NFLPA officially decertifies (1 Viewer)

[Ksquared]

I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, but can someone explain to me what the difference is between opening up the books vs having an independent auditor look through them?

Why are the players insisting on open books? Is there information they are specifically looking for that they can't get through the auditor? Even if this is just a power play, is there even *hypothetical* information that they would be looking for? Can't the just ask the auditor questions about what's in there?

The auditor will just verify how profitable the teams were. If they weren't super profitable, he won't say it's because they made stupid investments on unnecessarily expensive stadium renovations. He'll just say that their expenses were really high.I think the players want to see specifics that they can publicly criticize: the team spent how much on the owner's personal jet?? Having specific stuff to criticize makes good PR sense, but it's hard to get just from an auditor's bottom line.

Just a guess . . .

Trust me this is exactly what the Union hopes to do (it was a ploy in one of the Union negotiations I was involved with a few years ago). I am sure there are owners paying relatives large chunks of money that indicate their profits are not as high as they claim. But MT stated the crux of the problem from my view: 1) It really is just a PR ploy to embarrass and criticize the owners (I guarantee it will NOT help a get a resolution, in fact I think it will have the opposite affect) by airing their dirty laundry for everyone to see. It will also lead to micro analysis of every financial decision that gets made, which leads to #2. 2) The owners are making investments in the game (some more than others, and some of them fail - see poorly thought out stadium renovations, NFL network, NFL game in London, etc) which do not always work financial (at least in the short term) - that is the cost of running a business. Monday morning QBing these decisions are an area the employees have no business being involved in, unless they start putting up big $$ of their own. The players really care little about the short term investments making the long term view of the league stronger, because that is a cut out of their current $$ they could receive.

 

[roadkill1292]

I may have missed it somewhere in this thread, but can someone explain to me what the difference is between opening up the books vs having an independent auditor look through them?

Why are the players insisting on open books? Is there information they are specifically looking for that they can't get through the auditor? Even if this is just a power play, is there even *hypothetical* information that they would be looking for? Can't the just ask the auditor questions about what's in there?

The auditor will just verify how profitable the teams were. If they weren't super profitable, he won't say it's because they made stupid investments on unnecessarily expensive stadium renovations. He'll just say that their expenses were really high.I think the players want to see specifics that they can publicly criticize: the team spent how much on the owner's personal jet?? Having specific stuff to criticize makes good PR sense, but it's hard to get just from an auditor's bottom line.

Just a guess . . .

Trust me this is exactly what the Union hopes to do (it was a ploy in one of the Union negotiations I was involved with a few years ago). I am sure there are owners paying relatives large chunks of money that indicate their profits are not as high as they claim. But MT stated the crux of the problem from my view: 1) It really is just a PR ploy to embarrass and criticize the owners (I guarantee it will NOT help a get a resolution, in fact I think it will have the opposite affect) by airing their dirty laundry for everyone to see. It will also lead to micro analysis of every financial decision that gets made, which leads to #2. 2) The owners are making investments in the game (some more than others, and some of them fail - see poorly thought out stadium renovations, NFL network, NFL game in London, etc) which do not always work financial (at least in the short term) - that is the cost of running a business. Monday morning QBing these decisions are an area the employees have no business being involved in, unless they start putting up big $$ of their own. The players really care little about the short term investments making the long term view of the league stronger, because that is a cut out of their current $$ they could receive.

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

 

[renesauz]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

 

[Ksquared]

Unlike other businesses, pro sports leagues CAN'T be successful without collaboration.

There are some soccer leagues in England, Germany, Spain and Italy (for starters) that completely disprove this idea. And many examples that likely disprove the idea that the owners wouldn't spend more money as well. The old NASL went belly up because the owners spent more than they made in order to try and attract superstars and win, just to pick one. And there are also examples in the soccer leagues above that have spent themselves into receivership by buying talent they couldn't afford (see the recent history of Leeds for example).

I know you are completely or close to it on the Union side of these issues, but I completely disagree your soccer example about whether collaboration is necessary for their sport to function. First the non-financial areas are definitely collaborated: size of the soccer ball, number of players on the field, basic rules, scheduling of games, etc. Financially, the teams will have to setup agreements on how the gate $$ get split, etc (similar to what happens in college football, University of the Sister of the Poor will get paid $$ to be cannon fodder for an SEC school, etc) there are many collaborative efforts that have to take place for a series of competitions to occur, which normal business would never do. We are not even discussing the "good or bad" of this collaboration, just that it does occur no matter what league you want to use as an example. When was the last time McDonalds and Burger King came to an agreement about anything, never because in the "real" business world you do not collaborate on these types of things.And the old NASL is doing how well right now? Exactly, their league without $$ collaboration did not do to well. I am completely on the side of keeping the game the way it has been the last 4-5 years. And I feel D Smith has steered this into the courts so the players can and will win Anti-Trust violations at every hearing. As others are pointing out, the vast majority of the players are going to lose and lose big in this. The high profile players will reap more $$ (A Rod for a baseball example) but the bottom will suffer with no minimum.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

GB, the owners can indeed spend their money however they wish. But I'm not prepared to take for granted their claims that their costs have increased and neither should the players when, as others have noted besides myself, it's pretty easy to play fast and loose with the books. In addition, I don't think the owners have a right to maintain historical profit margins. Who else has that?The players' request to see the books seems to be a lightening rod for some in this discussion. If I was an owner, I wouldn't want to open mine up, either. On the other hand, as a player, I don't see any of the 31 walking away from their business because they can't afford to operate it, either. Until I do, I'm gonna be pretty skeptical that any of them are struggling and need more of the pot for themselves.

 

[Ksquared]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

GB, the owners can indeed spend their money however they wish. But I'm not prepared to take for granted their claims that their costs have increased and neither should the players when, as others have noted besides myself, it's pretty easy to play fast and loose with the books. In addition, I don't think the owners have a right to maintain historical profit margins. Who else has that?The players' request to see the books seems to be a lightening rod for some in this discussion. If I was an owner, I wouldn't want to open mine up, either. On the other hand, as a player, I don't see any of the 31 walking away from their business because they can't afford to operate it, either. Until I do, I'm gonna be pretty skeptical that any of them are struggling and need more of the pot for themselves.

Seriously, you don't believe the owners (of any business) expenses have gone up in the last 3-4 years (how much is the real question)? Tell us what area of our economy has not had this kind of increase, I need to get into it. I read where labor costs as a % increase of the cap increase went up 43% in the last 4 years in the NFL. Have been too lazy to look it up, but I know a few years ago the team cap was in the 80 Million $ range and I believe it is in the 120 Million $ range per team now. There is not any other field that has any kind of growth close to that.

 

[unckeyherb]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

GB, the owners can indeed spend their money however they wish. But I'm not prepared to take for granted their claims that their costs have increased and neither should the players when, as others have noted besides myself, it's pretty easy to play fast and loose with the books. In addition, I don't think the owners have a right to maintain historical profit margins. Who else has that?The players' request to see the books seems to be a lightening rod for some in this discussion. If I was an owner, I wouldn't want to open mine up, either. On the other hand, as a player, I don't see any of the 31 walking away from their business because they can't afford to operate it, either. Until I do, I'm gonna be pretty skeptical that any of them are struggling and need more of the pot for themselves.

But again, I think the problem lies less in the owner's being able to justify increased spending and more in the fact that the union wants to paint these increases as stupid spending that can be cut. NFL network is a perfect example. From the owner's eyes, this is a justifiable investment with calculated risks and losses they are willing to accept, based on their projections that it will pay dividends in a few years. From the player's eyes this is both an unnecessary expenditure that is yearly bleeding potential profits away as well as a reason that the owner's can't claim poverty-"just sell the rights to the Thursday games and your financial troubles go away". What right do the players have to make that determination? I am not a lawyer so I have what is probably a dumb question. Someone said earlier that the auditor cannot make judgements about an expense being stupid. Can they categorize an expense? what I mean is can they very roughly define a group of expense types that cover things like FO salaries (group A), one for electric bills/overhead (group B) and another that categorizes investments in future expansion of the league/outlier spending (Group C). The owner's are asking for more money because they are saying there is an increase in spending across group's A, B and C (everything to make the league run). Theoretically, the Union should be satisfied if they see a real split in expenses across these groups. If there is a huge jump in Group A, then maybe they have a real argument.This is obviously very simplified, but in essence, the auditor should be able to give the Unions the information they are looking for without "airing all the Owner's laundry" (which I personally think is the goal for the players).Or is there no real mechanism to order this type review?

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.

The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.

It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

GB, the owners can indeed spend their money however they wish. But I'm not prepared to take for granted their claims that their costs have increased and neither should the players when, as others have noted besides myself, it's pretty easy to play fast and loose with the books. In addition, I don't think the owners have a right to maintain historical profit margins. Who else has that?The players' request to see the books seems to be a lightening rod for some in this discussion. If I was an owner, I wouldn't want to open mine up, either. On the other hand, as a player, I don't see any of the 31 walking away from their business because they can't afford to operate it, either. Until I do, I'm gonna be pretty skeptical that any of them are struggling and need more of the pot for themselves.

Seriously, you don't believe the owners (of any business) expenses have gone up in the last 3-4 years (how much is the real question)? Tell us what area of our economy has not had this kind of increase, I need to get into it. I read where labor costs as a % increase of the cap increase went up 43% in the last 4 years in the NFL. Have been too lazy to look it up, but I know a few years ago the team cap was in the 80 Million $ range and I believe it is in the 120 Million $ range per team now. There is not any other field that has any kind of growth close to that.

Of course expenses have increased. Including payroll expenses. But payroll expenses have been a constant percentage of revenues since the last CBA, haven't they? If so, then the argument about increased expenses must revolve around non-payroll ones. I don't know what to make of your sentence that I bolded.

 

[roarlions]

Seriously, you don't believe the owners (of any business) expenses have gone up in the last 3-4 years (how much is the real question)? Tell us what area of our economy has not had this kind of increase, I need to get into it. I read where labor costs as a % increase of the cap increase went up 43% in the last 4 years in the NFL. Have been too lazy to look it up, but I know a few years ago the team cap was in the 80 Million $ range and I believe it is in the 120 Million $ range per team now. There is not any other field that has any kind of growth close to that.

Of course expenses have increased. Including payroll expenses. But payroll expenses have been a constant percentage of revenues since the last CBA, haven't they? If so, then the argument about increased expenses must revolve around non-payroll ones. I don't know what to make of your sentence that I bolded.

Roadkill is right, as shown by the percentages of revenue quoted in post #412 in this thread on page 9. The growth in the salary cap can only mirror growth in revenue, so any complaints from the owners about decreased profits has to reflect growth in expenses not related to player salaries.A lot of people have focused on the NFLPA request to see the owners' books, but as also pointed out in another post on page 9 of this thread and in this article:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6107737

the NFLPA offered to use a formula to determine the salary cap that would not have allowed any deductions from "all revenues" and would have given the players 50% of all revenues, which is lower than the percentage of all revenues they received in any year from 2000 - 2009. The owners rejected that proposal and walked away from the negotiations without even offering a counter-offer (much as the players did before decertifying).

Finally, a lot of people assert that the players have no reason to view the books of the owners. However, the deductions owners are allowed to take from all revenues to determine "total revenue" sure seem to invite investigation by the players association. Here is a link to the section of the CBA that describes deductions allowed when calculating total revenue to be shared with the players:

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/2006%20CBA%20Expense%20Credits.pdf

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Finally, a lot of people assert that the players have no reason to view the books of the owners. However, the deductions owners are allowed to take from all revenues to determine "total revenue" sure seem to invite investigation by the players association. Here is a link to the section of the CBA that describes deductions allowed when calculating total revenue to be shared with the players:

http://images.nflpla...e%20Credits.pdf

This can easily be verified by an independent auditor.

 

[roarlions]

Finally, a lot of people assert that the players have no reason to view the books of the owners. However, the deductions owners are allowed to take from all revenues to determine "total revenue" sure seem to invite investigation by the players association. Here is a link to the section of the CBA that describes deductions allowed when calculating total revenue to be shared with the players:

http://images.nflpla...e%20Credits.pdf

This can easily be verified by an independent auditor.

Don't disagree with that. Just pointing out that there have been quite a few posts stating the owners shouldn't have to show their books at all and that the players don't have any right to review business decisions made by the owners. I'd argue that the owners ceded their right to privacy in the last CBA and are trying to win it back now, just as they are trying to win back some of the revenues they agreed to share with players. They are certainly entitled to both of those goals, but you can't blame the players for trying to maintain the status quo (in comparison to asking for terms they didn't get in the last CBA).

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Finally, a lot of people assert that the players have no reason to view the books of the owners. However, the deductions owners are allowed to take from all revenues to determine "total revenue" sure seem to invite investigation by the players association. Here is a link to the section of the CBA that describes deductions allowed when calculating total revenue to be shared with the players:

http://images.nflpla...e%20Credits.pdf

This can easily be verified by an independent auditor.

Don't disagree with that. Just pointing out that there have been quite a few posts stating the owners shouldn't have to show their books at all and that the players don't have any right to review business decisions made by the owners. I'd argue that the owners ceded their right to privacy in the last CBA and are trying to win it back now, just as they are trying to win back some of the revenues they agreed to share with players. They are certainly entitled to both of those goals, but you can't blame the players for trying to maintain the status quo (in comparison to asking for terms they didn't get in the last CBA).

I don't think they ceded their rights to privacy, at least to the extent the players are demanding. They want 'transparency' of team by team operations for the past 10 years. Verification that the NFL has been properly categorizing revenue for inclusion into the total pool can be done far less intrusively as that. There is nothing in the current CBA that says the owners have to show the books to the players. They didn't bargain that away.

 

[roarlions]

Finally, a lot of people assert that the players have no reason to view the books of the owners. However, the deductions owners are allowed to take from all revenues to determine "total revenue" sure seem to invite investigation by the players association. Here is a link to the section of the CBA that describes deductions allowed when calculating total revenue to be shared with the players:

http://images.nflpla...e%20Credits.pdf

This can easily be verified by an independent auditor.

Don't disagree with that. Just pointing out that there have been quite a few posts stating the owners shouldn't have to show their books at all and that the players don't have any right to review business decisions made by the owners. I'd argue that the owners ceded their right to privacy in the last CBA and are trying to win it back now, just as they are trying to win back some of the revenues they agreed to share with players. They are certainly entitled to both of those goals, but you can't blame the players for trying to maintain the status quo (in comparison to asking for terms they didn't get in the last CBA).

I don't think they ceded their rights to privacy, at least to the extent the players are demanding. They want 'transparency' of team by team operations for the past 10 years. Verification that the NFL has been properly categorizing revenue for inclusion into the total pool can be done far less intrusively as that. There is nothing in the current CBA that says the owners have to show the books to the players. They didn't bargain that away.

The current CBA doesn't just deal with categorizing revenue, it also has a number of allowable deductions/expenses that reduce the revenue counted for sharing with the players. Seems like the players (represented by their independent auditor) would be interested in seeing the amounts of those deductions and whether they are legitimate or not.Another thing that I think people are missing about why the union wants to see the books is that pretty much everything we hear about the growth in expenses and player salaries is in the aggregate. So what if a great deal of that growth is being driven by a handful of teams while a majority of teams are spending quite a bit less than the cap? If the teams spending near the max year after year are comfortable spending the amount and the other teams are making money while spending less than the cap, what is the problem? Basically I feel like dealing with aggregate revenues and expenses can be very misleading about whether a so-called problem is widespread or limited to a few teams.

 

[renesauz]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

GB, the owners can indeed spend their money however they wish. But I'm not prepared to take for granted their claims that their costs have increased and neither should the players when, as others have noted besides myself, it's pretty easy to play fast and loose with the books. In addition, I don't think the owners have a right to maintain historical profit margins. Who else has that?The players' request to see the books seems to be a lightening rod for some in this discussion. If I was an owner, I wouldn't want to open mine up, either. On the other hand, as a player, I don't see any of the 31 walking away from their business because they can't afford to operate it, either. Until I do, I'm gonna be pretty skeptical that any of them are struggling and need more of the pot for themselves.

Future stadiums will be built with NFL money, not public. At 1 Billion a pop, it should be PAINFULLY obvious that the owners need to bring in more money. Given the exhorbitant nature of player salaries now, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to curb salaries vice fleece the public more.That's just the first point. Just as important is the fact that players with short term outlooks would not/COULD NOT agree to many owner expenses. It would turn into a "Why don't you cut this, or stop paying for that" (instead of cuting our salaries). Player perspective makes that an untenable position, one which the owners had to refuse. Finally....the owners had pretty much said that they wouldn't REDUCE salaries, just the growth of salaries. It isn't like players were taking a real life pay cut, at least not in the final proposals.

 

[3nOut]

Don't disagree with that. Just pointing out that there have been quite a few posts stating the owners shouldn't have to show their books at all and that the players don't have any right to review business decisions made by the owners. I'd argue that the owners ceded their right to privacy in the last CBA and are trying to win it back now, just as they are trying to win back some of the revenues they agreed to share with players. They are certainly entitled to both of those goals, but you can't blame the players for trying to maintain the status quo (in comparison to asking for terms they didn't get in the last CBA).

I don't agree that the owners should open their books. If the players don't believe the owners need the extra $1B, maybe they should act like 'business partners' and figure out how much really needs to be taken off the top and provide some real numbers and 5 year cost projections to back it up.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't agree. I think it's very easy to separate stupid spending with deceptive spending. Making a decision that turns out badly is one thing; the owner paying himself and his sons $20 million in combined salaries and then crying "poverty" is something else altogether. My suspicion is that many of the teams are doing something very much like that and will take a very hard stand against said behavior seeing the light of day.The players may not be too smart. But the owners are sneaky bastards.

This may be true, but it doesn't change the basics of the problem. Owners take a long term view, while players take a short term view. Whether all of the owners decisions make fiscal sense is completely immaterial.The players do NOT need full disclosure to see that some important fiscal realities have indeed changed. It's pretty obvious that the owners need a larger % cut than before to maintain similar profit margins. While I can't blame the player one bit for balking at the additional BILLION the owners originally asked for, full financial disclosure is simply a ridiculous demand. In their position, a more reasonable stance by the players would have been to demand the total pay continued to rise at a level commensurate with inflation. A few years of 6-8% raises instead of 10-15% would hardly be an unreasonable expectation from the owners.It's the OWNERS MONEY...not the players. How they spend it is fully up to them.

GB, the owners can indeed spend their money however they wish. But I'm not prepared to take for granted their claims that their costs have increased and neither should the players when, as others have noted besides myself, it's pretty easy to play fast and loose with the books. In addition, I don't think the owners have a right to maintain historical profit margins. Who else has that?The players' request to see the books seems to be a lightening rod for some in this discussion. If I was an owner, I wouldn't want to open mine up, either. On the other hand, as a player, I don't see any of the 31 walking away from their business because they can't afford to operate it, either. Until I do, I'm gonna be pretty skeptical that any of them are struggling and need more of the pot for themselves.

Future stadiums will be built with NFL money, not public. At 1 Billion a pop, it should be PAINFULLY obvious that the owners need to bring in more money. Given the exhorbitant nature of player salaries now, it makes a heck of a lot more sense to curb salaries vice fleece the public more.That's just the first point. Just as important is the fact that players with short term outlooks would not/COULD NOT agree to many owner expenses. It would turn into a "Why don't you cut this, or stop paying for that" (instead of cuting our salaries). Player perspective makes that an untenable position, one which the owners had to refuse. Finally....the owners had pretty much said that they wouldn't REDUCE salaries, just the growth of salaries. It isn't like players were taking a real life pay cut, at least not in the final proposals.

It's time to become more frugal with stadiums anyway. They're barely lasting 20 years before owners are crying the blues for a new one. And they should have been paying the full freight on these all along.With 53 guys splitting up a salary cap of, what, $120 million or so, I wouldn't call NFL salaries exorbitant. They may be a high percentage of gross revenues but they've been at a constant rate around which ownership can budget. If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.I acknowledge my personal bias in this discussion. Because of their labor history, I don't think very highly of NFL ownership as a group.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

sounds like mediation begins on Thursday.

Judge nelson and the magistrate mets with the Players today, and the NFL tomorrow.

Here is to a quick resolution.



MINNEAPOLIS -- Federally mediated settlement talks between the NFL and the players got underway Tuesday morning in the chambers of U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, with counsel for the Brady and Eller classes in attendance.

Judge Susan Nelson, who heard the Brady class' request for an injunction to lift the NFL lockout Wednesday, ordered the mediation Monday and consolidated the cases of Brady et al v. National Football League et al and Eller et al v. National Football League et al.

The players' contingent included three lawyers from the Brady class and a six-man team, including Eller himself, from the Eller class. The Brady class was represented by NFL Players Association outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler, outside counsel Jim Quinn and local counsel Barbara Berens. The lead attorney for the Eller class, Michael Hausfeld, also was in attendance.

Unlock HQ Video HQ video delivered by Akamai

Boylan will use the next two days to catch up on the issues between the parties, hearing the players' side Tuesday and the league's side Wednesday before bringing both together for the first time Thursday morning.

The talks represent the first negotiating sessions between the NFL and the players since 16 days of discussions at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service before mediator George Cohen ended March 11. That also was the day the NFLPA decertified as a union and the NFL imposed the ongoing lockout.

Nelson ordered both sides to keep the mediation confidential. NFLPA spokesman George Atallah declined comment Tuesday, as did NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

At a hearing about the injunction request last week, Nelson urged the sides to get "back to the table" and said negotiations should take place at "not the players' table, not the league's table, but a neutral table, if you will."

The next day, the players and owners both expressed a willingness to talk, though they disagreed on where and how they wanted to do it. The players said they were willing to engage in mediation overseen by Nelson. The NFL said it wanted to resume talks with Cohen in Washington.

The players got their wish, with the talks held under court supervision and not in the collective bargaining setting. Nelson's order referred to the mediation "as a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution," a legal term for the revival of negotiations.

Nelson said at the hearing she would take "a couple of weeks" to rule on the injunction. On Monday, she noted that her order to resume mediation "will not have the effect of a stay on this litigation," and that she would rule "in due course."

Nelson's order called for legal counsel for the parties "as well as a party representative having full authority" to attend. She also said that participation in the mediation "and any communications conveyed between the parties in this process, shall not be admitted or used against any party in any other proceeding or forum, for any purpose."

That would appear to address the players' concern that any talks held after the dissolution of the union could be construed as collective bargaining -- and thus bolster the NFL's claim that the dissolution was a "sham" merely intended to strengthen the players' position at the bargaining table.

Last week, NFL executive vice president Jeffrey Pash sent a letter to Quinn, with a copy going to Nelson. Pash wrote that the league is "prepared to give reasonable and appropriate assurances" that the players' legal position -- not a union protected by labor laws but a group of players suing under antitrust laws -- would not be compromised through any new talks.

 

[cobalt_27]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

 

[CalBear]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

 

[roarlions]

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

I have a serious question for anyone that wants to answer it - does anyone really decide if they are going to attend an NFL game based on what the stadium is like? I've been to some stadiums (thinking mostly college since that is what I attend more frequently) that were ancient and had the barest of amenities, but that never has entered into my decision to attend a game. I'm much more interested in what I'm going to see on the field than I am in what I'll see or eat on the concourse. We keep reading these explanations that the stadiums must always be bigger/better to bring in more revenue, which I understand in terms of luxury boxes/suites, but beyond that is it really necessary for owners/cities/states to go into serious debt under the illusion that fans won't show up if there isn't a 50 yard long HD screen hanging above the field?Just curious as to how others feel about this line of reasoning?

 

[roadkill1292]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

I have a serious question for anyone that wants to answer it - does anyone really decide if they are going to attend an NFL game based on what the stadium is like? I've been to some stadiums (thinking mostly college since that is what I attend more frequently) that were ancient and had the barest of amenities, but that never has entered into my decision to attend a game. I'm much more interested in what I'm going to see on the field than I am in what I'll see or eat on the concourse. We keep reading these explanations that the stadiums must always be bigger/better to bring in more revenue, which I understand in terms of luxury boxes/suites, but beyond that is it really necessary for owners/cities/states to go into serious debt under the illusion that fans won't show up if there isn't a 50 yard long HD screen hanging above the field?Just curious as to how others feel about this line of reasoning?

The seating, yes. The super small sardine seating is a killer.

 

[cobalt_27]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Can you describe which spending upgrades upset you so much? As a fan, I'm well...a big fan of the upgrades (e.g., Gillette, Cowboys Stadium, Qualcomm, etc.) having previously been to the old Foxboro, Texas Stadium, and the Kingdome.

 

[CalBear]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Can you describe which spending upgrades upset you so much? As a fan, I'm well...a big fan of the upgrades (e.g., Gillette, Cowboys Stadium, Qualcomm, etc.) having previously been to the old Foxboro, Texas Stadium, and the Kingdome.

The Oakland Mausoleum, for one, which of course Al is now insisting be replaced.I don't think there was a $1 billion problem with Cowboys Stadium or the Meadowlands.

 

[cobalt_27]

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

I have a serious question for anyone that wants to answer it - does anyone really decide if they are going to attend an NFL game based on what the stadium is like? I've been to some stadiums (thinking mostly college since that is what I attend more frequently) that were ancient and had the barest of amenities, but that never has entered into my decision to attend a game. I'm much more interested in what I'm going to see on the field than I am in what I'll see or eat on the concourse. We keep reading these explanations that the stadiums must always be bigger/better to bring in more revenue, which I understand in terms of luxury boxes/suites, but beyond that is it really necessary for owners/cities/states to go into serious debt under the illusion that fans won't show up if there isn't a 50 yard long HD screen hanging above the field?Just curious as to how others feel about this line of reasoning?

My response above is sort of an indication that, yes, it makes me more likely to go when I'm in town. I've been a season ticket holder for the Cowboys for nearly a decade, so I'd go there regardless. The other pro games I've been to in NY/NY, Seattle, NE are more out of opportunity than anything. And, it's not like I wouldn't go to some of the older stadiums. But, it is definitely a better experience at the newer stadiums. Jerry really raised the bar here, and going to the new Cowboys stadium is unlike any sporting venue I've ever been to. But, all of the other newer digs are so vastly better than their predecessors that I'd have to think local fans are far more likely to be motivated to leave their HDTVs for a day and pick up tickets to see a game live (or better yet, get season tickets).

 

[cobalt_27]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Can you describe which spending upgrades upset you so much? As a fan, I'm well...a big fan of the upgrades (e.g., Gillette, Cowboys Stadium, Qualcomm, etc.) having previously been to the old Foxboro, Texas Stadium, and the Kingdome.

The Oakland Mausoleum, for one, which of course Al is now insisting be replaced.I don't think there was a $1 billion problem with Cowboys Stadium or the Meadowlands.

Oh dear god, you ever been to the old Texas Stadium? What a DUMP! I mean, I can't say whether $500m or $1B or $100000 trillion is enough or too much money to spend. All I can say is that the Cowboys went from one of the worst stadiums to easily the best...and a MUCH better experience for the fans.

 

[coolnerd]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Can you describe which spending upgrades upset you so much? As a fan, I'm well...a big fan of the upgrades (e.g., Gillette, Cowboys Stadium, Qualcomm, etc.) having previously been to the old Foxboro, Texas Stadium, and the Kingdome.

I'll speak for Texas stadium. It became a toilet because Jerry Jones did not even keep up the basics, so that he could justify building the faux palace that is Cowboys stadium...i.e lots of the "problems" were some combination of fixable and/or preventable. People who did not get caught up with pure glamour of the stadium already knew that it was not customer friendly. Lots of bad seats, poor sound (some places too loud and some can't hear a thing), too few bathrooms in some spots, etc. The problems with the Superbowl were not accidents. Jones does not have a good eye (nor does he care) for fan friendly details, but is good at selling glitz. And yes i am ticked that my neighbors voting for the stadium causes me to pay a few cents more for every hamburger or pack of toilet paper that I buy.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'll speak for Texas stadium. It became a toilet because Jerry Jones did not even keep up the basics, so that he could justify building the faux palace that is Cowboys stadium...

Sounds like Madden Franchise Mode.

 

[kingmalaki]

I don't have a law degree but I did major in common sense, so this whole "open the books" debate is pretty simple to me. If you tell me you want out of a deal due to losing $$ and won't justify it by showing me, then I will conclude that you are full of #####. If your claims are true then you shouldn't have any issue proving them. I am an auditor and it's very easy to bury costs in numerous places. For example, an audit report will just show "salaries" or "other costs". I need to look at the detail to see that the owner paid himself $10M and had the team purchase a car and jet form him.

How is this even debatable considering the circumstances (one group asking for a new deal due to losing $$)? And lastly, considering that the owners just got busted on the TV contract deal, why would anyone take their word on anything related to this labor dispute?

 

[renesauz]

I don't have a law degree but I did major in common sense, so this whole "open the books" debate is pretty simple to me. If you tell me you want out of a deal due to losing $$ and won't justify it by showing me, then I will conclude that you are full of #####. If your claims are true then you shouldn't have any issue proving them. I am an auditor and it's very easy to bury costs in numerous places. For example, an audit report will just show "salaries" or "other costs". I need to look at the detail to see that the owner paid himself $10M and had the team purchase a car and jet form him.How is this even debatable considering the circumstances (one group asking for a new deal due to losing $$)? And lastly, considering that the owners just got busted on the TV contract deal, why would anyone take their word on anything related to this labor dispute?

FAILA. They didn't claim they were losing money. They're claiming shrinking profit margins....NOT the same thing.B. Current economic realities don't necesitate full disclosure. If the players CAN'T see these economic realities, the books won't help them.C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word. If you told your employees "Hey, I know you've been getting 10-15% raises for the last decade, but I'm going to cut those back to something more reasonable for me", would you expect a fight? I would NEVER show an employee my books. IMHO, well compensated employees should not be allowed to "strike" over raises which are likely to exceed inflation. That simply strikes me very, very wrong. The power of unions has grown uncomfortably and illogically large.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

As rational and reasonable a Ravens fan as you are, you are the complete opposite here. You're 'anti-ownership' stance is really irrational. Even the players would say they want NFL franchises to be 'financially stable' ... their argument lies in just what that means. Are you still bitter about the Mayflower trucks moving to Indy? Didn't stealing Cleveland's team help the pain?

 

[roadkill1292]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

As rational and reasonable a Ravens fan as you are, you are the complete opposite here. You're 'anti-ownership' stance is really irrational. Even the players would say they want NFL franchises to be 'financially stable' ... their argument lies in just what that means. Are you still bitter about the Mayflower trucks moving to Indy? Didn't stealing Cleveland's team help the pain?

A little consternation and discomfort in the owners' ranks would be (is) a fun thing to observe. And the odd franchise struggling might send a needed message to both labor and ownership -- don't take certain things for granted.edit: (I don't like the Rooneys either)

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

As rational and reasonable a Ravens fan as you are, you are the complete opposite here. You're 'anti-ownership' stance is really irrational. Even the players would say they want NFL franchises to be 'financially stable' ... their argument lies in just what that means. Are you still bitter about the Mayflower trucks moving to Indy? Didn't stealing Cleveland's team help the pain?

A little consternation and discomfort in the owners' ranks would be (is) a fun thing to observe. And the odd franchise struggling might send a needed message to both labor and ownership -- don't take certain things for granted.edit: (I don't like the Rooneys either)

The Rooneys are the only good guys in this whole affair. Dan has consistently departed from ownership talking points stating that the 18-game schedule is a ridiculous request and that the parties need to just sit down and work this out. If he were younger and not spending half his time in Ireland, we'd be in a whole lot better shape right now.

 

[roadkill1292]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

As rational and reasonable a Ravens fan as you are, you are the complete opposite here. You're 'anti-ownership' stance is really irrational. Even the players would say they want NFL franchises to be 'financially stable' ... their argument lies in just what that means. Are you still bitter about the Mayflower trucks moving to Indy? Didn't stealing Cleveland's team help the pain?

A little consternation and discomfort in the owners' ranks would be (is) a fun thing to observe. And the odd franchise struggling might send a needed message to both labor and ownership -- don't take certain things for granted.edit: (I don't like the Rooneys either)

The Rooneys are the only good guys in this whole affair. Dan has consistently departed from ownership talking points stating that the 18-game schedule is a ridiculous request and that the parties need to just sit down and work this out. If he were younger and not spending half his time in Ireland, we'd be in a whole lot better shape right now.

Oh, they're terrible human beans, too.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

As rational and reasonable a Ravens fan as you are, you are the complete opposite here. You're 'anti-ownership' stance is really irrational. Even the players would say they want NFL franchises to be 'financially stable' ... their argument lies in just what that means. Are you still bitter about the Mayflower trucks moving to Indy? Didn't stealing Cleveland's team help the pain?

A little consternation and discomfort in the owners' ranks would be (is) a fun thing to observe. And the odd franchise struggling might send a needed message to both labor and ownership -- don't take certain things for granted.edit: (I don't like the Rooneys either)

The Rooneys are the only good guys in this whole affair. Dan has consistently departed from ownership talking points stating that the 18-game schedule is a ridiculous request and that the parties need to just sit down and work this out. If he were younger and not spending half his time in Ireland, we'd be in a whole lot better shape right now.

Oh, they're terrible human beans, too.

You just fishing, because I would know a lot more about this than you.

 

[roadkill1292]

If they're having financial difficulties, which I don't believe for a minute (and don't care if they are), then they have only themselves to blame.

I can't tell if you hate the rich, want wealthy people to lose money, or if you are simply unconcerned about the financial stability/viability of football franchises? But, you're right. They do have themselves to blame. For agreeing to a terrible CBA in 2006. If I'm not mistaken, that's what they are trying to correct. But, I do understand the resistance to this, if it's driven by an anti-rich sentiment that roots for wealthy people to fail.

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

Thank you, CalBear, you expressed it much more succinctly than I could.I'm not anti-rich. But as a group, I don't like the NFL owners, mostly because of their history in the labor negotiations before this. And having financially stable NFL franchises isn't very high on my priority list.

As rational and reasonable a Ravens fan as you are, you are the complete opposite here. You're 'anti-ownership' stance is really irrational. Even the players would say they want NFL franchises to be 'financially stable' ... their argument lies in just what that means. Are you still bitter about the Mayflower trucks moving to Indy? Didn't stealing Cleveland's team help the pain?

A little consternation and discomfort in the owners' ranks would be (is) a fun thing to observe. And the odd franchise struggling might send a needed message to both labor and ownership -- don't take certain things for granted.edit: (I don't like the Rooneys either)

The Rooneys are the only good guys in this whole affair. Dan has consistently departed from ownership talking points stating that the 18-game schedule is a ridiculous request and that the parties need to just sit down and work this out. If he were younger and not spending half his time in Ireland, we'd be in a whole lot better shape right now.

Oh, they're terrible human beans, too.

You just fishing, because I would know a lot more about this than you.

I'm having a gentle joke to demonstrate that I'm not the bitter anti-rich guy person that I appear to be to some here.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

The Rooneys are the only good guys in this whole affair. Dan has consistently departed from ownership talking points stating that the 18-game schedule is a ridiculous request and that the parties need to just sit down and work this out. If he were younger and not spending half his time in Ireland, we'd be in a whole lot better shape right now.

While I generally agree with that, the balance of owners still have some, let's say, mavericks.

 

[roarlions]

C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word.

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.Regarding the statement that players are not partners with the owners in this league, I'd argue that the players have given up a number of important rights (as determined by the courts) in order to enter into CBAs which benefit the owners, the players and the league as a whole. To me that indicates that players do view themselves as partners in promoting the overall welfare of the league.

 

[JFurby]

C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word.

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

This mindset puzzles me. Can you please explain why you feel entitled to see the line-by-line detailed expenses of a non-publicly traded business? You are entitled to an opinion; you are entitled not to buy a ticket to the game if you don't like the price; you are entitled to ignore the NFL all together if you disagree with the ownership. You may have a vested interested as a member of the public but you get to vote with your dollar and ratings viewership, that is it.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Or maybe it's driven by the sentiment that the 2006 CBA is totally fine, and the problem, insofar as it exists, is exorbitant spending on unnecessary stadium upgrades.

I have a serious question for anyone that wants to answer it - does anyone really decide if they are going to attend an NFL game based on what the stadium is like? I've been to some stadiums (thinking mostly college since that is what I attend more frequently) that were ancient and had the barest of amenities, but that never has entered into my decision to attend a game. I'm much more interested in what I'm going to see on the field than I am in what I'll see or eat on the concourse. We keep reading these explanations that the stadiums must always be bigger/better to bring in more revenue, which I understand in terms of luxury boxes/suites, but beyond that is it really necessary for owners/cities/states to go into serious debt under the illusion that fans won't show up if there isn't a 50 yard long HD screen hanging above the field?Just curious as to how others feel about this line of reasoning?

I can pretty well guarantee you that the improved luxury boxes are a selling point to big money corporate sponsors. Increased capacity certainly aids long-term returns, especially in Dallas.

 

[roarlions]

C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word.

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

This mindset puzzles me. Can you please explain why you feel entitled to see the line-by-line detailed expenses of a non-publicly traded business? You are entitled to an opinion; you are entitled not to buy a ticket to the game if you don't like the price; you are entitled to ignore the NFL all together if you disagree with the ownership. You may have a vested interested as a member of the public but you get to vote with your dollar and ratings viewership, that is it.

From my post - "Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly."I'm not interested in line-by-line detailed expenses. But if both the owners and the NFLPA are going to try to win a PR war whenever a CBA is negotiated, I think the public should have info. available to evaluate the statements by each side, and that the info. should be objective, not just some number thrown out by either side. I've seen the audited financial statement made available by the Packers because they are publicly owned and it shows 11 categories of revenue and 8 categories of expenses. I don't think that level of detail is even necessary. I do think it would be helpful though to have revenues, player costs, and other costs defined in a consistent manner so that numbers that are thrown out by either side can be compared without having to worry about one side or the other massaging the numbers.

 

[Tau837]

I don't have a law degree but I did major in common sense, so this whole "open the books" debate is pretty simple to me. If you tell me you want out of a deal due to losing $$ and won't justify it by showing me, then I will conclude that you are full of #####. If your claims are true then you shouldn't have any issue proving them. I am an auditor and it's very easy to bury costs in numerous places. For example, an audit report will just show "salaries" or "other costs". I need to look at the detail to see that the owner paid himself $10M and had the team purchase a car and jet form him.How is this even debatable considering the circumstances (one group asking for a new deal due to losing $$)? And lastly, considering that the owners just got busted on the TV contract deal, why would anyone take their word on anything related to this labor dispute?

FAILA. They didn't claim they were losing money. They're claiming shrinking profit margins....NOT the same thing.B. Current economic realities don't necesitate full disclosure. If the players CAN'T see these economic realities, the books won't help them.C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word. If you told your employees "Hey, I know you've been getting 10-15% raises for the last decade, but I'm going to cut those back to something more reasonable for me", would you expect a fight? I would NEVER show an employee my books. IMHO, well compensated employees should not be allowed to "strike" over raises which are likely to exceed inflation. That simply strikes me very, very wrong. The power of unions has grown uncomfortably and illogically large.

 

[roadkill1292]

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

I still don't know if they justify demanding that the owners open their books in the manner in which the NFLPA has expressed, but these are damning numbers here from PriceWaterhouse and should not be overlooked during this debate.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

I'm not interested in line-by-line detailed expenses. But if both the owners and the NFLPA are going to try to win a PR war whenever a CBA is negotiated, I think the public should have info. available to evaluate the statements by each side, and that the info. should be objective, not just some number thrown out by either side. I've seen the audited financial statement made available by the Packers because they are publicly owned and it shows 11 categories of revenue and 8 categories of expenses. I don't think that level of detail is even necessary. I do think it would be helpful though to have revenues, player costs, and other costs defined in a consistent manner so that numbers that are thrown out by either side can be compared without having to worry about one side or the other massaging the numbers.

OK, there is a pretty big gap between anything that might fall under the PR umbrella and real life. PR is noise, something to distract you, spin and frame the issue. The public (fans) have no say in how a sport w/ an estimate revenue of over 9Bln cuts up the pie.

 

[Ksquared]

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

I still don't know if they justify demanding that the owners open their books in the manner in which the NFLPA has expressed, but these are damning numbers here from PriceWaterhouse and should not be overlooked during this debate.

Those numbers were kind of cherry picked if I recall. There was a thread on this and someone that had some knowledge of the finances showed some major holes in it. I believe one of the issues was not including the year before the new CBA, because it made a major jump in salaries if I recall.

 

[roadkill1292]

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

I still don't know if they justify demanding that the owners open their books in the manner in which the NFLPA has expressed, but these are damning numbers here from PriceWaterhouse and should not be overlooked during this debate.

Those numbers were kind of cherry picked if I recall. There was a thread on this and someone that had some knowledge of the finances showed some major holes in it. I believe one of the issues was not including the year before the new CBA, because it made a major jump in salaries if I recall.

Noted.

 

[roarlions]

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

I still don't know if they justify demanding that the owners open their books in the manner in which the NFLPA has expressed, but these are damning numbers here from PriceWaterhouse and should not be overlooked during this debate.

Those numbers were kind of cherry picked if I recall. There was a thread on this and someone that had some knowledge of the finances showed some major holes in it. I believe one of the issues was not including the year before the new CBA, because it made a major jump in salaries if I recall.

Point taken, so I looked up the numbers from 2005. From 2005 to 2009, player costs rose by 36% due to the huge one-year increase from 2005 to 2006. However, all revenue rose by 37% from 2005 to 2009, so the basic point remains that the most recent CBA did not lead to player costs rising faster than league revenues. Here is the link to the article containing the revenue and player cost figures:<http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81edda24/article/league-players-disagree-on-interpretation-of-revenue-figures>

 

[Ksquared]

I tried to do a search and did not come up with anything, but there were bigger issues with certain expenses being left out according to the review as I remember it. This may have come up in one of the earlier labor dispute threads. Like I said, I don't remember the exact details but it was pointed out several areas in that audit were up to serious interpretation. I think the conclusion was the fact that both sides could be "correct" from their view of the economics of the game.

 

[kingmalaki]

A. They didn't claim they were losing money. They're claiming shrinking profit margins....NOT the same thing.

Either way, they still should have no issues justifying their claims.

B. Current economic realities don't necesitate full disclosure. If the players CAN'T see these economic realities, the books won't help them.

They do necesitate full disclosure when this is why you are ending an agreement early, even if that is your right. And these economic realities don't prevent owners from inflating expenses to sink profit margins, which is what seeing the books will highlight. And it makes sense to not take some dudes who just lied about a billion dollar TV deal at their word.

C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.

This isn't just about player salaries.

 

[kingmalaki]

C. Even if the economic problems are the fault of the owners, it really doesn't change the basic employer/employee relationship. Nor does it change the fact that player salaries have risen over 10% per year.IN the end, I see the players as replaceable (if valuable) employees. They are NOT "partners" in any real sense of the word.

Regarding your point C, I think this is a good example of why the books should not just be open to the NFLPA but to the public. Not in the sense that anyone needs to see line by line detail, but that important categories of costs and revenues need to be examined, defined consistently, and reported publicly. A lot of numbers have been thrown around by both sides, but I'm not sure how often they have been verified/audited. You state the player salaries have risen over 10% per year. Yet the analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (which involved auditing league numbers) found that from 2006 (the 1st year of the latest CBA) to 2009, player costs for the league increased from $4.1 billion to $4.5 billion (an increase over 3 years of only 10%). The same analysis found that during that same time period that all league revenue increased from $7.77 billion to $8.88 billion (an increase of 14% over 3 years). These figures also show that the % of all league revenue going to player costs fell from about 52.5% in 2006 to about 50.5% in 2009. Granted, this excludes last season, but it gives a pretty good picture of what happens when you look at audited financial statements covering most of the previous CBA.

This mindset puzzles me. Can you please explain why you feel entitled to see the line-by-line detailed expenses of a non-publicly traded business? You are entitled to an opinion; you are entitled not to buy a ticket to the game if you don't like the price; you are entitled to ignore the NFL all together if you disagree with the ownership. You may have a vested interested as a member of the public but you get to vote with your dollar and ratings viewership, that is it.

Maybe I feel entitled as a taxpayer since my tax dollars subsidize the stadiums that they play in. Is that ok?