Ongoing CBA discussions

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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

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.

George Martin, director of NFL Alumni Association: DeMaurice Smith treats alums as 'afterthought'

Another brilliant PR strategy by D. Smith.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

George Martin, director of NFL Alumni Association: DeMaurice Smith treats alums as 'afterthought'

Another brilliant PR strategy by D. Smith.

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.

[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."

[BuckSkin]

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

NFL LOCKOUT: 31 Of 32 NFL Teams Requiring Payments For 2011 Season Tickets

[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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).

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by BuckSkin

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

NFL LOCKOUT: 31 Of 32 NFL Teams Requiring Payments For 2011 Season Tickets

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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 .

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.

[NC_Skins]

Speaking of Jerry Richardson.

Sources: Panthers' owner Richardson wants to protect staffers' jobs - CharlotteObserver.com

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

"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."

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[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.

[sportscurmudgeon]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Speaking of Jerry Richardson.

Sources: Panthers' owner Richardson wants to protect staffers' jobs - CharlotteObserver.com

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?

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...

[sportscurmudgeon]

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...

[over the mountain]

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by sportscurmudgeon

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...

Just for the record...

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

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