View Single Post
Old 05-31-2011, 01:12 PM   #111
gyldenlove
Ring of Famer
 
gyldenlove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nęstved, DK
Posts: 10,775

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Spencer Larsen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cito Pelon View Post
OK, but if the reduction is $9.375 million per team with a total salary outlay of $120 million per team, that's a 7.8% reduction. It's steep, no doubt about it, and I can see how the players don't like that at all.

Yes, it seems the reduction burden will be on the shoulders of the higher-salaried players, but ALL the current and retired players will benefit from enhanced healthcare and retirement plans offered by the owners. The enhanced plans somewhat mitigate the salary reduction.

I don't think the owners are out to gouge the players, and I don't think soccer clubs are operating at a loss. I think the owners have a valid point that operating costs have increased fairly steeply. Who provides the meals, the transportation, pays for the hotels, pays the coaches & support staff, healthcare? The owners.
Both FC Barcelona and Manchester United (who played in the Champions league final and will make more than 200 million dollars from that) are running at deficits this year between 100 and 1000 million dollars. Chelsea FC has run a deficit in excess of 2 billion dollars combined over the last 10 years.

That is why the salary cap is tied to revenue, the owners have increased their revenue and that is why player salary is increasing, we are not talking about play salaries inreasing and revenue falling. Owner revenue has increased by 25% since 2006, that is more than increase in retail prices and services.

This is not about owners struggling to make ends meet, this isn't the NHL. This is about owners wanting more money for themselves, instead of just growing their revenue the old fashioned way by gouging fans on merchandise, tickets and concessions they are now trying to set a system in place that limits free market spending even more. We are told time and time again that the reason CEOs and hedge fund managers make so much money is so they won't go to another company (even the incompetent ones), but this does not extend to NFL players who have capped salaries no matter how good they are (and some of them are demonstrably that good).

Are the players victims? of course not, it is their own choice to play and they make a lot of money - however this labor mess is the players making, the owners ended the previous CBA prematurely, the owners locked out the player ultimately endangering the season and the owners are the ones seeking significant concessions at the negotiation table. Are the players guilty of not negotiating in earnest? yes, but it takes two to tango and the owners didn't exactly put their shoulder to the grindstone to get this deal done in time.

Right now it seems like both sides are so entrenched in trying to build leverage that it will almost surely cost us part if not all of the season and for that I would like to say a heartfelt "**** you" to players and owners alike.
gyldenlove is offline   Reply With Quote