Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[upstater1]

What is a respectable rate when most people aren't even getting Cost of Living increases. Yet the players are expecting about a 6.5% increase a year in the salary cap and many 2nd contracts increase in significantly?

Why do the owners have to take care of the players after they retire? What happened to personal responsibility? The owners shell out tons of money to provide all sorts of services to the players already. If the players are too stupid to use them, how is that the owner's fault?

A 3 year, league minimum deal will GROSS 1.185 million. That's more money than most people in the US make in a 15 year stretch. Why can't these people be expected to put money aside for after football? Especially when the average career is only 3.2 years?

If/when the league starts playing games without a CBA, I really hope that the owners force the players to pay for their own health insurance and force contributions to the player pensions and such. A dose of humility for some of the guys could do wonders.

And, in the country, people in the highest brackets are experiencing double digit income and wealth increase while income is stagnant at the lowest reaches.

I seriously doubt we can use a word like "respectable" in these discussions.

 

[upstater1]

Here is a direct quote from the email that the league sent out to people.

Lines up with the the OP mentioned..

The NFL has since come forward and been VERY specific about what splitting the difference means. They requested a $650 million giveback from the union.

Now, that request came in the final hour before the deadline for decertification. What do you want the union head to do with that request? Take it to the players over a 10-20 minute span?

Why didn't the NFL offer it earlier so that the union could give a counterproposal? (I've been on record here as stating there probably should be a giveback precisely because of the Supplemental Revenue Program. I expect a union counterproposal once the numbers start entering into sane territory).

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maximizing revenues implies shared revenues, and the $4 billion was not to be shared. The payment was to be made to the owners during a lockout, and the proceeds would not be shared.

The $4B was always to be shared. The difference is since it's always paid to the owners (it doesn't go to the union because they don't pay the employees, they just collect dues) simply having it would have allowed them to access their portion of it ($1.4B) at any time (although the league has stated it had no plans to in 2011 because it has $900M in it's present investment fund which as opposed to investing during a work stoppage could have been doled out to teams based on need to cover debt service in the event of a lockout in 2011) whereas the players would have still been required to actually PLAY to begin accessing their share. That is always the case. Players get paid bi-weekly in season. Although I believe it was Andrew Brandt who mentioned a while back that at one point in the past the league proposed paying players on a 52 week schedule and they declined since it would have resulted in more checks but with fewer zeros... The zeros make it easier to justify buying lots of bling in the moment, which is where too many players live.

 

[Wolfpack]

Given how the dates for next 2 Super Bowls are already set this just reflects the reality of how difficult it would be to implement an 18-game schedule in 2011 and in 2012.

I thought I once read somewhere that the league made the city of Indianapolis leave the weekend after the Super Bowl open (meaning no other scheduled conventions) just in case. So I am not so sure the dates are 100% set in stone.

 

[Rob0729]

Ok, I didn't read the whole thread I started, but I got the jist. A few points:

1.) When I started this thread, I meant both sides have been stubborn at times and the players clearly were this time. Some people want to paint the owners as evil stubborn greedy pigs picking on the poor helpless players. There is subborness and greed on both sides and this last proposal proves that. No matter if the owners' final offer was close to what the NFLPA wanted, it was significant movement and a sign that mediation could have ended this with another extention. The NFLPA wanted unrealistic financial information which meant it was just positioning to make the league look bad eventhough they had every intention of decertifying.

2.) The owners are definitely not asking the players to take a pay cut (only first round draft picks who have never been employed by the NFL so technically they are not taking a paycut). The owner's last proposal had the 2014 cap roughly $35 million higher than the last time the league had in 2009. The players are not being asked to take a pay cut, but slow the rate of pay growth.

3.) No matter the situation, a private corporation is under no obligation to show their employees their books in contract negotiations. I don't care if the company is unionized or not. The antitrust exemption may require them to share such information if the government asks, but not if the NFLPA does.

I own a small company and I compensate my employees based on how the company is doing and how I see the company growing or contracting. My employees know this, but I do not share the details of my compensation or specifics of profits or losses with them when negotiating raises and bonuses. Being a small company, many of my employees treat this company like their own and are compensated as such, but there is a line of what I share with them.

 

[upstater1]

If the other side doesn't get it's additional $3-400M to invest as per the owners last proposal, then absent reinvestment the damn pie isn't going continue to grow to the point it can.

One, I want to see where you are getting $300-400M from. Are you splitting the difference of $650M? $650M has been reported in other circles as the split difference from the original $1 billion giveback request.

Two, you're assuming a lot about owner's reinvestment expenses. The pie has been growing regardless. What are the investment over the billion that are currently taken?

Forgive me if I'm totally suspicious of the owners on that. Why am I suspicious? Because of the widespread reporting of discord among owners at the last CBA. Owners are pissed at the Supplemental Revenue Plan they agreed to AMONG OWNERS. The fact that that the money expended in that plan lines up somewhat with the figures you're using makes me suspicious. I also notice that since the last CBA we've entered a financial crisis, tightened credit markets, which therefore implies a deflation of the owner's assets, not only NFL assets but likely assets outside the NFL.

For these two reasons, I'm very suspicious about their motives.

I actually favor a giveback by the players to cover the Supplemental Revenue Plan as LONG as the owners can prove that the money WILL absolutely be spent on the salary cap. This means that the players are then giving money back to the owners which MUST be spent on player contracts.

 

[upstater1]

The $4B was always to be shared. The difference is since it's always paid to the owners (it doesn't go to the union because they don't pay the employees, they just collect dues) simply having it would have allowed them to access their portion of it ($1.4B) at any time (although the league has stated it had no plans to in 2011 because it has $900M in it's present investment fund which as opposed to investing during a work stoppage could have been doled out to teams based on need to cover debt service in the event of a lockout in 2011) whereas the players would have still been required to actually PLAY to begin accessing their share. That is always the case. Players get paid bi-weekly in season. Although I believe it was Andrew Brandt who mentioned a while back that at one point in the past the league proposed paying players on a 52 week schedule and they declined since it would have resulted in more checks but with fewer zeros... The zeros make it easier to justify buying lots of bling in the moment, which is where too many players live.

If that's right, then I'm wrong, but look at the link that Miguel just gave. The judge certainly didn't interpret it the way you mention it.

 

[CharlieSheen]

Business Partner 1: I need $1 Billion.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: OK, I need $800 Million.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: OK, I need $600 Million.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: You're being ridiculous.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The NFL has since come forward and been VERY specific about what splitting the difference means. They requested a $650 million giveback from the union.

Now, that request came in the final hour before the deadline for decertification. What do you want the union head to do with that request? Take it to the players over a 10-20 minute span?

Why didn't the NFL offer it earlier so that the union could give a counterproposal? (I've been on record here as stating there probably should be a giveback precisely because of the Supplemental Revenue Program. I expect a union counterproposal once the numbers start entering into sane territory).

Maybe that was a typo but I believe the NFL indicated it was a $350M giveback, although that was supposedly based on where they remained apart (the pundits guesstimates late this week were that the gulf had been narrowed to $750M or so).

They could have requested another extension based on that movement. But they didn't because in reality the decision to decertify had been made long before yesterday unless the union got the one thing it really wants...knowledge which is power (the complete financials on each privately owned team). They'd been going thru the motions (as was the other side to a lesser extent) for all intents and purposes to curry PR favor. De had been selling that formula to his constituents as the be all since the day he tossed his hat in the ring to replace Upshaw. Now he's got to convince them it's finally coming. Of course if it doesn't, or if it turns out to be as beneficial to them as the uncapped season was(n't), they will turn on him like a wounded animal.

 

[upstater1]

Ok, I didn't read the whole thread I started, but I got the jist. A few points:

1.) When I started this thread, I meant both sides have been stubborn at times and the players clearly were this time. Some people want to paint the owners as evil stubborn greedy pigs picking on the poor helpless players. There is subborness and greed on both sides and this last proposal proves that.

2.) The owners are definitely not asking the players to take a pay cut (only first round draft picks who have never been employed by the NFL so technically they are not taking a paycut). The owner's last proposal had the 2014 cap roughly $35 million higher than the last time the league had in 2009. The players are not being asked to take a pay cut, but slow the rate of pay growth.

3.) No matter the situation, a private corporation is under no obligation to show their employees their books in contract negotiations. I don't care if the company is unionized or not. The antitrust exemption may require them to share such information if the government asks, but not if the NFLPA does.

I own a small company and I compensate my employees based on how the company is doing and how I see the company growing or contracting. My employees know this, but I do not share the details of my compensation or specifics of profits or losses with them when negotiating raises and bonuses. Being a small company, many of my employees treat this company like their own and are compensated as such, but there is a line of what I share with them.

Has your company entered into a CBA with your employees that agrees on mechanisms of recompense? Because the NFL clearly talsk revenues in its agreement with players.

Because all the legal analysis I've read of the current situation has basically said the NFL will be compelled to show its books because of the CBA, not because of anti-trust law.

 

[upstater1]

You know what I'd love to see happen?

I'd love the gov't to enter the fray by declaring business entertainment expense deductions for seeing sports, the opera, arts events, etc., eliminated.

We have a budget deficit in this country.

The NFL should experience what a shrunken pie tastes like.

Then the price of tickets will come down, the price of franchises as well, and the players AND owners can then get a sense of what this all really means.

 

[Rob0729]

Has your company entered into a CBA with your employees that agrees on mechanisms of recompense? Because the NFL clearly talsk revenues in its agreement with players.

Because all the legal analysis I've read of the current situation has basically said the NFL will be compelled to show its books because of the CBA, not because of anti-trust law.

I don't know the labor laws. Maybe you are right.

 

[Rob0729]

You know what I'd love to see happen?

I'd love the gov't to enter the fray by declaring business entertainment expense deductions for seeing sports, the opera, arts events, etc., eliminated.

We have a budget deficit in this country.

The NFL should experience what a shrunken pie tastes like.

Then the price of tickets will come down, the price of franchises as well, and the players AND owners can then get a sense of what this all really means.

I don't agree with that at all. Business deductions for entertaining clients helps to fuel the economy. All it will do is make a lot of low paid, hard working people lose their jobs. Attacking entire industries to teach one small sector of that industry a lesson is not what the government should do.

They do what you propose and a lot of minor league baseball teams might fold. I bring one of business partner's company on an outing every year to a single A baseball team in their area. Talking to the staff at their stadium, corporate outings make up a large portion of their revenue stream since they sell packages for them. They would likely fail without them. If businesses didn't get corporate deductions for such activities, but could take their employees or clients out to a nice dinner and get the deductions, small business like a single A baseball team will suffer. So teams like that should fail to teach NFL owners' a lesson?

 

[Calciumee]

If NFLPA didn't accept that offer, what were they after?

They been talking to this guy?

 

[Miguel]

If that's right, then I'm wrong, but look at the link that Miguel just gave. The judge certainly didn't interpret it the way you mention it.

Everyone, please do not accept what AndyJohnson or MLR or I or anyone says about the ruling.

Please read the actual ruling and make your own conclusions.

 

[CharlieSheen]

For those of you shocked the players wouldn't accept such a "great" offer, please re-read and tell me where the $1 billion the owners are taking away is discussed. Here's the cliff notes version for you. It's not.

 

[Miguel]

2.) The owners are definitely not asking the players to take a pay cut (only first round draft picks who have never been employed by the NFL so technically they are not taking a paycut). The owner's last proposal had the 2014 cap roughly $35 million higher than the last time the league had in 2009. The players are not being asked to take a pay cut, but slow the rate of pay growth.

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive Behold! The NFL’s last offer to the union, according to the NFLPA

The owners proposed that the 2011 and 2012 salary caps be lower than the 2009 cap. IMO, that is a pay cut. Especially when one considers that the owners went out of their way NOT to maximize revenues for the 2009 season.

 

[bucky]

Business Partner 1: I need $1 Billion.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: OK, I need $800 Million.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: OK, I need $600 Million.
Business Partner 2: Why?
Business Partner 1: You're being ridiculous.

You (and the NFLPA) are making the assumption here that the NFLPA is an equal business partner to the owners. While opinions may vary, I don't believe that to be the case. The players are the employees in this case, not equal business partners.

 

[CharlieSheen]

You (and the NFLPA) are making the assumption here that the NFLPA is an equal business partner to the owners. While opinions may vary, I don't believe that to be the case. The players are the employees in this case, not equal business partners.

Well of course it's partially sarcastic. BUT ... they are closer to a business partner relationship than an owner/employee relationship IMO. If it were nothing but an owner/employee relationship the owners could have come out and given whatever pay cut they wanted.

 

[upstater1]

I don't agree with that at all. Business deductions for entertaining clients helps to fuel the economy. All it will do is make a lot of low paid, hard working people lose their jobs. Attacking entire industries to teach one small sector of that industry a lesson is not what the government should do.

They do what you propose and a lot of minor league baseball teams might fold. I bring one of business partner's company on an outing every year to a single A baseball team in their area. Talking to the staff at their stadium, corporate outings make up a large portion of their revenue stream since they sell packages for them. They would likely fail without them. If businesses didn't get corporate deductions for such activities, but could take their employees or clients out to a nice dinner and get the deductions, small business like a single A baseball team will suffer. So teams like that should fail to teach NFL owners' a lesson?

Yes, they should get rid of these deductions. I've been on enough of them to know what goes on. The fact that this deduction even exists in the midst of the budget mess is a joke. I get free tickets that are written off often in NYC precisely because of this deduction. It's a massive transfer of money to sports franchises, and probably more than anything has fueled the growth in these franchises, not to mention the taxpayer dollars required to turn perfectly fine football stadiums into stadiums that required many luxury boxes. As a country, we're firing teachers, policemen and firemen. I'm sorry if a minor league franchise goes under. Yes, get rid of entertainment expense deductions.