The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&page=wojciechowski/110527&sportCat=nfl

Mr. Ross...OPEN MOUTH, INSERT FOOT!

Some people are too dumb just to shut up! Our owner is a clown and a first rate jackass. This ESPN piece is actually being too kind to him. The man flat out doesn't get it.

I deleted all the arguing and attacking about whether or not the thread should be moved. Just because it paints Mr. Ross in a negative light does not make it Anti - Fin in my opinion. Please do not continue that argument here.

Back on topic. I agree and think Ross's comments paint him as a real arse.  I think he is so far out of touch with the real world that he actually thinks he's being smart. It always amazes me at how dumb people with money can be.  Seems like they would be smart enough to hire someone to say shut up once in a while.

On another note I had no idea they were docking employees over this. While I can relate with my job it just seems odd to me that the owners would do this.  Is there anyone that is backing the owners?

As I mentioned before it was so rudely erased... Perhaps a thread about the owner looking like a fool would be better located in the anti-fins section. Agreeing with the sentiment that the owner looks like an ass is all wonderful, CF...but it doesn't change the fact that the anti-fins section was specifically created for this sort of negative ranting. You can still agree with it there, CF...it won't make you a bad person or anything.

THANK YOU CF Dolfan! And we are on the same page with this issue, Mr. Ross is clueless when it comes to this matter. He isn't the only owner to dock his people pay, about 6 or 7 others have done the same, so he has company on the stupid-mobile. But fact is Mr.Ross is the only guy running his mouth and making himself look like a total jerk by the idiotic things he is saying just makes him look like a total moron. I mean once this entire thing is settled, what quality coach will want to work for this man? If/when Sparano is let go, no head coach worth anything will want to work for Mr. Ross. We are gonna be stuck with 2nd and 3rd tier types who just want to get their foot in the NFL head coaching door. That isn't good!!  There are bad owners in this league but Mr. Ross is skyrockting to the top of the list in record time with his actions and words. 

Several different teams have cut their employees pay.  One team even decided to put their employees on a two week unpaid leave of absence.

I agree with pretty much everything Ross actually said -- or at least understand it. The article was a pathetic hatchet job, IMHO.

That article sucked. What's the problem with what Ross said?

Yeah. I am. Players are every bit as greedy and stubborn as the owners. Owners told the players over a year prior to the end of the CBA that they would not renew it for another year.  The players didn't listen and continued on like nothing had changed.  Well something had changed despite what MikeO says. I've been a contractor for years and when management tells you that your current contract will not be renewed, you renogotiate a new one. That's how business works. You may not like it or agree with it, but that's how the real world works. Sorry. They were coming to the end of their contract and they did nothing to try to get a new one and they still haven't.

You can blame the owners all you want, the facts are crystal clear. The owners told the players they had a year to reach a new agreement and they didn't want to. They decided to let the CBA run out and take their chances in court which is where we are now. The owners have been trying for over a year to reach a new deal and the players simply haven't even tried. They liked the deal they had and had no intention of signing a new one, instead they decided to take it up with the courts. The owners did exactly what they told the players they would do over a year ago, they didn't renew the CBA. In the absence of a CBA and with no real negotiations going on for a new one, they had little choice but to lock the players out until a new CBA could be reached. The owners can not start the year without a contract in place.

Let's not forget that the owners didn't take it to the courts, the players did. They made that choice a year ago, not when they were locked out. They were told they would be locked out and they decided to go to court instead of negotiate a new contract.

I'm on the side of the owners.  The econmy is, and has been, in the dumper for a couple years.  The players don't want to make any meaningful concessions, that's why they are in court.  People across the country are out of jobs, have taken pay cuts, and have taken reduced benefits; the players need to wake up.

 ::)

I agree with everything Pappy13 said.  I don't know why the media is making the owners out to be the bad guys.  They have been trying to negotiate and the players are the ones who are unwilling to do so.  Everyone is greedy so let's take that part out the equation.  Everyone wants to make a deal that works out in their favor.

I find it sad that anyone is taking any sides. I'm upset with all of them and none of them get a bit of support from me, until the Dolphins step on the field again (although that is different support). Neither side really has you in the front of their mind, so neither side is in the front of mine.

That is my stance as well Phish. I ahven't seen anything that says they really care to help out the blue collar fan. Everything is about how they can have more of the pie so how do you choose a side in that war?

It's my opinion that Ross should learn to control what comes out of his mouth. I think he looses publicity IQ points everytime he speaks but that's me. Sometimes it's better to say nothing at all.

Horrible article.  The owners are imposing a lockout to avoid collapse of the entire league.  If they allow the players to come back without a union agreement, it will be a huge free for all.  If that happens, only the rich will win and the competition will become so poor that nobody will watch.  Of course, when that happens franchises will start to close one by one or in bunches.

The whole thing is ridiculous.  The players are idiots and their agents have no financial incentive to compromise financially.  The owners are smart but they are trying to make up for previous deals that overcompsated players (as a whole).  The commissioner thinks more games is the solution, but the players are already maxed out physically.

This is the time to get this thing right.  Unfortunately, the owners will probably cave because they don't want to lose the season but it would be a mistake.  If they do, the cost will continue to be passed on to the consumer (US!!!).

Keep in mind everyone that football is an expensive product to produce.  There are only 16 games (plus post season) to really earn money, compare that to any other major sport.  The stadiums are expensive.  The practice facilities are expensive.  The team travel is expensive.  The players and their injuries are expensive.  The huge staffs needed to run things are expensive.  Even the uniforms are expensive by comparison.  The consumer has been willing to pay extra for a great product over the years which has allowed things to go this far, but any business owner knows that their is a limit to demand and it isn't a stretch to say that we are approaching that limit.

I am not counting on football this year and it is a damn shame.  I will blame both parties, but I will probably blame the players the most.  The owners see the breaking point coming and are trying to avoid a potential future meltdown.  Sure, cost control will help with their profits but it also insures affordability for their customers.  The players say they want more security, but it is fairly clear it is just a mask for their greed.  The deal the players want offers no insurance if demand goes down, they just want their money and want it now.

Even if it is at the sacrifice of quality football in the future?  Look at the big picture.  Don't take sides or anything, but this deal is important if you really want football.

Everyone has their interests.  The owners have interests.  The players have interests.  The commissioner has interests.  But it is the consumer who is the only one with the ability to see things clearly because our only interest is a good product that we can rely on.  Unfortunately, most of us are uninformed morons and don't know how to convey our clarity to the league effectively.  We think our only tool is to boycott, but it isn't. 

Boards like this get picked up by media.  Media probes deeper to see if we have merit.  If we have merit, it gets published.  The more legit the published product, the harder it pressures those involved.  In this case, I would hope that the commissioner is listening because his b.s. 18 games shortcut solution is a sorry excuse for listening.

Goodell needs to cut to the core of this thing and get some facts out there so that the players can realize that they aren't getting more money.  They can get more structure and more security as it pertains to safety and long term health, but they have already gotten more money than they should have.

You make it sound as if a scenario in which the players cave would result in the savings being passed on to us, instead of simply enlarging the bank accounts of the owners.

I encourage you to look at the previous NBA and NHL lockouts (in which the owners completely and utterly won) to see how well that works out.

Glad someone pointed this out...

There really isn't an outcome possible for this situation that has the fans saving any money as a result. If the players win, the players get more money. If the owners win...the owners get more money. The fans only win when the strike ends, and we certainly aren't going to see any lowering of ticket prices or concession prices (or parking, or merchandising, et al) as a result of this work stoppage.

A new CBA agreement is not necessarily a win by either side. It's a compromise on both sides. That's what we should all be hoping for.

From what I understand most NBA owners aren't doing very good and several of them are losing money.  Not sure about the NHL, but I am pretty sure they aren't exactly rolling in it either.  There are always exceptions.  Either way, hockey and NBA expenses for fans have been fairly flat in comparison to ticket prices for the NFL.

The owners know that there is a point at which the fans won't be able to justify the cost of ticket prices.  Are we there yet?  There are some signs that say we are getting close to that point.  So yes, I do think that lowering ownership cost will result in slower escalation in ticket prices (or at least PSLs) and in some cases could allow discounted rates.  More importantly, the owners won't be losing money which allows them to reinvest in their product (good for us).

BTW - The players don't have to cave much.  They just won't be getting more than (or quite as much as) the last CBA.  A 10% raise in player's salary each year can't be sustained forever; not when player salary if near 50% of your budget.  The league doesn't have an infinite ability to increase revenue to meet all of these cost increases (salaries, stadiums, maintenance, etc.).  The writing is on the wall.  The revenue increases the NFL has seen over the past 10 years is going to slow down.  The owners know this and the players' views are short sighted.

GIVE ME A BREAK!! Collapse of the entire league. They have never had bigger TV deals, bigger TV ratings, higher merchandise sales, the vast majority of these owners have PSL's and are just abusing the fans out of their money. And the league is trying to avoid collpase??  If the league is this bad now how did it ever survive all of these years??

STOP Drinking the Owners Kool-Aid....seriously!!


P.S...league wide season tickets sales for 2011 (with this lockout) are ahead of the 2010 pace. Yeah the league is really hurting  ::)

The NBA owners won and you won't see the 2012 NBA season start till next February.....MAYBE!!!! Because they are all flat broke because they are bad business people and cant market a sport to save their lives.

Actually NO. Revenues are going to grow at a faster rate in the coming years with more games overseas, a longer season, more if not all games being available online or on cell phones. This is all going to be "NEW MONEY" coming into the league. The money is about to come pouring in at a record level, and the Owners felt they missed out on the "last wave of revenue" under Tags who cut a bad deal in their minds. So that is why they are drawing the line in the sand NOW and having this fight NOW to make sure they get the most $$$ possible in the next big wave of money about to come their way.

No NFL franchise is going broke, anyone or any team claiming that is a liar. And if its so bad being an NFL owner how come a bunch of these guys aren't unloading their teams? And how come when one does come for sale every few years there is a line a mile long of people who want to buy it!!! Because its sure money!! That's why!

Yes the owners won the last showdown and the NBA still has the highest paid athletes on average than any other sport.

NBA active roster: 15 players
NHL active roster: 23 players
MLB active roster: 25-40 players
NFL active roster: 53 players

The math seems fairly straightforward.  Unless the NFL brings in over 3.5x as much revenue as the NBA (in 1/5th of the games, mind you), NBA players should make more money.

Not drinking cool aid.  When I say avoiding collapse, I mean in the future and not because of the way it is now.  The league is great now, although I believe they are approaching a sealing, and it is because of the advantages of a CBA.

If any player can go to any team at any time outside their contract and their is no draft, then teams like Dallas, Pittsburg, New England (for a while) and maybe a few select teams that are really willing to spend like Washington will be your Champions yearly (forever).  Football is too expensive for losers (with no shot at being winners) to hold on.  Even with profit sharing, viewership/attendance would decrease due to lack of year to year competitiveness.  Overall the league would start moving backward (financially and otherwise).  I am sure there would be a breaking point to which the league would try to reinvent itself to get back to its "glory days" (which is now).

If I am wrong, why would the league bother having a CBA in the first place.  The CBA is to keep spending in check and allow even the worst teams to have a shot from year to year without breaking antitrust laws.  In my opinion (and not just mine) a CBA is highly necessary for the NFL.

Also...  I am not sold on the ticket sales statement.  There are a few articles floating around out there, but I haven't seen anything that I can view as solid evidence and have heard more reports of poor sales than better sales.  Here is a quick article that illustrates my point.

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/6/1/2200351/is-nfl-really-ahead-of-last-years-pace-for-season-ticket-sales

Even if it were true, people are mostly assuming that football will be back as usual next year.  I don't see why someone wouldn't buy tickets for next year if they are "money back guaranteed".  But ticket sales have been dropping over the last few seasons, and this year is projected to be the 3rd year in a row of declining sales.

We do know that draft viewership was down about 25%, which is a more easily traceable number.  And we have also seen an increase in blackouts for games over the last few seasons.  Some markets have been hit worse than others (of course), but even New York struggled with selling its PSLs.
 

This is the one statement I have to disagree with. I assume you are saying TV viewership of the draft was easier to track that ticket sales? No way, the ticket sales are a hard concrete number. TV vieweraship is almost as arbitrary as radio statistics if you ask me. Even if they hard tracked each cable box in each house, how would they account for someone like me that can easily catch a few minutes of five different shows in an hour?

Who reports ticket sales?  The owners?  At what point in the year?  What is the benefit in them claiming ticket sales are slow?  There is definately benefit in claiming they are selling fast as it creates urgency for the consumer to buy.

I am not going to argue about TV viewership, but they have gotten much better at tracking viewership over the years.  And if you watched a few minutes of 5 different shows this year, you probably did it last year.  It is trend that matters and trend was significantly down.

^^^ I simply said the actual number of sales is a concrete number and could be tracked easier than the arbitrary estimation they put on TV viewership. That was all.Of course the sales number could be fudged, but it could definitely be tracked easier than TV numbers. One is a hard number the other is an estimation. Which one is easily more traceable?

Gotcha, I agree.  In the end, I think ticket sales reports will be accurate (more accurate than a viewership rating).  But while sales are in progress, I don't trust the reports.  So yes, I agree that tickets should be easier to track than viewership.

And yet with their highest numbers in years there is between 17-22 teams that are in financial trouble and losing money.
Also while the NBA plays more games, the players face less chance of a career ending injury on any given game day. They are grossly overpaid for what they do. This is why I am expecting a long lockout in the NBA vs the NFL

What is this statement based on?

So players' pay should be based on the likelihood of a career-ending injury?

Basketball players play MUCH, MUCH more game time than football players and spend much more time traveling.  In 2009-10, Drew Brees played in 19 games and was actually playing for less than half of those games.  In the same season, Kobe Bryant played more time than that in the playoffs alone.

If your argument is that basketball players don't deserve their pay, that's a tough argument to make.  They spend more time on the court/field than baseball or football (because you don't get to go sit down at change of possession) and individual hockey players don't play anywhere near the amount of minutes per game that NBA players do (in 2010-11, the #1 NHL player in minutes-on-ice would have been good for #117 in NBA minutes-per-game).

The way I see it. The NFL is the most popular of the 3 and the players are a part of that popularity. Therefore, regardless of how much they play, they still generate more money. So therefore, they should get paid more money. I'm sure if the NFL was a popular as beach volleyball that the players wouldn't be making anywhere near what they are making now. It's all relative.

badger6, when there are almost four times as many players per team in the NFL as in the NBA, how do you plan to execute your goal of NFL players making more money?

As I see it, your options are limited to the following:

1) NFL owners give their players a drastic pay increase... but the owners are already locking the players out over what they are paying now
2) NBA owners cut their players' salary drastically... so NBA owners wind up making much more money than NFL owners?

You can technically argue for increasing NFL revenue (e.g. raising ticket prices) so that they can match NBA players' salaries, but I don't know how much support that plan will get.

The average salary for the NBA is 5 million a year. Plus rookie minimum is almost 500k for sitting on the bench, and it goes up considerably until it maxes at over 1.3 minimum for over 10+ years which is almost twice the NFL. So guys who sit on the bench and get no real minutes per game make much more than comparable players in the NFL.

bsmooth, who do you think makes more money: the 10th highest-paid player on an NFL team, or the 10th highest paid player on an NBA team?

The competition for roster spots in the NBA is much higher (to say nothing of the fact that NBA rosters pull from a worldwide talent pool, while nearly every NFL player is from the U.S.).  They deserve to be paid more.

edit:  I'll go ahead and give an example, from two comparable teams in 2010 (team in a large media market that advanced to conference finals):

10th highest-paid Chicago Bear (http://www.sportscity.com/NFL/Chicago-Bears-Salaries)- LB Nick Roach, $1,684,000
10th highest-paid Chicago Bull (http://hoopshype.com/salaries/chicago.htm)- PF Kurt Thomas, $1,352,181

^^^ 10th best player on an NFL team is a starter, 10th best player on an NBA team is a waterboy. 

The 20th best player on an NFL team is a starter.  The 20th best person on an NBA team is out of a job.

The point is that the level of competition to be on an NBA team is much harder, simply because there are less slots available.