Ongoing CBA discussions

[SBXVII]

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.

Neither do I, and I can't for the life of me figure out why some people are all hung up on the fact the owners don't want to show them. The only businesses that have to show them are businesses that are owned by the general public and even then I think it's limited info.

I also don't see talent agencies opening their books to their clients. Nor do you hear of building owners or stadium owners having to show their books to a musician or comedian who is performing. What they do know is either how many seats the place holds and they figure on a sell out times how much per seat and they split the money accordingly. Or they sell tickets and pay the performer based off ticket sales. They don't figure in food and drink sales nor do they figure in any souvenir sales unless the performer has it copy written ie; CD's, or in this case football jerseys and such.

I just know that if I was the owner of a McDonalds or even the Kennedy Center I'd be pissed if my employees or the performing act said "show us your books or we are going to court." I'd say see you in court.

On top of this I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if the owners are forced to open their books it would set a huge precedence on other businesses that have union workers. So I'm almost certain other businesses are watching as well as unions. So for those throwing out there that businesses have to show their books for singers and comedians and the like, I think your wrong.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Neither do I, and I can't for the life of me figure out why some people are all hung up on the fact the owners don't want to show them. The only businesses that have to show them are businesses that are owned by the general public and even then I think it's limited info.

I also don't see talent agencies opening their books to their clients. Nor do you hear of building owners or stadium owners having to show their books to a musician or comedian who is performing. What they do know is either how many seats the place holds and they figure on a sell out times how much per seat and they split the money accordingly. Or they sell tickets and pay the performer based off ticket sales. They don't figure in food and drink sales nor do they figure in any souvenir sales unless the performer has it copy written ie; CD's, or in this case football jerseys and such.

I just know that if I was the owner of a McDonalds or even the Kennedy Center I'd be pissed if my employees or the performing act said "show us your books or we are going to court." I'd say see you in court.

On top of this I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if the owners are forced to open their books it would set a huge precedence on other businesses that have union workers. So I'm almost certain other businesses are watching as well as unions. So for those throwing out there that businesses have to show their books for singers and comedians and the like, I think your wrong.

A classic case of fine ignorance and bad analogies here.

What publicly held companies show to auditors is everything that one learns in ****ing financial accounting. Grasp that first, then worry about the books.
Financial accountancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the "see you in court" is the threat of anti-trust litigation against the NHL. Anti-trust laws prohibit the monopolization--"natural monopolies" do not count because the agents don't perform the act of monopolization-- of a market. The employees of the ****ing Kennedy Center or McDonalds have no chance of proving that their respective employers are monopolizing the market nor does it have any ****ing relevance to their welfare of reduced benefits, etc.

Your analogies are caricatures. Do realize that the owners want to take 1 BILLION dollars for themselves because of "rising players costs", mean that they're claming that in their books, a good chunk of their books have journal entries that credit Cash and debit Players' Salaries Expense A LOT.

[SBXVII]

I'm feeling the kindness here thanks. No I'm not an ACCOUNTANT but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time

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?

As I also said, in the 80's There was a monopolization because the NFL didn't want any other league football to come in and take viewer ship away which would cost money. Now there is the indoor league, UFL, and CFL which is shown also.

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. No it was not stated today or yesterday so I can see your confusion, but after putting their analogy to thought for a while and it really not holding water I figured out how I wanted to say that their analogy was BS. All you did was prove my point by saying they are bad analogies. But remember I was trying to tell others their analogy was idiotic also.

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. I have a problem with each individual player and their agent dickering out millions of dollars to get the most for the player yet the union wants to know what the books to make sure their not getting screwed. Trust me the players are not getting screwed if they are agreeing to the contracts.

[MTK]

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

Certainly unique, but the legal issues w/anti-trust & labor law obviously apply to the nfl. I get what you're saying but at the same time it seems some general business principles/laws apply to the nfl. Maybe it's the quality of the comparisons that's the problem, I know the more I read about this the more I realize I don't know.

[hooskins]

GhettoDog, NFL is a monopoly. Remember what happened in the US when monopolies went unchecked by the federal government in the early 1900's?

Because the NFL is what it is, it has to be regulated.

[KLHJ2]

Original post was deleted because it would have resulted in a threadjacking.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Certainly unique, but the legal issues w/anti-trust & labor law obviously apply to the nfl. I get what you're saying but at the same time it seems some general business principles/laws apply to the nfl. Maybe it's the quality of the comparisons that's the problem, I know the more I read about this the more I realize I don't know.

Most likely. If I have to hear another caller on NFL Radio compare the CBA situation to walking in to your boss and asking to see their books I'm prolly gonna choke someone.

[hooskins]

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.

[hooskins]

You may claim the market determines what's fair, in terms of player salaries, but that goes back to my original point that pro football does not operate in a free-market environment.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Accounting fraud is hot.

Taxes are lame.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by hooskins

GhettoDog, NFL is a monopoly. Remember what happened in the US when monopolies went unchecked by the federal government in the early 1900's?

Because the NFL is what it is, it has to be regulated.

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

[Dirtbag59]

I feel like DeMaurice Smith deserves an "F Demaurice Smith" thread.

[CRedskinsRule]

What if the NFL says that they are not a monopoly based on the UFL/CFL and other opportunities that the players are given. I am not saying that the NFL isn't the best football, but certainly the owners could make the argument that other options are now available. (I am thinking along the lines of when Sirius and XM wanted to merge, they were threatened with antitrust, but made the case that other players had come into their market share - HD Radio, Wifi, etc. and the courts accepted that Sirius XM could merge due those competing brands)

If they did, and the NFL were to move away from the CBA system to just open market, I wonder how the players would respond to no salary floor, no draft, no guaranteed benefits of a CBA.

I don't expect that this will happen, but it's not impossible either. Also, this is just a hypothetical based on the Sirius XM case.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

We're not talking about a power company or telephone company. It's entertainment. Don't watch if you don't want to. Don't buy tickets.

I get the idea that the NFL is a monopoly, but it is a total luxury. What I'm hearing is, "The NFL is a monopoly, and people have the right to watch NFL football for a reasonable price! Get the government involved, because without regulation the NFL could get out of control and start denying people their natural born right to watch football!"

I understand the monopoly argument, I just don't buy it.

Re-reading this, and my perspective was that of the consumer. I realize that I left out the perspective of the employee (the player).

So, an employee in a market with virtually only one employer. What could happen that requires government regulation to avoid? I guess lockout is the only thing, since an employer should not have the power to deny an employee from practicing their trade in their industry. So, is that all the court will be ruling on -- the lockout? Or will the court decide on the argument of whether the owners will have to show their books?