Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

Well, there were some coastal raiding and piracy I believe during the 1800's, so any pirate type theme could make sense in the San Fran Bay/LA areas. It's different than say Vikings in Minnesota, or Redskins in DC.

*was some, sorry.

Isn't there a big Scandinavian population in Minnesota? Vikings sounds appropriate.

Funky, Fagel could probably attest that not all white folk are Scandinavians. I guess it made sense to them because it's cold but the Minnesota Walrus' would make more sense considering the people living there.

Actually, there are a lot of squareheads in Minnesota. They moved there in the late 19th & early 20th Centuries. They basically looked for the only place in North America where the weather was as shitty as it is here.

Even their cheer, Skål Vikings, is Swedish.

Thus ends part 7 of Fågelpojke's guide to the Frozen North. Stay tuned for future installments.

I know my American blonde girl trivia.

The state is known as a center of Scandinavian American culture.
link

I bet this guy is happy his settlement came through now. Also loving the supplement company's name.

Yo, click it.

Details of proposed CBA to owners. A lot of the stuff looks reasonable (players get 48% of all revenue, retired players get improved health care, 18-game schedule is only for negotiating from this point and not locked in the deal, etc.).


linc

Wait a second... the players turned down a deal before that would have taken the first billion off of the top and then given them 60% of the remaining first 9 billion, right? Or was that what they were asking for?

If that's the case they must be caving, because under that plan (the 1 off the top and 60% after) they would have gotten 4.8 billion, while the owners would get 4.2, this new 48% gets them 4.32 billion (and the remaining 4.68 goes to the owners)?

I like the Thursday thing only if it's syndicated and not on the NFL network. Tired of either having to go out to the bars or find some hack to watch it on a computer. You know how much it sucks watching football on a computer?

massive win for players

Wait a second... the players turned down a deal before that would have taken the first billion off of the top and then given them 60% of the remaining first 9 billion, right? Or was that what they were asking for?

They keep saying the "60%" is a bit of a misnomer, since they were getting ~50-55% of existing revenue, not including the $1 bil that they couldn't touch. The 48% includes that $1 bil, and it's roughly the same amount that they were pulling in now, plus it gets rid of any ambiguity as to what the players can and can't have.

So while it seems like a concession if you just look at the %s, it's not as bad as it seems. Also add in the fact that the 18-game season, which some of us thought was a certainty, won't happen without a lot more talking.

The Thursday night package, they may let one of the networks have the 1st 8 games, then NFLN covers the last 8. Keeps NFLN in the loop and brings in more money.

Lyte,

I don't think they got 60% of the remainder. Bass explained that.

The best thing for the players is that, this will scale as they revenues increase. So, if the NFL makes 20 billion dollars instead of 9 billion, then the players would get 48% of THAT. Crazy.

Sounds amazing that the owners agreed to that.

Bass/Jules, I'm not talking about what they were getting, I'm talking about what one of the proposals was before the lockout. Thing is I don't remember which side proposed it, it was the one where the owners got 1B off the top, and then the players got 60% for the next 9B, then the owners got 60% for the next 9B etc.

That 'Proposal' would have been sweeter for the players than this so I'm starting to guess that was what the players had asked for not what the owners asked for.

I'm really not up to date on all this stuff because I've completely ignored it, but my understanding was the owners were already getting $1B off the top in the previous CBA before the % split, which was roughly 50/50 (might have been 52/48 or something like that). The original proposal the owners made, as I understood it, was an ADDITIONAL $1B off the top ($2B total), more advantageous split, and a cap in revenues that would be split. So, the players might get 45% of revenues up to $9 billion and any revenue on top of that went straight to the owners.

Again, this is just going from memory. I'm almost 100% sure the $2 billion off the top figure is correct, though.

Which is why the straight % proposal is in the best interests of both parties, b/c they already don't trust each other - the % leaves little room for doubt (actually, removing ANY amount as being untouchable will do that), especially if the NFL keeps raking in money (something I don't think they'll be able to do for very long - they will eventually run out of room to expand).

Thing is if it doesn't go through the side that balks is broadcasting their level of greed. The player's proposal is lowered in a clean path going forward, so there shouldn't be an issue.

The big deals will come down to the details, when a player can be a UFA, caps on salary, games that mean something etc.

Bass, not sure how it is good for the owners per se. The 1 billion off the top and the 2 billion they wanted would have been prior to a percentage split.

So, if the NFL makes 11 billion, they would have split 9.

If the NFL makes 20 billion, they would have split 18.

Now they will split 11 or 20 or whatever they make regardless of "operating costs". I have no doubt who this "cost" will be dumped on. Wonder how season ticket holders will feel with a new, more aggressive pricing scheme.

Wasn't speaking from a financial standpoint (obv. taking stuff off the top and THEN sharing would be better for the owners, overall), but it was better for all parties to remove any case of doubt and making it a straight-up number.

The NFLPA sued to keep the owners from pocketing that "lockout insurance", which they were banking on as a way to change the system. That kind of stuff breeds mistrust and brings us to where we were 2 months ago.

Now, I don't expect these guys to be hanging with each other on Friday night, but this should help overall negotiations and clear up the misnomer about the 60% the players were getting, not to mention being a true agreement about revenue sharing (and I'm sure there are some "operating costs" pocketed by the owners that are outside of "revenue").

So, looks like all eyes are looking to 7/21 for the lockout to officially end, provided they work out the final kinks.


link

PFT is saying an IPA may be announced as early as Sunday (seems an odd day to break that kind of news, but whatever).

Sooner the better.

Definitely. They really need to be quick about it if they want to save the HoF game.

Does that game matter, though? I know I don't give a shit.

It matters a lot to the NFL and their public perception. Losing the HoF game and settling things just afterwards would make it look like they didn't try hard enough to settle their differences quicker.

It'd be like having your cable fixed just after the 1st 5 minutes of the last episode of Mad Men or something. Sure it may not affect your enjoyment, but it makes your cable provider look like they were eating Doritos or something instead of working.

Plus the Bears and Rams start early b/c of the game, and FA would need at least a week before they start camp.

they were just staring down not making any money and losing the public for a year. they're likely not worried about that game

1 2 3 4 5  6