NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Orange Crush]

Antitrust lawsuit alleges that NFL has waived "sham" defense to decertification

http://profootballta...ecertification/

Paragraph 45 of the civil complaint explains that, when settling the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit in 1993, the league "insisted on the right to terminate the [agreement] if the players did not reform a union within thirty days." To get that provision, the NFL agrees that, "if a majority of players decided to end their collective bargaining representation upon or after the [agreement's] expiration," the NFL would waive the right to argue, among other things, that the decertification was "a sham or otherwise ineffective."

In other words, if the players' allegations are accurate, the NFL can't use the "sham" silver bullet to block decertification. And that makes the players' lawsuit a lot stronger, increasing the likelihood that a lockout will be blocked and we'll have football in 2011.

Here's the language from the CBA:----

ARTICLE LVII

MUTUAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS:

LABOR EXEMPTION

Section 3. CBA Expiration:

(b) The Parties agree that, after the expiration of the express term of this Agreement, in the event that at that time or any time thereafter a majority of players indicate that they wish to end the collective bargaining status of the NFLPA on or after expiration of this Agreement, the NFL and it's Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns waive any rights they may have to assert any anti-trust labor exemption defense based upon any claim that the termination by the NFLPA of it's status as a collective bargaining representative is or would be a sham, pretext, ineffective, requires additional steps or has in fact not occurred.

---

I don't speak legalese but how does the NFL even take this "sham decertification" argument to the NLRB or court?

I just wonder if the "on or after" part of that language is the key. They technically decertified before the CBA expired, albeit with extensions and with only hours to spare. I think the owners can claim that they continued to negotiate in good faith up until that point.

Yes, I think that's a key point. I don't think the owners have waived their right to argue that decertification is a sham. (Which, of course, does not mean that the owners' argument in that regard will be successful — just that they'll likely be able to raise it.)

I would think that the first sentence "The Parties agree that, AFTER the expiration of the express term of this Agreement" is the controlling language. It would seem there is an argument that the league can still challenge the de-certification since the NFLPA clearly acted PRIOR to the expiration of the agreement- although the NFLPA will probably argue that the union leaders only renounced their interest before the agreement expired with the actual decertification not being finalized until later. The bigger question is which judge will hear the argument regarding the de-certification.

That's essentially correct, although the NFLPA (trade association) has another argument they are presenting as part of the litigation that, as part of the settlement agreement under White v. NFL from 20 years ago -- a settlement agreement that is still (arguably) still in effect -- the NFL agreed NOT to challenge any decertification as a sham. That's a twist I hadn't heard until last night.

 

[kingmalaki]

You can't claim to be losing $$ and not be willing to justify it, especially when all signs point to you making record profits. I'm an accountant, and I know how easily one can manipulate numbers. It's why public corporations have to get audited financials in the first place. 

The fact that the Packers, a small market team, still made $$ in one of the worst recessions ever shows me that the owners are full of manure. Stop hating on the union. The owners have clearly been planning to lock them out for years, won't show support and some get mad at the players for using their best option? 

 

[kingmalaki]

Someone made a comparison to the NBA and the comparison isn't accurate. NBA stars have more power because a great NBA player has more impact than a great NFL player.

 

[renesauz]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

 

[Ranethe]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Totally behind the players. The NFL is not a typical business, stop applying that model to it. I'd also act in a movie for a lot less than what actors get paid. Of course, that's as irrelevant as your whine about playing football for less.Jesus the free market groupies get so tiresome around here.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Not sure why people keep doing this. It's not really very hard to understand:The owners giving the players a cut is the price they pay in exchange for being allowed to artificially suppress wages in the first place. All of the cost-savings measures the owners have in place are illegal without the cooperation of the players via a union. The NFL is not like any other business - such comparisons are meaningless and misleading.

 

[renesauz]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

All we're saying is that if this is true the owners needed to prove it. And they weren't willing to do that.

 

[Choke]

trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

Who is to say that was the right %?Owners refused to open up book and put the actual numbers on the table. So you dont even know what #s you are actually working with.

 

[renesauz]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

All we're saying is that if this is true the owners needed to prove it. And they weren't willing to do that.

Prove what? The players want a break-down of owners expenses. Is that really necessary? I mean...the credit stayed the same over the last CBA...the players cut increased. The players went from 4X % of total income brought in to 5X % of total income brought in. Their take increased.Honestly, if they were going to continue to use the "credit model" to determine salary caps, the players demands were not unreasonable. But why use such a model at all? I agree that players shouldn't be held back if an owner wants to spend 1 million on a private jet, or pay his wife a 400k consulting fee. Why not forget an "operating credit" and simply accept a smaller piece of the WHOLE pie? That way, owners can increase their own profits by cutting un-necessary expenses like those above.

The players LOVE the last CBA, because their cut was growing. It grew by 8 or 9% since 2004. No matter what the real operating expenses are, or should be...that makes no sense. That arrangement had to stop. Player salaries should have never been allowed to grow faster than gross income...yet that's the arrangemet they had. And that's what the players are trying to continue...and that's just ignorant.

The players have the figures for total income...they always had these. 45% or so of the total pie would put the players at the % they had a couple years ago. Their cut would continue to grow at a rate matching NFL revenue growth, instead of exceeding it.

 

[Insomniac]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Totally behind the players. The NFL is not a typical business, stop applying that model to it. I'd also act in a movie for a lot less than what actors get paid. Of course, that's as irrelevant as your whine about playing football for less.Jesus the free market groupies get so tiresome around here.

Actually the movies is one business where some of the employees do get a % of the gross.The "free market" supporters allow an exception when the market favors some employees over business owners.

 

[Choke]

Is that really necessary?

Completely necessary.

 

[Insomniac]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

The numbers I've seen show a slight decrease in the players share of the pie.http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/12/17/how-much-is-the-nfl-earning-players-and-owners-have-different-ideas/

What’s the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... “ ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. “Total Revenue” is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit.

...

The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players’ Percentage of “Total Revenue” since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

The NFL revenues have grown at a much greater rate than inflation. The player salaries have gone up with the revenue but it's not likely that the non-player expenses for the owners have increased as rapidly as their income. Their profits should be better than ever.

 

[renesauz]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

The numbers I've seen show a slight decrease in the players share of the pie.http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/12/17/how-much-is-the-nfl-earning-players-and-owners-have-different-ideas/

What’s the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... “ ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. “Total Revenue” is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit.

...

The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players’ Percentage of “Total Revenue” since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

The NFL revenues have grown at a much greater rate than inflation. The player salaries have gone up with the revenue but it's not likely that the non-player expenses for the owners have increased as rapidly as their income. Their profits should be better than ever.

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

If revenues increase faster than expenses the total pie is growing and if the players' cut is a fixed percentage then both the owners and the players are better off.ETA: I'm talking about real expenses. Not millions a year that the teams might be funneling (a la the L.A. Dodgers) to family members for their 'consultation services'.

 

[RaiderBones]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Excellent

 

[RaiderBones]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Totally behind the players. The NFL is not a typical business, stop applying that model to it. I'd also act in a movie for a lot less than what actors get paid. Of course, that's as irrelevant as your whine about playing football for less.Jesus the free market groupies get so tiresome around here.

 

[Ranethe]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Totally behind the players. The NFL is not a typical business, stop applying that model to it. I'd also act in a movie for a lot less than what actors get paid. Of course, that's as irrelevant as your whine about playing football for less.Jesus the free market groupies get so tiresome around here.

good one Beav

 

[Insomniac]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

The numbers I've seen show a slight decrease in the players share of the pie.http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/12/17/how-much-is-the-nfl-earning-players-and-owners-have-different-ideas/

What’s the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... “ ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. “Total Revenue” is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit.

...

The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players’ Percentage of “Total Revenue” since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

The NFL revenues have grown at a much greater rate than inflation. The player salaries have gone up with the revenue but it's not likely that the non-player expenses for the owners have increased as rapidly as their income. Their profits should be better than ever.

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

You're arguing that the players share of the pie has grown but the numbers in the link show that's untrue. There just isn't any good reason to think the owners are seeing their real profits drop.

 

[renesauz]

OK....how much has the total salary cap gone up since 2000?

How much has gross NFL revenue gone up since 2000?

2005?

Compare total salary to GROSS revenue. IE: Total dollars brought into the NFL. The CBAs of the past have introduced terms with very nebulous definitions, leading to funny numbers all over the place.

Perhaps I'm mistaken on how the players cut was determined under the old CBA? Wasn't it a fixed % of the GROSS (IE: ALL MONEY COLLECTED) AFTER a billion dollar operating credit? If that's correct...then the figures presented can't be accurate.

Somebody's working with flawed data here. It might well be me, and if so, I'm more then willing to re-evaluate my position.

 

[renesauz]

You're arguing that the players share of the pie has grown but the numbers in the link show that's untrue. There just isn't any good reason to think the owners are seeing their real profits drop.

Let's not confuse "real profits" with profit margin. Real profits can remain healthy, yet shrink in comparison to costs/investment. Shrinking profit margins are an unhealthy sign, no matter how many millions in profit are recorded.A billion dollar investment returning 10 or 15 million is NOT a good investment. 10 or 15 million seems healthy to us Joes earning less than 100k...but it's a paltry return on a billion, and would represent a dangerously unhealthy margin.

 

[Orange Crush]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

You have incorrect information.The owners got certain expenses exempted from the revenue split calculation. They were a small portion that went to operating expenses (but by no means covered all operating expenses) and additional monies used to create new revenue streams to "grow the sport" (predominantly new stadium construction funded by teams instead of the public). That number did not remain static. It actually started off rather small, but in the years since '06, the Cowboys, Giants, and Jets invested massively in their new stadium projects with team funds, jacking the amount exempted from the revenue split calculation up close to $1 billion. Those teams still have large debt payments, though, and their fellow owners are thinking that public monies for future stadium improvements are going to be much harder to come by, and so therefore the "business model" of the NFL has changed as a result. Therefore, they want to change the calculation so that they can invest more team money in stadiums without giving up their profits, i.e. they're going to make the players pay for the stadiums instead of them. It's nice to build nice, shiny, luxurious new headquarters for your business when you can pass the costs on to someone else, don't you think?

Additionally, the high revenue teams, who have been creating all sorts of new, innovative revenue streams (i.e. sucking more money out of us fans) are sick of propping up the low revenue teams with their current formula for sharing revenue amongst themselves. Instead, they'd rather reduce the revenue sharing between teams but create ways for teams to exempt more money from the sharing it with the players, but only by investing in those same revenue streams as the other teams. Thus, this issue plays into their hands as well.

 

[Orange Crush]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

The numbers I've seen show a slight decrease in the players share of the pie.http://blogs.forbes....ifferent-ideas/

What's the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... " ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. "Total Revenue" is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit.

...

The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

2009–57.1%

The NFL revenues have grown at a much greater rate than inflation. The player salaries have gone up with the revenue but it's not likely that the non-player expenses for the owners have increased as rapidly as their income. Their profits should be better than ever.

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

No, as I said in my last post, the amount of the top wasn't a set percentage. It actually grew over the term of the last CBA. Also, the revenue split with the players determines the level of the salary cap, i.e. the maximum amount teams can spend on players. There's some variation there, as not all teams spend to the cap. The above numbers are an independent auditor's calculation of exactly what percentage of revenue actually went to the players.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

You're arguing that the players share of the pie has grown but the numbers in the link show that's untrue. There just isn't any good reason to think the owners are seeing their real profits drop.

Let's not confuse "real profits" with profit margin. Real profits can remain healthy, yet shrink in comparison to costs/investment. Shrinking profit margins are an unhealthy sign, no matter how many millions in profit are recorded.A billion dollar investment returning 10 or 15 million is NOT a good investment. 10 or 15 million seems healthy to us Joes earning less than 100k...but it's a paltry return on a billion, and would represent a dangerously unhealthy margin.

Of course a billion dollar investment that grows in value 10%/year AND spins of, say, $30 million a year (no one knows what the number is) is a damn good investment.

 

[Insomniac]

OK....how much has the total salary cap gone up since 2000?How much has gross NFL revenue gone up since 2000?2005?Compare total salary to GROSS revenue. IE: Total dollars brought into the NFL. The CBAs of the past have introduced terms with very nebulous definitions, leading to funny numbers all over the place.Perhaps I'm mistaken on how the players cut was determined under the old CBA? Wasn't it a fixed % of the GROSS (IE: ALL MONEY COLLECTED) AFTER a billion dollar operating credit? If that's correct...then the figures presented can't be accurate.Somebody's working with flawed data here. It might well be me, and if so, I'm more then willing to re-evaluate my position.

I got my revenue numbers from Forbes web site. I doubt there are many people that would argue Forbes is pro-union or anti-business. Do you have a link to other numbers?

 

[kingmalaki]

renesauz

When we have a current agreement in place and you want to break it AND want me to take less because you claim to be losing money, then yes you should be expected to show proof. If you don't think so then I have some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you. It's on the ocean...trust me....

In all seriousness, I can't believe some think it's wrong for the players to want the owners to prove what they claim.

 

[Insomniac]

You're arguing that the players share of the pie has grown but the numbers in the link show that's untrue. There just isn't any good reason to think the owners are seeing their real profits drop.

Let's not confuse "real profits" with profit margin. Real profits can remain healthy, yet shrink in comparison to costs/investment. Shrinking profit margins are an unhealthy sign, no matter how many millions in profit are recorded.A billion dollar investment returning 10 or 15 million is NOT a good investment. 10 or 15 million seems healthy to us Joes earning less than 100k...but it's a paltry return on a billion, and would represent a dangerously unhealthy margin.

I'm not counting profits the way an accountant would. For example if an owner paid himself a salary of $20 mil to be the CEO of the team that would count as an expense not as profit. But it's still money going into the owners pocket. That should count as part of the owner's return on investment..

 

[Choke]

You're arguing that the players share of the pie has grown but the numbers in the link show that's untrue. There just isn't any good reason to think the owners are seeing their real profits drop.

Let's not confuse "real profits" with profit margin. Real profits can remain healthy, yet shrink in comparison to costs/investment. Shrinking profit margins are an unhealthy sign, no matter how many millions in profit are recorded.A billion dollar investment returning 10 or 15 million is NOT a good investment. 10 or 15 million seems healthy to us Joes earning less than 100k...but it's a paltry return on a billion, and would represent a dangerously unhealthy margin.

Exactly... OPEN THE BOOKS.

 

[Orange Crush]

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

If revenues increase faster than expenses the total pie is growing and if the players' cut is a fixed percentage then both the owners and the players are better off.ETA: I'm talking about real expenses. Not millions a year that the teams might be funneling (a la the L.A. Dodgers) to family members for their 'consultation services'.

 

[cobalt_27]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Excellent

No doubt. Siding with the players here is like rooting for Russia.

 

[Ysatnaf_Gnik]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Excellent

No doubt. Siding with the players here is like rooting for Russia.

I was under the impression that the Russians were the good guys...

 

[cobalt_27]

Here's my real problem with the players demands:

The player portion (cap) was determined based on a % of overall take minus a 1 billion $ figure intended to cover operating expenses. So...gross income goes up, player salaries go up. Over time, operating costs go up. But guess what...the 1 billion stayed the same???!!! Stupid arrangement, and it does not take a genius to realize that arrangement could not, and should not have stayed the same indefinately.

In what other business could an employee union even THINK about basing salary demands on company gross income? It's one thing to demand that income NOT go down, and that's reasonable, but it is not reasonable to demand that salaries increase at some rate which in reaslity EXCEEDS the rate of company profits, which is exactly what the last CBA did. The static figure for operating costs ensured an economic arrangement which was prgressively worse for the owners.

If the NFL could gaurentee players that their total salary (IE: cap) would continue to grow at a rate which matches or exceeds inflation (4% or so most years), than the players have no legit beef IMHO...PERIOD. Any arrangement which allows more then inflationary rises in salary should have been considered gravy in the first place.

Players have no inherent right to company profits. Guys making 6 to 8 figures a year playing a game half of us would gladly play for 5 figures do not deserve to whine pay increases exceeding inflation... PERIOD.

Can't believe anyone would back the players here.

Excellent

No doubt. Siding with the players here is like rooting for Russia.

I was under the impression that the Russians were the good guys...

Yeah, if you leave out Lenin, Stalin, and Ivan Drago...you're probably right.

 

[Cripster]

I have been thinking about all this stuff. First of all, at this point, does it matter whose fault it is. We have all been saying, why can't two sides divide 9 billion dollars. The reason is because it just isn't money at play here. Its power. The owners are making money. However, with advertising flat and the networks feeling that pinch, we are at maximum tv profits for the immediate future. Thats what the owners fear. I think in retrospect , they probably should have riden out the current CBA while trying to alter the next. They were trying to get a better margin in the event this tv money stopped growing. This is why looking at the last ten years of financials is meaningless. Its doesn't matter what they have made. Its what they will make. I think they thought the 9 billion might shrink. The players feel that the owners want to crush the union and opting out of the CBA was step one to this. Honestly, they did all they could do. I am sure they hope to tie things up in court a few years and keep the current split going. They also felt this would keep their members getting paid. I think they feel they need to draw a line in sand and nip it in the bud. They don't care about the financial statements. Their position won't change regardless of what the financials say.

The reality is they are taking fans for granted. Since everybody has an ego the size of Texas, this is going to be a long fight.

 

[renesauz]

renesauz

When we have a current agreement in place and you want to break it AND want me to take less because you claim to be losing money, then yes you should be expected to show proof. If you don't think so then I have some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you. It's on the ocean...trust me....

In all seriousness, I can't believe some think it's wrong for the players to want the owners to prove what they claim.

First...it's misleading at best to say the owners broke any agreement. The agreement included an option for an early out....they broke nothing.Second...I don't believe the owners were expecting the players to take pay cuts. On the contrary, they simply wanted to revamp the model so that the player portion did not grow at the same rate it had been. Whatever new formula they came up with would never have had a chance to be agreed to with player salaries going backwards. As I understood it, it's the MODEL that was bad more than the last year or two of actual payments.

 

[cobalt_27]

renesauz

When we have a current agreement in place and you want to break it AND want me to take less because you claim to be losing money, then yes you should be expected to show proof. If you don't think so then I have some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you. It's on the ocean...trust me....

In all seriousness, I can't believe some think it's wrong for the players to want the owners to prove what they claim.

First...it's misleading at best to say the owners broke any agreement. The agreement included an option for an early out....they broke nothing.Second...I don't believe the owners were expecting the players to take pay cuts. On the contrary, they simply wanted to revamp the model so that the player portion did not grow at the same rate it had been. Whatever new formula they came up with would never have had a chance to be agreed to with player salaries going backwards. As I understood it, it's the MODEL that was bad more than the last year or two of actual payments.

The folks siding with the players are conveniently ignoring a lot of major pieces of what's transpired here. Everyone knew the owners would opt out. It's not like they came from out of nowhere and surprised everybody with this. The guys responsible for the money felt the model needed changing. The owners made huge concessions, INCLUDING opening up the books to the players. But, the NFLPA is just playing a game here. The NFL conceded to show 5 years of the books, and the players said no, we want 10 years. If the owners gave them 10, the players would have asked for 15. It isn't difficult to see what's going on here. The NFLPA didn't want to negotiate. Otherwise, they would have taken the owners concessions for information and more $ and said, you know that's great...not enough, but let's continue to talk.

They didn't.

#### the players.

 

[renesauz]

Guys...I have no problem with the owners paying the players "a cut". I believe they should pay the players based on total intake of money. What I have a problem with is the idea that operating expense credit should stay static. The player's cut was actually GROWING percentage wise, and that was wholly un-necessary. Why are some folks wanting to castrate the owners for trying to scale that % back to where they believe it should be, somewhere close to what it was 4 or 5 years ago?

I have a problem with the attitude of the players in this. They are paid ridiculous money to play a game, and walked away from negotiating when the deal basicly gaurenteed continued growth of pay in excess of inflation. The owners were not forcing a pay cut..they were trying to reign in uncontrolled growth.

Of course, this assumes the real problem really is the way the pie was getting cut. The players had/have many other very legit issues I fully support them in. Long term health care for example.

The numbers I've seen show a slight decrease in the players share of the pie.http://blogs.forbes....ifferent-ideas/

What's the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? ... " ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. "Total Revenue" is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit.

...

The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players' Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%

2001-52.6%

2002-51.8%

2003-50.5%

2004-52.3%

2005-51.1%

2006-52.7%

2007-51.8%

2008-51.0%

2009-50.6%

Players' Percentage of "Total Revenue" since 2000:

2000-61.7%

2001-57.1%

2002-56.1%

2003-54.3%

2004-57.0%

2005-55.1%

2006-58.4%

2007-58.0%

2008-57.7%

200957.1%

The NFL revenues have grown at a much greater rate than inflation. The player salaries have gone up with the revenue but it's not likely that the non-player expenses for the owners have increased as rapidly as their income. Their profits should be better than ever.

That.....makes no sense. Unless I've completely misunderstood the last arrangement. WEren't the players given a specific % of gross revenue after the billion dollar operating credit? If gross incomes increased but the credit remained the same...player take would rise as a percentage of gross income. THAT's the argument the NFL owners have made, and such a model is untenable long-term.

No, as I said in my last post, the amount of the top wasn't a set percentage. It actually grew over the term of the last CBA. Also, the revenue split with the players determines the level of the salary cap, i.e. the maximum amount teams can spend on players. There's some variation there, as not all teams spend to the cap. The above numbers are an independent auditor's calculation of exactly what percentage of revenue actually went to the players.

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue (before MOST expenses except for maybe some very limited and clearly defined expenses such as team travel costs....office and coaching salaries, stadium renovations, etc. not included) would ensure the players receive compensation very much in line with historical figures, provided 1 to 1.5% was dedicated to other player costs such as long term health care, etc.While I understand players fighting to keep salaries and other compensation from going backwards, I still take issue with the belief that ANY raises in excess of inflation are a God-given right. IE: Any proposal which grows the salary cap (and floor) by inflation rates or more should preclude union decertification. If their pay till now has been sufficient, then it will remain so...REGARDLESS of how much the NFL grows gross revenue. Folks making 6 to 8 figures have no cause to demand raises in excess of inflation.

Profit is not a dirty word. Owners sunk billions into the NFL...let them make a healthy profit.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue

It would make perfect sense. And when the owners refused to provide detailed expense data I believe the players offered something very close to what you describe. At which point the owners walked out. A bit sketchy on this one, so could be wrong - but I think that's how it went.

 

[Mister CIA]

Profit is not a dirty word. Owners sunk billions into the NFL...let them make a healthy profit.

I sunk hundreds into my fantasy leagues. Let me make a healthy profit!

 

[cobalt_27]

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue

It would make perfect sense. And when the owners refused to provide detailed expense data I believe the players offered something very close to what you describe. At which point the owners walked out. A bit sketchy on this one, so could be wrong - but I think that's how it went.

The owners did not walk out. They offered detailed data that the players requested. They granted concessions on player health care and share of revenue far beyond anything that had been conceded by either side.The players decertified, anyway.

 

[renesauz]

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue

It would make perfect sense. And when the owners refused to provide detailed expense data I believe the players offered something very close to what you describe. At which point the owners walked out. A bit sketchy on this one, so could be wrong - but I think that's how it went.

The owners did not walk out. They offered detailed data that the players requested. They granted concessions on player health care and share of revenue far beyond anything that had been conceded by either side.The players decertified, anyway.

We're generally on the same side, but I think he's talking about at a much earlier point in the negotiations...several weeks ago in earlier talks the owners walked out of some talks and it was a couple weeks before they went back to the table.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue

It would make perfect sense. And when the owners refused to provide detailed expense data I believe the players offered something very close to what you describe. At which point the owners walked out. A bit sketchy on this one, so could be wrong - but I think that's how it went.

The owners did not walk out. They offered detailed data that the players requested. They granted concessions on player health care and share of revenue far beyond anything that had been conceded by either side.The players decertified, anyway.

Again... I could be confused on the specifics of the proposal the owners objected to, but IIRC they walked out of a negotiating session at which the players offered something similar to what Renesauz described. You're wrong on bit about full disclosure too, but it's obvious you're not particularly interested in any actual facts that would interfere with your partisanship. So carry on.

 

[cobalt_27]

If these numbers are accurate, wouldn't it make sense to simply agree to a number based on total revenue that's historically similar? IE: Approx. 50% of gross revenue

It would make perfect sense. And when the owners refused to provide detailed expense data I believe the players offered something very close to what you describe. At which point the owners walked out. A bit sketchy on this one, so could be wrong - but I think that's how it went.

The owners did not walk out. They offered detailed data that the players requested. They granted concessions on player health care and share of revenue far beyond anything that had been conceded by either side.The players decertified, anyway.

We're generally on the same side, but I think he's talking about at a much earlier point in the negotiations...several weeks ago in earlier talks the owners walked out of some talks and it was a couple weeks before they went back to the table.

Yup. I wouldn't put too much on what happens early in negotiations. But, when the rubber meets the road...when it comes to the 11th hour and it really mattered...the owners came through, and the players walked away.

 

[cobalt_27]

You're wrong on bit about full disclosure too, but it's obvious you're not particularly interested in any actual facts that would interfere with your partisanship. So carry on.

Partisanship? Dude, all anyone should care about here is that the two sides worked together to make a deal happen. The owners moved closer to the players on Friday. The players walked away. The only thing I'm partisan about is that the NFLPA did not agree to keep talking when it was clear they scored huge concessions from the owners. That should scream loud and clear to everyone that DeMaurice Smith had other things in mind all along.

 

[lebowski]

When will fans start getting ticked off and both owners and players lose? Or is this a situation where the NFL is too big and it's not going to matter if there is a lockout?

 

[treat88]

For those saying the owners put forth a conciliatory fair deal at the last minute and the players walked away, I have to ask...Why should the players concede anything?

The owners started off asking for a 1B and came all the way down to 500M in player give backs.

That isn't meeting halfway, that's making huge demands, getting told to stuff it, demanding less and saying that you are splitting the difference so you are the good guy.

I see both sides of this dispute, but I can't paint the players as the bad guys. Not when the owners opted out of the previous CBA, and bargained in bad faith by negotiating TV contracts that were not in the players best interest.

Does anyone know for a fact that another extension was even on the table?

 

[kingmalaki]

Actually the owners did break an agreement....to maximize revenue. It's why the judge wouldn't let them have their TV $$ in a lockout. You are correct that the CBA contained an opt out, the fact remains that the owners chose to ax the current agreement for certain reasons, the main one being the loss of $$. It's extremely idiotic to take them at their word. When you kill an agreement and want concessions, prove what you claim. Why is this so hard to grasp?

 

[Cripster]

For those saying the owners put forth a conciliatory fair deal at the last minute and the players walked away, I have to ask...Why should the players concede anything?The owners started off asking for a 1B and came all the way down to 500M in player give backs.That isn't meeting halfway, that's making huge demands, getting told to stuff it, demanding less and saying that you are splitting the difference so you are the good guy.I see both sides of this dispute, but I can't paint the players as the bad guys. Not when the owners opted out of the previous CBA, and bargained in bad faith by negotiating TV contracts that were not in the players best interest.Does anyone know for a fact that another extension was even on the table?

Extension was on the table. Smith said he would extend if 10 years of audited financial statements were included as a condition of extension. Owners declined. Thats what Smith said Friday afternoon.

 

[Ksquared]

Actually the owners did break an agreement....to maximize revenue. It's why the judge wouldn't let them have their TV $$ in a lockout. You are correct that the CBA contained an opt out, the fact remains that the owners chose to ax the current agreement for certain reasons, the main one being the loss of $$. It's extremely idiotic to take them at their word. When you kill an agreement and want concessions, prove what you claim. Why is this so hard to grasp?

For many I think and definitely for me I am now siding with the owners. 1) If the players get what their goal is, we will see a MLB style structure, 2) It seems to be a one way street with labor laws that were never intended for disputes of individuals that make this amount of money. The next time a Union breaks an agreement, will the owners be allowed to look at individual workers financial records? I think not, but everyone seems to be claiming the owners need to prove they need more money. Just be sure the union members need to be required to show how they are spending their money the next time they feel they should make more $$. 3) D Smith - has political aspirations and has shown very little interest in negotiating in my opinion. Any movement has been completely by the Owners side. And I truly believe Smith planned to decertify all along so he can make a major splash as a labor lawyer. He has no background as a deal maker, just a harsh litigator.

 

[Zdravko]

1. Owners are under no obligation to show the players any numbers. It certainly might make things easier, but the players do not possess a legal right to see the financial data. Making this demand a deal-breaker is hardly reasonable from the NFLPA.

2. However, if the owners are unwilling to open their books, then they can't expect the NFLPA to give them an allowance for operating expenses. It makes perfect sense: if you want me to give you credit for an expense, then you have to prove the expense to me. If you refuse to prove it, then you can't get the credit.

3. Hence, the solution to the open-your-books saga is actually simple in principle - split the revenues without an allowance for operating expenses. Problem solved and the books can stay closed.

Then both sides can just focus on negotiating the percentages they are willing to accept.

 

[hooptd]

renesauz

When we have a current agreement in place and you want to break it AND want me to take less because you claim to be losing money, then yes you should be expected to show proof. If you don't think so then I have some oceanfront property in Idaho to sell you. It's on the ocean...trust me....

In all seriousness, I can't believe some think it's wrong for the players to want the owners to prove what they claim.

First...it's misleading at best to say the owners broke any agreement. The agreement included an option for an early out....they broke nothing.Second...I don't believe the owners were expecting the players to take pay cuts. On the contrary, they simply wanted to revamp the model so that the player portion did not grow at the same rate it had been. Whatever new formula they came up with would never have had a chance to be agreed to with player salaries going backwards. As I understood it, it's the MODEL that was bad more than the last year or two of actual payments.

The folks siding with the players are conveniently ignoring a lot of major pieces of what's transpired here. Everyone knew the owners would opt out. It's not like they came from out of nowhere and surprised everybody with this. The guys responsible for the money felt the model needed changing. The owners made huge concessions, INCLUDING opening up the books to the players. But, the NFLPA is just playing a game here. The NFL conceded to show 5 years of the books, and the players said no, we want 10 years. If the owners gave them 10, the players would have asked for 15. It isn't difficult to see what's going on here. The NFLPA didn't want to negotiate. Otherwise, they would have taken the owners concessions for information and more $ and said, you know that's great...not enough, but let's continue to talk.

They didn't.

#### the players.

I couldn't agree more. Nobody loves football or ff more than me. I'm 42, commish two leagues and play in 8 more. If this gets any uglier I'm seriously thinking of walking away for good. I've given way too much time and money to the NFL for them to treat me this way.