Ongoing CBA discussions

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

Absolutely, but the blurbs reinforce my point that the profitability decline due to increased player costs is pretty dramatic.

[Defensewins]

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

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.

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

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only non-profit, 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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only non-profit, 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.

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

[Dirtbag59]

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.

[skinsfaninok]

Jerry Jones’ gesture may have set the stage for decertification | ProFootballTalk

[NC_Skins]

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.

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, 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.

Read more: Full access to financial statements at core of NFL labor issues - Peter King - SI.com

I still don't see why nobody has commented on arguably the most telling evidence in this whole debate that I posted earlier.
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

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

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.

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I still don't see why nobody has commented on arguably the most telling evidence in this whole debate that I posted earlier.
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

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.

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.

[saden1]

NFL players are skin to partially owned subsidiaries not employees.

[CRedskinsRule]

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

[RobH4413]

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.

CBS Podcast Player

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

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.

[NC_Skins]

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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/sp...all/09nfl.html

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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

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

NFL owners approve six-year CBA extension - NFL - ESPN

"It was a good compromise," said Jim Irsay, owner of low-revenue Indianapolis. "We're happy with it -- 30-2 is a good vote."

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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.