nothing but ringers and leaners my man.

Posted by: iH8dallas | March 7, 2011 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that NFL teams don't really need owners.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Stole the words right out of my mouth Alan -- bravo.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Beep -- let me know what other sort of brain trauma you suffered in your younger days or chemical you were exposed to that makes it seem "whack-a-doodle" to support the players and their union against obvious dipsh*ts like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:30 PM |

Talk about a ringer right there.

(cling-clang)

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that NFL teams don't really need owners.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:29 PM

? Have they ever paid a dividend to the owners or do they keep all the money for the players and managers?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:35 PM | Report abuse

I'm surprised at the people who think this is anything more than a temporary battle.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:26 PM

Oh we were just debating if the owners told players to take a hike for good...I think...idk...next.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

Players need owners more than owners need players.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:24 PM

Actually, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that NFL teams don't really need owners.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:29 PM | Report abuse

The Packers have an owner - the public shareholders.

And the Packer players need their owner, just like our guys need Danny.

Posted by: p1funk | March 7, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

"whack-a-doodle" to support the players and their union against obvious dipsh*ts like Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:30 PM |

I see. You'd rather keep company with subtle dipsh*ts like Albert Haynesworth. Keep banging your head against that wall, Pepper.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:38 PM | Report abuse

""Had to settle" is a strange way of putting it. They got $60 M for their share of a company that is today worth $30 billion. It was more like they were underfoot and he was paying them to get lost.Posted by: EncinoMan"

LOL it wasn't worth 30 bil when they settled. Nobody knew -- least of all Zuckerberg -- how big it would grow.

In the NFL's case, the owners can't pay the players to go away -- they need players. The NFL isn't exactly like other businesses. It depends on fans. Fans are fickle. Baseball was once our most popular sport. Boxing used to draw audiences well beyond football. The NBA wants to expand worldwide, and David Stern is smart.

Plus there are other greedy tycoons out there who'd love to sink their billions into yet another pro football league.

I'm sure they'll settle. But how many fans actually buy the argument that the teams are losing money? Not a lot. The NFL could prove it -- if in fact it's true.

But you and I suspect it's not.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Banging your head against the wall?

...ooohhh - you want Ferrotte... down the hall.

Posted by: DikShuttle | March 7, 2011 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that NFL teams don't really need owners.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:29 PM

? Have they ever paid a dividend to the owners or do they keep all the money for the players and managers?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:35 PM |

Beep, take a class you dummy. They are a public company which means their books are ALWAYS open. If there is any dividend to be paid, it lies in the fact that the GBP owners cannot shake down their city by hiding their finances pretending to be poor nor can they threaten to split town. If more teams were like this, the Colts would have never left BMore, the Borwns would have never left Cleveland and the SuperSonics would have never left to go to OKC.

You're welcome.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"Players need owners more than owners need players.Posted by: p1funk"

Another odd argument. How could you have an NFL without players? Maybe you meant these players -- that they're replaceable. True enough. But so are owners. There are lot of folks out there who'd like to own NFL teams.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

The NFL could prove it -- if in fact it's true.

Posted by: Samson151 | March 7, 2011 3:40 PM

As long as they don't try to prove it on Fact-free Fridays.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Actually, the Green Bay Packers have demonstrated that NFL teams don't really need owners.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:29 PM |

And they have also demonstrated that a fan doesn't have to be a Dan Snyder to be an owner. If each NFL team were "publicly owned" by the fans instead of by a bunch of rich fat cats it would make the game even more popular and profitable than it already is. And since the wealth would be spread around in the hands of the fans, in CBA negotiations management (the fans) could tell the players with a straight face to get real and live like the rest of us. I mean if Peyton Manning doesn't have a $100 M pile of loot to fondle what's he going to do? Go to Harvard and dream up Facebook so he can make $30 billion instead? Hah!

Posted by: EncinoMan | March 7, 2011 3:45 PM | Report abuse

? Have they ever paid a dividend to the owners or do they keep all the money for the players and managers?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:35 PM


From what I can gether, stock is offered at $25 apiece; no one may hold more than 200 shares; shareholders have no voting rights and receive no dividends.

The elected president of the executive committee, former Redskin Mark H. Murphy, represents the corporation at the NFL owners meetings and other league functions. Murphy is the only officer who receives compensation. All other members of the committee are sitting gratis.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Beep -- the Albert Haynesworth we all despise is the a fully formed creature of Dan Snyder, not the NFLPA. My guess is that just about everybody except you and Snyder get that.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I thought PF was the only one who could say something/someone is publicly "owned"?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Stole the words right out of my mouth Alan -- bravo.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:33 PM

The obvious question arises ... where those words covered with saliva?

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

? Have they ever paid a dividend to the owners or do they keep all the money for the players and managers?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:35 PM


From what I can gether, stock is offered at $25 apiece; no one may hold more than 200 shares; shareholders have no voting rights and receive no dividends.

The elected president of the executive committee, former Redskin Mark H. Murphy, represents the corporation at the NFL owners meetings and other league functions. Murphy is the only officer who receives compensation. All other members of the committee are sitting gratis.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:46 PM |

Actually the limit - since queef-queef lit my competitive fire - is 200,000 shares.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

They are a public company which means their books are ALWAYS open.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:42 PM

Yes, now answer my question instead of preening in front of your mirror. Do they pay a dividend? Are the owners making money? Do the owners need more of the revenues? Or are the players and the managers making all the money?

All of you who want the owners to open their books, here is an open book. Now, what do you see? Are the owners getting rich as you claim?

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I thought PF was the only one who could say something/someone is publicly "owned"?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:49 PM

Up here, about a dozen times a day, one poster or another is publicly pwned.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I thought PF was the only one who could say something/someone is publicly "owned"?

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:49 PM |

Hahaha - awesome! Another one for my scrapbook.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 3:52 PM | Report abuse

1. What other group in this Country can ask for a $1 Billion dollars due to what they claim is financial hardship from another group and not have to show financial records to prove it?
2. I’ve read through p1funk’s comments and notice a shill for the owners in all his responses. No where in any of p1funk’s responses does he acknowledge that this CBA set to expire was wholeheartedly agreed to by the owners. No where in his comments does he seem to grasp that while the NFL is a collection of privately owned teams they also differ from most normal private companies in that it is essentially a monopoly with anti trust exemptions. This means they absolutely need the union in place else they lose the financial benefits that the anti-trust exemptions provide. Let me put it this way: how many public and financial companies do you know who would go to court to prevent a union from dissolving? Not many, right? Yet that is exactly what the NFL has done in this case. Why? Because they know the financial risk of not having a union around and the very real legal can of worms they open if they were to lose their anti trust exemption. So you see p1funk you really can’t compare a private company that is not a monopoly with another private company that essentially is. Regardless of if the teams are private and aren’t required by law to share their books the owners need to seriously ask themselves if having the union decertify and suing them in court where their records may come out anyways and in the process losing millions if not billions of dollars is worth it or should we find a way to negotiate and open up enough of our financial books to make the negotiations as transparent as possible and get as much of the concessions as we want.
3. This brings us to the last point. The players are not asking for anything new financially in these negotiations. Throughout the negotiations their basic requests have been:
a.We want to keep the status quo.
b.If the owners can’t live with the status quo and want an extra $billion dollars on top of the $billion they already receive for expenses let the starting point for negotiations be the financial records.

Posted by: 6thsense79 | March 7, 2011 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I'm not reading that.

Posted by: PlayAction | March 7, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Next Coin Flip Question:

Should the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders wear knickers or go commando?

Posted by: Vic1 | March 7, 2011 3:58 PM | Report abuse

From what I can gether, stock is offered at $25 apiece; no one may hold more than 200 shares; shareholders have no voting rights and receive no dividends.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 3:46 PM

That second to the last part doesn't make sense. The shareholders typically vote the officers and directors, or maybe indirectly just the board, who hires the officers.

The "no dividend" part is not unheard of. That's the model of a not-for-profit corporation; just plow the revenues back into the corporation. NFP does not necessarily mean tax exempt. [That last part is more complicated and requires a charitable purpose ... which football is not and never shall be.] There are arrangements short of NFP that have shareholders holding the equity (and often have to approve issuance of debt).

There are smartier pants than I am up here who can say this is all wrong, which is fine, such as

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Beep -- the Albert Haynesworth we all despise is the a fully formed creature of Dan Snyder, not the NFLPA. My guess is that just about everybody except you and Snyder get that.

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 3:49 PM

I see you can't tell the players without a scorecard. He's a dues-paying member of the NFLPA. The NFLPA, not Dan Snyder, is appealing his suspension.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

... while the NFL is a collection of privately owned teams they also differ from most normal private companies in that it is essentially a monopoly with anti trust exemptions. ...

Posted by: 6thsense79 | March 7, 2011 3:56 PM

I don't think its an exemption, just the absence (till soon maybe) of anyone aggrieved enough to sue over the violation.

Also, Vic1, you really need to ask that? Have you seen any of the video on the Skins site? The cheerleaders should be renamed the Fleshskins. Yum.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

beep beep about Phil Tayler from Baylor.

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 4:05 PM | Report abuse

The "no dividend" part is not unheard of. That's the model of a not-for-profit corporation; just plow the revenues back into the corporation. NFP does not necessarily mean tax exempt. [That last part is more complicated and requires a charitable purpose ... which football is not and never shall be.] There are arrangements short of NFP that have shareholders holding the equity (and often have to approve issuance of debt).

There are smartier pants than I am up here who can say this is all wrong, which is fine, such as

Posted by: dcsween | March 7, 2011 4:01 PM |

Not even close.

All profits are invested back into the team. As such, Green Bay's board of directors is mostly motivated to: (a) remain solvent; (b) field a competitive team. They're not driven to make money for the sake of making more money, and as such, far less likely to risk a short-term, franchise- and community-wide financial hit -- via a no-games, no-revenue lockout that could cost the league an estimated $1 billion or more -- for the sake of surplus cash in ownership's coffers down the road.

Like I said, the dividends lie in the way the GBP's stock was sold and the franchise chartered. It centers all around the team not being able to hold it's fans/taxpayers hostage or threatening to leave for new shiny stadiums or lucrative tax deals for them to come.

Posted by: Personal_Fowl | March 7, 2011 4:09 PM | Report abuse

sween, you're right, I think I tapped a bad source for my information. It looks like the only benefits shareholders receive are a vote for the seven-member board of directors election and a stock certificate.

Here's some info from the Packers open books:

Packers' operating profit cut in half
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5379673
The Packers took in a total of $258 million in the last fiscal year, $10 million more than the previous year.

But player costs increased sharply to $161 million, up from $139 million the previous year.

The team said player costs have been increasing 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue increased only 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe.

"It's not just this year," Murphy said. "We've seen these trends for a number of years now that really point out some of the issues that we have with the current agreement."

That's the key sticking point between players and owners in negotiations on a new deal, with owners wanting players to take a significantly smaller share of overall money the league takes in. If the two sides do not agree to a deal, they face the prospect of a labor stoppage in 2011.

Posted by: Alan4 | March 7, 2011 4:10 PM | Report abuse

I vote for the owners to open their books and for the cheerleaders to go commando

Posted by: coparker5 | March 7, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Let's be clear...

The salaries in the MLB aren't out of control. They represent [speculative] market values. Compare the gross for MLB vs. NFL, and start figuring out what the NFL players *should* be getting.

The current system bars players from assessing their true worth. Opening the books would be a step towards figuring out how artificially *de*flated their salaries are.

Posted by: WorstSeat | March 7, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"Compare the gross for MLB vs. NFL, and start figuring out what the NFL players *should* be getting."

Posted by: WorstSeat | March 7, 2011 4:12 PM

Apples and oranges. The economic structures of the two games are so different that a comparison wouldn't mean very much, if anything at all. NFL rosters are almost twice as large, and the teams play one-tenth the number of games that MLB teams do. The revenue sharing structures are different in the two leagues, as are ticket prices and the revenus streams from the live gate and from the selling of broadcast rights.

Posted by: rufus_t_firefly | March 7, 2011 4:26 PM | Report abuse

I see you can't tell the players without a scorecard. He's a dues-paying member of the NFLPA. The NFLPA, not Dan Snyder, is appealing his suspension.

Posted by: beep-beep | March 7, 2011 4:02 PM | Report abuse

I guess I really am too dense to follow whatever knee-jerk anti-union jab you're trying to throw here.

The union is doing its job and Fatsworth will get a hearing that he's totally entitled to and that any CEO would insist on, if she were suspended and had her pay docked.

The fact that Albert is angry and troubled and lazy and lied to Shanny and took Snyder's money has nothing to do with the union and everything to do with incompetent management. Just about everything wrong with the Redskins has to do with incompetent management. Why you hating on the union for that kind of stuff?

Posted by: Pepper5 | March 7, 2011 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The players don't go to owners and say this is how much money I need and here is a list of my expenses to back it up. Player salaries are dictated by how much the owners are willing to pay. If player salaries are out of whack the owners have Dan Snyder to mostly thank for it.
As far as the Rookie slotting system and FA minimums for vets, the owners agreed to that in the past several CBA's. That again is their fault.
The Pats didn't HAVE to pay Brady all that money. They chose to. It's supply and demand. There are not that many QB's in the same class as Brady. If getting to the SB is the one of the owners goals then pay him. Or role the dice with someone less expensive. The owners always have a choice.
So yes. If they are going to say operating expenses require them to take an extra $1 Billion from the players I say they need to prove they need it.

Posted by: renhoekk2 | March 7, 2011 5:07 PM | Report abuse

The players don't go to owners and say this is how much money I need and here is a list of my expenses to back it up. Player salaries are dictated by how much the owners are willing to pay. If player salaries are out of whack the owners have Dan Snyder to mostly thank for it.
As far as the Rookie slotting system and FA minimums for vets, the owners agreed to that in the past several CBA's. That again is their fault.
The Pats didn't HAVE to pay Brady all that money. They chose to. It's supply and demand. There are not that many QB's in the same class as Brady. If getting to the SB is the one of the owners goals then pay him. Or role the dice with someone less expensive. The owners always have a choice.
So yes. If they are going to say operating expenses require them to take an extra $1 Billion from the players I say they need to prove they need it.

Posted by: renhoekk2 | March 7, 2011 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Of course the owners should have to open up the books. Being a public or private enterprise has very little to do with it. They need not open their books to us, the general public, but the owners are asking their labor pool to take less of the overall revenue citing economic reasons. It is fair and reasonable that they prove to their labor pool that their claims are valid and made in good faith.

Posted by: keino83 | March 7, 2011 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely not. Another example of unions killing the golden goose. If they don't like the rules, they don't have to play.

Posted by: markn52 | March 10, 2011 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company