The Dallas Cowboys fared rather well in Thursday's Sports Business Awards. Cowboys Stadium was named Sports Facility of the Year, while Jerry Jones took home the Sports Executive of the Year honors.
In this Bloomberg clip, Jones addresses how a new labor contract with players could help take the edge off the collective $9 billion debt the NFL's teams have accumulated. Yes, that's $9 BILLION.
Jones is still paying off a $435 million debt for Cowboys Stadium.
about 2 years ago
Aaron Novinger
48 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
the prospect of no pro football in 2011
is frightening. And the sides appear to be quite far apart. I think the recent comments by DeMaurice Smith (?) imply that the players union stategy will be to call the owners’ bluff. (He said he expects a lockout.) But we’ve seen this over and over again and the owners always win. I really hope he sees that his bargaining position is more powerful BEFORE fans get distracted with replacements. Also, why does he not support rookie contract reform? That seems like a common sense win-win for the players and owners both. The only thing I can think of is that he’s using that as cannon fodder for a compromise. That would give him an advantage in negotiations, like playing with a 6-card hand.
by speedmetal on May 22, 2010 4:10 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
I think the majority of players
at least the ones I’ve heard interviewed favor a rookie cap. So that tells me that Smith solely wants to use it as a bargaining chip. There’s some irony there since there is nothing in the CBA now that requires owners to pay the “slot” price for rokkies. So essentially Smith wants the owners to bargain for something they are already not required to do by the CBA.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
i hope you're right
I hadn’t heard any players comment on it. (I’m not sure they’re permitted to.)
I see the irony there, but from a practical standpoint the owners don’t have any real bargaining power with their draft picks. I think a key component of the solution should be a 3-year maximum contract length. I think it benefits both sides to put less guaranteed money toward unproven players while giving every player the opportunity to negotiate a new contract once they’ve had time to prove their ability.
The best way to ensure this negotiation ends sooner than later is to make it transparent ...
If both sides were forced to lay out their case to the collective public. You don’t even need full financial disclosure, as there are enough sources to develop a general idea of the numbers for both sides.
It’s not rocket science. Most fans can read a few articles and be generally caught up on where and why the two sides disagree.
I was living in Vancouver, Canada the year of the hockey strike. Even without any games, hockey still dominated ESPN’s coverage. Once the strike started, the two sides were laying their case out on the evening Sportscenter-Canada.
Why wait until after the damage is done … let the fans hear the debate now.
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
Sorry, posted this too quickly ...
(where’s my editor when I need him?)
Better first sentence:
Force both sides to lay out their case to the collective public.
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
Reminds me of a recent Presidential Campaign Promise
Transparency; yes . . . this would work but both sides have selfish reasons to avoid this. I see the following key items at play:
Players Need to Give Up On:
1. Rookie Salary Cap
2. Lower overall percentage of revenues as a floor
3. Tighter and More Enforceable Cap
Owners Need to Give Up On:
1. A contract is a contract; thus if you get cut, you get paid.
2. Massive increase in retiremement and medical benefits to current and future players – perhaps funded by dedicated streams from TV revenues.
3. End restrictions on free agency, except minimal items like draft rights, and right of first refusal for exclusive rights at the three year mark.
Most of these are good but
I don’t favor guaranteed contracts. First players already negotitae for that with signing bonues. Second, it discourages top performance. Baseball and basketball suffer considerably from it.
FREE THE OGLETREE!!!
I don't know how I feel about medical benefits.
These guys make hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not tens of millions, for just a short period of time. At what point is their employer for 5 years not still responsible for their medical care?
by Baked Potato Soup on May 22, 2010 1:14 PM CDT up reply actions
I do favor medical benefits.
A lot of players don’t really feel the injuries until later in life and as you know medical cost can make a rich man poor quickly. There should be a fund set aside that all players and teams have to give to. If the illness is related to the ex players football playing days then it needs to be paid out of this fund. JMO
transparency won't happen in this or in politics because
it’s a lot easier to manipulate public opinion in your favor if you control the information.
A lockout would be very very sad
But I cant imagine another sport taking the spotlight. Madden will just become every fans fix. Hey maybe they will even show Madden games on tv haha.
What the French?! Toast!
This Is the Owners' View of the World
Jones addresses how a new labor contract with players could help take the edge off the collective $9 billion debt the NFL’s teams have accumulated. Yes, that’s $9 BILLION.
Keep in mind there are book keeping games owners can and usually do play to exaggerate their apparent debt. The players have asked in the past to audit those claims, and the owners have refused. Without an independent external auditor verifying that debt, it can’t be taken with much seriousness.
Jones’ quote needs to be understood for what it is: Posturing to set the tone in advance of the upcoming negotiations. Which is not to say there aren’t legitimate financial issues the owners are facing, but without an independent audit, it has to be taken with a grain (or a 20 pound sack) of salt.
Audits Are Good In Theory
But like the Congressional Budget Office or the new Obama created commission on the national debt – the auditor comes with an agenda. It is almost impossible to find anybody or any appointment truely independent. I think the revenue streams and the debt supporting these streams are not in that much doubt. NFL can’t go the way of baseball, where a marginal player at age 32 can get a 170 million guranteed contract (see Philly first baseman). These numbers are obscene, and unsustainable – like our federal and government spending problems. The problem develops when the players take over; as in baseball or in the public sector unions. I am for many things to help the players including making the contracts enforceable even if player is cut. But turning over 60 percent of the business model to 20 year old kids — many who can read and write – is a prescription for disaster. Focusing on the revenue side is a red herring. Is there one Cowboy you think is underpaid (excluding rookies)?
Well stated
Iowa
You hit the nail on the head. Players need more protection, but they also need a dose of reality, just like our political leaders……
Owners need to take on the risk of losing a player early on, and suffering the consequences, be it injury, or cut, but not at an outlandish price.
After all both sides enjoy a revenue source that far exceeds the average fans lifetime income potential………………
The Idea You Can Get Cut
. . . and not be paid the full contract never made any sense. But this would also start a trend where you minimize large up front payments. I love the NBA rule where first rounders get guaranteed contract money; in a way, this elevates the second round draft picks in value and rewards those that are elite coming into the league . . . but then it comes with a rookie salary cap, and I would stipulate these first round numbers need to be substantial. It does no one anygood, league, fans or players to have a Jamarcus Russell type situation
What?
Why would you want all guaranteed contracts?
Get paid, lay back do the minimum and avoid injury would be the way more would go. Already it is a cliche that certain players play hard fo a couple of years renegotiate and are never the same after getting that fat bonus which is the guaranteed money.
So if all contracts were guaranteed now players would never ask for a new deal after a pro bowl year, eh Andre Johnson?
Also the game would be better if initial obligatons to teams were like this year, 5 years before you could be an unrestricted free agent. Mabe then we could cheer for actual TEAMS and not nwe guys wearing our familiar laundry every year.
Free agency and guaranteed contracts are two of the salt pillars that poisoned baseball and basketball. one of the many reasons why the NFL draft is a bigger draw that NBA playoffs. And outside of the odd world series game only home team die hards actuall watch baseball see the ratings and attendance numbers
Name Me Any Industry
where you sign a contract and one side can opt out without penalty any time? Why have a contract?
Independent Audits
Iowacowboy, I take it you’re familiar with the concept of conflict of interest? Well that’s the problem with the owners making claims about losing money.
On the other hand, an independent audit is impartial because a) none of the auditors stand to gain anything from their audit and b) their audit must conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles or GAAP which can in turn be reviewed by another accounting firm and critiqued if any errors were found. It’s not like auditors are film critics where their results are pure opinion. It’s all above board and subject to clear standards, unlike the owners who are making unsubstantiated claims and refusing to back them up. Any thing they say regarding financial matters has to be interpreted as dubious at best—unless they are willing to submit to an independent audit.
I’m not sure where you came up with the comparison between an independent audit and a politically-appointed committee. One is truly independent because it has no conflict of interest; the other is directed from above from a political agenda. Big difference between the two.
Whether you think players are making too much is really beside the point here. If that were the case, the owners would open up their books and could show legitimate losses. Instead, they make claims about losing money while still raking in huge revenues and probably huge profits as well. I don’t believe an NFL owner has filed for bankruptcy since the 1920s.
It’s a political play by the owners, to transfer the bigger issue of their greed on the shoulders of the players. It’s dishonest at best and hypocritical at worst.
+1
Well said kindablue.
I’ve never understood why so many people feel that players who make 10s of millions for being in the top .001% in there craft are overpaid, but owners who make 100s of millions are just getting their fair share. There’s plenty of money in football to work something out, that the owners need to have a lock out (i.e. shut down the league) to really negotiate is plain nuts.
It just shows they have no worries about screwing over the fans…which really sucks. If they do shut down football I hope we read about some serious financial hardships among both owners and players…and maybe next time they’ll be able to find a compromise before fingers and toes start getting cut off.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 22, 2010 7:05 PM CDT up reply actions
Lockout
It’s never helped any sport.
An NFL lockout would be the best thing ever for baseball and basketball! Baseball’s world series has been relegated to a back-page event for a decade and basketball’s beginning to the season is equally without the fanfare it could “deserve”.
A year without football and all of a sudden you’re going to see fans become much more interested in the world series and much more excited about the beginning of basketball and maybe even hockey. That’s what ESPN will be covering.
And when football comes back, do you think all that interest will magically dissapear and things will become “back to the way it used to be?”
Nope. It will take many years for football to build itself back up to where it used to be.
If the owners or players are seriously considering a lockout — they’re giving up on billions of dollars in revenue over many years.
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 23, 2010 1:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Sure Independent Audits Are Possible
. . . just saying once you negotiate this the auditor becomes a political football; think arbitration in baseball; these guys are not neutral; they are player oriented. The auditor concept turns on the idea players deserve a portion of the pie. This is problematic.
Independent Audits Are Not Only Possible
They are done every day. Independent audits of NFL franchises would be just that—independent of the influence of either players or owners. The results can be reviewed and critiqued by any other person familiar with accounting and GAAP. There’s little if anything that is open to interpretation.
In any event, this discussion is detracting from the main point, that Jerry Jones is engaging in political posturing. Were he serious about his comment of teams losing money, teams would be willing to open the books to prove it. That they are unwilling speaks volumes about how disingenuous they are.
Out of Depth
Nothing you said about auditors is true. Their whole job is to be impartial, there are myriad of extremely specific rules the auditors follow to the letter with minimal room for any origional decision of their own.
If Exxon, Halliburton, and AIG can get independent audits every year, a little football team can.l
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 22, 2010 10:35 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Guaranteed money
is precisely what’s killing Basketball and Baseball. Unsustainable indeed.
I’m curious about the sudden concern with Federal spending that seems to have appeared around January of last year. But the recklessness of 8 years prior, not so much.
I'm not losing my memory, I'm living in the now
Federal Spending
Recklessness of 50 years prior is a little closer.
In my case at least, the concern is not sudden
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
+8
I’m curious about the sudden concern with Federal spending that seems to have appeared around January of last year. But the recklessness of 8 years prior, not so much.
It’s because booty is in the eyes of the beholder.
I was standing in the park wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer, then it hit me.
Still paying the debt? Why is that news?
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
Hard for me to pick either side really
I don’t think unproven players out of collage deserve such outragous multimillion dollar contracts: there needs to be some kind of guranteed bonus and salary escalation clause tied to preformance; however, I don’t know how any of that can be worked out or written in.
I think a contract is a contrct and if you make a deal it is a deal; so trying to renigotiate 2 years into a 5 year deal kind of shows lack of character in my old school mind. However, here again is were every contract needs to have increases and bonuses written in.
I don’t believe if a player is cut for preformance issues he should recieve his whole contracted salary, however also have a problem with aging players being dropped because to save money on the cap ( owners side of a deal is a deal ) – kind of the Flozel Adams Issue – I couldn’t believe he got his last contract to start with – but now I see the Cowboys probably knew they were going to cut him anyway, and I agree with the cut , but seems as if owners and players need to be more up front with each other. ( That ain’t happening ).
I think there needs to be a better retirement and insurance policy for vets to cover long lasting effects from injuries/surgeries resulting from playing football. I believe new deal should provide some bonuses/ retirement benefits increase for early player who can show they are in need.
I dont believe player should have as big a share of profits when the owners front all the money; unless, the players have to kickback a share of thier indorcement deals that they get because of thier NFL success and fame.
Hard for me to pick a side because its way to expensive for the adverage individual to even get seats for himself and family or friends; Yet in most cities even the non-sports fan foot part of the bill for stadiums.
I don’t have a clue what the any of the issues are in the up coming CBA, and realisticly don’t have much simpathy for either side, as I stuggle weekly to put food on the table and a roof over my families head. If they don’t play in 2011…oh well, what a bummer, but in the scale of things I believe I’ll live.
Money quote from JFE
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/22/2208487/patrick-crayton-deserves-chance.html
This isn’t a Dez Bryant-Crayton comparison, where potential talent differential justifies being unfair to the seventh-round pick. This is Roy and Crayton, and the numbers say Crayton had the better year. It is not even close, once special teams contributions are factored in, yet Roy is guaranteed a starting job and Crayton is allowed to go team shopping.
Are they trying to win a Super Bowl, or justify a trade?
I don't know that Roy is guaranteed a "Starting Job"
but then again I could be wrong.
Do you really think PC would be given a fair chance to beat Roy if he were in camp?
That’s the main point…and I’m pretty sure PC doesn’t have a guaranteed contract, so unless there’s an injury it may already be decided that he’ll get cut. He’s been a great player for us, but age, potential and contracts all stack the deck in favor of Roy + younger WR’s and against PC.
Here at BTB I think most readers are ahead of the curve and have already figured this out.
by Left Coast Cowboy on May 22, 2010 6:48 PM CDT up reply actions
Not true
I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dez start the season as the number 2.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 22, 2010 11:10 PM CDT up reply actions
really?!?
That just doesn’t seem reasonable. Roy is an experienced vet with a long track record of good (but rarely great) production with the ability to be a #1 on some teams. That means we don’t need Dez to start right away like some teams might. So why would you throw a guy in there that has barely learned the offense, barely developed a rapport with the QB, and barely acclimated to pro coverage? RW gives us the luxury to bring Dez along gradually, without throwing a wrench into the finely tuned engine that our offense can be.
Dez is special
Roy doesn’t have the track record of good production, he had one quality season, then a series of mediocre campaigns. And name me a single team that would consider Roy their number one.
You don’t need to bring Dez along slowly, look around the league the last few years and there are many examples of WRs that have come in and contributed immediately. Keeping Roy as the starter would “throw a wrench” into the finely tuned engine that our offense could be. And I don’t think it will take more than an offseason for the coaches to realize that.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 23, 2010 8:29 AM CDT up reply actions
don't kid yourself
there is no reason to start Dez, he’ll get his playing time and if RW continues to suck, Dez will be in the starting lineup at some point, no need to rush him at all.
In Romo we Trust
What you don't seem to understand
is that even if he starts first game, that doesn’t necessarily mean he was “rushed”. Dez is better than Roy is, and will be better than Roy ever was. It’s not rushing him into the starting line up if he proves he is a better player.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 23, 2010 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
I agree with you aussie, there are many successful rookie WRs in the NFL.
If Dez is ready, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him starting on opening day. That’s not a small “if” … Dez has some serious studying and mental work to do to prove himself capable.
Some WRs are ready to step in as Rookies, why not Dez?
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
How many targets did Ogletree get last year?
Ogletree was targeted by Romo only 8 times and most of those were smoke routes to the sideline which is, perhaps, the easiest catch possible.
Despite Ogletree’s potential, Garrett only gave him EIGHT TARGETS the entire season.
Now we expect that same Garrett, the same Wade, who hate putting rookies in to all of a sudden crown Dez the #2 reciever where he’ll get 90 targets?
I hate to break it to you guys, but that’s not who Garrett and Wade are. And if you expect Jerry to overrule them… that’s not going to happen either. Jerry is paying Roy $13.5 million and takes every opportunity to point out to the media what a good idea it was to bring Roy to Dallas. He’s shown no intention of pulling the pug on Roy. If anything, he wants to see Roy more involved.
by Blue Eyed Devil on May 23, 2010 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
You are actually comparing Ogletree to Bryant?
Because that is way off It isn’t coincidence that one was drafted in the first round, and the other not at all. Coming into the league they are at very different levels. The comparison is really irrelevant.
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 23, 2010 10:01 PM CDT up reply actions
+1
Blue Devil, hate to break up your breakin’ it to us, but I think it’s gonna be you eating words in a few months, not the other way around.
Dez is not your average rookie. Start with this basic idea and extrapolate :)
Original Pet-Cats: Duane Thomas, Roger Staubach, Walt Garrison, Charlie Waters, Bob Lilly
Tough debate.
While we know Roy has some suckitude, Dez lacks experience.
Dez has potential though; but in a way, so does Roy. Perhaps it’s a different type of potential. My hope is that Dez is every bit the physically fast WR the Cowboys hope he is, while Roy is a productive whatever-the-hell-kind-of-WR he is.
Trust them...they know what they're doing.
by Aaron Novinger on May 23, 2010 7:06 PM CDT up reply actions
If Dez runs the wrong route, we can chalk it up to inexperience
The only cure to inexperience is experience.
When Roy runs the wrong route, it is because he sucks.
No cure for that
Lifetime Cowboys Fan from the Swamps of Jersey
My Beer Blog: http://tiltingsuds.wordpress.com/
Truth
RW is the opposite of WR. Coincidence? I think not.
by aussie_cowboy on May 25, 2010 12:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Blogging The Boys
Related FanShots on Blogging The Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
