Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

This was a good read

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183342/1/index.htm]Issues of trust and transparency led to the collapse of - 03.21.11 - SI Vault[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789111]Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.[/quote]Revenues don't have to decrease, it's profitability.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8191dcca/article/packers-cite-player-costs-in-103m-drop-in-operating-profit]NFL.com news: Packers cite player costs in $10.3M drop in operating profit[/url]

From the link:
"Packers officials said Wednesday that the team posted an operating profit of $9.8 million in the fiscal year that ended March 31, down from $20.1 million the previous year. The team has been in a slide since posting an operating profit of $34 million four years ago."

"The team said player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue went up just 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe. "It's not just this year," Murphy said. "We've seen these trends for a number of years now that really point out some of the issues that we have with the current agreement."

The Packers I'm sure are fairly typical in the NFL. If you look at it in terms of operating profit, the Packers are down over 50% in operating profit year over year and down approximately 74% from 2006. The 2006 CBA was a bad deal for owners that they are working to correct. The NFLPA says they're not taking ANY salary reduction without seeing the full books (again they know the owners will never do this). Doesn't seem like a "partner" negotiating in "good faith".

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Seems to me there was lot more in that article than just that blurb

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789151]Seems to me there was lot more in that article than just that blurb[/quote]Absolutely, but the blurbs reinforce my point that the profitability decline due to increased player costs is pretty dramatic.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789111]Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.[/quote]
It's funny why the media never mentions NET INCOME, which actually represents what a company has after deducting expenses, etc. The amount of revenues taken do not take into account any expenses.

Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold.
Net income = Gross profit – Total operating expenses – taxes – interest.

[url=http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp]Net Income (NI) Definition[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Defensewins;789162]It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.[/quote]


Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I think we are now truly seeing the havoc the recession has wreaked on publicist everywhere. Obviously no one can afford them anymore, hence comments about modern day slavery, draft boycotts, and frivolous lawsuits/naming request being perpetrated by a certain owner (who shall remain unnamed to avoid litigation) all made within the last week. Please economy, pick up again and get these publicist hired so we can stop being witnesses to this influx of stupidity.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789170]Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out[/quote]

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only [B]non-profit[/B], community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/]Jerry Jones’ gesture may have set the stage for decertification | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;789175]The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only [B]non-profit[/B], community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.[/quote]

I have heard the average player costs across the league have gone up 4%, but I don't have any real confirmation that. But if true, it's much less than nearly 12% the Packers are stating

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=hooskins;789024]SBXVII, just because players accept their contracts doesn't mean the owners aren't screwing them. The NFL provides the best option/salary but that may not be "fair". The players just have to accept the salary, after a bit of negotiating because it is not like they can go to another company and make a comparable salary(UFL, etc.). I realize fair is subjective, but that is why the NFLPA wants to see the books in full.[/quote]

Understood. I guess my problem with this is most unions are lobbying for pay raises, ie; 5% or 10% pay raises because the employees are payed close to the same hourly rate or close and have not had a raise or decent raise in a while. Sometimes it's insurance and how much coverage the employee gets. Then there is the issue of retirement benifits. I'm having difficulty with the employee demanding to see the company books because he wants to make sure all the employees are getting their 50 or 60%. especially when in reality it doesn't matter. Why? Because each player has an agent and each agent lobbies for the best contract his client can get. Where not talking about a union argueing for the $10 to $20 dollar an hour employee were talking about a $400,000+ a year salary job to millions that their agent brokered for. If they don't like the dollar amount they have 31 other teams to try and get what they want ..... unless their skills have dwindled. But my point is they are not set at the same hourly rate for 10 to 20 years and need a union to make sure owners are giving them raises when in fact if they don't get a decent contract their first time they usually do in their second unless they suck. But in any event a team is not going to say hey I know you only want 3 mill a year but because I have to meet the 60% rule according to your union I'll have to pay you 6mill a year. < That ain't going to happen. No different then the players saying "oh I know I'm asking for 6 mill a year but because that will put you spending 61% of your revenue towards salaries I'll take the 3 mill a year so you don't go over." < That ain't happening either. So in reality the 50 or 60% rule is only for the teams who chose to be cheap and not put the majority of their money towards player salaries. But that wouldn't really matter because those teams would be trying to get said free agents at a cheap price and basically get out bid all the time... ie; Like the Bills or dare I say Pateiots who prefer draft picks over high priced free agents.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;788965]Ok, so your telling me that the steel industry has to show their books to the unions, the oil companies have to show their books to the unions, the coal companies have to show their books to the unions? Every cent is accounted for?[/quote]

Seriously? Why are you still comparing normal employees to NFL players? It's not the same. They are the product that the NFL is offering. Do you not understand that?

[quote=SBXVII;788965]I provided bad analogies perhaps but it wasn't I who started saying that Rock stars are shown what the stadium makes that they played in in order to pay the Rock star. Basically what was stated was People that provide entertainment are entitled to see the books because they get paid a percentage of the total take for their performance[/quote]

The problem with your analogy is that the Rock star sets the demand on the venues of how much they'll be taking. (and more than the venue gets I imagine) That amount depends on how big the act is. U2 could demand more money from Fed-Ex field than would a Hootie and the Blowfish. However, when you are talking about "demanding to see the books", I assure you there isn't 1 billion dollars at stake at these concerts or performances either. That said, I guarantee you that if any venue went to the Rock Star and said, you need to take less because I'm losing money, chances are he would ask to see the books or he'd flat out walk out and play somewhere else. Why? Because the people are there to see/listen to him. He's the star, not the venue.



[quote=SBXVII;788965]The whole point of a union is to protect the employee. Whether it be through health insurance, payment, safety rules and so forth. I don't have a problem with the union trying to get what they can for the employee. .[/quote]

Since you like comparing the NFL players to normal employees. How come ALL of the nfl employees aren't in the same union?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

NFL players are skin to partially owned subsidiaries not employees.

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees under contract law and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Thought I'd throw this up here.

I called into the Mike Wise show last week, and the topic was the CBA discussions. Relevant topic, so here ya go.

I jump in around the 8 minute mark.

[url=http://washington.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.podtrac.com%2Fpts%2Fredirect.mp3%2Fnyc.podcast.play.it%2Fmedia%2Fd0%2Fd0%2Fd0%2FdX%2Fd2%2FdT%2FdH%2FX2TH_4.MP3%3Fauthtok%3D5561400669554746735_43dWW1oacsfTqHK9QBPGxyUMtg&podcast_name=3-11+Segment+12&podcast_artist=106.7+The+Fan&station_id=114&tag=pages&dcid=CBS.WASHINGTON]CBS Podcast Player[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Does anyone else remember when the players were threatening the owners with "If the salary cap expires, it's not coming back"? Now the players don't want to go without it.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I know she's been beat up w/words here on the warpath, but Sally Jenkins always brings a well backed argument & challenges her readers. She is obviously on the side of the players and previous articles state that. In this one, she comes from the taxpayer side of it. I think it would tell alot if it could somehow be compared to subsidies & incentives that other businesses get from state & local gov't.

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-housing-plan-owners-get-the-keys-fans-get-the-bills/2011/03/15/ABVOyCY_story.html]NFL housing plan: Owners get the keys, fans get the bills - The Washington Post[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

got this letter from bruce allen this morning, so far he has been nothing but a great gm and dealt with the fans/season ticket holders as best he could given the circustances. that said it's just a basic letter from the nfl/owners point of view, just thought some people here might be interested... [url]https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:1356726.6285608816/rid:fd8eeb827a5030a08dbf9272290a5155[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=mlmdub130;789315]got this letter from bruce allen this morning, so far he has been nothing but a great gm and dealt with the fans/season ticket holders as best he could given the circustances. that said it's just a basic letter from the nfl/owners point of view, just thought some people here might be interested... [url]https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:1356726.6285608816/rid:fd8eeb827a5030a08dbf9272290a5155[/url][/quote]


I get it, the NFL cares more about retired players than the NFLPA...riiight.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789228]This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees[B] under contract law[/B] and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years[/quote]

They are not under contract law because there is no contract. They under anti-trust law and it's everyman for himself against the NFL. Throughout history the players have won the court battles so what in the hell makes you think they won't this time around? The NFL will play ball because the players pay their bills.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Saden,

I said that I think the players could win every lawsuit they file, but still lose when the next CBA is written. The players are on very firm legal ground, in terms of antitrust law. The courts could rule the draft illegal. They could rule restricted free agency illegal. They could find the franchise tag illegal. They could find the salary cap/salary floor illegal.

After all those rulings for the players, the owners still could end up writing individual contracts that total less than the percentage of revenue that they are committed too via the CBA

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789331]Saden,

I said that I think the players could win every lawsuit they file, but still lose when the next CBA is written. The players are on very firm legal ground, in terms of antitrust law. The courts could rule the draft illegal. They could rule restricted free agency illegal. They could find the franchise tag illegal. They could find the salary cap/salary floor illegal.

After all those rulings for the players, [B]the owners still could end up writing individual contracts that total less than the percentage of revenue that they are committed too via the CBA[/B][/quote]

What you don't realize is owners compete with each other for talent which implies costs control is lost!!!!!!! Not to mention the fact that unionization and CBA greatly benefits owners in small markets. A free-for-all system would be disastrous for most owners as is evident by their past desire to maintain a leash on free agency and rookie salaries.

It only takes a few owners to start dishing out big contracts and buy themselves championship before the rest of the owners revolt or take matters into their own hands by starting to shelling out big money too.


Bottom line, cost control is maintained in a fixed price system not in a free price system. Collectively players will never lose in a free-for-all free price system.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;789338]What you don't realize is owners compete with each other for talent which implies costs control is lost!!!!!!! Not to mention the fact that unionization and CBA greatly benefits owners in small markets. A free-for-all system would be disastrous for most owners as is evident by their past desire to maintain a leash on free agency and rookie salaries.

It only takes a few owners to start dishing out big contracts and buy themselves championship before the rest of the owners revolt or take matters into their own hands by starting to shelling out big money too.


Bottom line, cost control is maintained in a fixed price system not in a free price system. Collectively players will never lose in a free-for-all free price system.[/quote]

I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789343]I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

[B]I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.[/B][/quote]

Agreed. I also think that owners can collude to engage in price-fixing better than some people seem to think.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;789318]I get it, the NFL cares more about retired players than the NFLPA...riiight.[/quote]It appears they do. At least the NFL commish has responded, in writing, to the head of the NFLAA.....D. Smith won't even meet with him.

[URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2011/03/15/2011-03-15_george_martin_director_of_nfl_alumni_association_demaurice_smith_treats_alums_as.html"]George Martin, director of NFL Alumni Association: DeMaurice Smith treats alums as 'afterthought'[/URL]

Another brilliant PR strategy by D. Smith.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;789343]I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.[/quote]


In that scenario revenue sharing will be out the window and it will be like baseball. I can't imagine NFL owners except maybe big market teams wanting to model the league after the MLB. I remember Danny Boy being upset that the Bengals weren't spending his share of the pool money to compete not too long ago...I can't imagine him wanting to share any money with owners like that.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;789355]It appears they do. At least the NFL commish has responded, in writing, to the head of the NFLAA.....D. Smith won't even meet with him.

[URL="http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/giants/2011/03/15/2011-03-15_george_martin_director_of_nfl_alumni_association_demaurice_smith_treats_alums_as.html"]George Martin, director of NFL Alumni Association: DeMaurice Smith treats alums as 'afterthought'[/URL]

Another brilliant PR strategy by D. Smith.[/quote]

That isn't any indication that the NFL cares more only that there is a relationship problem and mistrust between the two organizations. What is a fact, however, is that the NFLPA does not represent retired players and that the NFL doesn't care about players once they are out of the league. Honestly, no one gives a shit about them. They want benefits no one wants to provide for them but if someone was willing to it wouldn't be the owners that's for sure.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I want to admit a error I stated previously debated Slinging Sammy. He apparently is correct with the 59.5 of total revenue (after 1 billion cut from top) the players were to receive over the 6 year period.
[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/sports/football/09nfl.html[/url]





[quote=CRedskinsRule;789228]This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. [/quote]

The reason it's hard to win hearts is because of the perspective people choose to look at the situation. Most people look at this situation as your standard Employer/Employee situation, and it's far from being anything in that realm. The other thing is, people are blaming the players for the work stoppage. It's like they ignore the fact the OWNERS are doing the lock out and not the players. It's amazing how many people out there that don't' understand anything that's going on and just chooses a side.



[quote=CRedskinsRule;789228]The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years[/quote]

Do what? Seems the majority of the owners were satisfied with it seeing a 30-2 vote in favor.

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258]NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN[/url]
[quote]"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."[/quote]

[quote]"Some teams are contributing a little more than others," Redskins owner Dan Synder said. "This is really a win-win."[/quote]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

31 of 32 teams currently "may" require season ticket holders to pay for their tix in a lockout shortened season.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-season-tickets-locked-out-2011-3]NFL LOCKOUT: 31 Of 32 NFL Teams Requiring Payments For 2011 Season Tickets[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Owners are so quick to point out that it's players cost that are cutting into their expenses. How do we know it's not their wasteful spending or stuff they should be claiming as personal? This statement best describes why the NFLPA need to see the books, and I don't blame them. I mean the full books, not the "audited" versions that don't show shit.

[quote]If the NFLPA was going to give owners any more revenue credits, the union felt strongly that the league had to show its hand. Show how much teams were spending (and wasting, perhaps). Over the past few days, [U]I've had union officials (more than one) give me examples of how money is wasted by teams, and how some expenses that clubs claim as football expense should be personal expenses. And at the end of the day, the union simply didn't trust that teams' financial records weren't riddled with such wasteful spending.[/U]

Read more: [url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/11/fallout.from.decision/index.html#ixzz1GoKPs1BF]Full access to financial statements at core of NFL labor issues - Peter King - SI.com[/url][/quote]




I still don't see why nobody has commented on arguably the most telling evidence in this whole debate that I posted earlier.
[url=http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/]Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes[/url]

[quote]But, in looking at these teams, the reason for some – not all – of declines Operating Income can be tied to[U] activities on the business side.[/U][/quote]

[IMG]http://www.bizofbaseball.com/images/NFLForbesOpInc04-09.jpg[/IMG]


[quote]But, the complexities as to why there would be losses has to be tied to more than just saying, “because we said so.” The Forbes numbers paints two pictures: incredible growth for some clubs, while others have not grown at the same pace. That points to an internal matter for the league’s owners to handle, more than saying it solely rests on the shoulders of increased player salaries.[/quote]

When Forbes comes out and presents evidence and says exactly what some of us are saying, it's a pretty convincing argument to this debate and the sole reason they should show the books if they want to back up their claim of it being the player expenses.

NC_Skins: try to understand that not all fans who support the owners think that this is a pure employer employee struggle a la your local pipe fitter union (or any other job). Many people, myself among them, understand the simple fact that NFL player are among the most elite athletes in this world. And that nearly all train their whole life in order to play in that elite stratosphere. Further, I don't know of anyone who doesn't acknowledge they should be paid very well for the risk to their body and for the skill they demonstrate.
Given all that, I still support the owners more than the players. Its my view that the players are not really looking to negotiate, but to protect what they got in the last CBA (which they can do, but doesn't mean I have to agree with them) while the owners are trying to roll back a CBA that in their current view went to far(which they also are entitled to do, but doesn't mean you have to agree with them).

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BuckSkin;789370]31 of 32 teams currently "may" require season ticket holders to pay for their tix in a lockout shortened season.

[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/nfl-season-tickets-locked-out-2011-3]NFL LOCKOUT: 31 Of 32 NFL Teams Requiring Payments For 2011 Season Tickets[/url][/quote]

The Panthers are currently asking season ticket holders for 10% of the invoice with the other 90% of it after the CBA is negotiated. Jerry Richardson may be a greedy bastard, but he is fan friendly.


[quote=CRedskinsRule;789372]Given all that, I still support the owners more than the players. Its my view that the players are not really looking to negotiate, but to protect what they got in the last CBA .[/quote]


Just curious, but did you read that article I posted from Forbes. Read it, if you still are behind the owners after you read it then I'll concede. I think showing the books could possibly be the missing key to why their profits may be declining.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Speaking of Jerry Richardson.

[url=http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/12/2136587/sources-richardson-wants-to-protect.html]Sources: Panthers' owner Richardson wants to protect staffers' jobs - CharlotteObserver.com[/url]

Wonder if Danny boy is protecting all of his workers like Jerry Richardson is?

[QUOTE]"He wants us to know he's serious about taking care of us, and that's something he takes pride in," one Panthers staffer said of Richardson. "No one wants to take that for granted, but for now, he's telling us we're OK."
[/QUOTE]

Can we trade Danny Boy and 2 first rounders for Jerry Richardson?

The concluding paragraph of the Forbes article states that the nfl could likely show hard numbers to back their claim but have chosen instead to go into a bunker mentality to protect the whole rather than make the case for some.

So Forbes acknowledges that there is a financial case to be made, but they say that the owners ought to do a better job sharing revenue to solve their problems. That is what the issue was in the days prior to the 2006 CBA, and clearly some of the owners have decided that the revenue sharing model isn't working and believe player costs should be reduced. It is the NFL owners right to decide the revenue sharing model they choose to use, and for there to be one at all they need one that a majority of owners agree on. That one they all agree on requires that they reduce the compensation to the players. That just is the economic reality of the nfl.

If the players push it to the last bit they will succeed in breaking the nfl's revenue sharing model completely because it takes 24+ owners to agree on any new terms, and they won't get that many to sign on without significant reductions. If you want to turn that into a blame of those 9 or so owners(whichever ones they are) you can do that, I choose to say that the players need to understand the economic realities that are pushing the owners to this position and as the Forbes article CLEARLY shows you don't need to see the books to understand the issues. You only need to see the books if you want to try to pitt the owners against one another.

So again IF the players want to break the nfl model and go towards the mlb model that saden mentioned earlier, then go ahead and push to see the books that tell you exactly what the Forbes article already said.

IF the players want to keep what revenue sharing the nfl has in place (which has resulted in great competition over the last 25+ years) then sit back down and look at how the long term numbers can be made to be a win for all even if there is a numerical loss.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;789371]I still don't see why nobody has commented on arguably the most telling evidence in this whole debate that I posted earlier.
[URL="http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/"]Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes[/URL]

When Forbes comes out and presents evidence and says exactly what some of us are saying, it's a pretty convincing argument to this debate and the sole reason they should show the books if they want to back up their claim of it being the player expenses.[/quote]I apologize for being a bit harsh in some of my responses to you earlier in the thread. Thanks for the correction you posted earlier, doesn't happen a lot here or on any forum, so props to you.

You've mentioned this Forbes article a few times so I finally have a few minutes to give my take on it.
- You portay this as being Forbes magazine's position. It is not. This article was done by a free-lance contributor, Maury Brown. This is one analyst's opinion, nothing more.
- Your table indicates "Operating Income", I and others, have referenced profitability which is the more important number of any business at the end of the day.
- The article also mentions the Packers profitability numbers which I referenced to back up my point about declining profits.
- The article also mentions that there are teams running in the red.
- The author advocates increased revenue sharing.....(wealth redistribution anyone). Each of the 32 teams in the NFL are there to make as much profit as possible while putting a competitive product on the field (their levels of success at profit/competitiveness vary greatly). There is already a good deal of revenue sharing and a salary cap in place to help the teams in weaker markets or with weak profitability. If I was Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Robert Kraft, etc. I wouldn't want to give up my profits to help other less successful owners unless there was a risk in my bottom line to not doing so.

I agree the books are not going to be 100% clean, but I'll bet they're a lot cleaner than is being portrayed. Maybe the NFL and NFLPA should look at a different model to work with for splitting the revenue.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;789375]Speaking of Jerry Richardson.

[url=http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/03/12/2136587/sources-richardson-wants-to-protect.html]Sources: Panthers' owner Richardson wants to protect staffers' jobs - CharlotteObserver.com[/url]

Wonder if Danny boy is protecting all of his workers like Jerry Richardson is?



Can we trade Danny Boy and 2 first rounders for Jerry Richardson?[/quote]



I think lots of Panthers' fans would love to make that trade. Snyder may not be "loved" by everyone in DC, but Richardson would not get a lot of votes if he ran for mayor in Charlotte either...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Just thinking out loud here...


If the owners think that the players have too good a deal, would the owners be willing to keep the same CBA but take the players side of the deal - - i.e. the players portion is $1B off the top plus 40.5% of the rest and the owners get 59.5% of the rest?


If the players think the deal is a fair one, would they trade sides with the owners?


Since I have not heard either side suggest that swithching sides would be a useful model, I wonder if these folks are looking at the same numbers...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

im pretty sure the NFLPA wants to see the audited fin docs. Audited meaning that an accounting firm has reviewed their statements and accounting practices and certifies that it is GAAP compliant, generally accepted accounting principles.

If teams were to provide their own docs w/out a 3rd party oversight, they could claim future losses in this fiscal year to make their expenses seem higher, accelerate interest incurring, defer recognition of rev to next year, etc.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=sportscurmudgeon;789402]Just thinking out loud here...


If the owners think that the players have too good a deal, would the owners be willing to keep the same CBA but take the players side of the deal - - i.e. the players portion is $1B off the top plus 40.5% of the rest and the owners get 59.5% of the rest?


If the players think the deal is a fair one, would they trade sides with the owners?


Since I have not heard either side suggest that swithching sides would be a useful model, I wonder if these folks are looking at the same numbers...[/quote]

Just for the record...

Players:
9B - 1B = 8B * 59.5% = 4.76B

Owners:
8B * 40.5% + 1B = 4.24B