Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[PatsFanSince74]

Yet here is the post you wrote verbatim:



Nowhere do you mention that you think it is a request. You clearly say that the players are entitled to see the owners financials because other unions see the financials of the public companies they work for.



Yes, there are thousands of public companies that share their audited financials. However, do you see public companies going around releasing proprietary information in these financials to their shareholders? Of course not. Companies like Coke or Apple are required to release their financials because they have public shareholders who require visibility. However, they do not release information like the recipe to Coca Cola or the specs to the newest iPad or iPod. All they release are historical financial data, detail driving the historical data, and some extremely high-level statements about future strategies.

In the NFL, a team's management could and should view financial standing as proprietary information in regards to their overall team strategy. Having their financial information released could easily compromise their strategy since players and other teams would then have greater leverage in negotiations. Players negotiating with teams that have strong financials could hold out for the best possible deal if they know the money is available. Teams with a better financial standing could strongarm weaker teams in terms of trades. For example, if Team B was interested in trading a 2nd round pick for a player catches wind that Team A is struggling financially and cannot resign that player, then Team B would either offer a worse pick or may not offer a pick at all.

A fine example of a team that refuses to release any info publicly is BB and the Patriots. Why? Because he doesn't want to give any team any sort of advantage over his team whether it be in trades, the free agent market, or on gameday.

I was using "entitled" in two different contexts. The distinction is between using "entitled" as "entitled because they have a legitimate and demonstrated need" (as I was using it in the earlier post) and "entitled without having to demonstrate a legitimate need," as you imputed, fairly enough, that I was using it in my subsequent post.

I believe that the Players are NOT "entitled" in the latter sense, but that they ARE "entitled" in the former sense. Since I introduced the word, I should have been more careful in using it and you were right to call me out. I hope I have clarified the distinction as I see it. Sorry for the confusion.

Your second point hinges on the use of the word "proprietary." Your Coke example is useful. Coke doesn't publish its "secret formula," but it publishes hundreds of pages of relevant financial and risk-related information. In the same way, I wouldn't expect the Patriots to reveal their Draft Day or Game Day or Player strategies (part of their "secret formula"), but I would expect them to divulge the same kind of information related to income, expenses and the balance sheet as Coke is required to do.

But, going further, you are taking the very interesting position that in the case of the NFL, financial standing related to the basics of profit and loss (emphasis on "the basics") should be considered proprietary because its revelation might influence the behavior of others in a way that is adverse to the interests of the revealing party. Interesting.

There are many degrees of what is or has to be revealed in the public sector, where companies strive to put out no more than they have to in a 10K or 10Q or Investor Presentation. But, there is a baseline of data that all companies, which seek public investment, are required to reveal.

Even though I'm not sure it's the argument the owners are making (I think they are arguing that as Private Companies they simply don't have to reveal their financial data. Period.), it's an interesting point that you raise and its resolution might, I imagine, be at the heart of the decision of the legal case and its appeals.

My own view is that it is not reasonable to make that argument when it comes to baseline information about a Franchise's financial strength. For the sake of debate, I'd accept as an ad hoc definition of "baseline" what is included in the Green Bay Packers financials, which someone was kind enough to post. I'd take that information, as amplified by information that is typically provided in an SEC filing, as a baseline that it is reasonable to reveal.

In the final analysis, the courts will decide this and you and I are writing what amount to (rather uninformed) briefs in support of one side or the other.

I think the Owners are playing with fire here, because they risk having to reveal a lot more than they might have gotten away with in an informal arrangement with the players. It's not out of the question that an aggressive judge could, because of their privileged Anti-Trust status, require them to disclose all of the information that a public company discloses, which would include the salaries of the top employees by name as well as a lot of supporting detail that they might just prefer to keep private.

You raise some good points, then. The players have clearly decided that they are more likely to be better off through litigation than pure negotiation and I tend to agree with them.

If the owners "blink" in any way before this goes to court, we will know that they were right.

 

[Ring 6]

Here's my case on what the owners shouldn't have to open their books

1. This isn't about knowing how much revenue is coming in. The players have fully audited number reflecting those numbers they know EXACTLY how much money is coming in. Just as they know EXACTLY how much money is due them based on the old CBA. What the players want to know is how the owners are spending THEIR share.

Agreed, and a dangerous step. If the players change the debate to profits they are now in a position to dictate what an owner should be allowed to make in profits.

2, And if the Pats, etc were publicly owned companies they'd have every right to do so. But not a single player put up a dime when Bob Kraft up up $187M on very risky venture back in 92. Not did they put up a dime when he took liability of over $360MM to build Gillette Stadium. What he does with his share of the money he makes at the end of the year is any business of the players, just as Kraft has no business knowing what Tom Brady has done with all the money he makes...not only from the Pats but from the other sources of income he generates specifically because he is a New England Patriot.

But the argument from the other side is that we need to see Bob Krafts income to decide if we agree with the profit margin he wants. If he makes more than we think he should, he has no right to want more.

3. Before the owners open THEIR books they'd be fully justified in asking every individual player to open THEIR books so the owners could see how THEY were handling their wealth?

Which could also allow them to decipher any activity that may be illegal or in violation of the code of conduct they signed.

Bottom LINE - there have been too many sources that show that the owners had made significant movement toward the players. The fact that they chose to cut off negotiations and not continue proves CONCLUSIVELY that their primary goal was not to come to a compromise, but to litigate the issue and have a settlement imposed by the courts

I consider this issue posturing on both sides and have no clue who is right or wrong, just that they are acting in their own self-interest as they are supposed to do.

quote]And their key advisor in this, Kessler, had a vested interest in this line of attack. He will make millions with this tack, and the longer it goes on, the more he makes. Its a brutal example of a conflict of interest that every one of the 500 FAs should be thinking about while they are out of work

4.That is why the books of the Packers are so valuable and so germane to this issue. If the Packers are only managing to realize 2% profit on such a huge revenue stream, it is very likely that there ARE several other teams making less....as well as several that are making more. [/quote]
Whehter the Packers are the norm or not, in fact even if they have the lowest profit, the league is acting collectively, just as the players are. To think that the owners should not care to increase profits for their membership because the ones in the middle are doing fine is to ask them to abandon their partners.

Things I wonder:

Who pays for Brady's lawyers? It can't be the "union" since it doesn't exist

Probably is, because they are still an entity for the sake of the players, and didn't hand over their moeny when they decertified.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Agreed, and a dangerous step. If the players change the debate to profits they are now in a position to dictate what an owner should be allowed to make in profits.


But the argument from the other side is that we need to see Bob Krafts income to decide if we agree with the profit margin he wants. If he makes more than we think he should, he has no right to want more.


Which could also allow them to decipher any activity that may be illegal or in violation of the code of conduct they signed.


I consider this issue posturing on both sides and have no clue who is right or wrong, just that they are acting in their own self-interest as they are supposed to do.

quote]And their key advisor in this, Kessler, had a vested interest in this line of attack. He will make millions with this tack, and the longer it goes on, the more he makes. Its a brutal example of a conflict of interest that every one of the 500 FAs should be thinking about while they are out of work

4.That is why the books of the Packers are so valuable and so germane to this issue. If the Packers are only managing to realize 2% profit on such a huge revenue stream, it is very likely that there ARE several other teams making less....as well as several that are making more.

Whehter the Packers are the norm or not, in fact even if they have the lowest profit, the league is acting collectively, just as the players are. To think that the owners should not care to increase profits for their membership because the ones in the middle are doing fine is to ask them to abandon their partners.


Probably is, because they are still an entity for the sake of the players, and didn't hand over their moeny when they decertified.[/QUOTE]

It's a big leap from seeing the owners' books to "dictating" their profits. That's a political argument, not a logical one.

Same thing with the Kraft comment. The players have a legitimate interest in understanding how the Owners, who are claiming that they are unable to make an acceptable return, are generating ancillary revenue and spending "all that money." That's not the logical equivalent of telling an Owner how much he can make. If all the books look like the Packers', the players don't have much of a case. But, the Packer's reporting does show that there is a significant component of revenue that is driven by team actions ("Other Operating Income") and it also shows that there are expense lines that need to be understood.

The owners already have the right to drug test their employees, and this is a recognized right across virtually all workforces. I'm not sure that financial audits of employees are a similarly recognized right, outside of Law Enforcement and Security Clearances.

Agreed on the mixed motivation of the lawyers and agreed that we can't know the Player's motivation in litigating; personally, I think they feel they can do better in litigation than negotiation at this point and that it hinges on the fact that they know that there are owners don't want to open their books. As I've said elsewhere, if the Owners "blink" before this is resolved in the Courts, then the Players would have been right to pursue this tactic.

I think the Owners care about each other's success only to the extent that it benefits all. The Krafts and others have been fairly open about their frustration with owners who fail to market their brands and manage themselves well. No matter how this turns out, I see the Krafts coming out of this in an even stronger position among the ownership cadre, as I doubt that they have anything to hide in their books

Right on the source of Brady's legal fees; the NFLPA is no longer a Union but a Professional Association, with the same tax advantages.

 

[Ring 6]

Whehter the Packers are the norm or not, in fact even if they have the lowest profit, the league is acting collectively, just as the players are. To think that the owners should not care to increase profits for their membership because the ones in the middle are doing fine is to ask them to abandon their partners.


Probably is, because they are still an entity for the sake of the players, and didn't hand over their moeny when they decertified.

It's a big leap from seeing the owners' books to "dictating" their profits. That's a political argument, not a logical one.[/quote]
Not at all, it is common sense.
They split revenues. Revenues are transparent.
The only reason to request the books is to analyze exopenses and profit and make them a point of negotition.
If you dont like dictate, then change it to "the players want the right to collectively bargin what profit margins are acceptable to the owners". Just as inappopriate.

Same thing with the Kraft comment. The players have a legitimate interest in understanding how the Owners, who are claiming that they are unable to make an acceptable return, are generating ancillary revenue and spending "all that money." That's not the logical equivalent of telling an Owner how much he can make.

Of course it is. They have all the revenue numbers. They want the other side of the books to be the topic.

If all the books look like the Packers', the players don't have much of a case. But, the Packer's reporting does show that there is a significant component of revenue that is driven by team actions ("Other Operating Income") and it also shows that there are expense lines that need to be understood.

Why do the players need to understand the owners expenses when they are splitting REVENUE? What you are suggesting is the players should be able to decide if the owners deserve more revenue based on whether they feel the profits are good or not. In other words can the owners 'afford' to pay them more.
That is akin to the owners asking the players for their financials to determine if the players can 'afford' to be paid less.

The owners already have the right to drug test their employees, and this is a recognized right across virtually all workforces. I'm not sure that financial audits of employees are a similarly recognized right, outide of Law Enforcement and Security Clearances.

They dont have that right, I am showing you the impact of the request when you turn the tables.

Agreed on the mixed motivation of the lawyers and agreed that we can't know the Player's motivation in litigating; personally, I think they feel they can do better in litigation than negotiation at this point and that it hinges on the fact that they know that there are owners don't want to open their books. As I've said elsewhere, if the Owners "blink" before this is resolved in the Courts, then the Players would have been right to pursue this tactic.

I think the Owners care about each other's success only to the extent that it benefits all. The Krafts and others have been fairly open about their frustration with owners who fail to market their brands and manage themselves well. No matter how this turns out, I see the Krafts coming out of this in an even stronger position among the ownership cadre, as I doubt that they have anything to hide in their books

Right on the source of Brady's legal fees; the NFLPA is no longer a Union but a Professional Association, with the same tax advantages.

Dont know, this is all speculation, and guess.

 

[lamafist]

It's a big leap from seeing the owners' books to "dictating" their profits. That's a political argument, not a logical one.

Not at all, it is common sense.
They split revenues. Revenues are transparent.[/quote]

Uh, no, they're not. A solitary number representing the sum total of the owners' non-shared revenues, and a profitability score for each franchise, is pretty darn farm from "transparent." It doesn't begin to answer questions about why one franchise is able to bring in twice what another does in revenues, and whether all 32 owners are working in good faith to maximize revenues, as they are legally obligated to do.

The only reason to request the books is to analyze exopenses and profit and make them a point of negotition.

If you dont like dictate, then change it to "the players want the right to collectively bargin what profit margins are acceptable to the owners". Just as inappopriate.

Again, no. There are many reasons to open the books. One of them is the one I mentioned above -- to ensure the owners are fulfilling their legal obligation to attempt to maximize revenue. This means getting full value for naming rights and endorsements, luxury seating, parking and concession contracts, etc.

Another would be to be able to more accurately draw up counterproposals that would tie the NFLPA's monetary concessions to actual costs when they're incurred, as this writer for Forbes suggests.

Another is, as I've mentioned several times w/ no response, to put on record the disparity in the 32 franchise's profitability, and allow the players to present a counter-offer in which the financial burden of boosting the margins of less profitable franchises is shared by both the players and the league's more profitable teams.

Or how about simply as a good-faith gesture on the owners' part to clear up mistrust and allow both sides to negotiate with full information? None of these reasons entail the players "dictating" what the owners' profit margins should be any more than ****ering over the percentages already does.

Of course it is. They have all the revenue numbers. They want the other side of the books to be the topic.

Once more: no, they absolutely do not. They have detailed numbers for the shared revenue contracts, and those have already been determined to not be negotiated in good faith. Each owner is legally obligated to maximize the revenues of which the players get a cut, and can and will be forced to demonstrate this in court.

Why do the players need to understand the owners expenses when they are splitting REVENUE? What you are suggesting is the players should be able to decide if the owners deserve more revenue based on whether they feel the profits are good or not. In other words can the owners 'afford' to pay them more.
That is akin to the owners asking the players for their financials to determine if the players can 'afford' to be paid less.

That's one way of framing it. Another, is to say the players have to make a choice of whether or not to take a smaller chunk of the league's revenue, and they are simply replying that they are not inclined to accept without being convinced of its necessity.

And since the owners have stated that they need this extra cut of the revenue to reinvest in the growth of the league, you could say the owners are akin to an organization asking for an additional $1 billion dollar annual donation, and refusing to give the donor information about how previous money has been spent.

Or, we could all drop the rhetorical posturing and trying to turn this into an emotional argument rather than a rational one, and start accepting the reality that whether the players "deserve" to see the owners books or not isn't really a relevant issue.

 

[DaBruinz]

Uh, no, they're not. A solitary number representing the sum total of the owners' non-shared revenues, and a profitability score for each franchise, is pretty darn farm from "transparent." It doesn't begin to answer questions about why one franchise is able to bring in twice what another does in revenues, and whether all 32 owners are working in good faith to maximize revenues, as they are legally obligated to do.

Actually, yes, the shared revenue numbers for each team are transparent to the NFLPA. This came out in the last CBA negotiations when they were trying to figure out what would and wouldn't be counted in the revenue pot towards the salary cap. It is not a single number as you are perpetuating.

Again, no. There are many reasons to open the books. One of them is the one I mentioned above -- to ensure the owners are fulfilling their legal obligation to attempt to maximize revenue. This means getting full value for naming rights and endorsements, luxury seating, parking and concession contracts, etc.

First of all, all the things you just mentioned are NOT part of the revenue sharing for the league. So, the NFLPA does NOT have any right to know that information. None at all.

The LEAGUE has an obligation to maximize both present and FUTURE revenues that will be split between them and the players. The league is not under any obligation to ensure that the owners are maximizing the values for the non-shared revenues.

Another would be to be able to more accurately draw up counterproposals that would tie the NFLPA's monetary concessions to actual costs when they're incurred, as this writer for Forbes suggests.

I suggest you go back and re-read the article. One of the things it points out is where the players are going wrong in their assumptions and that opening the books will not solve the players issues.

In fact, the author does not tie opening the books to "drawing up counter-proposals that would tie the NFLPA's monetary concessions to actual costs when they're incurred."

The author says "they should work together to define what constitutes a legitimate cost and identify expenditures that will trigger increases in the share of off-the-top revenues the league receives." Pretty simple. Agree on what a "cost" is and allow that those things WILL come up and that the players share will be affected by them. Again, though. The author said nothing about opening the books.

Another is, as I've mentioned several times w/ no response, to put on record the disparity in the 32 franchise's profitability, and allow the players to present a counter-offer in which the financial burden of boosting the margins of less profitable franchises is shared by both the players and the league's more profitable teams.

The disparity is already well know. And there is already a part of the CBA that forces the top clubs to share revenue with the teams that don't generate as much revenue.

Or how about simply as a good-faith gesture on the owners' part to clear up mistrust and allow both sides to negotiate with full information? None of these reasons entail the players "dictating" what the owners' profit margins should be any more than ****ering over the percentages already does.

Opening the books will not clear up the mistrust. In fact, since you missed it, the league was willing to open their books up to a 3rd party for verification purposes.

The players do not have a single right as to how the owners spend their share of the money. None. Just like the owners can't tell the players how they can spend their money.

Once more: no, they absolutely do not. They have detailed numbers for the shared revenue contracts, and those have already been determined to not be negotiated in good faith. Each owner is legally obligated to maximize the revenues of which the players get a cut, and can and will be forced to demonstrate this in court.

WRONG. Man, you love twisting stuff into fantasy, don't you.
First off, The Special Master said that the league did not do anything wrong, though he did award the NFLPA about 6.5 Million. Judge Doty over-ruled the special master (while showing his clear bias against the special master with personal attacks on the person). I am fairly certain that judgement will be appealed by the League.

As I said above, the NFLPA gets detailed information on all the shared revenue sources. Where you fabricate this idea that they only have the TV contracts is beyond anyone. It's patently false.

 

[lamafist]

Actually, yes, the shared revenue numbers for each team are transparent to the NFLPA. This came out in the last CBA negotiations when they were trying to figure out what would and wouldn't be counted in the revenue pot towards the salary cap. It is not a single number as you are perpetuating.




First of all, all the things you just mentioned are NOT part of the revenue sharing for the league. So, the NFLPA does NOT have any right to know that information. None at all.

The LEAGUE has an obligation to maximize both present and FUTURE revenues that will be split between them and the players. The league is not under any obligation to ensure that the owners are maximizing the values for the non-shared revenues.



I suggest you go back and re-read the article. One of the things it points out is where the players are going wrong in their assumptions and that opening the books will not solve the players issues.

In fact, the author does not tie opening the books to "drawing up counter-proposals that would tie the NFLPA's monetary concessions to actual costs when they're incurred."

The author says "they should work together to define what constitutes a legitimate cost and identify expenditures that will trigger increases in the share of off-the-top revenues the league receives." Pretty simple. Agree on what a "cost" is and allow that those things WILL come up and that the players share will be affected by them. Again, though. The author said nothing about opening the books.



The disparity is already well know. And there is already a part of the CBA that forces the top clubs to share revenue with the teams that don't generate as much revenue.



Actually, yes, the shared revenue numbers for each team and the league are transparent to the NFLPA. This came out in the last CBA negotiations when they were trying to figure out what would and wouldn't be counted in the revenue pot towards the salary cap. It is not a single number as you are perpetuating.




First of all, all the things you just mentioned are NOT part of the revenue sharing for the league. So, the NFLPA does NOT have any right to know that information. None at all.

The LEAGUE has an obligation to maximize both present and FUTURE revenues that will be split between them and the players. The league is not under any obligation to ensure that the owners are maximizing the values for the non-shared revenues.



I suggest you go back and re-read the article. One of the things it points out is where the players are going wrong in their assumptions and that opening the books will not solve the players issues.

In fact, the author does not tie opening the books to "drawing up counter-proposals that would tie the NFLPA's monetary concessions to actual costs when they're incurred."

The author says "they should work together to define what constitutes a legitimate cost and identify expenditures that will trigger increases in the share of off-the-top revenues the league receives."




Opening the books will not clear up the mistrust. In fact, since you missed it, the league was willing to open their books up to a 3rd party for verification purposes.

The players do not have a single right as to how the owners spend their share of the money. None. Just like the owners can't tell the players how they can spend their money.



WRONG. Man, you love twisting stuff into fantasy, don't you.
First off, The Special Master said that the league did not do anything wrong, though he did award the NFLPA about 6.5 Million. Judge Doty over-ruled the special master (while showing his clear bias against the special master with personal attacks on the person). I am fairly certain that judgement will be appealed by the League.

As I said above, the NFLPA gets detailed information on all the shared revenue sources. Where you fabricate this idea that they only have the TV contracts is beyond anyone. It's patently false.

The players have just as much of a right to information about the non-shared revenue as they do the revenue that's part of the revenue-sharing deal.

Know why?

Because they get their %56 percent cut of it, just like the shared revenue. See, the "shared" and "non-shared" designations pertain only to what revenues streams are shared equally by the owners, and what revenue streams are retained by the individual franchise owner, less the players' share.

So, pretty much all of your responses in this post are rendered non-sensical by this fundamental misconception. It's an understandable mistake, though you might want to take a less authoritative tone when on uncertain ground in the future.

 

[DaBruinz]

The players have just as much of a right to information about the non-shared revenue as they do the revenue that's part of the revenue-sharing deal.

Know why?

Because they get their %56 percent cut of it, just like the shared revenue. See, the "shared" and "non-shared" designations pertain only to what revenues streams are shared equally by the owners, and what revenue streams are retained by the individual franchise owner, less the players' share.

The players do not get a share of any revenue that is outside of the Defined Gross Revenue (DGR). That includes parking fees and concessions. And I will correct myself in that the luxury box fees for the games are now included. However, the fees for events outside of games are not. I consider any revenue in the DGR to be "Shared" and anything outside the DGR to be "unshared".

So, pretty much all of your responses in this post are rendered non-sensical by this fundamental misconception. It's an understandable mistake, though you might want to take a less authoritative tone when on uncertain ground in the future.

No. Actually, none of my responses were rendered "non-sensical" because there was no misconception on my part. The mis-conception is on your part that the players get anything from the "unshared local revenue streams". Clearly it is you who is under the misconception.

 

[lamafist]

The players do not get a share of any revenue that is outside of the Defined Gross Revenue (DGR). That includes parking fees and concessions. And I will correct myself in that the luxury box fees for the games are now included. However, the fees for events outside of games are not. I consider any revenue in the DGR to be "Shared" and anything outside the DGR to be "unshared".



No. Actually, none of my responses were rendered "non-sensical" because there was no misconception on my part. The mis-conception is on your part that the players get anything from the "unshared local revenue streams". Clearly it is you who is under the misconception.

Nope, sorry buddy.

Here is a link to the just-terminated CBA.

Article XXIV clearly states that the players get a cut of the Total Revenues, which includes...

(1) Regular season, preseason, and postseason gate receipts (net of (A) admission taxes, (B) taxes on
tickets regularly paid to governmental authorities by Clubs or Club Affiliates, provided such taxes are deducted
for purposes of calculating gate receipts subject to revenue sharing and (C) surcharges paid to stadium or
municipal authorities which are deducted for purposes of calculating gate receipts subject to revenue sharing),
including ticket revenue from “luxury boxes,” suites, and premium seating subject to gate receipt sharing
among NFL Teams (except as otherwise expressly agreed to by the parties, the aggregate amount of ticket
revenue allocated to luxury boxes, suites and premium seating to be included in TR is the face value of the
ticket, or any additional amounts which are subject to gate receipt sharing among NFL Clubs);
(2) Proceeds including Copyright Royalty Tribunal and extended market payments from the sale, license
or other conveyance of the right to broadcast or exhibit NFL preseason, regular season and playoff games on
radio and television including, without limitation, network, local, cable, pay television, satellite encryption,
international broadcasts, delayed broadcasts (which shall not include any broadcast of an NFL preseason,
regular season or playoff game occurring more than 72 hours after the live exhibition of the game, unless the
broadcast is the first broadcast in the market), and all other means of distribution, net of any reasonable and
customary NFL (or Club, as the case may be) expenses related to the project;
(3) Revenues derived from concessions, parking, local advertising and promotion, signage, magazine
advertising, local sponsorship agreements, stadium clubs, luxury box income other than that described in
Section 1(a)(i)(1) above (with "Super suites" (i.e., suites substantially larger in size than the largest suite
regularly available for sale in the stadium) to have no additional value imputed in respect of them by virtue of
such status), Internet operations (including merchandise sales) other than those conducted by NFL Ventures,
L.P. or its subsidiaries (which are separately addressed below), and sales of programs and novelties (in each of
the foregoing cases, all revenues for these subcategories will be calculated using gross figures without any
expenses deducted other than only those set forth in or expressly referenced in Section 1(a)(xiv)(1) below);
(4) The net consolidated revenue generated by NFL Ventures L.P. (including but not limited to those
categories of revenue currently or formerly generated by NFL Ventures’ subsidiaries, NFL Properties LLC,
NFL Enterprises LLC, and NFL Productions LLC d/b/a NFL Films, but excluding from NFL Ventures’ revenue
any revenues otherwise included in TR pursuant to Subsections (a)(i)(1)-(3) above or Subsection (a)(i)(5)
below), with only those expenses set forth in or expressly referenced in Section 1(a)(xiv)(1) below deducted in
calculating such net consolidated revenue for purposes of calculating TR. Notwithstanding the foregoing or
anything else in this Agreement, any revenues of NFL Ventures or any of its subsidiaries that are distributed
directly or indirectly to any Club or Club Affiliate, or are held by NFL Ventures or any of its subsidiaries other
than for their own legitimate investment purposes (including reasonable working capital, etc.) and available for
distribution to any such Club or Club Affiliate, shall be included in TR (but shall be so included in TR only
once, as revenue of either NFL Ventures or of such Clubs/Club Affiliates, in such League Years as are
consistent with the Parties’ practices for the 1993-2005 League Years). To the extent that revenues of the NFL,
NFL Properties, NFL Films, NFL Enterprises, any other NFL affiliate (other than NFL Attractions, as defined
below), any Club, or any Club Affiliate result from any licenses to or other provision of intellectual property or
other products or services to NFL Attractions, such revenues will be included in TR at no less than fair market
value (e.g., to the extent that film, video, NFL logos or other intellectual properties or other products or services
of such NFL and/or Club entities are utilized by NFL Attractions without the payment of any licensing fees, the
fair market value amount shall be imputed). Any dispute over the fair market value shall be resolved in the first
instance by the Accountants after consulting and meeting with representatives of both parties. In the event such 51
dispute involves a disputed amount of $10 million or more, each party shall have a right to appeal such
resolution to the Special Master, who shall review the dispute de novo, and whose decision shall be subject to
appeal pursuant to Article XXVI (Special Master), Section 2;
(5) Barter income, which shall be valued at 90% of the fair market value of the goods or services
received;
(6) The value of equity instruments unconditionally received from third parties by the NFL or member
Clubs (i.e., not equity instruments in business entities formed and owned exclusively by the NFL, NFL
Ventures L.P. or any of its subsidiaries, or the member Clubs) derived from, relating to or arising out of the
performance of players in NFL football games, net of the exercise price, if any, paid (whether in cash or by a
reduction in the quantity of equity instruments to be received by the NFL or member Clubs) for acquiring such
equity instruments. Reasonable determinations as to valuation, TR inclusion dates, and expense deductions
(other than any exercise price) in respect of specific equity instruments shall be agreed upon in good faith
between the NFL and NFLPA in connection with each specific equity instrument so included, or, if such an
agreement cannot be reached, shall be determined by the Accountants, whose decision shall be subject to appeal
to the Special Master pursuant to Article XXVI;
(7) Revenues received by a Club or Club Affiliate pursuant to a stadium lease or directly related
stadium-use agreement with an unaffiliated third party, where the amount of such revenues is determined based
upon activities that are unrelated to NFL football, in circumstances where the involved Club or Club Affiliate is
not required to make a non-de minimis investment of capital or cash to receive such revenue (provided that the
provisions of this Subsection (1)(a)(i)(7) shall not be retroactively applied to include in TR revenues generated
from non-football business opportunities arising out of leases or other stadium use agreements entered into prior
to January 1, 1993, the financial terms of which have not been amended since such date; and further provided
that the foregoing does not affect, and the parties have not reached agreement and reserve their respective
positions on, the treatment of revenue arising from the acquisition by a Club or Club Affiliate of a right to
develop real estate in proximity to a stadium, pursuant to a stadium lease or directly related stadium use
agreement with an unaffiliated third party);
(8) Recoveries under business interruption insurance policies that are received by any League- or Clubrelated entity, to the extent that such recoveries compensate such entity for lost revenues that would have been
included in TR. The amount of such recoveries shall be included in TR net of (1) premiums paid for the
policy/policies recovered under in the League Year(s) that include the events and the recoveries; and (2)
deductible and unreimbursed expenses arising out of or related to the events giving rise to the insurance
claim/recovery. Any lump sum payments will be allocated under the method separately agreed to by the parties;
(9) Any expense reimbursements received by a Club or Club Affiliate from a governmental entity in
connection with a stadium lease or a directly related stadium-use agreement, except as provided in Section
1(a)(ii)(F) below; and
(10) Proceeds from the sale or conveyance of any right to receive any of the revenues described above

So, how is it that you're so confident about something you clearly are so wrong about?

 

[DaBruinz]

Just found a series of Videos by Brian Halloway on YouTube that he did for his fellow players..

In this video, he says that the team saving $200 million in banking fees is the team actually making $200 million. Also, he makes too many assumptions about "unshared income", implying that players are entitled to revenue generated by companies associated with the team that the owner may own.

YouTube - 5. NFL PLAYERS: THE TRUTH about OWNERS AND REVENUES

Other than that one, they aren't bad and provide good information, though I disagree that all the pressure is on the Owners.

 

[lamafist]

Now, of special interest to the present discussion is this line immediately prior to the list of included revenue sources:

The NFL and each NFL Team shall in good faith act and use their best efforts, consistent with sound business judgment, so as to maximize Total Revenues for each playing season during the term of this Agreement.

Right there, in the CBA, each NFL Team accepts the obligation use their "best efforts" to maximize total revenues. So while the owners might still have a case to not disclose expenditures, they will certainly be obliged to account for all of the above enumerated revenue streams, and demonstrate their "best efforts" to maximize them.

 

[DaBruinz]

Nope, sorry buddy.

Here is a link to the just-terminated CBA.

Article XXIV clearly states that the players get a cut of the Total Revenues, which includes...



So, how is it that you're so confident about something you clearly are so wrong about?

First off, nice going breaking the copyright rules that Ian has posted. Bit more than 10 sentences there.

Secondly, I do appreciate you providing the link to the CBA. Why? Because it shows that you are wrong.

Let me say that I am corrected in my thinking that the naming rights, parking, luxury boxes, and other local revenues were still not a part of the TR. They are.

But let me further say that the article CLEARLY states what revenue is shared and what isn't. Article XXIV, Section 1 (a) (ii) clearly states the things that aren't shared and are not considered for the TR. Any revenue in the TR is shared and anything that is excluded is unshared.

If you read farther down in that section, you'll also see that

Now, that we have that established, back to my rebuttals to you.

1) Actually, yes, the shared revenue numbers for each team are transparent to the NFLPA. This came out in the last CBA negotiations when they were trying to figure out what would and wouldn't be counted in the revenue pot towards the salary cap. It is not a single number as you are perpetuating.

Please see Article XXIV Section 10.

2) The article you quoted, you are still wrong with your interpretation. Are you going to accept it?

3) You still haven't acknowledged that even the author you quoted stated that opening the books won't solve the problem.

 

[DaBruinz]

Now, of special interest to the present discussion is this line immediately prior to the list of included revenue sources:

Right there, in the CBA, each NFL Team accepts the obligation use their "best efforts" to maximize total revenues. So while the owners might still have a case to not disclose expenditures, they will certainly be obliged to account for all of the above enumerated revenue streams, and demonstrate their "best efforts" to maximize them.

The NFLPA also had an obligation to act in the best interest of the league, which includes the owners. Don't see them going out of their way to do that.

Nope. They are only obliged to show the breakdown of total revenues, Team Salary, Cash Player Costs, Player Costs and Benefits . It is up to the NFLPA to prove that the owners aren't doing their best to maximize the revenue streams. There ARE two teams, The Bills and Bengals, who have refused to sell the naming rights to the stadiums. But I think you'd be hard pressed to get a sponsor to pony up even $5 million a year for those places.

 

[lamafist]

First off, nice going breaking the copyright rules that Ian has posted. Bit more than 10 sentences there.

The NFL CBA isn't copy protected.

Secondly, I do appreciate you providing the link to the CBA. Why? Because it shows that you are wrong.

Let me say that I am corrected in my thinking that the naming rights, parking, luxury boxes, and other local revenues were still not a part of the TR. They are.

But let me further say that the article CLEARLY states what revenue is shared and what isn't. Article XXIV, Section 1 (a) (ii) clearly states the things that aren't shared and are not considered for the TR. Any revenue in the TR is shared and anything that is excluded is unshared.

If you read farther down in that section, you'll also see that

Nope, you're still wrong. Article XXIV, Section 1 (a) (ii) is a "is a nonexclusive list of examples of revenues received by the NFL and/or NFL Teams which are not derived from, and do not relate to or arise out of the performance of players in NFL football games (and are therefore not “TR”)"

The non-NFL revenue streams it delineates are not "TR" and therefore neither "shared" or "non-shared" NFL revenue. "Shared" and "non-shared" pertain to designations of the NFL's revenue sharing plan. Shared revenue includes all TV rights contracts, non-luxury ticket sales, and NFL franchised goods, and are shared equally among the teams. "Non-shared," or "local" revenues include parking, concessions, luxury seating, etc., are retained by the individual franchises, minus the players' cut.

So, no, the CBA did not prove you right, even a little bit, about any of this. You were wrong about which revenue sources the players get a cut from, and you remain wrong about the definitions of "shared" and "non-shared" or "local" revenues.

Now, that we have that established, back to my rebuttals to you.

1) Actually, yes, the shared revenue numbers for each team are transparent to the NFLPA. This came out in the last CBA negotiations when they were trying to figure out what would and wouldn't be counted in the revenue pot towards the salary cap. It is not a single number as you are perpetuating.

Please see Article XXIV Section 10.

Again, you are still wrong about this. The NFL has numbers for the shared revenues, but not the local revenues (stadium naming, local tv rights, concessions, parking, etc.) and the latter comprises an ever-growing percentage of the Total Revenue.

The single number that I'm referring to is one that delineates each franchises' profitability, and was the sole bit of information the owners were willing to share about the local, non-shared revenues of each NFL team.

2) The article you quoted, you are still wrong with your interpretation. Are you going to accept it?

3) You still haven't acknowledged that even the author you quoted stated that opening the books won't solve the problem.

I'm actually not wrong in my interpretation of the article. I just don't entirely agree with the author's position.

It's a proposition for a way in which the NFL and NFLPA could come to an agreement in which the need for the owners to disclose past financial documents could be avoided by making the monetary concessions they're asking from the players in the new CBA conditional on the league demonstrating that certain league-growing expenditures are being undertaken.

This is a good proposal for how the NFLPA's concessions should be structured, but it doesn't help determine how much of a monetary concession they should be asked to make. For that, the owners needed to be willing to disclose more information to support their argument.

 

[Ring 6]

Now, of special interest to the present discussion is this line immediately prior to the list of included revenue sources:

Right there, in the CBA, each NFL Team accepts the obligation use their "best efforts" to maximize total revenues. So while the owners might still have a case to not disclose expenditures, they will certainly be obliged to account for all of the above enumerated revenue streams, and demonstrate their "best efforts" to maximize them.

Actually, they already disclose revenues to all parties satisfaction.

They are not obligated to demonstarte best efforts, the union would be burdened with proving they did not. That is a big difference.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

The NFLPA also had an obligation to act in the best interest of the league, which includes the owners. Don't see them going out of their way to do that.

Nope. They are only obliged to show the breakdown of total revenues, Team Salary, Cash Player Costs, Player Costs and Benefits . It is up to the NFLPA to prove that the owners aren't doing their best to maximize the revenue streams. There ARE two teams, The Bills and Bengals, who have refused to sell the naming rights to the stadiums. But I think you'd be hard pressed to get a sponsor to pony up even $5 million a year for those places.

I read somewhere where Jerry Jones told Ralph Wilson to give me 20 minutes and Ill get 20 million a year for your stadiums naming rights. Not sure if it was bluster or if he could really do it.

 

[lamafist]

Actually, they already disclose revenues to all parties satisfaction.

I'd be interested in seeing where you've read this, because my understanding is that the owners' local revenues have not been disclosed to the NFLPA's satisfaction.

They are not obligated to demonstarte best efforts, the union would be burdened with proving they did not. That is a big difference.

This isn't a criminal proceeding, there's no burden of proof on either party. By 'demonstrate' I only meant furbish the relevant information.

 

[Ring 6]

I'd be interested in seeing where you've read this, because my understanding is that the owners' local revenues have not been disclosed to the NFLPA's satisfaction.

Do you have a source? I have never, ever, ever seen any complaint by the players or unions that they dispute the method of calculating shared revenues. If by local you mean revenues that are outside of the agreement, what right do they have to see those anyway?

This isn't a criminal proceeding, there's no burden of proof on either party. By 'demonstrate' I only meant furbish the relevant information.

You applied the burden, and are now saying they have to furnish proof that they are not cheating? Why would they be required to do that?
And, in any event, they already offered to and were told no thanks.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Originally Posted by AndyJohnson
Actually, they already disclose revenues to all parties satisfaction.

I'd be interested in seeing where you've read this, because my understanding is that the owners' local revenues have not been disclosed to the NFLPA's satisfaction.

I think your getting things mixed up, the players want to see the owners books to see if they really need more money as they say, theres been no dipsute on total revenues. That was defined in the last CBA and everyone seems content with the total, its how to split the pie (total revenue) thats causing the controversy.

 

[Ring 6]

I think your getting things mixed up, the players want to see the owners books to see if they really need more money as they say, theres been no dipsute on total revenues. That was defined in the last CBA and everyone seems content with the total, its how to split the pie (total revenue) thats causing the controversy.

No, Im not mixed up, you just said exactly what I have been saying. Some are saying the request for financials is because the players claim the owners are not legitimately reporting revenues. Silly because they collectively bargained the means of doing so.