Choosing Sides

[Reddog]

I don't really think as fans we care as much about the sides as we do the restoration of the game but I have to admit I did feel like the owners had a stronger position and given their business savy I expected more from them. They have to be shocked at how boldly and sophisticated the NFLPA has played this. They really took the momentum and seem to be playing for keeps. They won't bend until they get access to financials and seemed to know they might miss some games to get there. From what I read it sounds like the NFL caved on everything but the rookie cap and even at half the money they wanted they still couldn't budge the union on the financial transperency issue. I think they have so much confidence in their track record in court they think they are invinvable. It will be interesting to see who blinks first. On one hand you have the owners who may be like the kid who is caught steeling and is going to die on the hill lying about it. If they have been cooking the books and transperency will reveal where all the bodies are they will never want those financials revealed.

The players on the other hand only have so much money and in some cases losing a full year would kill some of the guys who are getting up there in age. I expect this to be long and ugly and the reterick spilled by both sides will take years to clean up - well after the resolution I suspect there will be hard feelings.

 

[40yearfan]

I don't understand why the union is insisting on financial disclosure. What difference does it make how much the owners are making? We are talking pure dollars and cents here. Make your best deal and move on. If you think there is more money to be made a year or two down the road, make it a one or two year agreement.

I've been on both sides of the fence in labor negotiations. Usually you have a mechanism for resolving issues like this. Binding arbitration is what is commonly used. Maybe these guys need to consider putting that into the contract for the next go around.

I do know that going the legal route often results in both side being damaged and no clear agreement being reached. This is a stupid way to resolve an issue.

 

[Lagerfilled]

The whole crux of the issue around full disclosue is... The owners want back an additional $1B from the players saying it's for operating margin, yet won't show the financials substantiating why they need it. That's bull$hit any way you slice it.

If my company decided to reduce everyone's payroll without a good / trustworthy explanation and proof, I guarantee most folks would either file suit or leave the firm. The difference is, NFL players have nowhere else to go. IMHO what the players are asking for is entirely reasonable.

 

[Buckybird]

The whole crux of the issue around full disclosue is... The owners want back an additional $1B from the players saying it's for operating margin, yet won't show the financials substantiating why they need it. That's bull$hit any way you slice it.

And yet the owners supposedly offered to show the last 5 years of their books & the NFLPA wanted 10 years. If this is true, the players are dumber than I thought.

 

[juza76]

And yet the owners supposedly offered to show the last 5 years of their books & the NFLPA wanted 10 years. If this is true, the players are dumber than I thought.

they are sure to get a better deal from court..i hope wont be like that..no fund for owners less money for players and big cut for ticket prices ..this is justice

 

[ARodg]

The players in this particular instance are going to be taking advantage of the justice system's obsession with helping "the little guy". Assuming the final offers published are true, than what the NFL offered is extremely fair. The players knew that they would accept no deal because they knew that the courts would give them a better deal regardless of circumstances.

Personally, I hope the players are forced to take a worse deal by the courts.

 

[slanidrac16]

It's insane to pick a side.

We don't know all the facts and we will never know all the fact.

You have the owner's crying poor but won't reveal certain records because owning an NFL team is a legal license to steal. Not only that , you have Owner's that will eat their own to benefit themselves.

On the other hand you have player's who are making more money than every before. I don't see the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's of the world saying, " Wait a minute. I don't need that much money. Spread it around to the botoomhalf of the roster."

But the biggest irony is that nobody , NOBODY, from the NFL...not one owner, player, commisioner, union rep, lawyer, or NFL spokesperson has EVER mentioned the fan other than in lip service P.R. statements.

In this economy has it ever been mention how he average fan can afford to go to a game? Pay for a hot dog or to park? Afford the NFL Ticket?

Do Owner's really need to charge the price's they do for tickets and concessions?
Do player's really need to be paid in such a wide ranging salary from player to player?

Pick a side? I'm picking our side.

 

[juza76]

It's insane to pick a side.

We don't know all the facts and we will never know all the fact.

You have the owner's crying poor but won't reveal certain records because owning an NFL team is a legal license to steal. Not only that , you have Owner's that will eat their own to benefit themselves.

On the other hand you have player's who are making more money than every before. I don't see the Tom Brady's and Peyton Manning's of the world saying, " Wait a minute. I don't need that much money. Spread it around to the botoomhalf of the roster."

But the biggest irony is that nobody , NOBODY, from the NFL...not one owner, player, commisioner, union rep, lawyer, or NFL spokesperson has EVER mentioned the fan other than in lip service P.R. statements.

In this economy has it ever been mention how he average fan can afford to go to a game? Pay for a hot dog or to park? Afford the NFL Ticket?

Do Owner's really need to charge the price's they do for tickets and concessions?
Do player's really need to be paid in such a wide ranging salary from player to player?

Pick a side? I'm picking our side.

in which part of the world an umployer may require the owner to show their book and profit..you are a player and you play..shut up and play..this is ridicolous..somebody has to kick some asses and fight for the fans side.WHY there is no association that protects the fans??

 

[Buckybird]

But the biggest irony is that nobody , NOBODY, from the NFL...not one owner, player, commisioner, union rep, lawyer, or NFL spokesperson has EVER mentioned the fan other than in lip service P.R. statements.

In this economy has it ever been mention how he average fan can afford to go to a game? Pay for a hot dog or to park? Afford the NFL Ticket?

Do Owner's really need to charge the price's they do for tickets and concessions?
Do player's really need to be paid in such a wide ranging salary from player to player?

Pick a side? I'm picking our side.

I also believe neither side cares about the fans...it's all BS

Most everyone in this downward spiralling economic world is making less $$$ these days in some shape or form. The problem lies with the amount of $$$ ESPN, Fox, NBC & sponsers are giving the NFL. At some point the goldmine will end for both the Networks, the NFL & the players & all sides will suffer. Fans will stay away in droves this season because of the economy especially in cities that are expected to be losers record-wise. The Cards sellout streak will end sometime this year.

We as fans are the only ones who suffer.

 

[Paso Fino]

The whole crux of the issue around full disclosue is... The owners want back an additional $1B from the players saying it's for operating margin, yet won't show the financials substantiating why they need it. That's bull$hit any way you slice it.

If my company decided to reduce everyone's payroll without a good / trustworthy explanation and proof, I guarantee most folks would either file suit or leave the firm. The difference is, NFL players have nowhere else to go. IMHO what the players are asking for is entirely reasonable.

I don't know where you work, but wage reductions and layoffs are going on all across the country and, except for companies which are public, employees do not have access to the financial information of their employers. To me, the union's demand for ten years of audited financials was outrageous and reeks of insincerity.

 

[Buckybird]

I don't know where you work, but wage reductions and layoffs are going on all across the country and, except for companies which are public, employees do not have access to the financial information of their employers. To me, the union's demand for ten years of audited financials was outrageous and reeks of insincerity.

Yep, we as fans live in the real world. At some point the golden goose will not lay gold eggs for the players or the owners anymore...welcome to 2011 and a spiralling global economy. That day for the league may be right around the corner IMO.

 

[ANDY440]

The players in this particular instance are going to be taking advantage of the justice system's obsession with helping "the little guy". Assuming the final offers published are true, than what the NFL offered is extremely fair. The players knew that they would accept no deal because they knew that the courts would give them a better deal regardless of circumstances.

Personally, I hope the players are forced to take a worse deal by the courts.

Agreed !

 

[PJ1]

The whole crux of the issue around full disclosue is... The owners want back an additional $1B from the players saying it's for operating margin, yet won't show the financials substantiating why they need it. That's bull$hit any way you slice it.

If my company decided to reduce everyone's payroll without a good / trustworthy explanation and proof, I guarantee most folks would either file suit or leave the firm. The difference is, NFL players have nowhere else to go. IMHO what the players are asking for is entirely reasonable.

As long as they don't break the law as it pertains to protected groups the company doesn't have to justify a damn thing. You can certainly quit if you want but filing suit for what?

 

[PJ1]

The players in this particular instance are going to be taking advantage of the justice system's obsession with helping "the little guy". Assuming the final offers published are true, than what the NFL offered is extremely fair. The players knew that they would accept no deal because they knew that the courts would give them a better deal regardless of circumstances.

Personally, I hope the players are forced to take a worse deal by the courts.

Was the plan all along and this was headed to the courts from day one.

 

[Mitch]

I blame the owners here---

If they had nothing to hide and they actually were intent and cooperative with providing evidence of teams losing money, they could have opened the books. They are the ones who are making these claims...and yet there has been no tangible evidence to support their claims...and, as many of us have suspected, if the owners do open their books, the public outcry (let alone the players')---especially in tough economic times---would be enoromous.

The players don't trust the owners...and they have good reasons to.

In addition...the previous CBA put veteran players (save the star players who command big bucks in free agency) at an egregious disadvantage in almost every way possible:

1) Far too much of the pie (salary cap) allocated to unproven rookies.
2) The cap itself---especially when it is a tight cap.
3) Teams are reluctant to sign veteran free agents because of the compensatory draft pick rules (which are absurd to begin with).

You can't blame last year's UFA's like Deuce Lutui for being irate over having to wait another year for free agency---often times this is their one chance to cash in.

Think of it...the average career of the NFL player is what 3-4 years? When Players come into the NFL they are essentially locked into one organization for the first 4 years---and after the 4th year, if they are fortunate enough to have stayed healthy and to have played well enough to warrant good interest in the free agent market---that's the day they have to hope and pray for. In such a violent sport such as pro football, this is the one opportunity for a relatively small number of players to sign contracts with guaranteed money attached. If they don't get the guaranteed money, they can be cut at any time or lose their careers at any time due to injury. This puts the players in such a precarious position---they should do all they can to make sure the new CBA gives the solid veteran player a better chance.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

A recent study said that NFL Offensive Linemen live 18 YEARS less than the average man.

You have one group that is trading years of their lives to lead a standard of life beyond their normal means. They just want to squeeze a little more out of that trade off.

You have another group that profits off that transaction and they want a little more.

It is kind of dirty either way.

 

[juza76]

A recent study said that NFL Offensive Linemen live 18 YEARS less than the average man.

You have one group that is trading years of their lives to lead a standard of life beyond their normal means. They just want to squeeze a little more out of that trade off.

You have another group that profits off that transaction and they want a little more.

It is kind of dirty either way.

you know how long lives who works in cave or other jobs no safety..i think personally the problems bout football players is doping abuse..then offensive line are big and a lot of times fat..when you are overweight you go against more risk

 

[Chris_Sanders]

you know how long lives who works in cave or other jobs no safety..i think personally the problems bout football players is doping abuse..offensive line are big and a fat..when you are overweight you go against more risk

Being "Big and Fat" certainly can be an indicator of a shorter lifespan, but studies are showing it has more to do with repeated impact than anything.

My point was that do you side with:

People selling their lives or people profitting over them selling their lives. Both are pretty shady.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I blame the owners here---

If they had nothing to hide and they actually were intent and cooperative with providing evidence of teams losing money, they could have opened the books. They are the ones who are making these claims...and yet there has been no tangible evidence to support their claims...and, as many of us have suspected, if the owners do open their books, the public outcry (let alone the players')---especially in tough economic times---would be enoromous.

The players don't trust the owners...and they have good reasons to.

In addition...the previous CBA put veteran players (save the star players who command big bucks in free agency) at an egregious disadvantage in almost every way possible:

1) Far too much of the pie (salary cap) allocated to unproven rookies.
2) The cap itself---especially when it is a tight cap.
3) Teams are reluctant to sign veteran free agents because of the compensatory draft pick rules (which are absurd to begin with).

You can't blame last year's UFA's like Deuce Lutui for being irate over having to wait another year for free agency---often times this is their one chance to cash in.

Think of it...the average career of the NFL player is what 3-4 years? When Players come into the NFL they are essentially locked into one organization for the first 4 years---and after the 4th year, if they are fortunate enough to have stayed healthy and to have played well enough to warrant good interest in the free agent market---that's the day they have to hope and pray for. In such a violent sport such as pro football, this is the one opportunity for a relatively small number of players to sign contracts with guaranteed money attached. If they don't get the guaranteed money, they can be cut at any time or lose their careers at any time due to injury. This puts the players in such a precarious position---they should do all they can to make sure the new CBA gives the solid veteran player a better chance.

There is "tangible" evidence supporting the claim by owners in the publicly available information produced by the Green Bay Packers. As for public outcry, perhaps there would be and no doubt it's a concern for owners. And, frankly, what team "a" or "b" pays its staff is none of anyone's business, and may in fact be protected under privacy laws. This would be the case up here.

That said; there is a way around the problem which gives the NFLPA additional info, and protects the detailed expenditures from public scrutiny. They simply agree to a third party audit with agreed terms of reference. This third party would then give the NFLPA a report similar to those filed by publicly traded companies. This is all they need to know to judge the veracity of the claims by owners.

 

[Mitch]

There is "tangible" evidence supporting the claim by owners in the publicly available information produced by the Green Bay Packers. As for public outcry, perhaps there would be and no doubt it's a concern for owners. And, frankly, what team "a" or "b" pays its staff is none of anyone's business, and may in fact be protected under privacy laws. This would be the case up here.

That said; there is a way around the problem which gives the NFLPA additional info, and protects the detailed expenditures from public scrutiny. They simply agree to a third party audit with agreed terms of reference. This third party would then give the NFLPA a report similar to those filed by publicly traded companies. This is all they need to know to judge the veracity of the claims by owners.

Great points, Canuck!

 

[juza76]

i read that one of the lawyer of nfpla used to work for judge doty..i start to think they really didnt care about negotations but they were just ready for that

 

[joeshmo]

That said; there is a way around the problem which gives the NFLPA additional info, and protects the detailed expenditures from public scrutiny. They simply agree to a third party audit with agreed terms of reference. This third party would then give the NFLPA a report similar to those filed by publicly traded companies. This is all they need to know to judge the veracity of the claims by owners.

Third party does not work. What ever info given to the former NFLPA they will just want more. What ever info given to the former NFLPA has no reason to believe that info or some of it will not be leaked to the media. Letting your PRIVATE companies "books" leak out to the media or their competitors is just straight up bad business.

It did not work for the NBA in fact it made things worse and it would not have worked for an even more arrogant stubborn group (note that the Owners are also arrogant and stubborn as well).

 

[Chopper0080]

A recent study said that NFL Offensive Linemen live 18 YEARS less than the average man.

You have one group that is trading years of their lives to lead a standard of life beyond their normal means. They just want to squeeze a little more out of that trade off.

You have another group that profits off that transaction and they want a little more.

It is kind of dirty either way.

I don't buy this argument at all. It would be like a doctor or lawyer complaining about the cost of law or med school. In high paying industries, employees make educated sacrifices in returns for larger amounts of financial compensation. No one is forcing these players into the NFL, this isn't the middle ages.

 

[joeshmo]

So far according to some of the polls it looks like the NFLPA may have over played their hands in terms of public appeal. They thought and have said even as recently as yesterday that the fans are on their side.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/point-a-finger-by-casting-a-ballot/

So far 75% out of 22000+ votes are in favor of the Owners or think both sides suck. Meaning out of 22000+ votes only 25% are in the corner of the players.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Third party does not work. What ever info given to the former NFLPA they will just want more. What ever info given to the former NFLPA has no reason to believe that info or some of it will not be leaked to the media. Letting your PRIVATE companies "books" leak out to the media or their competitors is just straight up bad business.

It did not work for the NBA in fact it made things worse and it would not have worked for an even more arrogant stubborn group (note that the Owners are also arrogant and stubborn as well).

I said "with agreed terms of reference", which includes the expectation of privacy and secrecy. There are many auditing firms who do this precise type of work without "leak" issues. If there were they'd be out of business.

The NFLPA would not be receiving the forensic details of the audit, but rather - reports on all 32 teams detailing gross expenditures, profits, etc., etc. much as is reported by publicly traded companies.

This would either reinforce or refute the claims.

A third party audit is one of the ways to get past "trust" issues, and it has been used in much bigger industries than football.

One should keep in mind, that owners may face a court ordered audit, as such - may not be a bad idea to be proactive on this issue.