Right to privacy - Poll

[lurker1965]

Let's cut to the chase.

The owners do not want to open their books because of "privacy."

Players will object to drug testing, etc. because of "privacy."

When operating a sports franchise, should owners and people on teir payroll give up any expectation to privacy since they are "public figures."

Be warned about "Yes." We may get subjected to candid pictures of a naked Paul Perillo passed out drunk.

There is no gray area. If somethings should remain private someone has to decide, and if that is not me then it is wrong.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I voted yes but I emphatically insist that players are tested for drugs and should be subjected to background checks.

That is the employer's right. Players are employees. Owners are employers.

 

[BradyManny]

The owners shouldn't have to open their books to the public, but I can't see why they can't open them to a third party mediator or even to the players. I don't see why they think they can give the players a sizable paycut without showing any evidence supporting their claim that it's necessary.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I voted yes but I emphatically insist that players are tested for drugs and should be subjected to background checks.

That is the employer's right. Players are employees. Owners are employers.

i agree with this 100%

 

[PatsDeb]

NFL teams are not public or government agencies; they are private businesses. I would not want my private business's financial info put out there for all to see. Whether those records should be shared among two parties engaged in litigation is another matter.

 

[Haley]

NFL teams are not public or government agencies; they are private businesses. I would not want my private business's financial info put out there for all to see. Whether those records should be shared among two parties engaged in litigation is another matter.

I thought the Packers were publicly owned. Is that no longer true?

 

[PatsDeb]

I thought the Packers were publicly owned. Is that no longer true?

No, you are right. And, I believe they have made their financials public. Someone around here was quoting them the other day. All other teams are privately owned.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

NFL teams are not public or government agencies; they are private businesses. I would not want my private business's financial info put out there for all to see. Whether those records should be shared among two parties engaged in litigation is another matter.

I agree. The Players may or may not have a legitimate reason to see the Owners books (as I and others have argued pro and con and ad nauseam in the "Think...think again." thread). The Public does not. The problem is, of course, that once 31 owners turn their records over to a large group of players and league officials the likelihood of leaks is pretty darn high.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Let's cut to the chase.

The owners do not want to open their books because of "privacy."

I think the players already blinked on this one... it was just a negotiating red herring

 

[Deus Irae]

Let's cut to the chase.

The owners do not want to open their books because of "privacy."

Players will object to drug testing, etc. because of "privacy."

When operating a sports franchise, should owners and people on teir payroll give up any expectation to privacy since they are "public figures."

Be warned about "Yes." We may get subjected to candid pictures of a naked Paul Perillo passed out drunk.

There is no gray area. If somethings should remain private someone has to decide, and if that is not me then it is wrong.

apples and oranges

 

[jeffd]

The owners shouldn't have to open their books to the public, but I can't see why they can't open them to a third party mediator or even to the players. I don't see why they think they can give the players a sizable paycut without showing any evidence supporting their claim that it's necessary.

The owners have offered to open their books to a mutually acceptable third party. Opening them to the players will just open them up to pressure of public image by "exposing" expenses that seem worse in public opinion than reality.

 

[jmt57]

Let's cut to the chase.

The owners do not want to open their books because of "privacy."

Players will object to drug testing, etc. because of "privacy."

When operating a sports franchise, should owners and people on teir payroll give up any expectation to privacy since they are "public figures."

Be warned about "Yes." We may get subjected to candid pictures of a naked Paul Perillo passed out drunk.

There is no gray area. If somethings should remain private someone has to decide, and if that is not me then it is wrong.

In my opinion there's almost nothing but gray area on this topic, especially when trying to lump those three examples together as one single subject matter.

 

[lurker1965]

The owners shouldn't have to open their books to the public, but I can't see why they can't open them to a third party mediator or even to the players. I don't see why they think they can give the players a sizable paycut without showing any evidence supporting their claim that it's necessary.

Leaks happen. Don't believe me ask the MLB owners who got confidentiality agreement when they opened their books to the union during their strike.

 

[lurker1965]

NFL teams are not public or government agencies; they are private businesses. I would not want my private business's financial info put out there for all to see. Whether those records should be shared among two parties engaged in litigation is another matter.

What if a team has a publicly financed stadium? I think the Patriots and Cowboys are the only ones with 100% private financing.

 

[lurker1965]

apples and oranges

Yes, dues, both are fruits. I'm glad you make sense for once.

 

[Deus Irae]

The owners have offered to open their books to a mutually acceptable third party. Opening them to the players will just open them up to pressure of public image by "exposing" expenses that seem worse in public opinion than reality.

The owners didn't actually offer that. What they offered was a couple of numbers, which is not the same thing:

The NFL's proposal included:

• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;

• the number of teams that have seen a shift in profitability in that span;

NFLPA won't agree to 18-game schedule - ESPN

 

[lurker1965]

In my opinion there's almost nothing but gray area on this topic, especially when trying to lump those three examples together as one single subject matter.

Who is trying?

Owners cite a right to privacy when it suits them and player cite a right to privacy when it suits them.

Oh, the naked Paul Perillo was a joke. (I needed that to get to three.)

So privacy is only OK sometimes. Who decides? You? Me?

An impartial third party? OK. Define "impartial."

 

[Frezo]

I'd like to see the players' financials and find out how much some of them have spent on street bling, black market cars and hard partying.

 

[lurker1965]

I'd like to see the players' financials and find out how much some of them have spent on street bling, black market cars and hard partying.

They are not asking others to take a pay cut, but 99% of "celebrity" news is none of my business, so TMZ away.

 

[Frezo]

They are not asking others to take a pay cut, but 99% of "celebrity" news is none of my business, so TMZ away.

Cromartie... alimony, alimony, alimony, Kraft dinners...alimony, alimony, alimony, tomato soup