[R1king]

#7

Do not allow teams to build domes, unless they promise to keep the roof open 3 days prior to and on gameday.

[AlexanderPalamayr]

Health insurance for those players at a minimum. They have doctors on team staff, it would not be ridiculous to add one more to take care of basic office visits and screening, and physical therapy after major joint replacements, recovery from organ surgery, etc. The NFL can afford self insurance for these guys, theres not that many and they have assets in place.

You have no real idea how much decent insurance would be for these guys.

Seriously, I work in Benefits. For a group like former NFL players, it would be astronomical. Not that the NFL couldn't afford it, but who gets less $$ to cover those guys?

[xsexymasterix]

You have no real idea how much decent insurance would be for these guys.

Seriously, I work in Benefits. For a group like former NFL players, it would be astronomical. Not that the NFL couldn't afford it, but who gets less $$ to cover those guys?

Mike Ditka has proposed a plan where each team would put in a certain amount of money that would be enough to pay for an annuity to cover all of the players in question. It's a small amount of money by today's NFL standards.

[sportbos]

Please, please, PLEASE...No more ad spots...

[Nubtoubrem]

Please, please, PLEASE...No more ad spots...

Good luck with that one.

[AssinHT]

Good luck with that one.

I'm petrified at what more they think they can squeeze in...It's horrendous enough already.

[Knillagrarp]

You've got 5000 or so ex-players, most of whom are particularly high risk for disability. If you have an annuity to help them until medicare age, it's going to have to be HUGE and also require significant upkeep.

The players will have to take a cut in pay.

[Everwondopedo]

You've got 5000 or so ex-players, most of whom are particularly high risk for disability. If you have an annuity to help them until medicare age, it's going to have to be HUGE and also require significant upkeep.

The players will have to take a cut in pay.

Any idea how huge, roughly? So we can put a nummber on it?

[UFJon]

I mean, you look at the STAGGERING amount of money the NFL gets paid for the rights to use their product from so many sources, and you would think they could find a way to do something.

[kylsq0Ln]

Any idea how huge, roughly? So we can put a nummber on it?

Hmmm... for an average claimant base, the costs (Med & Rx) run about $700 per person per month. There are a lot of variable factors in there (demographics is not the least important)....

But for you average 'high claimant', for which companies get stop-loss (aka reinsurance) to protect themselves from, are those whose annual claims top $225,000 a year. If you have enough of those, your bottom line gets annihilated. The problem is that with the medical histories that we'd be talking about, no company is going to give a quote on the stop-loss. So the annuity is going to have to be significant enough to absorb those high-end costs.

So the majority of the claims and cost are going to come from the older population, not to mention the extreme end of the costs. Let's throw a number in of 200 'high claim' enrollees. Since there are 350 of 5000 on 'disability' per Ditka, I think that the 200 might be pretty close.

200 x $225,000 = $45 million. This year.

Add in the basic costs:
$700 per enrollee per month.
5000 x $700 x 12. $42 million. This year.

Even if I'm off on the first number by 50%, we're talking between $60 and $90 million PER YEAR to provide coverage. And I think the $700 per enrollee per month to be VERY low end, considering the risk factors and issues that have to be out there.

So, to sum up - Add a team's payroll to the bottom line for the league (as if there were 33 teams instead of 32). That's probably what we're talking about, in a general sense, but we'd also have to have a large fund to back up any surge in large claimants. How many guys do you think might hit multi-million dollar claims in one year? Would the plan have a cap to limit the max (thus making it more cost effective, yet risking the outrage when some guy hits his limit and is then uncovered)?

---------------------
Further calculation:
Assuming my numbers above are accurate, in order to establish an annuity that pays out enough to cover the annual costs without tapping the equity - assuming a 6% rate of return on investment, you'd need a total base of $1.5 Billion.

Hey, sell the Cowboys. That oughta about cover it...

[TeNuaTe]

Please, please, PLEASE...No more ad spots...

I'd settle for them limiting the number of times a given song can be used during a day's games. I swear, by about the fourth or fifth time I hear "This Is Our Country," I'm looking for an axe and the nearest country singer.

[maclaudser]

I'd settle for them limiting the number of times a given song can be used during a day's games. I swear, by about the fourth or fifth time I hear "This Is Our Country," I'm looking for an axe and the nearest country singer.

Actually, you'd want to find the nearest rock star. That song was penned and performed by John Mellencamp.

[Katoabralia]

Hmmm... for an average claimant base, the costs (Med & Rx) run about $700 per person per month. There are a lot of variable factors in there (demographics is not the least important)....

But for you average 'high claimant', for which companies get stop-loss (aka reinsurance) to protect themselves from, are those whose annual claims top $225,000 a year. If you have enough of those, your bottom line gets annihilated. The problem is that with the medical histories that we'd be talking about, no company is going to give a quote on the stop-loss. So the annuity is going to have to be significant enough to absorb those high-end costs.

So the majority of the claims and cost are going to come from the older population, not to mention the extreme end of the costs. Let's throw a number in of 200 'high claim' enrollees. Since there are 350 of 5000 on 'disability' per Ditka, I think that the 200 might be pretty close.

200 x $225,000 = $45 million. This year.

Add in the basic costs:
$700 per enrollee per month.
5000 x $700 x 12. $42 million. This year.

Even if I'm off on the first number by 50%, we're talking between $60 and $90 million PER YEAR to provide coverage. And I think the $700 per enrollee per month to be VERY low end, considering the risk factors and issues that have to be out there.

So, to sum up - Add a team's payroll to the bottom line for the league (as if there were 33 teams instead of 32). That's probably what we're talking about, in a general sense, but we'd also have to have a large fund to back up any surge in large claimants. How many guys do you think might hit multi-million dollar claims in one year? Would the plan have a cap to limit the max (thus making it more cost effective, yet risking the outrage when some guy hits his limit and is then uncovered)?

So if the NFL brings in roughly 4 Billion per year on TV contracts alone (networks at $3.1 bil, plus DirecTV at over $700 mil, from Wikipedia)...we're talking about 3 percent of that, to be safe. And that's not even considering the myriad of other licensing deals the NFL has.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a difficult task and that some people wouldn't have to give up something in the process, but there are enough smart people involved with the NFL that I'm sure they could make it happen.

[BashBeissedat]

So if the NFL brings in roughly 4 Billion per year on TV contracts alone (networks at $3.1 bil, plus DirecTV at over $700 mil, from Wikipedia)...we're talking about 3 percent of that, to be safe. And that's not even considering the myriad of other licensing deals the NFL has.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a difficult task and that some people wouldn't have to give up something in the process, but there are enough smart people involved with the NFL that I'm sure they could make it happen.

I put an addendum to my numbers.

If Ditka wants an annuity to cover it, we're talking $1.5 billion. What a bargain!

It certainly could be done. Who's gonna pay for it? The owners are going to point the fingers at the players, who earn these exorbitant salaries. The players are going to want to keep their share, and point at the moneybags owners.

[wvbwxol]

Next addendum. Remember, the league doesn't want to pay the refs full time. They are cutting corners there, too. That can't run up more than a half mil across the board.

You think cutting 3% off the bottom line is going to make ANYONE happy?

[intisgunkas]

I put an addendum to my numbers.

If Ditka wants an annuity to cover it, we're talking $1.5 billion. What a bargain!

It certainly could be done. Who's gonna pay for it? The owners are going to point the fingers at the players, who earn these exorbitant salaries. The players are going to want to keep their share, and point at the moneybags owners.

Perhaps then the league itself should step in and say there needs to be equal contribution by all. The players contribute, the owners contribute, and the league who is responsible for managing the whole circus also contributes. This way, no one can say one or the other isn't pulling their weight in this. But of course, it isn't just that simple. There are many big egos involved who claim responsibility should not rest with him. And obviously deeper than that.

Also, in respons to the refs not being paid full-time, wtf? If it results in a half million saved each year, I'm certainly not seeing the benefit of those savings. I would think the savings would come from paying them full-time and getting the quality that which is expected from them and pay several fewer people to take phone calls from people bitching about the shoddy officiating in the games.

[Senasivar]

Mike Ditka's testimony to the Senate committee:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...itness_ID=6741

[Goodwin]

does anybody remember when the refs went on strike?

they brought in college and high school guys and they did a better job.

and without replay.

Worst

Strike

Ever

Wrong.

The worst strike ever was when the umpires walked and basically said, "fine, fire us, then". And thats exactly what happened.

Long live Richie Phillips.

[limpoporanique]

Mike Ditka's testimony to the Senate committee:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...itness_ID=6741

I love his description of the playing surface we used to see in domes and some other stadiums.

a concrete parking lot covered with a quarter-inch layer of indoor-outdoor carpeting called “Astroturf”

I still recall the absolutely horrifying moment in a Bears-Eagles game at the old Vet in Philly. I don't recall if it was a Bears' receiver or DB, but I was completely horrified and dumbfounded when the guy had to be carted off the field when as a result of the hit and the contact with the playing surface, his knee-caps ended up underneath the top of his thigh pads.

Yet for several years after, teams continued to play on this most dangerous playing surface. I understand that technology in field turf was a ways out, but there had to be some way to provide some padding under the astroturf.

[retTreftowhexm]

Perhaps then the league itself should step in and say there needs to be equal contribution by all. The players contribute, the owners contribute, and the league who is responsible for managing the whole circus also contributes. This way, no one can say one or the other isn't pulling their weight in this. But of course, it isn't just that simple. There are many big egos involved who claim responsibility should not rest with him. And obviously deeper than that.

Also, in respons to the refs not being paid full-time, wtf? If it results in a half million saved each year, I'm certainly not seeing the benefit of those savings. I would think the savings would come from paying them full-time and getting the quality that which is expected from them and pay several fewer people to take phone calls from people bitching about the shoddy officiating in the games.

As for who contributes, the players are already contributing a sizeable chunk to their own retirement. I hate to say it, but while they owe something to the old-timers, the owners owe significantly more. Though I could see this being a staple portion of future negotiations.

As for the refs, it doesn't matter if they are full time or part time - they are still going to get calls wrong, and people will complain (even if the calls are correct). The issue is PT with decent pay, or FT with slightly better pay + benefits.

Isn't it interesting that the 'benefits' issue crops up in two places?