Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 118
  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    no, it's still the right word if the owners have to put the money in there........the only question is who controls when and how it's released from escrow. In most escrow situations, the money is set-aside with a 3rd party in control of it, only releasing it under mutually agreed upon conditions
    Well, we don't know the exact details.

    The main point is it's not the owners' money. It's the players' money.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,100
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    Well, we don't know the exact details.

    The main point is it's not the owners' money. It's the players' money.
    it's the owners' money until they pay the players....just like any other employer/employee relationship
    we don't know the details, but that's how escrows work
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    it's the owners' money until they pay the players....just like any other employer/employee relationship
    we don't know the details, but that's how escrows work
    Who earned the money?

    Nobody is watching the owners toss a ball around.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,231
    My assumption is that it would work something like how the nba does their escrow system. The nba has a collectively bargained amount of revenue that the players earn. But because there's no hard cap, the players put a small percentage of their earnings in escrow. If the owners spend more many than the players are entitled to, the owners can get money back out of the escrow account (if it's close they usually don't touch it). IF the players make their fair share, then nothing happens. If the players under earn, an equal check is cut to every player. My assumption is that any escrow account would work on those principles.

    And I do think that's absolutely the way to go. Sucks for guys this year for sure, but if the league hurts for revenue this year and players make their full contracts, the cap will almost certainly have to drop for the following year. That's going to lead to mass cuts for vets and virtually no free agent market outside of the top players.

    No matter what, over the length of the current CBA, the players will earn whatever percentage of the revenue they are entitled to. But with Covid clearly being a hindrance to revenue, the discussion should be partially around how do we smooth out the revenue loss so we don't see a massive drop in cap for a season or two. To me, it makes sense for the players as a whole to sacrifice this year and the owners can make some consessions next year to try to offset that drop at least a little.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    And I do think that's absolutely the way to go. Sucks for guys this year for sure, but if the league hurts for revenue this year and players make their full contracts, the cap will almost certainly have to drop for the following year. That's going to lead to mass cuts for vets and virtually no free agent market outside of the top players.
    That's going to happen no matter what...

    You think the owners will chip in some of their private wealth to make up for COVID-related losses in revenue so the cap doesn't go down? lmao

    And the NBA CBA actually has a "force majeure" provision that allows this move. The NFL CBA does not, so there is no reason for the NFLPA to agree to it.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    5,085
    it amazes me that anyone could ever side with the owners in situations like these.

    for most owners, they literally do absolutely nothing, they pay people money to run the organization.

    the players in turn, are what people pay to see, and these owners make hundreds of millions of dollars, if not outright billions off their backs, again, while typically doing absolutely nothing.

    a professional sports team is basically just a way for a billionaire to print more billions of dollars without putting any actual work in
    Quote Originally Posted by NormSizedMidget View Post
    It's different now than it was.

    When he won the second one, Giants fans are here we're outside of their minds.
    That quote always cracks me up.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    14,100
    Quote Originally Posted by basch152 View Post
    it amazes me that anyone could ever side with the owners in situations like these.

    for most owners, they literally do absolutely nothing, they pay people money to run the organization.

    the players in turn, are what people pay to see, and these owners make hundreds of millions of dollars, if not outright billions off their backs, again, while typically doing absolutely nothing.

    a professional sports team is basically just a way for a billionaire to print more billions of dollars without putting any actual work in
    because they didn't do any actual work in GETTING those billions?
    I get it, some did more than others, some were born into it....but they didn't get drafted into the billionaires club and if they did, where do I go to sign up?

    I realize the obvious differences here, but in the typical business, the owners hire people to do the work they need done in order to run their business and the employees agree to a wage scale to do that work. In this case, employees literally have contracts to follow as to what that entails and what they're paid for that work.

    What we don't know here is what the actual losses are for the owners and were they came up with 35%. If it were to come out they stand to lose 50% and are only asking to withhold 35%, does that change things? And again, they're not asking for 35% pay cuts, they're asking 35% be held out for the time being.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,231
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    That's going to happen no matter what...

    You think the owners will chip in some of their private wealth to make up for COVID-related losses in revenue so the cap doesn't go down? lmao

    And the NBA CBA actually has a "force majeure" provision that allows this move. The NFL CBA does not, so there is no reason for the NFLPA to agree to it.
    It's a negotiation tactic. The owners wouldnt be losing money and neither would the players. Negotiate a smoothing to avoid a big loss. Over the life of the CBA, you'd still have both sides make the amount they should make, it's just instead of having 1 massive drop followed by a fairly steady increase, you avoid the drop by both sides giving short term (players give this year, owners give next year). No one actually gives up profit long term, it's just avoid the strict split every year and smooth the cap decline.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,231
    Quote Originally Posted by basch152 View Post
    it amazes me that anyone could ever side with the owners in situations like these.

    for most owners, they literally do absolutely nothing, they pay people money to run the organization.

    the players in turn, are what people pay to see, and these owners make hundreds of millions of dollars, if not outright billions off their backs, again, while typically doing absolutely nothing.

    a professional sports team is basically just a way for a billionaire to print more billions of dollars without putting any actual work in
    I'm not "siding with the owners" because there is a collectively bargained amount of revenue each side makes. If the players make more than their "fair" share this year, all it means is the cap takes a massive drop next year. Then a bunch of vets are going to get cut and offered a minimum contract or something close to it. The players have every right to say we aren't going to take any concessions this year. But if that happens and league wide revenue drops, the cap is going to drop next year.

    To me, it's best to negotiate that before hand. Try to smooth the drop. Players possibly take a hit this year. Owners agree to not drop the cap too far next year but that means the cap stays flat for a year or two.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,433
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    because they didn't do any actual work in GETTING those billions?
    I get it, some did more than others, some were born into it....but they didn't get drafted into the billionaires club and if they did, where do I go to sign up?

    I realize the obvious differences here, but in the typical business, the owners hire people to do the work they need done in order to run their business and the employees agree to a wage scale to do that work. In this case, employees literally have contracts to follow as to what that entails and what they're paid for that work.

    What we don't know here is what the actual losses are for the owners and were they came up with 35%. If it were to come out they stand to lose 50% and are only asking to withhold 35%, does that change things? And again, they're not asking for 35% pay cuts, they're asking 35% be held out for the time being.
    I think what gets forgotten in this is, yes people want to be paid, but the people "siding" with owners still understand that it's a business and can't bleed money and expect to still operate the same.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    because they didn't do any actual work in GETTING those billions?
    I get it, some did more than others, some were born into it....but they didn't get drafted into the billionaires club and if they did, where do I go to sign up?
    Your best chance is having billionaire parents or a father/husband who already owned the team.

    Quote Originally Posted by crewfan13 View Post
    It's a negotiation tactic. The owners wouldnt be losing money and neither would the players. Negotiate a smoothing to avoid a big loss. Over the life of the CBA, you'd still have both sides make the amount they should make, it's just instead of having 1 massive drop followed by a fairly steady increase, you avoid the drop by both sides giving short term (players give this year, owners give next year). No one actually gives up profit long term, it's just avoid the strict split every year and smooth the cap decline.
    The loss in revenue is going to happen no matter what if fans can't attend stadiums. Money in escrow can't prevent that.

    This is about owners not having to pay players the full amount of their salaries in 2020, while missing out on the money from ticket sales, which could put them under financial duress.

    But again, why would the players agree to that?

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    [emoji288]
    Posts
    17,841
    Quote Originally Posted by warfelg View Post
    I think what gets forgotten in this is, yes people want to be paid, but the people "siding" with owners still understand that it's a business and can't bleed money and expect to still operate the same.
    You know how easy it is to get a loan as an NFL owner?

    Heck, some of them probably already received relief money from the federal government.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Posts
    60,433
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    You know how easy it is to get a loan as an NFL owner?

    Heck, some of them probably already received relief money from the federal government.
    Players can get loans too if they wanted too. If they canít it means they have bad credit and live outside their means...which isnít ownerships problems.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,936
    Quote Originally Posted by QB_Eagles View Post
    The loss in revenue is going to happen no matter what if fans can't attend stadiums. Money in escrow can't prevent that.

    This is about owners not having to pay players the full amount of their salaries in 2020, while missing out on the money from ticket sales, which could put them under financial duress.

    But again, why would the players agree to that?
    The money in escrow is not to prevent loss, as you stated yourself, if the gate money is lost or severely cut, a loss will happen regardless.

    Your second point isn't invalid, tons of companies are doing this very thing as far as not wanting to incur large scale losses, trying to minimize damage, that's just smart business. But its not the only reason for doing it...

    Now if the percentage to put in escrow is accurate or not, that, I can't speak to. But whatever percentage they come up with or agree to is so that you don't have a huge drop in cap, when there is a huge profit loss. Doing this before the season is smart, because then you don't over pay players based upon the agreed upon split of revenue. Are the owners trying to cover their own butts, obviously but its more so trying to keep the cap from drastically dropping or potentially even keeping it locked into what it is for this season.

    To your last point, why would the players agree to it? The exact same reason they just signed a less than favorable CBA a few months ago. Not everyone is out here getting Pat Mahomes type money. A vast majority of the league don't make a bunch of money and if there is a huge drop in cap, guys could be out of jobs rather quickly, we just witnessed the entire XFL fold up. The NFL is obviously on a larger scale than that, with more assets to its name but I'm saying trying to put money in escrow now, is smart for all involved, as one other poster touched on, if business goes better than expected, then the players can still get checks cut to them from escrow, this is a preventative measure.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    34,412
    Saw one talking head speculate on the TV contracts and that cutting out all of the pre-season games costs on the local TV/radio deals, and there are several national pre-season games as part of the national package. All that money goes away.

    If fans attend 0 games that is around 40% of league revenue gone.

    When players get sick and miss a month each time the product on the field will suffer which will result in even lower merch sales which is both an NFL and local issue. When veteran stars are cut just because of their contracts and no teams have money to sign them it's going to hurt viewership and merch sales which of course also hurts the cap in the future.

    The cap IS going to plummet, the worst estimate I saw was by $68M ... now imagine what ticket sales are going to look like as each team tries to cut $70M in contracts from their books while also maintaining the minimum roster size keeping in mind veteran and rookie minimum contract sizes (which are also going to go down).

    If the players want to do everything they can to keep the league healthy and be able to get paid on their large contracts it's in their interest to work with the owners.

    Right now the players get 48% of all revenue, and assuming no more games are cut from the season that revenue may drop by as much as 40%. The owners are desperate to tear up the CBA and re-negotiate it and the players REALLY don't want that. It's in their best interest to meet the owners part way, and right now some significant percentage of pay in escrow seems like a pretty good deal in the long run.

    This is not a 1 year issue, it's a 10 year issue.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •