Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[IcyPatriot]

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.

You are assuming the last CBA was good for the owners. Revenue has gone up and so has costs ... overhead and profit margin are not to be confused with revenue and costs/overhead. Like what is going on in many cities and towns now - costs have increased at a higher rate than revenue and that is also true for most businesses. Also owners do not get $1 for every $1 in increased revenue ... they only get $ .45 of that which is why I said they need like $2 extra dollars to gain $1 extra dollar.

 

[upstater1]

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.

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.

 

[upstater1]

You are assuming the last CBA was good for the owners. Revenue has gone up and so has costs ... overhead and profit margin are not to be confused with revenue and costs/overhead. Like what is going on in many cities and towns now - costs have increased at a higher rate than revenue and that is also true for most businesses. Also owners do not get $1 for every $1 in increased revenue ... they only get $ .45 of that which is why I said they need like $2 extra dollars to gain $1 extra dollar.

What costs?

The kind of stuff the NFL spends money on, products for concessions, energy costs, etc., they're all down.

 

[IcyPatriot]

What costs?

The kind of stuff the NFL spends money on, products for concessions, energy costs, etc., they're all down.

How about their employees, property taxes etc ... you are saying electricity / utility costs are cheaper now than they were in the early 1990's ... wow we would all love that to be the case.

Business ownership expenses have increased since the early 90's to say anything different is not accurate.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

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.

Commodities and energy prices are down? Huh?
Cities are no longer building stadiums and giving teams sweetheart deals on the tax payers dollar, thats one are that they have to pay more for.
Im going to have to move where you live if the above bolded is true.
So while us common folks are getting layed off by the thousands or having to do the work of two men with no raises the players cap has been going up. Is it too much for them to have it go down slightly for one year then go up at a slower pace then the next 3-4 years after that?
Im sorry I dont feel bad for either side here.

 

[shmessy]

You know what I'd love to see happen?

I'd love the gov't to enter the fray by declaring business entertainment expense deductions for seeing sports, the opera, arts events, etc., eliminated.

We have a budget deficit in this country.

The NFL should experience what a shrunken pie tastes like.

Then the price of tickets will come down, the price of franchises as well, and the players AND owners can then get a sense of what this all really means.

Post of the thread.

Thank you for writing that.

While China and India build infrastructure and high speed rail, we build hospitality tents and shrimp buffets at sporting events.

 

[sdaniels7114]

The teams are almost all private, but the businesses that pay the NFL mostly aren't. FOX, CBS and all the rest have to disclose what they pay. Any publicly traded company that does business with the NFL has to disclose what it pays, any publicly traded business that buys a luxury box has to disclose it. It seems like the players could hire a few forensic accountants and get a real good idea of what's going on.

 

[aluminum seats]

I've posted zero times on the labor stuff because the whole idea of being a sports fan is that you are, you know, a fan of sports...not a fan of weighing in on how millionaires split up their money.

Having said that, let me say this. The owners are so clearly in the wrong, so clearly driven by their greed & ego, that anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool. It's absolutely self-evident.

That is all. Wake me up when it's time to discuss sports. Until then, don't waste my time.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Players cant lose anything. They do not have to lay out money in order to make it. If the NFL never exist from here on, the players will not lose a nickel the already have, the owners will have millions and millions to pay with no revenue coming in. Players will earn zero, owners will earn negative millions.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

In what country?

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.

What are you basing this on? You cannot know whether this is a fact or not. What is your source?

 

[skinnydog]

You are assuming the last CBA was good for the owners. Revenue has gone up and so has costs ... overhead and profit margin are not to be confused with revenue and costs/overhead. Like what is going on in many cities and towns now - costs have increased at a higher rate than revenue and that is also true for most businesses. Also owners do not get $1 for every $1 in increased revenue ... they only get $ .45 of that which is why I said they need like $2 extra dollars to gain $1 extra dollar.

Ok, so you agree revenues have gone up and in fact the increase has been substantial. The owners claim costs have gone up, but why? I suggest their costs are fairly flat and even if they only get 40 cents on a dollar of increased revenues, it's not costing a lot to increase the shared revenue. It's mostly TV money. Their not producing more product to get higher revenue, their just asking for and getting more money from the networks. There's no added cost there. Again the players are simply saying you claim your costs are higher, prove it.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

The teams are almost all private, but the businesses that pay the NFL mostly aren't. FOX, CBS and all the rest have to disclose what they pay. Any publicly traded company that does business with the NFL has to disclose what it pays, any publicly traded business that buys a luxury box has to disclose it. It seems like the players could hire a few forensic accountants and get a real good idea of what's going on.

Your talking about revenue, theres no dispute on what the revenue is, the dispute is how to split up the revenue.

 

[ayjackson]

This is the first professional sport labor issue I`ve been on the players`side.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

 

[Ring 6]

Ok, so you agree revenues have gone up and in fact the increase has been substantial. The owners claim costs have gone up, but why? I suggest their costs are fairly flat and even if they only get 40 cents on a dollar of increased revenues, it's not costing a lot to increase the shared revenue. It's mostly TV money. Their not producing more product to get higher revenue, their just asking for and getting more money from the networks. There's no added cost there. Again the players are simply saying you claim your costs are higher, prove it.

Everyone posting in this thread should read the lawsuit.
One of the claims the plaintiffs make against the league (page 20) is that the league has said they aren't losing money, that they have a healthy business. The quote an EVP. They made the NFLs reason for requesting a higher share part of the suit, and do not state that the reason given was increasing expenses. They state the NFL seeks a higher share of revenues.
So after a day and a half of people saying they should be forced to show the books because they claim it is all about higher expenses, the lawsuit filed by the players says otherwise.
Who wants to be the first to come up with another reason the owners should have to show their books, since the popular one failed?

 

[upstater1]

Everyone posting in this thread should read the lawsuit.
One of the claims the plaintiffs make against the league (page 20) is that the league has said they aren't losing money, that they have a healthy business. The quote an EVP. They made the NFLs reason for requesting a higher share part of the suit, and do not state that the reason given was increasing expenses. They state the NFL seeks a higher share of revenues.
So after a day and a half of people saying they should be forced to show the books because they claim it is all about higher expenses, the lawsuit filed by the players says otherwise.
Who wants to be the first to come up with another reason the owners should have to show their books, since the popular one failed?

Read my post. I said the NFL is pushing for a higher share of revenues base don the fiasco last time and the supplemental revenue plan.

I also said that the Player's acquiescence to a $140 million cut w/o looking at the books tells me they are not so concerned about looking at the books either.

However, when the NFL says they need it because of higher expenses, that's when the Player's ask to see proof. That doesn't mean the NFLPA believes it's about expenses. It means they counter the NFL when the NFL gives them that reason.

Anyone who has been following this should damn well realize that the main hangup is the distribution of revenues to small market teams.

Now, I happen to think the owners deserve some relief over that. But, I don't think they deserve $340 million worth of relief. AND I believe that the NFL must insist on a soft floor if they are going to implement a more robust Supplemental. If the player's are going to take a cut, they need to be assured that the money will be spent, and that it won't simply get stashed in Mike Brown's pocket.

 

[upstater1]

How about their employees, property taxes etc ... you are saying electricity / utility costs are cheaper now than they were in the early 1990's ... wow we would all love that to be the case.

Business ownership expenses have increased since the early 90's to say anything different is not accurate.

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.

 

[upstater1]

Commodities and energy prices are down? Huh?
Cities are no longer building stadiums and giving teams sweetheart deals on the tax payers dollar, thats one are that they have to pay more for.
Im going to have to move where you live if the above bolded is true.
So while us common folks are getting layed off by the thousands or having to do the work of two men with no raises the players cap has been going up. Is it too much for them to have it go down slightly for one year then go up at a slower pace then the next 3-4 years after that?
Im sorry I dont feel bad for either side here.

Yes, I'm right. Energy prices are down from when the CBA was signed four years ago. Look at the price of gas for heating, it's way down. Electricity is down. Food prices are up. But inflation has been very low since 2 1/2 years ago.

I'm not getting you about go down slightly then up at a slower pace. The league hasn't suffered a revenue shortfall like other businesses in the country. So why are you comparing the league to businesses that are suffering?

 

[upstater1]

Players cant lose anything. They do not have to lay out money in order to make it. If the NFL never exist from here on, the players will not lose a nickel the already have, the owners will have millions and millions to pay with no revenue coming in. Players will earn zero, owners will earn negative millions.

Sigh. Most people who have jobs experience economic losses when they lose jobs/are laid off/are locked out.

Come on, stop it!!!!!!!

 

[upstater1]

In what country?

THE USA

What are you basing this on? You cannot know whether this is a fact or not. What is your source?

It was reported EVERYWHERE. Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder were livid that the 8 small market teams banded together against the CBA. When Kraft brokered the Supplemental Revenue Plan, 6 of the 8 joined the rest of the owners to approve the CBA. Wilson and Brown continued to attack the bi market owners AFTER the CBA was signed, and Wilson even enlisted politicians to try to submarine it many months later. He said they were better off going to an uncapped year. This was covered by Mortenson, Clayton, many others. In fact, they killed Wilson for suggesting the league should have gone to an uncapped year instead of signing the CBA, as the last CBA called for. They called the very idea preposterous, ridiculous, dangerous and ruinous to the league. The owners have never gotten overt the hump that is the Supplemental Revenue Plan.

I find it curious that the money that's being tossed around is more or less in the range of the Plan.