Felger on the owners: I have to agree with him!

[Ring 6]

Exactly. But the owners have to to demonstrate it. Only a real idiot would simply take the owner's word on what they need.

But it is a negotiation. There is no requirement in a negotiation that you show documents to back up a reasoning on why you want what you want. No reason is needed, so only an idiot would feel compelled to create one, argue over whether its acceptable to the other side, then feel they have to show they are really truly honest in what their reason is.

I just find it so bizarre.
The players say I want to be paid X. The owners say we want to pay you Y. People on this board feel that means the owners should have to give a detailed analysis, that the union must agree with, and then show some time of hardship in order to be able to propose what they want to pay.
I don't get it.

 

[Joker]

and so...SUDDENLY...all these questions arose out of nowhere...yes, for years now under the shrewd,intelligent and fairhanded leadership of Roger Goodell, MAJOR league issues like the positioning of a camera were attacked and rectified with certain, swift justice...and displaying his skills as a FAIRMINDED leader of the NFL he displayed an ability to discern major issues like this from minor,inconsequential problems like a drunken head coach throwing the finger at young girls,openly displaying his taste for deviance off the field,deadbeat fathers,drunks,flaunting of NFL rules (Alosi incident) etc. etc...yet somehow, THIS tsunami that threatens the life of the league built momentum unnoticed. I mean, how WAS he supposed to see something like this coming?

It's just not fair...and I think we owe Roger Goodell a rousing "job well done,sir!!!!" and look to the future in the hopes that his brilliant mind somehow sees a way through this unforeseen morass.

 

[Joker]

Kevin Burnett of San Diego Chargers calls Roger Goodell 'blatant liar' - ESPN

"Goodell's full of it. He's a liar. You're a blatant liar. 'It's our league, it's we, we love the players, we want the league,' but what have you done for the players? What have you done, in all honesty, to improve the game, besides fine guys, besides take money away from guys, besides change a game that you've never played? ... He's done nothing to improve the game.
” -- Kevin Burnett- San Diego Chargers

what's he done?...try covertly engaging in organized criminal activities with other billionaire interests in the NY metro area to rig a Super Bowl between the Giants and the Jets by 2014....

 

[plk]

But it is a negotiation. There is no requirement in a negotiation that you show documents to back up a reasoning on why you want what you want. No reason is needed, so only an idiot would feel compelled to create one, argue over whether its acceptable to the other side, then feel they have to show they are really truly honest in what their reason is.

I gather from what you have written that you recognize that the owners are trying to outlast the players rather than convince the players that the owners need more money for the health of their joint enterprise.

Trying to outlast the other side is certainly a legitimate tactic. In the case of the NFL owners, I have come to believe that they cannot make the case that they need more money to operate, and outlasting the players is the only tactic that they have.

 

[Don Kipines]

But it is a negotiation. There is no requirement in a negotiation that you show documents to back up a reasoning on why you want what you want. No reason is needed, so only an idiot would feel compelled to create one, argue over whether its acceptable to the other side, then feel they have to show they are really truly honest in what their reason is.

I just find it so bizarre.
The players say I want to be paid X. The owners say we want to pay you Y. People on this board feel that means the owners should have to give a detailed analysis, that the union must agree with, and then show some time of hardship in order to be able to propose what they want to pay.
I don't get it.

No one thinks the owners are somehow inherently obligated to open their books on demand.

The issue is that they're claiming the players need a pay cut because they're being overwhelmed by expenses. This is probably a lie -- they probably just see an upcoming explosion of revenue and want a bigger share -- and it's in the players' best interest, from a PR standpoint, to call their bluff.

If the owners had just come out and said, "We want more money and are willing to wait the players out until they give it to us," nobody would say it wasn't within their rights to do so. But that's not what they did: instead, they came out with this (probably) BS story about expenses, and now the players are calling them out.

The players probably know they're never going to see all the financial data they're asking for, but they've already gotten something by asking for it, ie exposing the owners' real motive in opting out. The owners for their part probably had to come up with a story like this, because "We want more freaking money" probably wouldn't have flown with the public, even if the public generally supports the rights of owners to maximize the profits of companies they own. The problem is fans won't be as supportive of that profit-seeking motive if it comes at the expense of the 2011 season.

Hence the BS "expenses" issue and the resultant furor on boards like ours.

 

[Ring 6]

No one thinks the owners are somehow inherently obligated to open their books on demand.

To the contrary, many posters are stating the owners need to do just that.

The issue is that they're claiming the players need a pay cut because they're being overwhelmed by expenses.

No, they really aren't. First it cannot be a 'pay cut' because there hasnt been a cap in over a year. Second, they are negotiating a new cap, not saying amend one in place because of uncontrolled expenses. They have not made their negotiating position contingent on what expenses are. They are simply saying in order to agree to a new CBA, they player % of revenues must go down.

This is probably a lie -- they probably just see an upcoming explosion of revenue and want a bigger share -- and it's in the players' best interest, from a PR standpoint, to call their bluff.

It cant be a lie if they did not say it. They have every right to negotiate a bigger percentage of the revenues and absolutely no obligation to explain, or document why.

If the owners had just come out and said, "We want more money and are willing to wait the players out until they give it to us," nobody would say it wasn't within their rights to do so.

Well, in essence they have, and yes many are saying they are wrong to do so. You seem to think the misconception that its about expenses makes people think it is not right, yet to just say they want more would change that.

But that's not what they did: instead, they came out with this (probably) BS story about expenses, and now the players are calling them out.

No in fact they didnt 'come out with that story'. They exercised their opt out, then negotiated for a higher percentage. The idea that they are using increased expenses as a justification for that is a total fabrication that has gone viral. The owners have never tied the negoitation to expenses. They have mentioned that expenses have risen, it would be foolish to think they haven't, but have never tied the deal to those increases.

[quoe]The players probably know they're never going to see all the financial data they're asking for, but they've already gotten something by asking for it, ie exposing the owners' real motive in opting out.[/quote]
They wont get what they ask for because when it was offered they refused and changed the request.
There was nothing to 'expose'. No evil deception. The owners agreed to the deal, with an opt out, and when that time came they felt they could do better by opting out. Thats it. You are way to wrapped up in emotion, assignment of blame, rhetoric, and PR here.


quote] The owners for their part probably had to come up with a story like this, because "We want more freaking money" probably wouldn't have flown with the public, even if the public generally supports the rights of owners to maximize the profits of companies they own. The problem is fans won't be as supportive of that profit-seeking motive if it comes at the expense of the 2011 season.[/quote]
Again your premise is flawed.

Hence the BS "expenses" issue and the resultant furor on boards like ours.

Why would there be a furor over the (incorrect) issue of the owners saying they needed to cover rising expenses? That would certainly put more people on their side. It would be seen as an unavoidable, unexpected issue that blind-sided them, and fairness would suggest they should be able to renegotiate. So, you are simply wrong to say the anti-owner sentiments are only tied to them saying it is about expenses, and doubly wrong because they didnt actually say that.

 

[JoeSixPat]

It pains me to say this but Felger appears to be spot-on in his rants about the owners. In case you missed it Felger is saying that the reason many owners do not show a lot of profit is because they have bloated executive salaries and perks. He suspects that the front offices are filled with "Spaulding Smails" relatives and that owners such as Jerry Jones are pulling down gigantic and multiple salaries.

We will not know for sure until (ha) the financial details are released. I suspect that the paper shredders are working overtime.

The principle at work here is that there is no limit to greed. The owners were making untold millions already but that was not enough. It is never enough in corporate America. The owners gave some lame-ass excuses about expenses and capital layouts when it was just a greedy shakedown of the players.

It is the players that I pay to watch and not some litigious eel owner. It is the players who play with excruciating injuries in appalling weather and risk long-term disability. They deserve at least what they got before plus a cut of the new TV money that the owners tried to hide.

Every team is different - there's no question you're going to see some wasteful spending by some teams.

Even though the NFLPA has already effectively blinked on the "you must open your books" argument, do they really want to be going down that road?

If NFL players want to go line by line item of how the owners spend their share, surely they won't mind if the NFL pulls out just a few examples of the players blowing millions upon millions of dollars on bling, entourage expenses and strip clubs, right into bankruptcy.

 

[Ring 6]

Every team is different - there's no question you're going to see some wasteful spending by some teams.

Even though the NFLPA has already effectively blinked on the "you must open your books" argument, do they really want to be going down that road?

If NFL players want to go line by line item of how the owners spend their share, surely they won't mind if the NFL pulls out just a few examples of the players blowing millions upon millions of dollars on bling, entourage expenses and strip clubs, right into bankruptcy.

Wasteful spending is the inalienable right of everyone.
Determining how the owners chose to spend their portion of the revenues would solve absolutely nothing.
Lets say we find out that Ziggy Wilf spent $6,000,000 on hookers last year and charge it as an expense to the team. What does that have to do with CBA negotiations?

 

[Triumph]

Exactly. But the owners have to to demonstrate it. Only a real idiot would simply take the owner's word on what they need.

Exactly

The split of revenue is negotiated by the players and the owners.The players are not being unreasonable in asking for documentation.

The problem for the owners is that some teams are making money likes theres no tomorrow. There is no way the Clark Hunt has the same debt as Jerry Jones. The Chiefs didnt build Arrowhead. The Chiefs usually spend way below the cap every season.

 

[Patsrock]

A couple of observations:

1. I do not care who gets what and who wins just get the damn CBA done.

2. I laugh at comments I have seen on here and other places. Some of the same people bash players when they hold out of training camp for more money. Or they talk about wanting more money and a raise in their contract. But yet these same people are backing the owners in wanting to get more money in this situation. BTW locking players out if very similar to a franchised tagged player holding out till he can get either a better deal. But a tagged player holding out gets bashed to no end, but no the owners do not in this situation.

3. Players also need to get their heads out of there asses and realize that in world besides sports, that if owners/ceo's of other companies profits are dropping that people lose their jobs.

4. I think the players have wanted this lock out since the day the owners opted out of the deal. If they did not want the lock out they would have started talking about this years ago.

5. Felger is dead wrong about this btw. The owners have the right to hire who they want and pay them what they want. The owners do have a right to make more profit.

 

[plk]

Lets say we find out that Ziggy Wilf spent $6,000,000 on hookers last year and charge it as an expense to the team. What does that have to do with CBA negotiations?

Quoted without comment as the expression goes.

 

[DW Toys]

Exactly

The split of revenue is negotiated by the players and the owners.The players are not being unreasonable in asking for documentation.

The problem for the owners is that some teams are making money likes theres no tomorrow. There is no way the Clark Hunt has the same debt as Jerry Jones. The Chiefs didnt build Arrowhead. The Chiefs usually spend way below the cap every season.

Perhaps I can add this. It is not the Krafts or Jones of the NFL that are a problem for the NFL owners. They have to equally split revenues with the smaller TV demographic teams like the Jags and Bills. Thus Kraft and Jones et.al are splitting their revenue pie with those owners. It drives down what successes or even hard work people like the Krafts have put into their Teams.

When you compound that with 59%+ revenues the Teams have to pay their players, even though there is a profit, it's like urinating in the wind for some of the owners. They get to empty their bladder but it's not the same result even though the labor to relieve oneself is being accomplished.

In layman's terms if you are getting 2% profit it is still a profit. Hence the players, most of the media and some of the fans say that the owners should be satisfied and go away. But if your long term forecast of profits projected 10% profits and that you have figured in new capital expenditures to fortify those profits. 2% allows you to pay your debt service for sure, yet projected profits are unfulfilled. I guarantee you that there is more concern over this from Kraft and Jones versus Ralph Wilson and Wayne Weaver. The smaller market owners are beneficiaries of the added success of the Krafts and the Jones because everyone gets an equal share of the negotiated TV contract.

Analogy: You bought a house 20 years ago for $100,000. You knew it would be an nice investment rental let's say. You have put money into it and fixed it up along the way. You would like to get $300,000 for it today for a nice profit. Some Realtor you have contracted says we have found a buyer (consumer-fan) who is a fan of this house. Both you the home owner and Realtor agree the cost of upkeep on this house and new projected repairs are up and perhaps the real value is now only $250,000 because the rent is not quite catching up to the investment they all told you it would be(see new Dolphins owner Steve Ross) and then you have to give this Realtor 10% commission because he performs this service. Now you made a profit so you should just shut up?.....or are you disappointed and say maybe I can do something to negotiate a larger profit..... "I tell you what Mr. Realtor, you need to make a living and you are making money with me here. If I didn't have a product like my house for you to sell, you would not make any money at all. How about if I give you 5% commission and although I didn't get what I really wanted, I could live with that if you could?"

Now the Realtor comes back and says either "Go pound sand, I don't want to be part of making you a profit unless I get more than 59%". You say, no that needs to be adjusted and I have the option of doing so in our Realtor agreement. I just won't sell today". The Realtor says. "O.K. I am going away to see my good buddy Judge Doty to force you to sell".....or....he can actually negotiate with the home owner before the buying customer goes somewhere else, and says to the owner, "What if we settle on 7%?".

But.......in order to get to that point the Realtor actually has to sit down with the house owner...not poke out his lip and say "Show me your books", I want to see if you really did do those improvements and where is that rent money going to? I want to know if you might have went on a vacation or paid for your daughters wedding, or hired you son to be the rental manager on what could be my bigger commission!"

This is stupid I admit but it might be easier to explain it this way to someone who is clueless (wives and girlfriends or Priests or Rabbis or Felger!).
DW Toys