Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Ring 6]

During negotiations?

The NFLPA would have been able to point to the fact that the teams with shrinking profit margins have consistently failed to reinvest in their franchises over the past 10 years the way owners like Snyder, Kraft and Jones have, and argue that if the league wants additional money taken off the top for league development, there needs to be some structure in place to make sure that the league's 'deadbeat' owners actually put it back into their franchises.

You assume that the owners are lying.
If you are correct, you now have the union reducing their proposal, the one the owners rejected.
Where does that get us?

It would also be able to propose that the amount of money being reinvested in the league by the players be mitigated by alterations to the revenue-sharing system negotiated between the owners in the last CBA so that the league's successful owners are helping the players pitch in to prop up the deadbeat franchises.

So you support the idea that the owners should allow the union to tell them where their profit margin should be?
How do you think that will go?

It appears you want the financials reviewed so you can assess blame to where you are convinced it lies.
How will that help to get an agreement?

 

[lamafist]

Why do you insist on the reason the owners cited for their position being a key to the deal?
Do you really think its a ploy and the financials will expose them, so then the owners will accept less? Really?

I will ask AGAIN.
What do you expect to result from financials being turned over.

At this point it seems you want to put blame on the owners so you are holding fast to the idea that they are liars, hiding stuff and everything would be wonderful if they told the truth.

The mediator could decree that the owners were not negotiating in good faith, and instruct the league to revise its claims or be deemed responsible for the breakdown in negotiations. The mediator can't demand anything legally binding, but the NFL would *not* want to go into a lawsuit having been declared not negotiating in good faith by the federal mediator.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Are you serious?

The owners claim they have to opt out for financial reasons and refuse to demonstrate the veracity of that claim but you think that's "irrelevant?"


The financials either demonstrate or don't demonstrate the truth of the owners claim, and if provided they provide a framework for reaching a new deal.


And yes, i think the owners are dishonest and the Direct TV deal proves that imo.


Bottom line, you believe and support the owners and i don't believe them and I support the players. Hopefully all come to their senses and reach a long term deal that addresses needs and concerns so we all get football back, in the meantime i'm holding off on buying a big new flat screen until football is back.

Truth be told i don't care who gets what i simply think that the dealings should be as honest and straightforward as possible, and right now that isn't the case.

Townes, read this article if you havent seen it yet

NFL releases details of its proposal - FoxNews.com

 

[townes]

Can you accept that there are many legitimate reasons that they would not want to turn over thier financials to their adversary that are not just because they are lying?

Interestingly you say they are lying but you did not answer my question of whether you really believe that in this economy their expenses have not increased over the last 3-4 years

I don't believe they should be adversaries, i think they should work together to get the fairest deal for all. You apparently think the players are the enemy and are out to destroy the league.

Operating expenses definitely rise but so do revenues, as is clear from the cap expansion, the question is which trumps which, and only the records will show what the truth is.



And while I clearly said i think the owners are dishonest i never said they were lying about expenses, simply that their refusal to support this claim makes it look like they are hiding something. I believe some owners have reinvested heavily in their franchises and can support this and the request for givebacks, and I think other owners suck off the NFL teet and don't reinvest and don't need or deserve a giveback. I think the players are taking the brunt because the owners refuse to get their own house in order, and that was obvious when they created the last deal.

 

[townes]

Townes, read this article if you havent seen it yet

NFL releases details of its proposal - FoxNews.com

cmass, i have seen the outlines of the leagues claims, i just think they are spinning and i agree with the players on the need for transparency. I'm fine with whatever they work out, and i think that abandoning revenue sharing is fine if the owners don't want to reveal their finances, i just don't think they can have it both ways. Offer the players a yearly lump sum absent of revenues and the books can stay closed.

 

[townes]

Until the Direct TV deal is addressed no one can claim the owners are honest. you guys have avoided it throughout these debates.

 

[Ring 6]

Are you serious?

The owners claim they have to opt out for financial reasons and refuse to demonstrate the veracity of that claim but you think that's "irrelevant?"

There opt out was not dependent on financial reasons, and there current proposal is not dependant on financial reasons.
Revenue is already transparent, and the CBA is based upon revenue.
The owners feel their profit is insufficient. The union does not have to agree with that for the owners to feel that way.

The financials either demonstrate or don't demonstrate the truth of the owners claim, and if provided they provide a framework for reaching a new deal.

Who cares if they are telling the truth? Its a business negotiation.
Besides, Mr Naive, the financials will show that they told the truth and show that they lied.
The NFL will interpret them to show they say exactly what they claim, and the union will interpret them to show they lied. Where does that get us?

How in the world would the financials provide a framework for an agreement?
They would put us substantially farther from an agreement.
First, they would now stop negotiating to argue over what the financials really show.
Then we will add "What is an acceptable level of profit" to the issues that are being negotiated. Now they not only have to agree on everything they already cant, but the union will tell the owners what amount of profit they think should be acceptable, which of course the owners will disagree with.
You simply cannot negotiate over 10 years of 32 teams financials and not have it turn into an argument over what level of profit is fair.

If you want to guarantee no 2011 season, have the owners turn over financials.

Your PollyAnna view that it would result in the owners saying oops, we lied we will take less is beyond ridiculous.

And yes, i think the owners are dishonest and the Direct TV deal proves that imo.

If they are, then the financials would screw them, so why would they turn them over.
The Special Master disagrees with you. To my understanding the Directv deal was not done stealthly. And, by the way, if there is a lockout the deal will benefit the players more than the owners.

Bottom line, you believe and support the owners

Where did I say that? I think it is absurd to even suggest there is enough information to know the truth.
I have not said I believe or support the owners. I am saying its foolish to expect them to turn over their financials, and naive to think because they said thier expenses went up that obligates them to.

and i don't believe them and I support the players. Hopefully all come to their senses and reach a long term deal that addresses needs and concerns so we all get football back, in the meantime i'm holding off on buying a big new flat screen until football is back.

I support labor peace. The approach the union is taking greatly reduces the chances that we get that.

Truth be told i don't care who gets what i simply think that the dealings should be as honest and straightforward as possible, and right now that isn't the case.

Do you show your cards when you play poker? Thats pretty much what you are asking the owners to do.
The purpose is to get the best deal they can, for both sides. Not to sit in a room tell each other everything on their minds hold hands sing Kumbaya and have a solution fall from the sky.
It is an ADVERSERIAL process and you just dont seem to get that.

 

[lamafist]

You assume that the owners are lying.
If you are correct, you now have the union reducing their proposal, the one the owners rejected.
Where does that get us?

So you support the idea that the owners should allow the union to tell them where their profit margin should be?
How do you think that will go?

It appears you want the financials reviewed so you can assess blame to where you are convinced it lies.
How will that help to get an agreement?

I'm not assuming the owners are lying. I know that some of them have not been running their teams like slumlords -- putting as little money as possible back into it, so that all of the money they get out of it is profit. They are essentially asking for a big rent hike, without having done anything to improve their property's value.

This isn't an assumption, either. It's observable fact that owners like the Browns, Wilsons, Fords and Bidwills have not even attempted to maximize their franchises' values the way Bob Kraft has.

And yes, as the Celador v. Disney decision and Doty's ruling on the NFL's TV contract suggest, I do believe that a party that is owed a percentage of a company's revenues is entitled to the reasonable expectation that the company in question will act in good faith so as to maximize that revenue, otherwise be ruled in breech. This isn't a radical decision, either. The players have contributed sweat equity to the NFL season in return for a stake in revenue, and have a right to insist that stake not be mismanaged.

So where does this get us in negotiations?

It refocuses them on the actual financial realities of the NFL's 32 franchises. It enables negotiations to proceed such that the players and successful owners' shared interests are recognized along with the owners' shared interests. It forces the issue of the revenue-sharing agreements between the owners, so hotly contested in the last CBA, back onto the table.

Ultimately, it broadens the scope of what's on the table, allowing the league, Goodell and the 32 owners to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement in which the structural reasons for the shortfall is addressed, instead of simply foisted onto the players.

 

[upstater1]

I assume that both the players and the owners are lying, and by players I mean union reps. Some of these guys have funky histories (like Woody).

 

[lamafist]

There opt out was not dependent on financial reasons, and there current proposal is not dependant on financial reasons.
Revenue is already transparent, and the CBA is based upon revenue.
The owners feel their profit is insufficient. The union does not have to agree with that for the owners to feel that way.



Who cares if they are telling the truth? Its a business negotiation.
Besides, Mr Naive, the financials will show that they told the truth and show that they lied.
The NFL will interpret them to show they say exactly what they claim, and the union will interpret them to show they lied. Where does that get us?

How in the world would the financials provide a framework for an agreement?
They would put us substantially farther from an agreement.
First, they would now stop negotiating to argue over what the financials really show.
Then we will add "What is an acceptable level of profit" to the issues that are being negotiated. Now they not only have to agree on everything they already cant, but the union will tell the owners what amount of profit they think should be acceptable, which of course the owners will disagree with.
You simply cannot negotiate over 10 years of 32 teams financials and not have it turn into an argument over what level of profit is fair.

If you want to guarantee no 2011 season, have the owners turn over financials.

Your PollyAnna view that it would result in the owners saying oops, we lied we will take less is beyond ridiculous.



If they are, then the financials would screw them, so why would they turn them over.
The Special Master disagrees with you. To my understanding the Directv deal was not done stealthly. And, by the way, if there is a lockout the deal will benefit the players more than the owners.



Where did I say that? I think it is absurd to even suggest there is enough information to know the truth.
I have not said I believe or support the owners. I am saying its foolish to expect them to turn over their financials, and naive to think because they said thier expenses went up that obligates them to.


I support labor peace. The approach the union is taking greatly reduces the chances that we get that.


Do you show your cards when you play poker? Thats pretty much what you are asking the owners to do.
The purpose is to get the best deal they can, for both sides. Not to sit in a room tell each other everything on their minds hold hands sing Kumbaya and have a solution fall from the sky.
It is an ADVERSERIAL process and you just dont seem to get that.

It is adversarial, sure -- but far, far from zero-sum.

Let's remember that the league is a phenomenally successful business whose continued existence is mutually beneficial for all parties.

You ask how opening up the records gets the two sides closer together to an agreement... it doesn't. But when you've hit a dead end, you have to be willing to go backwards a bit to find a successful way forward.

At present, the negotiations are at an impasse between two interest groups. Revealing the franchises' financial records puts a lot more on the table, and enables negotiations to proceed in new directions.

 

[upstater1]

But it still boils down to a business exists to make profit, and the difference between a collectively bargained union contract and a partnership is among other things that partners can lose their assets, and nion employees cannot.
That was the point in that portion of the discussion.

Usually you're talking about massive amounts of money and a middle class contract. Here though we're talking about players who have much more at stake precisely because they share revenues. Losses of tens of millions can happen on both sides. Loss of salary, loss of assets, loss of millions.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Interesting nugget from the article - the lawsuit will formally be called "Brady vs. NFL".

The NFLPA is missing a major publicity opportunity here. Tom is the lesser famous person. Were it "Bundchen vs NFL", far more people throughout the world would relate.

 

[ausbacker]

 

[billdog3484]

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.

silly document written in 1783? wow.

 

[billdog3484]

im sure anybody here who owned a business would want his/her workers inspecting the books.

 

[upstater1]

im sure anybody here who owned a business would want his/her workers inspecting the books.

If you had a contract with your employee, and you went back to them and said, I'm going to need you to give money back, they would ask you why? And you would have to tell them why it is you were willing to pay them so much last year, but want money back this year. Remember, your company just made more money than ever before.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

im sure anybody here who owned a business would want his/her workers inspecting the books.

I dont trust the owners or the players in this negotiation, they're both serving their self interests but I dont believe in any way that thw owners should open the books.
Im not picking one side or the other in the overall scheme I just agree with this point.

 

[Mike in 333]

Is anybody really surprised that no agreement was reached? Typically in negotiations of this type, agreement doesn't happen until the last minute. In this case, the last minute is sometime around the beginning of September at the start of the regular season. For most contract discussions when a contract expires and no agreement has been reached an employer can expect an immediate loss of revenue if workers go on strike and striking workers will experience an immediate loss of wages and therefore the contract expiration is the point at which both sides begin to feel the pain of their failure to come to terms. In the case of the NFL, while both sides will experience some negative financial impact, the players will not miss game checks and the owners will not lose game day revenue.
My gut feeling is that at some point later in the summer a negotiated settlement will occur between the owners and the NFLPA or another entity formed for the purpose of carrying out negotiations on behalf of the players. If the owners really don't want to open their books, a courtroom is probably the worst place to discuss that issue, this is just a negotiating tool that the players have at their disposal much as the owners had (or thought they had) the TV deal that was recently modified by the court.
As the season grows closer, so will the 2 sides, until then we can probably focus on the draft because not much else will be happening.

 

[IcyPatriot]

I don't think you can find any business in this country that has not had to cut costs. Most companies have 2 people doing the work that 3 used to do. The last deal was made under far different economic circumstances.

Kind of hard to lay off football players to readjust one's profit margin ... especially when it's a fixed percentage of operating costs. In lieu of having less people do the same amount of work the owners need to readjust their income to service their overhead.

Makes perfect sense to me ... I blame the players for not adjusting to the economic times. Unlike most businesses a $1 price hike does not go 100% to servicing overhead ... only what .35 to .40 cents of that dollar goes for that. So you can either hike income up 2:1 or you can get more to service your overhead at a 1:1 basis ... no member here would choose the 2:1 option if they owned the team.

 

[skinnydog]

I don't think you can find any business in this country that has not had to cut costs. Most companies have 2 people doing the work that 3 used to do. The last deal was made under far different economic circumstances.


Makes perfect sense to me ... I blame the players for not adjusting to the economic times. Unlike most businesses a $1 price hike does not go 100% to servicing overhead ... only what .35 to .40 cents of that dollar goes for that. So you can either hike income up 2:1 or you can get more to service your overhead at a 1:1 basis ... no member here would choose the 2:1 option if they owned the team.

Huh? Why have the owners had to cut costs? Has their revenue gone down? Have they been hit with some sort of inflation that has not hit the rest of us? the reality is that this has been in the works since 2006, even before the economy tanked. Almost as soon as the last deal was put in place the owners started planning for a lockout in 2011. I also suggest that the business of the NFL has been hit far less than the rest of the economy.