Ongoing CBA discussions

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by SkinzWin

Sources: NFLPA to decertify by March 3

I don't know much about the whole CBA issue and what each side's argument is in this matter. However, it is hard to get on the owners' side when they seem to be doing everything to make sure there is a lockout.

[Defensewins]

I also do not claim to know much detail about the issues, but if I heard it right, there was an article in the Washington Post about a week ago that a sentor was saying the NFL owners have not completely opened the finances/books 100% of the way. IF true, that is dissappointing to hear.

[SkinzWin]

^^^Completely true. It sickens me how much players make but at the same time I can't stomach the approach the owners have been taking to this whole thing. I don't think they need another billion off the revenue take. They seem to be super prickish IMO.

[SBXVII]

I have a hard time siding with anyone on either side of the issue's. I could care less about if the owners not opening up their books and I could care less about the players wanting to know what the $$ amount is the owners are trying to hide. I do think it's unfair to not be completely open, but this is business and most business's are not completely open about business afairs.

I look at it this way... if the players are not happy with what they are making then stop playing and get a job like all of us at a fraction of the pay they are making now. I don't see any reason why they need to know what the books say? simply put, they get drafted by a stingy owner then after their contract is up they can leave for a team who has an owner who will pay them. No different then if common citizen wants a job in a specific field he can look at several companies and chose the one he wants to work for or the one that pays the best or the one closer to where he lives.

The only issue I have is for years the market has been good, and most likely still is when it comes to football. But with the economy crashing I'm sure the vendor's are taking a hit by people partying in the parking lot prior to entering the game. Which means the owners are taking a slight hit because I'm sure the vendors probably pass on a % of their take for the day to the owner in order to sell at the stadium. Then there is the hats and jersey's, and whatever else people purchase that in the long run makes it back to the team. I'm sure the teams are taking a hit there due to the economy being bad and people not being able to afford them. So one has to imagine the owners are taking some sort of loss, I'm not saying they are in the red or negative money wise just saying I'm sure they are not making as much as they have in the past.

I bring this up because some owners own their stadiums and are paying a mortgage, some are tied to the city paying a portion, and some rent their stadiums. So what I'm getting at is the actual income after paying the players, paying for the stadium, paying for other employee's (coach's, secretaries, etc.), equipement, and other expenses I'm sure the owners take home is less then it used to be. Now top that with a horrid market in which other teams like the Skins and Cowboys who have to throw money at to support cuts into the income as well and even more with the bad economy.

Yet the players want more. 60% of the overall take goes to the players right now. It's not 50/50 like it should be. The players already take the majority of the income.

But this is just one issue.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I have a hard time siding with anyone on either side of the issue's. I could care less about if the owners not opening up their books and I could care less about the players wanting to know what the $$ amount is the owners are trying to hide. I do think it's unfair to not be completely open, but this is business and most business's are not completely open about business afairs.

I look at it this way... if the players are not happy with what they are making then stop playing and get a job like all of us at a fraction of the pay they are making now. I don't see any reason why they need to know what the books say? simply put, they get drafted by a stingy owner then after their contract is up they can leave for a team who has an owner who will pay them. No different then if common citizen wants a job in a specific field he can look at several companies and chose the one he wants to work for or the one that pays the best or the one closer to where he lives.

The only issue I have is for years the market has been good, and most likely still is when it comes to football. But with the economy crashing I'm sure the vendor's are taking a hit by people partying in the parking lot prior to entering the game. Which means the owners are taking a slight hit because I'm sure the vendors probably pass on a % of their take for the day to the owner in order to sell at the stadium. Then there is the hats and jersey's, and whatever else people purchase that in the long run makes it back to the team. I'm sure the teams are taking a hit there due to the economy being bad and people not being able to afford them. So one has to imagine the owners are taking some sort of loss, I'm not saying they are in the red or negative money wise just saying I'm sure they are not making as much as they have in the past.

I bring this up because some owners own their stadiums and are paying a mortgage, some are tied to the city paying a portion, and some rent their stadiums. So what I'm getting at is the actual income after paying the players, paying for the stadium, paying for other employee's (coach's, secretaries, etc.), equipement, and other expenses I'm sure the owners take home is less then it used to be. Now top that with a horrid market in which other teams like the Skins and Cowboys who have to throw money at to support cuts into the income as well and even more with the bad economy.

Yet the players want more. 60% of the overall take goes to the players right now. It's not 50/50 like it should be. The players already take the majority of the income.

But this is just one issue.

The players and owners negotiate a percentage of the revenue. So your concern for the owners in the bad economy is already taken into account, because as the revenue goes up or down, the players take adjusts accordingly.
One thing do I know is the owners did not always share in the merchandise money until the 80's or 90's CBA agreement. The owners until then took it all. The owners at the time also did not want to open the books on the merchandise revenue numbers either and they finally did.
Your claim of the players taking 60% does not ring true if the owners are not completely opening the books. As you well know, the players take 60% of what the owners are willing to reveal and share. Not the entire nut.

Another thing some people do not take into account is the value of the franchises and stadiums continue to going up and up. I am not saying the players should have any of it, they should NOT!
But don't cry poor for the owners when they are cash poor and hurting financially day to day. They can sell the team make a bundle and there will be a line of wealthy owners to buy.
Leonard Tose former owner of the Eagle bought them for $16m, paid himself a $6M a year salary off the team revenues, and then sold them for $65M.
Jack Kent Cooke bought Redskins in the 60's for a few Million, then sold them in the 90's for $800M.
The players have short careers, take all the risks to health and life, and their star power is what draws the crowds and sells the merchandise. Don't compare them to an everyday working folks. As you well know in the Sports and Entertainment business it is the stars that generate the revenue, not the owners.

[MTK]

I just don't see how they can have a fair negotiation without the owners opening their books.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I just don't see how they can have a fair negotiation without the owners opening their books.

It sounds like this might be a negotiation in itself. If the owners are to do that I'm sure attorneys on both sides would have to sign off on an agreement on what info can be discussed publicly by either side, which would be difficult to set the parameters on.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I just don't see how they can have a fair negotiation without the owners opening their books.

Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.

This is the Sports & Entertainment business. Not your everyday job type situation. The comparison does not apply.
Look what happened to the Miami Heat after they acquired LeBron James and Chris Bosh. With in a week they went from being a team struggling to fill their seats, to selling out 100% of their entire arena for every game this season. All 44 games. They were able to lay off their entire tickets sales department. They do not need to sell tickets anymore. The revenue influx was massive. Star Power.
All of their road away games are also all sold out.
A steel worker or a welder is not going to have that kind of effect on the bottom line. Get it?
The same is true when we negotiate a concert deal with a high powered entertainer like U2 or Rolling Stones. They take a % of the entire revenue that night. It is not uncommon in the Sports & Entertainment business because the revenue gained by a Peyton Manning is so diffrent than that gained by a Rex Grossman. LOL!
If Peyton Manning is traded tomorrow to a team that is struggling to fill their seats like a Tampa Bay, Oakland or St Loius that only sells about 75% of their seats, the result is instant and powefull$$$. Not to mention the effects of Revenue on sales of Merch, Parking and Concessions.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.

The NFL is not everyday America so your comparisons don't hold much water.

If the owners are going to use lost revenue as their main thrust as to why they want to take a bigger piece of the pie, they sure as hell better be ready to prove their point.

Are the players supposed to just take their word for it??

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Defensewins

The players and owners negotiate a percentage of the revenue. So your concern for the owners in the bad economy is already taken into account, because as the revenue goes up or down, the players take adjusts accordingly.
One thing do I know is the owners did not always share in the merchandise money until the 80's or 90's CBA agreement. The owners until then took it all. The owners at the time also did not want to open the books on the merchandise revenue numbers either and they finally did.
Your claim of the players taking 60% does not ring true if the owners are not completely opening the books. As you well know, the players take 60% of what the owners are willing to reveal and share. Not the entire nut.

Another thing some people do not take into account is the value of the franchises and stadiums continue to going up and up. I am not saying the players should have any of it, they should NOT!
But don't cry poor for the owners when they are cash poor and hurting financially day to day. They can sell the team make a bundle and there will be a line of wealthy owners to buy.
Leonard Tose former owner of the Eagle bought them for $16m, paid himself a $6M a year salary off the team revenues, and then sold them for $65M.
Jack Kent Cooke bought Redskins in the 60's for a few Million, then sold them in the 90's for $800M.
The players have short careers, take all the risks to health and life, and their star power is what draws the crowds and sells the merchandise. Don't compare them to an everyday working folks. As you well know in the Sports and Entertainment business it is the stars that generate the revenue, not the owners.

In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
#1- your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.

“The CBA defines what ‘total revenue’ is in detail and gives the Union roughly 60 percent of that amount. The Union has created a new measure of revenue, which it calls ‘All Revenue,’ and says that the players get 50 percent of that,” Aiello said. “Saying they want 50 percent of this new revenue base, is the same as saying they want 60 percent of the existing revenue base.

#2- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut, but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.

#3- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.

#4- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

In order to keep it short, I somewhat agree with you.
#1- your right the owners did keep everything prior to the 90's. But then the CBA came along and 60% was given to the players. But a lot of players made their extra money in advertizing.


#2- Your right again in saying if the revenue goes down so does the players cut, but the players still get 60% of what was taken in.

#3- Lets see you go out and tell your perspective employers that you want a % of their income and you want to see their books to make sure their on the up and up. What if the mods here said in order to remain a member you had to show your bank account statements. I think there would be quite a few upset people.

#4- Who knows why some owners do better then others, other then to say some are better managers. Snyder is an awesome manager... he just needs to keep his hand out of the kitchen. Your right when you say the teams sell for a decent amount and it will always go up, but if most of the money is tied up in the property then the owner really doesn't have much on hand of his own. I mean he might have an expensive team but if all he's pocketing is $1 mill a yr and he has players making 10 mill I'd be upset as an owner.

1) Not correct because it is not 60% of all that is taken in. Just what the owenrs are willing to reveal.

3) This is the Sports & Entertainment business. Not your everyday job type situation. The comparison does not apply.
Look what happened to the Miami Heat after they acquired LeBron James and Chris Bosh. With in a week they went from being a team struggling to fill their seats, to selling out 100% of their entire arena for every game this season. All 44 games. They were able to lay off their entire tickets sales department. They do not need to sell tickets anymore. The revenue influx was massive. Star Power.
All of their road away games are also all sold out.
A steel worker or a welder is not going to have that kind of effect on the bottom line. Get it?
The same is true when we negotiate a concert deal with a high powered entertainer like U2 or Rolling Stones. They take a % of the entire revenue that night. It is not uncommon in the Sports & Entertainment business because the revenue gained by a Peyton Manning is so diffrent than that gained by a Rex Grossman. LOL!
If Peyton Manning is traded tomorrow to a team that is struggling to fill their seats like a Tampa Bay, Oakland or St Loius that only sells about 75% of their seats, the result is instant and powefull$$$. Not to mention the effects of Revenue on sales of Merch, Parking and Concessions.

#4) If the owner does not have enough money to be an NFL owner. Easy, sell the team to someone that does.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

Do steel workers demand that their employers open up the books in their negotiatons?

Does your employer tell you how much theyre making so you can negotiate your salary accordingly?

In my opinion, the idea that the players are somehow entitled to this information is beyond stupid. unless they own a percentage of the team, then its none of their business. What they should be focusing their energies on are safety concerns, the 18 game season, retirement benefits, etc.

Finally someone who understands me. lol. Even in the old days players had choices. Go out test the market and take the highest bid or don't and go work for the team they like best. I look at whats happening now and think (as I did back in the 90's) if you don't like what your getting paid go get a real job and use your degree. The problem is they won't get as much money.

I also think the players are making enough money that they should be able to afford their own health insurance and retirement. Unless the NFLPA chooses to bring all the players under one health insurance company to save money. I think every player has a pretty good idea that they will only last about 10 yrs tops in the NFL and possibly less. So they go out and lobby for a huge salary. They should be putting money away for their retirement instead of buying 5 million dollar houses, or $100,000 dollar cars, or $50,000 dollar Rolex watches. It's not the owners fault the players don't know how to spend wisely or invest.

[SBXVII]

So for those of you who keep saying "this is not an everyday business" and that "this is show business" your saying then Actors and Actresses should be able to know the companies books and have their health insurance paid for?

I think you guys are wrong. It's a job. They are getting paid to do a job. The players can't have it two ways... they can't say hey this is my "job" and I should get paid for it, then turn around and say "oh I'm in show business so I want to see your books."

[MTK]

We're talking about collective bargaining, something that doesn't typically happen in every day life. Both sides involved should definitely be ready to prove and show their numbers. Otherwise how can the negotiations be fair and accurate?