Conner has out played Bell this year compared to last year. It's the Steelers system and Conner has exposed it.
An NFL team would be moronic to pay him huge money.
Bell will NEVER put up numbers close to what he had with the steelers with another team.
I have no idea what posts like this mean. Unless you can guarantee he wouldn’t have gotten hurt this year how will he not make that money up? The entire point of the hold out was to get 2-3x that in guarantees - will that not happen now?
He could have made 12.5 million this year and signed the same contract (or more) next year. He could have taken out an insurance policy if he was that concerned about injury. Name a player that took a huge hit on a contract because he was injured his contract year? JPP blew off his hand and still made huge money. Players tear ACLs all the time and come back no problem. So it would need to be something bigger than that.
All of a sudden it's about the system, all of a sudden it's about the line.
It has always been the system. It's not all of the sudden. Look at how well other backs have done with Bell didn't play.
Also, Steelers line has injuries this year. They are no where near the cowboys OL of 2 years ago.
This story was never about how people feel bad for Bell and having sympathy for Bell. Its the opposite actually. Fans across the NFL see Bell as some entitled baby that is screwing his teammates. People defending what Bell did aren't doing it because they feel bad for the guy making $15M a year. It's people acknowledging that he did the only thing he can do and he was more than justified to do it.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
He has the right to sit out. Agent did a good job figuring out the tag goes up next year. But he just got a year older. I'm guessing he gets a deal not much better than $70 million for 5, with a year lost.
The gtd number is the only one that matters. If he blows up his knee in year 1, that's the amount he sees. The players assume that anythign that isn't gtd, they won't see. Take a look around the NFL, that's a lowball offer for what he brings.
RE: RE: My point from the beginning of his hold out... Â
I also think Bell will succeed on any offense that knows how to use his talents, specifically his pass catching abilities. He's just not a smash mouth runner so any team that signs him to do that might have a problem.
How about our team or one of the multitude of teams that have a bad OL? Right now Barkley is getting hit the moment he gets the ball in his hands. Imagine Bell with that hesitation style he has... lol
This story was never about how people feel bad for Bell and having sympathy for Bell. Its the opposite actually. Fans across the NFL see Bell as some entitled baby that is screwing his teammates. People defending what Bell did aren't doing it because they feel bad for the guy making $15M a year. It's people acknowledging that he did the only thing he can do and he was more than justified to do it.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
I don't know it's the Steelers organization overall, I think it's really limited to RB's with Pitt (and most of the league).
I don't think there is a RB in the league not on a rookie deal (so no Barkley, Fournette, Elliott, etc.) with over $25M guaranteed $$ in their contract. Even Gurley. They reported $45M in guarantees with Gurley, but look at the details, only $21M is fully guaranteed on signing, the rest is with clauses like "3rd day of the 2019 league year his 2019 salary and 2020 roster bonus becomes guaranteed, 3rd day of the 2020 league year his 2020 salary and 2021 roster bonbus becomes guaranteed, etc."
The Steelers just made AB the highest paid WR (before Beckham signed), Ben was the highest paid QB at the time with his contract (2015) was signed, decastro got a $50M contract with over 30% guaranteed, Pouncey $44M with almost 30% guaranteed, etc.
I really believe this situation is unique to the RB position. Not necessarily the Steelers organization.
are the fans who have emotional ties to their teams and end up spending beyond their means for tickets and concessions, enabling these owners and players to make huge fortunes.
And the ones who don't want to shell out for games, are held hostage by TV networks that show as many commercials as humanly possible.
That's where all this money comes from that the players and owners are fighting over.
This story was never about how people feel bad for Bell and having sympathy for Bell. Its the opposite actually. Fans across the NFL see Bell as some entitled baby that is screwing his teammates. People defending what Bell did aren't doing it because they feel bad for the guy making $15M a year. It's people acknowledging that he did the only thing he can do and he was more than justified to do it.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
This. I can't believe how many different people I've heard or read bash this guy for his 'greed' or being a bad teammate.
It's a contract dispute between employee and employer. There should be absolutely nothing personal here, although for some reason the players on the Steelers sure seem to keep taking it there (which I can only assume either stems from a dislike of Bell in general or them trying to kiss up to management).
Bell took a calculated risk. It might backfire - he might not get more guaranteed money than what Pitt offered, while having lost $14M for this season. He might get a lot more, though, which would have made all this worth it since you have no idea what his career longevity will end up being. He could sign that deal, blow out his knee and be done the first game back.
Nobody has a crystal ball, so nobody can tell whether his gamble was worth it yet. But even if he doesn't cash out - none of us is Bell. We don't know what it was like for him playing in Pitt, or playing football in general. Maybe he values the year off and the chance to breathe a bit more than the money he lost in income.
This story was never about how people feel bad for Bell and having sympathy for Bell. Its the opposite actually. Fans across the NFL see Bell as some entitled baby that is screwing his teammates. People defending what Bell did aren't doing it because they feel bad for the guy making $15M a year. It's people acknowledging that he did the only thing he can do and he was more than justified to do it.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
I don't know it's the Steelers organization overall, I think it's really limited to RB's with Pitt (and most of the league).
I don't think there is a RB in the league not on a rookie deal (so no Barkley, Fournette, Elliott, etc.) with over $25M guaranteed $$ in their contract. Even Gurley. They reported $45M in guarantees with Gurley, but look at the details, only $21M is fully guaranteed on signing, the rest is with clauses like "3rd day of the 2019 league year his 2019 salary and 2020 roster bonus becomes guaranteed, 3rd day of the 2020 league year his 2020 salary and 2021 roster bonbus becomes guaranteed, etc."
The Steelers just made AB the highest paid WR (before Beckham signed), Ben was the highest paid QB at the time with his contract (2015) was signed, decastro got a $50M contract with over 30% guaranteed, Pouncey $44M with almost 30% guaranteed, etc.
I really believe this situation is unique to the RB position. Not necessarily the Steelers organization.
AB got $19M gtd. The second he blows out his knee, thats all he will get. 19M!! OBJ got $65M gtd. Hopkins got $36M gtd. Mike Evans got $38M gtd. AB got $19!
Big Ben got $31M gtd. Stafford got $60M gtd. Eli got $54M gtd. Cousins just got $84M gtd. Jimmy Garoppollo just got $42M gtd.
The Steelers are lucky that these guys took deals with no gtd money, Bell who is at a much higher risk was unwilling.
I fail to see how the Steelers and their lack of financial commitment to their players (real or perceived) is related to the players raiding Bell's locker.
has anything been confirmed that they actually just took all his shit? Like another posted noted, he could have easily just told them to have at it and the media ran with it.
RE: it seems like some of you are taking this personally Â
if a player thinks he's worth something and knows he'd get it if he were a RFA, who are you to say its a stupid decision? You also aren't privy to either the accurate contract details or the conversations that are happening.
If Bell feels the Steelers gave him a shit offer then he's betting on himself in FA which is his right. I respect him for doing that because not many players would.
The CBA sucks.
Yeah, the poor bastard would only have made about 15 million this year, practically minimum wage, he's being oppressed.
such a dumb way to look at this. If you are going to play that card you should probably just stop watching sports all together. Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?
such a dumb way to look at this. If you are going to play that card you should probably just stop watching sports all together. Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?
Some of you have really strange takes on this.
There really is no poor athlete vs billionaire owner in this particular situation.
this case is/was literally a billionaire and a millionaire haggling over who gets more.
I haven't taken a side, I think both are doing what they feel is in the best interest for them and it's within their rights to do so, and I don't have strong thoughts for either side
But your example/post is biased even if the take you responded to is a strange one.
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
Connor has been every bit as good as Bell. The Steelers were interested in signing Bell to a movable contract so they could trade him. The Steelers have been a very good operation for a long time.
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
You're talking about two separate lines of business (F&B/facility operations vs. football operations). I feel reasonably confident that even if the owners could figure out a way to pay the players less, they wouldn't turn around and charge the fans less for in-stadium ancillaries unless the product degraded to a point where the demand fell below the supply curve.
They're not calculating the price of beer based on what they need to pay Le'veon Bell; they're calculating the price of beer based on what John Q. Public will pay for it in a captive environment.
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
Yeah I get that, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it. No different than being part of a company and not agreeing with all of its policies. Bell also wasn't even in the NFL when this CBA was signed so he had 0 input whatsoever.
are charging as much as they possibly can for tickets and concessions in order to maximize overall gate revenue.
Owners (the League) are trying to charge TV providers as much as they possibly can for rights to show the games, who are then charging advertisers as much as they possibly can out of commericials/sponsorships during the broadcast.
All of this makes up the NFL "pie." Players and owners quibble over the share of the pie, but they all benefit tremendously from every ounce of value they can from the fans.
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
You're talking about two separate lines of business (F&B/facility operations vs. football operations). I feel reasonably confident that even if the owners could figure out a way to pay the players less, they wouldn't turn around and charge the fans less for in-stadium ancillaries unless the product degraded to a point where the demand fell below the supply curve.
They're not calculating the price of beer based on what they need to pay Le'veon Bell; they're calculating the price of beer based on what John Q. Public will pay for it in a captive environment.
It may be two separate lines of business, and TV contracts are the biggest contributor, but concession sales, ticket sales, parking, merchandising, etc. all go into the revenue split between players and owners.
Conner has out played Bell this year compared to last year. It's the Steelers system and Conner has exposed it.
An NFL team would be moronic to pay him huge money.
Bell will NEVER put up numbers close to what he had with the steelers with another team.
I have no idea what posts like this mean. Unless you can guarantee he wouldn’t have gotten hurt this year how will he not make that money up? The entire point of the hold out was to get 2-3x that in guarantees - will that not happen now?
He could have made 12.5 million this year and signed the same contract (or more) next year. He could have taken out an insurance policy if he was that concerned about injury. Name a player that took a huge hit on a contract because he was injured his contract year? JPP blew off his hand and still made huge money. Players tear ACLs all the time and come back no problem. So it would need to be something bigger than that.
Nicks.. he was a top 5 WR in 2011.. he got injured and barely got a decent contract after that..
you just answered my question which is he will still get 2-3x what he would have made this year in guarantees and didn't have to risk a career ending injury to get it.
SO what's the problem? I can't tell what people are even questioning anymore. Some seem to think Bell was stupid for doing this then turn around and say he should still get the money he's looking for anyway so which is it?
The only variable that you cannot claim is that he would have made his money this year and not have gotten hurt. That's the entire reason for the holdout unless you have a crystal ball.
As noted, there was a contract disagreement. Whether it's worth, whether it's price, no matter. Each side put out what they wanted and each responded in what they felt was their own best interests in a way in which they were perfectly entitled to do. Either (or both) could end up satisfied or regretful over whatever ultimate outcome occurs.
in fact, I think it worked out poorly for both sides. Bell let go of life changing money because he felt he was worth a lot more than he was offered (and he isn't wrong based on the comps) and the Steelers became a weaker team heading into the playoffs (especially if Connor's concussion lingers or sustains another injury). The fans also don't get to watch one of the better skill players in the league.
in fact, I think it worked out poorly for both sides. Bell let go of life changing money because he felt he was worth a lot more than he was offered (and he isn't wrong based on the comps) and the Steelers became a weaker team heading into the playoffs (especially if Connor's concussion lingers or sustains another injury). The fans also don't get to watch one of the better skill players in the league.
As noted, there was a contract disagreement. Whether it's worth, whether it's price, no matter. Each side put out what they wanted and each responded in what they felt was their own best interests in a way in which they were perfectly entitled to do. Either (or both) could end up satisfied or regretful over whatever ultimate outcome occurs.
Seems like the systems works.
I agree. I think both sides were right in the positions they staked.
The Steelers didn't want to dole out big cash (and I think some of that was driven by Bell's past with suspensions) but they wanted to get unlimited work from him in his likely last season.
Bell wanted to be compensated for the offensive unicorn he is. And that is his mind was likely closer to top WR guaranteed pay than top RB pay. So somewhere in between. And he didn't want to risk injury in his final year, which makes sense considering the wear and tear of the RB position, and how there is diminishing returns usually within a few year of entering the league.
Indeed, it was messy. Hopefully for Bell he gets most of what he wants for next year. While the Steelers seemed to have planned wisely by drafting Connor, their insurance policy as it turns out...
For me, at the end of the day, this is another example of how the owners built a system that gives them more leverage than the players. And the players, stupidly, voted for the system...
If not, they should have traded him before the deadline had passed. He's a great player but they really don't need him. They have the best OL coach in the league and no matter who runs behind that line, they are productive. It's like the old Denver lines when Shanahan was coaching there and again when he was with the Skins. They can put any back in there and the offense will be fine.
They passed the deadline to trade him a while back Â
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
That is so lame, your comment was tongue in cheek but you call me dumb because of what, like I really believed it was minimum wage, seriously. You can’t have it both ways, my comment was meant to reflect that he made his own situation and I’d he doesn’t think that’s enough then fine sit out. But people are making him out to be such a sympathetic character you included, which is patently ludicrous. So if you want to have a discussion fine but if you are going to make inane comments to the effect that I shouldn’t watch sports anymore you are truly lost.
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
That is so lame, your comment was tongue in cheek but you call me dumb because of what, like I really believed it was minimum wage, seriously. You can’t have it both ways, my comment was meant to reflect that he made his own situation and I’d he doesn’t think that’s enough then fine sit out. But people are making him out to be such a sympathetic character you included, which is patently ludicrous. So if you want to have a discussion fine but if you are going to make inane comments to the effect that I shouldn’t watch sports anymore you are truly lost.
Did you reply to the right post? I didn't call anyone dumb, did I? I also never said you shouldn't watch sports.
Maybe because of the quote feature you replied to the wrong poster.
If I offended you it was unintentional.
When it's intentional I usually say something like "with all due respect..." or "no offense intended.." before I levy an insult.
and I don’t know what to tell him. When you chime in just to say what he said than it’s a hard comment to take seriously. If you are questioning how much athletes think they should make compared to their peers than there’s isn’t much left to talk about.
I don’t feel bad for Bell, I support his decision, nothing more nothing less.
RE: They passed the deadline to trade him a while back Â
but I’m guessing they got shit offers for him based on him not signing and/or the contract it would take to keep him long term. It’s hard to part with a high pick and then also pay a boatload of money.
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
You're talking about two separate lines of business (F&B/facility operations vs. football operations). I feel reasonably confident that even if the owners could figure out a way to pay the players less, they wouldn't turn around and charge the fans less for in-stadium ancillaries unless the product degraded to a point where the demand fell below the supply curve.
They're not calculating the price of beer based on what they need to pay Le'veon Bell; they're calculating the price of beer based on what John Q. Public will pay for it in a captive environment.
It may be two separate lines of business, and TV contracts are the biggest contributor, but concession sales, ticket sales, parking, merchandising, etc. all go into the revenue split between players and owners.
That has nothing to do with what you were arguing. My point remains, it doesn't matter if the owners pay the players less, they're not going to charge you less for your beer.
And just so we're clear, concessions are NOT included in revenue sharing (neither are incremental revenue from luxury suites and other premium seating).
TL;DR: your beer isn't getting cheaper.
You misunderstood my comment or made assumptions Â
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
RE: You misunderstood my comment or made assumptions Â
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
RE: RE: You misunderstood my comment or made assumptions Â
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Everything in your post is made up or just wrong.
except for "Got it"
Have a good evening.
RE: RE: RE: You misunderstood my comment or made assumptions Â
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Everything in your post is made up or just wrong.
except for "Got it"
Have a good evening.
Go ahead and show one thing that I "made up" or that is "just wrong."
I'll wait.
RE: RE: RE: RE: if you are going to go that route Â
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
That is so lame, your comment was tongue in cheek but you call me dumb because of what, like I really believed it was minimum wage, seriously. You can’t have it both ways, my comment was meant to reflect that he made his own situation and I’d he doesn’t think that’s enough then fine sit out. But people are making him out to be such a sympathetic character you included, which is patently ludicrous. So if you want to have a discussion fine but if you are going to make inane comments to the effect that I shouldn’t watch sports anymore you are truly lost.
Did you reply to the right post? I didn't call anyone dumb, did I? I also never said you shouldn't watch sports.
Maybe because of the quote feature you replied to the wrong poster.
If I offended you it was unintentional.
When it's intentional I usually say something like "with all due respect..." or "no offense intended.." before I levy an insult.
Ok, my bad, sorry,
RE: RE: RE: RE: You misunderstood my comment or made assumptions Â
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Everything in your post is made up or just wrong.
except for "Got it"
Have a good evening.
Go ahead and show one thing that I "made up" or that is "just wrong."
I'll wait.
#1 I never said one word about revenue sharing. You made that up.
#2 I never said I was mad about beer prices. You made that up.
Uconn said it, and he said fans were mad about $11 beer prices but also blaming "poor athletes" for not agreeing to a one year $15M contract.
All I said was that statement was not neutral, but biased against owners. And it is if you read how he wrote it.
Third, below is Article 12 of the CBA which explains aggregate revenues, and again was never part of my point, but for some reason you read my post and said, holy shit, someone is wrong on the Internet I need to fix this and it was largely irrelevant to my point, but you were even wrong about that.
Article 12 of the CBA:
ARTICLE 12
REVENUE ACCOUNTING AND CALCULATION OF THE SALARY CAP
Section 1. All Revenues:
For purposes of this Article, and anywhere else stated in this Agreement, revenues shall be accounted for in the manner set forth below.
(a)
AR.
(i)
All Revenues (“AR”) means the aggregate revenues received or to be received on an accrual basis, for or with respect to a League Year during the term of this
Agreement, by the NFL and all NFL Clubs (and their designees), from all sources, whether known or unknown, derived from, relating to or arising out of the performance
of players in NFL football games, with only the specific exceptions set forth below. AR shall include, without limitation:
(1)
Regular season, preseason, and postseason gate receipts including ticket revenue from “luxury boxes,” suites, and premium seating among NFL Clubs in all cases
net of (A) admission taxes, (B) taxes on tickets regularly paid to governmental authorities
by Clubs or Club Affiliates, provided such taxes are deducted for purposes of calculating
gate receipts subject to revenue sharing and (C) surcharges paid to stadium or municipal
authorities which are deducted for purposes of calculating gate receipts subject to revenue sharing. For purposes of this Subsection, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the
parties, the portion of ticket revenue attributable to luxury boxes, suites and premium
seating shall be the face value of the ticket, or any additional amounts which are subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL Clubs. Revenues from premium charges on ticket sales in excess of the face value of the ticket (e.g., rebates from ticketing sources) shall be
included in AR. Credit card charges related to ticket sales are not considered a deductible “surcharge” and will not be offset against gate receipts. If a Club charges a service fee on the tickets it sells in excess of the face value of the ticket, on a ticket account basis and
not on a per-ticket basis (up to a reasonable maximum amount prescribed by League policy, which as of the effective date of this Agreement is $4 per ticket account), such service fee will not be AR
;
(2)
Proceeds including Copyright Royalty Tribunal and extended market payments from the sale, license or other conveyance of the right to broadcast or exhibit NFL preseason, regular season and playoff games on radio and television including, without limitation, network, local, cable, pay television, satellite encryption, international broadcasts, delayed broadcasts, and all other means of distribution; (3)
Revenues derived from concessions, parking, local advertising and promotion, signage, magazine advertising, local sponsorship agreements, stadium clubs, luxury box income other than that described in Section 1(a)(i)(1) above (with “Super suites” (i.e., suites substantially larger in size than the largest suite regularly available for sale in the stadium) to have no additional value imputed in respect of them by virtue of
such status), Internet operations (including merchandise sales), and sales of programs and novelties;
(4)
The consolidated revenue gen.....
This sure reads like someone who is upset about the price of beer... Â
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
And what you're missing with regard to concessions revenue is that very few teams run their own concessions (if I'm not mistaken, Delaware North handles concessions at MetLife), so there is an element that is similar to how the Yankees used to flow revenue through YES to shield it from revenue sharing.
That said, there clearly is some accounting for concessions revenue in the salary cap calculations, so I was definitely mistaken there.
I don’t even give a shit about the revenue split Â
My main issue is that certain positions get fucked over hard with the franchise rules, particularaly RBs. They need to rework that entire process, increase the amount you get if franchised and limit it to 1 time. To ask a guy drafted in the first round to play for 4 years then the 5th year option and then the tag, that’s 6 years of their career at a position that likely won’t want to pay you top dollar at 27/28 years old unless you are truly special. Bell is actually lucky he wasn’t a first rounder and he’s still getting fucked over under these rules.
RE: This sure reads like someone who is upset about the price of beer... Â
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
And what you're missing with regard to concessions revenue is that very few teams run their own concessions (if I'm not mistaken, Delaware North handles concessions at MetLife), so there is an element that is similar to how the Yankees used to flow revenue through YES to shield it from revenue sharing.
That said, there clearly is some accounting for concessions revenue in the salary cap calculations, so I was definitely mistaken there.
I am not and was not upset with the price of beer at stadiums. I don't even go to games very often.
I simply read Uconn's reply to a person faulting Bell for his decision (a take I did not agree with and sided with Uconn), but I thought Uconn's reply was very one-sided or biased against ownership solely faulting ownership for the price of beer in the stadium.
I think it's at least not very far fetched that players salaries (in addition to other factors) plays a part in concession pricing.
Look at minor league stadiums, arenas, and parks (and I recognize it's not a perfect comparison). concessions are a fraction of major league parks and sometimes even in the same city or close to it as the major league venue.
And look what the Falcons did, they opened a new stadium and cut concessions prices in half (in many cases) from the old stadium. The result...increased concession sales and increased consumer loyalty. I know that's a tangent and pretty unrelated, but still billionaire owner and shows they all don't price concessions at the most they can get based on market conditions/captive buyers.
Quote:
Conner has out played Bell this year compared to last year. It's the Steelers system and Conner has exposed it.
An NFL team would be moronic to pay him huge money.
Bell will NEVER put up numbers close to what he had with the steelers with another team.
I have no idea what posts like this mean. Unless you can guarantee he wouldn’t have gotten hurt this year how will he not make that money up? The entire point of the hold out was to get 2-3x that in guarantees - will that not happen now?
He could have made 12.5 million this year and signed the same contract (or more) next year. He could have taken out an insurance policy if he was that concerned about injury. Name a player that took a huge hit on a contract because he was injured his contract year? JPP blew off his hand and still made huge money. Players tear ACLs all the time and come back no problem. So it would need to be something bigger than that.
Just saying this isn't the best example of the NFL using/abusing the powerless athlete.
He's got plenty of leverage and has exercised it.
I don't buy into the narrative some people are spewing of the poor powerless athlete (in this case) vs the evil mega corporation.
And I applaud Bell not showing up and going on IR or feigning a phantom injury.
that is my point.
It has always been the system. It's not all of the sudden. Look at how well other backs have done with Bell didn't play.
Also, Steelers line has injuries this year. They are no where near the cowboys OL of 2 years ago.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
He has the right to sit out. Agent did a good job figuring out the tag goes up next year. But he just got a year older. I'm guessing he gets a deal not much better than $70 million for 5, with a year lost.
How about our team or one of the multitude of teams that have a bad OL? Right now Barkley is getting hit the moment he gets the ball in his hands. Imagine Bell with that hesitation style he has... lol
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
I don't know it's the Steelers organization overall, I think it's really limited to RB's with Pitt (and most of the league).
I don't think there is a RB in the league not on a rookie deal (so no Barkley, Fournette, Elliott, etc.) with over $25M guaranteed $$ in their contract. Even Gurley. They reported $45M in guarantees with Gurley, but look at the details, only $21M is fully guaranteed on signing, the rest is with clauses like "3rd day of the 2019 league year his 2019 salary and 2020 roster bonus becomes guaranteed, 3rd day of the 2020 league year his 2020 salary and 2021 roster bonbus becomes guaranteed, etc."
The Steelers just made AB the highest paid WR (before Beckham signed), Ben was the highest paid QB at the time with his contract (2015) was signed, decastro got a $50M contract with over 30% guaranteed, Pouncey $44M with almost 30% guaranteed, etc.
I really believe this situation is unique to the RB position. Not necessarily the Steelers organization.
And the ones who don't want to shell out for games, are held hostage by TV networks that show as many commercials as humanly possible.
That's where all this money comes from that the players and owners are fighting over.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
This. I can't believe how many different people I've heard or read bash this guy for his 'greed' or being a bad teammate.
It's a contract dispute between employee and employer. There should be absolutely nothing personal here, although for some reason the players on the Steelers sure seem to keep taking it there (which I can only assume either stems from a dislike of Bell in general or them trying to kiss up to management).
Bell took a calculated risk. It might backfire - he might not get more guaranteed money than what Pitt offered, while having lost $14M for this season. He might get a lot more, though, which would have made all this worth it since you have no idea what his career longevity will end up being. He could sign that deal, blow out his knee and be done the first game back.
Nobody has a crystal ball, so nobody can tell whether his gamble was worth it yet. But even if he doesn't cash out - none of us is Bell. We don't know what it was like for him playing in Pitt, or playing football in general. Maybe he values the year off and the chance to breathe a bit more than the money he lost in income.
Quote:
This story was never about how people feel bad for Bell and having sympathy for Bell. Its the opposite actually. Fans across the NFL see Bell as some entitled baby that is screwing his teammates. People defending what Bell did aren't doing it because they feel bad for the guy making $15M a year. It's people acknowledging that he did the only thing he can do and he was more than justified to do it.
This is about Pitt once again not taking care of their own and eventually players will realize this.
I don't know it's the Steelers organization overall, I think it's really limited to RB's with Pitt (and most of the league).
I don't think there is a RB in the league not on a rookie deal (so no Barkley, Fournette, Elliott, etc.) with over $25M guaranteed $$ in their contract. Even Gurley. They reported $45M in guarantees with Gurley, but look at the details, only $21M is fully guaranteed on signing, the rest is with clauses like "3rd day of the 2019 league year his 2019 salary and 2020 roster bonus becomes guaranteed, 3rd day of the 2020 league year his 2020 salary and 2021 roster bonbus becomes guaranteed, etc."
The Steelers just made AB the highest paid WR (before Beckham signed), Ben was the highest paid QB at the time with his contract (2015) was signed, decastro got a $50M contract with over 30% guaranteed, Pouncey $44M with almost 30% guaranteed, etc.
I really believe this situation is unique to the RB position. Not necessarily the Steelers organization.
AB got $19M gtd. The second he blows out his knee, thats all he will get. 19M!! OBJ got $65M gtd. Hopkins got $36M gtd. Mike Evans got $38M gtd. AB got $19!
Big Ben got $31M gtd. Stafford got $60M gtd. Eli got $54M gtd. Cousins just got $84M gtd. Jimmy Garoppollo just got $42M gtd.
The Steelers are lucky that these guys took deals with no gtd money, Bell who is at a much higher risk was unwilling.
Yes, the guaranteed amount at signing was "just" $19M, his 2018 salary also became guaranteed the first day of the league year - another $13.85M.
So in essence he gets over $33.8M in the first two years of the contract between his pro-rated signing bonus (the portion of the $19M) and his salary.
Which is more than even Beckham, who is the highest paid WR in the league in just about every FA metric (total contract, guaranteed %, cap hit, etc.).
Brown has already restructured that contract too guaranteeing even more - from salary to bonus.
that's still IMO on the players.
If Bell feels the Steelers gave him a shit offer then he's betting on himself in FA which is his right. I respect him for doing that because not many players would.
The CBA sucks.
Yeah, the poor bastard would only have made about 15 million this year, practically minimum wage, he's being oppressed.
Some of you have really strange takes on this.
Some of you have really strange takes on this.
There really is no poor athlete vs billionaire owner in this particular situation.
this case is/was literally a billionaire and a millionaire haggling over who gets more.
I haven't taken a side, I think both are doing what they feel is in the best interest for them and it's within their rights to do so, and I don't have strong thoughts for either side
But your example/post is biased even if the take you responded to is a strange one.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
Quote:
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
You're talking about two separate lines of business (F&B/facility operations vs. football operations). I feel reasonably confident that even if the owners could figure out a way to pay the players less, they wouldn't turn around and charge the fans less for in-stadium ancillaries unless the product degraded to a point where the demand fell below the supply curve.
They're not calculating the price of beer based on what they need to pay Le'veon Bell; they're calculating the price of beer based on what John Q. Public will pay for it in a captive environment.
Quote:
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
Yeah I get that, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it. No different than being part of a company and not agreeing with all of its policies. Bell also wasn't even in the NFL when this CBA was signed so he had 0 input whatsoever.
Owners (the League) are trying to charge TV providers as much as they possibly can for rights to show the games, who are then charging advertisers as much as they possibly can out of commericials/sponsorships during the broadcast.
All of this makes up the NFL "pie." Players and owners quibble over the share of the pie, but they all benefit tremendously from every ounce of value they can from the fans.
Quote:
In comment 14178467 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
You're talking about two separate lines of business (F&B/facility operations vs. football operations). I feel reasonably confident that even if the owners could figure out a way to pay the players less, they wouldn't turn around and charge the fans less for in-stadium ancillaries unless the product degraded to a point where the demand fell below the supply curve.
They're not calculating the price of beer based on what they need to pay Le'veon Bell; they're calculating the price of beer based on what John Q. Public will pay for it in a captive environment.
It may be two separate lines of business, and TV contracts are the biggest contributor, but concession sales, ticket sales, parking, merchandising, etc. all go into the revenue split between players and owners.
Quote:
In comment 14178100 ZogZerg said:
Quote:
Conner has out played Bell this year compared to last year. It's the Steelers system and Conner has exposed it.
An NFL team would be moronic to pay him huge money.
Bell will NEVER put up numbers close to what he had with the steelers with another team.
I have no idea what posts like this mean. Unless you can guarantee he wouldn’t have gotten hurt this year how will he not make that money up? The entire point of the hold out was to get 2-3x that in guarantees - will that not happen now?
He could have made 12.5 million this year and signed the same contract (or more) next year. He could have taken out an insurance policy if he was that concerned about injury. Name a player that took a huge hit on a contract because he was injured his contract year? JPP blew off his hand and still made huge money. Players tear ACLs all the time and come back no problem. So it would need to be something bigger than that.
Nicks.. he was a top 5 WR in 2011.. he got injured and barely got a decent contract after that..
SO what's the problem? I can't tell what people are even questioning anymore. Some seem to think Bell was stupid for doing this then turn around and say he should still get the money he's looking for anyway so which is it?
The only variable that you cannot claim is that he would have made his money this year and not have gotten hurt. That's the entire reason for the holdout unless you have a crystal ball.
As noted, there was a contract disagreement. Whether it's worth, whether it's price, no matter. Each side put out what they wanted and each responded in what they felt was their own best interests in a way in which they were perfectly entitled to do. Either (or both) could end up satisfied or regretful over whatever ultimate outcome occurs.
Seems like the systems works.
+1
As noted, there was a contract disagreement. Whether it's worth, whether it's price, no matter. Each side put out what they wanted and each responded in what they felt was their own best interests in a way in which they were perfectly entitled to do. Either (or both) could end up satisfied or regretful over whatever ultimate outcome occurs.
Seems like the systems works.
I agree. I think both sides were right in the positions they staked.
The Steelers didn't want to dole out big cash (and I think some of that was driven by Bell's past with suspensions) but they wanted to get unlimited work from him in his likely last season.
Bell wanted to be compensated for the offensive unicorn he is. And that is his mind was likely closer to top WR guaranteed pay than top RB pay. So somewhere in between. And he didn't want to risk injury in his final year, which makes sense considering the wear and tear of the RB position, and how there is diminishing returns usually within a few year of entering the league.
Indeed, it was messy. Hopefully for Bell he gets most of what he wants for next year. While the Steelers seemed to have planned wisely by drafting Connor, their insurance policy as it turns out...
For me, at the end of the day, this is another example of how the owners built a system that gives them more leverage than the players. And the players, stupidly, voted for the system...
Quote:
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
That is so lame, your comment was tongue in cheek but you call me dumb because of what, like I really believed it was minimum wage, seriously. You can’t have it both ways, my comment was meant to reflect that he made his own situation and I’d he doesn’t think that’s enough then fine sit out. But people are making him out to be such a sympathetic character you included, which is patently ludicrous. So if you want to have a discussion fine but if you are going to make inane comments to the effect that I shouldn’t watch sports anymore you are truly lost.
Quote:
In comment 14178489 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
That is so lame, your comment was tongue in cheek but you call me dumb because of what, like I really believed it was minimum wage, seriously. You can’t have it both ways, my comment was meant to reflect that he made his own situation and I’d he doesn’t think that’s enough then fine sit out. But people are making him out to be such a sympathetic character you included, which is patently ludicrous. So if you want to have a discussion fine but if you are going to make inane comments to the effect that I shouldn’t watch sports anymore you are truly lost.
Did you reply to the right post? I didn't call anyone dumb, did I? I also never said you shouldn't watch sports.
Maybe because of the quote feature you replied to the wrong poster.
If I offended you it was unintentional.
When it's intentional I usually say something like "with all due respect..." or "no offense intended.." before I levy an insult.
I don’t feel bad for Bell, I support his decision, nothing more nothing less.
I know they can't trade him after. I said they should have traded him before the deadline.
Quote:
In comment 14178474 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 14178467 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
I'm 100% neutral in this argument. I responded to a "poor athlete, how can he ever survive off $15 million" post and cited beer costs on why I think both arguments are dumb.
The Steelers looked out for themselves within the boundaries of the rules. Bell is looking out for himself within the boundaries of the rules. The NFL wins either way, but that's a separate point.
I really don't understand what you are getting at at this point.
It's biased in the way you phrased your post...for example
"Its ok for the billionaire owners to charge you $11 for a beer but shame on the poor athlete for not thinking $15 million for his services is good enough?"
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
That's pretty much the definition of bias, even if it was unconscious bias.
You're talking about two separate lines of business (F&B/facility operations vs. football operations). I feel reasonably confident that even if the owners could figure out a way to pay the players less, they wouldn't turn around and charge the fans less for in-stadium ancillaries unless the product degraded to a point where the demand fell below the supply curve.
They're not calculating the price of beer based on what they need to pay Le'veon Bell; they're calculating the price of beer based on what John Q. Public will pay for it in a captive environment.
It may be two separate lines of business, and TV contracts are the biggest contributor, but concession sales, ticket sales, parking, merchandising, etc. all go into the revenue split between players and owners.
That has nothing to do with what you were arguing. My point remains, it doesn't matter if the owners pay the players less, they're not going to charge you less for your beer.
And just so we're clear, concessions are NOT included in revenue sharing (neither are incremental revenue from luxury suites and other premium seating).
TL;DR: your beer isn't getting cheaper.
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Quote:
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Everything in your post is made up or just wrong.
except for "Got it"
Have a good evening.
Quote:
In comment 14178843 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Everything in your post is made up or just wrong.
except for "Got it"
Have a good evening.
Go ahead and show one thing that I "made up" or that is "just wrong."
I'll wait.
Quote:
In comment 14178503 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
In comment 14178489 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
than you need to go all the way in. Maybe Bell didn't want to agree to this CBA. In fact, I know plenty of players didn't want this CBA but there's nothing they could do because stars win out and won't forego a years pay for a hold out.
But that isn't what we are talking about. I used a throw away comment to combat a dumb comment about how $15 million is minimum wage. If there was a comment that was biased its that one. My comment was tongue in cheek and meant to show how many angles there are to this and that I get why all parties are looking out for themselves.
If it was tongue and cheek, my apologies.
But to your point about the CBA, that's what you get when you are part of a union. No one forced the NFL to unionize they decided to and therefore all "employees" are represented by the union and the union negotiations CBA's on their behalf and players know this going in to their career.
That is so lame, your comment was tongue in cheek but you call me dumb because of what, like I really believed it was minimum wage, seriously. You can’t have it both ways, my comment was meant to reflect that he made his own situation and I’d he doesn’t think that’s enough then fine sit out. But people are making him out to be such a sympathetic character you included, which is patently ludicrous. So if you want to have a discussion fine but if you are going to make inane comments to the effect that I shouldn’t watch sports anymore you are truly lost.
Did you reply to the right post? I didn't call anyone dumb, did I? I also never said you shouldn't watch sports.
Maybe because of the quote feature you replied to the wrong poster.
If I offended you it was unintentional.
When it's intentional I usually say something like "with all due respect..." or "no offense intended.." before I levy an insult.
Ok, my bad, sorry,
Quote:
In comment 14178942 Gatorade Dunk said:
Quote:
In comment 14178843 pjcas18 said:
Quote:
yes concessions sales are retained revenue, so they're not shared with other teams as part of revenue sharing but the salary cap is calculated based on the sum of shared and retained revenue for all the teams (at least I believe it still is even in this CBA).
So no they don't share it with the rest of the league and I never said they did, but it factors in to split between the NFL and the players used to calculate the salary cap aka the players % of revenue.
Which also was not my point of the response, but you happened to latch on to it, which was largely irrelevant to the discussion.
So you were wrong about the revenue sharing, are now walking that back (though you remain incorrect about the part you're still claiming - it's league revenue that matters; concessions and premium seating, much like team/stadium-specific sponsorship revenue, do not count in the cap calculus), and you very specifically made a statement about how the price of beer in an NFL stadium gave you, as a fan, a right to be annoyed with player salaries, but that wasn't your point?
Got it.
Everything in your post is made up or just wrong.
except for "Got it"
Have a good evening.
Go ahead and show one thing that I "made up" or that is "just wrong."
I'll wait.
#1 I never said one word about revenue sharing. You made that up.
#2 I never said I was mad about beer prices. You made that up.
Uconn said it, and he said fans were mad about $11 beer prices but also blaming "poor athletes" for not agreeing to a one year $15M contract.
All I said was that statement was not neutral, but biased against owners. And it is if you read how he wrote it.
Third, below is Article 12 of the CBA which explains aggregate revenues, and again was never part of my point, but for some reason you read my post and said, holy shit, someone is wrong on the Internet I need to fix this and it was largely irrelevant to my point, but you were even wrong about that.
Article 12 of the CBA:
ARTICLE 12
REVENUE ACCOUNTING AND CALCULATION OF THE SALARY CAP
Section 1.
All Revenues:
For purposes of this Article, and anywhere else stated in this Agreement, revenues shall be accounted for in the manner set forth below.
(a)
AR.
(i)
All Revenues (“AR”) means the aggregate revenues received or to be received on an accrual basis, for or with respect to a League Year during the term of this
Agreement, by the NFL and all NFL Clubs (and their designees), from all sources, whether known or unknown, derived from, relating to or arising out of the performance
of players in NFL football games, with only the specific exceptions set forth below. AR shall include, without limitation:
(1)
Regular season, preseason, and postseason gate receipts including ticket revenue from “luxury boxes,” suites, and premium seating among NFL Clubs in all cases
net of (A) admission taxes, (B) taxes on tickets regularly paid to governmental authorities
by Clubs or Club Affiliates, provided such taxes are deducted for purposes of calculating
gate receipts subject to revenue sharing and (C) surcharges paid to stadium or municipal
authorities which are deducted for purposes of calculating gate receipts subject to revenue sharing. For purposes of this Subsection, unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the
parties, the portion of ticket revenue attributable to luxury boxes, suites and premium
seating shall be the face value of the ticket, or any additional amounts which are subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL Clubs. Revenues from premium charges on ticket sales in excess of the face value of the ticket (e.g., rebates from ticketing sources) shall be
included in AR. Credit card charges related to ticket sales are not considered a deductible “surcharge” and will not be offset against gate receipts. If a Club charges a service fee on the tickets it sells in excess of the face value of the ticket, on a ticket account basis and
not on a per-ticket basis (up to a reasonable maximum amount prescribed by League policy, which as of the effective date of this Agreement is $4 per ticket account), such service fee will not be AR
;
(2)
Proceeds including Copyright Royalty Tribunal and extended market payments from the sale, license or other conveyance of the right to broadcast or exhibit NFL preseason, regular season and playoff games on radio and television including, without limitation, network, local, cable, pay television, satellite encryption, international broadcasts, delayed broadcasts, and all other means of distribution;
(3)
Revenues derived from concessions, parking, local advertising and promotion, signage, magazine advertising, local sponsorship agreements, stadium clubs, luxury box income other than that described in Section 1(a)(i)(1) above (with “Super suites” (i.e., suites substantially larger in size than the largest suite regularly available for sale in the stadium) to have no additional value imputed in respect of them by virtue of
such status), Internet operations (including merchandise sales), and sales of programs and novelties;
(4)
The consolidated revenue gen.....
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
And what you're missing with regard to concessions revenue is that very few teams run their own concessions (if I'm not mistaken, Delaware North handles concessions at MetLife), so there is an element that is similar to how the Yankees used to flow revenue through YES to shield it from revenue sharing.
That said, there clearly is some accounting for concessions revenue in the salary cap calculations, so I was definitely mistaken there.
Quote:
The players get 48.5% of the revenue, maybe the players and owners contribute to the reason we as fans pay $11 for a beer.
Again, IMV, if you're being truly unbiased for this particular case it is billionaires and millionaires haggling over $$$ (not younger players, but free agents or would be free agents like Bell). Not sure why someone can't feel like they're getting gouged on beer prices and both parties contribute to that, not just the billionaire owners.
And what you're missing with regard to concessions revenue is that very few teams run their own concessions (if I'm not mistaken, Delaware North handles concessions at MetLife), so there is an element that is similar to how the Yankees used to flow revenue through YES to shield it from revenue sharing.
That said, there clearly is some accounting for concessions revenue in the salary cap calculations, so I was definitely mistaken there.
I am not and was not upset with the price of beer at stadiums. I don't even go to games very often.
I simply read Uconn's reply to a person faulting Bell for his decision (a take I did not agree with and sided with Uconn), but I thought Uconn's reply was very one-sided or biased against ownership solely faulting ownership for the price of beer in the stadium.
I think it's at least not very far fetched that players salaries (in addition to other factors) plays a part in concession pricing.
Look at minor league stadiums, arenas, and parks (and I recognize it's not a perfect comparison). concessions are a fraction of major league parks and sometimes even in the same city or close to it as the major league venue.
And look what the Falcons did, they opened a new stadium and cut concessions prices in half (in many cases) from the old stadium. The result...increased concession sales and increased consumer loyalty. I know that's a tangent and pretty unrelated, but still billionaire owner and shows they all don't price concessions at the most they can get based on market conditions/captive buyers.