Kurt Warner says NFL players must give back money

[thebandit27]

They could have extended it or not, they chose not to so as to get a new deal. With no CBA, the clock goes right back to the White and Mcneil cases circa 1993.

 

 

I alleged no conspiracy, I simply pointed out that the league hasn't opened the books. Why they don't hardly matters. The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid. Why they won't, doesn't really matter. They are the ones claiming that economics are the problem, assuming they know that to be the case, they must have something that they relied on in making that determination. Show that to the players.

 

What are you relying on for your conclusion that they can't open the books, ie, show the evidence upon which they relied when claiming the economics made the old CBA untenable if even one owner objects?

 

They did offer 5 years of financial statements, to be reviewed by an independent 3rd party firm. That doesn't sound like total unwillingness to open their books. The union responded by demanding 10 years of statements...it does make one wonder if they were simply using the need for such information as a form of posturing, or whether they truly feel like they need to see financials.

Edited June 10, 2011 by thebandit27

[K Gun Special]

They did offer 5 years of financial statements, to be reviewed by an independent 3rd party firm. That doesn't sound like total unwillingness to open their books. The union responded by demanding 10 years of statements...it does make one wonder if they were simply using the need for such information as a form of posturing, or whether they truly feel like they need to see financials.

 

 

Its a multi billion dollar deal and they disclosed 5 years of limited financials. So no, its not just posturing.

[Mickey]

Excuse me, which part of "without cause" do you not understand? Owners don't need to prove anything. NFLPA agreed that either party could option out of last CBA without cause. But once owners did that, NFLPA didn't follow the agreement and started to ask for proof.

 

I don't understand the point you are driving at. No one is saying that the league somehow broke the law in opting out of an agreement that had an opt out clause. So if that is what you are trying to say, I agree. The point however is that both sides had a choice, extend or opt out of the CBA. Extension would have kept the status quo while opting out would provoke a crisis, essentially throwing things back to what they were before the long ago CBA of 1993 or thereabouts which ended the ongoing player-owner dispute that had threatened to or in fact did, interrupt football for years. The league brought this on, they made the choice to opt out. No one is saying they didn't have a right to do so, they did. In so doing however, they brought this situation on. That is my point, that the league and not the players precipitated this situation.

 

I also don't understand what you mean by "NFLPA didn't follow the agreement and started to ask for proof." The league opted out of the CBA, after that, there was no agreement either side was required to follow.

 

The request for proof came during negotiations for a new CBA. The players can point to the past few decades of growth and prosperity for both sides to prove their point, that the old CBA was working just fine and need not be significantly altered in reaching a new CBA. The owners have countered with an argument based on economic necessity, i.e., the current business model is no longer tenable and for that reason, we need a new CBA that substantially differs from the last one. The players came back and essentially said, "well, if that is so, prove it to us and we will be happy to make concessions if indeed, the league is no longer tenable." And the league's response was "trust us on that one." That is an oversimplification because there are lots of other issues that are being debated such as a longer regular season, more money for retired veterans and a rookie cap.

 

I don't know where their negotiations are with regard to those other issues. I think the rookie cap is an idea whose time has come. After going through all of this, I think the owners should stick to that one as they may never get a chance again at implementing a rule that brings some sanity to rookie contracts. When I think that a guy like Ryan Leaf probably made more $ in his brief and inglorious career than a guy like Fred Jackson will make in his entire career, my Sicilian blood boils.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The players didn't fare well with strikes. They did very well in court when they decertified so that they could bring anti-trust suits. The anti-trust exemption is extremely valuable to the league. Player costs would have gone up much higher had the players kept winning those suits and won total free agency. The money going to the players is a set percentage of revenue after costs and thus, it goes up as revenue goes up. You say labor costs doubled but revenue more than doubled right with it. The CBA stops the suits which keeps costs down and lets then perserve the draft and the current free agency system.

I disagree with that. They fared well enough. They got free agency. They got the owners backpedaling to maintain "labor peace" in the last negotiation, which is now sticking in the owners' throat badly enough to result in a lockout.

 

The simple fact is that unions do not drive down labor costs. That is Economics 101. People that think they do are simply looking up the wrong side of the street.

 

Also, just because revenue went up quickly since the last CBA does not guarantee that it will continue to climb. Ownership is claiming exactly that in fact, revenue is falling back and it is getting harder to maintain what they have. Which only makes a certain degree of sense, given the economic condition of our country, it seems plausible that it is harder and will become even more so to find corporations and other deep pockets that can buy luxury suites, naming rights, etc. Are the broadcasting companies just going to double the last contract automatically or are they finding it harder to sell advertising time?

[Mickey]

They did offer 5 years of financial statements, to be reviewed by an independent 3rd party firm. That doesn't sound like total unwillingness to open their books. The union responded by demanding 10 years of statements...it does make one wonder if they were simply using the need for such information as a form of posturing, or whether they truly feel like they need to see financials.

 

The players pointed out that the disclosure was limited and, if I recall correctly, were about 3 pages long. My Sprint bill is longer than that.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Mickey

[Mickey]

I disagree with that. They fared well enough. They got free agency. They got the owners backpedaling to maintain "labor peace" in the last negotiation, which is now sticking in the owners' throat badly enough to result in a lockout.

 

The simple fact is that unions do not drive down labor costs. That is Economics 101. People that think they do are simply looking up the wrong side of the street.

 

That agreement started out as a settlement agreement known as the "SSA" reached in an anti-trust suit. It was later converted in to a CBA. The union had decertified, foregoing strikes in favor of anti-trust suits as the law will not allow workers to use both, they have to choose. The strikes achieved little which is why they gave up on them in favor of anti-trust suits. Judge Nelson gives an accurate and reasonably short history of these things in her opinion granting the injunction which is available an the web site for the Eighth Circuit. <div><br></div><div> The league had a choice after those court victories. They could have faced essentially wide open free agency and maybe even the elimination of the draft, or reach a settlement which granted the players a percentage of revenue in exchange for their giving up what they won in court and submitting to the new rules on free agency. I assume the the owner selected whichever path seemed to them to be the least

costly.  My position that the league believed at the time that a CBA would best control costs is premised solely on that assumption which was an easy one to make. I hardly think that the owner's would have agreed to the SSA/CBA if they thought that the alternative would be more profitable. And they did insist that the union re-certify. The league is not alone in its belief that the anti-trust exemption is more valuable to them even though it comes with a union attached, than the alternative of anti-trust suits rather than strikes. A lockout is a very effective strategy for employers but it can't be used in the absence of a union. Even the recent decisions of the Eighth circuit don't change that, its just a question of how long after decertification must employees wait before going to court and giving anti-trust law a whirl. Being able to use a lockout to force a favorable deal is a such a good card to play that numerous industries have preferred even though it comes with a union.</div>

Edited June 10, 2011 by Mickey

[thebandit27]

Its a multi billion dollar deal and they disclosed 5 years of limited financials. So no, its not just posturing.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point...can you explain further?

 

The players pointed out that the disclosure was limited and, if I recall correctly, were about 3 pages long. My Sprint bill is longer than that.

 

I don't know about 3 pages long (or your sprint bill for that matter), but I do know that the NFL offered to make information public that the teams themselves don't even see, as well as to further discuss the extent to which they'd be willing to make public their numbers.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ead445/article/union-wants-more-financial-information-than-nfl-has-offered?module=HP_headlines

 

Here's a great take that PFT had about the exposure issue:

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/09/nflpa-wants-more-financial-information-than-it-needs/

 

The last sentence really speaks to what I said before about it looking more like a posturing move than an actual interest in the figures:

 

So if the union persists in its demand for audited financial statements, it could be that the union has decided that it will get a better deal via the decertification/litigation strategy.

Edited June 10, 2011 by thebandit27

[K Gun Special]

I disagree with that. They fared well enough. They got free agency. They got the owners backpedaling to maintain "labor peace" in the last negotiation, which is now sticking in the owners' throat badly enough to result in a lockout.

 

The simple fact is that unions do not drive down labor costs. That is Economics 101. People that think they do are simply looking up the wrong side of the street.

 

Also, just because revenue went up quickly since the last CBA does not guarantee that it will continue to climb. Ownership is claiming exactly that in fact, revenue is falling back and it is getting harder to maintain what they have. Which only makes a certain degree of sense, given the economic condition of our country, it seems plausible that it is harder and will become even more so to find corporations and other deep pockets that can buy luxury suites, naming rights, etc. Are the broadcasting companies just going to double the last contract automatically or are they finding it harder to sell advertising time?

 

 

The NFL isnt losing money. There is absolutely nothing anywhere to support the notion that revenues are down.

 

And take a look around, many corporations are making record profits even in these so called hard economic times. In fact they had the highest reported profits ever in 2010 as a whole. Yes some are struggling and the little people are for a number of reasons.

But corporations have the $$ to support the NFL.

[thebandit27]

The NFL isnt losing money. There is absolutely nothing anywhere to support the notion that revenues are down.

 

And take a look around, many corporations are making record profits even in these so called hard economic times. In fact they had the highest reported profits ever in 2010 as a whole. Yes some are struggling and the little people are for a number of reasons.

But corporations have the $$ to support the NFL.

 

Losing money? No. Experiencing decreased profit due to rising expenditures? Very possible. Stadium costs, player salaries, coaches salaries, health care costs, administrative costs, etc. all continue to rise. According to Forbes, while aggregate revenue rose 5.8% in 2010, the actual value of NFL teams fell 2%.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

 

Operating income may have reached an all-time high, but if it isn't rising as quickly as the above-mentioned costs (or the inflation rate for that matter), then the NFL is losing ground. Check out the link, it's a pretty good article.

[K Gun Special]

Losing money? No. Experiencing decreased profit due to rising expenditures? Very possible. Stadium costs, player salaries, coaches salaries, health care costs, administrative costs, etc. all continue to rise. According to Forbes, while aggregate revenue rose 5.8% in 2010, the actual value of NFL teams fell 2%.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

 

Operating income may have reached an all-time high, but if it isn't rising as quickly as the above-mentioned costs (or the inflation rate for that matter), then the NFL is losing ground. Check out the link, it's a pretty good article.

 

 

Its a good article. It also states " But thanks to long-term television contracts negotiated before the recession, the NFL's profitability has never been stronger""

 

The league is very very profitable. The only example they can cite, because they dont the financials of any other team, is the not for profit Packers.

[Mr. WEO]

It's hard to imagine anyone can get this far into this topic and still argue that the owners are asking the players to take a "pay cut".

[CosmicBills]

Losing money? No. Experiencing decreased profit due to rising expenditures? Very possible. Stadium costs, player salaries, coaches salaries, health care costs, administrative costs, etc. all continue to rise. According to Forbes, while aggregate revenue rose 5.8% in 2010, the actual value of NFL teams fell 2%.

 

http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/25/most-valuable-nfl-teams-business-sports-football-valuations-10-intro.html

 

Operating income may have reached an all-time high, but if it isn't rising as quickly as the above-mentioned costs (or the inflation rate for that matter), then the NFL is losing ground. Check out the link, it's a pretty good article.

You keep linking articles that undercut your point. It's kind of funny.

[yungmack]

I was unaware that Sony had open books, but I'm glad we agree that the players being able to see the books would be meaningless.

Any person or entity with an equity position in a film has a clause in the contract that allows an audit of the books. Not that it matters much; in the world of Hollywood accounting, I'm sure Gone With The Wind has yet to break even.

[Ramius]

 

Let me put it to you another way, even though the NFL is NOT a traditional employer/employee relationship (and never has been), let's hypothetically assume you were a member of a union. Then let's say your boss came to you and said, despite the fact you generated record breaking profits for your company with the work YOU did, he was going to ask you to take a pay cut so he could put more dollars into his own pocket (not the company's). Would you just accept that as the cost of doing business and go on your way happy to just have a job?

 

 

This is nothing but a flat out lie. Nowhere has the NFL asked the players to take a pay cut, and no matter what CBA is signed, not a single player is going to take a pay cut.

 

The NFL is simply asking that the players get a smaller increase from year to year. They are still getting an increase and will still be seeing more money, so i have no clue as to why you persist on perpetuating a lie that the players are going to get a pay cut.

 

The NFL owners have deemed that the current economic model is unsustainable. Sure, the past few years they have been still making money, but if costs keep rising (which they are going to be), but revenues rise at a slower rate than they have been, the teams will be in trouble. Hence the reason they want to hold the increases the players are getting in check.

 

Any person or entity with an equity position in a film has a clause in the contract that allows an audit of the books. Not that it matters much; in the world of Hollywood accounting, I'm sure Gone With The Wind has yet to break even.

 

The players have no equity in NFL teams, nor are they partners. They are employees. If they do not like their terms of employment, they can seek employment with another league, like the CFL, or UFL. I'm not sure where this "the owners/CEO are making more money, so the employees are entitled to it" attitude comes from.

[Snorom]

Warner is right. The players did get a really good financial deal the last time and need to pull back a little bit.

 

 

I have no problem with that... Just open up the books to make sure this is really the case... I would not trust the owners after they tried to sneak a tv deal past the players and walk away with billions... they also asked for way to much back in their original offers to the players.. owners need ot get real and realize they laid the gauntlet down when they voted 30-2 on the last CBA... 30-2 screams there is no financial problems

 

I also don't believe the owners are hurting.. so as long as the books stay closed I'm not budging from the players side.... You want my support owners open the books for all to see and dissect.. if you can't do that then as far as I'm concerned you have NO argument at all... 30-2 is all i need to know without those books opened

[CosmicBills]

I was unaware that Sony had open books, but I'm glad we agree that the players being able to see the books would be meaningless.

I think you missed the point ... or I missed your sarcasm?

 

The point isn't that it would be meaningless, quite the opposite in fact.

[K Gun Special]

It's hard to imagine anyone can get this far into this topic and still argue that the owners are asking the players to take a "pay cut".

 

No its not.

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/

According to Forbes, their dat ""shows (that) instead of asking the players to take a pay cut, what is really needed is increased revenue-sharing."""

[CosmicBills]

This is nothing but a flat out lie.

It's not a lie. The Owners currently take 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. Their initial offer proposed taking an addition 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. That number was reduced in the last second negotiations -- but it's still a cut.

 

Is it reflected in any current contracts? No. Is it reflected in future contracts? You bet'cha. Does it have a long term impact on future players in the league? Absolutely.

 

A union's job is to protect its members. All members. Past (something they do poorly), present AND future. Taking an extra 1 billion or even 340 million off the top of the shared pie without offering any lick of proof that it's a needed step to protect the long term interest of the league is a pay CUT. Plain and simple. It impacts all three segments of the NFLPA's membership in different degrees (future and past take the hardest hits).

 

So yeah. It's a cut. To think otherwise is ... well, just lying to yourself.

[syhuang]

I don't understand the point you are driving at. No one is saying that the league somehow broke the law in opting out of an agreement that had an opt out clause. So if that is what you are trying to say, I agree.

 

Good, you now finally agree that owners don't need to justify why they option out the old CBA like you said earlier as following:

 

The fact is that they are using economic necessity as the justification for ditching the old CBA, oh, excuse me, for opting out of the old CBA, yet, they haven't been willing to prove their argument is valid

 

 

As for whether to open their books during negotiation, owners also don't have to do that. They are negotiating a new CBA. It's upon them to decide what information they want to provide, what information they don't. NFLPA also has the same freedom to do so during negotiation. It just like the last CBA negotiation where players never justified why they threatened a strike, which resulted in owners accepted players' term right before the deadline.

 

You are also wrong by saying what caused lockout is owners optioned out last CBA while you keep ignoring what happened during last CBA negotiation. What caused lockout is that both sides fail to agree on a new CBA after last CBA is fulfilled and ended as both sides agreed. If you wanted to say what triggers this, you can't simply ignore last CBA negotiation and players got what they wanted in last CBA. Owners are under no obligation to not option out and don't need to justify anything.

[GaryPinC]

It's not a lie. The Owners currently take 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. Their initial offer proposed taking an addition 1 billion off the top before revenue sharing. That number was reduced in the last second negotiations -- but it's still a cut.

 

Is it reflected in any current contracts? No. Is it reflected in future contracts? You bet'cha. Does it have a long term impact on future players in the league? Absolutely.

 

A union's job is to protect its members. All members. Past (something they do poorly), present AND future. Taking an extra 1 billion or even 340 million off the top of the shared pie without offering any lick of proof that it's a needed step to protect the long term interest of the league is a pay CUT. Plain and simple. It impacts all three segments of the NFLPA's membership in different degrees (future and past take the hardest hits).

 

So yeah. It's a cut. To think otherwise is ... well, just lying to yourself.

 

There's a big difference between getting a smaller raise next contract and taking an actual pay cut. The only one lying to themselves is you.