junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...egotiations/ia3c1ydpS16H5FhFEiviHP/story.html

Patriots owner Robert Kraft and then-Colts center Jeff Saturday created the defining moment of the 2011 offseason when they embraced in a bear hug at a news conference announcing the end of the NFL lockout and the agreement of a 10-year collective bargaining agreement.

Almost exactly two years have passed, and now that the realities of the CBA have set in, Saturday might want to take that hug back.

No matter how you slice it, the owners obliterated the NFL Players Association and new executive director DeMaurice Smith in the 2011 negotiations.

The biggest proof came last week when the publicly controlled Green Bay Packers released their annual financial statements. The Packers reported a team-record operating profit of $54.3 million for the 12-month period ending March 31, 2013, a 26 percent increase from the year before, according to the Sports Business Journal.

Even more eye-popping, the Packers’ net income in the two years before the CBA: $22.3 million. In the two seasons since: $85.8 million.

If the Packers are making money hand over fist, so are the 31 other teams.

The players? The rookie pool has been slashed, young players are locked into unfavorable contracts, and the money isn’t trickling to the veterans, who are getting priced out of the NFL, even at minimum salaries. The NFLPA declined to respond to a request for comment.

“The NFLPA absolutely failed the NFL players,” said one prominent agent with two decades in the league, who spoke under the condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by the NFLPA. “It’s the worst CBA in professional sports history. It’s pushing the veterans out of the game and cuts the rookie pay in half. How is that a good deal?”

To be fair, the players have better post-retirement benefits — medical care, pensions, transition programs, and more — under the new CBA. The creation of the $620 million Legacy Fund for pre-1993 players helped correct some mistakes of the past. Players also have a better quality of life, with a shorter offseason program, stricter guidelines on contact in practice, and the elimination of two-a-days in training camp.

Then again, the owners probably were happy to cave on those demands. It helps them promote player safety and ward off lawsuits. And do you think Kraft or any owner cares if his players have two-a-days?

But when it comes to the serious stuff — splitting up the NFL’s $9 billion in revenue — the NFLPA “got taken to the woodshed,” said another agent with 18 years of experience.

“Yeah, players got better post-retirement stuff, but I’d rather have an extra million in my bank account today than a few extra grand in my pension in 40 years,” he said. “The owners used the bad economy to cry poor, and then they took everything.”

How badly did the owners beat down the NFLPA? Let us count the ways:

1. The rookies got a raw deal.

The owners said the system needed to be fixed when a bust such as JaMarcus Russell could make $37 million guaranteed and Sam Bradford, the last No. 1 overall pick under the old CBA, could get $50 million guaranteed before playing a snap.

Rookie contracts got slashed in the new CBA, with Cam Newton, the No. 1 overall pick in 2011, getting just $22 million guaranteed. What’s more, rookie signing bonuses have remained flat for the last three seasons. Kansas City’s Eric Fisher, the 2013 No. 1 overall pick, will get the same $14.518 million signing bonus that Newton and Andrew Luck (2012) did.

And only the top picks are receiving top dollar. Jacksonville cornerback Johnathan Cyprien, the first pick of the second round, will have a modest salary cap number of $994,382 this year. Players taken in rounds 3-7 are all in the $400,000-$500,000 range, with the league minimum at $405,000.

But perhaps the worst deal for the rookies: All drafted players are locked into their contracts for at least three years. The CBA prevents any drafted player from renegotiating his contract until after his third season. Most rookies do get increases in base salary over each of their four seasons, however, and they’re also subject to player performance bonuses if they reach playing time markers.

Russell Wilson, who had a phenomenal rookie season after being drafted in the third round by the Seahawks, has no choice but to play the 2013 season at his base salary of $526,217. Even if they wanted to, the Seahawks can’t extend his contract until after the 2014 season.

This rule is brutal on running backs, who are by far the biggest injury risk and often don’t even make it to Year 4. Even if they do, a team has much more incentive to draft another pair of young, cheap legs instead of committing major dollars to a veteran back. A running back is almost better off sitting on the bench for two years instead of wasting his hits at minimum salary.

2. Veterans get squeezed.

The money saved on the rookies was supposed to trickle down to the veterans, but instead it appears it’s simply going straight into the owners’ pockets.

While quarterback pay continues to skyrocket, and a couple of veterans were able to cash in during free agency — Miami’s Mike Wallace, Kansas City’s Dwayne Bowe, Cleveland’s Paul Kruger — the incredible value of rookie contracts is now squeezing out many veterans.

Why would a team pay big money to a free agent when it can simply draft a cheaper, healthier alternative and have him locked in to a near-minimum salary for at least three seasons?

Some free agents, such as Miami’s Dustin Keller, Seattle’s Michael Bennett, Denver’s Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, and New England’s Aqib Talib, took modest one-year deals after receiving low-ball offers on multiyear deals. Cliff Avril, who played for $10.6 million last year as the Lions’ franchise player and is just 27, was only able to score a two-year deal with $6 million guaranteed from the Seahawks.

And while the CBA promises minimum salaries for veterans — $715,000 this year for players with 4-6 years of experience, $840,000 for 7-9, and $940,000 for 10-plus — many times it works against them.

“I’ve had teams tell me all the time, ‘Your guy is a minimum-salary guy, he’s too expensive,’ ” the first agent said. “I have veteran players that would play for $50,000 if they could.”

3. Owners hold all the cards.

The salary cap in 2009 was $123 million, decreased to $120 million for 2011, and will remain relatively flat for the foreseeable future. The cap rose to $123 million this year, but only after the NFLPA allowed the owners to defer payments on performance-based pay for 2013, which totaled $110.7 million in 2012 and was split among dozens of players.

Player-performance money that is earned in 2013 and should be paid out in March 2014 will instead be held in an account and paid out in March 2016, with the owners keeping two years’ worth of interest.

The salary cap isn’t even supposed to increase in 2014 when the NFL will receive an influx of new television money — $3.1 billion annually from broadcast revenue, up from $1.9 billion.

The CBA only requires teams to spend in cash 89 percent of the salary cap number, and teams can roll over any unused cap space from year to year. Often, teams would rather keep the cap money for rollover purposes than use it on a veteran who may or may not pan out.

And worst of all, players are stuck with this deal through the 2021 draft.

Many agents, naturally, are incensed about the deal and are pining for the days of Gene Upshaw.

“There was never any transparency from the union to the players,” another agent said. “It was basically, ‘We’ve agreed to terms on the deal, we expect everyone to ratify it, and let’s pop champagne bottles.’

“De Smith was a slick trial lawyer who came in and sold the players on a fancy PowerPoint presentation. Ninety-eight percent of the players have no understanding how bad this deal is.”
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2013/...payers-counting-hidden-subsidies-554-million/

According to Atlanta’s 11alive news, the Atlanta city council could vote to approve a Falcons stadium bill as soon as today, which — after the state Georgia World Congress Center Authority gave its expected rubber-stamp on Friday — would pretty much guarantee the project’s passage, with only the vote of the city-run Invest Atlanta needed for final approval. That’s pretty alarming, given that there still hasn’t been any official attempt made to figure out how much the stadium would cost city taxpayers, taking into account the excess hotel-motel taxes that would go to subsidize future stadium operations and improvements.

So if the Atlanta city council isn’t going to do the math, let’s give it a shot ourselves:

Previously established costs include $200 million in up-front construction costs, $30 million in construction sales tax rebates, and $24 million in land costs, for a total of $254 million.
Once the first $200 million in public stadium bonds were paid off, anything left over of the Falcons’ share of the city’s 7% hotel-motel tax — 39.3% of the tax proceeds, according to the latest MOU released Friday — “will be applied for the maintenance, operation and improvement” of the new stadium. The MOU doesn’t put a total cap on this annual subsidy, but from the chart of past hotel-motel tax collections (see page 5, and thanks to FoS reader cityzen for the link), we can see that the Falcons’ share of the hotel-motel taxes is currently about $17 million a year.
Under the MOU, the hotel-motel tax funding for the Falcons would be extended through the year 2050. Thirty-seven years’ worth of $17 million payments equals $629 million.
Normally, I’d point out that that $629 million is in nominal payments, so we’d need to calculate the present value — the same as when you figure the price of your house, you do it by calculating what you paid now, not by adding up all your mortgage payments for the next 30 years. But since the hotel-motel tax revenues have been pretty consistently going up each year, the two factors should roughly cancel each other out, so we should still be at around $600 million in present value.
The first $200 million of that $600 million comes off the top to pay for the city’s stadium bonds. Also, whereas previously some of this money was being used to pay off debt on the Georgia Dome, under the new deal the Falcons would pay off the remaining debt, which comes to around $100 million, per Forbes. So that would leave the team with $300 million worth of future excess hotel taxes to spend on pretty much whatever it felt like.
Add the $300 million to our original $254 million, and we get a total public subsidy for the project of $554 million.

Could this be off? Sure: growth in hotel tax revenues could be less than what it has been; the financing costs for the stadium could eat up more of the money than I’ve estimated; or half a dozen other uncertainties. But as a best guess for how much the Falcons deal would cost the public, “more than half a billion dollars” is an excellent starting point. Now to see if anyone mentions that figure during today’s council meeting.
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/minnesota-vikings-stadium_n_1258429.html

Here's one way a Republican presidential candidate might gain more votes in Tuesday's Minnesota caucuses: Promise citizens they won't have to pay for the Minnesota Vikings' new football stadium.

A fifth plan for a $1 billion stadium in downtown Minneapolis emerged Monday, with taxpayers shouldering a large chunk to aid a privately owned NFL team that hasn't had a winning season in two years and has never won a Super Bowl. The state would be responsible for at least $340 million and Minneapolis for more than $300 million, according to estimates in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. The Vikings are expected to fund about a third of any plan they approve, but the team hasn't pledged a dime on the latest project. They promised $425 million for an earlier proposal in the suburb of Arden Hills. That was several plans ago.

Despite state budget cuts in the stagnant U.S. economy, the push for new sports venues continues. Many will be built by digging into the wallets of taxpayers. The San Francisco 49ers are forging ahead with their own billion-dollar field of dreams in Santa Clara to replace Candlestick Park. They recently received a $200 million loan from the NFL to add to $850 million in loans from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and others. A hotel tax and a redevelopment agency are supposed to pay part of the bill, with seat licenses and luxury box sales expected to figure heavily, according to the San Jose Mercury News. Stadium debates are also heating up in Atlanta and San Diego.

In Florida last month, Michael Bennett, a Republican state senator, became so disgusted with his state's already-built publicly funded stadiums that he tried to get authorities to enforce a 1988 law ordering the stadiums' teams to house the homeless on off nights. The Miami Marlins baseball team will begin playing in its new stadium in April, months after the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission began investigating $500 in stadium bond sales.

From 2000 to 2008, taxpayers contributed $5 billion of the $9 billion used to build 28 major league stadiums, according to a 2008 University of Utah study. That includes the $720 million Super Bowl site, Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, a losing proposition for taxpayers, Bloomberg News reported.

In fact, most subsidized sports complexes are a bad deal for communities, the Utah study concluded. Harvard professor Judith Grant Long told Bloomberg that taxpayers shell out an average of 40 percent more than the original estimate of stadiums.

Minnesota state and city officials fear the Vikings will leave if they don't get their new stadium. Public opinion is tough to pin down because the city won't stage a referendum, even though the city charter requires one on stadium subsidies exceeding $10 million. Opponents are accusing municipal authorities of circumventing the law by placing sales tax revenue into a stadium authority that would spend the money.

The plan may also include so-called pull-tabs, a form of gambling in which bettors match images on slot-machine like cards.

The latest plan calls for a new stadium to be built next to the Vikings current stadium, the Metrodome. The plan wouldn't make the Vikings relocate to the University of Minnesota's 50,000-seat stadium for several years, losing an estimated $50 million a year.

Gov. Mark Dayton and other officials hope to solidify a plan to be voted upon by the state legislature this spring. But it's no guarantee. Key figures in the legislature and in the city council are said to be "lukewarm" on the project, the Star-Tribune said. The battle to break ground will likely be hard-fought.

Now that would be worth the price of admission.
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
Billionaires beat millionaires. Who's surprised?

Oh, I'm not. And kudos to the owners for pulling off what they did/continue to do.

These guys make billions but get taxpayers to fund or partially fund their stadiums, sell bogus stocks for profit and convince the players that they are about to fold unless they fork over more of their share.

I just can't believe people fall for it.

I do think the new CBA got it right with the rookie contracts though.
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
The rookies got a raw deal?

You have to be fucking joking to say the rookies got a raw deal.
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
The rookies got a raw deal?

You have to be fucking joking to say the rookies got a raw deal.

Yeah, he blew it on that point. That was the one good thing that did come out of this CBA.
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
I kind of feel like we should take up a collection so the owners can go get a bowl of soup.
 

Hoofbite

Draft Pick
Messages
4,231
Reaction score
0
I kind of feel like we should take up a collection so the owners can go get a bowl of soup.

Jerry's down. He's always talking about it. Or at least I think he is when he says, "Dallas is trying to win a Soup Bowl".
 

JBond

UDFA
Messages
2,667
Reaction score
2
Millionaires whining about billionaires. Don't really care. Playing a game for millions is not a bad lifestyle. If tax payers are stupid enough to pay for the owners stadiums...well tough titties. Guess they should not have voted for it. Whining later is stupid.

Lots of wealth envy going on in that article. Maybe he should go buy a team.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
Millionaires whining about billionaires. Don't really care. Playing a game for millions is not a bad lifestyle. If tax payers are stupid enough to pay for the owners stadiums...well tough titties. Guess they should not have voted for it. Whining later is stupid.

Lots of wealth envy going on in that article. Maybe he should go buy a team.
Yep. It was all collectively bargained. If the players were getting so screwed, no reason they couldn't have held out until they got what they wanted.

And I don't get the complaints about stadiums being assisted by taxpayers. Communities do vote on these things -- they aren't being hoodwinked. I guess they could do like Houston in the NFL or Seattle in the NBA and deny these owners... And then almost immediately regret it and, usually, pay more to get a replacement team than they would have to keep the old one.
 
Messages
4,952
Reaction score
0
In the North Texas case, that stadium has made tons of local businesses thrive. It holds major events throughout the year and the profits trickle down throughout Arlington. Even little things like selling parking spots in your private lot for $20, makes event days worth it.

Just ask the city of Irving how bad they want the Cowboys back. The stadiums are not entirely a raw deal.

The other stuff is not shocking. You had players taking out loans to continue living their glamorous lifestyle. It was clear which side would break first. The players deserve much better representation though. They have 8 years to study and learn from this.
 

Jon88

Pro Bowler
Messages
19,523
Reaction score
0
I never would have guessed guys who make a living playing football would be outsmarted.
 

junk

UDFA
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
0
Millionaires whining about billionaires. Don't really care. Playing a game for millions is not a bad lifestyle. If tax payers are stupid enough to pay for the owners stadiums...well tough titties. Guess they should not have voted for it. Whining later is stupid.

Lots of wealth envy going on in that article. Maybe he should go buy a team.

Yep. It was all collectively bargained. If the players were getting so screwed, no reason they couldn't have held out until they got what they wanted.

And I don't get the complaints about stadiums being assisted by taxpayers. Communities do vote on these things -- they aren't being hoodwinked. I guess they could do like Houston in the NFL or Seattle in the NBA and deny these owners... And then almost immediately regret it and, usually, pay more to get a replacement team than they would have to keep the old one.

Read the articles above. Doesn't look like Minnesota nor Atlanta held a vote on stadium funding.
 

ThoughtExperiment

Quality Starter
Messages
9,906
Reaction score
3
In those cases, okay. But a lot of that is hotel-motel taxes, which of course are rarely even paid for by city residents.

And I guess I might feel some sympathy for those residents who have to pay a slight bit more and feel that the city is better off without an NFL team. But I bet those residents of Atlanta and Minnesota are a small minority.

Dallas' mayor and city council denied Jerry even an attempt at a stadium there, and all they get is crap for it.
 
Top Bottom