Ongoing CBA discussions

[over the mountain]

JKC/Fed Ex field cost 250 mil to build, of which the taxpayers of PG county and Md financed 28% of it. They say jerry jones palace which cost 1.2 bil to build could have been done for 2/3 the cost but jerry didnt want a sponsor name on his new crown jewel. If jerry turned down 200 mil or so just for naming rights to his stadium, he cant be hurtin that bad. Idk about the giants/jets new stadium costs, pub fin, sponsorship etc.

With any investment there are risks. I just dont believe the owners when they say they are losing money. Maybe Jax and some others but as a whole I think it is they best investment any person can make. If the owners want to talk about peripheral or actual risks, they could always just sell their team to a line of guys wanting in the club.

Right now Im not too worried about having no football come Sept. We still have all of April, May, June and July until real decisions need to be made. Thats a long time imo.

Itd be nice if the NFL and NFLPA would think of ways to lessen the direct costs to the fans, even if it was just puffery, itd just be nice to know that they know there is a third party to all this with our own wants, needs.

[NC_Skins]

I apologize if I've come off harsh in any of my posts. It's not intended and I'll try to be more mindful of this going further.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

The NFL agreed to show five years of league-wide profitability data to the union -- and that the offer was rejected.
The NFL's proposal included:
• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;

I think we have heard from the players that this "data" you are referring to isn't anywhere sufficient enough. I remember D. Smith saying they got more information from Forbes than what they offered with this "audited data". I'm sorry, but when you are negotiating over a billion dollars, simply saying "trust me" will never cut it. It's either show the books, or nothing at all.

Speaking of Forbes, I'd like you to comment on what a business magazine has to say about the situation. Seems they don't share your view (or the owners) about the situation.

Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Demaurice Smith knew where he was taking these negotiations, he just had to put up the front of negotiating in "good faith" so fans that are blindly loyal to the players would be sympathetic (read; buy his load of crap).

I think D. Smith covers this whole"negotiating on good faith" and commitment to negotiating bit.

DeMaurice Smith's Rebuttal in the Rain - NYTimes.com

“I understand that there’s probably some things that Jeff Pash has to say. But this is the truth: We know that as early as March of 2009, from the discovery in the television case, that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money – to lock out our fans, lock out our players – even if the games weren’t played.

“When I get ready to leave, I will leave each and every one of you in the media with what we call the decision tree, because this is exactly a document from the National Football League, that talks about how they were going go about securing television money, and I quote, ‘for cash during a lockout.’ So, with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party’s commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you … stick to the facts.”

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

How the owners made their money is irrelevant. Should we talk about how Haynesworth made his money and how he performed in "good faith".

It is when you are asking somebody to negotiate on faith. Also, good thing you brought up Haynesworth. The owners are complaining about rising player costs, yet owners are throwing stupid contract at idiots like Haynesworth. How is this a NFLPA problem? It would seem the owners need to spend their money better. (especially dan snyder)

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Again, do your homework or you FAIL....the players get almost 60% of revenue under the 2006 CBA.

NFL owners on verge of lockout with players in labor feud - The Denver Post

From the very article you posted.

The players' union documents say the 59.5 percent is a stretch.

So much for that 59% being fact.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

You may want to read this. History is a great teacher.

National Football League Players Association - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- Actually people did watch the replacement games, far better than the NFLPA "All Star" games.
- The TV contracts are already negotiated, if the NFL plays games it doesn't matter who is on the field.
- There will be revenue coming in, people will still go to games. Number may be down, but revenue will still come in....and with greatly reduced player costs the owners will likely make a better percentage of profit.
- With no union, anyone could play that wants to, scab, former NFL player, or previous NFLPA member who wants to cross the picket line.

So you think the NFL will survive based off of 3 scab games? You don't understand, take the talent away and the NFL will die. You can claim to be a fan of the team all you want, but you aren't going to pay 2-5k per year to watch inferior talent. Players come and go, but the talent level remains the same.

You mention scabs but you haven't commented on this. The owners are locking out the players so they can't use scabs. This isn't like the 80's strike when it was the players striking. This is the owners striking and locking out the players. If they play games, then they have to fulfill the contracts of the current players. Which means there will be no scabs.

So your theory about bringing in inferior talent for 2-3 years and it replenishing it with the upcoming college athletes is false. There would be no games played. No scabs. No nothing. The NFL would indeed die, and a new league would form with different investors willing to take the same deal as the current CBA.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Trust me the NFL isn't going anywhere.

It will if the talent goes.

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

We're talking financial risks. And no one is forcing the players to take the risk of getting on the field.

There aren't really any more financial risks in the NFL now. It's a straight up cash cow. This isn't the 70's or 80s anymore.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

your entire post is whats laughable. the owners pay the players millions of dollars, YEARS IN ADVANCE, for work not yet performed. The owners also get billion dollar loans to pay for stadiums, hoping fans will come in and pay to see the team play. the owners take on enormous financial risk.

What exactly in my post do you find laughable? Were you not able to comprehend it?

They pay players years in advance? Here I was thinking they gave them annual salaries and voluntary signing bonuses. It's not the players fault that teams compete for their services. No team is obligated to pay signing bonuses.

Most stadiums are financed in part by tax payers not to mention the fact that the NFL is a cash cow. The days of owners struggling are over and they hardly have to do much to get loans or fans to attend games. That isn't to say some owners don't face market place pressures but then again that's because their teams don't win.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by saden1

What exactly in my post do you find laughable? Were you not able to comprehend it?

They pay players years in advance? Here I was thinking they gave them annual salaries and voluntary signing bonuses. It's not the players fault that teams compete for their services. No team is obligated to pay signing bonuses.

Most stadiums are financed in part by tax payers not to mention the fact that the NFL is a cash cow. The days of owners struggling are over and they hardly have to do much to get loans or fans to attend games. That isn't to say some owners don't face market place pressures but then again that's because their teams don't win.

I think this apply mostly to baseball and basketball players, whose entire contract $$ is guaranteed.

[Dirtbag59]

I think the players are getting close to spending their last bit of goodwill. The blame has already started to shift to their side for the current state of the CBA.

[hooskins]

Just to counter some of the points here, and it may have already been mentioned:

-NFL is a monopoly which dominates one industry, therefore a union must exist to negotiate for the players. Otherwise the owners do whatever they want and the players get screwed. They can't play anywhere else, at the same level, in the US. Federal jurisdiction prevails in these matters for this reason.

-Since NFL is a monopoly dominating the most popular sport, revenue will be high in the long-run. It is a sure fire investment, even for the cruddy markets, where portions of the NFL profit is shared.

-Owners do pay for stadiums, along with all taxpayers via taxes. They are not the only ones taking that risk.

-If the owners feel their position is valid, why not take it to court? Don't say it's because of the Judge. That is such a BS cop-out. Last time the verdict was reached with the NFL and players it was by a JURY!

Usually when people don't want to go to court, it is because they know they are wrong on some level. If you don't believe that or have an issue with the legal system, then that argument is for another day.

[SBXVII]

wow, so much for turning over a new leaf.

#1- "If" scabs were allowed as during the first time around, I said I would watch them. You don't have to. I thought it was fun to watch average Joe's play ball. I don't care that they weren't making millions. It was just fun watching some people get a chance at something they otherwise would not normally get a chance to do and get excited seeing them get excited.

#2- Doom and Gloom. Your either a glass half empty or a glass half full. I prefer to listen to the pundits who are saying that both sides are not that far off and that although now it has to go to court, a deal could get done relatively fast within a month or two. Not that it will but it could.

#3- The other option is both agree to extend the old agreement for another year while they continue to work it out through the courts or the courts set up a temporary CBA possibly what the owners offered until both sides can agree on a new CBA.

And lastly I remember all the Doom and Gloomers who spoke out on the NHL strike and how bad Hockey would be. Hmmm... If I'm not mistaken hockey came back and is doing well. Maybe not as good money wise as they were or maybe better but new fans I'm sure filled in for the ones who left it.

[SBXVII]

hooskin,

Umm, the Players have more options now vs back in the 80's. They can always chose to go make their millions in Canada, or maybe the UFL will agree to their demands on top of paying them the money they seek. It's not like the NFL is the only football league.

I did feel sorry for the players back in the 80's because they made about 50,000 or slighty over. It's one thing to own a business and be forced to pay your employees more then minimum wage, it different when the players want to own you and your business.

Another option mentioned is the owners fold their business's and start a new football team/league.

Another thing I've heard today is the NFLPA is requesting/encouraging the Rookies who were invited to NY for draft day not to go to help their cause. As Lavar said it's a tough choice since you want to make your future employer happy and show your commitment, but you want to support your future team players as well.

All things aside I think the NFLPA should not be asking the Rookies to participate. Let them if they want to but when you are in school your parents want to see you graduate high school and walk across the stage, when you go to college and some kids have their parents paying part of their college the parents want to see you walk across the stage again. You can't tell me that through all the years of you playing in little league, and moving on to high school, then college, I'm sure little ole dad would love to see you walk out on stage when your name is called, but the NFLPA wants to be selfish and not allow you to have what each of the other players got to do.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Just to counter some of the points here, and it may have already been mentioned:

-NFL is a monopoly which dominates one industry, therefore a union must exist to negotiate for the players. Otherwise the owners do whatever they want and the players get screwed. They can't play anywhere else, at the same level, in the US. Federal jurisdiction prevails in these matters for this reason.

-Since NFL is a monopoly dominating the most popular sport, revenue will be high in the long-run. It is a sure fire investment, even for the cruddy markets, where portions of the NFL profit is shared.

-Owners do pay for stadiums, along with all taxpayers via taxes. They are not the only ones taking that risk.

-If the owners feel their position is valid, why not take it to court? Don't say it's because of the Judge. That is such a BS cop-out. Last time the verdict was reached with the NFL and players it was by a JURY!

Usually when people don't want to go to court, it is because they know they are wrong on some level. If you don't believe that or have an issue with the legal system, then that argument is for another day.

Great Post.
The owners do not want to share all of the revenue information with the players, they also do not want to share it with each other. The high revenue owners are not wanting to do more revenue sharing with the smaller market teams. That is why they are so insistent about not opening the books all the way.
I really liked the idea on an earlier post that mentions more balanced revenue sharing among the owners first to make up for any owners that are claiming losses, instead of taking it out of the players cut. I also agree with examining the books more closely for wasteful spending by the NFL. Just to see if cuts can be made on wasteful spending before the players have to start returning money. For example spending half a $million dollars for a 5 second fly over of F-18's over the Superbowl domed stadium is wasteful. Nobody in the stadium saw it.
There was the whole flap of New Orleans owners 33 year old daughter was upset there was not a free limo waiting for her at the airport. How many other free perks do the billionaire owners give themselves that comes right off the top of the profit? This need to be audited and controlled.

[saden1]

Oh for fck sake, the players need the owners as much as the owners need the players. Not every fan will watch replacement players...including me. And you can forget about the casual fan altogether. My fcking Sundays are precious and there is no room for watching mediocre players try to play at a high level. I would rather watch the NBA or garden instead!

Let's not forget the fact that owners are competing with one another and can't collectively lockout players because that would be an anti-trust issue. That means if one owner signs a quality player that's locked out they will all follow suite unless they don't care about winning. You best believe each and every owner will pursue any means necessary to insure that their team is superior to every other team because that is the only way to rake in the dough.


There is no money in scabs on the field....period! Player unions are a natural part of the sports business...period!

[CRedskinsRule]

An interesting dynamic to me, that I did not realize, is that the agents are expecting full access to the owners books as well. Drew Rosenhaus was on with Ross Tucker on Sunday. And everything he talked about was a collective we in regards to DSmith, the players, and the agents. He said specifically that Smith had gone over the strategies with him and how to handle the cba/lockout issues.

Can you imagine the agents in negotiations with all the owners books. Ugghhh

[saden1]

Am I missing here? Aren't agents an extension of players?

Player: Get me paid!
Agent: Roger that!

[musicmaster45]

Players would have been happy with the old deal. The owners wanted more money without showing the proof. All owners on this one.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone.

Accounting fraud is hot.