• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

The NFL Thread

Wolf Hunting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
15,597
Reaction score
43
Anyone got any news on this?
I could google it I know, but it's more interesting chatting on here.

I thought there'sd been some last minute brokering.... or did that fail?
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
The owners representatives and players reps have been meeting over the last 2 days. Some reports are suggesting that the lockout will be lifted in the next 2 weeks. It is possible that it may be just in time for training camps to start. Players for most teams have got together to organise their own informal and unofficial practices without coaching staff present. It would not surprise me if there was some hitch to prolong the lockout, but for the first time in a while there are some positive noises being made.
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
Rumours were rife yesterday that talks had completely broken down and the likelihood was that there was going to be no NFL football this year. Then late on more rumours that very late on last night things were more optimistic and that negotiations were close to settled and it would be sorted in time for the start of Training Camps at the end of July...So, basically, no-one has a clue...
 

Wolf Hunting

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
15,597
Reaction score
43
Thanks Toon, I'll be distressed to find no NFL to watch.
It's probably my 3rd favourite sport after Wolves, and Cricket.
Just ahead of (watching) Golf and Snooker.
 

MARKakaJIM

Contrary Mary
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
1,998
Seems strange that they just leave it down to the franchises to decide who gets what money, its a big risk to potentially have this kind of disagreement every time and then theres no football for anyone, why just set up something where money received is based on last years league position or something.
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
Seems strange that they just leave it down to the franchises to decide who gets what money, its a big risk to potentially have this kind of disagreement every time and then theres no football for anyone, why just set up something where money received is based on last years league position or something.

They don't do that because that inherently builds inequality into the system. They try and establish a much fairer way of distributing the money that doesn't favour the teams from the large market areas but allows small market teams to remain competitive. If they didn't, teams like Green Bay, Pittsburgh, New Orleans would NEVER stand a chance of winning the Superbowl you would always have New England, New York, Miami and Dallas winning it.

The current lockout is down to 2 things, the 'on the surface' issue and the deep seated problem underneath:

1. On the surface it is about the share of TV revenue between the players and the owners. The players want 48% of revenue to go towards players salaries, injury compensation and retirement benefits. The owners want that amount down to 45%. The players threatened to strike (they've done it before) so the owners, in order to not hand the advantage to the players instituted a lockout which means players are not allowed anywhere near team facilities or coaches. Advantage owners, they have dictated terms. The problem is now that the season is drawing closer neither the players or owners are giving any ground.

2. Underneath all of this, is that some of the owners want to cap how much a team can spend on salaries based on TV revenue alone, whilst other owners want to cap salary spending based on total revenue to the league. Clearly, the first scenario benefits the large market teams because they generate a huge amount of extra revenue from corporate suites and large stadiums and advertising which goes straight to the owners. The smaller market teams get squeezed as the cap salary cap rises year on year and the proportion of their revenue that is profit is squeezed to almost nothing, threatening their existence. The second scenario means that smaller market teams can continue to remain competitive as the rising salary cap is also matched with rising profits.

Essentially the very fabric of the NFL is under threat if the large market owners get their way. Many small city teams like Cincinnati, Buffalo, St Louis, Cleveland, Jacksonville will ultimately face extinction and the NFL as a league of parity will cease to exist. For a competitive future for the NFL this current Collective Bargaining Agreement is crucial and neither side is willing to back down apparently. Bad news for NFL lovers all round.
 
Last edited:

MARKakaJIM

Contrary Mary
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
1,998
Surely it would make sense for the people in charge to take this decision away from the teams and just make a set of rules which try to bring some equality back, say something like giving the team with the smallest commercial income, ticket sales and merchandising etc., the largest portion of money to try and balance things out, sort of how the lowest place team gets first pick in the draft to try and balance out where the best players end up. The teams would never come to that sort of arrangement of their own accord so it would have to been done by some higher authority, seems crazy that they allow the teams to make this decision and risk this sort of thing happening everytime.
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
Surely it would make sense for the people in charge to take this decision away from the teams and just make a set of rules which try to bring some equality back, say something like giving the team with the smallest commercial income, ticket sales and merchandising etc., the largest portion of money to try and balance things out, sort of how the lowest place team gets first pick in the draft to try and balance out where the best players end up. The teams would never come to that sort of arrangement of their own accord so it would have to been done by some higher authority, seems crazy that they allow the teams to make this decision and risk this sort of thing happening everytime.

The NFL is run co-operatively by owners and players representatives and the NFL Commissioner. To be fair, in terms of competitiveness it is one of the best run sporting organisations in the history of sport. Every year you get teams that finish dead last in their division making the play-offs. Every decade you get some dominant teams but those teams change periodically. You had the 49ers in the 1980s, Dallas in the 1990s, the Patriots in the early 2000s, the Steelers in the 1970s etc etc. The level of competitiveness in the NFL is second to none, I don't think that is in doubt. The way that has been achieved is by having a collective bargaining agreement that caters for everybody. The problem is that this year some greedy owners are trying to steam roller through changes that give the nap hand to the large market teams. The stalemate has occurred because the small market representatives on the NFL Committee are vetoing the currently proposed deal because of this, hence the lockout continues. It's an effective and fair system, the problem is that the NFL PLayers reps have also thrown a spanner in the works this time by demanding more of the cake.
 

jcwolf

New member
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Crazy stuff this!! Can you imagine the premiership going on strike!! Would be terrible!!
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
Crazy stuff this!! Can you imagine the premiership going on strike!! Would be terrible!!

Actually, the players are not on strike, although they were planning to be. What has happened is as if the owners of all the Premier League teams have said to their players, "You can't come to the ground, you can't come to the training facilities, you can't meet or speak to any of your managers or coaches and you can't earn any money through promotions or marketing campaigns that in any way associate you with the Premier League. Oh and we want you to all earn to 5% less this year than last". And then some teams, (say Man Utd, Chelsea, Man City and Arsenal), have said that they want to increase their own share of the TV revenue and cut the competitveness of the smaller teams (say Wolves, Wigan, Bolton, Sunderland) further by saying that they can only pay their players out of revenue earned from everything other than TV money...It isn't quite like that, but the effects are as dramatic as this scenario. The NFL will HAVE to find a way to compromise in this agreement or it faces virtual implosion and a total lack of competitiveness. Either way I wouldn't be completely shocked if there was no NFL football played this year.
 

t3ch

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
8,377
Reaction score
669
Toon Wolf knows his stuff! :shakehand:

I really doubt the NFL will go completely without lockout. Fans would go nuts and look for entertainment elsewhere, the owners would really be losing money without filling up their unpayed for billion dollar stadiums, etc.

There's a lot of greed on both sides, is the long and short. I can see both sides to the coin. Personally I think the owners need to suck it up and give a little extra to their players. What's a small percentage among 32 owners in a league that is RIDICULOUSLY profitable?

There are a few other issues other than pay on the table that need to be hammered out as well. Some good, some bad.

Seems strange that they just leave it down to the franchises to decide who gets what money, its a big risk to potentially have this kind of disagreement every time and then theres no football for anyone, why just set up something where money received is based on last years league position or something.

It seems strange to allow the people who own the business to make the business decisions? Yes, I can totally see how that would be weird... ???

As for handing out money based on league position, that's pretty much the worst idea ever.
 

MARKakaJIM

Contrary Mary
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
1,998
When you get situations like this then it does seem strange to allow them to argue it out between themselves and potentially have no competition for a year. If it was dictated by a governing body then this wouldn't happen, it would then be down to said governing body to ensure they handed out the cash in a fair way, that seems to work well enough with football over here.
 

t3ch

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
8,377
Reaction score
669
When you get situations like this then it does seem strange to allow them to argue it out between themselves and potentially have no competition for a year. If it was dictated by a governing body then this wouldn't happen, it would then be down to said governing body to ensure they handed out the cash in a fair way, that seems to work well enough with football over here.

Yes, it works out fantastic for the league... The same 4 teams vying for the title every year because of their lined pockets. Wonderful system. ; ) You can't compare foreign leagues to the NFL, and vice versa. American's wouldn't tolerate your system, and you wouldn't tolerate ours.

The governing body is the owners. There are a few key owners that do the talks, and the NFPLA represents the players. That's it. It's not like it's 600 people arguing in a room. There doesn't need to be a set of middle men arguing. Then again, that's worked out so well for FIFA...

Every NFL team is profitable. Every one of them. You can go 0-16 and still make millions upon millions. The lockout is happening over how to divy it up, everyone will still come out smelling of roses. There really won't be any losers when everything is said and done.
 

MARKakaJIM

Contrary Mary
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
22,838
Reaction score
1,998
Unless theres a lockout and theres a massive loss for everyone involved for a year, i like the concept, letting the people involved sort it out so everything is done fairly but its a big allowing this sort of situation to potentially flair up everytime. I'd be more than happy to see that sort of system come over to England if it didn't mean risking having a year with no football, i'd rather have something else put in place incase a lockout occurs, like everyone getting and equal split for a year or something.
 

t3ch

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
8,377
Reaction score
669
In fairness there's only been issues with these like 3 times in the NFL's 60 year history, and the other recent ones were more re-negotiations than "oh god the season is going to be missed". A big problem with an "independent" group is that they have no interest other than their own in negotiations, and can lead to foul play. The people directly involved now are the ones coming to terms with each other, which is how it should remain (IMO). If an argument happens once every other decade, so be it.

All the players want to play, all the players and owners want to make money, and all the fans want to watch it. An agreement will be made. No biggy! crosses fingers ; )
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...n-rookie-wage-scale-issue?module=HP_headlines

Rumour has it that things have progressed and a deal may be possible in the next 24-48 hours. Meaning Free agency and rookie signings will commence in time for training camps starting the week after next. Also rumoured that the salary cap is going to be set at $120m, leaving teams like Dallas, Green Bay, the Jets and a few others in a position that they'll have to cut players as they are already spending over that amount even without signing any of their rookies to contracts yet. Could be good news as it could mark a move back towards greater parity between the big and small market teams. Let's hope this is all true.
 

t3ch

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
8,377
Reaction score
669
I don't see that improving parity any, most teams are already free to spend what they have available in the salary cap. The problem is when players prefer bigger teams, but for pay cuts. :(

Either way though, yeah, things are looking good. Seeing as I root for the Panthers I'm especially excited to see a rookie wage scale finally into place, so we won't be getting bent over on unproven QB wages.
 

Toon Wolf

New member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
5,064
Reaction score
1
I don't see that improving parity any, most teams are already free to spend what they have available in the salary cap. The problem is when players prefer bigger teams, but for pay cuts. :(

Either way though, yeah, things are looking good. Seeing as I root for the Panthers I'm especially excited to see a rookie wage scale finally into place, so we won't be getting bent over on unproven QB wages.

Cam Newton- I'm so glad the Panthers took him before the Bills had the chance to draft the guy. He has 'bust' written all over him. Came from a one read and run offense, he has no clue how to mentally dissect the complex NFL defences that'll be thrown at him. He has some great physical attributes, but mentally I don't think he'll make the grade. And it meant the Bills could draft Marcel Dareus, one of the best defensive prospects in years. Happy times...
 
Top