Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[ConstruxBoy]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

 

[Mello]

Gridiron Menace is setting my efforts back decades.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Gridiron Menace is setting my efforts back decades.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners are saying they need another billion off the top. The players would like to see why.

 

[Wadsworth]

Gridiron Menace is setting my efforts back decades.

That's funny, because my first thought after reading that string of posts was that this guy must be big time big time pro players and trying to discredit the owner's side of the argument.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners are saying they need another billion off the top. The players would like to see why.

Can you get that information, reasonably, without needing to see detailed financial data like how much margin Arthur Blank made on concessions in 2003?

 

[Wadsworth]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners aren't going to show their books(for many reasons) and the players know this to be the case. The "show us the books" demand is more grand standing than real negotiation. And to answer your question it would be a terrible idea and likely bog down progress much more than any benefit it would provide.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners aren't going to show their books(for many reasons) and the players know this to be the case. The "show us the books" demand is more grand standing than real negotiation. And to answer your question it would be a terrible idea and likely bog down progress much more than any benefit it would provide.

OK, thanks.

 

[roadkill1292]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners are the ones asking for concessions from the last CBA so the burden of proof is on them to provide support for their demands, not the players who are happy with the status quo. The argument could be and has been made that the league has already provided enough financial data; I'm not sure where I stand on that yet.But if the data provides leverage for Drew Rosenhaus, it also provides the exact same leverage for all the other agents competing with him for a finite amount of overall payroll which can be disbursed.

 

[Mello]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

I don't see much harm in it if the owners are correct in their claims. If the NFL really doesn't need to cut the amount the players get for their future viability, then they should be able to easily prove that. The books would be used to set a "fair" new salary cap. All Rosenhaus cares when negotiating for his clients is the cap space a team has over time. Any money the owners make above that cap is irrelevant. It cannot be given to a player. If the owners' claims are true, I don't see the harm in demonstrating it. Now, if the owners claims are not true and teams' issues could be corrected by more effort from some teams to maximize their revenue and the richer teams providing more money to the small market teams, then it is in their best interest to not open the books. It would only harden the players' stance.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners are saying they need another billion off the top. The players would like to see why.

Can you get that information, reasonably, without needing to see detailed financial data like how much margin Arthur Blank made on concessions in 2003?

Yes, probably.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

The owners aren't going to show their books(for many reasons) and the players know this to be the case. The "show us the books" demand is more grand standing than real negotiation. And to answer your question it would be a terrible idea and likely bog down progress much more than any benefit it would provide.

A couple of owners have already stated they WOULD be willing to show their books... then the some of the other owners and league came crashing down on that idea. So the players don't know that to be the case. And as such, it wouldn't exactly be grandstanding.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

I don't see much harm in it if the owners are correct in their claims. If the NFL really doesn't need to cut the amount the players get for their future viability, then they should be able to easily prove that. The books would be used to set a "fair" new salary cap. All Rosenhaus cares when negotiating for his clients is the cap space a team has over time. Any money the owners make above that cap is irrelevant. It cannot be given to a player. If the owners' claims are true, I don't see the harm in demonstrating it. Now, if the owners claims are not true and teams' issues could be corrected by more effort from some teams to maximize their revenue and the richer teams providing more money to the small market teams, then it is in their best interest to not open the books. It would only harden the players' stance.

I disagree with the bold. Rosenhaus doesn't just care about the salary cap. He cares about maximizing the player's benefits (and thus his own) whether it be salary, bonus money, marketing opportunity, etc. He can see, in the "show me 10 years of everything" scenario, all the inflows and outflows of money for every franchise. He can tell his players that Cleveland has a greater % of merchandise bought in stadium than Cincinnati. He can tell them that Houston has a bigger than normal debt payment due in 2015 so they don't want to sign any contracts with Houston that end that year. Don't kid yourself, agents are sharks. They would die for that level of information. So the NFLPA asking for 10 years of very detailed financial records, made public to them, is way more than needed to see if the league and teams in general are trending downward. The owners, if I recall before the decertification, offered 5 years of higher level financials to a third party. They clearly see the dangers.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

The owners aren't going to show their books(for many reasons) and the players know this to be the case. The "show us the books" demand is more grand standing than real negotiation. And to answer your question it would be a terrible idea and likely bog down progress much more than any benefit it would provide.

A couple of owners have already stated they WOULD be willing to show their books... then the some of the other owners and league came crashing down on that idea. So the players don't know that to be the case. And as such, it wouldn't exactly be grandstanding.

I would imagine those are the richer owners like Jones and Snyder. Unless they know that the detail will be minimal, they'll realize their mistake when Drew tells them that the average salary for a personal assistant is $150k and if they decreased the amount of their PA's salary from $300k to $150k then surely they can squeeze that money into the player's bonus.

 

[Mello]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

I don't see much harm in it if the owners are correct in their claims. If the NFL really doesn't need to cut the amount the players get for their future viability, then they should be able to easily prove that. The books would be used to set a "fair" new salary cap. All Rosenhaus cares when negotiating for his clients is the cap space a team has over time. Any money the owners make above that cap is irrelevant. It cannot be given to a player. If the owners' claims are true, I don't see the harm in demonstrating it. Now, if the owners claims are not true and teams' issues could be corrected by more effort from some teams to maximize their revenue and the richer teams providing more money to the small market teams, then it is in their best interest to not open the books. It would only harden the players' stance.

I disagree with the bold. Rosenhaus doesn't just care about the salary cap. He cares about maximizing the player's benefits (and thus his own) whether it be salary, bonus money, marketing opportunity, etc. He can see, in the "show me 10 years of everything" scenario, all the inflows and outflows of money for every franchise. He can tell his players that Cleveland has a greater % of merchandise bought in stadium than Cincinnati. He can tell them that Houston has a bigger than normal debt payment due in 2015 so they don't want to sign any contracts with Houston that end that year. Don't kid yourself, agents are sharks. They would die for that level of information. So the NFLPA asking for 10 years of very detailed financial records, made public to them, is way more than needed to see if the league and teams in general are trending downward. The owners, if I recall before the decertification, offered 5 years of higher level financials to a third party. They clearly see the dangers.

I'm not sure those concerns are worth risking the season. Fair points though.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

I don't see much harm in it if the owners are correct in their claims. If the NFL really doesn't need to cut the amount the players get for their future viability, then they should be able to easily prove that. The books would be used to set a "fair" new salary cap. All Rosenhaus cares when negotiating for his clients is the cap space a team has over time. Any money the owners make above that cap is irrelevant. It cannot be given to a player. If the owners' claims are true, I don't see the harm in demonstrating it. Now, if the owners claims are not true and teams' issues could be corrected by more effort from some teams to maximize their revenue and the richer teams providing more money to the small market teams, then it is in their best interest to not open the books. It would only harden the players' stance.

I disagree with the bold. Rosenhaus doesn't just care about the salary cap. He cares about maximizing the player's benefits (and thus his own) whether it be salary, bonus money, marketing opportunity, etc. He can see, in the "show me 10 years of everything" scenario, all the inflows and outflows of money for every franchise. He can tell his players that Cleveland has a greater % of merchandise bought in stadium than Cincinnati. He can tell them that Houston has a bigger than normal debt payment due in 2015 so they don't want to sign any contracts with Houston that end that year. Don't kid yourself, agents are sharks. They would die for that level of information. So the NFLPA asking for 10 years of very detailed financial records, made public to them, is way more than needed to see if the league and teams in general are trending downward. The owners, if I recall before the decertification, offered 5 years of higher level financials to a third party. They clearly see the dangers.

I'm not sure those concerns are worth risking the season. Fair points though.

And to be fair, maybe D Smith asking for that level of detail is grandstanding. But really, I think it would be a horrible thing. I'm amazed how little play the agents get in all this mess. You know they are doing everything they can to open the vault doors and are misleading all their players about how much richer they can be if they win this battle, just like they tell all their draft eligible players that they are going to be first round picks. It's sort of sad. The reason I worry about this show me the books is because several people here as well as the NFLPA mentioned or implied that to give up that money the players should be involved in financial decision making within the franchise. That's crazy. You can give them enough info to see the general financial status of the league and all 32 teams without telling anyone that Jerry Jones' personal assistant makes $300k a year.

 

[roadkill1292]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

I don't see much harm in it if the owners are correct in their claims. If the NFL really doesn't need to cut the amount the players get for their future viability, then they should be able to easily prove that. The books would be used to set a "fair" new salary cap. All Rosenhaus cares when negotiating for his clients is the cap space a team has over time. Any money the owners make above that cap is irrelevant. It cannot be given to a player. If the owners' claims are true, I don't see the harm in demonstrating it. Now, if the owners claims are not true and teams' issues could be corrected by more effort from some teams to maximize their revenue and the richer teams providing more money to the small market teams, then it is in their best interest to not open the books. It would only harden the players' stance.

I disagree with the bold. Rosenhaus doesn't just care about the salary cap. He cares about maximizing the player's benefits (and thus his own) whether it be salary, bonus money, marketing opportunity, etc. He can see, in the "show me 10 years of everything" scenario, all the inflows and outflows of money for every franchise. He can tell his players that Cleveland has a greater % of merchandise bought in stadium than Cincinnati. He can tell them that Houston has a bigger than normal debt payment due in 2015 so they don't want to sign any contracts with Houston that end that year. Don't kid yourself, agents are sharks. They would die for that level of information. So the NFLPA asking for 10 years of very detailed financial records, made public to them, is way more than needed to see if the league and teams in general are trending downward. The owners, if I recall before the decertification, offered 5 years of higher level financials to a third party. They clearly see the dangers.

I'm not sure those concerns are worth risking the season. Fair points though.

And to be fair, maybe D Smith asking for that level of detail is grandstanding. But really, I think it would be a horrible thing. I'm amazed how little play the agents get in all this mess. You know they are doing everything they can to open the vault doors and are misleading all their players about how much richer they can be if they win this battle, just like they tell all their draft eligible players that they are going to be first round picks. It's sort of sad. The reason I worry about this is show me the books is because several people here as well as the NFLPA mentioned or implied that to give up that money the players should be involved in financial decision making within the franchise. That's crazy. You can give them enough info to see the general financial status of the league and all 32 teams without telling anyone that Jerry Jones' personal assistant makes $300k a year.

I don't think I agree with your overall conclusions but I like your arguments re: agents. Where I see them having the most impact, or at least the most influence, is with their rookie clients should the next CBA include a rookie cap. They're gonna hate that.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Yep, that's a ton of money out of their pockets. And let's be honest, any money that goes to retired players is bad for an agent. I just wish people discussed their influence and agendas more in this fight. I guess it's nicer to say it's the owners against the players.

 

[daveR]

I think it's all a negotiating tactic. The owners make boatloads of money off concessions, parking, rentals, and myriad ancillary items. They also take depreciation on the players(!) If the books became public, they couldn't cry about how much they need the public sector to contribute, nor would the contributing politicians win many more elections!

The union knows they can't afford to open the books, so this is their way of putting pressure on the owners when the owners ask for monetary concessions.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Yep, that's a ton of money out of their pockets. And let's be honest, any money that goes to retired players is bad for an agent. I just wish people discussed their influence and agendas more in this fight. I guess it's nicer to say it's the owners against the players.

Well, it's a ton of money out of SOME agents' pockets. There are definitely certain agents that specialize in high draft picks but don't usually end up representing those guys long term. FWIW, Rosenhause isn't actually one of those agents. A large number of his clients are veterans that switch to him. So he may actually favor a rookie cap since it will funnel more money to the guys that make up the vast majority of his client portfolio.

 

[maxwelledison]

Yep, that's a ton of money out of their pockets. And let's be honest, any money that goes to retired players is bad for an agent. I just wish people discussed their influence and agendas more in this fight. I guess it's nicer to say it's the owners against the players.

Well, it's a ton of money out of SOME agents' pockets. There are definitely certain agents that specialize in high draft picks but don't usually end up representing those guys long term. FWIW, Rosenhause isn't actually one of those agents. A large number of his clients are veterans that switch to him. So he may actually favor a rookie cap since it will funnel more money to the guys that make up the vast majority of his client portfolio.

Good point.

 

[roadkill1292]

Yep, that's a ton of money out of their pockets. And let's be honest, any money that goes to retired players is bad for an agent. I just wish people discussed their influence and agendas more in this fight. I guess it's nicer to say it's the owners against the players.

Well, it's a ton of money out of SOME agents' pockets. There are definitely certain agents that specialize in high draft picks but don't usually end up representing those guys long term. FWIW, Rosenhause isn't actually one of those agents. A large number of his clients are veterans that switch to him. So he may actually favor a rookie cap since it will funnel more money to the guys that make up the vast majority of his client portfolio.

I shoulda thought of that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

They also take depreciation on the players(!)

I don't think they can legally treat the players as assets.

 

[dparker713]

The owners are the ones asking for concessions from the last CBA so the burden of proof is on them to provide support for their demands, not the players who are happy with the status quo.

This is just plain wrong. This is not a court of law. There is no burden of proof. The owners can make nearly whatever claims and demands they want, so long as there is a union. Being happy with the previous deal and $5 will get the players a cup of coffee.

 

[s&m]

They also take depreciation on the players(!)

I don't think they can legally treat the players as assets.

From what I understand it is precisely the depreciation of the players and their contracts that benefits owners on their cash flow and other capital gain type assets. That is one of the reasons owners don't mind the big up front bonus's, because it then allows a higher and quicker depreciation for that year. The depreciation rules are one tax advantage that has lead to the direct increase in the clubs values, along with the TV money. All that income without the tax benefits wouldn't create the same level of value increase of each franchise. The tax benefits are where it's at for sports franchises. Thats why they don't worry too much when they are showing loses, because they can offset so much other asset income. And depreciation allows for them to show a net loss even if they have great positive cash flow and overall capital gain in the franchise. At least that is what was explained to me by people I trust. Take it for what it's worth, as I am a business man and not any franchises accounting firm nor have any direct knowledge of the owners books.

 

[cobalt_27]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

The owners are saying they need another billion off the top. The players would like to see why.

Yeah, I'm not buying this at all. I think they would like to put the owners in the corner and call them obstructionist or something. But, they have access to the data that matters. No way am I sharing my books with the players. No way am I sharing my books with fellow owners. This hasn't happened in the past, it's not going to happen now, and it's not going to happen in the future. This isn't kindergarten. We're all big boys and girls. I hope everyone can see through this for what it is. They can have independent auditors look at the books, which will tell the players exactly what they claim they need to know. And, we'll be right back at square one.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Can you get that information, reasonably, without needing to see detailed financial data like how much margin Arthur Blank made on concessions in 2003?

We have an auditor, in this thread (IIRC), saying no. You need to be able to see what goes into 'expenses' in more detail than 'audited financial statements' provides.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

I am saddened to hear that the two sides don't intend to meet again until after June 3rd. Seems like a waste of time that the parties could be making progress, but both parties seem to be pressing for the leverage advantage. I don't know why I expect differently.

 

[cobalt_27]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea? Please explain.

The owners are the ones asking for concessions from the last CBA so the burden of proof is on them to provide support for their demands, not the players who are happy with the status quo. The argument could be and has been made that the league has already provided enough financial data; I'm not sure where I stand on that yet.

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Should the burden of proof have been on them to open their books to prove that they needed the extra money? 2. Now, imagine the fairyland world where the owners provide all the financial information in the 10 year detailed form that the players want. Can you imagine any scenario under which the players would actually say, "Ok, fine, have your $2 billion, where do we sign?"

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

 

[Rockchild]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

The owners are saying they need another billion off the top. The players would like to see why.

Yeah, I'm not buying this at all. I think they would like to put the owners in the corner and call them obstructionist or something. But, they have access to the data that matters. No way am I sharing my books with the players. No way am I sharing my books with fellow owners. This hasn't happened in the past, it's not going to happen now, and it's not going to happen in the future. This isn't kindergarten. We're all big boys and girls. I hope everyone can see through this for what it is. They can have independent auditors look at the books, which will tell the players exactly what they claim they need to know. And, we'll be right back at square one.

I think this is a bigger issue than showing the players the books. As long as the owners can take more of the pie from the players and not have to address the revenue disparities among franchises, then it is easier to appease the richer franchises about subsidizing the lesser ones. I don't think Jerry Jones cares about parity but I'm sure Ralph Wilson does. There is a price for parity and right now the owners see a chance to keep that parity with 'easier' money from the players(and I say easier as it will be easier trying to grab more of the pie from the players than trying to forge some kind of arrangement with 32 different interests). I don't blame them either.

 

[Ksquared]

Yep, that's a ton of money out of their pockets. And let's be honest, any money that goes to retired players is bad for an agent. I just wish people discussed their influence and agendas more in this fight. I guess it's nicer to say it's the owners against the players.

Well, it's a ton of money out of SOME agents' pockets. There are definitely certain agents that specialize in high draft picks but don't usually end up representing those guys long term. FWIW, Rosenhause isn't actually one of those agents. A large number of his clients are veterans that switch to him. So he may actually favor a rookie cap since it will funnel more money to the guys that make up the vast majority of his client portfolio.

Is not Kessler's brother a lead agent for the players and one of the reasons many legal beagles have been saying they want to do away with the draft altogether?

 

[cobalt_27]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

 

[cobalt_27]

The "see the books" thing. I don't get why anyone thinks that this would be a good idea unless they are an agent or a player. Can someone who supports this explain to me why they think it should happen? I'm not talking about whether it can be legally forced. I'm asking why you think it's a good idea for all the agents for all the players to know that Arthur Blank gets a 12% margin on concessions and Ralph Wilson gets a 7% margin on concessions. Does giving Drew Rosenhaus that level of financial data about every team sound like a good idea?

Please explain.

The owners are saying they need another billion off the top. The players would like to see why.

Yeah, I'm not buying this at all. I think they would like to put the owners in the corner and call them obstructionist or something. But, they have access to the data that matters. No way am I sharing my books with the players. No way am I sharing my books with fellow owners. This hasn't happened in the past, it's not going to happen now, and it's not going to happen in the future. This isn't kindergarten. We're all big boys and girls. I hope everyone can see through this for what it is. They can have independent auditors look at the books, which will tell the players exactly what they claim they need to know. And, we'll be right back at square one.

I think this is a bigger issue than showing the players the books. As long as the owners can take more of the pie from the players and not have to address the revenue disparities among franchises, then it is easier to appease the richer franchises about subsidizing the lesser ones. I don't think Jerry Jones cares about parity but I'm sure Ralph Wilson does. There is a price for parity and right now the owners see a chance to keep that parity with 'easier' money from the players(and I say easier as it will be easier trying to grab more of the pie from the players than trying to forge some kind of arrangement with 32 different interests). I don't blame them either.

Owners have a lot of internal garbage to work out no doubt.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

 

[cobalt_27]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

the players have not seen the books ever. have expensive than irrelevant in the past, but are relevant now? if so, why now? what makes this different than any other time?

 

[Ian F]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

the players have not seen the books ever. have expensive than irrelevant in the past, but are relevant now? if so, why now? what makes this different than any other time?

You mean something other than the fact that now the owners want another $1bn of the top because they claim the current arrangement is not financially sustainable?

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

the players have not seen the books ever. have expensive than irrelevant in the past, but are relevant now? if so, why now? what makes this different than any other time?

Irrelevant is different from inconsequential to the actual negotiation. Stick to your point #2, which is to say there is no scenario under which the players get their look at the books and say, "you know what, you're right...you need this money." The request for the books is a PR/negotiating ploy. They know the owners won't provide them and that the public is going to think it is a reasonable request, since they're being asked to take a 'paycut'. And if the owners did provide them, they'd just pick apart the expenses, second guessing every dollar spent - on stadiums, on the NFL Network, on marketing...on anything with a long-term payoff. But expenses certainly aren't irrelevant.

 

[noneother]

I'm getting tired if the whole thing.

The players should build their own league then. What's preventing that?

God. They are really going to FUBAR this thing. Aren't they?

 

[roadkill1292]

The owners are the ones asking for concessions from the last CBA so the burden of proof is on them to provide support for their demands, not the players who are happy with the status quo.

This is just plain wrong. This is not a court of law. There is no burden of proof. The owners can make nearly whatever claims and demands they want, so long as there is a union. Being happy with the previous deal and $5 will get the players a cup of coffee.

"Burden of proof" was probably a poor choice of words, technically. But the owners are asking for a reduction in the status quo for the players on the grounds that expenses have risen disproportionately. The players are simply asking for them to document those claims and they should if they want that argument to have any credence. It's not a "right" of the players but it's a reasonable request in light of the grounds the owners have introduced into the equation.The owners aren't going to do this, however, and I can't really blame them. It's really an argument that all should ignore since the negotiations are going to come down to pressure and leverage, not what's fair or right.

 

[cobalt_27]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

the players have not seen the books ever. have expensive than irrelevant in the past, but are relevant now? if so, why now? what makes this different than any other time?

You mean something other than the fact that now the owners want another $1bn of the top because they claim the current arrangement is not financially sustainable?

Are you suggesting this is the first time the owners propose something that the players felt was unreasonable? I'm guessing the owners have negotiated to have lower percentages paid to the players and that the players wanted some rationale behind this request.

 

[roadkill1292]

2. Now, imagine the fairyland world where the owners provide all the financial information in the 10 year detailed form that the players want. Can you imagine any scenario under which the players would actually say, "Ok, fine, have your $2 billion, where do we sign?"

When owners start to unload their franchises because of finances, it might make the players take notice. Otherwise, the players will push on until other pressures and leverages force them into concessions and settlement.

 

[cobalt_27]

Curious to hear your answer to two questions:

1. Should the owners have asked for the players' individual financial records when they were negotiating an increase in the revenue sharing during the last negotiations? Maybe the owners need to interrogate the players' financial records to determine if they even have to hold themselves to $1 or $2 billion. Maybe they should take $4 billion off the top for expenses. Why do the players need so much? Maybe the players should open up their books to prove that they need it.

Come on, man. The players don't have any football expenses, so there are no books to look at. Personal expenses are irrelevant. Some of the discussion in this thread has been very good, but sometimes it gets kind of silly.

The point is that it is silly. Expenses are irrelevant. Books have never been opened before. they won't be open now. The players do not need to see the owners books. this is a game, and it is silly.

Expenses aren't irrelevant.In a competitive market, business owners make a normal return on their investment. If they make more than that, others enter the market and bid up labor and other costs and/or reduce prices. (If they make less than that, some will close up shop and move into other industries instead.)

That's how the NFL market for labor would work in the absence of a collective bargaining agreement. Teams would bid away talent from each other until their profits were reduced to a normal level.

But with a CBA and a salary cap, that kind of market pressure doesn't exist. There's no natural mechanism that sets player salaries at a level that keeps owners in the range of normal profits. On the contrary, owners can obtain supernormal profits by artificially limiting salaries.

But why would the players agree to that? They wouldn't. They're entitled to antitrust protection against it. In order to give up that antitrust protection, they need to satisfy themselves that they're not being taken advantage of — that the owners are not keeping supernormal profits by artificially suppressing wages. The only way to determine that is to look at the profits they're making. Revenues minus expenses. They are not irrelevant.

(With a CBA, the owners and players should both make more than they otherwise would, which is why both sides will agree to it. So the owners should make more than a normal return on investment. How much more is a question to be negotiated. But it can't be negotiated blindly; the players need financial info in order to negotiate competently. They don't need as much info as they're asking for; but they need enough to negotiate competently.)

the players have not seen the books ever. have expensive than irrelevant in the past, but are relevant now? if so, why now? what makes this different than any other time?

Irrelevant is different from inconsequential to the actual negotiation. Stick to your point #2, which is to say there is no scenario under which the players get their look at the books and say, "you know what, you're right...you need this money." The request for the books is a PR/negotiating ploy. They know the owners won't provide them and that the public is going to think it is a reasonable request, since they're being asked to take a 'paycut'. And if the owners did provide them, they'd just pick apart the expenses, second guessing every dollar spent - on stadiums, on the NFL Network, on marketing...on anything with a long-term payoff. But expenses certainly aren't irrelevant.

beyond the PR tactic, is there any relevance to the expenses? I don't see any. it's simply not going to happen. therefore, I see the expenses as both inconsequential and irrelevant. they are going to get a deal done with out the books in the form that the players have requested

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I'm getting tired if the whole thing. The players should build their own league then. What's preventing that?God. They are really going to FUBAR this thing. Aren't they?

start their own league? yeah ok. they have nowhere near the captial. Or the rights to the logos on the helmets that fans have followed forever.

 

[cobalt_27]

2. Now, imagine the fairyland world where the owners provide all the financial information in the 10 year detailed form that the players want. Can you imagine any scenario under which the players would actually say, "Ok, fine, have your $2 billion, where do we sign?"

When owners start to unload their franchises because of finances, it might make the players take notice. Otherwise, the players will push on until other pressures and leverages force them into concessions and settlement.

I completely 100 percent agree.

 

[noneother]

I'm getting tired if the whole thing. The players should build their own league then. What's preventing that?God. They are really going to FUBAR this thing. Aren't they?

start their own league? yeah ok. they have nowhere near the captial. Or the rights to the logos on the helmets that fans have followed forever.

Really? Logos? That's the owners leverage? Capital? Bah. Borrower from banks. Like the owners.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

I'm getting tired if the whole thing. The players should build their own league then. What's preventing that?God. They are really going to FUBAR this thing. Aren't they?

start their own league? yeah ok. they have nowhere near the captial. Or the rights to the logos on the helmets that fans have followed forever.

Really? Logos? That's the owners leverage? Capital? Bah. Borrower from banks. Like the owners.

yeah ya know, they own the rights to the dallas cowboys and pittsburhg steelers. The NFLPA Cleveland Steamers has a nice ring to it.

 

[noneother]

I'm getting tired if the whole thing. The players should build their own league then. What's preventing that?God. They are really going to FUBAR this thing. Aren't they?

start their own league? yeah ok. they have nowhere near the captial. Or the rights to the logos on the helmets that fans have followed forever.

Really? Logos? That's the owners leverage? Capital? Bah. Borrower from banks. Like the owners.

yeah ya know, they own the rights to the dallas cowboys and pittsburhg steelers. The NFLPA Cleveland Steamers has a nice ring to it.

Lol. NiceBut really, is that's ALL the owners have is NAMES and LOGOS? The players could go do this themselves. This isn't big tobacco/cotton or the manufacturing industry The players need to get their act together. Or accept owners terms. IMO.

 

[renesauz]

How many fans does the NFL have to lose before it's no longer negligible? EVen if only 5% of fans feel as I do about parity...that's a big hit to the NFL's bottom line. I may not be in the majority...but it sure as heck isn't that small a minority. Parity does not have to be important to everyone to be important for the league...can't you see that? If it's critical to even 5% (an extraordinarily conservative figure)...it's critical for the league.Do you REALLY think the NFL can add "millions of fans" in New York, Tokyo, and Beijing by promoting super-teams? Talk about going out on a limb!

well it depends on how many fans they gain.and yes, i should not have tossed out a hypothetical number in a specific form like a million. i thought the point would be clear that so long as fans in>fans out, the nfl would benefit. further, its much easier to gain fans in large municipalities, obv due to population pool. and large globally renowned cities on a worldwide scale are much more likely to develop a global following. concisely, i believe that if you transferred the success of the green bay packers to the new york giants, the nfl would have more fans.alternatively, i simply dont believe that you and the rest of the parity diehards would actually ignore football if such changes were made. there is enough inherent luck in football that it would be competitive. and as others have indicated, there are barriers to parity already in place, namely that atrocious management operates with impunity for many years on teams such as the bengals, lions, raiders, cardinals, bucs, but also franchise tags, restricted free agency and uncapped rookie contracts.

I think you're overestimating how many MORE fans are available in the big market cities. The NFL is EXTREMELY popular now. I don't think turning the Cowboys and Redskins into annual SUper Bowl contenders is really going to add that many fans in those markets. The challenges the NFL faces in gaining overseas popularity have little to do with parity or established powerhouse teams to root for. They have more to do with the amazingly complex game which is very difficult to pick up and understand. We get it because our fathers watched it and explained it. There are also well established sports leagues of other natures in those other countries. The world league failed not because it couldn't gain fans, but because it couldn't gain fans quickly enough to satisfy the NFL. It would take a couple of decades of world league football to have any hope to compete with the well-established soccer leagues there.And no...I wouldn't lose ALL interest in the game. But instead of watching EVERY Eagles game, I would probably only watch when they had a chance...which wouldn't be often in the same division as NY, Dallas, and Washington. I grew up an avid Phillies fan...loved baseball. Once I got old enough to understand the economics of baseball, and looked a little bit closer, that interest waned. Now...I might watch 4 or 5 games a year and catch a handful of minor league games locally. Not because I don't love the game, but because I don't believe in the economics, even if my childhood favorite is currently looking pretty darn good. I honestly believe that if baseball (a sport with more natural parity) had the economic parity football does, it would be MORE successful than it is. I know I'd pay more attention to it. I doubt the Yankees would lose many fans if they only won once a decade instead of every third year.The parity burden of proof is not on me, or those who swear they need parity (or at least the illusion of it) to love the game. It's on you and the others who believe it's NOT important to prove it's not important. If there's tens or hundreds of thousands of fans who swear they will give up the game if it loses parity, it's on you to prove the NFL will GAIN tens or hundreds of thousands of fans elsewhere by creating perrenially elite teams. I don't know how you can do so.

 

[Rockchild]

I'm getting tired if the whole thing. The players should build their own league then. What's preventing that?God. They are really going to FUBAR this thing. Aren't they?

start their own league? yeah ok. they have nowhere near the captial. Or the rights to the logos on the helmets that fans have followed forever.

Really? Logos? That's the owners leverage? Capital? Bah. Borrower from banks. Like the owners.

yeah ya know, they own the rights to the dallas cowboys and pittsburhg steelers. The NFLPA Cleveland Steamers has a nice ring to it.

Lol. NiceBut really, is that's ALL the owners have is NAMES and LOGOS? The players could go do this themselves. This isn't big tobacco/cotton or the manufacturing industry The players need to get their act together. Or accept owners terms. IMO.

At this point the players are ready to play as it's the owners locking them out.