A Letter From Chiefs Owner Clark Hunt

funny. The fans keep coming back. Remember the last strike, Jack Del Rio arrived at the stadium with a shotgun, remember?? Now he is a head coach, no harm, no foul. Football fans want to see games and, while they profess to support the players, ie no players = no NFL, it is so much bs. In 4-5 years there will be a turn over of over 70%, all the loved, cannot do without, players will be gone and, guess what, the fans will still want their football. With 8 billion dollars at stake, do season ticket holders matter? Sorry, but who really matter here?? not us.

No players = no NFL. Also, in my opinion it is not a privilege to play in the NFL. It is much closer to a God given right. No matter how hard I worked I could never, ever play in the NFL because God did not give me the physical abilities needed to compete at that level. The guys strapping on the pads for the Chiefs, were given that ability and by in large, the ones who succeed do so because they bust their asses and put their health on the line every time they step on the field. If your company was making record profits yearly and you worked at a place that only employed the absolute elite in your profession and your boss came to you and said "I want to pay you less even though we are making more and more money every year," wouldn't you have a problem with that? If you had an avenue to protect yourself from having your wages taken away would not attempt to take that route? The reason the NFL is in a lockout is because of the owners. Plain and simple. The owners opted out of the CBA, the owners negotiated a TV deal to ensure they could survive a work stoppage. We all get that right? Clark and his boys screwed the players out of TV money they were supposed to be sharing so that they could instead have a lockout fund. Why did they need a lockout fund? Because they were so hell bent on making the players give them some money back that they planned for missed NFL games. They were counting on it. The owners, not the players, wanted the NFL to miss games this year so that the players would miss game checks and be forced to sign any crap deal the owners put on the table. So how were the players supposed to believe the owners were bargaining in good faith? That owners were going to peace talks with a gun in their pocket. The only argument I ever hear from anyone who is pro owner is that it is "their right" to do whatever they want. Well, this is America and in America workers have the right to fight having their wages taken away from them.

Patrick I agree with you on everything but the fight against wage reduction. Reportedly the owners offered to increase the cap of every team. As to the profiting from others work; the players make endorsement money. That money is a direct result of the NFL’s popularity. That popularity was achieved by the work of the owners. In essence the players are profiting from the owners and their ability to negotiate. Why the double standards. Not picking sides as I think both are being ridicules. Your point of someone making money without sharing the profit goes both ways. Do you think the players would ever conceder giving 62 % of their endorsement money over to the owners for services rendered?

Well the players (as far as I know) don't have an agreement to share revenue for selling their own image with the owners. Peyton Manning is selling himself, not the Colts, when he sells cable or whatever. The reason I brought up the sharing of wages and the TV revenue was because the owners and players, per the CBA, were to share revenue, including revenue from the TV contracts. When the owners told the networks that that to sign a new deal, that the networks had to pay them in the event of a work stoppage in 2011, the networks offered to pay the NFL extra in 2009 and 2010 to avoid having to pay in the event that there was no football. The owners turned the deal down. At that instance, they were in violation of the CBA. Now if the owners want to negotiate with the players that the players must pay the owners a cut of their advertising endorsements, then they should go for it. I'm not sure if there is already something like this in place. Maybe Peyton can appear in his street clothes but if he is in uniform, the Colts get a cut. I dunno

I completely agree with you Paddy- I like how you bring us into the mindset of the player, it makes everything much clearer. To add onto that, I would like to further address this argument in terms of a "business" mindset. The NFL is not your typical business, so things like revenue sharing and employee rights cannot be paralleled to your everyday business. In a typical business, the owner is the one with the financial liability- HE is the one putting HIS money into the business with the hopes of earning a net profit (Business 101 ;) ). Because all financial risk on his back, he gets to decide the wages and he decides how the revenue is split, because it is HIS business, he owns it. The typical employee has the legal right to a safe working environment and a fair wage. If an employee wants the owner to show financial transparency, the owner has the right to say f*** that. Once again though, the NFL is VERY different from your average business. First of all, there really is no financial risk to being an owner in the NFL, the NFL is a cash cow. The owners don't even have to pay for the stadiums, we the fans and all other citizens pay for them in our taxes! Being an NFL owner, you are guaranteed to earn a substantial profit so there really is no financial risk there. Another reason the NFL is different is because the "product" that the owners are selling is essentially the players themselves. These differences I have laid out account for why players deserve more of a say in the revenue sharing than your average Joe working in a shoe factory somewhere. This defaces the whole "well its MY business, so I get the ultimate say" argument. Now, it is very important not to forget that we are in this current debacle because of the owners hidden (not so hidden) agenda - which is to have power over the players and essentially make more and more money. How do you think they became billionaires? By being generous? Not to beat a drum, but the owners ARE the ones who started this whole shit show by opting out of the CBA when everything seemed to be fine. The owners decided they wanted a new deal, where instead of taking 1 billion off the top of the net revenue, they take 2 billion. In response to this, the players asked for financial transparency, to which the owners replied HELL no, and made it seem like an outlandish request. This whole "I own the business! I don't have to show you a thing" mentality is floating feverishly around the owners table. What are they hiding? Why can't they open their books? Is it a pride thing? I doubt it. It's probably more of a "I don't want you to see all the crap I'm buying that you don't know about" thing. It is NOT unreasonable by any means for the players to want to see what the owners are doing with the money that they have collectively earned together. Can you imagine what kind of sick/twisted things these billionaires have been buying "under the table" with all that extra revenue? The fact of the matter is, the owners are really the ones to blame here. The players deserve to see the books, especially if the owners are trying to take another billion from the revenue. Bottom line: both the owners and the players are being greedy, but the owners are using deceptive measures to maintain control of the business, and the players aren't standing for it, which they have the right to do.

I'm not sure anyone would want to buy Peyton Manning if not for the NFL but I will concede that point. I just hate to hear "God given talent" as a reason for the players to receive their part. Intelligence is also given by God and most the owners are above par in that regard. I would relate it to Yourself and AA. When I first found this sight it was already up and running. I visited it from time to time and The post always kept me coming back but nothing special grabbed me. I cant put my finger on it but it didn't have the passion it has now. Then came the day I found your Morning Fix. Everything I needed in one place. Brilliant! absolutely Brilliant!But you didn't stop their and the sight received change after change. Long story short, I now visit the sight every morning and every afternoon. You have separated this sight from all others. In my opinion your direction is what has lifted this sight above the fray. Big Mat and the rest of your talented staff would make it at any other blog but would they be as inspired when they write? Big Matt is one hell of a writer and I never want to see a day when Big Matt is not here. Having said that I would hope if, God forbid, that day came this sight would continue without him. I vision you and Big Matt fighting over who gets the lions share of the case of beer in the fridge. He is insisting on having 8 of the 12. You should lock him out of the cooler befor its too late. Aneway, my point is without inspirational leadership it is all crap. I know the USFL had a lot of talented players. so much so that some of them are now in the NFL hall of fame. With all that player talent at their disposal why did they fold? Lack of a solid buisness plan. The NFL is molded in the vision of the owners and they should be reworded for their dedication to that vision. Yes they even have the right to name their own price. Patrick I wish I had the ability to put my feeling in written form. I am envious of your "God Given Talent".

No owners = no NFL...

"No players = no NFL" True statement. Also pointless. That's like saying no books no library. What you fail to mention is that although "players" are necessary, these players aren't. The current players, the ones who are suing the NFL, can all be cut and replaced. Hell, in 15 - 20 years every single one will be, and you know what? The NFL will still be around. It is the owners that will elevate the game to world appeal through marketing, and advertising. The current players are doing absolutely nothing that players making 20,000 a year didn't do 50 years ago. The current owners are doing way more for the game then their counterparts did 50 years ago and they are doing it for a much smaller piece of the pie! Hell check the history books. Go back to the year of the replacement players... fans still went to games, the nfl still had games on TV and all the players were gone. All fans care about is quality competition. Doesn't have to be the best of the best. That’s why college football, and high school football are so popular. Well matched teams meeting on the gridiron. You can keep all the sue happy prima donna and divas, I would much rather watch a man play football in order to put food on the table, then pay of his sports car.

gjr,are serious? "The current owners are doing way more for the game then their counterparts did 50 years ago".That is the biggest bunch of BS I have ever heard.That comment proves that you are a real idiot.Lamar Hunt,Ralph Wilson,Bud Adams,and lot of other guys were building a new league to rival the NFL.The new league was built so well the NFL had to add the new league or shut their league down for being inferior.It's like building a skyscraper.Building a skyscraper is a lot harder than maintaining an already built skyscraper.

No personal attacks please. Debate respectfully but please don't sling insults.

I am totally serious. Let me first started with your misguided analagy. Are you and architecht? If you were you would know that it is usually much cheaper, easier, and more cost effective to tear down an old building and build up a new one from scratch then it is to maintain an older building, give it the updates, and remodels it needs to get within todays building codes. No as far as the point about what owners today do compared to 50 years ago, I was refering to NFL owners, and the AFL is exactly my point. The NFL owners were doing such a horific job, that some guys off the street were able to start a league and steal half of their first round picks in 1960. How could un upstart and completely unknown league intice players to forego the NFL for them? Could that happen today? NO, because the owners of the NFL today do a much better job, and have the NFL in a stronger position that their counterparts did 50 years ago. 50 years ago owners didn't negotiate billion dollar tv rights, they didnt negotiate licensing agreements with clothing manufacturers, video games, etc etc. 50 years ago an owner could be any guy with enough money to start paying players and pay an entry fee, and make no mistake many of them were nothing more than that. Todays owners are some of the best buisness men in the world, and they use that skill to better the game of football year in and year out.

It's alright paddy. Me being an idiot is the closest thing to being correct that he put in that enire comment. It's all good, no harm no foul, I have been known to get heated myself on here from time to time.

I could be wrong, but wasn't April 25 the date Judge Nelson ended the lockout temporarily by ruling in favor of the players? The date on this letter makes this about twice as hilarious. Of course, I don't think they'll change the form letter from "As you may have read, we have resumed negotiations under Federal mediators" to "As you may have read, we just lost in Federal court and it's not looking to good for our side right now. Did I mention we are the ones who locked the players out, by the way?"

I think we must also realize that this is a legal matter. It seems like an innocent letter from MikeG, a loyal fan just wanting answers, but he was discussing an ongoing lawsuit and legal issues. I know that I have been part of lawsuits, mostly slip and falls, with my company, and when they are ongoing I am directed from my corporate office to not send emails or put ANYTHING in print, just in case it is pulled by the oppositions lawyers. I am most certainly not allowed to comment or respond to questions that directly relate to the legal mater. I think that is a no brainer. And the date on the letter could be significant to the reason why it took so long for a response. He may have been directed by counsel to not respond to anyone, including fans, until a judgment had been made. Afer the judge ruled, and prior to the appeal being filed, Clark would have had a window to address fans (I am sure lawyers would have urged him not to). That being the case, I think he responded in great time, the day of for pete's sake.

Big Matt, I know you are super charged up about this and have been. I for one respect your opinion and how seriously you take this lockout. I’d love to sit over a beer and hear it directly from you sometime. I can’t get too excited about the letter. We both know this lockout goes far beyond him. The politics on this situation on both sides is very intricate. The legal matters are not simple either. Neither of us expected much more of a response than the one that was given. But, honestly, there was no response Clark could possibly give, given his position, that would make you or me feel any better about it. Seems to me, given the circumstances, his response was about as much as he probably could do at this point. All I’m saying is he may be the devil in this lockout situation, but even if he isn’t, there was no response letter he could have written in this situation would have made it any better. Hence, it doesn’t make it any worse to me.

This was exactly what I would expect from Clunt. And thats the problem.

It would be amazing to see every stadium empty as a big "up yours" to the owners and players for creating this mess but it will never, ever happen.

Only the ticket scalpers would take a hit on this kind of boycott.

I bet we could get KCTV5 to pick up the boycott/picket and actually make it happen. Start a facebook page, start linking them through-out the states. Especially depending on when this NFL hold ends, the longer it goes, the more people are going to be pissed. Besides we (at arrowhead) wouldn't be missing our MNFL game, which I really would like to attend. just some thoughts, and it might prompt the owners to start talking some more if this got big enough. we are AMERICA~~

I'm gonna pass on that boycott idea. Thanks.

I was about to ask that same question.

Unfortunately no ticket promos, no parking passes, not even a couple of hot dogs or cokes!

We have many readers who feel that way. I don't think Mike meant any harm by bringing up Lamar. A lot of Chiefs fans look up to Lamar because he is the man that brought them their favorite franchise. Whether or not that admiration is reason to suggest to his son that he should handle a situation like his father might is certainly up for debate. Then again, I bet Clark is getting much less polite letters from fans than anything Mike wrote.

I had the honor of meeting L. Hunt on 2 separate occasions. Once in the parking lot at Arrowhead prior to a Sunday game and the other at a book banquet in Arrowhead. I never felt uncomfortable, unwelcome or out of place during our brief conversations. He made me feel as if I had his undivided attention however short our encounters were. The man had a lot of personality traits that are rarely found. He left a lasting impression on me and I don’t think I talked to him over 5 minutes in my lifetime. Clark may never have that ability but a lot of us will never have that ability.

I certainly meant no disrespect to Lamar or to Clark. I have always admired Lamar for being a leader, a trail blazer, who didn't stand by and take things the way that others told him they were going to be. Scorned and ridiculed member of the "Foolish Club" forever changed football as we know it today. Forgive me if I went to far in my encouragement of Clark to be the same type of leader today. I know I have always tried to followthe examples my my father set for me in life and if I was in his shoes with my passion for football and the Chiefs I would be setting an example, leading the way in bringing these negotiations to an end. Then again so much of this is behind closed doors and done between laywers maybe he is being and doing all he can. If so I extend my sincere apologies.

I don't think anyone is doing anything of the sort. Nor do I think anyone is surprised. We've merely posted his response here. I have an opinion about it but I can't say it is unexpected.

"he has a lot to do" Hilarious. It took him a month-and-a-half to issue a form letter he probably didn't even write. No one is that busy. Certainly not a guy whose primary source of income is interest.....off money he inherited. "We do not have all the information" We have a lot of information (if we want it). More then enough to have an educated opinion on this issue. I'm not saying your opinion, whatever it is, is wrong, but we can't just ignore things because we don't know everything there is to know about them. That kind of mindset is why bad people get away with bad things.

"No one is that busy." I would agree that he is definetely not to busy to answer a single letter. However, you can't be delusional enough to think that this was the only heartfelt letter that he recieved. He is most certainly too busy to answer every single letter he receives, and provide a heartfelt response that features real insight. I'm sure the number of letters he has received is in the thousands, he would be too busy to respond even if responding to letters was the only thing he did for the last month.

Do you think he's gotten thousands of letters? I was wondering about that today, how many people actually took the time to do that. I bet its less than you'd think. Writing letters is usually something people just talk about doing. I'd be very interested to know how many letters like that he got. if the Chiefs were smart they'd have an entry level employee who just peruses the blogosphere and alerts them about stuff like this. If Clark would've been tipped off about that letter's exposure on this site he would've known to give a good response (IF he gave a shit). It would've been posted on here and he'd have won over thousands of people. Instead, this. You have to admit, that letter is insulting.

I think the fact that he responded at all considering this letter directly relates to an ongoing legal issue is the opposite of insulting. Not a lot of information... duh, he is being sued, he can't put anything more in the letter than that, under direction of counsel.

An entry level position??? That costs money... You know the money that the owners get, that they DON'T KEEP. Their share of the money is responsible for running the team. The players share is all for them. I think that is what people are ignorant to. They look at it as the owners get roughly 40% of the revenue, and the players get 60%. In actuality that 40% goes to running the team! Who pays the stadium workers? The advertising department? The cheerleaders? The concession stand workers? The guy in the frikin Wolf suit? The owners share is not theirs. It is everyones. This is what makes the Arrowhead experience. This money grows the game. The players share is spent on themselves, and in 5 years when they leave the game they take every last penny with them. It is true some owners may keep more than others for themselves, but the more money they get, the more the spend on the blue collar workers that get minimum wages. Every penny to players is money from the real people who are scrapping gum off the back of seats. The owners are business men, they have a job to do. They have a revenue goal, it is their job to hit it no matter what. Dwayne Bowe gives 110% to score a TD, Clark Hunt gives 110% to get a 3% revenue increase. So if they have to give more money, or the same money, to players, they have to make cuts somewhere else. I'm sick of the millionaire players stealing money out of the pockets of the working class, then complaining that they don't make enough. The players try to make this a millionaire vs billionare thing, don't be fooled. It is the millionaire players vs the dollaraires that work 5 days a week to feed their families.

gjr,so what you are saying is that Clark Hunt cares more about the dude selling us $8.00 beers than he does the players.Maybe that was you selling me those beers last season.Thanks

Loyd, Unfortunately I don't have the luxury of working in Arrowhead, but I do believe Pioli and clark cares about both the beer guy and the players. The players do not, they only care for themselves. In actuality maybe Clark and Pioli care 100 times more about the players then the beer guy... but they is forced to pay them 1000 times as much. I for one would like to see it equalled out a little bit. It can not happen if more and more money goes to the players. Everyone has forget that even the players union admitted that the previous CBA, the one that the owners opted out of was extremely more favorable to players then it should have been. That's why the owner's are trying to level things back out.

5 weeks later... hmm you mean the exact minute the legal issue that this letter directly refered was ruled upon? You do not respond to questions, answer letters, or publically discuss anything related to a matter you are currently being sued over. I think the fact the he got a response out as soon as a ruling was made, and prior to the filing of the appeal is very impressive.

Yeah not a whole lot of heart to the response is there? I mean I didn't expect much more than a canned, company line response but I would have liked to see a frank and honest retort, however unlikely. Mike put a lot of heart and passion into his letter...he didn't really get it back.