NFL Owners Quietly Expecting 2011 Strike?

by Tim Lynch on Feb 23, 2009 3:48 PM MST

Grabbed this tidbit from Adam Schefter's blog:

For all the information that flowed through Indianapolis this weekend, none was any more startling or alarming than the one regarding the state of the game.

This offseason, more than 40 percent of the assistant coaches in the league changed teams, a stunningly high number, according to numbers that the coaches association keeps. That in itself takes a moment to process. But the kicker to it is even more ominous.

Virtually none, if any, of the assistant coaches who signed contracts this offseason were given deals that extended into 2011, league sources said. Each was given a two-year contract for 2009 and 2010, but nothing for 2011, when the league faces the possibility of a work stoppage.

For now, 2011 seems a long way off. But already the date is at the forefront of the owners’ and coaches’ thinking.

It's an amazing figure that NONE of the new assistant coaches from any team has been given any contracts beyond the 2010 season. If you wanted signs of the future, then look no further than those that make the final decision in negotiations with the NFLPA. The owners are unifying and seem to be ready for an all out war when the present bargaining agreement ends.

As a fan it irritates me that I will miss out on football, but it seems that these types of schisms must happen every couple of decades to bring the balance of power back into alignment. In truth, the pendulum has swung too far into the favor of the players who currently get more than their fair share in profit; while the owners are seeing their returns dwindle and their ability to reinvest into their franchise being constricted.

I know many might disagree with me on that, but I will say that without the players there is no NFL...again, without the owners there is no NFL. The owners, yes wealthy by our standards, are not worthless to the success of the NFL and it is as much because of them that the NFL is so incredibly successful. The 60%-40% split in favor of the players is unfair to the owners who can no longer reinvest into their franchise the way they used to be able to.

This is also a big reason why public funding is always needed to build new stadiums and why they take so much heat when asking for it. If you want to blame anyone for the one cent tax hike to pay for the stadium, then place some of the blame on the NFLPA as that tax helped subsidize the exorbitant pay that many of the best players in the league enjoy.

Though I will miss football in 2011, I will support the owners as I had supported the players in the 80's. The pendulum has swung too far and the balance of power must return to normal. Bring on the strike. There is more to the owners than profit and a business must have a reasonable profit for it to succeed - a fact tax-happy politicians should read up on.

Poll

I support the....

Owners

51 votes

NFLPA

8 votes

59 votes | Poll has closed

This is a Fan-Created Comment on MileHighReport.com. The opinion here is not necessarily shared by the editorial staff of MHR

Tweet Comment 18 comments | 1 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I bet there are a ton of Juniors that come out of to be drafted early...

College football is going to be striped that year. And I bet we start seeing some red-shirt seasons for developing players as well. This could be ugly. But hopefully it will all resolve quickly and without much funfair.

My image is the Circa 1960-’61 Broncos home uniform sock. Some what folk lore to me ... but referred to as the clown sock by my Dad.

by YellowStoneBronco on Feb 23, 2009 4:19 PM MST reply actions

owners

the numbers are way off as they are now…owners 59% players 40% retired players 1% is more in line imo. This will lead for more stability. Owners need in turn to save up for new construction and take more of the burden off tax payers. This is a HUGE future story,and good for you to get out in front of it. ive looked for"zappa" on cod4 with no luck. i go by chikndnnr, you?

"show me a good loser and i'll show you a loser" - coach

by chikndnnr on Feb 23, 2009 7:23 PM MST reply actions

zapparulez is my ps3 nick

And even a return to something that is more 50-50 would really help the league and taxpayers. lol

Is there such a thing as a Playstation 3 Anonymous? I can't seem to stop thinking about or playing COD 4 and COD 5. I hear this is quite normal for a teenager, but I haven't been a teenager since Bill Clinton was frolicking with interns.

by Tim Lynch on Feb 24, 2009 10:23 AM MST up reply actions

Owners quietly preparing for possible strike....

would be a better title. Its a matter of positioning themselves for the possibility as opposed to anticipating the inevitable. The problem is the NFLPA doesn’t have a head yet. Until they do the owners can’t know what to expect. From what I understand though, the biggest sticking point is rookie salaries. The owners want to cap or create more structure to rookie salaries and a lot of players are supportive of the idea as well. Upshaw was dead set agianst it, but he was never the brightest bulb in the box either.

by SlowWhiteGuy on Feb 23, 2009 7:51 PM MST reply actions

That is why I put the provacative question mark at the end of it. ;-)

by Tim Lynch on Feb 24, 2009 10:24 AM MST up reply actions

They need

a cap on rookie salaries.

This reminds me of the NHL situation four years ago, where the players had to give back after getting too much for a long time. I hope we don’t miss a whole NFL season in 11, however. Hopefully the NFL learns from that situation.

by PABroncofan on Feb 23, 2009 8:29 PM MST reply actions

I agree with you there. Rookies need a cap on pay...top draft picks should still get a few million a year, but none of this

5 years at 9 million a year with a 40 million signing bonus crap. lol

by Tim Lynch on Feb 24, 2009 10:25 AM MST up reply actions

Owners need more profits?

The only owner in the NFL who makes his ‘living’ from his franchise is Bidwell in AZ. The rest have NFL teams as hobbies and investments. Even if they lose some money each year, or break even, the value of teams has taken off astronomically in the past few years.

Forbes estimates the Cowboys to be worth 1.6 Billion next year, with most NFL teams in the 650-900 Million range. Do you think the players compensation packages include a piece of the tax-payer funded corporate socialist owner’s equity in the franchise?

by MTBroncoFan on Feb 23, 2009 9:33 PM MST reply actions

Worth is different than profit

Unfortunately value doesn’t help you pay the bills. A lot of the net worth of the teams is tied up in illiquid assets such as brands and facilities, and unless the team gets sold the owner isn’t able to actually access any of that. You have to look at the revenue of the teams, which I would imagine is a lot closer in magnitude to the salary cap than it is to the values that you quote. Even then, most of the revenue is taken up by salaries etc, so the profit is likely to be rather small.

Also, the value of the stadiums etc. does not directly pay for the player’s salaries, but if the owner had to finance the entire stadium then I guarantee that most owners would be unable to pay for the players in addition to the stadium because their cost base would drastically increase without a corresponding increase in revenue. Now I’m not making a statement on the morality of publicly financed stadiums, I’m merely intending to play devil’s advocate to an extent.

by hai17 on Feb 23, 2009 10:16 PM MST up reply actions

Right about the difference between worth and profit

and in a deflationary cycle, cash is King. Another reason why the recent cash-saving cuts, though cap-space boons, provide much more leverage than might typically be expected.

Concision in style, precision in thought, decision in life.

by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 23, 2009 11:34 PM MST up reply actions

Perhaps they can sell % of business to get $

Like Ole Al Davis did recently. Perhaps “commerative” % of the Broncos. Get .00001% or some number of the Broncos for $1000 with a maximum cap % (20?) sold in the company. Some people may buy. Who knows, maybe Al will be part owner of the Broncos (Can’t beat them, Join them).

Victor Frankl:

What man actually needs is not a tensionless state but rather the striving and struggling for some goal worthy of him. What he needs is not the discharge of tension at any cost, but the call of a potential meaning waiting to be fulfilled by him.

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

by wyoeng on Feb 24, 2009 12:47 PM MST up reply actions

Sounds like a gimmick. :)

by Tim Lynch on Feb 24, 2009 12:48 PM MST up reply actions

A gimmick that Al might fall for

Victor Frankl:

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.

by wyoeng on Feb 26, 2009 9:39 PM MST up reply actions

I stated that owners were independently wealthy, but to run a business you don't take profits from other

investments to keep failing ones afloat. The owners needs to make a profit and worth has nothing to do with profit or income. A house bought for $800K is worth that much to the bank that originated the loan, but two years later it may only be worth $600K to the market. Worth brings no actual cash to the owner.

by Tim Lynch on Feb 24, 2009 10:27 AM MST up reply actions

need?

"show me a good loser and i'll show you a loser" - coach

by chikndnnr on Feb 23, 2009 9:45 PM MST reply actions

Sobering post, Zappa...

I hate to imagine a strike or lockout, but thanks for the heads-up, Zappa. I agree with PABroncoFan – rookie contracts are out of control and need to be reined in.

As much as I despise the NBA, there was an excellent article in the Times yesterday discussing that league’s similar 2011 issues. It focuses on David Falk and his belief that the players should head to the negotiating table with hats in hand…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/23/sports/basketball/23falk.html?_r=1&em

by Douglas A. Lee on Feb 24, 2009 8:50 AM MST reply actions

I think it will be a lockout

But first the NFLPA needs an exuctive director. Nothing will happen until Upshaws replacement is named. Frankly I dont side with either one. I dont care about squabbles between billionaires and millionaires. While I dont begrudge these people what they make until there is an upcapped year I just dont care. But I do know if the players want to keep their 59% of the revenues they will need to concede on issues, like a rookie cap

somethings wrong, Trying to conquer these fears i thought were gone. And it's been so long, I'm dying to live in a world i don't belong

by broncfanstuckinsd on Feb 24, 2009 2:05 PM MST reply actions

The thing is, I don't think assistant coaches generally get anything more than two year deals

When Shanahan talked about Bowlen during his press conference, he stated that Bowlen was a rare owner because he gave assistant coaches at least a two year contract, so if they did get fired, they would be taken care of for at least one year, so I don’t know if it is really the owners are preparing for a strike or if that is just the SOP for assistant coaching contracts.

I really don’t see a strike happening, the NFPA is so limp, the owners can ram anything down their throats and they will accept it. Problem is that the players are a bunch of me first guys and really could care less about the guys prior or their teamates, so when they get threatened by the owners, they give in if they think it will benefit them, regardless of the other players or past guys.

"Me fail english, that unpossible" - Ralph Wiggum
"Duffman is thrusting in the direction of the problem" - Duffman

by Broncoman on Feb 24, 2009 2:46 PM MST reply actions