Packers Financials

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Yes, actually I kind of am.


That is exactly what I have said.


Yes, of course they would depending on where the line is drawn.
In this case THEY DID.


Nice job insulting me at the outset and then showing you don't even know what you are talking about. This is not a proposal, it is what the current system is.


You are not even on topic.
The topic is that the $1billion exclusion that is ALREADY IN PLACE came about as an adjustment to the method of calulating the players share, years ago.
It is what they did, and it had nothing to do with financing.

Ahh Andrew

It appears you missed the fact that my "$1 billion" reference was like AN EXAMPLE.

Since a hypothetical example to make a point isn't in Andy Johnson's world, let's try again.

Per Florio, the owners initially wanted to increase their $1 billion "off the top" to $2 billion with the players maintaining 59. whatever percent after that.

The players offered 50/50 with no initial operating credit.

Based on these stats the proposals are "revenue neutral" around $11.2 billion with the "50/50" favorable beyond.

The reality is if the NFL is a $9 billion business, it only needs a lil over 2 years to reach $11.2 billion with 10% yoy growth.

from an owner stance, why feel the need to be insulated?

Micheal Silver's September 08,2010 article on yahoo sports ( I don't know how to link) states the Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft were the drivers in opting out of the current CBA because they felt it didn't reflect their high risk investments in new facilites. (that's back to the capital expenditures thing for finance types)

Do the owners feel their top line growth rates will start to slow? In my example, two years are needed to be on the plus side, why wouldn't sign on? You wouldn't if revenue growth isn't expected.

Apparently the consensus among the owners is that the 2006 CBA was a bad deal. Why do franchises with minimal capital investments also feel that way? Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft have stadiums, why would the Panther's owner feel that way if he has minimal cost associated with his stadium?

In the end, a combination of higher costs, investment, slower revenue growth can drive the owners to feel the need to be insulated.

If it's simply a "we got screwed" thing, their case is much weaker. Likewise, "profit" is a number, "profitable" is more of an opinion.

 

[Ring 6]

Ahh Andrew

It appears you missed the fact that my "$1 billion" reference was like AN EXAMPLE.

No it wasnt. You said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh
Since the major point of contention seems to be the initial $1 billion off the top for capital expenditures; it's somewhat odd that the players haven't hired any consulting or engineering group to verify financial needs and required expenditures.

Since a hypothetical example to make a point isn't in Andy Johnson's world, let's try again.

Actual it is very much in my world, nice try again at an insult, but as you see above, thats not what you were doing.

Per Florio, the owners initially wanted to increase their $1 billion "off the top" to $2 billion with the players maintaining 59. whatever percent after that.

Thats not the 'initial 1billion'

The players offered 50/50 with no initial operating credit.

Based on these stats the proposals are "revenue neutral" around $11.2 billion with the "50/50" favorable beyond.

The reality is if the NFL is a $9 billion business, it only needs a lil over 2 years to reach $11.2 billion with 10% yoy growth.

from an owner stance, why feel the need to be insulated?

I have no clue what you are arguing. The owners and players already agreed to the off the top $1billion years ago. That essentially proves they wanted the insulation. My point does not require me to know why they felt that way.

Micheal Silver's September 08,2010 article on yahoo sports ( I don't know how to link) states the Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft were the drivers in opting out of the current CBA because they felt it didn't reflect their high risk investments in new facilites. (that's back to the capital expenditures thing for finance types)

You are tying some of the expenses they incurred into why they are unhappy with the split. Its one example of many expenses that Silver speculates on.

Do the owners feel their top line growth rates will start to slow? In my example, two years are needed to be on the plus side, why wouldn't sign on? You wouldn't if revenue growth isn't expected.

They ALREADY HAVE. The change from 50/50 to 40/60 after 1bill off the top is not a proposal it is what has been in place for years. PLEASE reread that and understand it because you are arguing that changing to what already is in place signals something about what is behind the negotiations, confusing the entire discussion.

Apparently the consensus among the owners is that the 2006 CBA was a bad deal. Why do franchises with minimal capital investments also feel that way? Jerry Jones and Robert Kraft have stadiums, why would the Panther's owner feel that way if he has minimal cost associated with his stadium?

There are many, many reasons why the owners would feel the deal is not good for them. Kraft building a stadium 4 years before the old deal hardly seems like a valid one. YOU are the only one saying stadium costs are the issue, why are you asking someone to explain why the concept only you are spewing is right or wrong?

In the end, a combination of higher costs, investment, slower revenue growth can drive the owners to feel the need to be insulated.

They already were insulated.

If it's simply a "we got screwed" thing, their case is much weaker. Likewise, "profit" is a number, "profitable" is more of an opinion.

Wait. You told me I'm not a finance guy and you make that comment?I'm surprised you can spell finance after that one.

Why is the owners case weaker if they want to renegotiate the deal because in retrospect it was a bad one the day they signed it? They do not need sympathy to back up their business plan.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

No it wasnt. You said this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by patsfaninpittsburgh
Since the major point of contention seems to be the initial $1 billion off the top for capital expenditures; it's somewhat odd that the players haven't hired any consulting or engineering group to verify financial needs and required expenditures.



Actual it is very much in my world, nice try again at an insult, but as you see above, thats not what you were doing.


Thats not the 'initial 1billion'


I have no clue what you are arguing. The owners and players already agreed to the off the top $1billion years ago. That essentially proves they wanted the insulation. My point does not require me to know why they felt that way.


You are tying some of the expenses they incurred into why they are unhappy with the split. Its one example of many expenses that Silver speculates on.


They ALREADY HAVE. The change from 50/50 to 40/60 after 1bill off the top is not a proposal it is what has been in place for years. PLEASE reread that and understand it because you are arguing that changing to what already is in place signals something about what is behind the negotiations, confusing the entire discussion.


There are many, many reasons why the owners would feel the deal is not good for them. Kraft building a stadium 4 years before the old deal hardly seems like a valid one. YOU are the only one saying stadium costs are the issue, why are you asking someone to explain why the concept only you are spewing is right or wrong?


They already were insulated.


Wait. You told me I'm not a finance guy and you make that comment?I'm surprised you can spell finance after that one.

Why is the owners case weaker if they want to renegotiate the deal because in retrospect it was a bad one the day they signed it? They do not need sympathy to back up their business plan.

Gotta love the passive/aggressive thing.

OK, maybe it's easier to break this down into steps.

Per Florio's article

Currently, the owners get a $1 billion operating credit with the players getting about 60% of the revenue beyond.

The owners felt they had a bad deal.

The owners new proposal was a $2 billion credit with the players getting their 60% afterwards.

The players initial counter offer was a 50/50 split with zero operating credit.

Do you agree as facts?

 

[Metaphors]

OK, maybe it's easier to break this down into steps.

Per Florio's article

Currently, the owners get a $1 billion operating credit with the players getting about 60% of the revenue beyond.

The owners felt they had a bad deal.

The owners new proposal was a $2 billion credit with the players getting their 60% afterwards.

The players initial counter offer was a 50/50 split with zero operating credit.

Do you agree as facts?

That sounds right, but I've come to realize that these numbers don't directly (divide by 32 teams) translate into a salary cap number. There is some other manipulation done which is a mystery to me to get to that number. So here is what I've heard:

• Owners offer $131M cap in 2011 with adjustments if revenue exceeds projections (owners skim some of the excess off the top before splitting with players)
• Players respond with $151 cap...unknown on their take on revenue over projections
• Owners respond with $141 cap but no adjustments for revenue over projections
• Players walk away

I also sent a message to Greg Aiello and he confirmed that these numbers are actual cap numbers and not cap + $27M benefits...directly contradicting the $114M final cap offer reported by multiple reporters getting their information from NFLPA sources. Aiello could be lying or exaggerating, but I tend to believe him. Seems to have more credibility than the NFLPA lying to retired players about negotiations and pension benefits.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Metaphors...your blog link if accurate, which I believe it is, is a damning indictment of absolute lies and distortion from the NFLPA* and its spokespersons concerning veteran players.

 

[ctpatsfan1]

Aren't the owners the citizens of Green Bay or something like that?

Also, is there reason to think this isn't a representative sample, or do you think it is representative?

So 2 cents on the dollar means the owners get 5 million in profits. Given that they aren't playing the game, that's a pretty good sum of money to take home. Maybe not the best return on their investment, but if they are in this field as an investment....

every business venture is an investment, they aren't in it to be charitable, they are in it to make money. A 2% pre tax profit margin s**ks for a return, granted with interest rates where they are today its great but you can buy a 1 yr T-bill (risk free rate) and earn .2% that is 2/10th's of 1%. Its all about risk and reward. 2% is not enough reward for the associated risk on the investment of the owners.

 

[Metaphors]

Metaphors...your blog link if accurate, which I believe it is, is a damning indictment of absolute lies and distortion from the NFLPA* and its spokespersons concerning veteran players.

As the blog is hosted on the nflalumni.org site, I'm inclined to think they have accurate pension information. They also include the letter from the NFLPA making the claim that no NFL team contributes to pensions. This one looks pretty clear to me.

My point is if the NFLPA is willing to openly and blatantly lie to former players in an effort to get to their endgame (whatever that might be), then how can we trust anything they say? Most of the reports from the media seem to be sourced from the NFLPA without response from the NFL.

I think DeMaurice Smith and the NFLPA leadership isn't even being completely honest with their player reps. All the "Owners are lying" outbursts without ever clarifying what they believe the owners are lying about. And the incessant focus on "opening the books" without ever saying exactly what they are looking for in the books. Why not take the information the owners offered to provide and then come back saying why it was insufficient?

Greg Aiello and the NFL uppity-ups may be lying as well. You get the impression of spin, but not outright deception. Until that happens, I give the NFL a significant edge in the credibility department at this point.

 

[Metaphors]

every business venture is an investment, they aren't in it to be charitable, they are in it to make money. A 2% pre tax profit margin s**ks for a return, granted with interest rates where they are today its great but you can buy a 1 yr T-bill (risk free rate) and earn .2% that is 2/10th's of 1%. Its all about risk and reward. 2% is not enough reward for the associated risk on the investment of the owners.

You bring up two aspects here the people always get mangled together...the "emotional" side of ownership and the "business" side.

Any idiot can take hundreds of millions of dollars and turn a yearly profit that exceeds what NFL teams take in today. So why do investors buy NFL teams? Because they love the game and want to be a part of it at the highest levels. In some cases that is ego but in most cases ownership has a genuine bond with the game. Telling an owner that they are swimming in wealth because their teams have significantly increased in value is like telling me I'm sitting on a goldmine because my kids' organs are worth a fortune on the black market. May be true, but it is a value that will never be realized.

The flip side is that owners have business partners, employees, liabilities and civic responsibilities that require them to behave like a money-making enterprise. You make more money by demonstrating that your revenue curve is increasing faster than your cost curve. When that doesn't happen, it doesn't necessarily mean your business is in trouble...but it does mean that operating your business becomes more difficult. Try getting a business loan or attracting investors when your model shows a low and decreasing profit margin.

The NFLPA plays off both sides of this equation...

"Owners are filthy rich." - True, but not from operating an NFL team.
"Teams are billion dollar entities." - True, but only realized if you sell them
"Owners aren't losing money." - True, but they are far from money-printing status

If NFL owners were truly just ruthless business people, most would have sold their teams long ago. Most are integrated into the game and their communities. They want a healthy game, profitable teams and happy employees. All of those things go together. If any one of those parts "win", the others will suffer. Finding the right mix is key and that happens through a middle ground, not a tug of war.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

That sounds right, but I've come to realize that these numbers don't directly (divide by 32 teams) translate into a salary cap number. There is some other manipulation done which is a mystery to me to get to that number. So here is what I've heard:

• Owners offer $131M cap in 2011 with adjustments if revenue exceeds projections (owners skim some of the excess off the top before splitting with players)
• Players respond with $151 cap...unknown on their take on revenue over projections
• Owners respond with $141 cap but no adjustments for revenue over projections
• Players walk away

I also sent a message to Greg Aiello and he confirmed that these numbers are actual cap numbers and not cap + $27M benefits...directly contradicting the $114M final cap offer reported by multiple reporters getting their information from NFLPA sources. Aiello could be lying or exaggerating, but I tend to believe him. Seems to have more credibility than the NFLPA lying to retired players about negotiations and pension benefits.

Here is how I think the $141M cap comes:

141x32= $4.512 billion

@60%= $7.52 billion gross revenue

Last I saw for league revenue was $9 billion and 5% growth= $9.45 billion

As such, these numbers reconcile with $2 billion operating credit.

The players $151 million means about $1.4 billion in operating credit.

One things that's interesting is allocation beyond projected revenue growth.

The players proposed the owners keep the first "1.5%" of money beyond projected growth and both sides split all additional revenue.

The owners wanted all money beyond projection.

Based on 4% revenue growth, it would take the owners 6 years to break even on the split per the players initial 50/50 zero credit proposal. It makes sense to reject the player's initial offer since the agreement will most likely not be long enough to recoup.

However, why reject the players proposal for sharing byond "projection + 1.5"?

Also, I can understand Robert Kraft and Jerry Jones wanting a new agreement to pay for stadiums. Let's face it, public financing for facilities is coming to an end.

What's Jerry Richardson's beef? He pays virtually nothing for Panther's facilities yet is crying "let's take our league back".

Also, who exactly on players side is tasked and equipped to verify capital plans and expenitures? Who is tasked and equipped to do detailed analysis on non player costs?

If a hypothetical situation developed where the owners said we need additional money for facilities and the players said they would hire a qualified expert to review plans and expect money agreed to be held in escrow; I would say both are serious and a deal can be reached.

What we are treated to is "take our league back", Jerry Jones gestures, AP and slavery, and Pash is a liar.

 

[Metaphors]

What we are treated to is "take our league back", Jerry Jones gestures, AP and slavery, and Pash is a liar.

Or this..

DeMaurice Smith calls NFL offer “worst deal in the history of sports” | ProFootballTalk

Smith expects people to believe that the owners offer over 17 years would raise the players' take by 50%. While the owners take would increase by about 400% over the same period. Couple of points:

1) Really? You expect us to believe the players were given an offer where their increase over time was about the rate of inflation?

2) It took a 17 year window to make your point? Consider 17 years ago:
- The salary cap started
- There were 4 fewer teams
- FOX started broadcasting NFL games
- 2 point conversions were first made legal

Not sure how anyone can believe a single word that comes out of this guy's mouth. The players have legitimate points that need to be considered. This clearly is not the guy to lead their effort.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Or this..

DeMaurice Smith calls NFL offer “worst deal in the history of sports” | ProFootballTalk

Smith expects people to believe that the owners offer over 17 years would raise the players' take by 50%. While the owners take would increase by about 400% over the same period. Couple of points:

1) Really? You expect us to believe the players were given an offer where their increase over time was about the rate of inflation?

2) It took a 17 year window to make your point? Consider 17 years ago:
- The salary cap started
- There were 4 fewer teams
- FOX started broadcasting NFL games
- 2 point conversions were first made legal

Not sure how anyone can believe a single word that comes out of this guy's mouth. The players have legitimate points that need to be considered. This clearly is not the guy to lead their effort.

I wish us fans could get a look at the actual numbers that were offered/rejected instead of little snippets that each side leaks to make themselves look good.

 

[Miguel]

I also sent a message to Greg Aiello and he confirmed that these numbers are actual cap numbers and not cap + $27M benefits...directly contradicting the $114M final cap offer reported by multiple reporters getting their information from NFLPA sources. Aiello could be lying or exaggerating, but I tend to believe him. Seems to have more credibility than the NFLPA lying to retired players about negotiations and pension benefits.

Either Greg Aiello or Roger Goodell is lying.

Goodell sends letter to players regarding NFL’s most recent offer | ProFootballTalk

maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014;

 

[Ring 6]

Gotta love the passive/aggressive thing.

OK, maybe it's easier to break this down into steps.

Per Florio's article

Currently, the owners get a $1 billion operating credit with the players getting about 60% of the revenue beyond.

Its not my fault you are jumping all over the place. You started by asking to hire engineers because stadium costs was the issue. Then you implied the 60/40 after $1billion was a new concept just proposed. Now you are ageeing with what I said to start with, and acting as if I don't agree with my own point

The owners felt they had a bad deal.

The owners new proposal was a $2 billion credit with the players getting their 60% afterwards.

The players initial counter offer was a 50/50 split with zero operating credit.

Do you agree as facts?

I think the 50/50 with no operating credit is not an accurate report (I agree it has been reported in some spots as that) but that it was the result after the off the top and 60/40. It wouldn't make sense for the players to give away the 60/40 advantage which is in their favor on anything north of 6 bill.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

Gotta love the passive/aggressive thing.

OK, maybe it's easier to break this down into steps.

Per Florio's article

Currently, the owners get a $1 billion operating credit with the players getting about 60% of the revenue beyond./quote]

Its not my fault you are jumping all over the place. You started by asking to hire engineers because stadium costs was the issue. Then you implied the 60/40 after $1billion was a new concept just proposed. Now you are ageeing with what I said to start with, and acting as if I don't agree with my own point


I think the 50/50 with no operating credit is not an accurate report (I agree it has been reported in some spots as that) but that it was the result after the off the top and 60/40. It wouldn't make sense for the players to give away the 60/40 advantage which is in their favor on anything north of 6 bill.

Andy

The point about hiring engineers means:

An example of what I would expect to see from the players if they were serious about analyzing the business forward.

Owners: Hey players, we need our initial credit to go from $1 billion to $2 billion.

Players: OKAY, however, we want ABC Sports Facilities Management to review past costs and check your Master Faciliites Plan as reasonable. Also, we want to do our study of the facilities to come up with our assessment. We would also like to do this with other areas like health plans, travel, administration.

So far the players hired an investment bank to "advise" them.....and they have Drew Rosenhous and Antonio Cromartie.


A 50/50 split works based on revenue growth

If the NFL was $9 billion in 2010, a 10% growth rate means $15.5 billion in five years. 50/50 means $7.75 billion. Under $2 bil 40/60 means $7.4 billion.

It depends on the growth rate and growth esclators and these "excess growth rate" dispersements. The players say 4% growth is too low, why?

Why haven't the players offered revenue generation ideas. Let's say the opened Heinz in May and parents paid $10 per kid to run on the field with the players. Think anyone would play?

If the players had a serious plan and the owners had a serious plan, they could wrap this up. I would expect the players to understand great facilities are vital and the owners to not expect the players to accept big ego expenditures.

So far we have seen little and the players in particular seem to have done very little homework.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

PFPO, the players know that when the current television contract is up the next one will be a doozy, especially with tv anywhere where you can watch a game on your ipod or computer from anywhere in the world. Ive seen estimate that gross revenue will be 20+ billion or so in less than 10 years, I forget the exact figures and I cant find then right now but they're huge.
The players would take 50/50 but the owners have another way of figuring future growth where the players would get less than 50/50. This is probably the sole reason they decertified and want the court to handle this.

 

[Ring 6]

Andy

The point about hiring engineers means:

An example of what I would expect to see from the players if they were serious about analyzing the business forward.

That is ridiculous. What purpose would it serve for the players to analyze what a stadum costs? That is so far off the mark I dont know what to say.

Owners: Hey players, we need our initial credit to go from $1 billion to $2 billion.

Players: OKAY, however, we want ABC Sports Facilities Management to review past costs and check your Master Faciliites Plan as reasonable. Also, we want to do our study of the facilities to come up with our assessment. We would also like to do this with other areas like health plans, travel, administration.

The players union who shares revenues have absolutely no business in these areas. Should the owners ask the players for their clothing expenses so they can point out to them ways to cut their shopping budget so they can afford a lower cap?

So far the players hired an investment bank to "advise" them.....and they have Drew Rosenhous and Antonio Cromartie.

What does that even mean.

A 50/50 split works based on revenue growth

Not for the players if they are giving up 60./40 after 1bill off the top.

If the NFL was $9 billion in 2010, a 10% growth rate means $15.5 billion in five years. 50/50 means $7.75 billion. Under $2 bil 40/60 means $7.4 billion.

They did not have 2 bill off the top, they had 1 bill off the top.
At 9billion they lose 300mill with that change. At 15.5 billion they loses 950mill. compared to what they already had.
Are you telling me the players made an offer that said since under the old system they would get 4.8bill out of 9bill, they now want 4.5 bill? And when revenue grows to 15.5 since they would have gotten 8.7bill, they will ask for 50% which is 7.75? Really????????That just makes no sense.

It depends on the growth rate and growth esclators and these "excess growth rate" dispersements. The players say 4% growth is too low, why?

Why haven't the players offered revenue generation ideas. Let's say the opened Heinz in May and parents paid $10 per kid to run on the field with the players. Think anyone would play?

This is a joke right?

If the players had a serious plan and the owners had a serious plan, they could wrap this up.

They have a serious plan. They have developed it over many years. You are trying to reinvent the mouse trap to answer the sticking point of it is time for a renegotation so both sides are asking for the highest share they think they can get away with.
There is no change to the system necessary. Players don't need to sell programs in the parking lots, DeMaurice Smith doenst need to tell owners how to generate revenue, they are better at it than him.
The sole sticking point is that they have not agreed on how to split the pie. The rest is just hyperbole to gain an edge on that issue. I'm surprised you havent figured that out.

I would expect the players to understand great facilities are vital and the owners to not expect the players to accept big ego expenditures./quote]
Why cant the owners spend their share how ever they see fit? Why does the union get to 'except' the choice of what Bob Kraft does with his money? He has every right to pocket his share, or spend it on whatever he chooses.
Players and owners sharing revenue does not give either side the right to tell the other what to do with their share.

So far we have seen little and the players in particular seem to have done very little homework.

Again you are lost in the rhetoric of bargaining. What would you expect to have seen so far? What homework should the players do? Their side is to negotiate the best deal they can. They are doing so by shifting the focus from the fact that 2 sides are fighting over the crumbs of the pie, to sway public opinion, and when negotiating didnt work out they sued, only so it would strengthen their negotiating position in a settlement.

 

[patsfaninpittsburgh]

That is ridiculous. What purpose would it serve for the players to analyze what a stadum costs? That is so far off the mark I dont know what to say.


The players union who shares revenues have absolutely no business in these areas. Should the owners ask the players for their clothing expenses so they can point out to them ways to cut their shopping budget so they can afford a lower cap?


What does that even mean.



Not for the players if they are giving up 60./40 after 1bill off the top.


They did not have 2 bill off the top, they had 1 bill off the top.
At 9billion they lose 300mill with that change. At 15.5 billion they loses 950mill. compared to what they already had.
Are you telling me the players made an offer that said since under the old system they would get 4.8bill out of 9bill, they now want 4.5 bill? And when revenue grows to 15.5 since they would have gotten 8.7bill, they will ask for 50% which is 7.75? Really????????That just makes no sense.


This is a joke right?


They have a serious plan. They have developed it over many years. You are trying to reinvent the mouse trap to answer the sticking point of it is time for a renegotation so both sides are asking for the highest share they think they can get away with.
There is no change to the system necessary. Players don't need to sell programs in the parking lots, DeMaurice Smith doenst need to tell owners how to generate revenue, they are better at it than him.
The sole sticking point is that they have not agreed on how to split the pie. The rest is just hyperbole to gain an edge on that issue. I'm surprised you havent figured that out.

I would expect the players to understand great facilities are vital and the owners to not expect the players to accept big ego expenditures./quote]
Why cant the owners spend their share how ever they see fit? Why does the union get to 'except' the choice of what Bob Kraft does with his money? He has every right to pocket his share, or spend it on whatever he chooses.
Players and owners sharing revenue does not give either side the right to tell the other what to do with their share.



Again you are lost in the rhetoric of bargaining. What would you expect to have seen so far? What homework should the players do? Their side is to negotiate the best deal they can. They are doing so by shifting the focus from the fact that 2 sides are fighting over the crumbs of the pie, to sway public opinion, and when negotiating didnt work out they sued, only so it would strengthen their negotiating position in a settlement.

Andy

These responses are really quite clueless.

1. For the 10th time, The initial offer from the owners was to increase their credit from $1 billion to $2 billion and maintain the 40/60 split. The players initial counter was a 50/50 split with zero operating credit.

Once Any Johnson gets beyond some obscure fixation on the current format, Andy Johnson needs to realize:

Andy Johnson's earlier statement that the 50/50 deal is bad is not necessarily true. After Andy Johnson asks why, Andy Johnson pulls out a calculator and plugs in various growth rates and would then find out that a threshold exits where the player's proposal would generate more revenue for the owners.

Once Andy Johnson's "finance" experience goes from counting the coins to the bills in the the till; Andy Johnson will have a better grasp of growth rates and why they are critical.

The growth rate is important because another contention is disbursement of revenue growth money beyond anticipated growth. Andy Johnson should refer to Florio's article.

The players absolutely need to understand the numbers. Otherwise they would enter the meetings as an Andy Johnson.

Owners: Hey we need $25 million for stadiums

Players: That's too much.

Owners: How do you know?

Players: We don't, we subscribe to the Andy Johnson world of financial understanding. We just mindlessly argue.

In all the negotiations, I have participated in with unions, they have done their homework on issues like health care, 401K, ect.....Maybe yours doesn't.

If the players want more money, then revenue has to grow or non player expenses have to decrease. Yet Andy Johnson thinks is stupid that partners like players should ever have any ideas on revenue enhancement.

That's why there is a lockout. They have chosen the Andy Johnson path.

 

[Ring 6]

That is ridiculous. What purpose would it serve for the players to analyze what a stadum costs? That is so far off the mark I dont know what to say.


The players union who shares revenues have absolutely no business in these areas. Should the owners ask the players for their clothing expenses so they can point out to them ways to cut their shopping budget so they can afford a lower cap?


What does that even mean.



Not for the players if they are giving up 60./40 after 1bill off the top.


They did not have 2 bill off the top, they had 1 bill off the top.
At 9billion they lose 300mill with that change. At 15.5 billion they loses 950mill. compared to what they already had.
Are you telling me the players made an offer that said since under the old system they would get 4.8bill out of 9bill, they now want 4.5 bill? And when revenue grows to 15.5 since they would have gotten 8.7bill, they will ask for 50% which is 7.75? Really????????That just makes no sense.


This is a joke right?


They have a serious plan. They have developed it over many years. You are trying to reinvent the mouse trap to answer the sticking point of it is time for a renegotation so both sides are asking for the highest share they think they can get away with.
There is no change to the system necessary. Players don't need to sell programs in the parking lots, DeMaurice Smith doenst need to tell owners how to generate revenue, they are better at it than him.
The sole sticking point is that they have not agreed on how to split the pie. The rest is just hyperbole to gain an edge on that issue. I'm surprised you havent figured that out.

Andy

These responses are really quite clueless.

Did you go the the Deus Irae school of debating?

1. For the 10th time, The initial offer from the owners was to increase their credit from $1 billion to $2 billion and maintain the 40/60 split. The players initial counter was a 50/50 split with zero operating credit.

For the 10th time, I think you are wrong about that, and as I have shown, it does not make sense.

Once Any Johnson gets beyond some obscure fixation on the current format, Andy Johnson needs to realize:

Andy Johnson's earlier statement that the 50/50 deal is bad is not necessarily true. After Andy Johnson asks why, Andy Johnson pulls out a calculator and plugs in various growth rates and would then find out that a threshold exits where the player's proposal would generate more revenue for the owners.

So you are telling me that the players would make a proposal that pays them less than they were getting under the old deal on any revenues above 6bill? That makes no sense.



quote]Once Andy Johnson's "finance" experience goes from counting the coins to the bills in the the till; Andy Johnson will have a better grasp of growth rates and why they are critical.

Are you being a dlck on purpose or does it come natural.

The growth rate is important because another contention is disbursement of revenue growth money beyond anticipated growth. Andy Johnson should refer to Florio's article.

The players absolutely need to understand the numbers. Otherwise they would enter the meetings as an Andy Johnson.

So the players need to understand what the owners will do with their share to negotiae for their own share?

Owners: Hey we need $25 million for stadiums

Now we are making things up? The owners have never said anything resembling this.

Players: That's too much.

Owners: How do you know?

Players: We don't, we subscribe to the Andy Johnson world of financial understanding. We just mindlessly argue.

My argument is backed up with facts. Your obvious butthurt from being wrong all along is showing.

In all the negotiations, I have participated in with unions, they have done their homework on issues like health care, 401K, ect.....Maybe yours doesn't.

If the players want more money, then revenue has to grow or non player expenses have to decrease. Yet Andy Johnson thinks is stupid that partners like players should ever have any ideas on revenue enhancement.

This approach is so naive its ridiculous.
Your are suggesting that along with negotiating over the split of revenues the players should give some suggestions about something they know absolutely nothing about. Let me guess, the cost of generating that revenue would come from the owners share right?

That's why there is a lockout. They have chosen the Andy Johnson path.

So now I am to blame for the lockout. Brilliant.