Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[cmasspatsfan]

Commission is based upon what you sell not the companies overall profits, and I doubt you are restricted from going and working for other companies if you choose. How would you respond if your company owner said you not only had to take a significant pay cut or he won't let you work but that he had discussed it with his 31 other competitors and agreed you couldn't go work for them either?

The players share is tied to overall revenue not profits. Theres no dispute on revenues, the owners say they need more money to grow the game because costs have gone up and they've shown that costs have gone up.
The players are'nt forced to play, they're free to do something else if they choose, as am I.

The players want the financials because the owners cited their costs as the reason for locking out and asking for big money back in a new deal. If someone makes that claim they are responsible for backing it up.

They did but the players requested more, they wanted the full financials which is different than just showing that costs have gone up.

Read the article posted this morning, you'll see they didnt ask for big money back, they did initially but the final offer was much less.

 

[townes]

Totally wrong. They are negotiating a deal. They opted out of the CBA, which was their right. They cited that exepnses increased so they require a decrease in payroll or they do not wish to operate the league. They are under no obligation to prove their bargaining stance. They could say we are making zillions, but we want more, give us more or don't play, and they have every right to do that.
If your argument is that they need to show the financials to make you feel good about their bargaining position, OK and good luck, but if its anything more than that you simply have no justification.

My argument is that the players are under no obligation to take them at their word and since the owners refuse to support their own argument they shouldn't.

 

[townes]

The players share is tied to overall revenue not profits. Theres no dispute on revenues, the owners say they need more money to grow the game because costs have gone up and they've shown that costs have gone up





They did but the players requested more, they wanted the full financials which is different than just showing that costs have gone up.

Read the article posted this morning, you'll see they didnt ask for big money back, they did initially but the final offer was much less.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

In a small business, you're probably right. In corporate America, you're probably wrong. You get a big parachute and you fly away free. Some of these guys have had their skins saved by the Gov't, after all. Should I list the owners who have had a bedrock of support beneath them?

These are the owners who are pure football guys with longevity, football is the main business, AND/OR they inherited their team from parents whose business was football:

1. Wilson
2. Bidwill
3. McCaskey
4. Brown
5. Bowlen
6. Irsay
7. Hunt
8. Davis
9. Rooney
10. Mara

When you realize that the inflationary rise in the value of the franchises over years is largely a result of both their hardwork, but also the taxpayer, it's really hard to say they had their skins in the game. Every one of these guys except for the Mara's owes a portion of their net worth to a taxpaying public that gave them a stadium. So, I sometimes feel like they shouldn't get that much credit for putting their hide on the line. They are supported by taxpayers.

Owners who became fabulously wealthy as CEOs or in Finance:

1. Blank--Home Depot, all the venture capital for the start of HD was put up by Ken Rangone
2. Lerner--MBNA Exec
3. Allen--Venture capital launched 100% of his business
4. Adams--CEO Phillips Petroleum
5. Lurie--Hollywood Producer, ace at raising cash for movies and making a bundle

Self-Made, invested their own money

1. Richardson--Hardee's
2. Jones--Oil
3. Kraft--IFP
4. Bisciotti
5. Weaver--9 West Shoes
6. Benson--Car Dealership
7. Spanos--Construction
8. Snyder--Advertising
9. Wulf--Apartment Homes
10. Glazer--Conglomerate

Mixed bags:

1. Ross--Made his money at Bear Stearns, Real Estate
2. Ford--Old Family Biz, been public now since forever, CEO of Ford until 2005, Gov't bailout
3. Kroenke--Married into Walton Family, then started company that builds WalMarts
4. DeBartolo--Won 49ers in family lawsuit, father owned malls
5. Johnson--J&J Heir, trust fund turned into Johnson Investing (hedge fund), caught bilking the gov't of $300 million in taxes--lucky he didn't go to jail
6. McNair--Ran Public Utilities, part of Enron

There are certainly several owners who have have their own hides at risk. But they entered this biz that relies on the performance of athletes. I don't see those athletes as expendable. Guys like Brady and Manning are practically irreplaceable icons. But the rest of the guys have been totally buoyed by taxpayers, and their valuations are based on a whole host of questionable factors, such as the business entertainment deduction. The point is, I don't think the contention that they have their own cash at stake holds for many of them.

I am completely lost on your point.
Why would the other interests and backgrounds of the owners have anyting to do with how the CBA affects the profitability of the team?

It sounds like you are trying to say they have money so crew them they dont need more.

How can they not have their own money at stake?
If their is a lockout and revenue equals 0 (I realize it wont be exactly zero but close) and expenses equal 10,000,000 that 10,000,000 is money that gets paid. It gets paid from the assets of the owner. That owner, all things equal has 10,000,000 less than he did before the year.

 

[lamafist]

Totally wrong. They are negotiating a deal. They opted out of the CBA, which was their right. They cited that exepnses increased so they require a decrease in payroll or they do not wish to operate the league. They are under no obligation to prove their bargaining stance. They could say we are making zillions, but we want more, give us more or don't play, and they have every right to do that.
If your argument is that they need to show the financials to make you feel good about their bargaining position, OK and good luck, but if its anything more than that you simply have no justification.

Right. The owners did not have to justify their demand of an additional $1 billion off the top, but they chose to do so, claiming insufficient profits to reinvest in league growth.

The NFLPA doesn't need to justify its demand of the teams' financial statements, but it's chosen to make it clear that its purpose is to validate the league's claims.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes--The Direct TV deal.



BTW-I'm fine with any neutral arbitor reviewing the books with agreed upon criteria for analyzing whether the owners claim of increased costs is accurate or not. If the money goes to improving their NFL product they have a case and the players should support them in it, but if the money goes elsewhere then it's not a related expense and the claim they are using to justify a different deal is invalid.

OK, then lets assume expenses didnt go up (as silly as that is) and that no money was reinvested in the league (clearly wrong) and the owners want a reduction in the cap anyway.
What then?
They have the right to set what they will accept at whatever level they want.
Do you expect that if they turn over financials and those 2 things are proven that the owners have to change their proposal?

I have asked many times in this thread and no one answers.
What result do you expect to come from turning over financials?

 

[cmasspatsfan]

The reason for a CBA was to play, it wouldn't have happened without it.

QUOTE]

The league makes so much money and so successful because it has anti trust exemption. If it didnt you would have a few teams making all the money, keeping it and buying all the good players and winning every year, the bottom teams fans would lose interest and bankrupt the team and you would end up with a 6 team league. The system they have is what makes them so much money and everyone knows that and thats why they operate like they do.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

I have asked many times in this thread and no one answers.
What result do you expect to come from turning over financials?

The players side is trying to make it sound if the owners turn it over they will accept the deal, only the naive believe that. Its solely to gain public opinion in their favor.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not all over the place you are making an invalid analogy by comparing salespeople who can take their practice anywhere and who make their money off of commission with NFL players who are restricted in their right to work and who get a cut from an overall revenue base. There is no "hard cap" in real life, only in sports.

How does freedom to move have anything to do with the fact that their pay is based on the same factors? You are dismissing the analogy because it is dssimilar in an aspect that is irrelevant to the analogy.
Not to mention that freedom of player movement has nothing to do with the COLLECTIVE pay structure. With freedom of movement individual players may have different salaries, but the overall cap, which is the point here would be unaffected.

My point is very straightforward, the owners opted out claiming costs and now they need to back that up with facts. The onus is on them. You are saying they can make that claim and shouldn't have to support it, that's pretty odd imo.

They are negotiating a contract. Why would they have to prove the reason they use for their business plan? By the way, it is only one of a multitude of factors they use to set the cap they want.


I will ask AGAIN. What do you expect to result from handing over the financials?

 

[Ring 6]

The players side is trying to make it sound if the owners turn it over they will accept the deal, only the naive believe that. Its solely to gain public opinion in their favor.

Right, but even if they did, what are the people claiming they should thinking would be accomplished?

It seems like they think the financials are not subject to interpretation, the owners are liars and their expenses arent increasing and that when they turn them over the union will say "Gotcha" and the owners will give them whatever they ask for.
That is beyond naive.

 

[Ring 6]

My argument is that the players are under no obligation to take them at their word and since the owners refuse to support their own argument they shouldn't.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

The reason for a CBA was to play, it wouldn't have happened without it.

QUOTE]

The league makes so much money and so successful because it has anti trust exemption. If it didnt you would have a few teams making all the money, keeping it and buying all the good players and winning every year, the bottom teams fans would lose interest and bankrupt the team and you would end up with a 6 team league. The system they have is what makes them so much money and everyone knows that and thats why they operate like they do.

And the players would make less money too.
Letsget over this idea that the antitrust exemption is pro-owner and anti-player. If that were the case the union would not allow it rahter than embrace it.

 

[JoeSixPat]

BTW, if these concession are true, the NFLPA may have miscalculated with their decertification move. If the NFL can prove in court that this offer was a good faith effort to negotiate with the players, the courts could force the players to accept this proposal as is.

I think the NFLPA simply wants to put off an agreement for a bit to avoid offseason workouts and let the draft move forward - then try for another concession or two but willing to accept this by summer camps.

Really, what incentive do they have to reach an agreement today?

 

[upstater1]

I am completely lost on your point.
Why would the other interests and backgrounds of the owners have anyting to do with how the CBA affects the profitability of the team?

It sounds like you are trying to say they have money so crew them they dont need more.

How can they not have their own money at stake?
If their is a lockout and revenue equals 0 (I realize it wont be exactly zero but close) and expenses equal 10,000,000 that 10,000,000 is money that gets paid. It gets paid from the assets of the owner. That owner, all things equal has 10,000,000 less than he did before the year.

I was pointing out that NFL assets have been backstopped and inflated by taxpayers, and that--furthermore--this is not very different from how things operate in the business world outside the NFL. We hear about the risks taken by these titans of business, but the world is a lot more complicated than that.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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

 

[Ring 6]

I was pointing out that NFL assets have been backstopped and inflated by taxpayers, and that--furthermore--this is not very different from how things operate in the business world outside the NFL. We hear about the risks taken by these titans of business, but the world is a lot more complicated than that.

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.

 

[lamafist]

OK, then lets assume expenses didnt go up (as silly as that is) and that no money was reinvested in the league (clearly wrong) and the owners want a reduction in the cap anyway.
What then?
They have the right to set what they will accept at whatever level they want.
Do you expect that if they turn over financials and those 2 things are proven that the owners have to change their proposal?

I have asked many times in this thread and no one answers.
What result do you expect to come from turning over financials?

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.

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.

 

[townes]

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.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

OK, I am walking away from this for now, and will end with this.

I do not think any of us have close to enough information to be sure of anything here. There is reality, their is opinion, there is media reporting, their is behind closed doors decisions that we know nothing about.

However, while I am giving my less than educated opinions, I keep coming back to the question no one who is blaming the owners will answer:

What do you expect to result from the owners turning over their financials.

Without that answer the debate is silly.
The other question no one wants to answer is whether or not they recognize the multitude of legitimate reasons the owners would resist turning their financials over to their adversary.

When I come back I'd love to debate either of those points, but otherwise this has become pointless.

 

[townes]

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.

And I''ll ask again, how honest was the Direct TV deal.