Rick Reilly shreds the owners (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

Why are the owners afraid to open up the books?

Anyone?

I am going to make the assumption you have a job. If your boss came to you tomorrow and said "I am going to need you to take a paycut because the business is not as profitable as I need it to be.", would you in turn answer "Sorry, I can't make that decision until you show me your books?".

If the boss called a meeting and told ALL the employees that they would be required to take a paycut because the business was not profitable, then yeah, I suspect the employees would want some sort of information about that. In my few personal experiences with something like that, the employees haven't even had to ask. The partners have stated up front that they're taking a hit and have given the exact number. I suspect the same is true for most privately held companies (info for public companies is readily available).

Oh please give me a break. No company (unless it is a tiny small business with 3-15 employees) is going to 'open the books' if they tell you a pay cut is coming. Shoot, even here at FBG, if Joe says that paycuts are coming across the board, you think he is going to let all the employees take a look at the details of the finances? No way. And that's a tiny website in a sea of websites. The NFL is a private corporation. They are not a publicly traded company. The only team that is partly owned by the public is GB and that is why we know what the accounting is on the GB Packers. Every other team is a private business. The players (union included) have no right to demand that they open their books. If the owners want to keep that private, then those wishes should be respected and the talks should move on.

Why? It's a negotiation. Anything is on the table, that's sort of the point. That's like saying if the players don't want to expose their medical records to the NFL, they shouldn't have. Drug testing would be a violation of their personal freedoms. If players want to keep that private, then those wishes should be respected and the talks should move on.But that's not how it works. Literally everything is -- and should be -- on the table. That's how two sophisticated entities should bargain.

Exactly. If they don't want to disclose their finances, that's their choice. And if they argue in the course of negotiations that they're losing money but don't still want to disclose their finances, the players are free to point out how silly their stance is without evidence to support it given what we do know about the NFL's finances. And we as fans are free to decide that we agree with the players.You're acting as if they're protecting some precious proprietary information that usually never sees the light of day. B.S. Public companies are required to report the same information, and it doesn't do them any harm. The private companies I've worked for- all law firms- have always been open about their revenue and expenses, not just with employees but really with anyone who wants the information. That's how you end up with studies like this.

Without explanation as to why they won't disclose, we're left to conclude that it would harm their bargaining position. Which leaves us to the next conclusion- that they're just trying to squeeze more money out of an already very profitable business by screwing their employees. If they think that conclusion is unfair, then show us.

 

[Mello]

Why would 32 of the country's wealthiest and most influential ownership groups willingly shut down a business that generates $8-$9 billion in annual revenues for no good reason? Seriously folks?

Greed.And because they can't agree amongst themselves how to share their piece of the pie.

 

[Andrew Garda]

@ Choke and Ramblin Wreck,

You both are missing the point. All because the players are part of the product, doesn't make them part owners of the business. They don't own a part of the business, therefore, they aren't entitled to the business profits.

Sure the players can walk out. Go ahead. They can try you form their own league without owners. That would fail, just like replacement players would fail. But that nothing to do with the point.

The players need the owners and the owners need the players. But the players are NOT entitled to business profits. Period.

Microsoft wouldn't function without the thousands of people working those entry level jobs. Do those players have a right to get a piece of the business profits? Of course not. Neither do the players.

Except that Microsoft GAVE it's employees who helped build the damned company stock which turned out to be worth a lot. And that included any employee, not just the high end guys.And if you're saying the league will fail without these players then maybe you need to realize that without them there is NO business. This is a partnership. I know you don't want to believe it but it is. It's a relationship where both sides depend on the other.

They both share various types of risk. They both get some rewards. We can argue proportion but to say that they don't deserve part of the money that - by your admission WITHOUT THEM DOES NOT EXIST - do you see the contradiction?

There's plenty of money here for everyone. It's ######ed they can't work it out - on both sides.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why would 32 of the country's wealthiest and most influential ownership groups willingly shut down a business that generates $8-$9 billion in annual revenues for no good reason? Seriously folks?

Greed.And because they can't agree amongst themselves how to share their piece of the pie.

I'd say it's because they weren't shutting it down from a revenue standpoint until Doty's ruling came out. It's no coincidence that negotiations have heated up significantly since that ruling.

 

[Zegras11]

Same sentiment, just more profane and funnier.

There's nothing we can do to stop these 31 ####heads from being complete and utter ####heads.

 

[JFurby]

Analogies simply do not work. The NFL is a line of business that isn't comparable to anything else, except the other professional sports leagues.

The bottom line is that the NFL is a business. Regardless of how each owner acquired their team, each has a substantial amount of their net worth invested in the NFL. A businessman with a net worth in the billions will evaluate their investment on the percent of income returned on their investment. The only tangible numbers we have are from the publicly held Packers. The net income for the Packers last year was $10 million, while Forbes values the Packers franchise at $1 billion. Sure, $10M seems like plenty to us peons, but owner's are getting a return of 1% on the value of their investment. In contrast, my Wachovia saving account paid me 1.5% last year and the stock market has a historical annual return around 8-10%.

In my opinion, this demonstrates 2 things: 1) NFL franchises are probably overvalued in general. 2) Owners will be determined to get a reasonable return on their investment and reducing players salary significantly is the only way to bring their returns up to acceptable levels.

The Reilly article is just ignorant class warfare. Such large numbers are unfathomable for most fans, but using percentages, not whole numbers and poorly thought out analogies, is the fairest way to present the position of the owners.

 

[CalBear]

The bottom line is that the NFL is a business. Regardless of how each owner acquired their team, each has a substantial amount of their net worth invested in the NFL. A businessman with a net worth in the billions will evaluate their investment on the percent of income returned on their investment. The only tangible numbers we have are from the publicly held Packers. The net income for the Packers last year was $10 million, while Forbes values the Packers franchise at $1 billion. Sure, $10M seems like plenty to us peons, but owner's are getting a return of 1% on the value of their investment. In contrast, my Wachovia saving account paid me 1.5% last year and the stock market has a historical annual return around 8-10%.

Wrong. Owners are getting a dividend of 1%, plus appreciable increase in the value of the stock they hold in the corporation. In 2000 the franchise value for Green Bay was $337 million (again, according to Forbes). If the current franchise value is $1 billion, that means the annualized return has been 11.5%, in addition to any profits the business earned.

 

[JamesTheScot]

@ Choke and Ramblin Wreck,You both are missing the point. All because the players are part of the product, doesn't make them part owners of the business. They don't own a part of the business, therefore, they aren't entitled to the business profits.Sure the players can walk out. Go ahead. They can try you form their own league without owners. That would fail, just like replacement players would fail. But that nothing to do with the point.The players need the owners and the owners need the players. But the players are NOT entitled to business profits. Period. Microsoft wouldn't function without the thousands of people working those entry level jobs. Do those players have a right to get a piece of the business profits? Of course not. Neither do the players.

I didn't realize there was no one else on Earth that could adequately replace the Microsoft guy.

How hard is it for NFL owners to replace their players?How hard is it for NFL players to replace their income?That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.It'll at least last long enough for the players who are looking at foreclosures and repos and earning $20-30K a year in average joe jobs to decide that a little bit less is better than a whole lot less.The billionaire owners? They've got other ways to make money as well. Only their options don't require lowering their standard of living.

 

[Andrew Garda]

That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.

It'll last until the first lawsuits from fans and companies who paid thousands of dollars to see a top shelf sporting event decide they want their money back. And all of it, not just a little or promises of other tickets, free hotdogs ecetera like the Super Bowl folk got promised. If the owners go forward with a worse product, it will destroy the sport. The NHL and MLB will die laughing.

 

[JamesTheScot]

but i'll tell you this...where the hell the owners get off demanding their employees do more work for the same or less pay is beyond me. and if you think that's okay, and that you'd just roll over when your boss comes in and tells you that...then you best check yourself and grow a sack.

I'd say the owners get off in the same place that employees get off asking for more money for the same work (we call it a raise around here).Just sayin'...I try not to get angry at anyone for asking for more, whether it's more for them or more from me. I've got a right to say "no" and roll with the consequences. Asking don't hurt. But acting like there's some moral highground involved on one side but not the other is what gets my back arched up.

 

[JFurby]

The bottom line is that the NFL is a business. Regardless of how each owner acquired their team, each has a substantial amount of their net worth invested in the NFL. A businessman with a net worth in the billions will evaluate their investment on the percent of income returned on their investment. The only tangible numbers we have are from the publicly held Packers. The net income for the Packers last year was $10 million, while Forbes values the Packers franchise at $1 billion. Sure, $10M seems like plenty to us peons, but owner's are getting a return of 1% on the value of their investment. In contrast, my Wachovia saving account paid me 1.5% last year and the stock market has a historical annual return around 8-10%.

Wrong. Owners are getting a dividend of 1%, plus appreciable increase in the value of the stock they hold in the corporation. In 2000 the franchise value for Green Bay was $337 million (again, according to Forbes). If the current franchise value is $1 billion, that means the annualized return has been 11.5%, in addition to any profits the business earned.

Fine, but if you want to split hairs, technically the 1% represents earnings. It is not a dividend until cash is paid out. Your point about the value of the franchise rising from $337 to to $1 billion is highly relevant, so I agree that it should be included in the overall evaluation. The huge increase in the value of the Packers over a short period of time probably indicates a bubble. The problem now is that several teams have sold in the past few years at prices around $1 billion. These new owners bought in with some expectations of a return on the investment. Their only options for getting this return are direct earnings through income OR increasing the value of the franchise and selling. If they hope to increase the value of the franchise, they are going to have to find a way to still increase earnings through expanded revenues and reducing their costs (i.e player salaries).I'm not necessarily defending the position of the owners since I think many grossly overpaid for their franchise and their stadiums, but I understand their current mindset given their circumstances.

 

[JamesTheScot]

The seat under your butt isn't any bigger.

This drives me ####### nuts. So much so, that I have literally scaled back my NFL stadium attendance over the past few years.They have made the seats far more crammed together and smaller to fit more people and get more money. So uncomfortable, borderline miserable. Greedy jerks. (<== not just an nfl owner thing, but most all stadiums private or civic.)

So you're wantng more square inches of seat (the owner's real estate) for the same money. You greedy jerk.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

Why are the owners afraid to open up the books?

Anyone?

I am going to make the assumption you have a job. If your boss came to you tomorrow and said "I am going to need you to take a paycut because the business is not as profitable as I need it to be.", would you in turn answer "Sorry, I can't make that decision until you show me your books?".

If the boss called a meeting and told ALL the employees that they would be required to take a paycut because the business was not profitable, then yeah, I suspect the employees would want some sort of information about that. In my few personal experiences with something like that, the employees haven't even had to ask. The partners have stated up front that they're taking a hit and have given the exact number. I suspect the same is true for most privately held companies (info for public companies is readily available).

SO in your personal experiences the partners STATED this and GAVE a number. They did not give you all of their accounting records?

I'm sure they would have if someone asked. They provided information about revenues and expenses. They told us exactly what they were taking home and how much it had increased or decreased from previous years. I would think that would be standard operating procedure for most privately held companies. If you ask ALL your employees to take a hit because the business is less profitable, you provide information showing the reduced profitability. Otherwise your best employees would tell you to go to hell (especially if your employees are head and shoulders above anyone else in their industry, as NFL players are). NFL owners have a monopoly, so they don't have that concern. Which is why this is 100% their fault- they are using of their monopoly to conduct themselves in a manner that competitive businesses cannot.

Ok. The point being that you took their word regarding their numbers and left it at that. The NFL is asking their EMPLOYEES to do that same thing. If they want to tell the NFL owners to go to hell and take different jobs, let them. The NFL is not a monopoly as you stated. There is the CFL and the UFL, granted they pay much less but if they stay with the NFL WITH a a huge paycut it is still more than the UFL and CFL.

 

[HULLOBUDMAN]

This attitude is what is wrong with AMerica today. Why does everyone think they have some type entitlement to ownership's money? What ever happened to capitalism? If these players feel that they can't play for the paltry minimum sum of 285k a year then they should go perue some other form of emplyment. No one is forcing them to risk life and limb to get paid, are they?

On a side note, I read something today that made a lot of sense to me. Why is it that the players feel they should get a share of "all revenue" or "total revenue"? Please tell me the last time that Peyton Manning kicked some of his Gatorade money back into the pot. Did mini-Jesus Tim Tebow kick in any of his Under Armour money? Why is it that players are allowed to maximize their money outside of their contracts but the owners are being greedy when they want to increase their profits?

You pay them what they are worth. And some people, like Manning or Brady are probably worth at least 5 times then they get paid.* I also dont see why... a super talented, superiorly effective, best at his trade, hard ### #### worker, who plys his trade in a multi-billion dollar arena... doesnt get paid boatloads.

Any owner can bring back Quincy Carter any times he wants.

Holy. Crap.

I don't think any person that plays a game for a living is worth what they get, much less 5 times what they get. More power to them for being paid for playing a game and maxizing their earnings but can you really say that Tom Brady deserves $50m a year for being a QB?

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

No I can't say that Tom Brady deserves 50 M a year because he doesn't make 50 M a year. He signed a 6 year extension which works out to be about 10 M a year. I am pretty sure most owners make more than that in a year.

READ the post then comment. The Poster claimed that players like Manning and Brady deserve 5x what they make. Brady makes 10m a year then when you multiply that by 5 the result is (wait, wait...) $50m a year.

Thanks.

 

[Truman]

@ Choke and Ramblin Wreck,You both are missing the point. All because the players are part of the product, doesn't make them part owners of the business. They don't own a part of the business, therefore, they aren't entitled to the business profits.Sure the players can walk out. Go ahead. They can try you form their own league without owners. That would fail, just like replacement players would fail. But that nothing to do with the point.The players need the owners and the owners need the players. But the players are NOT entitled to business profits. Period. Microsoft wouldn't function without the thousands of people working those entry level jobs. Do those players have a right to get a piece of the business profits? Of course not. Neither do the players.

I didn't realize there was no one else on Earth that could adequately replace the Microsoft guy.

How hard is it for NFL owners to replace their players?How hard is it for NFL players to replace their income?That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.It'll at least last long enough for the players who are looking at foreclosures and repos and earning $20-30K a year in average joe jobs to decide that a little bit less is better than a whole lot less.The billionaire owners? They've got other ways to make money as well. Only their options don't require lowering their standard of living.

Right now would be a great time for Mark Cuban to start a new Pro Football League. He could take every player in the NFL. They'd be done for.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team? How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Absolutely they do. You can start by opening up the books and show the profits/losses, or they can stick that argument right up their backside.

I'll tell you what. Why don't we hold the players to the same standard. In other words, let's see the proof of why they "need" the amount of money they earn.Oh, wait, market forces and all that.No matter what you think Manning and Brady would make in an uncapped market, it will always be capped by what is profitable to ownership. As soon as Kraft et al. decide that their NFL teams aren't returning enough profit, they make efforts to make them so or get out of the business.If we really are on the cusp of major upheaval in the NFL, and the owners are willing to let it get this far, I don't need to see the books. Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why are the owners afraid to open up the books?

Anyone?

I am going to make the assumption you have a job. If your boss came to you tomorrow and said "I am going to need you to take a paycut because the business is not as profitable as I need it to be.", would you in turn answer "Sorry, I can't make that decision until you show me your books?".

If the boss called a meeting and told ALL the employees that they would be required to take a paycut because the business was not profitable, then yeah, I suspect the employees would want some sort of information about that. In my few personal experiences with something like that, the employees haven't even had to ask. The partners have stated up front that they're taking a hit and have given the exact number. I suspect the same is true for most privately held companies (info for public companies is readily available).

SO in your personal experiences the partners STATED this and GAVE a number. They did not give you all of their accounting records?

I'm sure they would have if someone asked. They provided information about revenues and expenses. They told us exactly what they were taking home and how much it had increased or decreased from previous years. I would think that would be standard operating procedure for most privately held companies. If you ask ALL your employees to take a hit because the business is less profitable, you provide information showing the reduced profitability. Otherwise your best employees would tell you to go to hell (especially if your employees are head and shoulders above anyone else in their industry, as NFL players are). NFL owners have a monopoly, so they don't have that concern. Which is why this is 100% their fault- they are using of their monopoly to conduct themselves in a manner that competitive businesses cannot.

Ok. The point being that you took their word regarding their numbers and left it at that. The NFL is asking their EMPLOYEES to do that same thing. If they want to tell the NFL owners to go to hell and take different jobs, let them. The NFL is not a monopoly as you stated. There is the CFL and the UFL, granted they pay much less but if they stay with the NFL WITH a a huge paycut it is still more than the UFL and CFL.

I took their word re: the numbers and left it at that because I had no reason to believe they were lying. The players have every reason to believe ownership is lying. You don't have to have a 100% market share to behave as a monopoly, you just have to be in a position to exert your market power in such a way as to disturb the functioning of the free market.

The NFL does that with respect to the players when it imposes a salary cap and other restrictions on the players' ability to earn.

And yes, I suspect that Manning and Brady deserve at least $50 million a year, because they probably have the ability to generate at least that much additional revenue for the owner of the teams for whom they play. If Albert Pujols is worth $30 million, Brady and Manning, playing in a sport with seven of the ten most highly valued sports teams in the world, are worth well in excess of that on the open market. If you don't believe it, look at the salaries of the athletes on the teams on that list that aren't cap-restricted. Christiano Ronaldo makes $17 million a year plus his current team paid a $132 million transfer fee for his rights. The Yankees pay A-Rod over $20 million and he's not nearly as marketable or as valuable to team performance as Brady or Manning.

 

[CalBear]

Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

The assumption that the owners know what they're doing simply because they're rich men is asinine. The people who created our financial crisis were rich men. The people who ran Enron were rich men. The people who run the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns are rich men. Some rich men are complete morons.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Absolutely they do. You can start by opening up the books and show the profits/losses, or they can stick that argument right up their backside.

I'll tell you what. Why don't we hold the players to the same standard. In other words, let's see the proof of why they "need" the amount of money they earn.Oh, wait, market forces and all that.

No matter what you think Manning and Brady would make in an uncapped market, it will always be capped by what is profitable to ownership. As soon as Kraft et al. decide that their NFL teams aren't returning enough profit, they make efforts to make them so or get out of the business.

If we really are on the cusp of major upheaval in the NFL, and the owners are willing to let it get this far, I don't need to see the books. Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

I'll set aside the silliness of your analogy to the players disclosing their personal expenses and focus on the bolded.I assure you, the players would be delighted to accept a deal where the only cap on their earnings is what is profitable to ownership. That means a league with no salary cap or franchise tag- owners just contract with players as they see fit from a business standpoint. You don't think they'd agree to that in a heartbeat? Hell, they'd probably agree to a 24 game season in exchange for that.

Also, your deference to rich people is baffling. Many if not most NFL owners inherited their wealth, they didn't create it. There's no reason to defer to their business acumen.

 

[JamesTheScot]

That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.

It'll last until the first lawsuits from fans and companies who paid thousands of dollars to see a top shelf sporting event decide they want their money back. And all of it, not just a little or promises of other tickets, free hotdogs ecetera like the Super Bowl folk got promised. If the owners go forward with a worse product, it will destroy the sport. The NHL and MLB will die laughing.

Lawsuits for what? The game disappointed so someone sues for their ticket price to be refunded? Good luck with that.

You are right that if the quality of the product suffers, fan suport will dwindle and eventually the NFL would fold. I've admitted that. But you cut out the critical follow-up detail. And that detail is that the players don't have a similar income earning opportunity outside the NFL. So whose going to get hungry sooner? I say the players will. At some point they'll come back for less money because that's still more money than they can make elsewhere.

If another league started up, it might give the illusion of an alternative. But you're still going to have rich guys owning those franchises, so we end up back to this point with that league as well. How do I know this? Because while it may seem reasonable to point our fingers at these current 31 owners and think of them as greedy bastards, it ignores the reality that this "greed" isn't isolated to these specific 31 owners. What you may call greed is actually rational cost-benefit analysis performed by people who do it well enough to amass enough money to pay millions for a professional sports franchise.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Absolutely they do. You can start by opening up the books and show the profits/losses, or they can stick that argument right up their backside.

I'll tell you what. Why don't we hold the players to the same standard. In other words, let's see the proof of why they "need" the amount of money they earn.Oh, wait, market forces and all that.

No matter what you think Manning and Brady would make in an uncapped market, it will always be capped by what is profitable to ownership. As soon as Kraft et al. decide that their NFL teams aren't returning enough profit, they make efforts to make them so or get out of the business.

If we really are on the cusp of major upheaval in the NFL, and the owners are willing to let it get this far, I don't need to see the books. Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

I'll set aside the silliness of your analogy to the players disclosing their personal expenses and focus on the bolded.

Please, don't do me any flavors. Let me have it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.

It'll last until the first lawsuits from fans and companies who paid thousands of dollars to see a top shelf sporting event decide they want their money back. And all of it, not just a little or promises of other tickets, free hotdogs ecetera like the Super Bowl folk got promised. If the owners go forward with a worse product, it will destroy the sport. The NHL and MLB will die laughing.

Lawsuits for what? The game disappointed so someone sues for their ticket price to be refunded? Good luck with that.

You are right that if the quality of the product suffers, fan suport will dwindle and eventually the NFL would fold. I've admitted that. But you cut out the critical follow-up detail. And that detail is that the players don't have a similar income earning opportunity outside the NFL. So whose going to get hungry sooner? I say the players will. At some point they'll come back for less money because that's still more money than they can make elsewhere.

If another league started up, it might give the illusion of an alternative. But you're still going to have rich guys owning those franchises, so we end up back to this point with that league as well. How do I know this? Because while it may seem reasonable to point our fingers at these current 31 owners and think of them as greedy bastards, it ignores the reality that this "greed" isn't isolated to these specific 31 owners. What you may call greed is actually rational cost-benefit analysis performed by people who do it well enough to amass enough money to pay millions for a professional sports franchise.

Not a chance. The owners are bargaining from a position of strength, because they have a monopoly on high-level professional football. If they lost that, the terms of the debate would be FAR different than they are at the moment. They'd be on hands and knees begging the players to extend the terms of the existing CBA.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

The assumption that the owners know what they're doing simply because they're rich men is asinine. The people who created our financial crisis were rich men. The people who ran Enron were rich men. The people who run the Detroit Lions and Cleveland Browns are rich men. Some rich men are complete morons.

As compared to the guys who go broke within two years of leaving the league? I'll side with the guys who have at least managed to hold on to their wealth, inherited or not.As for causation of the current financial crisis...So rich guys become so by creating a financial crisis, and then convince the government to bail them out, thereby preserving their wealth. Meanwhile you and I and our descendants are and will be paying for that. Yet they're the morons? There's an asinine assumption in here, all right. I grant you that.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Absolutely they do. You can start by opening up the books and show the profits/losses, or they can stick that argument right up their backside.

I'll tell you what. Why don't we hold the players to the same standard. In other words, let's see the proof of why they "need" the amount of money they earn.Oh, wait, market forces and all that.

No matter what you think Manning and Brady would make in an uncapped market, it will always be capped by what is profitable to ownership. As soon as Kraft et al. decide that their NFL teams aren't returning enough profit, they make efforts to make them so or get out of the business.

If we really are on the cusp of major upheaval in the NFL, and the owners are willing to let it get this far, I don't need to see the books. Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

I'll set aside the silliness of your analogy to the players disclosing their personal expenses and focus on the bolded.

Please, don't do me any flavors. Let me have it.

Well it just doesn't make sense. Whether the players "need" the money isn't an issue. Nobody's asking the owners to reveal their personal expenses either. All that matters is the data related to the business.

 

[JamesTheScot]

That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.

It'll last until the first lawsuits from fans and companies who paid thousands of dollars to see a top shelf sporting event decide they want their money back. And all of it, not just a little or promises of other tickets, free hotdogs ecetera like the Super Bowl folk got promised. If the owners go forward with a worse product, it will destroy the sport. The NHL and MLB will die laughing.

Lawsuits for what? The game disappointed so someone sues for their ticket price to be refunded? Good luck with that.

You are right that if the quality of the product suffers, fan suport will dwindle and eventually the NFL would fold. I've admitted that. But you cut out the critical follow-up detail. And that detail is that the players don't have a similar income earning opportunity outside the NFL. So whose going to get hungry sooner? I say the players will. At some point they'll come back for less money because that's still more money than they can make elsewhere.

If another league started up, it might give the illusion of an alternative. But you're still going to have rich guys owning those franchises, so we end up back to this point with that league as well. How do I know this? Because while it may seem reasonable to point our fingers at these current 31 owners and think of them as greedy bastards, it ignores the reality that this "greed" isn't isolated to these specific 31 owners. What you may call greed is actually rational cost-benefit analysis performed by people who do it well enough to amass enough money to pay millions for a professional sports franchise.

Not a chance. The owners are bargaining from a position of strength, because they have a monopoly on high-level professional football. If they lost that, the terms of the debate would be FAR different than they are at the moment. They'd be on hands and knees begging the players to extend the terms of the existing CBA.

And if they lost their monopolistic hold on the sport (generically "football"), there would cease to be the same income potential because consumer dollars would be distributed over multiple leagues. That risk would then caution against owners overextending their contractual obligations to players. Further, while both leagues make a go at it, that might double the number of roster spots, which means you are now fielding even lesser talented players than you are now. That's great for ratings and revenue. To think that this scenario can't in turn impact player salaries in a negative manner is rather shortsighted.

That's why I say that viewing this whole issue as a right and wrong matter is crazy. It's essentially two sides who have mutually exclusive positions on what they "need" to keep going on in the present arrangement of quasi-monopoly + CBA. Both sides practice brinkmanship by posturing as to how serious they are about their position. But both have something to gain by staying within the broad framework of a CBA. At least until they don't. Last time it was the players, this time it's the owners.

 

[Andrew Garda]

You are right that if the quality of the product suffers, fan suport will dwindle and eventually the NFL would fold. I've admitted that. But you cut out the critical follow-up detail. And that detail is that the players don't have a similar income earning opportunity outside the NFL. So whose going to get hungry sooner? I say the players will. At some point they'll come back for less money because that's still more money than they can make elsewhere.

If you REALLY believe that fans who pay 20k for a PSL won't sue when the NFL trots out a crap product..... then you aren't even interested in seeing another side.I mean I GET you're all for the owners, but for the love of football, really? Your response is 'good luck with that'? Fine you hate labor and love the owners, we get it. There's only one side - yours.But honestly - If you think fans wouldn't a) sue for their ticket money back (especially PSLs), b) win and c) not come back for DECADES... well, I think we're just going to have to put a button on this one as I don't think you want to hear anyone's point but your own.FWIW -the owners have every right to try and get some of the money they gave away last time. The players have every right to say 'tell me why'. This isn't Microsoft or Best Buy or Time Warner. The League is a unique entity, a partnership in a way none of those companies (now) are. Comparing them and saying one is run like the other is just wrong in my opinion.The league not opening the books does nothing but look bad from a publicity standpoint. To folks watching, it appears (true or not) the league fights opening the books for the same reason Hollywood studios avoid doing the same when it comes to profits - why they are loathe to give up the gross profits vs the net. Because in the end, the perception is, they can cook the books however they want when nobody can see. It's not even a rich guy thing - it's a distrust of business thing. I really think that if they want anyone - players, media or public - to believe their issue, they should prove it. Given how much money the league appears to have made last year... it's hard to swallow.

 

[Andrew Garda]

That's why I say that viewing this whole issue as a right and wrong matter is crazy.

Yet that seems to be your whole thing isn't it? the owners are right, the players are wrong.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Take that in proportion to Dan Snyder who paid $800m to buy the Redskins. Does he not deserve to make AT LEAST the same $50m that you think Brady makes for buying the team?

How about Kronke who just coughed up $450m to finish buying the Rams? Don't these guys deserve to make more than their employees?

Absolutely they do. You can start by opening up the books and show the profits/losses, or they can stick that argument right up their backside.

I'll tell you what. Why don't we hold the players to the same standard. In other words, let's see the proof of why they "need" the amount of money they earn.Oh, wait, market forces and all that.

No matter what you think Manning and Brady would make in an uncapped market, it will always be capped by what is profitable to ownership. As soon as Kraft et al. decide that their NFL teams aren't returning enough profit, they make efforts to make them so or get out of the business.

If we really are on the cusp of major upheaval in the NFL, and the owners are willing to let it get this far, I don't need to see the books. Rich men get that way by being ahead of the game and not killing the goose that lays the golden egg unless the have to.

I'll set aside the silliness of your analogy to the players disclosing their personal expenses and focus on the bolded.

Please, don't do me any flavors. Let me have it.

Well it just doesn't make sense. Whether the players "need" the money isn't an issue. Nobody's asking the owners to reveal their personal expenses either. All that matters is the data related to the business.

No, your artificial distinction between the two doesn't make sense. Reilly's article takes a position that the players "deserve" their money with no discernable analysis on that contention. That same presumption has been voiced on several occasions in this thread.Then Reilly goes on to assert that the owners are somehow obligated to justify why they "need" more. They won't open the books, remember.

He then goes on to toss out examples of (gasp) personal luxury that owners enjoy. Did that offend you, BTW, since it doesn't have anything to do with the business costs?

A player decides what he has to have to play this game based on the risks as he sees them. Part of that is a consideration of what other income options he has. But the player doesn't offer to take his minimum number, he tries to get more than that. And when he thinks he has leverage to get more, he will ask for it. He's not looking at it solely from an investment point of view, he looks at it from a leverage point of view as well. Even though his investment was the same, if his production gives him leverage, why not make more for the same work? For that matter, if his employer will give him more money for the same ivestment and the same production, why shouldn't he take it?

An owner does the same thing. The fact that the owner has to put up some cash up front to be able to buy the franchise isn't any different than the player who has to calculate at what point the blood, sweat and tears he has to invest won't be worth the pay. It's still the same process.

So both sides are doing the same thing. Any distincton between the two presupposes that distinction based on each side's respective "role" in the conflict as "owner" and "labor". That's classic class warfare analysis. It presupposes a built in moral value based on the two sides' respective roles. And it manifests in ownership having to justify why they should get what they want while labor gets the benefit of the doubt. Labor is presumed to deserve AT LEAST what they can get, often with an assumption that they deserve more. But the owners don't get that same courtesy, do they? Instead, they have to justify their position by opening up the books and having people point fingers at their personal luxury holdings.

So, you can condenscend and toss out pejoratives at your pleasure. But that won't keep me from calling out the underlying assumptions that you seem to want to consider settled.

 

[JamesTheScot]

That's why I say that viewing this whole issue as a right and wrong matter is crazy.

Yet that seems to be your whole thing isn't it? the owners are right, the players are wrong.

Not at all. It won't bother me if the owners give the players an even bigger share.My gripe is the assumption that players deserve what they are currently getting but the owners must justify why they want more. When Reilly puts out a hit piece on owners, it doesn't make me an ownership lackey to call him out for writing a biased hit piece anymore than it makes a ref one team's lackey when he calls a penalty on the opposing side. I just want to see it called fairly both ways. But Reilly's article doesn't do that. Neither does Marx-influenced conflict analysis when it includes a component of moral bias with respect to ownership versus labor.When two sides negotiate, I'm peachy with what they agree to. But I'm also aware that the scenery changes and that what was palatable or profitble a few years ago may not be so now. I tend to favor abiding by contracts once they are formed. But once the contract is up or someone exercises an out clause, I got no beef with negotiating to get all that you can. And when that happens, I expect both sides to do it and I don't expect one side to have to negotiate with a hand tied behind its back or to be held to a different standard.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why are the owners afraid to open up the books?

Anyone?

I am going to make the assumption you have a job. If your boss came to you tomorrow and said "I am going to need you to take a paycut because the business is not as profitable as I need it to be.", would you in turn answer "Sorry, I can't make that decision until you show me your books?".

1 - I work for a public company. Would I need to ask?2 - I am not a part of a union and my career path is not remotely on par with those of professional athletes. Find a better comparison.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Why are the owners afraid to open up the books?

Anyone?

I am going to make the assumption you have a job. If your boss came to you tomorrow and said "I am going to need you to take a paycut because the business is not as profitable as I need it to be.", would you in turn answer "Sorry, I can't make that decision until you show me your books?".

If the boss called a meeting and told ALL the employees that they would be required to take a paycut because the business was not profitable, then yeah, I suspect the employees would want some sort of information about that. In my few personal experiences with something like that, the employees haven't even had to ask. The partners have stated up front that they're taking a hit and have given the exact number. I suspect the same is true for most privately held companies (info for public companies is readily available).

Oh please give me a break. No company (unless it is a tiny small business with 3-15 employees) is going to 'open the books' if they tell you a pay cut is coming. Shoot, even here at FBG, if Joe says that paycuts are coming across the board, you think he is going to let all the employees take a look at the details of the finances? No way. And that's a tiny website in a sea of websites. The NFL is a private corporation. They are not a publicly traded company. The only team that is partly owned by the public is GB and that is why we know what the accounting is on the GB Packers. Every other team is a private business. The players (union included) have no right to demand that they open their books. If the owners want to keep that private, then those wishes should be respected and the talks should move on.

Can we stick to valid comparisons. Are Joe's writers a fantasy sports union with one option to write for?Furthermore, if the books are as bad as the owners claim just open them up to the union and they would probably be more willing to bargain. We both know the books are pretty profitable for the owners.

 

[JamesTheScot]

You are right that if the quality of the product suffers, fan suport will dwindle and eventually the NFL would fold. I've admitted that. But you cut out the critical follow-up detail. And that detail is that the players don't have a similar income earning opportunity outside the NFL. So whose going to get hungry sooner? I say the players will. At some point they'll come back for less money because that's still more money than they can make elsewhere.

If you REALLY believe that fans who pay 20k for a PSL won't sue when the NFL trots out a crap product..... then you aren't even interested in seeing another side.I mean I GET you're all for the owners, but for the love of football, really? Your response is 'good luck with that'? Fine you hate labor and love the owners, we get it. There's only one side - yours.

But honestly - If you think fans wouldn't a) sue for their ticket money back (especially PSLs), b) win and c) not come back for DECADES... well, I think we're just going to have to put a button on this one as I don't think you want to hear anyone's point but your own.

FWIW -the owners have every right to try and get some of the money they gave away last time. The players have every right to say 'tell me why'. This isn't Microsoft or Best Buy or Time Warner. The League is a unique entity, a partnership in a way none of those companies (now) are. Comparing them and saying one is run like the other is just wrong in my opinion.

The league not opening the books does nothing but look bad from a publicity standpoint. To folks watching, it appears (true or not) the league fights opening the books for the same reason Hollywood studios avoid doing the same when it comes to profits - why they are loathe to give up the gross profits vs the net. Because in the end, the perception is, they can cook the books however they want when nobody can see. It's not even a rich guy thing - it's a distrust of business thing.

I really think that if they want anyone - players, media or public - to believe their issue, they should prove it. Given how much money the league appears to have made last year... it's hard to swallow.

So let me get this straight. You accuse me of being in love with the owners, but then admit that you distrust business and therefore require that they prove why they need their money.Thank you, Mr. Pot, for your insight into my bias.

As for your implied assertion that a PSL holder, who can afford to pay $20K for it, would put this at the feet of ownership rather than the players, well, I don't accept that as settled. Nor do I accept that they could successfully sue and prevail because of their dissatisfaction with the quality of the players that the team puts on the field. I'm not aware of any implied warranty of athleticism that goes with a PSL, but if there's legal precedent for this, I'll change my tune. If you're so sure it's a winner, point me to your source or authority. I certainly don't claim to be the final authority on that discipline so I could be wrong. But it would be the height of irony if you expect me to take your word for it and criticize me for not doing so while insisting that the players shouldn't have to take ownership's word for anything.

 

[JamesTheScot]

Just wanted to say to Tobias and Andrew...

I've enjoyed the debate, but I've got to scoot.

Just wouldn't want you two to think you won and scared me off.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The bottom line is that the NFL is a business. Regardless of how each owner acquired their team, each has a substantial amount of their net worth invested in the NFL. A businessman with a net worth in the billions will evaluate their investment on the percent of income returned on their investment. The only tangible numbers we have are from the publicly held Packers. The net income for the Packers last year was $10 million, while Forbes values the Packers franchise at $1 billion. Sure, $10M seems like plenty to us peons, but owner's are getting a return of 1% on the value of their investment. In contrast, my Wachovia saving account paid me 1.5% last year and the stock market has a historical annual return around 8-10%.

Wrong. Owners are getting a dividend of 1%, plus appreciable increase in the value of the stock they hold in the corporation. In 2000 the franchise value for Green Bay was $337 million (again, according to Forbes). If the current franchise value is $1 billion, that means the annualized return has been 11.5%, in addition to any profits the business earned.

You're double-counting retained earnings that way. If I own a business worth $12, and it earns $2 this year that I pocket, it may still be worth $12 next year. But if I use the $2 in earnings to pay down stadium debt (and thus increase equity), the business will be worth $14 next year. That doesn't mean that I got a $4 benefit — $2 from earnings and $2 from increased net worth. It's the same $2, and should be counted only once.

 

[BusMan]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

---Abraham Lincoln

 

[plymkr]

@ Choke and Ramblin Wreck,You both are missing the point. All because the players are part of the product, doesn't make them part owners of the business. They don't own a part of the business, therefore, they aren't entitled to the business profits.Sure the players can walk out. Go ahead. They can try you form their own league without owners. That would fail, just like replacement players would fail. But that nothing to do with the point.The players need the owners and the owners need the players. But the players are NOT entitled to business profits. Period. Microsoft wouldn't function without the thousands of people working those entry level jobs. Do those players have a right to get a piece of the business profits? Of course not. Neither do the players.

I didn't realize there was no one else on Earth that could adequately replace the Microsoft guy.

How hard is it for NFL owners to replace their players?How hard is it for NFL players to replace their income?That's why NFL owners are critical to the process. They can find people, albeit less physicaly gifted people, to come and play pro ball. Will the product on the field suffer? Yes. But it'll last for a little while.It'll at least last long enough for the players who are looking at foreclosures and repos and earning $20-30K a year in average joe jobs to decide that a little bit less is better than a whole lot less.The billionaire owners? They've got other ways to make money as well. Only their options don't require lowering their standard of living.

This is correct. It would only last for a while, because the players would come back, or current players would get older & new players who think that much $ and fame looks good to them! P.s. Like new mobile layout!

 

[Choke]

The seat under your butt isn't any bigger.

This drives me ####### nuts. So much so, that I have literally scaled back my NFL stadium attendance over the past few years.They have made the seats far more crammed together and smaller to fit more people and get more money. So uncomfortable, borderline miserable. Greedy jerks. (<== not just an nfl owner thing, but most all stadiums private or civic.)

So you're wantng more square inches of seat (the owner's real estate) for the same money. You greedy jerk.

I want them to quit cramming us together tighter and tighter. Its pretty damn bad in some stadiums.

 

[Jason Wood]

The bottom line is that the NFL is a business. Regardless of how each owner acquired their team, each has a substantial amount of their net worth invested in the NFL. A businessman with a net worth in the billions will evaluate their investment on the percent of income returned on their investment. The only tangible numbers we have are from the publicly held Packers. The net income for the Packers last year was $10 million, while Forbes values the Packers franchise at $1 billion. Sure, $10M seems like plenty to us peons, but owner's are getting a return of 1% on the value of their investment. In contrast, my Wachovia saving account paid me 1.5% last year and the stock market has a historical annual return around 8-10%.

Wrong. Owners are getting a dividend of 1%, plus appreciable increase in the value of the stock they hold in the corporation. In 2000 the franchise value for Green Bay was $337 million (again, according to Forbes). If the current franchise value is $1 billion, that means the annualized return has been 11.5%, in addition to any profits the business earned.

You're double-counting retained earnings that way. If I own a business worth $12, and it earns $2 this year that I pocket, it may still be worth $12 next year. But if I use the $2 in earnings to pay down stadium debt (and thus increase equity), the business will be worth $14 next year. That doesn't mean that I got a $4 benefit — $2 from earnings and $2 from increased net worth. It's the same $2, and should be counted only once.

Exactly MT. A lot of the tallies you see about what franchises are worth aren't accurate, because it doesn't net out the debt burdens. I wish Forbes and ESPN, when discussing franchise values, took at least a moment to discuss enterprise value, instead of what the equity of the firm may be worth on paper.

 

[roadkill1292]

Also, if 32 other rich guys decided to start a league as soon as the lockout begins, they'd get the pants sued off them. Plus it would take a while to get the infrastructure in place, during which time the NFL owners could end the lockout and make a new deal at any time. So they wouldn't do it. As a result, the NFL has a monopoly as far as top-tier football in the United States is concerned.

Not to sidetrack what has been a good discussion but I found the bolded statement here interesting. By whom would the new rich guys get sued and on what grounds?

 

[roadkill1292]

Despite ESPN tripping over themselves to sign Reilly, here is Reason #9,847,575 why he isn't fit to hold Bill Simmons' jock strap:http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/110304They set out to do the same thing (rip the owners). Reilly wrote trash, simply calling rich people rich. Simmons wrote an insightful and entertaining article.

Simmons' piece was, as usual, far more thoughtful and illustrative than Reilly's. It made me wonder just how successful he could actually be on his own. He may have needed ESPN as an exposure vehicle in the early going but with the type of electronic interaction available to us now, wouldn't his loyal readers easily find him elsewhere? Heck, I'd pay a couple of dollars a year to read his columns and listen to his podcasts.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Just wanted to say to Tobias and Andrew...I've enjoyed the debate, but I've got to scoot.Just wouldn't want you two to think you won and scared me off.

I don't know about Tobias but all I heard was 'you....won...' :charliesheen:Yeah good debate. There's no clear right or wrong and it's aggravating the two sides can't figure a way to work it out.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Also, if 32 other rich guys decided to start a league as soon as the lockout begins, they'd get the pants sued off them. Plus it would take a while to get the infrastructure in place, during which time the NFL owners could end the lockout and make a new deal at any time. So they wouldn't do it. As a result, the NFL has a monopoly as far as top-tier football in the United States is concerned.

Not to sidetrack what has been a good discussion but I found the bolded statement here interesting. By whom would the new rich guys get sued and on what grounds?

I hadn't really thought about it, I just assumed that a guy like Dan Snyder who would sue a 73 year old woman for missed season ticket payments and sue a newspaper for a critical article about him would find a way to sue anyone who affected his interests negatively. Maybe there would be some sort of IP grounds if aspects of the league resembled the NFL is some way, or breach of contract lawsuits against NFL partners who partnered with the new league, or whatever. Not that they'd win, just that the current owners would find a way to sue. That was my point- they'd have 32 billionaires dead set on making their lives miserable through any means possible.

 

[dickey moe]

Just another hate the rich hate piece. I refuse to by in to the class warfare claptrap expoused across the country recently. I make 50,000 a year and you know what? I don't hate the owners. I don't care how they got there money, we as Americans had better be careful about falling into the class warfare crap.Bottom line is they're in business to make money, not break even. Yes, some owners make much more than others. I'm sure not getting the 1 billion they're looking for wouldn't break most owners but who's to say that if they don't get it, others owners will not be hurt.People need to remember it's the owners capitol that built the league in the first place, if not for them we wouldn't have the game. Don't fall into the hate the richest guy idealism.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

---Abraham Lincoln

Your time machine isn't working properly.