Ongoing CBA discussions

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.

1) No they do not. Green Bay is the only team that does and is obligated to that because the are publicly traded. The others teams are not and do not share all the information. It is not public information. The IRS would know, but the do not share that information.

2) The NFL owners will not agree to even that. Bottom line is they do not want any of the undisclosed revenue being part of the CBA. Negotiation tactic. They will most likely give in and share the remaining information in exchange for a concession on the part of the players. Like some % points off the top. But how can the players negotiate that in good faith do that with out knowing what that dollar amount is?

[MTK]

NFL teams (other than the Packers) are not public companies and don't have to release financial info. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

NFL teams (other than the Packers) are not public companies and don't have to release financial info. Otherwise this wouldn't be an issue.

Thanks. Well personally, I feel if the players feel they are getting cheated.... go play in the CFL, or UFL. Maybe they can make their money there, get all the concessions they want, and the fan base who follows players will follow them.

My problem is when the 90's hit I was sorta on the players side. In the aspect that the owners were making all this money and the players hardly getting any. This go around I sorta side with the owners. Part of my issue's have to do with the fact that prior to the CBA players could stay with a specific team their whole career, show loyalty, and have a fan base. When the CBA was put in place players started jumping ship like rats. Going to different teams, going where the money was, and smiling all the way to the bank. There is no team loyalty. There is money loyalty, and honestly I don't see the arguement if players are getting paid what they are asking for? Manning getting $50 mill? Haynesworth getting his big payday? I could see if players were asking 2-4 mill a year and the owners saying no I'll pay you 400,000 thousand. But even then the player can say no thank you and either look to another team or not play if they think they are worth more.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Thanks. Well personally, I feel if the players feel they are getting cheated.... go play in the CFL, or UFL. Maybe they can make their money there, get all the concessions they want, and the fan base who follows players will follow them.

My problem is when the 90's hit I was sorta on the players side. In the aspect that the owners were making all this money and the players hardly getting any. This go around I sorta side with the owners. Part of my issue's have to do with the fact that prior to the CBA players could stay with a specific team their whole career, show loyalty, and have a fan base. When the CBA was put in place players started jumping ship like rats. Going to different teams, going where the money was, and smiling all the way to the bank. There is no team loyalty. There is money loyalty, and honestly I don't see the arguement if players are getting paid what they are asking for? Manning getting $50 mill? Haynesworth getting his big payday? I could see if players were asking 2-4 mill a year and the owners saying no I'll pay you 400,000 thousand. But even then the player can say no thank you and either look to another team or not play if they think they are worth more.

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.

[Daseal]

Matty,

That may be the case, but the owners, if they feel they gave up too much, have the opportunity to get back what they feel they're missing. The players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players. When it comes down to it, as long as the owners aren't completely unreasonable the players will break. If I were the owners I'd be playing it the same way. Don't give them information either way.

It's all about getting a deal that keeps your product strong while also protecting your revenue stream. The heart of capitalism. Personally, I side with the owners here for the most part. They take a lot of the financial risk in this equation and have to put up a lot of capital to make things work. Players sacrifice their bodies and personal lives for this sport, and deserve to be compensated handsomly, but there need to be controls built in to this scheme.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Matty,

That may be the case, but the owners, if they feel they gave up too much, have the opportunity to get back what they feel they're missing. The players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players. When it comes down to it, as long as the owners aren't completely unreasonable the players will break. If I were the owners I'd be playing it the same way. Don't give them information either way.

It's all about getting a deal that keeps your product strong while also protecting your revenue stream. The heart of capitalism. Personally, I side with the owners here for the most part. They take a lot of the financial risk in this equation and have to put up a lot of capital to make things work. Players sacrifice their bodies and personal lives for this sport, and deserve to be compensated handsomly, but there need to be controls built in to this scheme.

1) That kind of talk will lead to a long strike. I do not think anyone wants that. Both sides need eachother. I do not want to suffer through scab games again. If the owners feel they gave up too much, open the books and prove it. Show that some teams are operating at a loss. Then it will be easier to solve. But you can not hide the numbers and cry foul. That is childish.

2) The owners do not take a lot of risk. what are you talking about? The NFL makes money hand over fist. The NFL makes billions of dollars. Don't cry poor for the owners. Name me one owner that did not have enough money operate in a lavish way and was forced to sell and came out losing money on the deal. Every former owner went out making a ton of money on their initial investment.
Did you hear the story about the New Orleans owner that was really upset that his 34 year old daughter did not have a limo waiting for her at the airport at superbowl? He was upset that all are her expenses were not paid for. The daughter is 34! LOL!
These billionaires get real cheap when they need too and take money off the top to pay for their jet set life styles.
The owners hold the cities hostage and threaten to move if the local goverments do not put up bonds to back construction of new stadiums.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.

Which is why I believe the owners are happy to let this CBA expire. So they can roll into a new one with out giving up so much. On top of that putting a Rookie salary in place.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Which is why I believe the owners are happy to let this CBA expire. So they can roll into a new one with out giving up so much. On top of that putting a Rookie salary in place.

Actually the owners opted out 2 years ago.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.

And the players agreed that the owners could opt out. The owners didn't do anything back-handed by opting out, and the players shouldn't try and make it seem like they did.

[SBXVII]

On another note I thought it was said that if the CBA expired then there would be no draft and the players could sign with whomever they wanted to possibly the highest bidder. Yet all I keep hearing about is how it will effect the FA's and that there will be a draft no matter what but signing the players might be difficult.

When actually would there be a situation where there is no draft? Next year?

[MTK]

NFL Labor FAQ « Raw Sports by CONCEDE330

Some good info here

[BuckSkin]

Looks like the Owners may be losing their guaranteed payday. We may see some movement afterall.

'Lockout insurance' reversal ruling saps leverage from owners - Shutdown Corner - NFL Blog - Yahoo! Sports

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by BuckSkin

Looks like the Owners may be losing their guaranteed payday. We may see some movement afterall.

'Lockout insurance' reversal ruling saps leverage from owners - Shutdown Corner - NFL*Blog - Yahoo! Sports

That ruling was like you laying down a full house, and the next guy dropping a royal flush on you. Now the playing field is even with much to lose from both sides of the table.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

That ruling was like you laying down a full house, and the next guy dropping a royal flush on you. Now the playing field is even with much to lose from both sides of the table.

The huge difference on the two sides of the table - - despite the recent ruling by Judge Doty - - is that the owners by and large have ways to make money outside football. After all, that is how most of them made the money it takes to buy and NFL team. If the Redskins shut down completely for two years, do you think Danny Boy would be going to a Food Assistance Center looking for free canned goods?

The players on the other hand have only one way that they can earn a minimum of about $500K per year and some of them getting to earn significantly more than that. If the league shut down for 2 years, what percentage of the players would find "six-figure jobs" in the private sector? (Of course, the NFLPA reps at the bargaining table will continue to pull down more than a living wage even if the league shuts down for 2 years.)

That is a fundamental distinction between the two sides doing the negotiating and I don't see any realistic way for that aspect of the playing field to "get leveled".

[Longtimefan]

NFL labor talks resume amid slim hopes of a deal