Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look like

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

FINALY! A few of the posters are starting to understand the bottom line of this dispute. It all comes down to REVENUE SHAREING between the owners. If not for revenue shareing between the owners a few NFL franchises would go under and cease to exist. The owners have put themselves on the line with the players being the benificiaries in chipping in revenues to the franchises that are looseing money and keeping them operationg. If two franchises went under the remaining franchises would get a larger share of the NFL pie, Wages for players would go down because of there being fewer job ( aprox. 130 less players needed) and more players seeking them, and the quality of play would inrease with more quality players on fewer teams. If the players don't see that the owner have an increase in revenues you will see a division of the owners over revenue shareing possibly ending in a reduction of teams, letting the nonprofitable teams go under with the players being the only loosers. If you don't believe this follow the link to FORBS assesment of profitability of the NFL teams in 09. In that report 2 team are opperating at a loss(Oakland -5.7 mill.,Seatle -2.4 mill.) and Half the team have operating costs of less then 30 mill. At an investment of 1 Bill. haveing operating costs of 30 mill. is only 3%. That is operating cost not profit.Inside the 2009 Forbes NFL Franchise Valuations

That operating cost is what is left after expences and to be divied up under revenue shareing and used twards reinvestment in the game. If you study the chart you will realize that some players are out earning entire franchises. Do the players expect that owners run franchises for the charity of the players. Is a return on an investment of a Billion dollars of below 3% a fair payment of their efforts. The answer for the proffitable franchises is to put an end to the charity given in revenue shareing which will hurt a couple owners and a lot of players.

If the players wish the status quo of 32 teams to continue being there to employ them they must relize the owners need more revenue to keep it so.
If you were a major player in a corporarion, how long would wait to close down a nonprofitable franchise. Would you keep it open just to give a job to the employees (players). Shoure there are some very profitable franchises and if they did not have to partialy support other franchises negociations might be different.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

The only one I see here that's a problem is Candlestick. The Bills aren't moving to Toronto. That experience has turned into a big failure as they can't even sell 40,000 seats. This year, when I went to the Bills game I sat next to a Bills season ticket holder. He was a Polynesian guy. Lives in Ottawa, 7 hours away. Would not want to go to Toronto to see a game. It's just not going to happen.

As for Jax, yes maybe they'll move, but why would they build a stadium if they stayed? That stadium has hosted a Super Bowl, and the market is limited.

You just don't get it. The rationale for building new stadiums or moving teams to cities that will is the ability to fill them with state of the art seating and sponsorship that will add to the revenue streams of teams that aren't making enough to be financially competitive when limited to the shared revenue that TV deals bring in. Owners are in a sense competing on the ground with their televised product. It's getting harder to fill or sell out seats while competing with the popularity of their own televised product. Moving a franchise to a state of the art facility in a larger metropolitan location will change that dynamic for that franchise. The league isn't looking to make the experience better for existing Bill's fans, they are looking to expand if not entirely recreate a new fan base for that franchise to market itself to. If that franchise moved to Toronto or LA it would draw from a much larger and likely well heeled base that would pay more and buy more and advertise more in the case of Toronto market itself to a new market that isn't tapped out...Canada. Different advertisers looking to tap a unique market. Attempting to gauge that market based on it hosting an annual home away game for a franchise it isn't emotionally or financially invested in is the mistake you make in writing that potential off.

The other mistake you make is in assuming a new franchise would fly in an expansion city. One of the problems the league is dealing with is it's most recent expansion cities simply didn't have the kind of populations to draw from that an NFL franchise needs to compete in today's market. A couple of those and/or franchises like Buffalo or St. Louis or Minnesota who can't get a new stadium deal done after seeking to for a decade will be relocated to areas that have those populations as well as the ability to build a state of the art stadium to house them. There won't be any expansion teams added to the league (or adding to the collective coffers) until that has been rectified, if ever since within North America few additional locations that can provide all of that remain untapped. Felger was looking at the market share data the other day trying to figure out what remained untapped short of the European market, and all he could come up with beyond LA was Toronto, Mexico City and Portland...the one in Oregon.

You also make the shortsighted mistake of thinking owners should be fine with merely resting on their laurels or existing paper franchise valuations. Meanwhile the league is realistically concerned about what will happen as several of it's aging and/or most inept owners opt or die out and their families can't or won't be interested in maintaining ownership stakes in the face of half a billion dollar estate tax bills. Who will be lined up to buy into a billion dollar plus investment (league) with stagnant growth and growing debt service and little or no return on investment because a saturated market said enough already?? Don't confuse a desire to see the league remain viable with empathy for the existing paper billionaires who currently own it. It's just an appreciation for the simple principles of economics as they relate to insuring that the league that provides a game I love to watch remains viable at least into my dotage.

I don't begrudge the players their fair share. I simply realize that the owners who invest in this enterprise and who have grown it to the point that players are now getting double digit guaranteed money contracts in a league that would have been long ago bankrupted by guaranteed contracts because of the violent physical contact nature of the game it plays and the number of players it employs annually had it not grown it's marketability deserve to earn a little something in the process, too. Players in each generation tend to want to believe it's all about them. Thing is players come and go, they're kind of like widgets in that respect. Take away their stage as Bill is fond of saying and then they find out what a real hurt is. If this league were to go under tomorrow you'd find we have a whole generation of talented athletes performing in Canada for pennies on the dollar or flipping burgers or tallying balance sheets or selling stock on Wall street or crack on street corners...and 32 billionaires...some of whom might be reduced to mere multi millionaires as a result of running businesses unrelated to the sports industry or at least football...

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

The only one I see here that's a problem is Candlestick. The Bills aren't moving to Toronto. That experience has turned into a big failure as they can't even sell 40,000 seats. This year, when I went to the Bills game I sat next to a Bills season ticket holder. He was a Polynesian guy. Lives in Ottawa, 7 hours away. Would not want to go to Toronto to see a game. It's just not going to happen.

As for Jax, yes maybe they'll move, but why would they build a stadium if they stayed? That stadium has hosted a Super Bowl, and the market is limited.

The Toronto experiment is a disaster because they are not the Toronto team and tickets were ridiculously priced. If they were the Toronto Bills (or whatever) and the ticket prices weren't ridiculous, people would come. Toronto is only like an hour away from Buffalo and is the fourth largest city in North America (after Los Angeles, NYC, and Chicago). Even if the Bills don't move there, they are moving within a few years after Wilson dies. The only thing keeping them in Buffalo is Wilson and his daughter is going to sell the team. The league doesn't want them there and any new owner will not want them there.

As for Jacksonville, they will need to do major upgrades to maintain the stadium. It is an older stadium and will need to have millions of dollars of upgrades to keep status quo.

 

[Jackson 2]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

I couldn't care less how this gets resolved and who gets what. I just want it resolved quickly so we don't waste another Brady season.

Thank you. Reading all of this makes my eyes bleed and listening to it makes my ears bleed. Just get the mf thing done.

 

[fgssand]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Thank you. Reading all of this makes my eyes bleed and listening to it makes my ears bleed. Just get the mf thing done.

You got that right.........

I mean really, are they actually going to **** this up?

I hate the fact that the players, owners, agents are so greedy that they may ruin the game. For all their talk about the "shield" and the "love of the game" and all that BS - it comes down to squabbling over dollars at the expense of stupid fans like me.

Enough already...................from this fans perspective --you all suck.

 

[jmt57]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

FINALY! A few of the posters are starting to understand the bottom line of this dispute. It all comes down to REVENUE SHAREING between the owners. If not for revenue shareing between the owners a few NFL franchises would go under and cease to exist. The owners have put themselves on the line with the players being the benificiaries in chipping in revenues to the franchises that are looseing money and keeping them operationg. If two franchises went under the remaining franchises would get a larger share of the NFL pie, Wages for players would go down because of there being fewer job ( aprox. 130 less players needed) and more players seeking them, and the quality of play would inrease with more quality players on fewer teams. If the players don't see that the owner have an increase in revenues you will see a division of the owners over revenue shareing possibly ending in a reduction of teams, letting the nonprofitable teams go under with the players being the only loosers. If you don't believe this follow the link to FORBS assesment of profitability of the NFL teams in 09. In that report 2 team are opperating at a loss(Oakland -5.7 mill.,Seatle -2.4 mill.) and Half the team have operating costs of less then 30 mill. At an investment of 1 Bill. haveing operating costs of 30 mill. is only 3%. That is operating cost not profit.Inside the 2009 Forbes NFL Franchise Valuations

That operating cost is what is left after expences and to be divied up under revenue shareing and used twards reinvestment in the game. If you study the chart you will realize that some players are out earning entire franchises. Do the players expect that owners run franchises for the charity of the players. Is a return on an investment of a Billion dollars of below 3% a fair payment of their efforts. The answer for the proffitable franchises is to put an end to the charity given in revenue shareing which will hurt a couple owners and a lot of players.

If the players wish the status quo of 32 teams to continue being there to employ them they must relize the owners need more revenue to keep it so.
If you were a major player in a corporarion, how long would wait to close down a nonprofitable franchise. Would you keep it open just to give a job to the employees (players). Shoure there are some very profitable franchises and if they did not have to partialy support other franchises negociations might be different.

I do agree that the big story - one that the vast majority of the media does not talk about - is revenue sharing between owners (as opposed to revenue sharing between owners and players).

However, isn't that really an issue for the 32 owners to fix, rather than the owners and the players? The owners did not resolve that issue during the last CBA and it doesn't appear that they are going to resolve it this time either. At some point the owners are going to have to work that out between themselves; otherwise they are simply going to end up looking for more concessions from the players each and every time the CBA expires; that's not a viable plan either.

As for teams folding, despite the sound of alarm from NFL owners we are still a very long way from that happening. There is a huge difference between a corporation showing a loss on paper for one fiscal year and declaring bankruptcy. While some owners may not be making the profits they expected or hoped for, thanks to the broadcasting revenues none of them are out of cash to pay expenses. The idea that a franchise will have no choice but to fold is preposterous. If an owner decides that the profits are not what he anticipated then he can sell the franchise to the highest bidder rather than shut down the business and walk away with nothing. There are other scenarios beyond either attaining a higher return on investment or going out of business.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Of course the concessions the owners are looking for from the players are only a temporary fix. The addition of another 1 bill. exemption and the added revenue of an 18 game season only buys time for the franchises that are operateing in the hole to straighten out their budget shortfalls. Much like any other union giveing back of freezing wages or benifits to help buy time for a bussiness to regain profitability, the players must help do there share along with the owners to keep the problem franchises afloat. There should be no obligation for the top earner franchises to support the bottem feeder franchises, but untill the situation of ownership revenue shareing is worked out players as well have a responsibility to keep there jobs viable. Maby a short term contract in the new CBA or an opt out provision for the players relateing to the inreased profitability of the bottom feeder franchises would be a possible remidy. If the players make the concessions and the NFL works out the problems of the nonprofitable franchises then the concessions become a wind fall for the owners. If the players refuse to make concessions and the owners end revinue shareing between owners, the NFL will loose teams and the players will loose jobs. Their aren't too many entrapenures that will come up with .5 to 1 billion dollars to buy a failing franchise. The answer may be to tie the persentage of players revenue shareing to the needed percentace of ownerships revinue shareing.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Of course the concessions the owners are looking for from the players are only a temporary fix.

Totally disagree. I believe the owners are trying to fundamentally reset the cost structure for the long-term. This is why they are so united (for a change) and why they will go the distance for a deal that does exactly that.

The addition of another 1 bill. exemption and the added revenue of an 18 game season only buys time for the franchises that are operateing in the hole to straighten out their budget shortfalls.

I don't believe very many teams (if any) are losing money. The real issue is about being able to operate an NFL team like a traditional money-making business. The Pats, Jets, Giants, Cowboys, Redskins have no problem doing that. Their margins (profit vs. revenue) are solid and reliable enough for them to manage debt, invest in the business and have operational flexibility. A good number of other teams don't have this luxury. They make money but their margins (< 5%) are so slim that they are effectively treading water. Any number of economic factors can wipe that out in a second.

Much like any other union giveing back of freezing wages or benifits to help buy time for a bussiness to regain profitability, the players must help do there share along with the owners to keep the problem franchises afloat.

This isn't the SEIU. Traditional unions serve the purpose of ensuring fairness and protecting individual workers that would otherwise be powerless. The NFLPA has an entirely different purpose. You just can't apply conventional wisdom on unions to the NFLPA.

There should be no obligation for the top earner franchises to support the bottem feeder franchises, but untill the situation of ownership revenue shareing is worked out players as well have a responsibility to keep there jobs viable.

Remove that obligation and it impacts all franchises. It isn't like McDonalds where you can close a franchise in Jacksonville and it has no impact on another in Miami. The problem with these negotiations isn't how to share (or whether or not to share) revenue. The problem is with profit margins or cost certainty (depending on how you look at it). The owners don't like their cost picture when compared to current and projected future revenue. Shifting revenues among the teams doesn't change that.

Maby a short term contract in the new CBA or an opt out provision for the players relateing to the inreased profitability of the bottom feeder franchises would be a possible remidy. If the players make the concessions and the NFL works out the problems of the nonprofitable franchises then the concessions become a wind fall for the owners. If the players refuse to make concessions and the owners end revinue shareing between owners, the NFL will loose teams and the players will loose jobs. Their aren't too many entrapenures that will come up with .5 to 1 billion dollars to buy a failing franchise. The answer may be to tie the persentage of players revenue shareing to the needed percentace of ownerships revinue shareing.

Not only is this a bad idea (you want to go through this again in another year or two?) but it would require owners to show their profitability. They won't show it now...what makes you think they will put a provision in the new CBA that would REQUIRE them to share that info with the players.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Totally disagree. I believe the owners are trying to fundamentally reset the cost structure for the long-term. This is why they are so united (for a change) and why they will go the distance for a deal that does exactly that.



I don't believe very many teams (if any) are losing money. The real issue is about being able to operate an NFL team like a traditional money-making business. The Pats, Jets, Giants, Cowboys, Redskins have no problem doing that. Their margins (profit vs. revenue) are solid and reliable enough for them to manage debt, invest in the business and have operational flexibility. A good number of other teams don't have this luxury. They make money but their margins (< 5%) are so slim that they are effectively treading water. Any number of economic factors can wipe that out in a second.



This isn't the SEIU. Traditional unions serve the purpose of ensuring fairness and protecting individual workers that would otherwise be powerless. The NFLPA has an entirely different purpose. You just can't apply conventional wisdom on unions to the NFLPA.



Remove that obligation and it impacts all franchises. It isn't like McDonalds where you can close a franchise in Jacksonville and it has no impact on another in Miami. The problem with these negotiations isn't how to share (or whether or not to share) revenue. The problem is with profit margins or cost certainty (depending on how you look at it). The owners don't like their cost picture when compared to current and projected future revenue. Shifting revenues among the teams doesn't change that.



Not only is this a bad idea (you want to go through this again in another year or two?) but it would require owners to show their profitability. They won't show it now...what makes you think they will put a provision in the new CBA that would REQUIRE them to share that info with the players.

It appears you not only don't have a viable answer to the discussion and only wish to critisize others solutions, you are incapable of reading and understanding others posts. In the quote refering to "temporary answer", refered to the owners revinue shareing supporting the failing franchises. and to correct you the owners are NOT totaly united, a few have already voiced their opinion wanting the elimination of owners revinue shareing but are showing unity for the CBA. If the CBA does not work out succesfully wath the squableing over owners revinue shareing start, with Jerry Jones probibly being the first to start the issue.

Wether you believe or not if franchises are hurting does not matter. The FACT IS that some are, as supported by the link I provided earlier. Look back to post 41 for the link to see the facts.

I am a 35 year menber of an international union and unions use the barganing power of great numbers in unity to gain the greater benifit of the majority. The individual worker is still powerless, he is governed by the desisions of the union and it is his choice to follow them. And yes there union is the same as all others. If you state that is not so, Back it up.

The removal of ownership revinue shareing does indeed impact all franchises as I stated. The nonprofitable franchises go under. TO repeat the remaining franchises get a larger peice of the pie, player salaries decrease due to supply and demand and the quality of games go up, due to greater concentration of quality players. The owner don't like the fact that they have to chip in to keep unprofitable frenchises afloat and the only people benifiting from this are the players who play for those teams. Eliminate that problem and there is no need for owners revinue shareing.


Again you seam to be misinformed. The owners profitability is disclosed, again follow the previous link. The union was looking to aquire a full disclouser of owners books, which contains a lot of personal information not pertaining to the situation simply as a stalling tactic. The union has already admited that they knew leagaly they could not get full disclosure of ownerships books. They were on a fishing expedition hopeing to find related income hidden in nonrelated areas.

 

[goheels22002]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Oh, the players will crack long before the owners will though. Again there are literally hundreds of players who's career depends on the draft and a large number of them who are free agents and desperately need to hook up with a team before the draft to maximize their value. Post draft their value goes downor they may not hook up with a team at all. If there is no CBA by the time of the draft, teams will be more intent on filling their biggest needs through the draft because there is no guarantees they will be able to do so through free agency. If you look at Bryant McKinnie and his $100k bar tab this weekend or Antonio Cromartie and his child support payments, you will see strong evidence that many of the players will be hurting for money a lot quicker than the owners especially players hoping to cash in this offseason with new deals. So I expect there to be a rift with the players before the draft if there is no CBA.

The owners on the other hand, will feel no pressure to fracture their unified stance at least until September. The fact that the owners will get revenue from the networks in a lockout will also help them.

There is a reason why the owners have won every CBA negotiation other the the 2006 negotiations. First, it is a lot easier to show an unified front with 32 people than 1,500. Second, most of the owners are more fiscally responsible than the players. Third, many player are counting on big deals this offseason to support their lifestyle and expecting these deals to come with bonus money paid in March, April, or May while the owners don't make any money until the fall if there is a new CBA.

The players probably will crack first for the reasons you cite, but the window is not all that different. The rank & file guys get paid by the game so the pressure gets real in July into August when training and mini-camp bonuses start to matter. The really valuable players won't feel the heat until the season begins and the free agents hoping to get signing bonuses are a minority of the players who can't really do a thing.

But several of the owners start to really take a colossal hit when the preseason begins and will be under huge pressure locally to settle when local business and vendors start losing their shirts. Places like Foxboro can weather this better than places like Detroit, St. Louis, KC, New Orleans, Tampa and others where the NFL is an important part of the local economy. This was the stuff that killed MLB and made it really hard to grow the fan base back after the last work stoppage. Local pain is real, especially in a recession where parking, concessions, t-shirts, hotel jobs, taxi drivers etc get hit and the fan base starts to say to hell with these greedy b%#*&^s. Blackouts are a killer and while that won't happen here, it can in smaller markets with crappy teams and pricey tickets.

More to the point is how the money among the owners will work to support weaker franchises and big ticket capital investments to strengthen long term revenues. There's plenty there if they choose to concede a couple percent to the players and keep their greedy hands in their pockets when trying to pull the funds off the top.

I agree with the previous poster that the best move is to get this done and reward the fans. But I see a protracted fight into July.

 

[jmt57]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Wether you believe or not if franchises are hurting does not matter. The FACT IS that some are, as supported by the link I provided earlier. Look back to post 41 for the link to see the facts.

I am a 35 year menber of an international union and unions use the barganing power of great numbers in unity to gain the greater benifit of the majority. The individual worker is still powerless, he is governed by the desisions of the union and it is his choice to follow them. And yes there union is the same as all others. If you state that is not so, Back it up.

The removal of ownership revinue shareing does indeed impact all franchises as I stated. The nonprofitable franchises go under. TO repeat the remaining franchises get a larger peice of the pie, player salaries decrease due to supply and demand and the quality of games go up, due to greater concentration of quality players. The owner don't like the fact that they have to chip in to keep unprofitable frenchises afloat and the only people benifiting from this are the players who play for those teams. Eliminate that problem and there is no need for owners revinue shareing.


Again you seam to be misinformed. The owners profitability is disclosed, again follow the previous link. The union was looking to aquire a full disclouser of owners books, which contains a lot of personal information not pertaining to the situation simply as a stalling tactic. The union has already admited that they knew leagaly they could not get full disclosure of ownerships books. They were on a fishing expedition hopeing to find related income hidden in nonrelated areas.

Whoa, wait a second. I've looked and looked, and to the best of my knowledge those numbers are best-guess estimates. The 31 franchises (other than Green Bay) are privately held. Did they allow Forbes to come in with a Big Four accounting firm and audit their books?

As for the Packers, when it came out that their profits were down so much from the previous year it was discovered that most of that was due to a paper loss of investments; the economy was down and therefore stocks and other investments were devalued too. They are a franchise the NFL holds up as an example - because it was disclosed their net income fell 80% - but let's take a closer look.

#17 Green Bay Packers - Forbes.com - 9/2/2009

The only NFL franchise owned by the public took a big hit from asset devaluations during the past year. The Green Bay Packers net income fell 80% last year, to $4 million, due in large part to a $50 million decrease in the value of its investment portfolio. It is believed most of the team's investments are in stocks and real estate. But the team's balance sheet remains rock-solid with shareholders' equity of $233 million and total liabilities of just $65 million.

The Most Valuable NFL Teams - Forbes.com - 8/25/2010

The league has been showcasing the Green Bay Packers as the poster child as to why this formula is no longer sustainable (the Packers are owned by local shareholders and therefore the only NFL team that releases financial statements). Indeed the Pack's player costs rose from $139 million in 2008 to $161 million last season, while operating profits declined from $20 million to $10 million during the same time.

Despite the NFL's rhetoric, there are no NFL franchises that are going under. The NFL in 2011 is not the equivalent of the airline industry in 2005-2008. The league is not bailing out unprofitable franchises with their revenue sharing. And revenue sharing needs to stay; all one needs to do is look at MLB - the nation's most popular sport by far a generation ago - to see what will happen with free agency and limited revenue sharing. Two of the biggest reasons that the NFL is as popular as it is are that small-market teams can and do compete for championships on an even playing field, and losing teams can turn things around quickly and compete at a high level. A scenario where only the most profitable franchises continue to do business is a bad idea on multiple levels.


There are only a couple of teams that operated at a loss this year. Time to stop with this 'teams are going to go under' nonsense; I don't believe that for one second.

NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com


As for this union being the same as all other unions, I respectfully disagree. The UAW and the auto industry is not the same as the NFLPA and fans watching football.


As for the owners not wanting to show the players their books, it's like the owners want it both ways. They say they need an extra billion off the top for expenses, but they don't want to show what those expenses are. The alternative is to forget about that, and have a smaller percentage go to the players without that extra money off the top - but the owners don't want to do that either.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

To the conversation of new stadiums and/or upgrades. It looks like Arthur Blank is looking to build a new stadium for the Falcons. So there is another one.

New Atlanta Falcons stadium advances down the field | Atlanta Business Chronicle

So, by my count, there are at least 3-7 teams looking to relocate or get new stadiums or at least have significant upgrades in the next 5-10 years or so.

- Vikes (already exploring possibility)
- Falcons (already exploring the possibility)
- 49ers (already exploring the possibility)
- Raider (already exploring the possibility with sharing with the 49ers)
- Bills (probably will move when Wilson dies and his daughter sells the team)
- Jags (possibly moving at some point in the next 5-10 year)
- Saints (the stadium is really outdated and even upgrades post Katrina were only to get back to status quo)

So potential almost 1/4 of the teams in the league may need additional funding to build a stadium or at least keep their current stadium in touch with the times.

 

[Metaphors]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

JMT57 handles most of your ramblings quite nicely, so I'll focus on the parts he didn't address.

Wether you believe or not if franchises are hurting does not matter. The FACT IS that some are, as supported by the link I provided earlier. Look back to post 41 for the link to see the facts.

Notice what year the operating income figures are for. There has been a pesky little generational economic crisis that hit the planet since then. And you didn't mention "hurting". You said "in the hole" and "budget shortfall". I doubt that description matches many teams...and even those wouldn't be chronically losing money.

So while teams aren't "in the hole", quite a few are certainly hurting. When you are 1 of 32 operations in a $9B market and your profit is in the low number of millions, your business model sucks. Team valuations are going through the roof but you can only realize that by selling the team.

And yes there union is the same as all others. If you state that is not so, Back it up.

Can you imagine the UAW threatening to decertify during a contract negotiation and having members operate as independent contractors? That is the difference. An individual NFL-caliber football player has tremendous leverage they can use in dealing with the NFL. An individual auto worker has almost none.

The removal of ownership revinue shareing does indeed impact all franchises as I stated. The nonprofitable franchises go under.

Remove revenue sharing and up to 1/3 of the league would collapse. You would lose a handful immediately (Buffalo, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Detroit, etc) and a bunch more would descend in minor league status...serving as little more than farm teams for the top teams. Unlike MLB which is dying a very slow death due to 162 games to spread out their product, the NFL with 16 games would die much faster. With half of the league effectively being the Pittsburgh Pirates/Kansas City Royals, broadcast rights will plummet and stadiums will be empty.

TO repeat the remaining franchises get a larger peice of the pie,

Except the pie will be a fraction of what it is now.

player salaries decrease due to supply and demand

Except the richest teams will be able to (and be motivated to) pay top dollar to acquire the best players at each position. The rest of the league will take whatever is left.

and the quality of games go up, due to greater concentration of quality players.

The quality of some games will increase. The rest will be glorified Globetrotter exhibitions.

The owner don't like the fact that they have to chip in to keep unprofitable frenchises afloat and the only people benifiting from this are the players who play for those teams. Eliminate that problem and there is no need for owners revinue shareing.

There is nothing in those sentences that is factual or even makes sense. The league is at 32 teams because the owners want it to be at 32 teams...not having anything to do with the additional jobs created by those teams. If the owners thought that 30 or 28 or 12 was a better number, they would contract to that number.

Again you seam to be misinformed. The owners profitability is disclosed, again follow the previous link. The union was looking to aquire a full disclouser of owners books, which contains a lot of personal information not pertaining to the situation simply as a stalling tactic. The union has already admited that they knew leagaly they could not get full disclosure of ownerships books. They were on a fishing expedition hopeing to find related income hidden in nonrelated areas.

That is complete fiction. The players wanted a full accounting of owners expenses, not their income. All income sources (even those not subject to salary cap calculations) are known by everyone. What isn't know is how much the owners are spending on non-salary expenses. Some expenses could be embarrassing (trips, bonuses, etc.) during negotiations when you are claiming a slim profit margin for a lot of teams.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Whoa, wait a second. I've looked and looked, and to the best of my knowledge those numbers are best-guess estimates. The 31 franchises (other than Green Bay) are privately held. Did they allow Forbes to come in with a Big Four accounting firm and audit their books?

As for the Packers, when it came out that their profits were down so much from the previous year it was discovered that most of that was due to a paper loss of investments; the economy was down and therefore stocks and other investments were devalued too. They are a franchise the NFL holds up as an example - because it was disclosed their net income fell 80% - but let's take a closer look.

#17 Green Bay Packers - Forbes.com - 9/2/2009



The Most Valuable NFL Teams - Forbes.com - 8/25/2010





Despite the NFL's rhetoric, there are no NFL franchises that are going under. The NFL in 2011 is not the equivalent of the airline industry in 2005-2008. The league is not bailing out unprofitable franchises with their revenue sharing. And revenue sharing needs to stay; all one needs to do is look at MLB - the nation's most popular sport by far a generation ago - to see what will happen with free agency and limited revenue sharing. Two of the biggest reasons that the NFL is as popular as it is are that small-market teams can and do compete for championships on an even playing field, and losing teams can turn things around quickly and compete at a high level. A scenario where only the most profitable franchises continue to do business is a bad idea on multiple levels.


There are only a couple of teams that operated at a loss this year. Time to stop with this 'teams are going to go under' nonsense; I don't believe that for one second.

NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com


As for this union being the same as all other unions, I respectfully disagree. The UAW and the auto industry is not the same as the NFLPA and fans watching football.


As for the owners not wanting to show the players their books, it's like the owners want it both ways. They say they need an extra billion off the top for expenses, but they don't want to show what those expenses are. The alternative is to forget about that, and have a smaller percentage go to the players without that extra money off the top - but the owners don't want to do that either.

Thanks for the links. They all support the fact that NFL franchises are haveing more and more dificulty makeing themselves profitable, and some are titering on the brink. If not for owners revinue shareing a few are in danger of going under. You like to accept that some of Green Bays devaluation has been due to investment loss but overlook the fact that the most profitable NFL franchises subsidise their NFL investments with Non NFL investments. You REFUSE to believe an NFL franchise could go under by what logic I don't understand. Four year ago no one could or would believe that the housing and banking industries could bring the world economies to their knees
again.
Revinue shareing has nothing to do with maintaining an even competitive level across the NFL. That is supported by the salary cap and loseing team preforable drafting slot. But the lack of a Rookie pay scale has defeated all advantages given by getting high pick preference in the salary cap difficulties they have. Many team have little value for a top ten pick with the incresed salaries that come with them.
You again REFUSE to believe that the NFLPA is like other unions with no reason given. Where is the logic. The players of the NFLPA provide a service and product for the NFL. who in turn sells it to the consumer, us fan who pay the price of production and benifits along with a profit for all involved. All unions negociate a price for a service provided to an employer who in turn sell a product to the consumer. You can respectfully disagree all you want but these are simple facts.
As far as the owners opening up ther books totaly to the NFLPA, this will never happen. There is to much of the owners personal and unaffiliated income information available. The players ARE NOT in joint venture partnership with the owners. The requst for such information has been used as a stalling technique and the NFLPA has admited that they knew they would never gain full access to them. The absolute best they could have achieved would have been to have an independent auditor examine the books to report only on spicificly related income and expences related to the individual franchises. In 06 the NFLPA admitidly got over on the Owners as far as player revenue shareing, and never questioned the owners books to this day. Why do so now. Only to stall the process.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Whoa, wait a second. I've looked and looked, and to the best of my knowledge those numbers are best-guess estimates. The 31 franchises (other than Green Bay) are privately held. Did they allow Forbes to come in with a Big Four accounting firm and audit their books?

As for the Packers, when it came out that their profits were down so much from the previous year it was discovered that most of that was due to a paper loss of investments; the economy was down and therefore stocks and other investments were devalued too. They are a franchise the NFL holds up as an example - because it was disclosed their net income fell 80% - but let's take a closer look.

#17 Green Bay Packers - Forbes.com - 9/2/2009



The Most Valuable NFL Teams - Forbes.com - 8/25/2010





Despite the NFL's rhetoric, there are no NFL franchises that are going under. The NFL in 2011 is not the equivalent of the airline industry in 2005-2008. The league is not bailing out unprofitable franchises with their revenue sharing. And revenue sharing needs to stay; all one needs to do is look at MLB - the nation's most popular sport by far a generation ago - to see what will happen with free agency and limited revenue sharing. Two of the biggest reasons that the NFL is as popular as it is are that small-market teams can and do compete for championships on an even playing field, and losing teams can turn things around quickly and compete at a high level. A scenario where only the most profitable franchises continue to do business is a bad idea on multiple levels.


There are only a couple of teams that operated at a loss this year. Time to stop with this 'teams are going to go under' nonsense; I don't believe that for one second.

NFL Team Valuations - Forbes.com


As for this union being the same as all other unions, I respectfully disagree. The UAW and the auto industry is not the same as the NFLPA and fans watching football.


As for the owners not wanting to show the players their books, it's like the owners want it both ways. They say they need an extra billion off the top for expenses, but they don't want to show what those expenses are. The alternative is to forget about that, and have a smaller percentage go to the players without that extra money off the top - but the owners don't want to do that either.

While only a couple of team were estimated to have operated at a loss in the Forbes analysis for 2009, there were quite a few more whose profit margins are down substantially while payroll costs are up dramatically - which is exactly what the league has claimed and what you would expect to be the effect of losing $1B in credits off the top to players in the 2006 CBA formula. Damn them for not waiting until the data is worse before sounding the alarm...so their critics could then lambaste them for incompetently allowing it to come to that. There are also 20 teams whose estimated franchise value dropped, and several whose value is estimated to have dropped by double digit percentage. Ten of the 32 teams are now listed with debt/value ratios of 20% and higher. Most of which is tied to their cost or share in the building or refurbishing of stadiums. The Giants and JETS who are struggling to get PSL's sold are currently carrying debt estimated to be in excess of 60% of franchise value as a result of sharing the total cost of building their new stadium with private funding and building new seperate state of the art training and practice facilities for their players.

As for the red herring claim the union persistently makes about opening up the books, no business does that for it's employees. Independent auditors go over the league's collective financial data every year to verify it as part of the revenue sharing and revenue split processes. What the union wants to see the individual team books for is in the hopes it can find some embarassing nuggets of information about who and how much individual teams are paying what and why, data it hopes it can then spin to win the PR battle. It's the only saber they have left to rattle after making asses out of themselves for four years crowing about the panacea an uncapped NFL would be for players and how once achieved they would NEVER allow a cap to return. Ya, right...

The threat of a strike and an uncapped league paniced enough owners already squabbling about revenue sharing in 2006 to the point they entered into a lousy CBA albeit with an escape clause for the first time in their bargaining history. What they are now demanding is one both sides can live with and prosper under.

I'm not naive enough to think that the owners are the victims in all this. Ultimately the fans are. But that is as much the result of escalating player greed over the last couple of decades as it is the greed of ownership. And frankly the greed of fans who consistently feed both beasts by demanding more who then whine because they aren't getting it for less...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Thanks for the links. They all support the fact that NFL franchises are haveing more and more dificulty makeing themselves profitable, and some are titering on the brink. If not for owners revinue shareing a few are in danger of going under. You like to accept that some of Green Bays devaluation has been due to investment loss but overlook the fact that the most profitable NFL franchises subsidise their NFL investments with Non NFL investments. You REFUSE to believe an NFL franchise could go under by what logic I don't understand. Four year ago no one could or would believe that the housing and banking industries could bring the world economies to their knees
again.
Revinue shareing has nothing to do with maintaining an even competitive level across the NFL. That is supported by the salary cap and loseing team preforable drafting slot. But the lack of a Rookie pay scale has defeated all advantages given by getting high pick preference in the salary cap difficulties they have. Many team have little value for a top ten pick with the incresed salaries that come with them.
You again REFUSE to believe that the NFLPA is like other unions with no reason given. Where is the logic. The players of the NFLPA provide a service and product for the NFL. who in turn sells it to the consumer, us fan who pay the price of production and benifits along with a profit for all involved. All unions negociate a price for a service provided to an employer who in turn sell a product to the consumer. You can respectfully disagree all you want but these are simple facts.
As far as the owners opening up ther books totaly to the NFLPA, this will never happen. There is to much of the owners personal and unaffiliated income information available. The players ARE NOT in joint venture partnership with the owners. The requst for such information has been used as a stalling technique and the NFLPA has admited that they knew they would never gain full access to them. The absolute best they could have achieved would have been to have an independent auditor examine the books to report only on spicificly related income and expences related to the individual franchises. In 06 the NFLPA admitidly got over on the Owners as far as player revenue shareing, and never questioned the owners books to this day. Why do so now. Only to stall the process.

While you get it on on many levels where you fail to is in assessing what contraction would do to the league revenue wise. If the haves don't underwrite the have nots to the extent they must (due not to incompetence which is what makes them bristle in a handful of cases) because of the geographical limits of their markets...they lose product. The product isn't the players, it's the games. That is the NFL model, and one the NBA now laments not following. They've made it all about the talent, and are going under as a result. For every team that contracts because it can't compete without assistance, the league loses 16 games it cannot market to the TV networks. I guess you think they care about the quality of the product they are marketing at a time when ratings are at a record high irrespective of quality (although advertising revenue is down due to overall economic factors).

As for the NFLPA, notice the last letter in that acronym is A as in trade Association (which is what they will morph into if they decertify). Even they know they aren't really a union. Unions set maximum as well as minimum wages and wage scales and benefits and work rules for all members irrespective of merit or value/talent. NFL players are free to negotiate their own contracts with their individual employer in whatever excess of any collectively bargained base rates they choose to. While spending is capped, individual contracts are not. The market sets those. The NFLPA merely acts as their collective agent in negotiating minimum benefits and work rules with the collective league and representing members in seeking regress if they believe their rights have been violated in terms of those basic collectively bargained for terms. Which is one of the reasons why the NFLPA also controls the individual agents who represent players via a certification process and limits what they can charge to 3% of the value of the individual excess contract they negotiate between the player and his individual employer. The NFLPA is essentially the super agent whose clientele encompasses the entire player base and who negotiate for their basic welfare while association members.

When an auto worker retires his relationship with his employer ceases while his relationship with the UAW continues because they provide his retirement benefits. When an NFL player retires his relationship with the NFLPA ceases while his relationship with his former employers collective (the league) becomes the basis of his retirement benefits. The NFLPA only represents talent in the here and now. What happens to you down the road is based largely on what you and your agent negotiated with your employer while you were a member of the association...ergo, if you end up living under a bridge that's on you and your individual employer or the league... At least that's what Gene Upshaw always contended...

This union cries today about what happened to retirees. Those are crockodile tears. For years their focus was on straight cash homey...where it remains to this day. Lots of long retired players foresaw the folly in that focus at the time and were told to S-T-F-U... Even now when the league has proposed capping unproven rookie deals and splitting the savings ($200M per year) between established veterans and retirees from those early years, the union counter proposes not only shortening that capped period but redistributing half of that money back to the handful of rookie players who meet or exceed expectations while the other half gets split between remaining rank and file veterans and retirees. Their core constituency remains the talent at the top, the handful of elite association members they have always pandered to at the expense of their rank and file. Show me a union that gets away with that... Show me a union whose members don't get to vote for their own leadership (an appointed executive council does...) because they're afraid if they did their majority sub elite blue collar rank and file members would end up getting more representation than the elite talent...and what you will be showing me is another talent marketing association...and not a workers union.

 

[jmt57]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Thanks for the links. They all support the fact that NFL franchises are haveing more and more dificulty makeing themselves profitable, and some are titering on the brink. If not for owners revinue shareing a few are in danger of going under. You like to accept that some of Green Bays devaluation has been due to investment loss but overlook the fact that the most profitable NFL franchises subsidise their NFL investments with Non NFL investments. You REFUSE to believe an NFL franchise could go under by what logic I don't understand. Four year ago no one could or would believe that the housing and banking industries could bring the world economies to their knees
again.

Revenue sharing is an integral part of the NFL. Of course if you remove it the whole business model changes. Thankfully Wellington Mara had the foresight fifty years ago to put the interest of his own team behind that of growing the popularity of the league as a whole. Remove that component and obviously everything changes; it's like saying if so-and-so wasn't big, strong and fast he wouldn't be a very good player.

Yes, profits are down for NFL teams due to the economy. No different than the effect the economy has had on almost every other industry. No different than what happens during every ebb and flow the economy ever has had, or will have.

You misunderstand: it's not that I don't believe an NFL franchise could ever go under at any time in the future. I don't believe that they are currently 'teetering on the brink', as you and the NFL would have us believe. Even now in this economy if an owner decided to sell he would have multiple potential buyers. He may not make as much profit on the sale as he had expected, but he's not going into bankruptcy and foreclosure. Now that may not be the case five or ten years from now, but that is the way it is right now with NFL franchises.

Revinue shareing has nothing to do with maintaining an even competitive level across the NFL. That is supported by the salary cap and loseing team preforable drafting slot. But the lack of a Rookie pay scale has defeated all advantages given by getting high pick preference in the salary cap difficulties they have. Many team have little value for a top ten pick with the incresed salaries that come with them.

The NFLPA has no problem with a rookie wage scale. The issue what happens to that money; the owners want to keep as much as possible and the players want it redistributed.

The curse of having a high draft pick is overstated. Reports were that the Rams and Lions were offered trades last year; why didn't they make them? Perhaps the old "draft pick value charts" are outdated but there is still some value. Are you telling me nobody would make any trade whatsoever for a top ten pick? Not even their own 1st and a 7th round pick for a top ten pick? Are you telling me if Carolina offered the Pats their #1 overall pick in exchange for the Pats own pick at #28 that the Patriots would say no?

You again REFUSE to believe that the NFLPA is like other unions with no reason given. Where is the logic. The players of the NFLPA provide a service and product for the NFL. who in turn sells it to the consumer, us fan who pay the price of production and benifits along with a profit for all involved. All unions negociate a price for a service provided to an employer who in turn sell a product to the consumer. You can respectfully disagree all you want but these are simple facts.

I'll defer to MoLewisRocks' response.

As far as the owners opening up ther books totaly to the NFLPA, this will never happen. There is to much of the owners personal and unaffiliated income information available. The players ARE NOT in joint venture partnership with the owners. The requst for such information has been used as a stalling technique and the NFLPA has admited that they knew they would never gain full access to them. The absolute best they could have achieved would have been to have an independent auditor examine the books to report only on spicificly related income and expences related to the individual franchises. In 06 the NFLPA admitidly got over on the Owners as far as player revenue shareing, and never questioned the owners books to this day. Why do so now. Only to stall the process.

Who has been stalling? For two years the NFL has virtually refused to open up almost any dialogue (other than through the press) until this past week. The owners say the have to have an extra $billion exempted off the top because they say so. I'm not sure why they should be believed without question. As an alternative they can negotiate based on all revenues rather than total revenues. As far as opening up the books, how about a compromise of a Big 4 accounting firm with an ironclad non-disclosure agreement?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Revenue sharing is an integral part of the NFL. Of course if you remove it the whole business model changes. Thankfully Wellington Mara had the foresight fifty years ago to put the interest of his own team behind that of growing the popularity of the league as a whole. Remove that component and obviously everything changes; it's like saying if so-and-so wasn't big, strong and fast he wouldn't be a very good player.

Yes, profits are down for NFL teams due to the economy. No different than the effect the economy has had on almost every other industry. No different than what happens during every ebb and flow the economy ever has had, or will have.

You misunderstand: it's not that I don't believe an NFL franchise could ever go under at any time in the future. I don't believe that they are currently 'teetering on the brink', as you and the NFL would have us believe. Even now in this economy if an owner decided to sell he would have multiple potential buyers. He may not make as much profit on the sale as he had expected, but he's not going into bankruptcy and foreclosure. Now that may not be the case five or ten years from now, but that is the way it is right now with NFL franchises.


The NFLPA has no problem with a rookie wage scale. The issue what happens to that money; the owners want to keep as much as possible and the players want it redistributed.

The curse of having a high draft pick is overstated. Reports were that the Rams and Lions were offered trades last year; why didn't they make them? Perhaps the old "draft pick value charts" are outdated but there is still some value. Are you telling me nobody would make any trade whatsoever for a top ten pick? Not even their own 1st and a 7th round pick for a top ten pick? Are you telling me if Carolina offered the Pats their #1 overall pick in exchange for the Pats own pick at #28 that the Patriots would say no?


I'll defer to MoLewisRocks' response.


Who has been stalling? For two years the NFL has virtually refused to open up almost any dialogue (other than through the press) until this past week. The owners say the have to have an extra $billion exempted off the top because they say so. I'm not sure why they should be believed without question. As an alternative they can negotiate based on all revenues rather than total revenues. As far as opening up the books, how about a compromise of a Big 4 accounting firm with an ironclad non-disclosure agreement?

Profits may be down due to the economy, but it's even more likey due to the fact that the formula changed in 2006 from DGR (which was TGR-$2B) to TGR-$1B, and as a result salaries and the cap went up exponentially...

And I'm not so sure BB entertains that draft pick trade absent a rookie cap for $50M reasons... The bust rate is too high at the top and even if they don't bust few truly represent that level of value out of the gate if ever...

And FWIW I will say it again. The owners proposal for the rookie cap called for ALL the money to go back to veteran players and retirees. They didn't ask to retain any of that $200 in savings for themselves... The union meanwhile counter proposed that half of the savings ($100M) go right back to just the top rookie contract performers and the rest be split ($50M each) between veteran players and retirees...

The owners want their savings to come from adjustments to the formula for determining TGR and/or the % split between the owners and the players. Many of the other things they are proposing (rookie cap and 18 games) are intended to help mitigate any present $$$ loss to players as a result. The one other substantial change they seem to be asking for for themselves is the logic driven ability to recover bonus money from total screwups. I don't doubt the NFLPA will only support that change if the recovered money goes right back to best performing players who don't screw up...or into a legal defense fund to help the union defend them or rehab their image or into escrow for the screw ups if they if they manage to make a comeback... Because that's the way the NFLPA negotiates in good faith left to their own un mediated devices...

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

I don't know why anyone should expect the NFL owners to open their books. All but the Packers are privately held companies. I own a privately held company and none of my employees other than the employee who does the company's books have any idea of what I make or the company's profit and losses. When they negotiate salaries, if they asked to see my books, I would throw them out of my office. Unions in privately held companies have no right to see the company's books either.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

The problem some of the owners have with the smaller market teams isnt that they help subsidize them, they know that team will always have lower revenues and they're ok with that, its the fact that some of the owners of the lower revenue teams dont do anything to maximize their revenue.