Letter from Roger Goodell (2 Viewers)

[Yenrub]

and let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season. with the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

The average career isn't due strictly to injury. The average career is due to better players coming into the league and taking the roster spots of the less talented. Why should a 24 year old be entitled to retire at the end of this 3 year "career"? That's a sticking item with me. This sense of entitlement by the players that they shouldn't have to work after football.Try living within your means on the 450K net (which is very conservative for the NFL) and if your "career" only lasts three years, then educate yourself for a career after football. Oh wait, didn't these players have an opportunity for a college education as well, so if they have to reeducate themselves, they should be well on their way?

Football is a dangerous sport, and I have never complained about any player being "overpaid", but tired of the I should be taken care of for the rest of my life attitude.

DeMaurice Smith is a train wreck who is in way over his head. The NFLPA is in trouble with this guy leading the way.........

Where does all of the entitlement talk come from?I don't ever recall hearing a player say that they shouldn't have to work after their football career was over

Turn on just about any pregame show, NFL broadcast or college broadcast and you will probably see a former player working

Sure many of the young players may not be thinking about what they are going to do after football because they are focused on their current career not because they are entitled to something

 

[Christo]

and let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season. with the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

The average career isn't due strictly to injury. The average career is due to better players coming into the league and taking the roster spots of the less talented. Why should a 24 year old be entitled to retire at the end of this 3 year "career"? That's a sticking item with me. This sense of entitlement by the players that they shouldn't have to work after football.Try living within your means on the 450K net (which is very conservative for the NFL) and if your "career" only lasts three years, then educate yourself for a career after football. Oh wait, didn't these players have an opportunity for a college education as well, so if they have to reeducate themselves, they should be well on their way?

Football is a dangerous sport, and I have never complained about any player being "overpaid", but tired of the I should be taken care of for the rest of my life attitude.

DeMaurice Smith is a train wreck who is in way over his head. The NFLPA is in trouble with this guy leading the way.........

Where does all of the entitlement talk come from?I don't ever recall hearing a player say that they shouldn't have to work after their football career was over

Turn on just about any pregame show, NFL broadcast or college broadcast and you will probably see a former player working

Sure many of the young players may not be thinking about what they are going to do after football because they are focused on their current career not because they are entitled to something

It's more likely a mixture of the two.

 

[Gigantomachia]

go play Arena Football or in the UFL... just because you don't like your other choices doesn't mean you don't have choices

LMAO. These only exist BECAUSE of the NFL. Now if the NFL folds, the UFL in particular might begin to rock!! Not a bad idea actually. Yet more reason to tell the owners to #### themselves.

 

[Ice Cream Man]

The Owners are the ones who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, not the players. Why did they? well because some of their other business ventures have suffered over the past 5 years.

That seems like a perfectly good reason to opt out. Presumably the opt-out clause was put there on purpose, and both parties agreed to it. What would be a good reason to opt out if it isn't for tough economic times?

I don't feel bad for some billionaires, a lot of whom inherited their wealth.

Even if I concede the facts (which I don't) how does this make any difference at all? The players "inherited" their abilities, were lucky to be in the right place at the right time, etc. They are just as privileged to be in this position, if not more so. By your rational we should have no sympathies for the players, either.Also, only half the owners are billionaires, and I don't know how that makes any difference in the world either: if they are not getting a market return on their investments, they will try to change or modify those investments. Economics 101.

It hasn't happened yet, but as returns fall, owners will divest themselves to some degree and pursue other investments. Moreover, the owners also represent minority share holders, who are not billionaires. These will be the first ones (those most likely) to jet when returns fall. In general, falling returns lower the value of the franchise (or slow the rate of increase). Seems like the owners have reasonable concerns, particularly given all the other things they've forgone with all those "billions" they've inherited.

They want a billion dollars back from the players, well the players have every right to ask why? the NFL is making a ton of money, so why should the players give up something just to make the owners happy?

Because the players are their employees? Now to some degree they are partners (to the extent that certain players are highly expensive to replace or irreplaceable), but it's still fundamentally a employer-employee relationship. If the employer doesn't like his bottom line, he'll put his money into something that does. That's the way markets work. Contracts are voluntary. If the players don't want to be employed in the NFL, no one is forcing them to. They can flip burgers to make a living - like a LOT of us do.

The CBA, as best I can tell, does not give the players some legal authority to compel owners to tell them why they wish to renegotiate, compel them to open all their books for the world to so, or compel them to give certain terms on any subsequent negotiated contract.

and let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season. with the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

I guess you're trying to make some "fairness" argument, here. You can talk about compensation all you want [which I don't concede the facts here, either] but, at the end of the day, it's as simple as this: there are far, far, far fewer NFL players who quit their jobs than in the rest of the private sector. Obviously, they love their jobs or at least find them highly remunerative relative to their next best alternative. The proof is in the pudding.

If the voluntary turnover rate in the NFL was incredibly high then, yeah, maybe one can speculate that these jobs are somehow underpaid. But they aren't.

I'm not even a union fan, but the owners in this situation want something back and aren't saying why. the reason is because they aren't suffering any losses from the NFL revenue. they want more money from the players to cover their losses from other business areas. too bad for the owners, I say.

I don't think this is genuine at all, but more like a claim for objectivity. From your statements it seems clear you are highly suspicious (or not well informed) of the market process and how owners of resources make their decisions in a market system, all the while being highly sympathetic to worker demands. This is not to say any of us are purely objective, but I think you should be honest with how your bias colors all of your thinking and analysis.

I really don't see how anyone can side with the owners here. I really don't.

I haven't fully articulated the owner's perspective, but I hope I've answered some of your questions.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Well made points Ice Cream Man

 

[uconnalum]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion.

I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.

The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.

With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

 

[VaCatFan]

go play Arena Football or in the UFL... just because you don't like your other choices doesn't mean you don't have choices

LMAO. These only exist BECAUSE of the NFL. Now if the NFL folds, the UFL in particular might begin to rock!! Not a bad idea actually. Yet more reason to tell the owners to #### themselves.

Bring back the XFL and HeHateMe.

 

[T J]

.....I do hope Roger Goodell is no longer in the picture.

I don't mind Goodell. It's DeMaurice Smith I wanna see go bye bye. Dude's a punk.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

 

[BusMan]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

AGAIN, the NFL is a de facto monopoly, allowed despite the US's anti-trust laws, because of the CBA. Its asinine to continue to compare this to other labor markets.

 

[Ksquared]

.....I do hope Roger Goodell is no longer in the picture.

I don't mind Goodell. It's DeMaurice Smith I wanna see go bye bye. Dude's a punk.

 

[Ksquared]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

AGAIN, the NFL is a de facto monopoly, allowed despite the US's anti-trust laws, because of the CBA. Its asinine to continue to compare this to other labor markets.

So the way you look at it, no matter what the owners do, they are wrong. But most of all Mr Smith certainly is making it like a Union representing miners or some other type of workers that are being abused. He is using this to make his name and further his political career (which has been rumored for months).

 

[BusMan]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

AGAIN, the NFL is a de facto monopoly, allowed despite the US's anti-trust laws, because of the CBA. Its asinine to continue to compare this to other labor markets.

So the way you look at it, no matter what the owners do, they are wrong. But most of all Mr Smith certainly is making it like a Union representing miners or some other type of workers that are being abused. He is using this to make his name and further his political career (which has been rumored for months).

No, I don't think the owners are always wrong. I think they're wrong here, though.

 

[Da Guru]

I like the letter.

The players today are making so much more money than the last group of striking players as a group. That means they are all living larger, and will cross the line much faster. The average NFL is not prepared to make it more than one season without a paycheck.

NFL players have to realize that the player pool is endless and the game will continue with or without them.

 

[Christo]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

AGAIN, the NFL is a de facto monopoly, allowed despite the US's anti-trust laws, because of the CBA. Its asinine to continue to compare this to other labor markets.

Some markets. Maybe most markets. But for a long time the steel, telecom and auto industries were all but monopolies. To completely dismiss the argument is ridiculous.

 

[thayman]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

 

[uconnalum]

The bottom line is the Owners and players agreed to meet in the middle on some issue including the 16/4 and moving to an 18/2 in either 2 or 4 years from now. The only sticking issue was the additional 1 Billion off the top to bring it to 2 Billion dollars. Owners moved all the way down to 500 million but the players still wanted to see the books even for a 50 percent concessions. I think if the owners came back and said they want an additional 100 million the players want to see the books.

Remember knowing each organizations financial well being is also an advantage to the players in free agency. They know what franchise can afford them with a front loaded contract. A financially weak franchise will back load the deal and then cut the player lose. A good agent should prevent this but having full financial disclosure will help a free agent make a decision as to which franchise he will go to.

 

[BusMan]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

AGAIN, the NFL is a de facto monopoly, allowed despite the US's anti-trust laws, because of the CBA. Its asinine to continue to compare this to other labor markets.

Some markets. Maybe most markets. But for a long time the steel, telecom and auto industries were all but monopolies. To completely dismiss the argument is ridiculous.

Those examples are unlike the special status given to the professional sport leagues.

 

[FUBAR]

I like the letter myself. Goodell layed out what they offered the player which doesn't look bad at all to me and I'm sure there was some room for negotiation within in that deal. The players decided to walk away and not continue negotiating, not the owners. So at this point and time the owners have my full support.

It's just propaganda. Clearly a biased attempt to get fans to side with the owners. If it were an article on NFL.com it would be fine, but the mass email is a put off to me.

 

[Christo]

What kills me is the owners think that they could ask for an extra billion off the top before splitting the remaining revenue without having to provide financial disclosure. Who do the owners think they are dealing with idiots. Any person would want financial evidence supporting a claim for an extra billion. I think the owners are acting like pompous fools for only throwing out aggregate numbers. They are trying to make the NFLPA and anybody else with common sense look like idiots.The owners shouldn't worry about the players when the financial records for all clubs are released in the courtroom. Yahoo Sports has already made it known they will publish every financial document released in the court hearings for all the NFL franchises for all interested people to read. It will be interesting to see how many clubs actually lost money over the last 10 years. It will be interesting how the employees were compensated and what bonuses they received (if any) in the last 10 years.With these owners crying poor it will be interesting to see what there financial documents show. Looking forward to see what the Glazers financials look like and also Jerry Jones financials.

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES. Will you march into your boss' office and demand to see how much he netted and if you don't like the number demand to have a raise? They sign contracts and get paid regardless if the club is in the black or red, or if they suck or not Thye are contracted out, just like a plumber or electrician. How bout this..all the clubs that did lose money, all the players for those franchises throw back some salary? They both agreed that the opt out was available to both sides. The owners have every right to renegotiate. They were willing to show 5 years of books. The players have no interest in a deal till after they get in front of the Honorable Judge player friendly, so they can leverage the owners to stick to 2 more years of the current agreement. D Smith is a grandstander with his own political agenda which has nothing to do with a good deal, especially a quick one.

AGAIN, the NFL is a de facto monopoly, allowed despite the US's anti-trust laws, because of the CBA. Its asinine to continue to compare this to other labor markets.

Some markets. Maybe most markets. But for a long time the steel, telecom and auto industries were all but monopolies. To completely dismiss the argument is ridiculous.

Those examples are unlike the special status given to the professional sport leagues.

So?

 

[thayman]

I like the letter myself. Goodell layed out what they offered the player which doesn't look bad at all to me and I'm sure there was some room for negotiation within in that deal. The players decided to walk away and not continue negotiating, not the owners. So at this point and time the owners have my full support.

It's just propaganda. Clearly a biased attempt to get fans to side with the owners. If it were an article on NFL.com it would be fine, but the mass email is a put off to me.

Why?

 

[cobalt_27]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

 

[Mister CIA]

go play Arena Football or in the UFL... just because you don't like your other choices doesn't mean you don't have choices

LMAO. These only exist BECAUSE of the NFL. Now if the NFL folds, the UFL in particular might begin to rock!! Not a bad idea actually. Yet more reason to tell the owners to #### themselves.

Talk about a harsh education in free-market economics for 32 owners to watch their franchise values evaporate. While players are least prepared to whether a loss of revenue, the owner's risk is 100-fold that of the players.How would this work? Somebody with enough gravitational pull to entice prospective owners in a new league to pony up $50-100 million for a franchise, with expectations it will balloon in value upon the demise of the NFL. And to get through the rough spots for the first few years to get the league airborne, owners set aside say 25% ownership in the new league to divy up amongst players in exchange for reduced contracts. It might look like the ol' billionaires vs millionaires at the moment, but if the billionaires are not careful they'll get cannibalized - that's their nature.

 

[Sinrman]

Wow, the wealth envy in this thread is staggering...

Let me ask those who want to trash the players -- do you realize that a decent % of the players make the league minimum, which I believe is under $1 mil/year? For what they put their bodies through annually for our enjoyment, I think they are underpaid. What everyone seems to scream about "Millionaires fighting with billionaires!" is that only the players that are always in front of the cameras are the ones making the millions, and that's not a big % of the players.

 

[FUBAR]

I like the letter myself. Goodell layed out what they offered the player which doesn't look bad at all to me and I'm sure there was some room for negotiation within in that deal. The players decided to walk away and not continue negotiating, not the owners. So at this point and time the owners have my full support.

It's just propaganda. Clearly a biased attempt to get fans to side with the owners. If it were an article on NFL.com it would be fine, but the mass email is a put off to me.

Why?

Mostly because both sides should realize that their "enemy" here isn't each other, it's any loss of public perception. By attacking the players, the owners risk losing bigger. At least a story on NFL.com can pretend to be news. But instead, we have a guy who in theory should be neutral, attacking one side. Then again, maybe I'm wrong in thinking he should be neutral? The players are far from innocent in this, so don't read what I'm writing as taking a side.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

 

[thayman]

Wow, the wealth envy in this thread is staggering...Let me ask those who want to trash the players -- do you realize that a decent % of the players make the league minimum, which I believe is under $1 mil/year? For what they put their bodies through annually for our enjoyment, I think they are underpaid. What everyone seems to scream about "Millionaires fighting with billionaires!" is that only the players that are always in front of the cameras are the ones making the millions, and that's not a big % of the players.

If it was wealth envy than I think you would see more people siding with the players since the owners have the most money. Personally right now I'm more pissed off at the players since I think they went into these negotiations with the sole purpose of taking it to court. The owners at least seem willing to negotiate.Also what difference does it make what they put themselves through? I'm pretty sure that all the players in the NFL dreamed about playing Football for a living for their entire lives. Even players who only make the league minimum are fairly compensated IMO.

 

[BusMan]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

But they did extend the negotiations. TWICE. If "all they wanted to do was litigate this", those extensions would've never happened.

 

[Choke]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

But they did extend the negotiations. TWICE. If "all they wanted to do was litigate this", those extensions would've never happened.

 

[Clarence the barber]

Wow, the wealth envy in this thread is staggering...Let me ask those who want to trash the players -- do you realize that a decent % of the players make the league minimum, which I believe is under $1 mil/year? For what they put their bodies through annually for our enjoyment, I think they are underpaid. What everyone seems to scream about "Millionaires fighting with billionaires!" is that only the players that are always in front of the cameras are the ones making the millions, and that's not a big % of the players.

Can you connect your post to a point? I'm trying to see a different side here, but I don't know where you are going with this.

 

[jackdubl]

I'd like to point one thing out that many people seem to be missing and there are too many posts to quote. People keep bringing up the employer-employee relationship here. This is a PARTNERSHIP. Please substitute the word PARTNER whenever someone mentions EMPLOYER or EMPLOYEE, then see if the argument still makes sense.

 

[Christo]

I'd like to point one thing out that many people seem to be missing and there are too many posts to quote. People keep bringing up the employer-employee relationship here. This is a PARTNERSHIP. Please substitute the word PARTNER whenever someone mentions EMPLOYER or EMPLOYEE, then see if the argument still makes sense.

Huh?

 

[T J]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

But they did extend the negotiations. TWICE. If "all they wanted to do was litigate this", those extensions would've never happened.

How easily manipulated you are. Every talking head I've heard, including the former players who are now hosts on Sirius, ackowledge it's now evident that the union's strategy was always to litigate and the "extensions" were nothing more than a PR strategy to sway the opinions of people like you. The owners thought the extensions were actually to try to accomplish a deal. The players were using them to give the illusion they were working toward one, when in fact, they never were.

 

[renesauz]

Wow, the wealth envy in this thread is staggering...Let me ask those who want to trash the players -- do you realize that a decent % of the players make the league minimum, which I believe is under $1 mil/year? For what they put their bodies through annually for our enjoyment, I think they are underpaid. What everyone seems to scream about "Millionaires fighting with billionaires!" is that only the players that are always in front of the cameras are the ones making the millions, and that's not a big % of the players.

Let's be more fair than this. Guys making league minimum aren't actually playing very much. They're keeping the benches warm. When one of them earns a starting gig and actually performs like a starter, he's quickly given a new deal or he holds out. Let's take that a step further....backups on the bench making league minimum really are a dime a dozen. They are no differant from hundreds (thousands?) of other recent college players who could do the job pretty much equally.It is not now, nor was it ever, about the guys making league minimum. And it shouldn't be. 300k to keep a seat warm and while continueing to train and audition for a million+ dollar job is an even sweeter gig than that lineman risking his noggin day in and day out for "only" 1.4 million.So...yes...it is millionares vs. billionares. The 300k guys are mostly innocent byestanders like us.

 

[golfguy]

The Owners are the ones who opted out of the current collective bargaining agreement, not the players. Why did they? well because some of their other business ventures have suffered over the past 5 years.

I don't feel bad for some billionaires, a lot of whom inherited their wealth.

Even if I concede the facts (which I don't) how does this make any difference at all? The players "inherited" their abilities, were lucky to be in the right place at the right time, etc. They are just as privileged to be in this position, if not more so. By your rational we should have no sympathies for the players, either.Also, only half the owners are billionaires, and I don't know how that makes any difference in the world either: if they are not getting a market return on their investments, they will try to change or modify those investments. Economics 101.

It hasn't happened yet, but as returns fall, owners will divest themselves to some degree and pursue other investments. Moreover, the owners also represent minority share holders, who are not billionaires. These will be the first ones (those most likely) to jet when returns fall. In general, falling returns lower the value of the franchise (or slow the rate of increase). Seems like the owners have reasonable concerns, particularly given all the other things they've forgone with all those "billions" they've inherited.

They want a billion dollars back from the players, well the players have every right to ask why? the NFL is making a ton of money, so why should the players give up something just to make the owners happy?

Because the players are their employees? Now to some degree they are partners (to the extent that certain players are highly expensive to replace or irreplaceable), but it's still fundamentally a employer-employee relationship. If the employer doesn't like his bottom line, he'll put his money into something that does. That's the way markets work. Contracts are voluntary. If the players don't want to be employed in the NFL, no one is forcing them to. They can flip burgers to make a living - like a LOT of us do.

The CBA, as best I can tell, does not give the players some legal authority to compel owners to tell them why they wish to renegotiate, compel them to open all their books for the world to so, or compel them to give certain terms on any subsequent negotiated contract.

and let's be honest they are far more players that make the league minimums then 5 million a season. with the avg career at around 3 years, that's not a ton of money. say 900k before taxes are taken out, so that leaves them around probably 450k. it's a nice amount of money, don't get me wrong, but you are not retiring at 24 yrs old on 450k. not happening. not to mention the long term health effects these people have. I've met some of these guys, people who are in their early 40s and can hardly walk. (and they certainly didn't make even the kind of money I mentioned earlier).

I guess you're trying to make some "fairness" argument, here. You can talk about compensation all you want [which I don't concede the facts here, either] but, at the end of the day, it's as simple as this: there are far, far, far fewer NFL players who quit their jobs than in the rest of the private sector. Obviously, they love their jobs or at least find them highly remunerative relative to their next best alternative. The proof is in the pudding.

If the voluntary turnover rate in the NFL was incredibly high then, yeah, maybe one can speculate that these jobs are somehow underpaid. But they aren't.

I'm not even a union fan, but the owners in this situation want something back and aren't saying why. the reason is because they aren't suffering any losses from the NFL revenue. they want more money from the players to cover their losses from other business areas. too bad for the owners, I say.

I don't think this is genuine at all, but more like a claim for objectivity. From your statements it seems clear you are highly suspicious (or not well informed) of the market process and how owners of resources make their decisions in a market system, all the while being highly sympathetic to worker demands. This is not to say any of us are purely objective, but I think you should be honest with how your bias colors all of your thinking and analysis.

I really don't see how anyone can side with the owners here. I really don't.

I haven't fully articulated the owner's perspective, but I hope I've answered some of your questions.

Dear ICM,#1 I never said they didn't have a valid reason for opting out, they made a bad deal in 2006. however, i'm not going to blame the players at this point in time (not yet).

#2 your analogy of a business owner inheriting a business or millions being the same as someone who makes it to he NFL level as a player both being inherited really is terrible. it's not even close. an NFL player is basically a lottery for a lot of the players (coming from their socio economic status), they are extremely rare and talented. there are not many people in the world who can compete at the level of the NFL, they work for and strive for it. they don't just sit there and get it handed to them. that's really a porous comparison. There are far more people in this country who run million-dollar companies then play in the NFL. so the nfl owners who inherited their wealth and the players are not on the same level.

#3 sure they can try to modify their investment, but at the same time profits in the NFL have doubled in the past 5 years. from around 4.5 billion to 9 billion dollars/yr. (last time i heard the numbers). So they are still making good money. If i work for a guy who owns ABC company and it's making a landslide of money. and I am in the top 1% of what I do as a profession, and he comes to me and says well I own XYZ company and profits are down, so you have to give me back some of that profit sharing plan we have. (again as noted by previous posters, the NFL is a Monopoly as well- so you can't really even compare to most business models anyway)

#4 I am sure some other billionaire would gladly buy up their team, even it's such a money pit for them.

#5 I never said anywhere that they were underpaid. my point was their self life is not long, so they have to make as much money as possible in that short time frame (let's be honest, their employer is using up their talent, and then tossing them aside in this scenario). they also have as many people trying to suck on their teat, as the owners do, if not more so. (which I believe is one of the reasons the owners don't want the books opened)

#6 I love how you tell me how I really feel about unions. LMAO. you have no idea of my true feelings on unions. i grew up in an area that was decimated by the steel union, and saw the ramifications of them. so, please don't assume you know anything about me, because you don't. that statement is something LHUCKS would say.

#7 the NFL is not a free market system, it's a monopoly. so you can't really compare the two. the NFL lives in it's own little world. (i understand the point you are trying to make, though i don't agree with you)

 

[cobalt_27]

But they did extend the negotiations. TWICE. If "all they wanted to do was litigate this", those extensions would've never happened.

How easily manipulated you are. Every talking head I've heard, including the former players who are now hosts on Sirius, ackowledge it's now evident that the union's strategy was always to litigate and the "extensions" were nothing more than a PR strategy to sway the opinions of people like you. The owners thought the extensions were actually to try to accomplish a deal. The players were using them to give the illusion they were working toward one, when in fact, they never were.

Indeed. It's also possible that having one extension (they extended once for a day to work out the parameters for negotiating another week, so I really count this as only one extension) was a CYA maneuver to at least give the appearance that they were "negotiating" in good faith. I think most people now agree that De Smith really had in mind all along that he could squeeze the owners' balls in a vice tighter in the courts than he could at the negotiating table. If that's to be applauded, then fine. You got what you all asked for. Football as you've known it is now dead. Hope all the NFLPA supporters are happy with what you now get.

 

[encaitar]

I really can't believe how many people side with the owners on this issue. How many franchises have lost value in the last 10 years? Maybe Oakland, maybe Buffalo? Yet, both those franchises would have multiple billionaires ready to buy them tomorrow if they were for sale. A business that is truly struggling wouldn't have investors salivating at the prospect of buying into it, yet we have two separate groups in LA trying to build a stadium without even owning a team with the mere hope of enticing an owner to give them a stake in a team in exchange for the stadium.

The owners are making money. The reason they don't want to open their books is because of all they ways they are using to hide the amount of money they are making. I doubt there is an owner in the league who isn't paying family members million dollar salaries. People are pointing to the Packers declining profit in 2009 as evidence of the league's struggle without pointing out that they had just paid out huge bonuses to Rodgers and Woodson that counted on that year's salary. Also, the Packers play in the smallest NFL market in the country. Their profit margin is likely at or near the bottom of the NFL franchises, yet they still are making a pretty good profit even after paying out huge signing bonuses.

As for the NFL being willing to negotiate... They demanded a billion dollars without proof they needed it and were willing to accept half of that and that's negotiating? If you worked for a company that was seeing unprecedented growth, a lot of that thanks to your hard work, and your boss came to you and said I'm gonna need to cut your salary by $50k, you would be ok with that without knowing why? If after arguing with him a bit he said, ok we'll only cut it by $25k, then you'd be unreasonable to not accept that, even though you still didn't know why he needed to cut it at all? Ok, I guess we have different ideas about what is being reasonable.

 

[T J]

I really can't believe how many people side with the owners on this issue.

Believe it. I for sure do and it's not even close.

 

[treat88]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

I don't think it's really a concession to make demands on the status quo and then simply reduce those demands.Particularly without demonstrating a need to make those demands in the first place.

 

[renesauz]

I really can't believe how many people side with the owners on this issue. How many franchises have lost value in the last 10 years? Maybe Oakland, maybe Buffalo? Yet, both those franchises would have multiple billionaires ready to buy them tomorrow if they were for sale. A business that is truly struggling wouldn't have investors salivating at the prospect of buying into it, yet we have two separate groups in LA trying to build a stadium without even owning a team with the mere hope of enticing an owner to give them a stake in a team in exchange for the stadium.

The owners are making money. The reason they don't want to open their books is because of all they ways they are using to hide the amount of money they are making. I doubt there is an owner in the league who isn't paying family members million dollar salaries. People are pointing to the Packers declining profit in 2009 as evidence of the league's struggle without pointing out that they had just paid out huge bonuses to Rodgers and Woodson that counted on that year's salary. Also, the Packers play in the smallest NFL market in the country. Their profit margin is likely at or near the bottom of the NFL franchises, yet they still are making a pretty good profit even after paying out huge signing bonuses.

As for the NFL being willing to negotiate... They demanded a billion dollars without proof they needed it and were willing to accept half of that and that's negotiating? If you worked for a company that was seeing unprecedented growth, a lot of that thanks to your hard work, and your boss came to you and said I'm gonna need to cut your salary by $50k, you would be ok with that without knowing why? If after arguing with him a bit he said, ok we'll only cut it by $25k, then you'd be unreasonable to not accept that, even though you still didn't know why he needed to cut it at all? Ok, I guess we have different ideas about what is being reasonable.

Bolded is the part that's incredibly misleading. The owners were not looking to cut salaries...they were looking to change the model by which the cap was figured. I don't think anyone was actually thinking the cap would shrink. NOBODY was going to get a pay cut. The new system proposed by the NFL would have shrunken FUTURE RAISES. This is a HUGE DISTINCTION that needs to be made.It's like if you were getting a 15% raise every year for 8 years. Then your boss comes along and says "we're changing that. You're only going to get 10% raises from now on." You can't claim a pay cut in this scenario. In fact, the only reason you can complain at all is because you're a union. Sorry...I don't feel bad for said union getting 8 or 10% raises instead of 15% Their raises still outpace inflation, and the free market alternative will redistirbute that money in a way which is NEGATIVE for most of the members.

Players are idiots. The guys at the top will make more, the owners and the majority of the players would make less.

 

[Choke]

Again..Bottom line is they are EMPLOYEES.

Not really.They are de-facto partners. Even the owners recognize that this is a most unusual arrangement that doesnt follow normal terms. They are the product. Thats why they get 50%.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

The Owners wanted to reallocate the funds and filter more into the retirement/medical packages. This is a perfectly acceptable circumstance and one the player reps had railed for. I actually was shocked at how many last minute concessions they put on the table. Bottom line is the players have no interest in settling before they can get in front of The Honorable Judge Player Friendly to extend the current sweet deal they have. The next one won't be as immediately beneficial as the players are mostly concerned with their weekly Phat Check, and don't have much concern about when they will retire or what kind of shape they will be in. Not younger players anyway. Demaurice Smith has no interest in a quick settlement as his agenda is to make a name for himself by grandstanding and posturing with the big boys.

 

[jackdubl]

I really can't believe how many people side with the owners on this issue. How many franchises have lost value in the last 10 years? Maybe Oakland, maybe Buffalo? Yet, both those franchises would have multiple billionaires ready to buy them tomorrow if they were for sale. A business that is truly struggling wouldn't have investors salivating at the prospect of buying into it, yet we have two separate groups in LA trying to build a stadium without even owning a team with the mere hope of enticing an owner to give them a stake in a team in exchange for the stadium. The owners are making money. The reason they don't want to open their books is because of all they ways they are using to hide the amount of money they are making. I doubt there is an owner in the league who isn't paying family members million dollar salaries. People are pointing to the Packers declining profit in 2009 as evidence of the league's struggle without pointing out that they had just paid out huge bonuses to Rodgers and Woodson that counted on that year's salary. Also, the Packers play in the smallest NFL market in the country. Their profit margin is likely at or near the bottom of the NFL franchises, yet they still are making a pretty good profit even after paying out huge signing bonuses. As for the NFL being willing to negotiate... They demanded a billion dollars without proof they needed it and were willing to accept half of that and that's negotiating? If you worked for a company that was seeing unprecedented growth, a lot of that thanks to your hard work, and your boss came to you and said I'm gonna need to cut your salary by $50k, you would be ok with that without knowing why? If after arguing with him a bit he said, ok we'll only cut it by $25k, then you'd be unreasonable to not accept that, even though you still didn't know why he needed to cut it at all? Ok, I guess we have different ideas about what is being reasonable.

This.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Boncos are willing to open their books

Posted by Mike Florio on March 12, 2011, 11:05 PM EST

During last week’s squabble over financial transparency, a report emerged that some owners were willing to open their books fully and completely to the NFLPA*.

Count the Broncos among the willing.

CEO Joe Ellis said Saturday that the team has no qualms about letting the union see for itself the changes in financial performance since the last CBA was signed in 2006.

“If the league decides they want to open up the books of the Denver Broncos to present them to the union — I don’t know if the league is into identifying individual clubs because they’re private businesses,” Ellis said, per Mike Klis of the Denver Post. “But with a neutral [auditor] to verify the fact that certain teams haven’t been operating as effectively as they did in the past, we’re a willing and able participant.’”

Ellis also complained about the union’s failure to even eyeball profitability data that the league had offered.

“We offered to show the union league-wide and club profitability data,” Ellis said. “Not only that it can be verified by a mutually agreed upon third-party auditor. This is the type of information we don’t share with each other. In other words, we aren’t allowed to see how other teams are doing specifically in terms of revenues and expenses. Everything is very formalized in terms of information we get from other clubs. Now the union didn’t even want to look at it.”

Ellis also joined the league-wide chorus of voices claiming that the NFLPA* didn’t want to negotiate at the bargaining table, but via the courts.

“[Owner] Pat [bowlen] certainly believes they had no real good intention of negotiating and their goal all along was to go down the path of litigation,” Ellis said. “It’s extremely disappointing and it frustrates Pat. It makes him angry. He’s fully aware that it makes our friends, our constituents, our season-ticket holders and everybody who supports us angry and disappointing. But we can’t stop operating.” (Other than, you know, locking the players out.)

This

 

[golfguy]

The Owners wanted to reallocate the funds and filter more into the retirement/medical packages. This is a perfectly acceptable circumstance and one the player reps had railed for. I actually was shocked at how many last minute concessions they put on the table. Bottom line is the players have no interest in settling before they can get in front of The Honorable Judge Player Friendly to extend the current sweet deal they have. The next one won't be as immediately beneficial as the players are mostly concerned with their weekly Phat Check, and don't have much concern about when they will retire or what kind of shape they will be in. Not younger players anyway. Demaurice Smith has no interest in a quick settlement as his agenda is to make a name for himself by grandstanding and posturing with the big boys.

IB, I haven't really seen that part about the owners reallocating more funds to retirement, etc. that is something the union should want. If they got that, then that is a huge win for the union. I understand the owners need to make a profit. if they are making less of a profit, then that's not good business and it's not good for the long-term of the NFL itself. I understand that. but it just really comes down to how much of a profit is needed.

 

[J Andersson]

Bolded is the part that's incredibly misleading. The owners were not looking to cut salaries...they were looking to change the model by which the cap was figured. I don't think anyone was actually thinking the cap would shrink. NOBODY was going to get a pay cut. The new system proposed by the NFL would have shrunken FUTURE RAISES. This is a HUGE DISTINCTION that needs to be made.

It's like if you were getting a 15% raise every year for 8 years. Then your boss comes along and says "we're changing that. You're only going to get 10% raises from now on." You can't claim a pay cut in this scenario. In fact, the only reason you can complain at all is because you're a union. Sorry...I don't feel bad for said union getting 8 or 10% raises instead of 15% Their raises still outpace inflation, and the free market alternative will redistirbute that money in a way which is NEGATIVE for most of the members.

Players are idiots. The guys at the top will make more, the owners and the majority of the players would make less.

That's precisely how I see it. I know the NFLPA wants to spin it as if they "are writing a check to the owners" which is the opposite of truth.

 

[Insomniac]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

The players wanted to see the owners books because they were pretty sure they'd see stuff like the owners paying themselves $30 mil per year salaries to be the CEO and paying their kids, siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews 6 figure salaries for no show jobs. Or they'd see the owners had set up multiple corporations where the expenses are but on the team while a lot of the revenue goes to the stadium corporation.At the end of the day the owners wanted a calculation that would have set the salary cap to a lower level than it was at 2 years ago. A position change from "we're offering to cut your salaries just 10% instead of 20% for NO REASON" isn't a compromise.

 

[Ksquared]

The players wanted to see the owners books because they were pretty sure they'd see stuff like the owners paying themselves $30 mil per year salaries to be the CEO and paying their kids, siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews 6 figure salaries for no show jobs. Or they'd see the owners had set up multiple corporations where the expenses are but on the team while a lot of the revenue goes to the stadium corporation.

At the end of the day the owners wanted a calculation that would have set the salary cap to a lower level than it was at 2 years ago. A position change from "we're offering to cut your salaries just 10% instead of 20% for NO REASON" isn't a compromise.

It is not negotiating either. If anyone is really willing to look at this situation without bias, I think it becomes very clear that negotiating was never on the NFLPA or Smith's agenda. Do all the PR stuff, make it look good, but basically never budge from your original position. That is not negotiating at all. Mr Smith got what he has wanted all along, get it to the courts and keep his name in the "limelight".

 

[KCC]

I'm sure many of us got this email last night. Seems he's trying to make fans support the owners but IMO it comes off as patronizing and if this is how he's running things, my support is firmly with the players.

Dear NFL Fan,

When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.

The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).

It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.

We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.

While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.

Yours,

Roger Goodell

When I look at this I wonder what fantasy world these players are in. How many of us make millions of dollars playing a game. I say let them go out and find a real job, get a real check to pay the bills, then they will see what the real world is all about. The league did about all they could and they wouldn't budge. Screw those spoiled ###'s, let them make a living washing cars, I can live without football.

I'm with the players on this one. I think most fans are far more concerned about who's on the field for their team rather than who's up in the owners box. How many owners sacrifice their bodies for the game? How many owners can suddenly have one horrible instance during a game when, due to an injury, they are out of the sport from the rest of their lives? The players are the ones making the plays and taking the risks. They should be paid accordingly.

 

[thayman]

#### you Roger.

The CBA was renewed in 2006 and lasted through the 2012 season.

You should have worked towards a new one while that was still in place.

#### you NFLPA. You had a completely workable deal in hand and the latest concessions by the owners--huge concessions, things you were asking for--was a fantastic step in the right direction.At minimum, you had to extend talks. But, that's assuming you were willing to negotiate in good faith. You weren't. You wanted the opportunity to squeeze the owners and take them to court.

Good luck with that anti-trust suit. You potentially screwed all of us fans. But, the best part is...you likely just screwed yourselves. That's what happens when union lemmings follow blindly follow their leader.

Pretty much sums up my feelings as wellThe NFL even offered a third party (approved by both sides) to gain access to the books and report to the NFLPA what each respective teams financial status was. I might not like the way the owners have handled this but the NFLPA really screwed up towards the end of the negotiations.

I work as a negotiatior daily to solve CBA issues. I have never ever been in a negotiation where the employers have opened up their books. To expect them to do so is extremely naive, I'm sorry Drew Brees (a person I have tremendous respect for) and company but you have no firm grasp on reality here.

To act so upset about the books not being opened up shows just how stupid the NFLPA is.

Not to mention, to act like it would have mattered is completely stupid. I can't believe how many people here have fallen for this argument. It's not like the NFLPA is actually going to look at those books with an objective eye and say, "Oh my, you guys really ARE struggling, let's settle." No. They want the data to manipulate the media and manufacture more arguments against the owners.Again, the pro-NFLPA people are dismissing the fact that the owners made huge concessions in the 11th hour. If they truly were serious about "negotiating" they would have extended. There was seismic movement. But, all they wanted to do was litigate this.

#### them.

The players wanted to see the owners books because they were pretty sure they'd see stuff like the owners paying themselves $30 mil per year salaries to be the CEO and paying their kids, siblings, cousins, nieces and nephews 6 figure salaries for no show jobs. Or they'd see the owners had set up multiple corporations where the expenses are but on the team while a lot of the revenue goes to the stadium corporation.At the end of the day the owners wanted a calculation that would have set the salary cap to a lower level than it was at 2 years ago. A position change from "we're offering to cut your salaries just 10% instead of 20% for NO REASON" isn't a compromise.

Those of you that support the players need to stop with this opening the books nonsense. No other business opens their books to the union. The owners don't even open their books to each other, and the owners offered to open the books to a third party auditor who would report the findings back to the players union. If that's not reasonable I don't know what is.