Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[upstater1]

But you do understand the owners are running a business and their primary purpose is to maximize profits.
It makes it tough for a fan, but to expect the owners to make poor business decisions is folly.

It depends. Some businesses like Coca-Cola are excellent businesses. The NFL should take a page from Coca-Cola's book. They might not have a sky-high price earnings ratio, but they do one thing, and they do it very well. And they manage to grow their profits at a steady pace. They are a value company.

The NFL wants to be Google. They want to leverage out the business so that the values of each franchise achieve a super-high premium especially in a market with tight credit. The NFL thinks it's a go-go growth story. but it's not. Google hatches plans to take over the knowledge industry. The NFL, by comparison, is a fringe business--although a really popular one.

The reason this all happened is because of the economic meltdown. Some of the owners are underwater the same way many people are under water with their mortgages. Therefore, they want to pump some juice into their purchases to inflate the values and come out whole. They don't care what it does to the game. There's too much money at stake, and the head guy, Goodell, doesn't have the integrity or the fortitude to protect the game.

How do we know this? Because he talks about player safety and pushes for 18 games. Baloney.

 

[upstater1]

Perhaps I misunderstand, but I do not believe their is any disagreement in revenue calculations.
It has been reported the union wants the financials because the league said the amount it is offering has been influenced by rising costs.
I'm still not sure why any entity could be expected to be required to prove their negotiating position.

I think the TV contract that set aside 4 billion for the owners is an example of the NFL maneuvering by not maximizing revenues in its agreement with the networks.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the TV contract that set aside 4 billion for the owners is an example of the NFL maneuvering by not maximizing revenues in its agreement with the networks.

It wasnt hidden. They negotiated a payment in the event of a lockout, which clearly earne them less in the other years.
I dont know that this isnt maximizing revenues. If in fact there is a lockout, it would result in maximizing revenues.
I am not under the impression that the league is required to negotiate its contracts based upon what is best for the NFLPA, I think they are free to do what they feel is best. I also am under the impression that the issue was not that there is payment in the event of a lockout, but that the judge ruled that they may not have access to those funds DURING the lockout, because they would be shared funds at whatever point there is a new CBA.
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure thats the unadultered version.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

It wasnt hidden. They negotiated a payment in the event of a lockout, which clearly earne them less in the other years.
I dont know that this isnt maximizing revenues. If in fact there is a lockout, it would result in maximizing revenues.
I am not under the impression that the league is required to negotiate its contracts based upon what is best for the NFLPA, I think they are free to do what they feel is best.

I think this will be ruled as a nono and not bargaining in good faith. They did what was best for them not the league as a whole.

 

[Ring 6]

It depends. Some businesses like Coca-Cola are excellent businesses. The NFL should take a page from Coca-Cola's book. They might not have a sky-high price earnings ratio, but they do one thing, and they do it very well. And they manage to grow their profits at a steady pace. They are a value company.

The NFL wants to be Google. They want to leverage out the business so that the values of each franchise achieve a super-high premium especially in a market with tight credit. The NFL thinks it's a go-go growth story. but it's not. Google hatches plans to take over the knowledge industry. The NFL, by comparison, is a fringe business--although a really popular one.

The reason this all happened is because of the economic meltdown. Some of the owners are underwater the same way many people are under water with their mortgages. Therefore, they want to pump some juice into their purchases to inflate the values and come out whole. They don't care what it does to the game. There's too much money at stake, and the head guy, Goodell, doesn't have the integrity or the fortitude to protect the game.

How do we know this? Because he talks about player safety and pushes for 18 games. Baloney.

Its a different means to the same ends. Coca Cola is making their decisions based on maximizing profit, even if they take a longer view, its still the same motivation.

I'm not on the same page on the 18 game schedule. I dont see the huge players safety difference in changing 2 preseason games to regular season. If playing football is unsafe its unsafe 16 times or 18 times too. I think tying player safety to the 18 game schedule is more negotiating ploy that anything else.

 

[Ring 6]

I think this will be ruled as a nono and not bargaining in good faith. They did what was best for them not the league as a whole.

Again, I am no expert, but my understanding was that the ruling was SPENDING the money during a lockout was ruled improper, but the actual contract was not.
Think about it. If there is a lockout, and that lockout TV money gets paid, then thrown into the revenue coffers for the next season, then the players benefitted just as much as the owners. In essence they got paid during the lockout too. The improper part would be collecting it in the absence of a CBA, and keeping all of it.
Also, there were 2 rulings, the first sided with the owners the second with the players and it could still be appealed, so technically right or wrong depends on who is ruling or when you ask.
I wonder what happens to it now that the union who sued is decertified.

 

[DaBruinz]

Here is the last proposal by the league to the NFLPA (via PFT):



I think that came from Jeff Pash's press conference.

1 We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).
2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.
3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.
4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by
a. Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;
b. Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and
c. Increasing number of days off for players.
5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.
6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.
7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.
8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.
9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.
10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

NFL’s summary of its final proposal to the players | ProFootballTalk

Here are my comments:

1) The Players go from a cap of $128 million last year (2009/2010) to $161 (2014/2015) That's a $33 million increase over 4 years (excluding the non-capped year).

2) Rookie Pay Scale - They all wanted it. So neither side really gave up anything.

3) Players who get injured now get a $1 mill guaranteed payout the year after they are injured and can no longer play..

4) I am fairly certain that most of that won't have any affect on the number of players who get hurt. But it was one of the player demands

5) Sure sounds to me like the owners backed off the 18 game schedule since they basically said that the players will be the ones to decide if it happens

6) Another win for the players....

7) Must be nice.. Most companies have eliminated or are eliminating this option

8) Meh.. No big deal.

9) More wins for the players

10) Wow.. so the Salary floor gets raised from 87.6% to 90%. Which it was supposed to do anyways..


So, what, exactly, did the owners get in that proposal? I see nothing but wins there for the NFLPA. Even if the owners got the extra $1 billion.

I have to say that if that is what the proposal entailed, the players are going to really look foolish in court.

 

[Metaphors]

Revenue sharing between owners and players and was a part of the CBA. That's where the percentage of revenues came into play:

Owners don't "share revenue" with players. They use a formula based on revenue to establish player cost boundaries with teams. If this were revenue sharing, the owners would give 59.5% of revenue to the NFLPA and let them split it up. Same as my company using a formula to establish a budget and my salary has to fit within the budget. Doesn't mean the employees in my company are "sharing revenue".

And it makes the situation with the sports leagues different from other business models.

You brought up the antitrust exemption as being a reason why the NFLPA is justified in asking for team expenses. My point was that the antitrust exemption has nothing to do with the players and so it gives them no "rights", perceived or otherwise.

I have a point anyway. You don't.

Don't think that scores well with the judges for the debate team. At least after kindergarten.

Your argument makes no sense at all. Players can ask for the information, and they have a basis. It's called financial self-interest. The notion that they have no ethical basis for asking for proof of financial problems before surrendering money on the basis of financial problems is asinine, to put it kindly.

The owners aren't claiming financial hardship. They are claiming that player costs are higher than their business model determines is desirable. The players can disagree with that conclusion but that is it. The owners could be pulling in a 20% profit margin and just want to be operating at 25%. The owners could be increasing profit over time, just not as fast as they would like. The players have no business seeing the internal, private information driving these decisions. This notion that unless the owners are losing money they have no right to adjust their budget for player expenses is just silly. Are the owners being savvy, forward-thinking, frugal, greedy, evil or whatever? Doesn't make a bit of difference.

And stop with the "players can ask and the owners can refuse" angle. The question isn't whether or not the players can ask for this info. Of course they can. They can ask for Goodell's SSN. They can ask for naked pictures of all the owners. The point is whether or not they are justified in making the refusal to disclose that information the final straw that stopped bargaining.

Any information is subject to abuse. That doesn't make AJ's point a good one.

That is precisely why AJ's point is exactly right. The owners aren't going to give up private information to a group that they fully expect to sue them at any minute. Expecting them to do that is stupid...which is why I fully believe the NFLPA used this as cover and they were going to sue regardless of the concessions by the owners.

 

[DaBruinz]

The NFL owners tried to screw the players with the broadcasting contracts. Why should the players blindly trust that NFL owners aren't pulling the same sorts of shenanigans that MLB owners are?

No, the owners didn't try and screw the players with the broadcasting contracts. In fact, if you looked at the way they were changed, in previous years, any game that was scheduled that wasn't played, the league did not have to repay the networks.

All the new contracts said that the league would have to repay the networks monetarily or in additional games.

This idea that the owners tried to "screw the players" is one of the most overblown items of BS out there. Seriously.

Also, as was pointed out numerous times in other threads, the league would not have seen the money until September. And, even then, they'd only be allowed to use the team share, NOT the player share. And the player share would sit, untouched, until the issue was resolved.

So, let's stop making that court ruling something it wasn't. Especially since it's going to get appealed since the Judge clearly showed his personal bias by denigrating the Special Master throughout his ruling. Not to mention that Doty did the exact same thing that he claimed the Special Master did.

 

[jsull87]

Couldn't you say the same thing about the owners demanding more money off the top though?

i don't know you could say they are being stubborn asking for more money as their argument is that costs to generate that revenue have gone up unproportionally to the cut they are getting as costs have gone up.

If they have gone up they have a point and thats what negotiating is about, if the costs haven't gone up then they are lieing and the NFLPA would say so. From what i have seen i think the NFl has negotiated in good faith and met the Union half way plus on alot of issues and the union has not... in saying that i am not in there and don't have all the facts thats just my opinion after what i have read

 

[BPF]

Both parties were dug in but in the end I think we can all agree that the NFL made the best faith attempt at getting a deal done. I had a feeling all along that De Smith/Kessler are more comfortable in the court room so inevitably we'd be at this point. That good-faith attempt by the league is key in terms of the court battle to follow though. Some background first. We all know that it is illegal to enter into any contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade per Sec 1 of Sherman Act. The NFL has protected itself from antitrust litigation based on the "nonstatutory labor exemption" rule.

That exemption protects the NFL/NFLPA CBA from being in violation of antitrust laws, as long as there exists good-faith bargaining over wages, hours, and working conditions. It recognizes that some restraints on competition are part of collective bargaining and that these restraints are justified by the benefits of collective bargaining. Main question for the courts will be: With no CBA and union in place, would the nonstatutory labor exemption continue in effect? An argument can be made that it would. This is not the chip shot the NFLPA thinks it is, Judge Doty or not. I understand there is precedent from the 1989 case of the NFLPA vs NFL but the circumstances were very different.

Before they go down that path though there will be the "sham" decertification lawsuit. Lawsuits cost lots of $$ and appeals to those cost even more $$$$. Rd 1 in terms of litigation battle has gone to the players in the "Lockout Insurance" case but the NFL has deeper pockets for a more prolonged battle if needed. Litigation is not good for either side and even if the NFL proves that today's "decertification" is a ploy that opens the door for antitrust lawsuits and further proves that even though the NFLPA "decertified" it still remains in effect as a "union," it will take $$ and time. It would seem more logical to focus that time in negotiations. The entire idea is silly when common sense is used and ultimately Bob Kraft was right, get too many lawyers involved and in the end those lawyers will benefit most and they certainly will here. At the end of the day, it’s better to have 45-55% of $9 billion than it is 60% of $6 billion. Court battles are bad for the bottom-line and more costly than the lawyers fees, the cost will be the casual fan that contributes to the $9 billion. When that happens, the NFL and the former NFLPA will begin to really feel the pressure which in the end will be the only real pressure that gets this matter resolved. I'm not siding with the owners or the players, I'm siding with the game of football.

 

[shmessy]

So for anyone keeping score.

In Deus Irae's world:

1) The NFLPA is right and the owners are wrong
2) The Patriots were wrong to not give Seymour what he wanted
3) The Patriots are wrong in not giving Mankins what he wants
4) The Patriots were wrong in not giving Asante what he wanted
5) The Patriots were wrong in not giving Branch what he wanted in 2006
6) The Patriots were wrong in not giving Ty Law what he wanted
7) The Patriots cheated Brady who took a hometown discount
8) The Patriots cheated Wilfork who took a hometown discount
9) The organization's FO is dysfunctional despite 8 straight seasons with no record worse than 10-6
10) The players are always right and Kraft is a cheapskate who could pay them all what the want without worrying about the salary cap.
11) Kraft was always this way and never overpaid Lane, Rucci and Bledsoe before getting slapped upside the head by Belichick/Pioli.

Anyone notice a trend here?

A broken record every time it's played.

 

[jsull87]

I'm not a lawyer, don't know. All I know is that they have a CBA that's based on a % cut of revenues. Apparently, this CBA is pretty bogus because for some reason it does not list types of revenues and accounting standards to determine what the revenues are. If it did, there would be no dispute. It seems to me that since the courts might become involved, they might realize this too. indeed, opened books in this case might be required precisely because the NFL entered into an agreement with players that is BASED on total revenue, and thus, the NFL is bound to drop its pants.

It's hard to force a private business to have a certain set of accounting standards because they really are only reporting internally. They don't need to present external reports to be audited (like the union wants) because they aren't reporting to anyone but themselves. Now i agree if the owners say their costs to produce the revenue have gone up they should show the financial documents to back that up. But that doesn't mean they have to hand over all of their financial statements to their employees.

It's hard for us to know what is really going on because the statement the union put out after the NFL's statement, most points were in direct contrast to what the NFL said they gave ground in. For me the fact that the NFL's speech was more specific than the Unions rebuttal made me believe them more but i mean... thats really just my finger to the wind

 

[DaBruinz]

Both parties were dug in but in the end I think we can all agree that the NFL made the best faith attempt at getting a deal done. I had a feeling all along that De Smith/Kessler are more comfortable in the court room so inevitably we'd be at this point. That good-faith attempt by the league is key in terms of the court battle to follow though. Some background first. We all know that it is illegal to enter into any contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade per Sec 1 of Sherman Act. The NFL has protected itself from antitrust litigation based on the "nonstatutory labor exemption" rule.

That exemption protects the NFL/NFLPA CBA from being in violation of antitrust laws, as long as there exists good-faith bargaining over wages, hours, and working conditions. It recognizes that some restraints on competition are part of collective bargaining and that these restraints are justified by the benefits of collective bargaining. Main question for the courts will be: With no CBA and union in place, would the nonstatutory labor exemption continue in effect? An argument can be made that it would. This is not the chip shot the NFLPA thinks it is, Judge Doty or not. I understand there is precedent from the 1989 case of the NFLPA vs NFL but the circumstances were very different.

Before they go down that path though there will be the "sham" decertification lawsuit. Lawsuits cost lots of $$ and appeals to those cost even more $$$$. Rd 1 in terms of litigation battle has gone to the players in the "Lockout Insurance" case but the NFL has deeper pockets for a more prolonged battle if needed. Litigation is not good for either side and even if the NFL proves that today's "decertification" is a ploy that opens the door for antitrust lawsuits and further proves that even though the NFLPA "decertified" it still remains in effect as a "union," it will take $$ and time. It would seem more logical to focus that time in negotiations. The entire idea is silly when common sense is used and ultimately Bob Kraft was right, get too many lawyers involved and in the end those lawyers will benefit most and they certainly will here. At the end of the day, it’s better to have 45-55% of $9 billion than it is 60% of $6 billion. Court battles are bad for the bottom-line and more costly than the lawyers fees, the cost will be the casual fan that contributes to the $9 billion. When that happens, the NFL and the former NFLPA will begin to really feel the pressure which in the end will be the only real pressure that gets this matter resolved. I'm not siding with the owners or the players, I'm siding with the game of football.

Just an FYI. The Owners actually won round 1 of the "Lockout Insurance" as the Special Master found mostly in their favor. Judge Doty's ruling was actually round 2 and, with the Union filing it's decertification papers, you can bet that the NFL will also be filing an appeal of Doty's ruling.

Also, there is a very good chance that the decertification will be dis-allowed. In fact, most Labor experts have chimed in and said so based on the fact that the Union really doesn't have an issue to decertify over. As you mentioned, back in 1989, they had Free Agency. Now? They don't.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

I can't pick a side. Without the players, the owners have no product to sell. Without the owners, the players have no stage. It's EXACTLY a two way street.

Except of course for the fans who are left out in the cold, or, more appropriately with a lot more spare time on Sunday afternoons in the fall than they thought.

There's bucket loads of blame to go around. What a shame.

 

[Wolfpack]

Just an FYI. The Owners actually won round 1 of the "Lockout Insurance" as the Special Master found mostly in their favor. Judge Doty's ruling was actually round 2 and, with the Union filing it's decertification papers, you can bet that the NFL will also be filing an appeal of Doty's ruling.

Also, there is a very good chance that the decertification will be dis-allowed. In fact, most Labor experts have chimed in and said so based on the fact that the Union really doesn't have an issue to decertify over. As you mentioned, back in 1989, they had Free Agency. Now? They don't.

Do you have any articles supporting this point? I haven't read anything along those lines. What I am seeing is that decertification will likely be upheld.

 

[jsull87]

Both parties were dug in but in the end I think we can all agree that the NFL made the best faith attempt at getting a deal done. I had a feeling all along that De Smith/Kessler are more comfortable in the court room so inevitably we'd be at this point. That good-faith attempt by the league is key in terms of the court battle to follow though. Some background first. We all know that it is illegal to enter into any contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade per Sec 1 of Sherman Act. The NFL has protected itself from antitrust litigation based on the "nonstatutory labor exemption" rule.

That exemption protects the NFL/NFLPA CBA from being in violation of antitrust laws, as long as there exists good-faith bargaining over wages, hours, and working conditions. It recognizes that some restraints on competition are part of collective bargaining and that these restraints are justified by the benefits of collective bargaining. Main question for the courts will be: With no CBA and union in place, would the nonstatutory labor exemption continue in effect? An argument can be made that it would. This is not the chip shot the NFLPA thinks it is, Judge Doty or not. I understand there is precedent from the 1989 case of the NFLPA vs NFL but the circumstances were very different.

Before they go down that path though there will be the "sham" decertification lawsuit. Lawsuits cost lots of $$ and appeals to those cost even more $$$$. Rd 1 in terms of litigation battle has gone to the players in the "Lockout Insurance" case but the NFL has deeper pockets for a more prolonged battle if needed. Litigation is not good for either side and even if the NFL proves that today's "decertification" is a ploy that opens the door for antitrust lawsuits and further proves that even though the NFLPA "decertified" it still remains in effect as a "union," it will take $$ and time. It would seem more logical to focus that time in negotiations. The entire idea is silly when common sense is used and ultimately Bob Kraft was right, get too many lawyers involved and in the end those lawyers will benefit most and they certainly will here. At the end of the day, it’s better to have 45-55% of $9 billion than it is 60% of $6 billion. Court battles are bad for the bottom-line and more costly than the lawyers fees, the cost will be the casual fan that contributes to the $9 billion. When that happens, the NFL and the former NFLPA will begin to really feel the pressure which in the end will be the only real pressure that gets this matter resolved. I'm not siding with the owners or the players, I'm siding with the game of football.

a very well written and level headed post... i just want football next year. I want the players to be taken care of after they retire and for their wages to increase at a respectable rate as without them there is no game. I want a rookie wage scale and the money saved form the 1st round to go to vets. I also want the owners to be recognised for what they do, run the best and most profitable league in the world.

in the end i just want to see football next year cause the pats are loaded now

 

[DaBruinz]

I can't pick a side. Without the players, the owners have no product to sell. Without the owners, the players have no stage. It's EXACTLY a two way street.

Except of course for the fans who are left out in the cold, or, more appropriately with a lot more spare time on Sunday afternoons in the fall than they thought.

There's bucket loads of blame to go around. What a shame.

It's a symbiotic relationship, no doubt. But, the players do, in fact, have other stages they can go to now. They have the UFL, CFL and AFL. They pay may not be as good, but it's still football.

As for who is to blame, I agree, it's both sides. It's the union for electing DeMaurice Smith and letting the agents be a part of the process. It's the owners for letting the previous CBA be signed without enough thought to the profit models and for selected Goodell as the Commissioner to replace Tagliabue.

Goodell has clearly played favorites since being made the Commissioner and it has hurt the owners and the league integrity.

 

[BPF]

Here's an antitrust proof league:
Major League Soccer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MLS operates under a single-entity structure in which teams are centrally controlled and owned by the league. Each team has an owner-operator and the team owners are shareholders in the league. In order to keep costs under control, revenues are shared throughout the league, player contracts are negotiated by the league, and ultimately players are contracted not with individual teams but with the league itself. The league fought a bitter legal battle with its players over its economic system, but this was eventually resolved with the players gaining some improved benefits in return for accepting the single entity structure. A court had also ruled that even absent their collective bargaining agreement, players could opt to play in other leagues if they were unsatisfied.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

It's a symbiotic relationship, no doubt. But, the players do, in fact, have other stages they can go to now. They have the UFL, CFL and AFL. They pay may not be as good, but it's still football.

As for who is to blame, I agree, it's both sides. It's the union for electing DeMaurice Smith and letting the agents be a part of the process. It's the owners for letting the previous CBA be signed without enough thought to the profit models and for selected Goodell as the Commissioner to replace Tagliabue.

Goodell has clearly played favorites since being made the Commissioner and it has hurt the owners and the league integrity.

Goodell is a lousy commissioner. I guess we all knew that before a lot of fan bases knew it. As for Smith or De Smith, whatever the ****, he's in over his head...like at the bottom of the ocean.

Put them together and you have Stupid in Stereo. Bad news is you can't fix stupid.

Bring on the courts, the lawyers and the endless appeals by the losing side. FUBAR.