Hey, dad, can I see your check??

[NeverSayDieFan]

I was reading about how the players want to see the owners' books. It got me to thinking. Can you imagine if back when I was say, 15 years old, I said to my dad, "Hey, dad, can I see your paycheck?" After carefully examining it, I gave it back to him and said, "Listen, I see you have an extra $20 at the end of each week...and well, I do alot of chores around here so I'm pretty important to you, soooooooooooo.... I think you should give that extra $20 to me. What d'ya say, dad?

Can you imagine his reaction?? YIKES! Hopefully, all the lil' cry-babies will just grow up and give us what WE DESERVE! Un-interrupted football! GO CARDS!!

 

[Billy Bob]

Good one!

 

[Chris_Sanders]

That would be relevant analogy if your dad had said "Son, I am going to give you 10% of my earnings if you do everything you are supposed to do. That number is (x)"

Then later he said "Son, I know you did everything you said you would but I only made (x)"

And of course it isn't relevant since my employer isn't my dad.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Good one!

Not really

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Oh and the players would play today. They want to give you "uninterrupted football"

They were locked out by the owners. Not a strike.

The union decertifying makes it MORE likely that there will be a season this year, not less likely.

 

[football karma]

honestly, nobody is at fault, both are at fault. I dont think either side holds any moral high ground.

this is a business deal that will take time to hammer out.

 

[Stout]

Oh and the players would play today. They want to give you "uninterrupted football"

They were locked out by the owners. Not a strike.

The union decertifying makes it MORE likely that there will be a season this year, not less likely.

That is a shame that is being done in bad faith. They did this once before, and then immediately re-certified.

 

[TJ]

Oh and the players would play today.
They want to give you "uninterrupted football"
They were locked out by the owners. Not a strike.

The union decertifying makes it MORE likely that there will be a season this year, not less likely.

They want to give you "uninterrupted football" but on their terms. This current decertified NFLPA with their cut throat DC attorney leader is extremely selfish in their "negotiating" (if you want to call it that) tactics that they would probably have gone on strike.

10 years of full disclosure of the books is asking for way too much. The concession of giving 5 years of profits which are not available to the owners is more than charitable and enough to work with.

It's hard to blame the owners when they have made concessions on almost every issue the union has brought up (pension, 18 game schedule, health care, etc.).

 

[Chris_Sanders]

That is a shame that is being done in bad faith. They did this once before, and then immediately re-certified.

They legally have to due it that way due to how anti trust cases work.

This is just a very complicated process but one that won't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. I believe the most plausible worst case scenario is an interruption of training camp in July.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

They want to give you "uninterrupted football" but on their terms. This current decertified NFLPA with their cut throat DC attorney leader is extremely selfish in their "negotiating" (if you want to call it that) tactics that they would probably have gone on strike.

10 years of full disclosure of the books is asking for way too much. The concession of giving 5 years of profits which are not available to the owners is more than charitable and enough to work with.

It's hard to blame the owners when they have made concessions on almost every issue the union has brought up (pension, 18 game schedule, health care, etc.).

I had posted the players concerns and there were many. A major one is 5 year contracts on rookie wage scale. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years. The NFL wants 5 and the players want 3. Guess they will end up at 4.

You don't think the NFL had every intention of locking out the players when they put it in their TV deal from years ago that they would take basically a 4 billion dollar loan in the event of a lockout?

Both sides are playing dirty to try to get their share of the pie.

I don't blame either side for fighting for every dollar they can get. We do it in our careers, just it isn't a giant media circus with blogs.

 

[TJ]

I had posted the players concerns and there were many. A major one is 5 year contracts on rookie wage scale. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years. The NFL wants 5 and the players want 3. Guess they will end up at 4.

You don't think the NFL had every intention of locking out the players when they put it in their TV deal from years ago that they would take basically a 4 billion dollar loan in the event of a lockout?

Both sides are playing dirty to try to get their share of the pie.

I don't blame either side for fighting for every dollar they can get. We do it in our careers, just it isn't a giant media circus with blogs.

The bold is, ideally, how this negotiation process should work. But I think the decertified union is not budging on most of their demands and since Friday, have been acting immature (calling the owners "liars" publicly, telling potential high picks to boycott the draft, etc). I am no fan of D. Smith. He is not a football guy, but rather a DC Attorney. He hasnt been a willing negotiating partner with the owners and for a union, that is a bad trait that the leader possesses. The thing that goes unspoken is that D. Smith still gets paid during a lockout/strike, and his players are hung out to dry. If he took a pay cut to $1 like Goodell and Pash have, the sense of urgency would be there to get this thing resolved.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Do you think the owners were negotiating in "good faith" when they put a 4 billion dollar loan clause for this exact scenario in their tv contract from years ago?

Union and the owners are both playing dirty.

 

[TJ]

Do you think the owners were negotiating in "good faith" when they put a 4 billion dollar loan clause for this exact scenario in their tv contract from years ago?

Union and the owners are both playing dirty.

If you were an owner, wouldnt you do the same if given the opportunity in the possible event of a lockout/strike? It's a good business decision if you ask me. It's like D. Smith telling the players for the past two years to start saving their nickels and dimes and stop frivolous spending. Each party needs a contingency plan in the event of a work stoppage so is not to go broke. You cannot predict how the other will approach the table. In this event, the players have been less pliable IMO.

 

[Stout]

They legally have to due it that way due to how anti trust cases work.

This is just a very complicated process but one that won't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. I believe the most plausible worst case scenario is an interruption of training camp in July.

I had posted the players concerns and there were many. A major one is 5 year contracts on rookie wage scale. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years. The NFL wants 5 and the players want 3. Guess they will end up at 4.

You don't think the NFL had every intention of locking out the players when they put it in their TV deal from years ago that they would take basically a 4 billion dollar loan in the event of a lockout?

Both sides are playing dirty to try to get their share of the pie.

I don't blame either side for fighting for every dollar they can get. We do it in our careers, just it isn't a giant media circus with blogs.

Yeah, and the courts told the NFL no. The courts should rightfully tell the players fine--no more union--so now you cannot reform a union for X years, otherwise you are illegally manipulating the legal system. You can't just one day have a union, get rid of it for a month or two because it's convenient, and then re-form it.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I had posted the players concerns and there were many. A major one is 5 year contracts on rookie wage scale. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years. The NFL wants 5 and the players want 3. Guess they will end up at 4.

You don't think the NFL had every intention of locking out the players when they put it in their TV deal from years ago that they would take basically a 4 billion dollar loan in the event of a lockout?

Both sides are playing dirty to try to get their share of the pie.

I don't blame either side for fighting for every dollar they can get. We do it in our careers, just it isn't a giant media circus with blogs.

I thought I read that first round player contracts would be 5 years and the rest would be 3 years. Also, isn't de-certifying to gain leverage, which is what the players did, illegal?

 

[Cardiac]

10 years of full disclosure of the books is asking for way too much. The concession of giving 5 years of profits which are not available to the owners is more than charitable and enough to work with.

Why? The more info one has the better.

The owners have said they had to beg out of the current CBA because it wasn't finacially responsible for them. If they make that statement then they need to prove it. They do that by opening their books.

Ever hear of the term cooking the books. Very smart accountants can make numbers look different then what they actually are. Or shade the numbers into looking like something they really aren't.

Do Owners get paid a salary? If so how much do they get? Now if they turn over partial info saying that their payroll (outstide of players) is 50 mil without a breakdown showing that owner's salary is 40 mil well that's not telling the whole truth. This is just one example of how partial disclosure of the books can be misleading.

 

[Stout]

I thought I read that first round player contracts would be 5 years and the rest would be 3 years. Also, isn't de-certifying to gain leverage, which is what the players did, illegal?

Bingo!

 

[DoTheDew]

I had posted the players concerns and there were many. A major one is 5 year contracts on rookie wage scale. The average career in the NFL is 3.5 years. The NFL wants 5 and the players want 3. Guess they will end up at 4.

The myth the players take from this is that the average is so low because of injuries. That simply isn't the case. The average is so low because so many late round draft picks aren't NFL caliber and can't hold a roster spot for 2 seasons, and because there are UDFAs who play for a few weeks while someone is hurt in pre-season, then get cut and never play in the NFL again because they were no good. Of course the average is going to be low when you have 50-100 rookies each season that aren't good enough to see a second season.

Changing the length of contracts won't help the players who have short careers. It will help the superstars.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

Why? The more info one has the better.

The owners have said they had to beg out of the current CBA because it wasn't finacially responsible for them. If they make that statement then they need to prove it. They do that by opening their books.

Ever hear of the term cooking the books. Very smart accountants can make numbers look different then what they actually are. Or shade the numbers into looking like something they really aren't.

Do Owners get paid a salary? If so how much do they get? Now if they turn over partial info saying that their payroll (outstide of players) is 50 mil without a breakdown showing that owner's salary is 40 mil well that's not telling the whole truth. This is just one example of how partial disclosure of the books can be misleading.

All good points, and the reason why one uses a third party audit under strict terms of reference negotiated by both parties. The Auditor reviews the line items agreed to; the NFLPA does not. This protects privacy, and nevertheless offers final reports, for whatever period, allowing parties to negotiate in good faith.

 

[BigRedRage]

That would be relevant analogy if your dad had said "Son, I am going to give you 10% of my earnings if you do everything you are supposed to do. That number is (x)"

Then later he said "Son, I know you did everything you said you would but I only made (x)"

And of course it isn't relevant since my employer isn't my dad.

Im glad you could come in and degrade the analogy the poster made but I suppose we can rephrase it for you to fit your needs.

Hey employer, my wage isnt high enough, open the books and show me all profits so we can talk about how much I SHOULD make.

you are an employee, you make the company run on a lower level but the company is much bigger than you. The company decides your worth, not you. If you do not like your pay, they can hire someone else.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I thought I read that first round player contracts would be 5 years and the rest would be 3 years. Also, isn't de-certifying to gain leverage, which is what the players did, illegal?[/QUOTE]

The courts will hear arguments to that effect, and the NFLPA will respond that they had no choice but to pursue the issue under anti-trust statutes because the league (a monopoly) was bargaining in bad faith.

Point... counterpoint.

It's unlikely that courts, one after the other, will fully support one side or the other. Most likely, the parties will get back to the table when threatened with court appointed mediation.

 

[THESMEL]

nose up all in there rooting for more

Its a crime to develope the NFL in to the best business ever? What exactly have the Owners done wrong? to anybody? The anti trust laws restrict them from having a monopoly. Protects rival leagues from dirty pool. How many football leagues have we seen die before our vary eyes in our lifetimes?

The NFL was not always a sure thing, Our beloved Cardinals started in 1898 and never had their own stadium until UP in Glendale. Many Many traveling teams died on the vine, The NFL took its lumps and strong armed the AFL causing the Anti trust Merger about the same time Bill Bidwill bought sole interest from Stormy.

A cartel it is, elite American Dream, available to most but Rush Limbaugh. Brees, P Manning, Brady could save their 20+ million a year and purchase an NFL franchise or start a team in the UFL. See how long their team or league survive and how much they pay their players. Let me see your books punks,

you need a cheaper, haircut, car and woman mister Brady, our city and fans say so!

Peyton We want you to franchise yourself at an average of 32 Million a year for the next 3 years, but you'll have to work with scrubs. any money you make on commercials, well we want 66% because we made you.

Drew Breeees those nasty illegal medication allegations in the Super Bowl season don't matter, You got to honor your contracts and pay top salary to the cheats you hired, it is the will of the players.

Why? The more info one has the better.

The owners have said they had to beg out of the current CBA because it wasn't finacially responsible for them. If they make that statement then they need to prove it. They do that by opening their books.

Ever hear of the term cooking the books. Very smart accountants can make numbers look different then what they actually are. Or shade the numbers into looking like something they really aren't.

Do Owners get paid a salary? If so how much do they get? Now if they turn over partial info saying that their payroll (outstide of players) is 50 mil without a breakdown showing that owner's salary is 40 mil well that's not telling the whole truth. This is just one example of how partial disclosure of the books can be misleading.

 

[Linderbee]

Im glad you could come in and degrade the analogy the poster made but I suppose we can rephrase it for you to fit your needs.

Hey employer, my wage isnt high enough, open the books and show me all profits so we can talk about how much I SHOULD make.

you are an employee, you make the company run on a lower level but the company is much bigger than you. The company decides your worth, not you. If you do not like your pay, they can hire someone else.

Per Chris (I really don't know if what he stated is accurate or not; I'm guessing it is) your re-phrasing still isn't right. It would be more like, your employer says, "Hey, I'll hire you for $40k/year, and on top of that, I'll give you 5% of my profits. My profits have always been at least 5 million a year."

Then, after the end of the year, the boss comes & says, "Yeah, I know I said I make 5 mil in profits, but I really only made 1 mil in profits this year. I know you were expecting $250,000, but you're only getting $50,000". At that point, you may have some sort of right to say, "Prove it".

Again, I don't know if what Chris stated is the way it is, but that's a better analogy based off what he said.

 

[TJ]

Why? The more info one has the better.

The owners have said they had to beg out of the current CBA because it wasn't finacially responsible for them. If they make that statement then they need to prove it. They do that by opening their books.

Ever hear of the term cooking the books. Very smart accountants can make numbers look different then what they actually are. Or shade the numbers into looking like something they really aren't.

Do Owners get paid a salary? If so how much do they get? Now if they turn over partial info saying that their payroll (outstide of players) is 50 mil without a breakdown showing that owner's salary is 40 mil well that's not telling the whole truth. This is just one example of how partial disclosure of the books can be misleading.

So why not ask for the last 25 years? How about 50? The more info the better I guess.

I understand what cooking the books is, but it sets a bad precedent when you make your entire financial books available. It is private information for a reason. I cant imagine a major business like the NFL would "cook the books" unless its name is Enron. This is a trust issue and clearly, its D Smith who has an issue, which he is manifesting on his own.

In addition, can you imagine how much information is in the books for the past 10 seasons? A medium size businesses' books are larger than a copy of "War and Peace." Think of how much information would have to be sorted through. When you account for all of the NFL financials along with those of each team, how much paperwork would auditors have to go through? It would delay the negotiations that much more simply because of the time and labor it would take for auditors to comb through every page. Then afterward, what's to say the decertified NFLPA wouldnt ask for more?

Again, the disclosure 5 years of profits, which accounts for all moneys made since the last CBA, is more disclosure than ever given to the union. When you are divulging information that the NFL doesnt even show to its own teams, you are really showing a genuine resolve to get a fair deal done. Its the decertified NFLPA that is acting like children saying that they want more when it is absolutely unnecessary and as I alluded to, will only take a significant amount of time to complete the auditing process. And if they are truly concerned with finaincial backing, look at the Packers, whose books, by law, have to be divulged to the public.

I dont think the average NFL fan understands that if the owners give in to the former NFLPA's request, they would be opening Pandora's box for this CBA and future negotiations.

 

[slanidrac16]

Yeah, and the courts told the NFL no. The courts should rightfully tell the players fine--no more union--so now you cannot reform a union for X years, otherwise you are illegally manipulating the legal system. You can't just one day have a union, get rid of it for a month or two because it's convenient, and then re-form it.

MAybe they should....BUT THE OWNER"S DON"T WANT THAT!. They want the protection and benefit's of antitrust laws which they cannot have without a union or should I say a CBA.
The players know that.