CBA

Honestly, if your worried about no NFL this year, don't be. Now lets keep one thing in mind NFPLA no longer exists, the other side is the players not the union (difference of rights). The players have filed lawsuits I  have been told. 10 players have filed a lawsuit. Personally, I find this all to be interesting. I completely side with the owners, and after watching Robin Lundberg hit the streets of New York I don't know if most people understand all of it. The most interesting litigation is going to be Von Miller's rookie salary cap.

Even though there has been lawsuits claimed, you have to look at as a court case. There can still be meetings of negotiation, mediation, or even arbitration outside the courthouse. We all know that court cases can take forever. The DT Williams from the Vikings could still be fighting their claim for masking PEDs since October of 2008. How many of you think it's fair that the Viking players are allowed to use fail a drug test and not face NFL suspensions? The state actually sided with the players. It's absolutely ridiculous that they did. The NFL brought it to the Minnesota Supreme Court and basically said the judge that made that ruling was an idiot and overturned it. Court cases can keep on going higher and high up the ladder all the way to the Supreme Court. The state supreme court and the Supreme Court won't always hear your case. There are judges out their that have their CPA and understand disclosure. It would only be fair if they got a judge with his CPA. Will this happen, no. The players are filing lawsuits, so they get to pick the region. Shocker they chose Minnesota. Now we could give Minnesota fans an extremely hard time about this and the Williams lawsuit, but a high majority of them are not smart people. They have their fare share of smart people don't get me wrong. When you go a game at the Metrodome the intelligent level is low.

I think a lot of you believe that the players deserve their fair share of the revenues. I think you all know why the players deserve and want what they do. For that reason I don't believe I need to waste time talking about that side. If you find this article to be biased or do want the players reasoning in here, I am more than willing to add it after one request.

Both sides are trying to look good to the people. Drew Bress in fact tweeted, "Not once have the players asked for more money during this negotiation. That is a FACT. I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for us." Come on Drew. This I find funny, I think Drew is a class act and does so much for his community. Drew I don't want to call you out but I am. It sounds to me that the players put their proposal out on the table and maybe never even did that. Once their proposal was on the table the only other people moving closer was the owners. Now Drew, if you want a share of the revenues, your asking for more money. Now maybe they never even put a proposal out on the table, okay Drew your telling the truth. Negotiate in good faith should work both ways, it doesn't even sound like the players were willing to budge it all. Now I don't know all the players litigation, but if I hear one about revenue sharing or the players end up getting revenue sharing. Clearly Drew was full of crap on that comment.

John Mara the Giants owner has said that they basically split difference and offered that to the players. Players clearly did not accept and decertified. Now who knows what exactly "basically" means. If that also dealt with the 18 game schedule and offered 17, I have no problem with the players not accepting. I would love to know what that last offer was. If I had a guess they proposal was 16 games. If it didn't the players would have came out talking about it and they didn't. Sounds like to me that the owners put a pretty serious offer on the table and the players said that our best bet is in the court room. I completely agree with them. Lets be honest we all for the most part try to do what is best for us. I am not trying to slam the players for taking this to litigation. They feel they can do better there and most of us including myself would do that. The one thing I don't get is the rookie salary cap. This should have been a willing yes for the NFLPA who has come out and said rookies make to much. With a rookie salary cap veterans would make more. There is no ifs ands or buts about that. When it came time to talk about money, apparently they couldn't agree on it a year after bashing the NFL for allowing rookies to make so much. This is so clear cut and dry that the NFLPA wants as much money in everyones pocket as possible, but what they don't get is there isn't a infinite amount to go around.

After watching New York give their opinion on the issue, most of you might believe that the owners make a lot of money of the NFL. Our Lions reported a NOL (net operating loss) of 2.9 million. First of all this hurts that our Lions can't make money. Back to my point not all these owners are making a bunch of money to go around. The Lions could not offer more money to players. Ford has a long term contract he needs to pay off for the beautiful stadium that is Ford Field. One of the more recent new stadiums around the midwest went to the Minnesota Twins. This really is a prime example to my point. Jim Pohland is absolutely loaded. I have talked to people that have negotiated with this guy and just say he is ruthless and really knows how to make money. Now Pohland had and still does have the money to build the new stadium they have in the twin cities. Here's the thing, he didn't pay for it, taxes got raised. When I say he's not paying for it, that's not true. He is a taxpayer just like anyone else. Now I don't know of a professional stadium that an owner actually owns. You think why not own it? It makes no sense to own it. The property tax on stadiums is awful high. Look at your cities property tax on local businesses. Ford on the other hand has money at stake and needs to pay off the loan, because nobody is going to give him another one especially if there is no NFL season. Owners aren't making as much as people think they are. They do have their own side businesses lets keep that in mind.

I have been trying to think of the best way to explain the NFL and the owners and it is a tough one. The best way I can explain is you have to look at the NFL as a big encompassing circle with very little risks actually. Now the NFL has subsidiaries if you will, which are the owners, except that owners are the ones who really bear the risk. Now TV negotiations and stuff are revenue that go to NFL, which is for the teams that get on TV get paid. The bigger the contract the more money the teams make. Monday night football being the biggest regular season winner. The NFL keeps a good chunk of that to. Goodell made $9.76 million is was reported in 2009. To laugh at Goodell a little bit about his $1 salary, some of his compensation has been deferred to future years. Don't worry about him and his $1 salary if there is a work stoppage, he will still make more than most of us.

I don't see why feel sorry for the players either. Are we suppose to feel sorry for them because their financial idiots. Mark Brunell had to file chapter 7 bankruptcy. Which is absolutely ridiculous. You had to have made less than the median in your city. No way was he able show that in New Orleans. So he had to prove that paying off his debts would prove an undue hardship. This is really tough to do. He just won a Super Bowl a couple of years ago. Carson Palmer on the other hand has $80 million dollars in the bank. Knowing a player can have $80 million in the bank and still be in the prime of his career, how many of you feel bad for the players now? Now, I had someone email me saying no way Palmer has that kind of cash in the bank. Players can easily get this kind of cash in the bank. I'm going to do what I do best and that is crunch some numbers.

-When you have the kind of cash the players have you get a lot more financial leverage. You can afford to invest in that investment that a lot of us can't afford.

-He also played at USC. We know they pay their players, but we will exclude this from the calculation

-These are salary numbers, which means they are the bare minimum he got. (numbers are in millions)
  -2003 - $1.07
  -2004 - 1.3375
  -2005 - 3.75
  -2006 - 15.75
  -2007 - 7.25
  -2008 - 7.75
  -2009 - 9.5
  -2003 he received a signing bonus of $10.01 million

-Carson Palmer also made money off advertisements and contract incentives.

Through 2009 mind you he made $56.4225 million. I want to do this with as very little money as possible, to really prove my point.

Now 35% is eventually going to be taken out for tax purposes, but he was allowed to still play with his money before he paid for his taxes. Also, when you make more money, you can afford some of the best CPAs to really minimize your tax amount (trust me). I'm going to take out $5 million for cost of living. This includes a house which is an investment and can easily turn around for a profit.

How many of you couldn't live nicely on $5 million?

Now Carson easily got 10% for just putting his money into a savings account. Also, can take out a nice loan on the house or whatever. He is a smarter guy than that and had someone guarantee him 25%. I am being very conservative on these numbers too.

2003
11.08(1.25)-1.75=12.1
This represents his income times interest earned minus cost of living

Then take out taxes
12.1(.65)=7.865

2004
1.3375(1.25)-0.5=1.171875
7.865(.25)=1.96625
This represents interest income on last years money which is taxable

(1.96625+1.171875)=3.138125(.65)=1.821875

7.865+1.821875=9.036875


2005
3.75(1.25)-2.75=1.9375
Which is the remainder of the cost. Just easier to get rid of it right away.
9.036875(.25)=2.25921875

4,196,718.75(.65)=2,727,867.19
2,727,867.19+9,036,875=11,764,742.19


2006
(11,764,742.19+15,750,000)*.25=6,878,685.5
6,878,685.5+15,750,000(.65)=14,708,645.58
11,764,742.19+14,708,645.58=26,473,387.77


2007
(26,473,387.77+7,250,000)*.25=8,430,846.95
8,430,846.95+7,250,000)*.65=10,192,550.52
26,473,387.77+10,192,550.52=36,665,938.29


2008
(36,665,938.29+7,750,000)*.25=11,103,984.57
(7,750,000+11,103,984.57)*.65=12,255,089.97
36,665,938.29+12,255,089.97=48,921,028.26


2009
(48,921,028.26+9,500,000)*.25=14,605,257.07
(9,500,000+14,605,257.07)*.65=15,668,417.09
48,921,028.26+15,668,417.09=64,589,445.35


Through 2009 using very safe numbers. No advertising or other deals are included in on this. This is easily possible. The players have signed a contract to play for x amount of dollars. It's their chose how they spend it. Now I know $80 mil will cover their expenses after football. It's their chose to buy an expensive vehicle, go to the strip club, gamble, and etc. while they play. If they need more money to play football flat and simple don't sign the contract and go do something else. These players are no more entitled to the revenue than any other worker unless it is built into the contracts. You look at famous actors and actresses it is built into their contract that they signed, that they get a share of the profits. They aren't as selfish either they sign for profits, not revenue. Now the actors and actresses that don't have profit share in their contracts aren't entitled to a share of the profits. They are the ones on TV that we watch just like the players and neither one should be entitled to it. I believe that factory workers and coal miners are more deserving of the share of profits than football players. These guys are work under harsh conditions and have effects when they retire. They don't get a share of the profits unless it's in their contracts (it isn't).

My opinion the players don't even have a case. The problem is the players get the judge they want and have sided with them several times. Seeing as the owners have been willing to push on some issues and not players. It looks like to me that the players will probably get a great deal out of this and the NFL will not appeal the decision based for the reason that they don't want to delay the season any longer. The big risk that the judge has to look at real hard is optimizing revenue. The NFLPA accused the owners of not optimizing revenue, which appears to be true. Then again I was always toward to look long term not short term. Now with players unwilling to go to a 18 game schedule, which will be out of their hands if they go litigation. That makes you really think, if your not willing to do 18 games, but your willing to take that chance. It must not be that big of deal, especially when the owners did offer you something decent at least. The judge better look hard at what the players deserve, they have contracts that they have signed and they are unwilling to improve revenue. Now according to Brees, they never asked for revenue, so that isn't an issue. If it's about the 18 game schedule and rookie wage scale. The players should win, even though veterans were for that just a year ago. If Brees is being honest and ethical, this shouldn't be a long court case and the players should win. The revenue will stay the same, 16 game schedule, and rookie wage scale is tough to say.