How Full Disclosure Works For Both Sides (1 Viewer)

[Toads]

Looks like this will Anti-Trust deal will play out with four or five court related challenges that end up forcing the two sides back to the table.

There's a possibility that the Owner's would be required to establish rules for engagement for the 2011 season.....that'll play it's self out, too.

Me, I'm leaning towards the player's side of the table. The Union's question: "Why do we have to alter the terms of the deal that leads to a $9B pie?" Under the circumstances, that's a reasonable question to ask.

Asking for full disclosure isn't unreasonable, either. If the Owner's claims are true then show them the books and then you've got a partner if your claims are true. The Owner's problem comes from large vs. small market teams. The revenue picture in Green Bay is a lot different than in Dallas.

If that's the Owner's problem, let them subsidize the small market teams out'a their take. Three legged stool here: 1) The Players, 2) the Large Market Owners, and 3) The Small Market Owners. Let the large market Owner's figure out the equation for their small market Owner's, that's not the players problem.

Or, is it?

If the Owner's do the full disclosure bit, I'd think that it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to ask for the players to assist in subsidizing the small market teams? Go to the players and explain the problem and ask them to share in the solution.

Gee, that's a real good idea now that I think about it.

Why doesn't that approach work? Partners, hand in hand, solving the real problem.

 

[Saints-Man]

Toads, I think it is a good idea but so far, the large market teams have shown no proposals to help the small market teams. Given the history of these negotiations(several good articles posted in the "NFLPA decertifies" thread), the players were leary that the large market teams would ever help the small market teams, and so far had no proposals to do so. The players feared that they would give concessions for the small market teams, but the large market teams would not, meaning it would be the players were the only ones losing here.

 

[Toads]

I posted this idea on a League MB and here's a take on the idea:

"The issue with the "full disclosure" is that these are private businesses (except for GB). One owner may do things differently than another. Does Robert Kraft really want Jerry Jones going through his books? Do certain owners who maximize profit want to show their strategy to another owner, or especially a Player or Union, who only cares about Championships and spends as such???

I can understand why the owners don't want full disclosure.

For the players, they've got a point. They have to trust the numbers that the owners are giving them as accurate. I'm sure there is some way this could be worked out that maintains trust.

As for the full disclosure piece, there's so much more to it than showing their books to the Union. They don't want to show their books to their competitors...the other owners."

This response takes the individual Owner vs. indivual Owner stance, making the point that the Owner's are not necessarily in partnership with other Owners. Interesting take on the situation.

 

[TheWheel]

The revenue sharing is subsidizing and the 1 billion dollar credit is basically the amount being shared through revenue sharing. So in a way the players giving the owners that free slice was players subsidizing the owners.

The players have every right to demand to full disclosure. The financial claims made by owners are completely baseless otherwise.

 

[Toads]

The revenue sharing is subsidizing and the 1 billion dollar credit is basically the amount being shared through revenue sharing. So in a way the players giving the owners that free slice was players subsidizing the owners.

The players have every right to demand to full disclosure. The financial claims made by owners are completely baseless otherwise.

Agreed. This idea of "trusting the Owners" has proven to be somewhat restrictive to the players. It's also not proven to be a good idea for the Owners to be able to police themselves when it comes to reckless spending.As to the idea that each team is a seperate and distinct business: I believe that was spoken to in the American Needle court precident. I'll look that verdict up and report back.

if the Owners don't have the ability to knit together as a partner-ship in their stance to limit the Player's claims, i.e. don't want to share financial information amongst themselves, it's not very promising for the "three legged stool" idea.