agardin Posted March 12, 2011 Author Posted March 12, 2011 Unions sign contracts setting wage and benefit levels with private businesses all the time without being able to examine the private business' books. the Construction industry being the largest example of this. My sense is the owners don't want to reveal that family members are on the payroll, drawing salaries and how much they are, etc etc. Think of Mary Wilson, for example. The numbers would inevitably leak and a media circus would ensue. The teams probably lend money (on an arm's length basis) to other of the owners businesses, etc. All kinds of largely above board stuff, but would create a media circus the owners don't need. they hold all the cards. they can wait the players out indefinately. I would agree that the owners have more leverage but that would be eroded substanially if they can't get at their TV dollars this year. Debt on all those stadiums need to be serviced and if they don't have cash flow that could be difficult. I have no idea as to what Jerry owes on his stadium but if he has to renegotiate terms that could be very bad for him, after writing that I am not sure I don't want that to happen. Schadenfreude is not a likable emotion but when it comes to Jerry, I can't help myself.
BuffaloWings Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I apologize if I missed anyone saying this, but through all of this BS, we're watching billionaires shut out millionaires because the billionaires aren't getting enough of the pie. Stop it. I know it's hard to do so, but keep it all out of the public so all of us fans that pay your ridiculous prices don't have to hear your whining about who's showing who how much they make. I don't side with anyone. I don't care what it takes...just give me football in the fall so I can escape real life every Sunday.
yungmack Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 I dont blame Brady, Brees, Manning etc for siding with the players. They have to show solidarity. They just need someone better than this hack Smith negotiating on their behalf. Could you give us all a couple of examples of how Smith is a "hack?" Or how he's doing a poor job of negotiating?
yungmack Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Goodell's claim that the players turned down the owners' offers of compromise reminds me of an old comment someone made about Dick Nixon: "If you're drowning eleven feet from shore, he'd throw you a ten foot rope and claim he met you more than halfway."
boyst Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 Publicly held companies (companies that trade shares in a stock exchange) like Walmart, IBM, Apple, etc., disclose all information yearly in their financial statements. If you have ever owned stock in a publicly held company you would know that because you would have been sent the financial reports for the year. The NFL teams are private, except for Green Bay. I do not think they are obligated to report to the same level as a public company. However, in the case where their employees are requesting the information they can either provide it or not. This disclosure can be part of the negotiation and apparently the players want to see it. I have owned stock and own stock. It is not so much about the year end reports any accouting ledgers that we see, because at the end of the day Enron was just as much able to cook their books as the next guy. Thousands of companies find loopholes and what not and I do not know why anyone trusts these books. Steve Jobs makes $1 a year and yet I am sure he brings in more money then that.
DanInUticaTampa Posted March 12, 2011 Posted March 12, 2011 No one forced the owners to agree to pay their employees a percentage of total revenue. That was their choice to do. Yet now they refuse to show how much revenue is actually being generated. You cannot get an accurate financial picture with one year. Or two. Or three. You need to see the current trends and the big picture. Without doing that, the owners are essentially saying "just trust us". But would you trust that? This is a league that runs a slaughter house. Players average 3 years. Don't have guaranteed contracts. Are one play away from being out of the league for good. They live an average of 55 years and don't receive fair benefits post retirement. Funny, it hasn't been with the owners yet. I doubt it will either. They could take the high ground by showing the books. But they won't. Why? Could it be because the books don't paint the dreary picture they hope? You bet cha. This is WAY more common than you think. Especially with contract work. it is ridiculous to show so much of your books. They seemed to have given up a lot already, and what good would records from 10 years ago be? It is a different economy now and it will change in the future, which both sides are forgetting. Want to see jerry jones's book? He is has a 2 billion dollar expense for a crazy stadium he made to "improve the game." This game cost a lot of money now. And the owners opening their books to the players? Ya.... that worked out REALLY well for the nba. I bet the owners would be stupid enough to show their books if it didn't !@#$ up the nba so much not too long ago. But as much I hate the players for what they are doing, I am more pissed with the owners. Forget all the things that REALLY need to be fixed in the nfl.... the only thing screwing these negotiations is money, and it should be the least important thing. Even the non millionaire football players make a decent living, even if it is only 3 years, to invest in themselves and have a better start in life than most people. The whole thing is bonkers and both sides are being unreasonable. neither side is worth crying over.
Bob in STL Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) I have owned stock and own stock. It is not so much about the year end reports any accouting ledgers that we see, because at the end of the day Enron was just as much able to cook their books as the next guy. Thousands of companies find loopholes and what not and I do not know why anyone trusts these books. Steve Jobs makes $1 a year and yet I am sure he brings in more money then that. Financial statements are audited to prove accuracy to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Are there cheaters? Yes of course there are (See Enron, etc.), but for the most part I have to believe that the large majority of companies follow the laws. The Jobs salary example does not apply to the NFL salary. His compensation from Apple is disclosed as it should be. Of course we can assume he is "pulling in" much more money just by considering interest on his current wealth. Steve Jobs is more concerned with Apple being a most innovative company that leads the market, growth of his personal wealth does not appear to be his priority. Relative to the NFL --- The question is not how much salary any NFL owner pulling in. The question is how much revenue does the league make? What are the operating costs? How much did they earn (profits)? I just read an article in the newspaper this morning and the writer said the NFLs total revenues is $9.2B a year. Lots of numbers flying out there. We already know we cannot trust the owners. They agreed to the current CBA two years ago and look at them now. Bottom line is the players want to know and tossed it back to the fat cats. Good for them. Edited March 13, 2011 by Bob in STL
Bob in STL Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 Bob, From my observation many people resent the money the players make and don't resent the unfathomable amount of money the owners make. They don't see the NFL as a player/owner collaboration that has enriched both sides. It's an anti-union and anti-worker mentality. You make a keen but sad observation that a lot of people choose to ignore the hazardous and brutal nature of the game. The players know what they are getting into. But the short-life span of the football career and the damaging health affects should be accounted for with assistance when their careers are over. I have heard on numerous occasions Joe D talk about the physcial toll the game has taken on the players. He gets so passionate and even belligerant about it that sometimes he works against his own cause. He and Gene Upshaw had a poisonous relationship over what needed to be done for the former players. It got so hostile that threats were exchanged between the two antagonists. John C, Did o see this quote from Goerge Wilson? link "In order for us to make the best decision for the game and the players moving forward, we have to have all the information that we can like those audited financials so we can make a sound decision," Wilson said. "And basically the owners are telling us to trust them and have faith that they are going to treat us right. But right now the NFL is suing about 300 guys on workers compensation issues, so we can't just take your word because you say, 'Trust us.' This ties right into what we talked about.
JohnC Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 (edited) Relative to the NFL --- The question is not how much salary any NFL owner pulling in. The question is how much revenue does the league make? What are the operating costs? How much did they earn (profits)? I just read an article in the newspaper this morning and the writer said the NFLs total revenues is $9.2B a year. Lots of numbers flying out there. We already know we cannot trust the owners. They agreed to the current CBA two years ago and look at them now. Bottom line is the players want to know and tossed it back to the fat cats. Good for them. Isn't it remarkable that so many people think it is a radical idea to for the players to want to have some reasonable degree of financial transparancy when it comes to a management/labor negotiation? What do people think is discussed at the contentious negotiation table? The parties are talking about finances. What the cut is going to be etc. If there isn't a degree of transparency from both sides then there is no context to work from. As you noted in your posting a wide range of numbers are being thrown around concerning how much the owners make. Why is it wrong to want to get a more fact based accounting of the numbers than an "unsubstantiated claim" from a party that has demonstrated good reason why it shouldn't be trusted? People forget that it was the owners who reopened the CBA, not the players. Edited March 13, 2011 by JohnC
bigc14120 Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 All this dialog about finicials, makes me want to say something here. First of all, there are three kinds (at least) of accounting. 1. finicial Accounting...the rules of the finicial Accounting Standards Board...this does not apply here...not a public entity...the teams are privately held. 2. Tax accounting. Yep, does apply, but may differ in the manner that business is accounted between teams. 3. Management accounting...the rules that any organization uses to keep track of the finicial results of a business.Varies by team for sure. Now, what have the players asked for....not clear based on news reports. Likely though, 2 and 3 vary by team...and there is no consolidated league finicial result that makes sense. So, you can't just add them up, as it were, without being likely misled to some extent. The third party method is designed to prevent the union from using embarrasing facts in the data to generate negative publicity about the owners of the teams. Did one owner have a daughter in the staff in a player scouting role? Yes, but, its his money, and he can extract value anyway he wants, as long as these type of entries are real...ie she really did scout. (she did in the example I am thinking of, and many of you know what example I am talking about) So, the league/managements offer of information was a good one, in my view...likely tax accounting...and would yet prevent public relations bs by the union. I read above that the owners are retaking control of their business. Yes, that is what is going on...I am a season ticket holder, and can wait a season or two for that to take place, and I think that losing a season will put it in perspective to the players, that is, they are hired help. Most of all, as a season ticket holder for more than 40 years, I don't want a repeat of the strike shortened season that happened two decades ago (about) The first game back had 4 days of practice, and was no better than a high school game. (Dolphins as I recall) If there is a partical season, I want my money back...the product for that partical season will be well under par. So, my personal sentiments are that, if it takes it, cancel the season in one fell swoop, don't give me one of those 8 game seasons and playoffs. That will cheat me out of what I thought I was paying for. I am not anxious for a quick settlement, I want a right settlement. And, out of control union lawyers need to be put in their place. And that is fired by their employers when they loose a seasons wages. Me, I can do without the NFL for a year or two.....
Bob in STL Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 All this dialog about finicials, makes me want to say something here. First of all, there are three kinds (at least) of accounting. 1. finicial Accounting...the rules of the finicial Accounting Standards Board...this does not apply here...not a public entity...the teams are privately held. 2. Tax accounting. Yep, does apply, but may differ in the manner that business is accounted between teams. 3. Management accounting...the rules that any organization uses to keep track of the finicial results of a business.Varies by team for sure. Now, what have the players asked for....not clear based on news reports. Likely though, 2 and 3 vary by team...and there is no consolidated league finicial result that makes sense. So, you can't just add them up, as it were, without being likely misled to some extent. The third party method is designed to prevent the union from using embarrasing facts in the data to generate negative publicity about the owners of the teams. Did one owner have a daughter in the staff in a player scouting role? Yes, but, its his money, and he can extract value anyway he wants, as long as these type of entries are real...ie she really did scout. (she did in the example I am thinking of, and many of you know what example I am talking about) So, the league/managements offer of information was a good one, in my view...likely tax accounting...and would yet prevent public relations bs by the union. I read above that the owners are retaking control of their business. Yes, that is what is going on...I am a season ticket holder, and can wait a season or two for that to take place, and I think that losing a season will put it in perspective to the players, that is, they are hired help. Most of all, as a season ticket holder for more than 40 years, I don't want a repeat of the strike shortened season that happened two decades ago (about) The first game back had 4 days of practice, and was no better than a high school game. (Dolphins as I recall) If there is a partical season, I want my money back...the product for that partical season will be well under par. So, my personal sentiments are that, if it takes it, cancel the season in one fell swoop, don't give me one of those 8 game seasons and playoffs. That will cheat me out of what I thought I was paying for. I am not anxious for a quick settlement, I want a right settlement. And, out of control union lawyers need to be put in their place. And that is fired by their employers when they loose a seasons wages. Me, I can do without the NFL for a year or two..... ^ Some good points made here. It will be difficult to "roll up" the financial results for the league when the teams are all run as separate businesses. It can be done, but it is not like this information is sitting in a file somewhere. I just hope this ends soon with no shortened season and no replacement players.
JohnC Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 All this dialog about finicials, makes me want to say something here. First of all, there are three kinds (at least) of accounting. 1. finicial Accounting...the rules of the finicial Accounting Standards Board...this does not apply here...not a public entity...the teams are privately held. 2. Tax accounting. Yep, does apply, but may differ in the manner that business is accounted between teams. 3. Management accounting...the rules that any organization uses to keep track of the finicial results of a business.Varies by team for sure. Now, what have the players asked for....not clear based on news reports. Likely though, 2 and 3 vary by team...and there is no consolidated league finicial result that makes sense. So, you can't just add them up, as it were, without being likely misled to some extent. The third party method is designed to prevent the union from using embarrasing facts in the data to generate negative publicity about the owners of the teams. Did one owner have a daughter in the staff in a player scouting role? Yes, but, its his money, and he can extract value anyway he wants, as long as these type of entries are real...ie she really did scout. (she did in the example I am thinking of, and many of you know what example I am talking about) So, the league/managements offer of information was a good one, in my view...likely tax accounting...and would yet prevent public relations bs by the union. I read above that the owners are retaking control of their business. Yes, that is what is going on...I am a season ticket holder, and can wait a season or two for that to take place, and I think that losing a season will put it in perspective to the players, that is, they are hired help. Most of all, as a season ticket holder for more than 40 years, I don't want a repeat of the strike shortened season that happened two decades ago (about) The first game back had 4 days of practice, and was no better than a high school game. (Dolphins as I recall) If there is a partical season, I want my money back...the product for that partical season will be well under par. So, my personal sentiments are that, if it takes it, cancel the season in one fell swoop, don't give me one of those 8 game seasons and playoffs. That will cheat me out of what I thought I was paying for. I am not anxious for a quick settlement, I want a right settlement. And, out of control union lawyers need to be put in their place. And that is fired by their employers when they loose a seasons wages. Me, I can do without the NFL for a year or two..... The status of the negotiation between the two sides isn't as dire as you are making it out to be. The owners aren't really fighting to regain their business as you put it. They are fighting for a bigger piece of the revenue pie before the players take their percentage. The system as it is designed under the current CBA might not technically be a partnershp but at a minimum it is a business collaboration. You are portraying the owner/union conflict as an "existential" issue for the owners. It is not. The system as it stands has enriched both sides of the table to levels unimagined. One side wants more and the other side want to retain what it has. The issue of opening the financial books isn't as invasive as you suggest. The union wants the owners to be more transparent on their profitability levels. They believe that the owners have made substantially more money under the current deal than prior to it, thus undercutting the owners claim for the necessity of reopening the CBA. Up until recently the owners were steadfast in not wanting to reveal hardly any financial data. At the very last stages of the negotiation, just before the breakdown, the owners' side had somewhat loosen their grip on that information. Is it adequate enough for the union to make a fair appraisal? Probably not. But it is a process that is moving forward. You make some good points in your response. But where I somewhat disagree with you is that the issue is about the slice of the revenue pie and how it is going to be cut up. It is not about a structural rebalancing between the owners and the union. The collaboration between the two sides has recently been very combative. That is understandable. There isn't much trust between the parties, especially after the shenanigans the owners pulled in the TV deal. I'm confident that when the tempers settle a deal will be made that will be satisfactory to both sides. Sometimes the negotiating dance is more scripted than people think. Eventually a deal will get made because it is in both sides interest.
Malazan Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 There's a lot more to it than 'the owners are making money'! The valuation of franchises has basically topped out and the increasing difficulty of finding someone with the ability to purchase a team is troubling for the league and owners. A lot of the lucrative nature of a sports team is in the sale price. Think of the Bills which make about 30 million a year (no loans). A buyer would be looking at paying 30 million a year for almost 27 years to 'buy' the Bills and that is without any interest and all 'revenue' from the team going directly to the purchase. How many people are looking at that purchase favorably? More importantly, how many Banks are looking at that and saying, "yeah, let's finance that". The price of a franchise makes the list of people who can afford a team without financing very small and even with financing, the list is pretty small. Throw in the mega stadiums and that public money is much, much tighter now and it's going to be difficult to keep team valued as high as they are now. The owners are less concerned about if *they* are making another 20 million a year each (they certainly do care), but the larger concern is that they need to 'sell' the financial viability of their teams to keep the value high. The owners did plenty to get them into this place like building these mega stadiums from teams that have disproportionate profit compared to most franchises. They basically upped the ante..no one can go out and build a 300 million dollar stadium after the monstrosity in Texas was built. Their current belief that they don't need to give up anything to get the players to take a paycut or that revenue sharing among teams is a bad thing all have put them into this position that forces them to get the players to give up money. There *has* to be a reconciliation of the numbers and it will either come from the current labor strife of a devaluation of the franchises. When the finances get that high, it's way beyond a simple "I WANT MORE". I find it hard to stomach either of these sides talking about need money, but the players have been over the top that they need 'feed their families' and 'health insurance'. Seriously? Why not be honest about it? Come out and just say, "The NFL makes a lot of money and so do we, but there's no reason for us to take less without concessions so we're not going to...'
Ramius Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 Could you give us all a couple of examples of how Smith is a "hack?" Or how he's doing a poor job of negotiating? Because De Smith is an ignorant asshat who is making this all about himself, not the players. This jerkoff wants to make a name for himself, and unfortunately for the NFL players, he's using them as pawns for his shameless self-promotion. It was never his intent to bargain, it was always his intent to take this to courts so he could look like a big shot if he "won." Thanks. I basically feel that the players have a responsibility to get the best deal they can and in turn, there is a responsibility to support the players of the past that are in such need. The financial resources are there. I clearly understand that today's players know what risks they take and sure, they make a lot of money to play a game. Still, with so much money being made on both sides, it would be fantastic to see a little help provided to the players that did so much to build the league. Many of my favorite players from the 70's were fantastic ambassadors for the game and now they have serious health issues to overcome with very little means to do it. Joe D may not have the best skills to negotiate this point but his point is still very valid. I find it hard to support the owners. They hasitly botched the last deal and now they are bringing it back to the table. Owners like Jones, Synder and Kraft have no interest in what made the league so great in the past. The NFL will become like baseball if these guys continue to sway the others. They will ruin the game if left unchecked. The owners included the clause to opt out during the last CBA agreements. The players had no problem with that concession when they signed it (because all they saw were dollar signs), so why is there a problem with the owners using a perfectly legal clause in the contract? If the players didn't want the owners to opt out, they should have fought against that clause.
Rockinon Posted March 13, 2011 Posted March 13, 2011 Just in. Goodell and League Office taking pay cuts. Linky At this late stage of the game it looks like Goodell is trying real hard to change people's perspective on what they think of them.
JohnC Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Instead of talking about the CBA I have enclosed a link of the hockey highlights of the Sabres beating Ottawa. It is more enjoyable to observe. http://video.nhl.com/videocenter/console?hlg=20102011,2,1036&navid=sb:highlights
DanInUticaTampa Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Just in. Goodell and League Office taking pay cuts. Linky At this late stage of the game it looks like Goodell is trying real hard to change people's perspective on what they think of them. Hahaha. Fun stuff when people get desperate.
benderbender Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 I would like to see the financial records of the owners. But its obvious that the players thought they'd get the peoples sympathy.
Malazan Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Just in. Goodell and League Office taking pay cuts. Linky At this late stage of the game it looks like Goodell is trying real hard to change people's perspective on what they think of them. They announced that they would do that a long time ago if the whole thing went legal
boyst Posted March 14, 2011 Posted March 14, 2011 Just in. Goodell and League Office taking pay cuts. Linky At this late stage of the game it looks like Goodell is trying real hard to change people's perspective on what they think of them. Might not be needed... 35,000 football fans have voted, and the party people are blaming the least is the owners.
Recommended Posts