Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Off The Grid]

How do you get that out of what I said? Where did I say the players were out to destroy the league? Do you understand the word adversary?
There are billions of dollars at stake. Both sides are trying to get every penny they can. That is business. What is fair to one side is not fair to the other. You really are naive about this.


The owners are saying they are not making enough profit from the current system.
You sound as if you think they can pull out the books, sit together and read them and formula jumps off the page to decide the new deal. That just isnt a realistic view.




They SHOULD be hiding their financials, it is not the unions business.
Again do you show your hand when you play poker so its fair to the other guy and you can back up your bet?

They can do whatever they want, its their money. Should we have the players show us what they do with their 60%?

There is nothing in any agreement anywhere that says the owners are obligated to reinvest money in the league, or that taking every penny of profit is wrong in any way.

I don't know where you get the term giveback.

There is no agreement in effect between players and owners for the amount of compensation to players, and there hasn't been one for over a year now.

They are (were) negotiating to establish a pay scale.

You are assuming it must be an extension of the old agreement that went out the window after 2009.

It is not.

It is a new agreement.

Ownership is saying this time they are not willing to agree to as large a percentage as they did last time.

Players are saying they like that deal.

There is no giveback, because they have nothing, there is no agreement and wasn't last year either.


What are the owners not doing to get their house in order?

They agreed to the last deal and HONORED IT TO THE LETTER. When the choice to opt our came up, they decided it either was not a good deal for them any longer, or they simply felt they could negotiate a better one.

What is not in order in their house?

The players are taking the brunt of what? They have not lost a penny of pay yet.

It could easily be argued that the players enjoyed an inflated share of the revenue over the last few years, as the owners have basically said at that split they do not want to be in business.

How have the players been harmed at this juncture?

Brilliant.

This post ~ #274 ~ is, without PEER, the best Argument for the Owner's Case I've read in this long Thread.

You really need to hit the ENTER key a LOT more often, though.

Your posts are VERY difficult to read, Brother Andy.

 

[Off The Grid]

Props to Brother UpState, as well, for a strong representation of the player's side.

 

[IcyPatriot]

Huh? The last CBA was done 4 years ago. Not the 1990s. Property taxes? Assuming the owner owns the stadium, property taxes are down if the values have been reassessed.

Guess you don't own property upstater .... taxes never go down ... only up. Property may be reassessed and then the amount per thousand is adjusted that's all.

 

[sbpatfan]

There are strong arguments for each side, I just want to see football..

 

[DaBruinz]

An apples to oranges comparison because the $161 million figure includes money spent on benefits while the $128 million does not. From 2006 through 2009 the NFL spent an average of $22.775 million per team on benefits. If the $161 million does not include benefits, the average NFL team would be spending over $180 million on its players. If the NFL could afford to do that, why did they opt out in the 1st place

Miguel - Not sure where you got that the $161 million would include benefits since the cap has never included benefits in the past. Methinks that you are taking Mr. Smith too much at his word.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

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

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

No. What they requested back from the Union ends up being 59.5% of $650 million. Or approximately $386 million. That works out to just over $12 million per team. But, when you look further, the Union was still going to get an INCREASE the salary cap.. Just not something absurd like 18 or 20 million per team.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

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

Everything I've read has said that the decertification of the union is going to be declared null and that the owners will basically do the same thing they did between 1989 and 1993 to force the players into taking the last offer they put on the table.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

Talk about an over-simplification and totally ridiculous to boot. The owners have said numerous times the extra money was to go to stadium upgrades and to running the teams.

 

[DaBruinz]

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

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

No offense to Ian Rappaport, but I wouldn't accept that as authentic in any way, shape or form. You can't see the headers or footers. That document smacks of the NFLPA trying to make themselves look good by putting out false information.

 

[DaBruinz]

Some hard numbers from the Times

•The owners had previously dropped their demand from an additional $1 billion to $640 million. On Friday, they dropped this to an additional $320 million per year.
•The players countered with a proposal of $137 per year for four years, and withdrew their demand for financial verification.

Left unsaid was this - if the owners wanted more that the $137 million from the players, they had to agree to financial disclosure. Which the owners were unwilling to do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/12/sports/football/12nfl.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&ref=sports

That 137 million is the amount they'd give back out of the Split portion of the revenue. It's actually only about 82 million. Which is about 2.57 million per team. Or about the average amount of money that teams probably carried over from the 2008 season to the 2009 season.

So, forgive me for not being wowed by the players' "generosity".

 

[DaBruinz]

Damn them for wanting the truth.

*ROFLMAO* The players don't want the truth. Too many of them have zero understanding of finance beyond what to do with their paychecks. Handing them a complex balance sheet would probably make their heads spin.

Also, since you've been beating the players' drum, please show in the SSA or CBA where it says that the players are ENTITLED to a viewing of anything other than the league aggregate financials.

 

[DaBruinz]

The players have said they will rework the deal and take less if the books show that is needed, the owners refuse to back up their own case with the proof of their claim

10 years of financials, covering 2 previous CBAs will not do that.

I've not heard one player say they'd agree to a CBA where they got less. DeMaurice Smith may have said it. But he is worse than Goodell when it comes to saying things.

 

[DaBruinz]

Since the owners are claiming expenses are forcing them to make the players take less they have a responsibility to back that claim up with facts, and if they use that justification then it is on them to demonstrate they are using the revenues to reinvest in the product, which again is their claim and position, and that's why how they spend their cut is relevant, because they are the ones making the argument that is the issue.

If they league provides them with the AGGREGATE numbers from 2007 through 2009, then that should be enough for them.. It wasn't. The Union wanted in depth financials beyond what they could see looking at the Packers.

 

[DaBruinz]

You believe the owners, I don't, it's as simple as that. You guys can keep saying the owners have given the players the information needed but that is simply the owners take, and not fact. Both sides are spinning like crazy but the bottom line is that the owners won't provide the information and imo that will come out in the end.

Wrong. It is fact that the owners have provided information showing that their expenses have risen. The players want to know the Nuts and bolts.. Which they aren't entitled to.

 

[DaBruinz]

Except NFL revenues are up.

What expenses are the owners incurring that are higher? Commodities are down, energy prices are down, vendor's prices are down, inflation is down.

The main factor in all of this is the Supplemental Revenue Plan. That was the hang-up last time, it's the same hang-up this time.

It has nothing to do with expenses or revenues since the margins for NFL teams have expanded since the signing of the last CBA. The NFL is not experiencing the hard times that other businesses have.

Where are you getting that energy prices are down??? OIL is back over $100 a barrel and gasoline is almost $3.50 a gallon in many of the "cheaper" parts of the country.

Not sure when the last time you traveled was, but plane ticket prices have gone up because the cost of aviation fuel is up.

So are the cost of commodities. They are up because of the cost of gas.

You keep mentioning the Supplemental Revenue Plan but you are the only person who I have seen mention it.

BTW, the profit margins for the Packers are under 10%. Public knowledge. So, what's your explanation?

 

[DaBruinz]

Huh? The last CBA was done 4 years ago. Not the 1990s. Property taxes? Assuming the owner owns the stadium, property taxes are down if the values have been reassessed.

Unless the city they are in has raised the rate. As has happened all over the country. OR, as happened in California, the counties were over-inflating the assessments in an attempt to bring in more revenue to make up for the shortfalls they were having.

 

[patsfan-1982]

and we keep asking why companys keep going out of business in america bacause of worker unions like this who want all the profit. if the players get what they want we will see teams like the bills move to canada and more and more small market teams will have to sale or move just like whats happening in the NBA

the NFLPA thinks the owners are saleing them so they should get most of the money but true fans Root for the helmets and long after Brady Manning and so on... are gone fans will still Root for the pats colts steelers...

 

[McCourty Island]

and we keep asking why companys keep going out of business in america bacause of worker unions like this who want all the profit. if the players get what they want we will see teams like the bills move to canada and more and more small market teams will have to sale or move just like whats happening in the NBA

the NFLPA thinks the owners are saleing them so they should get most of the money but true fans Root for the helmets and long after Brady Manning and so on... are gone fans will still Root for the pats colts steelers...

Good point, this is why during the last player strike attendance was at about 25%, because people pay good money to watch any level of talent as long as they have an NFL logo on the helmet.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Good point, this is why during the last player strike attendance was at about 25%, because people pay good money to watch any level of talent as long as they have an NFL logo on the helmet.

That was two and a half decades ago, before the advent of 24/7 sports media and the internet and all it entails and it was a very small sample size since the players broke ranks almost immediately and were all back after a couple of games. Given the popularity of college football today vs. then, I'm not sure today's largely televised fans wouldn't adapt to any NFL product pdq.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

That 137 million is the amount they'd give back out of the Split portion of the revenue. It's actually only about 82 million. Which is about 2.57 million per team. Or about the average amount of money that teams probably carried over from the 2008 season to the 2009 season.

So, forgive me for not being wowed by the players' "generosity".

No, its 137 million off the top, before the split. Im not wowed by their generosity either im just posting the facts.