Judge Nelson rules in favor of the players

[Deus Irae]

I agree with you that the players absolutely demanded something that everyone knew the owners would not willingly give. And when the owners didn't give it, then the players did what they absolutely knew they were going to do when they first made the demand. Negotiations effectively ended when the players said "show us your books or negotiations will end".

Now whether or not that was a good strategy is still to be seen. The players have won round 1 and round 2. However, rounds 3 and 4 are more meaningful and still to be played out.

They owners had years to show the profitability issue was valid, and they never bothered to do so. Blaming the players for calling the owners on it is ridiculous.

 

[TruthSeeker]

They owners had years to show the profitability issue was valid, and they never bothered to do so. Blaming the players for calling the owners on it is ridiculous.

The players explicitly said that data about owner profitability from a 3rd party auditor was less than worthless so we know that this isn't what they really wanted. But we had this discussion already so I won't bother to go into anymore detail.

The point I was making was that the players had already decided to litigate before the owners' last proposal. I'm not saying that this was wrong; I'm just saying that the players made it crystal clear before the proposal what their demands were and the owners' proposal did not conform to their demands - and everyone who was following this knew with close to 100% certainty that the owners were not going to meet their demands (open their books).

You evidently consider this to be calling the players out. I don't; I just consider it to be understanding what was going on and acknowledging the obvious strategy of the players. Likewise, the owners did not practice good faith negotiations a significant part of the time as well. I haven't been able to predict what the owners were going to do in negotiations quite as easily as what the players were going to do. Perhaps that's just me or perhaps their strategy isn't quite as obvious.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

They owners had years to show the profitability issue was valid, and they never bothered to do so. Blaming the players for calling the owners on it is ridiculous.

Of course, you are correct. But I must ask, when was the last time a business shared its financials with a union?

The union is disbanded, the players are employees at will. The teams can create their own employment rules, work environment, etc. The owners should just go for it. Tell the judge that they are willing to live with her ruling and make the players pay for their ingratitude. This is the problem with all unions, eventually they kill the golden goose. the players were making huge money, the owners were making huge money, but profits were decreasing. The union refuses to work with ownership and the business/industry suffers. In this case the owners got a break, the union desolved, making all of the players who are not under contract independent workers in a qualified workforce. The owners are under no laws to force them to continue paying the players at the same level as they were two years ago, and they are under no law to pay for their health insurance.

So the question is, would you give up the draft to turn the clock back 25 years? If the owners have a vindictive bone in their body they will say "HELL YES!" This could be fun.

 

[townes]

Is it your position that the owners acted against their best interest by opting out?
Are you saying your advice to the owners would be to turn over 10 years of each teams financials?
Do you feel that if you were an owner you would be supporting playing under the old agreement?

YEs, Yes, and Yes. The owners acted out of unmitigated greed and on legal advice as exceptional as Ryan Leaf's career, and this is what it has brought them. They would have been far better off continuing to make billions and billions and billions under the existing deal than be where they are now.

 

[Triumph]

Again, the facts are against your position.

Do you mean like when I posted a direct quote from the NFL stating that the owners would continue under lockout rules, but you had your facts all screwed up and claimed I was wrong and the owners would be in contempt unless they conducted "business as usual"?

All that changed was the doors were unlocked.

The next day, 1 NFL player worked out at an NFL facility and that team received an order from the league to cease and desist.

Shouldnt the owners be charged with contempt? You claimed they would be.

It was the owners opting out.

It was the players being unreasonable. They did receive 60% of gross revenue after the owners took out operating expenses. Theres a recession going on if you havent noticed and significant inflation as operating costs have risen.

It was the owners refusing to share sufficient financial information when asked as far back as 2 weeks after Smith took over.

It was the players asking for financial info 10 years back in the 11th hour or they would sue. They want to scrutinize the owners books.

It was the owners skipping meetings, leaving meetings and not returning, and showing up late when there was a deadline involved.

It was the players offering a 50/50 split without taking 1 billion off the top.

It was the players wanting to do away with the draft.

It was the players wanting total free agency without restrictions.

The players offered to play under the old agreement. The owners refused.

The owners have offered to go back to the negotiating table. The players refused.

They like the court room.

 

[aabtec]

Of course, you are correct. But I must ask, when was the last time a business shared its financials with a union?

The union is disbanded, the players are employees at will. The teams can create their own employment rules, work environment, etc. The owners should just go for it. Tell the judge that they are willing to live with her ruling and make the players pay for their ingratitude. This is the problem with all unions, eventually they kill the golden goose. the players were making huge money, the owners were making huge money, but profits were decreasing. The union refuses to work with ownership and the business/industry suffers. In this case the owners got a break, the union desolved, making all of the players who are not under contract independent workers in a qualified workforce. The owners are under no laws to force them to continue paying the players at the same level as they were two years ago, and they are under no law to pay for their health insurance.

So the question is, would you give up the draft to turn the clock back 25 years? If the owners have a vindictive bone in their body they will say "HELL YES!" This could be fun.

Can you provide the list of businesses that have anti-trust exemption?

Thanks

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Can you provide the list of businesses that have anti-trust exemption?

Thanks

None of that matters any more. No union, no union benefits, no union protection, no union wage scale.

A year or two and the players will cave and start another union. Whan that happens I hope the owners are smart enough not to make the same mistakes they made the last time.

 

[Deus Irae]

Of course, you are correct. But I must ask, when was the last time a business shared its financials with a union?

I don't know what exact day it was done, but you need look no further than the other sports leagues.

The union is disbanded, the players are employees at will. The teams can create their own employment rules, work environment, etc. The owners should just go for it. Tell the judge that they are willing to live with her ruling and make the players pay for their ingratitude. This is the problem with all unions, eventually they kill the golden goose. the players were making huge money, the owners were making huge money, but profits were decreasing. The union refuses to work with ownership and the business/industry suffers. In this case the owners got a break, the union desolved, making all of the players who are not under contract independent workers in a qualified workforce. The owners are under no laws to force them to continue paying the players at the same level as they were two years ago, and they are under no law to pay for their health insurance.

So the question is, would you give up the draft to turn the clock back 25 years? If the owners have a vindictive bone in their body they will say "HELL YES!" This could be fun.

Everything the owners do is now done at peril of violating anti-trust laws and resulting in triple damages. They can declare any rules they want, and the players can sue in response.

 

[Ring 6]

YEs, Yes, and Yes. The owners acted out of unmitigated greed and on legal advice as exceptional as Ryan Leaf's career, and this is what it has brought them. They would have been far better off continuing to make billions and billions and billions under the existing deal than be where they are now.

Well, I wasn't asking you but it is very insightful to your opinion to see that you would advise the owners to not act in their own best interest.
Really, if you were counsel for the owners, you would tell them to hand over their financials to the union that is on the doorstep of the court ready to sue them? Really?
And you would tell the other 31 owners who feel the old CBA was a bad deal for them to suck it up and live with it because why?

 

[Ring 6]

YEs, Yes, and Yes. The owners acted out of unmitigated greed and on legal advice as exceptional as Ryan Leaf's career, and this is what it has brought them. They would have been far better off continuing to make billions and billions and billions under the existing deal than be where they are now.

By the way, they arent making billions and billlions and billions, the league is bringing in 9 billion of revenue. The players get half, the owners get half of the revenue form which they pay all of the expenses. The Packers financials would lead me to believe they havent made A billion in the history of the franchise combined.

I'm curious though. If the pie is 9 billion, and the owners share is 4.5billion, from which they pay all of the expenses of the franchise and you divide what is left of 4.5bill- x bill by 32 who is making 'billions and billions and billions'?

 

[lamafist]

By the way, they arent making billions and billlions and billions, the league is bringing in 9 billion of revenue. The players get half, the owners get half of the revenue form which they pay all of the expenses. The Packers financials would lead me to believe they havent made A billion in the history of the franchise combined.

The Packers are a not-for-profit organization. If they made anywhere close to a billion dollars, there would be massive fraud going on.

I'm curious though. If the pie is 9 billion, and the owners share is 4.5billion, from which they pay all of the expenses of the franchise and you divide what is left of 4.5bill- x bill by 32 who is making 'billions and billions and billions'?

First off, you're forgetting about the $1 billion off the top for league expenses.

Second, you're also forgetting about the fact that the most of these expenses the owners are paying figure to increase the value of the franchise, which is an asset belonging to the owners. According to Forbes, the average franchise value in 1998 was under $279 million. It is now over $1 billion.

Thus, before we even count a dollar of annual profit, the NFL owners' collective personal wealth has increased by $23 billion in that time. Again -- that's before we even count up team profits.

 

[Ring 6]

The Packers are a not-for-profit organization. If they made anywhere close to a billion dollars, there would be massive fraud going on.

Not true. Not for profit doesnt mean don't operate profitably, it means reinvest the 'profit'

First off, you're forgetting about the $1 billion off the top for league expenses.

Not when I use 50, because its 60/40 after the 1 bill which works out to right about 50/50 of all.

Second, you're also forgetting about the fact that the most of these expenses the owners are paying figure to increase the value of the franchise, which is an asset belonging to the owners. According to Forbes, the average franchise value in 1998 was under $279 million. It is now over $1 billion.

Not forgetting that at all. Increase in the value of the business is a different factor than 'making billions and billions and billions' and completely different that what percentage revenues are split at.

Thus, before we even count a dollar of annual profit, the NFL owners' collective personal wealth has increased by $23 billion in that time. Again -- that's before we even count up team profits.

A curious statement considering they are 2 very different things. Are you now suggesting that if the owner sells the team, he should split the profit with the players?

 

[lamafist]

Not true. Not for profit doesnt mean don't operate profitably, it means reinvest the 'profit'

If it's reinvested, it ceases to be profit. And while theoretically, the Packers could technically rake in as much money as they can and then scramble to find enough ways to reinvest it so that their margins don't exceed what's permissible for a NFP, but of course, as that would be reckless and counterproductive, they don't. For example, when Lambeau needed to be modernized, the PSLs they assessed were budgeted precisely to pay for the planned construction, unlike other teams, whose PSL amounts were based entirely on market calculations.

Not when I use 50, because its 60/40 after the 1 bill which works out to right about 50/50 of all.

Fair enough.

Not forgetting that at all. Increase in the value of the business is a different factor than 'making billions and billions and billions' and completely different that what percentage revenues are split at.


A curious statement considering they are 2 very different things. Are you now suggesting that if the owner sells the team, he should split the profit with the players?

Increasing the value of a business is how the owners (and/or investors) make the lion's share of their money. Mark Zuckerberg became one of the 50 richest people in the world before his company ever had a single profitable year. Growing the value of the franchise is the name of the game for the owners, and to paint a picture that suggests that a team that makes little in operating income yet triples in value over 10 years is somehow not "profitable" for the owner is a gross distortion of reality.

The reality is that the NFL owners have made collectively 23 billion since 1998, before a dollar of profit has been counted. In no way can they be said NOT to be making billions of dollars. To argue otherwise is simply equivocating on a meaningless technicality.

(Especially since you're treating the money the owners spend on their teams as lost, when it directly contributes to the value of the asset they exclusively own.)

 

[DaBruinz]

One of the things that the owners should do is make it so that the amount off the top is not a fixed amount, but a fixed rate. The 1 billion is about 11.1%. of the Gross revenue. 2 billion is approximately 22.2%. I think a fixed % of 13 -15% should be more than fair to both sides. Without the need of the NFLPA's demands of 10 years of financials.

 

[lamafist]

One of the things that the owners should do is make it so that the amount off the top is not a fixed amount, but a fixed rate. The 1 billion is about 11.1%. of the Gross revenue. 2 billion is approximately 22.2%. I think a fixed % of 13 -15% should be more than fair to both sides. Without the need of the NFLPA's demands of 10 years of financials.

The credit deduction amount already is a variable function of revenue.

 

[DaBruinz]

The reality is that the NFL owners have made collectively 23 billion since 1998, before a dollar of profit has been counted. In no way can they be said NOT to be making billions of dollars. To argue otherwise is simply equivocating on a meaningless technicality.

I'm sorry, but your statement is fundamentally flawed.

The value of an item comes from numerous sources. Like an increase in real estate prices. Like an increase in assets, including cash on hand. The only way to increase the cash on hand is through profits. It also comes from an increase in the demand of the product. Teams like the Packers have a 40 year season ticket waiting list. The Pats waiting list is like 15 years or so. Other teams don't have a waiting list at all.

Teams that WIN on a consistent basis have a higher value than a team that loses on a consistent basis. Teams that lose on a consistent basis get sold more often. We, as Pats fans, know this all to well.

To say that the NFL Owners have "MADE" 23 billion, just because the values of the teams have increased is just downright erroneous and shows a lack of understanding of economics.

 

[DaBruinz]

The credit deduction amount already is a variable function of revenue.

It's a flat 1 billion and has been since the 2006 CBA was signed.

 

[Wolfpack]

To say that the NFL Owners have "MADE" 23 billion, just because the values of the teams have increased is just downright erroneous and shows a lack of understanding of economics.

His vernacular is incorrect, but the point he's making is a valid one. Bob Kraft has an unrealized gain of almost $1 billion from his ownership in the Patriots based on the increased value of the team (the value of the team has actually increased by more than a billion, but some of that increase comes from investments and not gains).

That's a significant enough figure to mention when having these discussions.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Everything the owners do is now done at peril of violating anti-trust laws and resulting in triple damages. They can declare any rules they want, and the players can sue in response.

Then they cannot create a unified set of league wide rules. Unless I misunderstand what the Judge said, by decertifying the players gave up the protection that they had under the CBA. If that is the case then the players should have to start all over again, and nothing that was collectively bargained applies any more.

As I said, this is an opportunity for the owners to regain control of their league. No salary structure, no benefits, no pension, just football and a salary that makes them want to play on Sunday. Kind of like the 70's and 80's, except the pay is better.

As long as the owners don't enforce uniform rules, they can screw the players all they want, I mean they can reestablish control of their league in the best possible way. If they do it right, decertification will never ever be considered by any union again.

 

[Deus Irae]

Then they cannot create a unified set of league wide rules. Unless I misunderstand what the Judge said, by decertifying the players gave up the protection that they had under the CBA. If that is the case then the players should have to start all over again, and nothing that was collectively bargained applies any more.

As I said, this is an opportunity for the owners to regain control of their league. No salary structure, no benefits, no pension, just football and a salary that makes them want to play on Sunday. Kind of like the 70's and 80's, except the pay is better.

As long as the owners don't enforce uniform rules, they can screw the players all they want, I mean they can reestablish control of their league in the best possible way. If they do it right, decertification will never ever be considered by any union again.

Given that the owners want a level playing field, what you're asking for cannont happen.