Football fans support players over owners, poll shows.

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Sorry, but that is really thick. The players have already hired accountants to analyze the data if they ever get it.

Wow

They hired an investment bank. So what?

Deus, is that you again? or is patsfans.com the new meeting place for the completely gulliable and clueless?

Ahhhh, yeah, their accountants are going to give them the "real picture". No chance that "their accountants' would never dispute the owners ascertions and use the data in court.

 

[townes]

If this were the case, wouldn't you expect the majority of football fans to side with the ownership? After all, the country is fairly evenly split in terms of political leaning, and one would imagine that demographically, football fans would skew conservative. I mean, it's known that football fans skew male to some degree, and that men skew conservative. Just a thought.

Also, if you think about it, the normal left/right breakdown on management vs. labor shouldn't really apply here. The conservative beef with labor unions is that they obstruct free trade, and shield the workforce from correcting at the hands of market forces. But in the NFL, the ownership is no more aligned with free trade than the unions; revenue sharing amongst competitors, a randomized means of allocating employees and an artificial salary cap are examples of 'central planning' shielding the league from market forces.

So, theoretically, conservatives should no more endorse the league's management and ownership than the union.

Football fans are actually more representative of the population as a whole than many would think, at least in my experience-e.g.. the polls at KFFL prior to the last election reflected the national trend to Obama, however those engaged in actually arguing about political issues tended to be the most passionate voices on both sides.

As far as the actual issues at hand here i would say that many of those siding with ownership haven't done their homework and don't really understand the issues at hand and are simply siding with ownership out of a hatred of unions and labor and a predisposition to siding with management. They don't see that ownership's position in this instance has nothing to do with free markets or free trade and in fact works to obstruct both, they just hate workers and side with ownership in a reflexive response.

Regardless of the issues on the table the one thing that simply cannot be denied is that the owners created this situation deliberately and they are the ones responsible for stopping the game of football dead in its tracks, and their efforts to try and portray the players as responsible for the stoppage is beyond disgraceful.

 

[TruthSeeker]

This taking sides is ridiculous. If the fans came out in unison blaming both sides then something might get done quickly. The owners won't open the books, the NFLPA won't budge without that happening. Thats the crux of the matter so both sides are at fault here.

I fail to understand why the employees should get detailed financial information about expenses (they already have the data on revenue which is where they get their cut from). I don't see any "fault" for the owners in not giving the players information to which they are not entitled.

And I fully expect that if the players got that information, it wouldn't change their stance one iota. It would only give them more information to either use or distort in a PR campaign. If you think differently, you are one of those who fail to know or understand history and thus wish to repeat it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Football fans are actually more representative of the population as a whole than many would think, at least in my experience-e.g.. the polls at KFFL prior to the last election reflected the national trend to Obama, however those engaged in actually arguing about political issues tended to be the most passionate voices on both sides.

As far as the actual issues at hand here i would say that many of those siding with ownership haven't done their homework and don't really understand the issues at hand and are simply siding with ownership out of a hatred of unions and labor and a predisposition to siding with management. They don't see that ownership's position in this instance has nothing to do with free markets or free trade and in fact works to obstruct both, they just hate workers and side with ownership in a reflexive response.

Regardless of the issues on the table the one thing that simply cannot be denied is that the owners created this situation deliberately and they are the ones responsible for stopping the game of football dead in its tracks, and their efforts to try and portray the players as responsible for the stoppage is beyond disgraceful.

At its core, the issue is simple. Both sides want more money. The players got a good deal in the last contract and the owners want to recover some of the lost money. Apart from the money issue, there is little to talk about. There are just lots of spins on exactly what money goes where but it boils down to who gets how much.

 

[townes]

At its core, the issue is simple. Both sides want more money. The players got a good deal in the last contract and the owners want to recover some of the lost money. Apart from the money issue, there is little to talk about. There are just lots of spins on exactly what money goes where but it boils down to who gets how much.

Simply not true, the players were not looking for more money the owners are.


Jonathan Kraft structured the last deal and apart from a couple of entitled owners who don't invest in their franchises most were on board with it. The players felt it was fair and agreed to it, the owners saw an opportunity to crush the players and spent the last few years gearing up to lock the players out and make big money off of it.

I'm not sure how you come up with a term like "lost money" but it's obvious by using it that you somehow feel the players got something that wasn't agreed to by the owners, when in truth they only got what they agreed to, and the only "lost money" was that the owners denied them by making a deal with Direct TV that would pay more for NO FOOTBALL than for the actual product, and anyone who could side with the owners after that slimeball move is so far in their camp as to be beyond reason.

 

[signbabybrady]

Simply not true, the players were not looking for more money the owners are.


Jonathan Kraft structured the last deal and apart from a couple of entitled owners who don't invest in their franchises most were on board with it. The players felt it was fair and agreed to it, the owners saw an opportunity to crush the players and spent the last few years gearing up to lock the players out and make big money off of it.

I'm not sure how you come up with a term like "lost money" but it's obvious by using it that you somehow feel the players got something that wasn't agreed to by the owners, when in truth they only got what they agreed to, and the only "lost money" was that the owners denied them by making a deal with Direct TV that would pay more for NO FOOTBALL than for the actual product, and anyone who could side with the owners after that slimeball move is so far in their camp as to be beyond reason.

As I said above yes its a slimeball move but it hurts the players not me.

The tactics the players have taken could have a huge effect on the way the league operates as far as free agency, the draft, salary cap and other things.

I really could care less who wins the battle between the owners and players so I dont really care about the owners slimey move but I do care about the product I watch and I am not happy with the threats inherant in the lawsuit as it would likely effect the product greatly if the suits are won.

Basically the owners could completely screw the players into losing half their pay and as long as the game doesnt change I am fine but if the game changes there is a good chance it could ruin things.

The players lost me when they became willing to threaten the sport to get what they wanted.

 

[billdog3484]

I dont know how that poll could be so different than other polls. interesting.

i, for one, strongly support the owners.

too many businesses in this country are forced to shut down because unions have too much strength and negotiate deals too good for owners. while the owners are at fault if they negotiate themselves a bad deal, it just bugs the heck out of me.

 

[townes]

As I said above yes its a slimeball move but it hurts the players not me.

The tactics the players have taken could have a huge effect on the way the league operates as far as free agency, the draft, salary cap and other things.

I really could care less who wins the battle between the owners and players so I dont really care about the owners slimey move but I do care about the product I watch and I am not happy with the threats inherant in the lawsuit as it would likely effect the product greatly if the suits are won.

Basically the owners could completely screw the players into losing half their pay and as long as the game doesnt change I am fine but if the game changes there is a good chance it could ruin things.

The players lost me when they became willing to threaten the sport to get what they wanted.

The player's only decertified to avoid being locked out, had the owners agreed not to lock them out there would not have been any move to decertify, so the owners forced that move. The player's were fin e continuing either the game as it was, it's the owners who keep screwing with the deals and rules, not the players. The owners are so far removed from the best interests of the game that they actually considered ending kick-off's and simply starting all drives at the 20.

 

[Raymond]

I'm not really siding with either. But people really have to stop saying, " The players never asked for more money". Look at the salary cap numbers and how they've climbed in the last 10 years. They always get raises.

Here's an example of not getting more money. My company was bought out by a foreign investor in 08. We (salary) all were given 10 percent paycuts to become more profitable. The union took nothing or only %1 increases. I still make only 90% of what I made in 08. They claim we are not yet profitable for raises. That is " Not more money".

 

[signbabybrady]

The player's only decertified to avoid being locked out, had the owners agreed not to lock them out there would not have been any move to decertify, so the owners forced that move. The player's were fin e continuing either the game as it was, it's the owners who keep screwing with the deals and rules, not the players. The owners are so far removed from the best interests of the game that they actually considered ending kick-off's and simply starting all drives at the 20.

I agree the rules changes and such are getting out of hand and could be ruining the game but that has nothing to do with these negotiations.

Correct me if I am wrong but could the players have decertified with out actually bringing suit?

Either way the owners didnt force the move the expired CBA did which both parties have to agree to to exist. Sure the owners opted out of the CBA but the players agreed in 06 that option was allowed.

The players feel cornered and that they dont have leverage and that their only chance at getting leverage is to threaten the game itself. Sure the owners backed them in the corner doesnt mean they forced the move. That would be like blaming a Police Officer when for turning on his sirens and starting a high speed chase. I wouldnt have ran from the cops if you werent chasing me.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

I fail to understand why the employees should get detailed financial information about expenses (they already have the data on revenue which is where they get their cut from). I don't see any "fault" for the owners in not giving the players information to which they are not entitled.

And I fully expect that if the players got that information, it wouldn't change their stance one iota. It would only give them more information to either use or distort in a PR campaign. If you think differently, you are one of those who fail to know or understand history and thus wish to repeat it.

This correct.

The players say they need data.

The owners say they have given more data than ever.

In 2006, Mawae said they got a great deal. This included a $1 billion operating credit.

How did the players agree to this deal if they don't get information? How did they know $1 billion was a good number but can't figure anything out now.....with supposedly more data.

Also, this should interest everyone more everyone because the multi million dollar facilities are publically owned. Allegheny County taxpayers are no more off the hook because of a lockout.

 

[lamafist]

I agree the rules changes and such are getting out of hand and could be ruining the game but that has nothing to do with these negotiations.

Correct me if I am wrong but could the players have decertified with out actually bringing suit?

Either way the owners didnt force the move the expired CBA did which both parties have to agree to to exist. Sure the owners opted out of the CBA but the players agreed in 06 that option was allowed.

The players feel cornered and that they dont have leverage and that their only chance at getting leverage is to threaten the game itself. Sure the owners backed them in the corner doesnt mean they forced the move. That would be like blaming a Police Officer when for turning on his sirens and starting a high speed chase. I wouldnt have ran from the cops if you werent chasing me.

When the CBA expired and the NFLPA decertified, it was the owners' choice to enforce a lockout. Had the owners not chosen to lock the players out, the 2011 season could have proceeded as usual under the conditions of the last year of the previous CBA, and continued to have done so until a new CBA was reached.

Of course, that would have given the union no incentive to accept a deal worse than the current one. So the owners chose to lock the players out, and the lawsuit the players are bringing asserts that enforcing a lockout on what's now a non-union workforce is an anti-trust violation.

So while it's true that a victory in the Brady suit would delegitimize a number of league practices that are pretty much vital to the operation of the NFL, the suit is only necessary because the owners have chosen to lock the players out.

 

[plk]

How did they know $1 billion was a good number but can't figure anything out now.....with supposedly more data.

Actually, the players have figured it out. They have figured out that the owners are making a lot of money but are greedy for more. I believe that the owners won't open their books because it would destroy the argument that the owners have been making that they need more money for the health of the league.

The players are not claiming that they have a right to see the books. They are saying if you want us to believe that the owners need more money then they should demonstrate it.

A number of you seem to think that the players should just believe the owners. The additional data that the players have been given is meaningless, and anyone with any understanding of accounting knows that.

 

[signbabybrady]

When the CBA expired and the NFLPA decertified, it was the owners' choice to enforce a lockout. Had the owners not chosen to lock the players out, the 2011 season could have proceeded as usual under the conditions of the last year of the previous CBA, and continued to have done so until a new CBA was reached.

Of course, that would have given the union no incentive to accept a deal worse than the current one. So the owners chose to lock the players out, and the lawsuit the players are bringing asserts that enforcing a lockout on what's now a non-union workforce is an anti-trust violation.

So while it's true that a victory in the Brady suit would delegitimize a number of league practices that are pretty much vital to the operation of the NFL, the suit is only necessary because the owners have chosen to lock the players out.

Thanks for the insight....doesnt change my opinion that much as it still the case that the players are bringing a law suit to gain more leverage and that they likely dont truly want to challenge the anti trust exemptions the NFL has. If they were suing because they felt like they were being mistreated in the work place like how they sued for FAency then fine but in this case it is very shady because they just want some leverage. Again I dont have to like the shady tactics but aim them at the right party and I will ignore it. The owners shady tactics hurt the players but not me while the players shady tactics could effect the game. Now if games are missed I might re-evaluate a bit and decide the owners are responsible for the missed games but until the games are missed the only thing annoying me is the threat against the sport.

If I were the rich owners I would cave to the lawsuit and pay the penalties and then make the players pay for it heavy down the line as they are still the bosses and determine who gets paid what. You know give the players what they ask for even though its not what they want.


I think we have a fundemental problem in this discussion which is that you seem to be analyzing this to see who might be right or wrong players or owners and all I really care about is the Football and not the money they care about. And until games are missed right now I see the players threatening the sport much more than the owners. Sure the owners backed them in the corner but they players could have chosen to take the beating like a man rather than pulling a gun.

 

[lamafist]

I fail to understand why the employees should get detailed financial information about expenses (they already have the data on revenue which is where they get their cut from). I don't see any "fault" for the owners in not giving the players information to which they are not entitled.

And I fully expect that if the players got that information, it wouldn't change their stance one iota. It would only give them more information to either use or distort in a PR campaign. If you think differently, you are one of those who fail to know or understand history and thus wish to repeat it.

This correct.

The players say they need data.

The owners say they have given more data than ever.

In 2006, Mawae said they got a great deal. This included a $1 billion operating credit.

How did the players agree to this deal if they don't get information? How did they know $1 billion was a good number but can't figure anything out now.....with supposedly more data.

Also, this should interest everyone more everyone because the multi million dollar facilities are publically owned. Allegheny County taxpayers are no more off the hook because of a lockout.

It's not a question of whether the players are "entitled" to see the owners' financial information or not. If they were "entitled" to see them, than they would have simply ordered the NFL to hand them over, instead of asking for them as part negotiations. And that's why the owners were "entitled" to refuse.

But the players are "entitled" to make seeing the documents a prerequisite for accepting any deal, just like the owners are entitled to ask for an addition $1 billion taken off the top of total revenues. Hell, if they really wanted, they could make seeing Jerry Jones' underwear a prerequisite. The owners can argue that the players don't really need to see the documents, and they can try to craft an offer that will dissuade the players from holding firm on their request for the documents. But neither side is "entitled" to tell the other side what it is allowed to want in negotiations.

So the question is, in your estimation, is the principle of not having to show their employees their financial information worth scuttling the negotiations over?

As for what disclosing their financial information would achieve... well, for one thing, everyone could stop talking about disclosing documents. It doesn't make a deal inevitable or anything, but it's one more line in the sand wiped out, and if the league insists on a non-disclosure agreement outside of negotiations, then it's not going to make for the best PR campaign. (Which is besides the point, anyway: public opinion isn't really going to sway this thing either way.

And at this point, it might be necessary for the union to be able to sell any sort of deal in which they give back any money to their constituents. The distrust that the players feel towards the owners is not a feint -- it's very real, and something the union reps cannot ignore. I think, at this point, most of the players would be happier knowing for sure they were getting a decent deal than think they might be getting a great one.

What the league is worried about is the NFLPA being able to use the financial disclosure to gain leverage by turning the owners against one another, which is unfortunate, because it's the growing disparity between the high and low revenue teams that's the real danger to the NFL's economic future.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Actually, the players have figured it out. They have figured out that the owners are making a lot of money but are greedy for more. I believe that the owners won't open their books because it would destroy the argument that the owners have been making that they need more money for the health of the league.

The players are not claiming that they have a right to see the books. They are saying if you want us to believe that the owners need more money then they should demonstrate it.

A number of you seem to think that the players should just believe the owners. The additional data that the players have been given is meaningless, and anyone with any understanding of accounting knows that.

Actually, I have said the owners have inconsistencies.

Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones have big debt for the stadiums. As such, it's logical they feel the need for additional revenue. However, Jerry Richardson pays very little for stadiums in Carolina but wants "to take our league back".

Also, the players proposed on revenue sharing about projections that the owners get the first "1.5%" above projection while the owners want it all. The first 1.5% seems generous if the projections are accurate.

The problem is that we are really dealing with projections. It's all interpretation.

Try these two theoritical story lines:

Today, the owners presented the players with a future plan which provides for a $2 billion operating credit. The owners recommended the players hire qualified help to review facilities which are a major reason for the new proposal.

The owners also offered to have their facilities available for inspection and the NFL said they will provide the current league capital spending plan.

vs

Today the players were presented with new plan from the owners requiring a new $2 billion operating credit. In response, the players requested the owners provide future capital spending plans and make the facilities available for review. So far, the owners have refused.

The players have to already have in their mind what's fair. I don't consider hiring a banker and asking for info that effort. It seems they already had the courts as their strategy.

However, it's certainly agree to disagree territory.

 

[plk]

How did the players agree to this deal if they don't get information? How did they know $1 billion was a good number but can't figure anything out now.....with supposedly more data.

Actually, I have said the owners have inconsistencies.

Oh, I thought that your first quote meant that the players could not figure anything out, and that is what I responded to. The idea that the players can't figure anything out is of course complete nonsense.

I'm happy to hear that you meant to say that the owners have inconsistencies.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Simply not true, the players were not looking for more money the owners are.

OK, I'll defer to your semantic argument. Both sides want to maximize their money. (Although I still think you're wrong if you don't think the players are looking for more money. The owners have already made a proposal that increases the money paid to the players significantly over what they've ever gotten before and it was turned down. Why? Because they want more money. At least, that's how I see it.)

 

[TruthSeeker]

I'm not sure how you come up with a term like "lost money"...

I was speaking from the owner's perspective. They wanted out of the deal mostly because they wanted a bigger cut of the pie than they got. Since they didn't get it, they "lost" it. Hopefully it makes more sense now.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Actually, the players have figured it out. They have figured out that the owners are making a lot of money but are greedy for more. I believe that the owners won't open their books because it would destroy the argument that the owners have been making that they need more money for the health of the league.

The players are not claiming that they have a right to see the books. They are saying if you want us to believe that the owners need more money then they should demonstrate it.

A number of you seem to think that the players should just believe the owners. The additional data that the players have been given is meaningless, and anyone with any understanding of accounting knows that.

But the argument cuts both ways. Why should the players get more money? What justifies that? Absolutely nothing.

So, both sides want more because that's the way people are and neither has any real justification for it. At least, that's how I see it. Blaming one side or the other for wanting more money (or value) is ridiculous in my opinion; that's a given in almost any business deal.

So, we come back to the original question of why the owners should let the players see their expenses and profits. To prove that they should have more money? No. Both sides want money regardless; there's no need to prove this just as there's no need to prove that the players want or "deserve" more money. In fact, I hear every single Sunday from my wife how the players don't deserve the money. But that doesn't change anything.