Do you "blame" one side more for the CBA talks getting to this point?

[bucky]

1) I do not understand the fear in showing their financials. Someone explain to me the fear. I look at them all the time in my profession and audit them. Their is nothing secretive about them. They're just financial statements. Why employ a middle man? Now, we're including yet another party who will see the financial statements. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of not letting their financials be seen by other parties? Or is it that they don't want the NFLPA specifically to see them? It still makes no sense why they won't let them be known. It is a simple concept called "Truth in Negotiations." Without it, one party is blind, which is the NFLPA. It means that one party has to place a whole lot of faith in what others are saying instead of interpreting the facts for themselves.

I think it's a question of how much detail do they want to see. Is it just the balance sheets and aggregates? Or is it specific line-by-line breakdowns of who incurred which expenses, how much are the coaches being paid, etc. I think the issue is that the details, if release to the NFLPA, are guaranteed to end up in the press and out of context. The owners will then be stuck defending themselves in the court of public opinion - which is a no-win situation.

I, on the other hand, don't understand why the players refuse to move off this issue and allow the financials to be audited by an independent third party.

 

[Ring 6]

maybe it's just because I'm an accountant, but I think that it's completely legitimate for the NFLPA to review the audited financial statements as they've requested. The NFL asserts that there must be a change from the previous deal due to some vague notions of financial difficulties. If that is the case, then they should have nothing to hide. Just like if an investor wants to invest in a company or if a bank is considering a large loan, they naturally want to see audited financials (what I do for a living). It's an expectation, and the owners are concealing that critical information, which is suspicious. If there is nothing to hide, then let them see that the NFL needs the players to take a smaller cut. The numbers won't lie.

Financials are needed to approve a loan because they establish the ability to repay. Same with an investor, because he is taking a share of ownership and must have a historic view of what the company he is buying part of has done.

The NFLPA is in a negotiation with the NFL.

It would be the same as if your company manufactured products from steel and the steel vendor would not agree on a price until he saw your financials because he thinks you can afford more.

Would you show the guy selling you a car your bankbook?
Would you show your hand when playing poker?

There is without question information in those financials that the union could pull out of context and use against the players to strengthen their argument.
It just would be crazy IMO to give the person you are 'haggling' with private information that they can use against you.

On top of that, in essence the NFLPA said 'give them to us or we sue you'.
Then after they gave some financials they said sorry, we are suing anyway.

I can't believe more people don't see handing over the financials as the most gullible move imaginable.

 

[patriot lifer]

Financials are needed to approve a loan because they establish the ability to repay. Same with an investor, because he is taking a share of ownership and must have a historic view of what the company he is buying part of has done.

The NFLPA is in a negotiation with the NFL.

It would be the same as if your company manufactured products from steel and the steel vendor would not agree on a price until he saw your financials because he thinks you can afford more.

Would you show the guy selling you a car your bankbook?
Would you show your hand when playing poker?

There is without question information in those financials that the union could pull out of context and use against the players to strengthen their argument.
It just would be crazy IMO to give the person you are 'haggling' with private information that they can use against you.

On top of that, in essence the NFLPA said 'give them to us or we sue you'.
Then after they gave some financials they said sorry, we are suing anyway.

I can't believe more people don't see handing over the financials as the most gullible move imaginable.

Just because they aren't lendors or potential investors doesn't rule out the usage of the already audited financials (although the owners did say that the players are "partners"). It's the idea of it. This is a massive negotiation that will affect both parties over a very long-time (even after this next deal expires), just like a Company purchase. It's truth in negotiations. And it's a lot different than a vendor arguing over a price listing (as suggested), because if they disagree then they take their business elsewhere. This is the employees arguing over their compensation where the employees also happen to be the Product.

And look at it this way: They are so far apart in the negotiations. One of the main impasses is the f/s. When they say 'show us the f/s or we'll sue' it's a consequence of them realizing that they've progressed as far as they can and the only way to continue is to review this vital information.

As for how they'll use the information for every nefarious means imaginable, I think we're taking a bit too cynical a perspective on their actions.

That all being said, like someone else remarked, it depends on how much information is presented to them. If they're looking at the financials in aggregate, then it's entirely reasonable for them to review the statements (with let's say the Company names removed so they can't identify which is which). We can already see some of the revenue figures by Company online, with a little searching. The audited figures substantiate things. However, if they want access to the detail by account, then that's a whole other story. But realize that more detail doesn't necessarily mean more information. I look at different trial balances every week. Seeing more doesn't always mean more. I can't count how many accounts are labeled 'miscellaneous' and 'other'. It isn't like an account is labeled "Mr. Kraft's secret stash of money for frivolous billionaire pursuits"...I don't think. I am curious as to the specific terms of the third party review of the f/s, and what the hold up is that the NFLPA is claiming. I wish we knew more.

 

[Ring 6]

Just because they aren't lendors or potential investors doesn't rule out the usage of the already audited financials (although the owners did say that the players are "partners"). It's the idea of it. This is a massive negotiation that will affect both parties over a very long-time (even after this next deal expires), just like a Company purchase. It's truth in negotiations. And it's a lot different than a vendor arguing over a price listing (as suggested), because if they disagree then they take their business elsewhere. This is the employees arguing over their compensation where the employees also happen to be the Product.

In this negotiation they are adversaries.
What would the financials accomplish?
The only purpose of the financials, since revenue is transparent, is for the union to see the profit margins of the owners, and use that as a negotiating point.
In effect the union would want to collectively bargain what the owners are allowed to consider an acceptable return on their investment.
That is way beyond the scope of employer and union.

And look at it this way: They are so far apart in the negotiations. One of the main impasses is the f/s.

I dont think that is accurate. I know the union wants you to believe that so you can assign blame. But Rooney said they offered financials and the union refused to even look at them.

When they say 'show us the f/s or we'll sue' it's a consequence of them realizing that they've progressed as far as they can and the only way to continue is to review this vital information.

Really? You would give information to your adversary that they could use against you while they are on their way to the courthouse to sue you? Wow.

As for how they'll use the information for every nefarious means imaginable, I think we're taking a bit too cynical a perspective on their actions.

The union is trying to secure the highest possible payday they can get. The owners are trying to pay them as little as they possibly can.
That is what a CBA negotiation is.
You are an accountant. If I gave you the financials of a corporation and said I want you to go thorugh these and show me how I can argue my employees deserve more, I am certain you could create some good arguments.
Conversely if I gave you the same financials and asked you to give me a defense as to why the company really cannot afford to pay the employees any more, you could do that too.
Financials are not 2+2=4 and everyone sees it the same way. There is interpretation.
If we expand the above to 32 corporations over 10 years, both jobs I asked you to do become a awful lot easier to accomplish.
I know this, because I've done it. I've used financials to back up the plans I wanted to enact for a company and know that I could have couched the argument to support the opposite side if I believed it was best. There is way too much gray area to think that no matter what shape the teams are in financially the union can create an argument that they are reaping a huge bonanza at the expense of the players.

That all being said, like someone else remarked, it depends on how much information is presented to them. If they're looking at the financials in aggregate, then it's entirely reasonable for them to review the statements (with let's say the Company names removed so they can't identify which is which). We can already see some of the revenue figures by Company online, with a little searching. The audited figures substantiate things. However, if they want access to the detail by account, then that's a whole other story. But realize that more detail doesn't necessarily mean more information. I look at different trial balances every week. Seeing more doesn't always mean more. I can't count how many accounts are labeled 'miscellaneous' and 'other'. It isn't like an account is labeled "Mr. Kraft's secret stash of money for frivolous billionaire pursuits"...I don't think. I am curious as to the specific terms of the third party review of the f/s, and what the hold up is that the NFLPA is claiming. I wish we knew more.

Rooney said they handed over financials and the union handed them back without looking at them and said give me 10 years. That does not seem like good faith.

In any event, I appreciate your opinion, and I am curious to your response to this:

What would you expect to happen if the league had turned over those financials? In what way do you think it would help?

 

[dhamz]

However, if they want access to the detail by account, then that's a whole other story. But realize that more detail doesn't necessarily mean more information. I look at different trial balances every week. Seeing more doesn't always mean more. I can't count how many accounts are labeled 'miscellaneous' and 'other'. It isn't like an account is labeled "Mr. Kraft's secret stash of money for frivolous billionaire pursuits"...I don't think. I am curious as to the specific terms of the third party review of the f/s, and what the hold up is that the NFLPA is claiming. I wish we knew more.

Per Peter King, the NFLPA wants much more than account level info. They are asking for every detail:

NFL lockout is bad, but resolution closer than it appears - Peter King - SI.com

The players say if the owners are asking for some financial relief in a time of great prosperity at the gate and via television contracts, owners should be open with their finances, and not just with each team's bottom line. But with intricate details. How many McCaskeys are on the Bears payroll, and what do they do? Are there owners applying excessive private-jet transportation, perhaps for only vaguely football-related matters, to the football bottom line? Last week, the league offered to have a third-party auditor go over every one of the 32 teams' financials for the past five seasons, and report to the NFL and the union how much each team had made each season. The players said no.

I don't see what purpose that level of details serves unless their plan is to tell the owners they are overspending in other areas and the profits diminishing aren't the players problem (the NBAPA has taken that stance) or they want to leak to the media "how many McCaskeys are on the payroll" or something else they think will embarass the owners to try to sway public opinion.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Per Peter King, the NFLPA wants much more than account level info. They are asking for every detail:

NFL lockout is bad, but resolution closer than it appears - Peter King - SI.com

I don't see what purpose that level of details serves unless their plan is to tell the owners they are overspending in other areas and the profits diminishing aren't the players problem (the NBAPA has taken that stance) or they want to leak to the media "how many McCaskeys are on the payroll" or something else they think will embarass the owners to try to sway public opinion.

If it wasn't clear previously, it is now. The NFLPA wants the detailed info so that it can beat the owners over the head with every emotion laden nuance in the court of public, financially ignorant, opinion. Just look at the posts here by enraged fans stating that $5M is enough profit for GB. The fact that it was a a paltry 2% of gross income is irrelevant to them. Just part of the national culture of wealth envy where elite others get to decide how much profit is enough for those whose at risk capital and efforts generate it.

This current mess was started by the inept owners who having screwed the pooch on the past CBA by owner infighting then attempted to pull cute TV revenue tricks and are now asking for give backs from the players who are the talent and whose health present and future is at risk and detriment from the industry. A real mess.

 

[BPF]

If this is true then it's a little background into how the players were thinking: Report: NFLPA* source says there’s “no chance” of negotiations before April 6 | ProFootballTalk

 

[Why?PJ]

There is no way the players union or there moronic representative wanted anything other than this. They want to drag everything into the courts and embarass the owners.

To me that is really a stupid thing to want. The owners really do own all the cards, and the majority of them are billionares in their own rights without the NFL. Heck, they could just close the shop entirely out of spite, and the players couldn't do anything about it at all.

I hope the owners destroy the players union once and for all. Greedy bastards that they are.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

There is no way the players union or there moronic representative wanted anything other than this. They want to drag everything into the courts and embarass the owners.

To me that is really a stupid thing to want. The owners really do own all the cards, and the majority of them are billionares in their own rights without the NFL. Heck, they could just close the shop entirely out of spite, and the players couldn't do anything about it at all.

I hope the owners destroy the players union once and for all. Greedy bastards that they are.

But a billionaire like Bobby Kraft won't and can't do so. Imagine paying off the loans on Gillette stadium without 10 games of ticket, parking and concessions revenue. Then think of the impact on Patriots Place traffic, another business venture Bob's on the hook for loans with. Won't happen.

 

[upstater1]

There is no way the players union or there moronic representative wanted anything other than this. They want to drag everything into the courts and embarass the owners.

To me that is really a stupid thing to want. The owners really do own all the cards, and the majority of them are billionares in their own rights without the NFL. Heck, they could just close the shop entirely out of spite, and the players couldn't do anything about it at all.

I hope the owners destroy the players union once and for all. Greedy bastards that they are.

You should look into the owners' backgrounds. a good third of them own a football team and nothing else, as it was passed onto them. Many of them are CEOs who ran corporations and amassed wealth--which they then sunk into football. Only about a third of them started their own businesses and became rich.

 

[BPF]

It hasn't even been 1 week and already some silly comments from players and the NFLPA* side. First it was Schefter's source saying they won't negotiate till after April 6 hearing and now this: Adrian Peterson lashes out at NFL owners | ProFootballTalk

The longer this goes the more the general public will side with the owners.

 

[upstater1]

All these anecdotes about getting to see the books in the business world are slightly skewed. I think this scenario is more apt:

You have a contract at your place of employment. The boss shows up one day, he says, "I have to pay you 5-10% less than your contract stipulates, and you have to accept this."

You: "Why?"

Boss: "Profits are down." (Supposedly)

You: "OK, but show me the books." (Employee is not entitled, but he demands it anyway."

Boss: "No way."

You: "Then I won't agree to a paycut."

Boss: "OK then, you're fired."

That's the average working person's world. Mind you, this is an employee with a contract, maybe he's very valuable because he demanded to see the boss's books, and that takes cojones. The boss fired him anyway.

So, now we're talking NFL. Are the owners going to CUT Petersen, Brees, Manning, Brady? Something tells me they will not. Why? Because another owner would pick them up instantly. Obviously, there's a lockout. But both players and owners are tied to one another. If they weren't, the owners would just cut some of these guys. Maybe they'd stick together and refuse to sign Brady, Brees and Manning. Maybe. But do you trust Al Davis?

And that, fellas, is the difference between you and me asking to see the books, and the players asking to see the books.

 

[Ring 6]

All these anecdotes about getting to see the books in the business world are slightly skewed. I think this scenario is more apt:

You have a contract at your place of employment. The boss shows up one day, he says, "I have to pay you 5-10% less than your contract stipulates, and you have to accept this."

You: "Why?"

Boss: "Profits are down." (Supposedly)

You: "OK, but show me the books." (Employee is not entitled, but he demands it anyway."

Boss: "No way."

You: "Then I won't agree to a paycut."

Boss: "OK then, you're fired."

That's the average working person's world. Mind you, this is an employee with a contract, maybe he's very valuable because he demanded to see the boss's books, and that takes cojones. The boss fired him anyway.

So, now we're talking NFL. Are the owners going to CUT Petersen, Brees, Manning, Brady? Something tells me they will not. Why? Because another owner would pick them up instantly. Obviously, there's a lockout. But both players and owners are tied to one another. If they weren't, the owners would just cut some of these guys. Maybe they'd stick together and refuse to sign Brady, Brees and Manning. Maybe. But do you trust Al Davis?

And that, fellas, is the difference between you and me asking to see the books, and the players asking to see the books.

Its not a player asking to see the books, its ALL the players.

In any event Peter King has informed us that the owners offered to turn over the books for independant analysis by a third party auditor for the last 5 years of all teams.
They said no thanks thats not good enough.

Is it not painfully clear, they didnt want the books, they wanted to create the impression the owners wouldn't turn them over. If the owners had offered 10 years, I'm sure they would have asked for 20.

 

[upstater1]

Its not a player asking to see the books, its ALL the players.

In any event Peter King has informed us that the owners offered to turn over the books for independant analysis by a third party auditor for the last 5 years of all teams.
They said no thanks thats not good enough.

Is it not painfully clear, they didnt want the books, they wanted to create the impression the owners wouldn't turn them over. If the owners had offered 10 years, I'm sure they would have asked for 20.

Are you talking about the King article from the other day? In that article he was cajoling the NFL to redact the names/teams but show the books.

I was earlier referring to the poor analogy between myself asking to see the books and NFL players. I can more easily be fired. You know, a lot of these players could be fired, and the union could be totally broken, if the league stars weren't on board.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you talking about the King article from the other day? In that article he was cajoling the NFL to redact the names/teams but show the books.

I was earlier referring to the poor analogy between myself asking to see the books and NFL players. I can more easily be fired. You know, a lot of these players could be fired, and the union could be totally broken, if the league stars weren't on board.

This is what Peter King wrote.

Last week, the league offered to have a third-party auditor go over every one of the 32 teams' financials for the past five seasons and report to the NFL and the union how much each team had made each season. The players said no.

Unless he is lying the owners offered their financials to be analyzed by a third party (evidently to prevent unfettered access by their adversary) and the union refused and said they wanted 10 years of raw reports.

How is it that the conversation is revoilving around the owners refusing to 'prove' their finances? They offered to do exactly that.
What excuse do you have for the union refusing this?

Your example of being fired to individual players being fired is bad, because you are one employee, not ALL employees. Owners wouldn't fire one player and keep another becuase their union won't agree to terms.

 

[upstater1]

This is what Peter King wrote.


Unless he is lying the owners offered their financials to be analyzed by a third party (evidently to prevent unfettered access by their adversary) and the union refused and said they wanted 10 years of raw reports.

How is it that the conversation is revoilving around the owners refusing to 'prove' their finances? They offered to do exactly that.
What excuse do you have for the union refusing this?

Your example of being fired to individual players being fired is bad, because you are one employee, not ALL employees. Owners wouldn't fire one player and keep another becuase their union won't agree to terms.

Can you give me the King link? Because the article I just read from king said the NFL refused to redact information.

some businesses and workforces have been fired en masse. It does happen if the workforce is easily replaceable.