Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Ring 6]

The sports leagues are not anything like normal U.S. business models. You know this. If you can't get off those comparisons, there's no use discussing this, because you'll get just about everything 100% wrong.

An analogous example is used to apply a principal to a more familiar example, not to suggest it is exactly the same.
If the NFL and the NFLPA had any part of its agreement based upon profit, then the books would be in play. Since it is all based upon revenue, then nothing beyond revenue is relevant to the negotiation.

As for the books, if there's nothing there, how can the players get any advantage?

You know better than that.
How can there 'be nothing in there' in the financials of a corporation as large as an NFL franchise? What does 'nothing' mean.
Do you really think ownership should willingly open its books to the adversary (you know the one that just decertified and is taking it to court) and you see no danger in that?
Once that is done, the union will have 320 financial statements to tear apart. You seem to think its about wrong doing. Its about having strength in the negotiation. Are you seroulsy telling me that the union would review those financials and not twist the numbers to their advantage? Any owner who would expose himself to that would never have gained the fortune it took him to own a franchise.
I cannot believe you are that obtuse to suggest there are no ramifications to ownership in allowing the union you are in the middle of battle over billions of dollars with to have access to information they will absolutely manipulate and use against you.

You do realize that there are as many ways to manipulate financials, especially 10 years of 32 teams as there are to manipulate statistics that you see on this board that people use every day to make diametrically opposite conclusions, right?

 

[SteveBsFan]

Basic stuff. I'm sorry you can't understand why people wouldn't want to take a pay cut without evidence of need. It's abundantly clear to most people.

Isn't the pay cut theory just speculation at this point? I didn't read the entire thing, but I didn't see anything like the NHL's CBA where players had to take an x% pay-cut across the board.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Isn't the pay cut theory just speculation at this point? I didn't read the entire thing, but I didn't see anything like the NHL's CBA where players had to take an x% pay-cut across the board

I thought it was said that there wouldnt be a decrease in the salary cap and it would increase in time as it has been.

 

[Deus Irae]

Isn't the pay cut theory just speculation at this point? I didn't read the entire thing, but I didn't see anything like the NHL's CBA where players had to take an x% pay-cut across the board.

The NFL's original demand was to take another billion dollars out of the shared revenue pie, on top of the billion dollars that was already exempt. That's not speculation.

 

[Ring 6]

I wasn't reading it incorrectly at all. You wrote it poorly. Notice the change you've made here:



compared to:



Expenses are only a portion of "how they spend their 40%". Profits are the money's remaining after paying for all the necessaries (i.e. expenses) out of that 40%, regardless of whether or not they are spent.

Its not a change it is an explanation.
In any event if you misunderstood what I said, either I wrote it poorly or you comprehended poorly, does it really matter?

The point being:

If there is an agreement to split revenues why would the profit that ownership is able to realize on their split have anything to do with the negotiation.

It will be much easier to discuss if you respond to the question rather than trading 6 posts about whether it was clear or not. It should be clear now, please respond.

No, I'm responding to a specific point in your post:



One of the owners claims was the need for more money to have it available for stadium building and improvements.

Why does that matter? They could give many reasons or no reasons for why they feel they need a bigger cut. They could give none. Its their right.
There was an agreement that they opted out of because they were not happy with the financial results. What would seeing the books accomplish other than to quantify the amount of profit they found unacceptable to them?
Whatever the number is, it isn't enough for the owners, and they won't agree to only making that level of profit on their investment in return for the risk they are taking. If its $5000 or $50,000,000 the answer is still the same.
Are you saying there is a number that should result in the owner of a business to say, thats enough, I dont want to maximize profits?

Basic stuff. I'm sorry you can't understand why people wouldn't want to take a pay cut without evidence of need. It's abundantly clear to most people.

Are you really insulting my intelligence while playing dumb about the multitude of reasons the owners would not want their adversary to see their books?
They aren't 'taking a paycut' they are negotiating a CBA. If you cant realize that this is different than a normal business your answers will be all wrong.
I can certainly understand why they would want to see the books, no one would dispute that. It would give them a tremendous advantage. What we are talking about it whether they have a right to, and what purpose it would serve.

 

[Deus Irae]

An analogous example is used to apply a principal to a more familiar example, not to suggest it is exactly the same.
If the NFL and the NFLPA had any part of its agreement based upon profit, then the books would be in play. Since it is all based upon revenue, then nothing beyond revenue is relevant to the negotiation.

Key word is bolded, highlighted and underlined. Regular business models are not close enough to the sports models to be analogous when it comes to the current discussion. The differences are too big.

You know better than that.
How can there 'be nothing in there' in the financials of a corporation as large as an NFL franchise? What does 'nothing' mean.

You're the one looking at "something", yet I can't respond with "nothing"? You must be kidding.

Do you really think ownership should willingly open its books to the adversary (you know the one that just decertified and is taking it to court) and you see no danger in that?
Once that is done, the union will have 320 financial statements to tear apart. You seem to think its about wrong doing. Its about having strength in the negotiation. Are you seroulsy telling me that the union would review those financials and not twist the numbers to their advantage? Any owner who would expose himself to that would never have gained the fortune it took him to own a franchise.

If the owners want to cry "Soaring expenses!", they should prove soaring expenses, yes.

I cannot believe you are that obtuse to suggest there are no ramifications to ownership in allowing the union you are in the middle of battle over billions of dollars with to have access to information they will absolutely manipulate and use against you.

I can't believe you're so gullible as to believe that owners won't manipulate those books in 'questionable' ways, particularly since they've done it in the past.

Brown got 'GM bonus,' records show | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue - NYTimes.com

You do realize that there are as many ways to manipulate financials, especially 10 years of 32 teams as there are to manipulate statistics that you see on this board that people use every day to make diametrically opposite conclusions, right?

The bolded part is precisely why the players want to see the books. They want to see if, and how, those financials have been manipulated.

The league has already been shown to have manipulated the broadcast contracts in such a way as to take money from the players and give it to them in case of a lost season, yet you think the players should just buy the owners' claims about expenses without seeing the proof.

If you want to find obtuse, look to yourself.

 

[Ring 6]

My point is easy to understand. "Show us (the NFLPA) where your expenses have increased dramatically, if you want us to take a dramatic pay cut" doesn't really take a lot of explanation.

No, it doesnt take a lot of explanation to state your point, but it does take a lot to explain why it makes any sense.
There is an agreement to split revenues.
The owners no longer feel the split is acceptable to them. They do not have to justify, they have to negotiate.

I also havent seen anything saying that this would result in a paycut. It may result in a smaller piece of a larger pie, but that is not a paycut.
Do you think that the combined expenses of NFL teams have gone down since the revenue split formula was adopted in the last CBA?

 

[fair catch fryar]

i HATE UNIONS UGHGHHGH

What I hate more is greedy, self-serving people who believe their private interests are more important than the common good and that their personal rights transcend any silly document written in 1783 thus making them more important than anyone else. Unions aren't perfect, but unfortunately they are a necessary evil.

 

[SteveBsFan]

The NFL's original demand was to take another billion dollars out of the shared revenue pie, on top of the billion dollars that was already exempt. That's not speculation.

That doesn't guarantee a pay cut, let alone a 'massive' one as you mention. If the revenue was fixed, and they subtracted another billion out of it, then yes that is less money to pay the players.

Putting a cap back in would also be an enormous boost for the players, especially a cap floor (am I right reading $161 million cap?). Right now players are making less in an uncapped league than they did with a cap (and floor).

If the proposed salary cap was $161 million per team, with a salary cap floor, there is absolutely no pay cut even with the $500 million subtracted. This is far from a situation like the NHL where every player in the league was forced a salary reduction from their current contract.

So I don't know why you keep saying they're taking a cut and they deserve to see the books.

 

[Real World]

Yes, the owners are being the stubborn ones. They could have gotten an extension just by agreeing to audited reviews of their finances.

Why should any owner open up their books and let employees look at them?

 

[SteveBsFan]

On top of what I mentioned, should the league actually re-invest the $500 or so million per season back into promotion and other means of generating revenue, the yearly revenue of the league increases which has the potential to greatly increase the future cap numbers, which increases salary even more.

Mentioning pay cuts so far has been nothing but hyperbole from what I've read.

Personally I'd rather the league stay healthy, and teams stay healthy unlike MLB, NBA, and NHL, so they can continue to put a good product out there.

Everything I've read, the league offered a very fair package to the players, who are now looking to be on the greedy side. Both sides are certainly stubborn and will win out on this in the end though.

 

[Joker]

I'm gonna start the National Women's Football League...and be the first man to play QB behind the center...

Dolce Gabbana Z Coach Bag Manolo Blahnik on 2...hat..hat!!

 

[Ring 6]

Key word is bolded, highlighted and underlined. Regular business models are not close enough to the sports models to be analogous when it comes to the current discussion. The differences are too big.

The analogy of what the revenue generator contributes to the company, and how the company is responsible for its own profit beyond that split is 100% analgous here. It is EXACTLY what the NFL and NFLPA are negotiating and exactly what part of the equation is irrelevant.

You're the one looking at "something", yet I can't respond with "nothing"? You must be kidding.

You are way, way too defensive. Stop acting like the kids on the playground are picking on you and have a discussion.

You said if nothing is in there why not show them.
I said what does 'nothing' mean.
In other words define what you are implying is in there that would prevent them from wanting to show them so that I can respond to what you are talking about.

If the owners want to cry "Soaring expenses!", they should prove soaring expenses, yes.

But only in your mind are they 'crying soaring expenses'. They have stated it. They have given it as a reason in explanation of their position.
Why would they need to justify a reason they cited for their position? Their position is they want a bigger share of revenue and wont agree to a CBA that doesnt provide that. Why does it matter what the reason is? What if profis doubled in the last 3 years and they just think they should still be 20% higher if they can 'win' the negotiation? That is their right.

I can't believe you're so gullible as to believe that owners won't manipulate those books in 'questionable' ways, particularly since they've done it in the past.

Brown got 'GM bonus,' records show | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue - NYTimes.com

I do not see what difference that makes. The NFL and NFLPA do not have an agreement to share profits, they have an agreement to share revenues.

The bolded part is precisely why the players want to see the books. They want to see if, and how, those financials have been manipulated.

It has nothing to do with them. THEY GET A SHARE OF REVENUE. Manipulaing the books would have no impact whatsoever on what the players recieve.

The league has already been shown to have manipulated the broadcast contracts in such a way as to take money from the players and give it to them in case of a lost season, yet you think the players should just buy the owners' claims about expenses without seeing the proof.

That is very debatable. There have been 2 rulings that disagree on this matter.
But there is no reason for them to believe, dispute or care about the owners expenses, they are irrelevant.
Unless you expect them to look at the books, say "Ha, you owners I caught you, your expenses didnt go up" and the owners to say "yeah, you got me, we don't want a higher share we were just making it up"
what do you expect to come of that?

If you want to find obtuse, look to yourself.

I am actually giving you credit here for being too intelligent to truly believe that any owner of a business would be willing to turn over his books to his employees and see no ramifications in doing so. I am saying you are being obtuse on purpose, because you truly cannot really believe that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Its not a change it is an explanation.
In any event if you misunderstood what I said, either I wrote it poorly or you comprehended poorly, does it really matter?

Yes, Andy, it does. When you're tossing out words like "obtuse" towards me in this thread while you're unable to properly explain yourself, and when you've repeatedly gone after my integrity, honesty, etc... in the past, it really does matter.

The point being:

If there is an agreement to split revenues why would the profit that ownership is able to realize on their split have anything to do with the negotiation.

It will be much easier to discuss if you respond to the question rather than trading 6 posts about whether it was clear or not. It should be clear now, please respond.

I've responded every time. This has been public knowledge for months, and you've been following football, and this messageboard, during that time. You already know the answer to the 'question'. The owners are claiming that their percentage is insufficient because their expenses are too high and their profits are disappearing.

Why does that matter? They could give many reasons or no reasons for why they feel they need a bigger cut. They could give none. Its their right.
There was an agreement that they opted out of because they were not happy with the financial results. What would seeing the books accomplish other than to quantify the amount of profit they found unacceptable to them?

It's the right of the players to say they won't agree without seeing the books. Are you really going to pretend you're making anything approaching a valid point here?

Whatever the number is, it isn't enough for the owners, and they won't agree to only making that level of profit on their investment in return for the risk they are taking. If its $5000 or $50,000,000 the answer is still the same.
Are you saying there is a number that should result in the owner of a business to say, thats enough, I dont want to maximize profits?

1.) We already know that the league did not maximize profits on the TV deals. Are you really going to try pulling out that "maximize profits" card now?

2.) The number's not enough for the owners. Fine, they had a chance to justify their stance. They chose not to. Now they'll hash it out in court. The O.P. was claiming that it was not the owners being stubborn. I'd say demanding a 20% pay cut without being willing to justify it is pretty stubborn. You, apparently, don't.

Feel free to go tell your boss that he should cut your salary by 20% starting tomorrow.

Are you really insulting my intelligence while playing dumb about the multitude of reasons the owners would not want their adversary to see their books?
They aren't 'taking a paycut' they are negotiating a CBA. If you cant realize that this is different than a normal business your answers will be all wrong.
I can certainly understand why they would want to see the books, no one would dispute that. It would give them a tremendous advantage. What we are talking about it whether they have a right to, and what purpose it would serve.

It's tough to insult the intelligence of someone who's deliberately playing dumb, as you are.

And, no, we're not talking about "whether they have a right to". That's something else that you full well know and are playing the fool about.

And, by the way, the new CBA would result in a paycut, precisely because it IS a collective bargaining agreement. It would immediately affect new contracts. This is a part of the very first item in the NFL's "summary" of it's final proposal:

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).

This stuff's not hidden. It's right in the press release.

 

[Ring 6]

What I hate more is greedy, self-serving people who believe their private interests are more important than the common good and that their personal rights transcend any silly document written in 1783 thus making them more important than anyone else. Unions aren't perfect, but unfortunately they are a necessary evil.

It could easily be argued that the leadership of unions are exactly what you just described that you hate.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why should any owner open up their books and let employees look at them?

In this case, it would be to avoid going to court. They chose another option. That was their right. The players responded, as was their right. This thread was about who was being 'the stubborn ones'.

Opting out of an existing CBA, claiming that expenses are killing them, and then refusing to show those expenses is a pretty clear demonstration that it was the owners being stubborn.

 

[Deus Irae]

That doesn't guarantee a pay cut

Yes, it does.

 

[SteveBsFan]

Yes, it does.

Are you being serious?

The highest salary a player could receive would be $7.8 million. Each player currently under contract will be given a 24% salary reduction for every year of its term.

That's a guaranteed pay cut. That's from the NHL CBA. Learn the difference.

Players were going to get nothing but benefits, better retirement, more time off, and increased pay due to increased salary cap from the last proposal.

Again, increased pay is not a pay cut, and it's certainly nothing like what NHL players went through.

 

[Ring 6]

Brown got 'GM bonus,' records show | Cincinnati.com | cincinnati.com

Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue - NYTimes.com


.

You are kidding with these right?
1) How is it manipulating the books to pay an employee a bonus? They did pay it, it is money spent. Whether he deserved it because they suck has nothing to do with financial manipulation.

2) One accountant testified to disagreeing with the accounting practices of the league? Wow that makes it like every court case ever involving corporate financial matters.
The expense categorization could be argued for months among competant, ethical and law abiding accountants.
It is perfectly acceptable to pay a corporate owner through payroll from the corporation and have him declare it as personal income, rather than retain it in the company and call it profit.
So you have an article about what one accountant representing the other side testified to? GREAT PROOF of deceipt and manipulation. I suppose you can direct me to the article describing the IRS action that resulted from this proven malfeasance?

 

[Deus Irae]

The analogy of what the revenue generator contributes to the company, and how the company is responsible for its own profit beyond that split is 100% analgous here. It is EXACTLY what the NFL and NFLPA are negotiating and exactly what part of the equation is irrelevant.

That is incorrect. What's more, you know that it's incorrect.

You are way, way too defensive. Stop acting like the kids on the playground are picking on you and have a discussion.

I wasn't being defensive at all. Your gripe about "nothing" was asinine in the face of your use of "something", and I was pointing that out.

You said if nothing is in there why not show them.
I said what does 'nothing' mean.
In other words define what you are implying is in there that would prevent them from wanting to show them so that I can respond to what you are talking about.

You said there might be something without defining something to any reasonable degree. So it's now at the pot/kettle stage. Seriously Andy, why do you play these games? You suck at them, and you're smart enough that you should be able to hold adult level discussions without trying these pathetic manipulations.

But only in your mind are they 'crying soaring expenses'. They have stated it. They have given it as a reason in explanation of their position.

Indeed, they are crying "soaring expenses". You're now playing with the word crying, yet you're talking to me about acting like a kid? This is truly funny stuff.

Why would they need to justify a reason they cited for their position? Their position is they want a bigger share of revenue and wont agree to a CBA that doesnt provide that. Why does it matter what the reason is? What if profis doubled in the last 3 years and they just think they should still be 20% higher if they can 'win' the negotiation? That is their right.

If you can't figure out why, perhaps a glimpse of today's news will help. If that doesn't help, the problem is you.

I do not see what difference that makes. The NFL and NFLPA do not have an agreement to share profits, they have an agreement to share revenues.

Yes you do. You're playing dumb again. Frankly, it's gotten tiresome, too. The league wants to alter the revenue percentages based upon a claim or rising expenses. Stop pretending you don't see the issue. It insults me and makes you look like a fool.

It has nothing to do with them. THEY GET A SHARE OF REVENUE. Manipulaing the books would have no impact whatsoever on what the players recieve.

Wrong again, as demonstrated above.

That is very debatable. There have been 2 rulings that disagree on this matter.

No, it's not debatable. The facts were found to be the same. The disagreement was on the application of those facts.

But there is no reason for them to believe, dispute or care about the owners expenses, they are irrelevant.
Unless you expect them to look at the books, say "Ha, you owners I caught you, your expenses didnt go up" and the owners to say "yeah, you got me, we don't want a higher share we were just making it up"
what do you expect to come of that?

If revenue was the owner gripe, you'd be correct. Since the owner gripe is expenses, you're completely wrong. You already know this. Continuing this charade is a waste of our time.

I am actually giving you credit here for being too intelligent to truly believe that any owner of a business would be willing to turn over his books to his employees and see no ramifications in doing so. I am saying you are being obtuse on purpose, because you truly cannot really believe that.

No, you're being an ass. You know I'm correct and not being obtuse, and you know that you're playing dumb and being deliberately obtuse, yet you're tossing out the comment anyway.