KRC Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Not to cherry pick your post here, but the bolded statemenst aren't really an accurate representation of the facts. Owners who are self-made billionaires: Ralph Wilson Robert Kraft Stephen Ross Steve Bisciotti Bob McNair Wayne Weaver Bud Adams Al Davis Alex Spanos Jerry Jones Jeffrey Lurie Dan Snyder Zygi Wilf Arthur Blank Jerry Richardson Tom Benson Malcolm Glazer Stan Kroenke (eventually married into the Walton family, but founded his own successful businesses prior to that) Paul Allen Owners who inhereted fortunes: Woody Johnson Mike Brown Dan Rooney Jim Irsay Pat Bowlen Clark Hunt John Mara Brenda McCaskey Bill Ford Bill Bidwill Denise DeBartolo-York Complete exception to every rule: Green Bay Packers The vast majority of owners are self-made billionaires; they became wealthy through their own business ventures. Your claim that the players are the reason the NFL is what it is (and NOT the owners), is--with all due respect--completely unjustified and one-sided. Without the entrepeneurship of the above individuals (and their forefathers in some cases), there would be no NFL. Without a business owner, there are no jobs, and thus no salaries, pensions, 401k's, etc. I'm not denying that the converse is true, but the fact of the matter when you live in a caitalist system (and I thank that God we do) is that the person that generates the idea always makes more than the people who execute it because he/she is taking all of the risk and all of the initial loss to get the business off the ground (and he/she is the one stimulating the economy with consumer spending and job provision if/when the business succeeds). You can say there would be no NFL without the players, and that's true, but consider this: the vast majority of owners made their own wealth, and did so without the help of the players, coaches, fans, etc. Do the owners need the NFL to make billions? No, they did it already without the NFL's help. Do the players need the NFL to make millions? Yes (actually, there are probably some players--call it 2-5%--that have the business savvy to make millions in other ways, but for the most part they do not). I don't know if that changes your perspective at all (make no mistake, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion), but I hope at least I've been able to shed some additional light on these facts for you. I am probably picking some nits here, but I would disagree with Dan Rooney inheriting his fortune and not being a self-made millionare/billionare. His fortune obviously came primarily from the Steelers. Dan was an integral part of the team since the early 1950s and was a part of all league meetings and discussions. The team faced financial trouble for at least the first two decades while under the control of Art Rooney. He didn't just inherit a team. He built the team. Dan was just as much a part of building the Steelers and the league as his father. Personally, I would remove him from that list and bump him to the top list. He built the fortune he inherited.
thebandit27 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Owners like Kraft ('94) (who I'd also argue married into wealth rather than created his own ... though I'm biased there), Ross ('08), Biscotti ('04), McNair ('02), Lurie ('94), Snyder ('99), Wilf ('05), Blank ('04), Richardson ('93), Glazer ('95), Kroenke ('10), Allen ('97) bought their teams after the NFL was well established and profitable. There was virtually zero risk (in the grand scheme) to these owners when they moved into ownership as the NFL was already generating billions of dollars and revenue sharing and TV contracts assured a profit for the nation's most popular sport. So 12 out of the 19 on your list I'd argue didn't help build the league -- in fact their contributions, while important, I'd argue are less valuable than the players. It's reasonable (though unrealistic) to assume that if you swapped out any of those 12 with anyone else, the NFL would be in exactly the same position it's in right now financially. These men aren't mavericks. They are smart businessmen who recognized the modern NFL for what it is: a no risk enterprise. That's a great point, and one to which I suppose I hadn't given much thought. As I mentioned in my earlier post--despite my position on the subject (as a business owner, I side with the owners), I can understand why others would side with the players; there are very compelling reasons to do so. What's disappointing to me about the entire scenario is that neither side seems to be making any effort to empathize with the other. Honestly, do the owners really understand the players' apprehension towards an 18-game season? Do they not comprehend why the players' union feels they need to see proof of the owners' declining income stream? Conversely, do the players give any credence to the fact that it is the owners' money that must be invested to grow the game? Do they want to continue to see salaries increase, facilities improve, and endorsement opportunities expand? That's where I get frustrated, and it seems like those things make sense to most of the posters in this thread, which makes me think that there's at least some common sense surrounding this issue, even if it's not in the minds of the owners and players. I am probably picking some nits here, but I would disagree with Dan Rooney inheriting his fortune and not being a self-made millionare/billionare. His fortune obviously came primarily from the Steelers. Dan was an integral part of the team since the early 1950s and was a part of all league meetings and discussions. The team faced financial trouble for at least the first two decades while under the control of Art Rooney. He didn't just inherit a team. He built the team. Dan was just as much a part of building the Steelers and the league as his father. Personally, I would remove him from that list and bump him to the top list. He built the fortune he inherited. Sure, I could be on board with that logic. I guess the view I took on it was this: if the owner in question inherited the money-making asset (i.e. the business, system, franchise, or investment portfolio that generated the income that build his/her wealth), then they went on the "inherited" list. However, that doesn't make your points any less valid.
JohnC Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 As I mentioned in my earlier post--despite my position on the subject (as a business owner, I side with the owners), I can understand why others would side with the players; there are very compelling reasons to do so. I appreciate your well thought out comments. What I don't understand is if you owned a business and your business was thriving moreso than before why would you open up a labor agreement with the expectation that the workers would give back some of their gains? Wouldn't you expect them to ask for some evidence regarding your fiscal challenges? In a recent interview Roger Goodell was asked about the the fiscal state of affairs of the owners and NFL. He pointed out that the costs are escalating. And he then said the owners are willing to show them their costs. When asked about the profit level and why the owners were not willing to reveal it to the players his lame response was that it wouldn't be useful. I got the sense that he was embarrassed by that ridiculous company line response. What's disappointing to me about the entire scenario is that neither side seems to be making any effort to empathize with the other. In management/labor issues it is not always a question of empathy so much as an issue of the facts. If the owners want to make a claim regarding their changing circumstances then so be it. Making a claim is one thing. Anyone can do that. The next step is to prove or at least credibly demonstrate the merits of your claim. When the owners give a response that they have no obligation to provide the evidence of their claim then you shouldn't be surprised that the labor side of the negotiations are skeptical. Do they not comprehend why the players' union feels they need to see proof of the owners' declining income stream? What would be your view of the owners' side of the issue if the facts revealed that the owners actually made more money under this current CBA than it did prior to it?
Scraps Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Newflash, Skippy...if that's really the way you feel, then the issue is not that these guys are stealing but that people like you allow them to steal. Most of the time, things don't happen to you so much as you LET them happen to you. Don't like it? Take your own money and create your own football league, or stop following the game, or find another sport, or turn off the TV, or just shut the hell up. The only person making YOU do anything is yourself, and the sooner people stop thinking the owners owe anything to anyone simply becaue they're the owners and they're rich, the sooner this will get fixed. Wow did you ever miss the point of my post!
thebandit27 Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 I appreciate your well thought out comments. What I don't understand is if you owned a business and your business was thriving moreso than before why would you open up a labor agreement with the expectation that the workers would give back some of their gains? Wouldn't you expect them to ask for some evidence regarding your fiscal challenges? I understand why you're asking the question. The problem I have here is that you're asking me to answer it looking at the dispute through a strawhole. As an owner--knowing what I know now--I wouldn't have signed the original deal in the first place, so it's hard for me to say what I'd expect from the union. That said, the union isn't stupid, they knew perfectly well that they were doing a patchwork deal in 2006. As an owner, I can only assume that NFL ownership will submit that at the time, keeping the game from experiencing a work stoppage was what was in the best interest of all parties, and that now, doing whatever is necessary to grow the game is what's in the best interest of all parties. As far as asking for evidence, sure, I expect it. Like I said, I have bones to pick with both sides. In management/labor issues it is not always a question of empathy so much as an issue of the facts. If the owners want to make a claim regarding their changing circumstances then so be it. Making a claim is one thing. Anyone can do that. The next step is to prove or at least credibly demonstrate the merits of your claim. When the owners give a response that they have no obligation to provide the evidence of their claim then you shouldn't be surprised that the labor side of the negotiations are skeptical. As I said, I fully understand the players' union requesting financial statements. At the same time, I fully understand that ownership has absolutely no obligation to show them; that is also a fact. Now, is it the right thing to do? I believe so, and this is where my comment about empathy comes full circle. If the owners understood the players' position, they'd at least make an effort to substantiate their claims. Likewise, if the players understood that--irrespective of their de facto income derived from ownership of the football team--the owners are facing more financial liability than ever before (without accounting for the investments incumbent upon them to grow the game as they'd like to), they'd back down a bit on their demands to retain their existing percentage of compensation, or at least consider a longer regular season to "grow the pie" for both sides. What would be your view of the owners' side of the issue if the facts revealed that the owners actually made more money under this current CBA than it did prior to it? I'd want to know how their profits compare in terms of the following: current debt load, increase in expenses, exected investments to grow the game, present worth of the income to account for inflation, etc. If, after taking the aforementioned into account, it turned out that their profit margin increased, then I'd say that ownership would need to present a detailed financial plan/budget for how they intend to use their increased revenue to benefit all sides. That, of course, would be opening a new can of worms, since I can only assume that the players union would want those expenses audited to ensure that they're not using the increased revenue to line their own pockets.
Fixxxer Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Actually, it is the same. When the current CBA extension was signed prior to the 2006-07 season, both sides knew it was being done in "band-aid" fashion. Neither side was ready to confront the possibility of either an uncapped year or a work stoppage, so they hastily threw together a deal at the last moment. The players got the upper hand in terms of the revenue division, which made them happy to sign the deal. The owners recognized this, and requested that a clause be added to the agreement that provided them an opt-out that they could exercise prior to the 2009 season; that way they could (1) prevent a work stoppage in the short-term, (2) further evaluate the ramifications of an uncapped season--which turned out to work in their favor as opposed to the players', and (3) get out of a "bad" deal in the event that their nest eggs took a hit in the coming seasons. They chose to opt-out prior to the 2009 season, which gave us 2 years of uncapped league operations prior to the early (by 2 years) expiration of the deal. Now that the deal is expired (or rather, will expire on March 4th of this year), the Owners can lock out the players. Unless, of course, the union chooses to decertify, in which case there's no players union to lock out. Then, of course, the owners will further pursue their charges to the NLRB that the players' union had no intention of reaching a deal because they intended to fall back on decertification the entire time, and there will be a lawyer vs. lawyer pissing match for who knows how long...but, there would be football. P.S. congrats on your new fatherhood Great summary post. It was evident that the last deal was hurried to be signed so that football could carry on. In the meantime players got a sweet deal, they also agreed in good faith that if the owners didn't think this deal was good for them the deal could be voided. What bothers me is that now that the owners are saying that the past deal was not a good one for them the players start claiming dishonesty from their employers? Either way, it all started when the owners rushed to sign the last deal. They should have been more conscious of the potential problems the new CBA would bring.
ETD66SS Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) "It's really astounding to me how blind and bitter some people can be when it comes to this stuff." I'm niether blind nor bitter, I'm picking a side, just like you are. Don't get so butthurt about the side I'm choosing. I tend to never side with unions/labor. Don't be telling me my opinion on the matter is wrong (or calling me blind, bitter, whatever adjective you choose), just because it's different than yours. Edited February 17, 2011 by ETD66SS
CosmicBills Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 "It's really astounding to me how blind and bitter some people can be when it comes to this stuff." I'm niether blind nor bitter, I'm picking a side, just like you are. Don't get so butthurt about the side I'm choosing. I tend to never side with unions/labor. Don't be telling me my opinion on the matter is wrong (or calling me blind, bitter, whatever adjective you choose), just because it's different than yours. If you read what I wrote, I specifically say that may not be how you are in reality -- but it's how your post is written (bitter that is).
JohnC Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) As I said, I fully understand the players' union requesting financial statements. At the same time, I fully understand that ownership has absolutely no obligation to show them; that is also a fact. I'd want to know how their profits compare in terms of the following: current debt load, increase in expenses, exected investments to grow the game, present worth of the income to account for inflation, etc. Again, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. However, you leave me baffled. On the one hand you talk about the risks and future financial stresses incurred by the owners, and then on the other hand you say you have no obligation to demonstrate that claim of vulnerability. Don't you think that if the owners felt their businesses were in peril to some degree, now or in the future, that they would be eager to demonstrate that point? What if the reality of the financial books were that the owners were making more money under this CBA than the former CBA? Wouldn't that be a reason why they wouldn't want the players to glimpse the robust books? The country and a good chunk of the world have gone through two years of wrenching economic turmoil. The economic situation is slowly improving. Yet, the owners were still able to make a sizeable profit during this stressful economic climate. They still want more. Sometimes greed can be self-destructive. Edited February 17, 2011 by JohnC
purple haze Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 (edited) Your boss/owner of your company gives you a bonus/raise or you demand to see the books and then make your own determination what your raise/bonus should be? Sorry, but I don't feel sorry for these guys at all. Because of their athletic talent, they received a 4 year degree at some of the best colleges in the country(If they didn't, shame on them), and are being paid a kings ransom to play a game they love. F*** THEM. One more point... Without the owners, the NFL players would be no different than 99% of all NCAA athletes. Looking for a real job when their college days were over. They just don't know how good they have it. The players ARE NOT looking for a raise. They are happy with the way things are. The owners say they are losing money and want the players to give back money. IF they are losing money then why can't they open up their books to prove it. If they are losing money the players might work with them. Without players owners aren't making as much money and adding to their fortunes. Nobody made the owners build new stadiums and take on all that extra debt. They CHOSE to do that to try to make more money. Now they want the players to make up for that. The players are the product. No players, no league. No employees, less business. Unless owners can do everything themselves. It's simple really. I don't know how you are mad at the players when the owners are the one's threatening to lock them out. The owners signed the last deal. Maybe they (exception being Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown who said it was a bad deal at the time and got laughed at.) are not as smart as you or they think they are, huh? Edited February 17, 2011 by purple haze
Scraps Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Now, is it the right thing to do? I believe so, and this is where my comment about empathy comes full circle. If the owners understood the players' position, they'd at least make an effort to substantiate their claims. Likewise, if the players understood that--irrespective of their de facto income derived from ownership of the football team--the owners are facing more financial liability than ever before (without accounting for the investments incumbent upon them to grow the game as they'd like to), they'd back down a bit on their demands to retain their existing percentage of compensation, or at least consider a longer regular season to "grow the pie" for both sides. How are they facing more financial liability than ever before? How do they intend to "grow the game"?
CosmicBills Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 How are they facing more financial liability than ever before? How do they intend to "grow the game"? They want to grow the game by expanding to profitable cities like Jacksonville. No, in all seriousness, taking the owner's side for a (brief) moment: growing the game most likely includes the costs of the new palatial stadiums and the technology they're trying to implement to make fans want to leave the confines of their living rooms and actually COME to the games. Technology such as the hand held devices the Bills (and several other) teams tested last season. I forget their name. But they were cool. HDTV has increased TV ratings but if the owners keep raising ticket prices, concession prices, PSLs, parking prices etc, it is going to be tough to convince fans to go to the games when they can see the games better than ever -- and cheaper than ever -- in their living rooms. I think this has owners panicking. They're looking for ways to protect themselves from how over extended the big market clubs have become with their new palaces. I've mentioned this in other posts, but this reminds me A LOT of the stance the studios took in the most recent WGA strike in Hollywood a few years ago. The studios were terrified (rightfully so) of the internet and movie goers forgoing the "theater" experience and instead downloading or streaming their movies. They wanted to cut the writers out of the internet entirely and they used the excuse "no one can make money off the internet, so why do you need a cut of it" yet they refused to open the books to show that to be true. Because, of course, it wasn't true. Just my take of course.
JohnC Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) I've mentioned this in other posts, but this reminds me A LOT of the stance the studios took in the most recent WGA strike in Hollywood a few years ago. The studios were terrified (rightfully so) of the internet and movie goers forgoing the "theater" experience and instead downloading or streaming their movies. They wanted to cut the writers out of the internet entirely and they used the excuse "no one can make money off the internet, so why do you need a cut of it" yet they refused to open the books to show that to be true. Because, of course, it wasn't true. Just my take of course. Excellent analysis. The biggest fear of the owners is the concept of transparency. To these barons it is a revolutionary concept. Their paternalistic and condescending attitude is how dare these impudent peasant workers ask us to prove our claims. The following link is a column written by Sally Jenkins for the Washington Post. Her attitude toward the owners' approach in this CBA negotiation is similar to your sentiments. It points out that some of the troublesome issues that the owners want remedied are owner created. It also addresses the attitude of entitlement permeating their side of the negotiating table. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html Edited February 18, 2011 by JohnC
GaryPinC Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Excellent analysis. The biggest fear of the owners is the concept of transparency. To these barons it is a revolutionary concept. Their paternalistic and condescending attitude is how dare these impudent peasant workers ask us to prove our claims. Why should the owners be transparent about it? Because their employees say so? The owners run the league and the teams. They are not a public company and are under no obligation to open their books. I feel a big, seldom discussed part of all this is that the owners don't want the players controlling the league, and I can't blame them for that. Look at the NBA, I think it's crap that players like Lebron/Wade/Bosh can get together and manipulate the fortunes of certain teams. Let's say the owners show the players negative percent changes in profits/revenues since the new CBA took effect. Would that be good enough? Probably not, but the NFL is not a democracy. It's great when commercial companies do profit sharing, etc. but there are plenty of companies in the world that aren't going to be doing any profit sharing ever. I've worked for some, and if they decide to give a bonus the first thing they'll say is "don't expect it again next year". The owners were stupid to sign the CBA last time around and the players are stupid to think they should be treated as equals in determining where the revenues go. That's why I don't think this lockout is going away anytime soon. Like others, I have issues with both sides but mildly favor the owners as I'm not a big fan of unions.
CosmicBills Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 1. Why should the owners be transparent about it? Because their employees say so? The owners run the league and the teams. They are not a public company and are under no obligation to open their books. 2. I feel a big, seldom discussed part of all this is that the owners don't want the players controlling the league, and I can't blame them for that. 3. Look at the NBA, I think it's crap that players like Lebron/Wade/Bosh can get together and manipulate the fortunes of certain teams. 4. Let's say the owners show the players negative percent changes in profits/revenues since the new CBA took effect. Would that be good enough? Probably not, but the NFL is not a democracy. It's great when commercial companies do profit sharing, etc. but there are plenty of companies in the world that aren't going to be doing any profit sharing ever. I've worked for some, and if they decide to give a bonus the first thing they'll say is "don't expect it again next year". The owners were stupid to sign the CBA last time around and the players are stupid to think they should be treated as equals in determining where the revenues go. 5. That's why I don't think this lockout is going away anytime soon. Like others, I have issues with both sides but mildly favor the owners as I'm not a big fan of unions. 1. Because they are claiming they need more money because they are losing money. If that's true, prove it. Otherwise, it's difficult to believe that considering the record ratings the NFL has been generating and the enormous TV contracts it has handed out. 2. The players aren't controlling the league, but they want to be partners with ownership. And since the owners need the players to survive and visa versa, this isn't an unfair request. Don't forget, the players aren't asking for a wage increase. They're asking the owners to show them a justifiable reason for a pay CUT. 3. So ... you're in favor of a capitalistic system but are against players using their legal rights within that system as "Free" Agents (note the key word) to go where they wish? Gotcha. 4. That's a huge leap. If the owners could show a loss, they would. They can't. So they won't. If they did show a loss, they'd be waiving it to every camera they could, like the NBA owners are doing right now, because it would take away every bit of leverage the players have. Which isn't much to begin with. 5. That's absolutely true. And it'll be the owners' fault and it'll be the fans (you and me) that suffer.
thebandit27 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 Again, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. However, you leave me baffled. On the one hand you talk about the risks and future financial stresses incurred by the owners, and then on the other hand you say you have no obligation to demonstrate that claim of vulnerability. Don't you think that if the owners felt their businesses were in peril to some degree, now or in the future, that they would be eager to demonstrate that point? What if the reality of the financial books were that the owners were making more money under this CBA than the former CBA? Wouldn't that be a reason why they wouldn't want the players to glimpse the robust books? The country and a good chunk of the world have gone through two years of wrenching economic turmoil. The economic situation is slowly improving. Yet, the owners were still able to make a sizeable profit during this stressful economic climate. They still want more. Sometimes greed can be self-destructive. No legal obligation, that is. As I went on to explain, I do believe it would be the right thing to do. How are they facing more financial liability than ever before? How do they intend to "grow the game"? Scraps pretty much covered it. More financial liability stems from the need for new stadiums, more insurance (especially now that the league is taking player safety so much more seriously), increased benefits for retired players, greater operating costs, increasing player salaries, etc. That's without facotring in the fact that player salaries have grown at nearly double the inflation rate over the past 10 years. As for growing the game, there's no doubt that the league wants to go international. They also want to increase their fan base within North America. As I'm sure you know, it takes money to market your business, and there's no way that's coming out of the players' pockets (nor should it, that's ownership's responsibility). How much money does it take to market a multi-billion dollar industry? Not sure, but a traditional business standard rate says that about 30% of total revenue goes right back out the door for marketing and advertising.
JohnC Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 No legal obligation, that is. As I went on to explain, I do believe it would be the right thing to do. You are sophisticated enough to know that when management/labor sit at the table to negotiate new labor contracts they don't sit around talking about the weather. The topic of their discussions, sometimes rancorous and sometimes not, is about numbers. What is the cash flow, insurance costs, labor costs, stadium costs etc? It is about the state of affairs of the finances. What evidence have the owners exhibited about the change of their financial status? None. What evidence have the owners exhibited that demonstrates that the future of the league is in jeopardy under this current deal? None. They are emphatically saying trust us. Take our word for it. We are only acting on behalf of the good of the game. The NFL commissioner has stated that the owners are willing to show the union what their costs are. He then elaborated that the owners are not willing to say what their profit margins are. No one is denying that the costs are going up, that is not in dispute. The central point is how has it affected the profitability of the franchises and the long term viability of the game. The owners are not telling you what their profit levels are because they are going up. That exposure of fact would undercut their claims. We can go around and around in circles and get to the same stalemate point. Again, and again, I am making the same point. If the economic circumstances have negatively changed for the owners then demonstrate it. How do you think a bank would respond if you went to it and asked for a change in your loan contract because your financial circumstances have deteriorated? When they ask for some documentation such as pay records and cash/flow records you then respond that they have no right to see your personal information. What do you think their response would be? My basic point is when you are the one to make a contract altering claim then it is not unreasonable for the other side of the table to request some evidence for your claim. Saying something doesn't make it so.
thebandit27 Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) You are sophisticated enough to know that when management/labor sit at the table to negotiate new labor contracts they don't sit around talking about the weather. The topic of their discussions, sometimes rancorous and sometimes not, is about numbers. What is the cash flow, insurance costs, labor costs, stadium costs etc? It is about the state of affairs of the finances. What evidence have the owners exhibited about the change of their financial status? None. What evidence have the owners exhibited that demonstrates that the future of the league is in jeopardy under this current deal? None. They are emphatically saying trust us. Take our word for it. We are only acting on behalf of the good of the game. The NFL commissioner has stated that the owners are willing to show the union what their costs are. He then elaborated that the owners are not willing to say what their profit margins are. No one is denying that the costs are going up, that is not in dispute. The central point is how has it affected the profitability of the franchises and the long term viability of the game. The owners are not telling you what their profit levels are because they are going up. That exposure of fact would undercut their claims. We can go around and around in circles and get to the same stalemate point. Again, and again, I am making the same point. If the economic circumstances have negatively changed for the owners then demonstrate it. How do you think a bank would respond if you went to it and asked for a change in your loan contract because your financial circumstances have deteriorated? When they ask for some documentation such as pay records and cash/flow records you then respond that they have no right to see your personal information. What do you think their response would be? My basic point is when you are the one to make a contract altering claim then it is not unreasonable for the other side of the table to request some evidence for your claim. Saying something doesn't make it so. I think, perhaps, we are misunderstanding each other, John. My statement was made simply to recognize that the owners bare no legal responsibility to provide financial documentation, just as a bank requires no legal responsiblity to show proof of hardship in order to adjust its interest rates. Remember, the owners are the bank in this scenario, not the players. If you applied for and received a short-term, fixed rate savings account (i.e. a CD) at a bank, would you be entitled to the same interest rate once the loan term expired? Of course not. What if this bank is the only one in town? Still, the answer is no. Would the bank have the freedom to offer you a new interest rate that better suits their revenue goals? Of course. Remember, you're the one that wants the loan, and since your previous loan expired, there is no binding contract guaranteeing your rate. Your leverage is that you don't have to take the loan; theirs is that they don't need your loan to earn interest. As I've elaborated, I believe they should indeed show their financial statementsfor the benefit of preserving their credibility (as well as to accelerate the deal). If they're worried about doing so because the dollars don't back up their claims, well, then they need to bring enough support in terms of inflation, rising costs, etc. (i.e. all those things we've discussed) to further substantiate their claim that they're under greater financial stress than in previous years. If that's not true, well, then that's a whole different issue altogether. Edited February 18, 2011 by thebandit27
JohnC Posted February 18, 2011 Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) I think, perhaps, we are misunderstanding each other, John. My statement was made simply to recognize that the owners bare no legal responsibility to provide financial documentation, just as a bank requires no legal responsiblity to show proof of hardship in order to adjust its interest rates. Remember, the owners are the bank in this scenario, not the players. If you applied for and received a short-term, fixed rate savings account (i.e. a CD) at a bank, would you be entitled to the same interest rate once the loan term expired? Of course not. You have the participants in your bank analogy in reverse. The bank has a loan contract and the other party, the recipient of the loan, is asking for a change of terms. The owners signed a deal with an opt out clause. They are asking for a change in the original terms. The other side of the re-opened deal wants some evidence that the reasons for the change are as they are claimed by the owners. The players have publicly stated that they are willing to alter the original agreement (take less) if the claim is reasonably demonstrated. Where your bank analogy does resemble this football situation is that one side is basically saying take it or leave it without any meaningful dialogue. As I've elaborated, I believe they should indeed show their financial statementsfor the benefit of preserving their credibility (as well as to accelerate the deal). If they're worried about doing so because the dollars don't back up their claims, well, then they need to bring enough support in terms of inflation, rising costs, etc. (i.e. all those things we've discussed) to further substantiate their claim that they're under greater financial stress than in previous years. If that's not true, well, then that's a whole different issue altogether. My point is harshly simple: The owners' claims are patently untrue. If they had the ability to demonstrate their claims why wouldn't they do it? I'll be rude enough to answer my own question: The facts undercut their claims. There is nothing subtle about their approach. They feel they have the muscle in this dispute and they are going to use it. The negotiation with the union have little to do with the facts because the owners are avoiding presenting the facts. They feel they have the leverage and they are going to use that leverage to get what they want. Their franchises are stupendously profitable. That is not adequate for them. They want more. I do appreciate your thoughts on this topic. Although I respectfully disagree with your view you state your case very well. Edited February 18, 2011 by JohnC
LabattBlue Posted February 18, 2011 Author Posted February 18, 2011 (edited) The players ARE NOT looking for a raise. They are happy with the way things are. The owners say they are losing money and want the players to give back money. IF they are losing money then why can't they open up their books to prove it. If they are losing money the players might work with them. Without players owners aren't making as much money and adding to their fortunes. As you and others have pointed out, I was incorrect in stating that the players are not looking for a raise. That being said, the owners are still in charge and don't have to open their books up. I still stand behind the owners 100%, and if the players don't like it, they can always walk away from football, put their 4 year degree to work, and there will be plenty of other players waiting for the chance to play at the NFL level. Edited February 18, 2011 by LabattBlue
Recommended Posts