Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[Wolfpack]

When I go to college football games, I see alumni and local fans. They rarely care about the quality of play. The NFL does not have the same ingrained base. If the stars went to another league en masse, that league would crater the NFL overnight.

You're joking, right? You think some new league is going to generate the same loyalty and passion overnight that the NFL has spent decades cultivating?

Fact is we all root for laundry.

 

[upstater1]

You're joking, right? You think some new league is going to generate the same loyalty and passion overnight that the NFL has spent decades cultivating?

Fact is we all root for laundry.

I didn't write that. I said the NFL would crater overnight. I didn't say the other league would become as popular as the NFL. Do I think the NFL would crater if it lost Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Fitzgerald, Peterson, and everyone else? Yes, of course it would. $20 billion in market values would vanish overnight.

 

[upstater1]

And the thought that the costs of things is this country are going down is ridiculous.

I was very specific about what's going down. I mentioned food is going up. What costs exactly are the owners worried about. You tell me.

 

[Ring 6]

Thats partially incorrect also. The assessment are based on sales and are reassessed every three years or if you challenge. If you assessment goes down they up the tax rate so you end up paying more anyway. Say my assessment is $300,000 tax rate is $10.50 per thousand, assessment goes down to $250,000, tax rate goes up to $13.00 per thousand.

Sorry, but that is wrong. I deal with this stuff every day.

Tax rates are set every year.
Assessments are not based specifically on market value. They are based on a set point year, and adjusted for inflation. The assessed value of your home and its market value are only related in proportion. If your home is worth $300,000 you could be assessed for $200,000. But all the homes would roughly be 2/3s of value. Full value assessment is not in practice in the majority of the US.
Reassessment has pretty much been eliminated because assessment is not tied to value.
It is incorrect that they reassess every 3 years or that they adjust tax rates accordingly.

 

[Ring 6]

I was very specific about what's going down. I mentioned food is going up. What costs exactly are the owners worried about. You tell me.

I could care less how they are deliniated, I said its obvious the cost of doing business has increased. They have.

 

[upstater1]

If the entire taxing authority lowered taxes across the board, then you would have a point. If yours did it is one in a million right now.
Your original argument that they would have lower taxes because they are reassess is wrong on a couple of levels. First, your taxes are based on your assessment as a proportion of all properties. And second reassessment only occurs when properties are sold, or when assessment is challenged, which requires proof of similar properties having different assessed values. Neither would be the case.
God bless you if your taxes were reduced, you are among the very tiny minority.

Incorrect, my city has a yearly tax reassessment plan. They assess every year. The rate wasn't increased, and my assessment was decreased. Only fair since it went up four years in a row earlier in the decade.

In fact, this is what happened to Buffalo's tallest skyscraper, albeit 38 stories.

The biggest reduction was went to One HSBC Center, downtown's tallest office building that looms over the foot of Main Street. The review panel cut the assessed value of the 38-story complex to $64 million, a $6 million reduction.

Kennedy said leasing revenues have a major influence on the assessed values of commercial properties, adding that the owners of One HSBC Center made a convincing case that the property's $70 million assessed value was too high given existing market conditions. When Seneca One Realty LLC, a group of New York City-based investors, bought the property for just over $85 million in 2005, it was the single biggest property sale in Buffalo history.

The actual tax rate was not increased.

Buffalo is still running a $70 million surplus. Cops and firefighters in this city haven't had a raise in over a decade. Teachers over 5 years now.

 

[upstater1]

Sorry, but that is wrong. I deal with this stuff every day.

Tax rates are set every year.
Assessments are not based specifically on market value. They are based on a set point year, and adjusted for inflation. The assessed value of your home and its market value are only related in proportion. If your home is worth $300,000 you could be assessed for $200,000. But all the homes would roughly be 2/3s of value. Full value assessment is not in practice in the majority of the US.
Reassessment has pretty much been eliminated because assessment is not tied to value.
It is incorrect that they reassess every 3 years or that they adjust tax rates accordingly.

Your experience is massively different than how things are practiced in New York. Here things are fully valued in the assessment. The value is based on market values. They reassess every home every year.

 

[upstater1]

I could care less how they are deliniated, I said its obvious the cost of doing business has increased. They have.

What costs?

Most costs for most businesses over the last three years are DOWN. Health insurance no. Utilities yes. Transportation way down. The cost of transporting goods from overseas is massively down. It used to cost $100k a day to rent a ship. Then the cost dropped to $5k.

 

[upstater1]

The players have sued the NFL and nowhere in that lawsuit does it say the NFL claimed they need more money because there expenses have increased. Please stop saying the request for financials was to say prove what the players say was never said.

Why do the players need any assurance of what the owners do with their share. You sound like it is criminal for Mike Brown to make a profit on his investment. The reason he owns an NFL team is to make a profit.
You are saying the only reason less money should go to the players and more to the owners is if the owners income doesnt increase. That is totally bizarre.
This is a negotiation, well it was, about how they split the revenues.
I find it ludicrous to say the owners only have a right to ask for a bigger share if they don't get to keep it.

You're making up a bunch of stuff that I never said. I never said the lawsuit claims the NFL said expenses increased. Where did you come up with that?

The players don't need any assurance of what the owner's do with their share. I never said they did. The players want to know why the NFL wants them to give up their current share. I never said what you wrote about owner's income not increasing either.

Are you sure you're responding to the right person?

 

[upstater1]

What does any of that have to do with me asking how you back up THIS statement:

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.

First everything you mention is about expenses and revenue and second you must be makin up that profit margins have gone up, since the union doesnt even know that and asked for the books. Third how could you possibly know if the NFL is expereincing the hard times other business are? Do you know where they raise and invest their capital? Have you studied their expenses?
This is a complicated topic to begin with so offering guesses as if they are fact will make it a nightmare to discuss.

My reply about the controversy of the last CBA had little to nothing to do with my reply about NFL profitability. I don't know why you presume they were tied. Someone asked me where I was getting my info that the owners were squabbling among themselves about revenue relief for small-market teams. It wasn't a response to you.

But how do I know the NFL's profitability increased since the last CBA? Because the CBA was signed in 2006 and the new TV deals came in 2007, and there were massive increases. Massive. In the same period, inflation was minimal.

 

[Ring 6]

Your experience is massively different than how things are practiced in New York. Here things are fully valued in the assessment. The value is based on market values. They reassess every home every year.

I work in the real estate industry in New York, and live there as well.
They absolutely do not have full value assessment and absolutely do not reassess every year. It an assessment law. As far as I know there is only 1 community, in the Binghamton area the does not comply.
Your TAX ASSESSMENT RATES change every year, your assessed value can change based upon inflation, but your home is not reassessed every year. Could you imagine the expense involved in the tax collector inpecting and apprasing every house every year?
Assessments are based upon a year in the past (for some reason 1968 sticks in my mind but I'm not sure about that) and they are adjusted for inflation. If market values in your community have been in pace with inflation assessed value and market value may be similar, but thats just dumb luck.

 

[Ring 6]

What costs?

Most costs for most businesses over the last three years are DOWN. Health insurance no. Utilities yes. Transportation way down. The cost of transporting goods from overseas is massively down. It used to cost $100k a day to rent a ship. Then the cost dropped to $5k.

I dont think NFL teams are renting ships.
Look, if you want to argue that operating a business is getting cheaper, there is nothing I can do about that, you simply are wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

My reply about the controversy of the last CBA had little to nothing to do with my reply about NFL profitability. I don't know why you presume they were tied. Someone asked me where I was getting my info that the owners were squabbling among themselves about revenue relief for small-market teams. It wasn't a response to you.

But how do I know the NFL's profitability increased since the last CBA? Because the CBA was signed in 2006 and the new TV deals came in 2007, and there were massive increases. Massive. In the same period, inflation was minimal.

Because you were reply to my post where I typed what I just bolded.
It was ME who asked you where you got your info about what I just bolded, there was nothing about squabbling.

Yet, you still have absolutely nothing showing they are more profitable other than your impression that the HAVE TO BE.
Do you know what the cap was in 2006? Do you know what salary expenditures were? Do you think 40million dollar signing bonusses may have something to do with their profitability?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What Patriots franchise expenses would Kraft face and have they risen or dropped since the last CBA?

Utilities - electricity, gas/oil etc. in MA sharply higher
Property Taxes - in MA they have risen regardless of 'assessed value' - a joke in NE
Wages for non-players - assume a small % increase but I recall an article about some Patriots jobs eliminated (am I correct?) which would make this a net decrease
Health Insurance - substantial increase
Supplies for concessions - small decrease, not part of his cost structure as I believe he gets a % of revenue, so actually irrelevant
Travel - increase in airline, etc. fares; cabs & limos charge more now in MA region
Financial - increased govt paperwork requirements have raised the cost of doing business for all
Legal - self inflicted wound of preparing for Lockout has certainly raised Kraft's legal costs substantially

Revenues are another matter

 

[Ring 6]

You're making up a bunch of stuff that I never said. I never said the lawsuit claims the NFL said expenses increased. Where did you come up with that?

I told YOU the lawsuit doesnt say that, yet you continue to use that as the reason the owners should make the foolish move of opening their books to their adversary.

The players don't need any assurance of what the owner's do with their share. I never said they did.

These are your words.
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.

The only purpose of seeing financials is making judgment on how the owners spend their 40%, what they earn in profit, what their expenses are.
You say they have a legitimate claim in asking for financials, yet you are ducking the fact that the only purpose of that is to rip apart the expense, and therefore profit end of it. Revenues are transparent. Revenues are split. The owners could throw their 40% in the ocean, and the union has no right to know that.

The players want to know why the NFL wants them to give up their current share.

The players do not have a current share and havent since 2009.
This is not a negotiation to make a change to a CBA, it is a negotiation to create a new agreement. The terms of the last CBA are only appropriate as a reference point to what was agreed upon in a different negotiation.

I never said what you wrote about owner's income not increasing either.

Are you sure you're responding to the right person?

Again, your words
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.

Clearly you are stating here that the profit the owners take should be a factor. What lines Mike Browns pocket is profit. So your argument is that if the profit is too high, thats wrong, and they have to know that they money will be spent. That is simply none of their business, unless you are saying that the union has a right to dictate what the owners do with their 40%, which the bolded comment above is saying.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Roger Goodell needs to be fired now that there's decertification and also lockout. This is just one more in about a dozen other failures or poor decisions on his part. He consistently displays poor judgement and lack of objectivity on a range of issues.

In terms of the lockout, from what I can tell it's the owners who opted out of the current agreement, for more up front money as well as a higher % going to them in the remaining pool (as well as a possible 18 game schedule while keeping 4 pre-season games). The players wanted the current deal to continue, and never asked for more money.

When it comes to millionnaires against billionnaires, the owners were betting on the players caving in, needing money, since most of them only play in the NFL for 3 years and end up bankrupt shortly after. The players called their bluff and it looks like legally they are going to win. In the end, if they miss games the NFL is going to be harmed (maybe irreparably) for the next decade, and they completely killed a Golden Goose when it didn't have to be this way.

If you're going to talk about greed, look no further than the owners negotiating a $4B scam deal where they steal from TV stations even if a season doesn't happen, and where they are still charging season ticket holders full price for a season that may not happen or will happen with replacement players.

 

[Argus]

Talk about stubborn.

Where does the union get off asking to see audited financial statements of each owner?
Anyone who supports this should ask himself, if he had a business would he show all his workers how much the business earns.

Drew Brees is an ******* saying the players can't trust the information from the NFL.

 

[mgteich]

The owners presented a fine deal. Of course, this deal was only possible after the courts decided that owners can't have the broadcast money,

The players want to see the books. As they did last time, the courts will allow carefully defined access.

A deal will be struck. The major change is that lawyers will be leading the negotiations; but the principals can still be there.

Just BTW, the threat is more than loss of income. The threat is that Congress will step in, with the removal of anit-trut protection as a club.

BOTTOM LINE
There is not much pressure until the end of June. In the meantime, there could be a limited ruling of the court to allow access by the players under contract to medical facilities.
I don't anything prevents the teams from sending playbooks to their draftees, or preventing them from meeting with team members. After all, there is always such contact before the rookie is signed. Besides, the rookies aren't represented by anyone.

 

[Ring 6]

Roger Goodell needs to be fired now that there's decertification and also lockout. This is just one more in about a dozen other failures or poor decisions on his part. He consistently displays poor judgement and lack of objectivity on a range of issues.

In terms of the lockout, from what I can tell it's the owners who opted out of the current agreement, for more up front money as well as a higher % going to them in the remaining pool (as well as a possible 18 game schedule while keeping 4 pre-season games). The players wanted the current deal to continue, and never asked for more money.

When it comes to millionnaires against billionnaires, the owners were betting on the players caving in, needing money, since most of them only play in the NFL for 3 years and end up bankrupt shortly after. The players called their bluff and it looks like legally they are going to win. In the end, if they miss games the NFL is going to be harmed (maybe irreparably) for the next decade, and they completely killed a Golden Goose when it didn't have to be this way.

If you're going to talk about greed, look no further than the owners negotiating a $4B scam deal where they steal from TV stations even if a season doesn't happen, and where they are still charging season ticket holders full price for a season that may not happen or will happen with replacement players.

I'm no Goddell fan and like your idea, but I find it hard to blame him here.

I think you are overanalyzing what boils down to the owners of the businesses saying they do not wish to continue an agreement that they are entitled to opt out of because they feel it gives them an unsatisfactory return on their investment.

I still don't understand why so many people insist on attaching moral jusgment to a business doing what it exists to do, earn the most profit it can. Ths country would not be what it is if it didn't have the entreprenurial (spelling butchered) spirit that says a business exists to maximize profit and beat its competition. How Americans can consider it wrong for a business to try to maximize profits, because the owner is already rich is beyond me.
No one working in the private sector would earn a fraction of what they do if American corporations felt maximizing profit was morally wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

The owners presented a fine deal. Of course, this deal was only possible after the courts decided that owners can't have the broadcast money,

The players want to see the books. As they did last time, the courts will allow carefully defined access.

A deal will be struck. The major change is that lawyers will be leading the negotiations; but the principals can still be there.

Just BTW, the threat is more than loss of income. The threat is that Congress will step in, with the removal of anit-trut protection as a club.

BOTTOM LINE
There is not much pressure until the end of June. In the meantime, there could be a limited ruling of the court to allow access by the players under contract to medical facilities.
I don't anything prevents the teams from sending playbooks to their draftees, or preventing them from meeting with team members. After all, there is always such contact before the rookie is signed. Besides, the rookies aren't represented by anyone.

I am not convinced that removal of the anti-trust exemption would be good for the players overall.
If you read the lawsuit, and every remedy being asked for is granted, I am not convinced that would create a better system for the players.
The anti-trust rules help make the teams competitive on the field, but they also serve to require the players to be collectively bargained for. Absent collective bargaining, the owners can pay whatever they want. I find it hard to believe that outside a system that forces them to pay a salary floor, they will fight each other for the right to hand out $40,000,000 bonusses.
Personally, I think the union hs successfully negotiated, to this point, a CBA that pays their players significantly more than a free market would.

If every player were a FA tomorrow and the owners set their salary budgets at half of what the cap is, and offered each player half of what they were paid under the old system, eventually 99% of them would accept it because their second career choice wouldnt pay them anything near that.