Untrue. The owners have stated that their proposed increase in the amount taken off the top of Total Revenues was because the the amount off the top under the previous CBR was insufficient to insure that all the NFL's teams had enough after expenses to reinvest in franchise and league growth.
No. The owners have offered a proposal for a new CBA. The reasoning behind why is irrelevant. They have no obligation to give a reason, and even less to be held accountable to documenting it.
That is has been, the owners' argument.
No, it has not. They have not ARGUED any justification, they have stated they want a higher percentage. There are many reasons, it only follows that expenses are part of that. Stating so does not automatically mean they have to prove what they are.
Furthermore, your suggestion that it's not the owners' argument is a very weak equivocation, for it leads to the question of what, then, is their argument.
They require a higher % of the revenue. That is their negotiating standpoint. They have never stated that they will document a reason why.
To argue that they don't need one is weaker yet - if they don't provide a rationale, than there's no reason for the NFLPA to take their demand seriously, and no reason for the mediator to believe that they're negotiating in good faith. And while the mediator cannot dictate binding terms, there are severe consequences to being found to be negotiating in bad faith.
They are stating that they need a higher percentage. They do not have to get anyone to analyze anything and concur with that. This is your fatal flaw in your argument.
It is a negotiation. A mediator can not penalize them or say they are negotiating in bad faith when they say their business decision is that they need a higher %. They do not have to show a rationale for that, the fact that their profits are unacceptable to THEM is sufficient. No other party must concur or in the contrary tell them what they should accept for profits.
So, no, in good faith negotiations within an organization, you can't make a demand "just 'cause."
Yes you can. Good faith does not mean you have to compromise on what you need to make a deal.
Meaningless sophistry. Clearly the "give back" refers to the terms of the most recent CBA, and clearly, the most recent agreement is the logical jumping off point for negotiating the next. The owners are 100% entitled to want to change the terms however they want, which logically would lead the NFLPA to ask why the previous terms weren't working for them, and again, you don't say "Because!" in good faith negotiations.
Yes, you can.
The Packers are hardly a representative franchise for the entire NFL. After all, they're toward of the very bottom of the league in terms of revenue, and are the league's only not-for-profit franchise.
Yet they are one of the teams negotiating. Are you saying that they are irrelevant? If the current deal puts one of their franchises in the position of one bad year of inflation causing them to be in the red, then of course the entire group of owners must find that unacceptable. Even if they are in the worst shape, they are evidence the deal isnt working very well.
No. It's really not.
The league is arguing that not all of the teams are sufficiently profitable to be able to afford to reinvest in franchise growth. But on the whole, NFL team revenues have been increasing fairly rapidly.
The league believes that all of the franchises together are not profitable enough. Once again they are not ARGUING that. They have DECIDED that. That topic is not negotiable. It is not part of the CBA.
The franchises in question that need additional money to be able to afford reinvestment have been seeing shrinking margins during 5 years of huge rises in the popularity and marketability of NFL football.
If you can't even tread water in a bull market, I'd say "poorly run" doesn't even cover it.
That is irrelevant. Lets say they are poorly run. So? That does not change the fact that they need a higher percentage of the revenues to make the deal work. Are you suggesting that it would be effective for the players to say, "You aren't efficient, so thats your problem"? What would that solve. The owners position would not change, the players position would not change.
This is precisely why the request for financials is pure folly, and simple posturing.
There is nothing that could happen from financial disclosure that would make things any better.
The players would look at the financials and tell the owners they see them differently and they think the owners make too much profit. The owners position would not change a lick.
The players asked for financials because they could use it in the public opinion battle. If they really felt it was critical they would have accepted the offer for 5 years of financials turned over to independant auditors. Why did they refuse?
Likewise the players bring revenue sharing AMONG owners into the discussion because it creates the impression that something untoward is going on behind closed doors. The fact is that the owners sharing their share of the revenue amongst themselves is none of the players businss, and again, if that were on the table, it would accomplish nothing to bring the sides closer.
I am really surprised that you are being duped by these grandstanding manuevers.
