Anyone think the NFLPA messed up?

[Dragonborn10]

I also think that the NFLPA made a mistake.

 

In the short term, they are likely to win with Judge Doty, because Doty always seems to rule in their favor. When they get to the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court, I predict that they will lose. I also think that the NFL has a strong argument that the decertification is a sham. This is so especially based on what they have done in the past. Also, although there is some language regarding waiver of the sham argument in a previous agreement, I recall reading that the waiver only comes into play if they had decertified after the CBA expired. The NFLPA (if my understanding is correct) shot themselves in the foot because they obviously chose to decertify prior to the CBA's expiration.

 

Another option the NFL has would have is to not have any rules (or limited rules) - which would blunt any antitrust suit. The NFLPA does not like a salary cap -- but they are going to hate not having a floor, which will affect a lot of players.

 

Finally, in the American Needle case (if I recall the name of the case correctly), the Supreme Court included some language in the opinion that may allow the NFL to implement a lot more rules (draft, caps etc) than the NFLPA would like.

 

In summary, expect the NFL to lose in Judge Doty's court (in my mind, the NFL will never get a fair determination with him). In the end, if it goes further without a settlement, the NFL will ultimately prevail.

 

Just my two cents.

I'm not a lawyer but I thought had the union not decertified then the league could have imposed it's own working rules claiming the union was not negotiating in good faith. By decertifying the league can't impose workplace rules and individual players can sue the league for anti-trust.

Also the judge can impose an injuction on the NFL basically enforcing the current CBA. It is possible Doty does this in the near future and FA may start before the draft along with all other normal off-season activities. It is possible the league year will begin under the old rules while the process works its way through the courts. The problem there is that teams will be signing/trading/drafting players not knowing what the ultimate agreement will be.

[Glory Bound]

And do you think the fans will stop watching if the players get 48% or 55% or 60% of league revenue??? The fans will be there and the TV money will be there. People say the baseball strike drove fans away. That is wrong. Baseball as a TV event had been and will continue to fade. We the fans will show up the moment the games are on again.

What are you going to do/watch on Fall weekends in Buffalo? Syracuse football? Tennis? Golf?

Please. The fans are used as a pawn because the owners and the players know we have no other good options and like a battered spouse will come back over and over again paying $20 to park a car or in my case hundreds of dollars for Sunday Ticket.

If we have a full season, the fans will be there, but if we have a shortened season I think a lot of fans will abandon ship for 2011. I purchase the Sunday ticket every year for one reason only...my beloved Bills. I have been a fan for half a century. I will not make the purchase this year to watch scab games...& I am not too enthused about watching other scab games either... even if they're free. If we have a shortened season, it's just not the same & I would probably only tune in for the playoffs.

[C-zone Umpa]

First off by law once a company says they cannot afford something, reference it, or imply it they have to show them the books. It is a matter law of National Labor Relations Board. If every business in the midst of labor was taken at face value because they said they couldn't afford anything there would be no economic impact on a union negotiating wages and benefits. It would be a futile effort. Every business owner has that "F the employees and their demands" attituded when it comes to a negotiating and they are entitled to that sentiment to a point but this NFL vs NFLPA is a totally differnt scenario. They are not demanding more money for their pockets; they are fighting for better health coverage into retirement. Say you are a construction worker and you fall off scaffolding and break your back. Your care for that injury and all expenses related to it are covered by that employer's compensation insurance. It is not so for NFL players after their career in a highly physical field. They are responsible for it forever.

 

What makes absolutely no sense to me is the decert of the union. As far as I know, from my experience as a union president in the state of NY, once a group decerifies it's union in an open period (during negotiations or 2 yrs after ratification of a CBA)it must remain without a union for at least one year. The latest move by the NFLPA is mind boggling. There is nothing compeling the owners to come to the table, they can lock them, hell there is no CBA in place so they could strike. When negotiating a No Strike/No Lockout clause goes hand in hand. Both parties agree to do neither. And, to boot, they would not be able to seek representation for a year unless the owner. Technically they could say...Screw it we are having an 18 game season, we are not going to honor any contracta with players (barring any MOU, agreement or contract exceeds the CBA) They can't just implement an 18 game season because they wanted to over the last 5 years because it is a change to working conditions, also negated by labor law.

 

I am baffled here, they ALL stand to lose a lot of money due to a lock out or strike.

[yungmack]

No...but as BillsVet just stated > "The PA's insistence on having team financial records for the past 10 years is unreasonable and nothing the NFL would ever agree to."

Right is right & wrong is wrong...union or not! I just can't side with the players on this issue.

BillsVet is wrong and so are you. This is not a "union question" at all, it's a business partners dispute.

 

Imagine if, when you started your stores, you did so with a partner. Let's say the agreement acknowledged that you were really good at marketing and sales, and your partner was really good at the mechanics of running the business, so those were the areas each of you focused on. At the end of the year, your partner writes you a check for what he says is 50% of the profits. Do you take him at his word? Or do you say, "Let me see the books, partner"? And what if your partner tells you to take a hike, he's not going to show you the books? Do you fold and accept his word, or do you start looking for another partner?

 

That's the deal the owners made with the players years ago. And the players are essentially saying, if we're you're partners, let us see the books. And if you don't want us to see them, then we are no longer partners.

[MattM]

Owners are rich = owners are wrong?

 

Deep thoughts, by Dodonkadonk

 

Not quite, but how about "the owners pulled a scummy move by negotiating a war chest for themselves (at the expense of getting more shared player revenue since in negotiations one always gives up one thing for another) in the TV deals in breach of their duty to negotiate in good faith to expand the pie the players share so the owners have already shown that they may not be trustworthy"? That's what I've got my money on. If I were the players darn right I'd want to see their books, especially if they're crying poverty and my arrangement with them is a kind of revenue share with certain expenses netted out before I get my slice. Seeing this as a pure "employer-employee" relationship is wrong, as some have noted above. Through the revenue share deals it's more like the players have an odd kind of equity or other actual stake in the business. Any equity owner or debt holder is going to want to see the books, particularly if there are things above them in any payment waterfall that comes out before they're paid. Perfectly reasonable request by the players. Personally, I suspect that the owners are scared sh*tless that the players will see all kinds of shenanigans in those books and may end up hopping mad. Do the Jones's, Snyder's and Kraft's of the world strike you as honest, upstanding businessmen? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you....

 

My personal fear in all of this is that what results is bad for small market teams. You've got the players who want to increase the ability of wealthy owners to spend over a cap and you've got those same owners who'd love to be able to do the same thing. Our only hope for small market teams is the fear that removing a cap will remove a floor as well, which will scare the players (or at least it should).....

Edited March 12, 2011 by MattM

[808]

the owners offered to open the books for the last 5 years and the players wanted 10. im sure the owners kept them but i think legally you only have to keep 5-7 years of back tax papers. and whos to say the players wouldnt ask for 20 years.

this whole this is a mess and i blame both sides equally. its absurd they are gonna have lawyers fight this out. they wont get special treatment and have their case heard faster then any other case. so they will be waiting their turn. its all rubbish

[Rob's House]

Not quite, but how about "the owners pulled a scummy move by negotiating a war chest for themselves (at the expense of getting more shared player revenue since in negotiations one always gives up one thing for another) in the TV deals in breach of their duty to negotiate in good faith to expand the pie the players share so the owners have already shown that they may not be trustworthy"? That's what I've got my money on. If I were the players darn right I'd want to see their books, especially if they're crying poverty and my arrangement with them is a kind of revenue share with certain expenses netted out before I get my slice. Seeing this as a pure "employer-employee" relationship is wrong, as some have noted above. Through the revenue share deals it's more like the players have an odd kind of equity or other actual stake in the business. Any equity owner or debt holder is going to want to see the books, particularly if there are things above them in any payment waterfall that comes out before they're paid. Perfectly reasonable request by the players. Personally, I suspect that the owners are scared sh*tless that the players will see all kinds of shenanigans in those books and may end up hopping mad. Do the Jones's, Snyder's and Kraft's of the world strike you as honest, upstanding businessmen? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you....

 

My personal fear in all of this is that what results is bad for small market teams. You've got the players who want to increase the ability of wealthy owners to spend over a cap and you've got those same owners who'd love to be able to do the same thing. Our only hope for small market teams is the fear that removing a cap will remove a floor as well, which will scare the players (or at least it should).....

I don't know enough specifics to give too impassioned an opinion, but a lot of people draw an alliance based on preconceived notions, and go with it. As far as the books, from what I've heard it seems like a PR smokescreen. If they've negotiated a share of revenue stream x, and info regarding revenue stream x is openly available, I don't see how it's any of the player's business what the rest of their financials look like.

 

But regardless of all of this, whoever is right or wrong has little or nothing to do with who has more.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Rob's House

[Dr. Fong]

I own a couple of stores, & if any of my employees gave me an ultamatum demanding that I turn over all my financial records so they could determine if I'm paying them enough or not, they would be locked out the next day too. I wonder if the players truly realize that the fans are responsible for making them millionaires... & the vast majority earn between minimum wage & 20 bucks an hour.

 

 

Do millions of people pay billions of dollars to watch your employees do their jobs? Is it so hard to do your job that only about one in every one hundred thousand people has the talent to do the job? If so then maybe your comparison has merit. If not then...

[808]

the owners should ask for some of the players revenue in endorsements that gained because of the NFL. and see if the players wanna share that.

The owners pulled a scum bag move by having that 4 billion set aside for themselves.

But the players seem to think this is some kind of CO-OP. they are employees. and thats where i dont understand why they think they should get half of all revenue.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

 

 

 

First of all, ticket and concession revenues must accumulate to at least a ROM of $100 million per team so the TV revenues while likely most significant are the whole story, secondly the Value chain starts with the fans. If they don't watch ratings drop diminishing the value of the advertising, so on and so forth.

 

And these types of revenue squabbles do hurt the NFL because while it is an entertainment business it is marketed and branded as a game of warriors battling for pride and victory. The more that fantasy is deconstructed with contractual disputes, the less loyal, the more jaded, ad the less interested fans become… particularly those that want to believe the fantasy.

 

 

 

The really sad part is some of the retirees who are in poor health or live with disability. The league profits on the player’s willingness to assume the occupational risk, for which I think they owe better protection to players. But do the current players command more money?

 

 

 

Why? There is a limitless supply of players who have no value outside of this one sport. Also I understand they do not share personal endorsement revenue with the league, sort of ironic as those players would not have achieved those endorsements without the league. It sharply contrasts the players main argument.

 

 

 

There is always a best quarterback in the league, If his name wasn’t Payton or Brady, then it would be Joe schmoe or Joe blow.

 

 

 

The owner shouldn’t have to show the books to anyone they don’t wish to. If the players don’t like their individual contract, go work somewhere else.

 

 

[Buffaloed in Pa]

I think the players are outright greedy thugs. Making all that money at a part time job with retirement and pension. Get real. Todays economy and lack of jobs.Let these boys hit the street and find a job like that. I work with injuries all day long KNEES ,BACK FINGERS . If I stayed home with these injuries,guess what No-Pay. Now 52 grinding it out everyday and I listen to these babies crying for more,more more.Get real. Like Carson Palmer said if the Bengals don`t trade me ,I`ll stay home with my 80 million in the bank. This is why I quit watching baseball after their strike.Who cares what the owners make. These boys are making some serious money.

[Thoner7]

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

 

I wonder who watches teh TV?

 

And the Billionaires are still billionaires without football.

 

I think there is a stat that the average NFL player is dead broke 3 years after retirement. Thats a disgrace. No wonder they want more money - and no wonder why the Owners dont want to give them more.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Thoner7

[NoSaint]

The problem I can't get around though in the fan argument is that it's not the players that are expendable. You make it sound like you would shell out hundreds of dollars a year to watch some 4th stringers start rather than Brady, Manning, etc. That's simply not true. The owners are the expendable ones...there are plenty of billionaires who have nothing better to do with their money than buy a football team...couple that with the fact that a franchise in the NFL runs successfully as a public stock option and I'd say it's the owners with a bloated sense of their worth in the process.

 

 

I'd have to guess there are more guys that run a 4.4 than there are billionaires ready to buy an NFL franchise.

 

And plenty of people spend hundreds to see those 4th stringers in the SEC, pac10, etc... Not to mention you would get a whole new crop of Kurt warners, Fred jacksons.... You lose fans but many would still watch. I would.

 

If we have a full season, the fans will be there, but if we have a shortened season I think a lot of fans will abandon ship for 2011. I purchase the Sunday ticket every year for one reason only...my beloved Bills. I have been a fan for half a century. I will not make the purchase this year to watch scab games...& I am not too enthused about watching other scab games either... even if they're free. If we have a shortened season, it's just not the same & I would probably only tune in for the playoffs.

 

Unfortunately- season tix are bought and paid for. Stadiums will be full in large markets. This hurts buffalo more than almost any other team.

Edited March 12, 2011 by NoSaint

[machinegun12]

Please stop with this it's about the fans nonsense. The money comes from TV and TV alone. That money comes from huge corporations buying advertising funnelled through Madison Ave. To the NFL, you are a more important fan if you stay home and watch the game instead of showing up at the stadium.

BTW you do realize the owners are billionaires. The minimum wage guy should side with them? Me thinks you are a Tea Bagger.

Do you think the TV money would be there if not for the massive fan base? You, sir, are a moron.

 

I wonder who watches teh TV?

 

And the Billionaires are still billionaires without football.

 

I think there is a stat that the average NFL player is dead broke 3 years after retirement. Thats a disgrace. No wonder they want more money - and no wonder why the Owners dont want to give them more.

They're broke because they can't save money, not make it. Even a 3 year career at league minimum will get you nearly a million dollars. How many years does it take the average fan to make that?

[BillsVet]

BillsVet is wrong and so are you. This is not a "union question" at all, it's a business partners dispute.

 

Imagine if, when you started your stores, you did so with a partner. Let's say the agreement acknowledged that you were really good at marketing and sales, and your partner was really good at the mechanics of running the business, so those were the areas each of you focused on. At the end of the year, your partner writes you a check for what he says is 50% of the profits. Do you take him at his word? Or do you say, "Let me see the books, partner"? And what if your partner tells you to take a hike, he's not going to show you the books? Do you fold and accept his word, or do you start looking for another partner?

 

That's the deal the owners made with the players years ago. And the players are essentially saying, if we're you're partners, let us see the books. And if you don't want us to see them, then we are no longer partners.

 

Partners dispute? Seriously? What business is it of the players to know what each individual franchise earns? When the players were offered 50% of that 9 billion money pool and rejected it, this became more than any sort of "dispute."

 

The players demanded to see the books because it's the coup de grace when it comes to current and future labor negotiations with the NFL.

[finknottle]

BillsVet is wrong and so are you. This is not a "union question" at all, it's a business partners dispute.

 

Imagine if, when you started your stores, you did so with a partner. Let's say the agreement acknowledged that you were really good at marketing and sales, and your partner was really good at the mechanics of running the business, so those were the areas each of you focused on. At the end of the year, your partner writes you a check for what he says is 50% of the profits. Do you take him at his word? Or do you say, "Let me see the books, partner"? And what if your partner tells you to take a hike, he's not going to show you the books? Do you fold and accept his word, or do you start looking for another partner?

 

That's the deal the owners made with the players years ago. And the players are essentially saying, if we're you're partners, let us see the books. And if you don't want us to see them, then we are no longer partners.

 

IMO, the problem with that scenario is that it doesn't happen in the real world *unless* the partner has an equity stake, in which case it may be appropriate to share the books. And even then, they typically don't unless there are serious questions. For example, an S-Corp returns all the profits to the shareholders in proportion to their shares, and you leave it to the accountant to figure it what that is. So yes, in your example you might as well take your partner at their word. A company that lies about its books is committing accounting fraud, not just to you but to the IRS as well.

 

Most 'profit sharing' arrangements with employees (in particular, non-shareholders) are not for a percentage of the profits. Rather, the company decides to give everybody a fixed percentage of their salary. (More precisely, they decide how much profit they want to reinvest and how much they want to give back. They divide the latter by total payroll to compute the percentage.)

[1B4IDie]

One fact that I found interesting is unlike in the NBA, 75% of the teams were well under the salary cap in 2009. They're not really running out of cap room, (or maybe they were preparing for the lockout)

 

A second fact is if the NFL already knows what the "nuclear Bomb" is and has two years to prepare, wouldn't you think 32 Billionaires and their lawyers would come up with something to counter the bomb drop?

[Orton's Arm]

I own a couple of stores, & if any of my employees gave me an ultamatum demanding that I turn over all my financial records so they could determine if I'm paying them enough or not, they would be locked out the next day too. I wonder if the players truly realize that the fans are responsible for making them millionaires... & the vast majority earn between minimum wage & 20 bucks an hour.

 

The players have been getting a progressively larger share of the pie. One of the reasons for that is because, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, neither the players nor the owners of many big market teams really like the idea of a salary cap. The owners of high revenue teams want to be able to outspend their low revenue counterparts!

 

The fact that the owners weren't united with each other in the past is why things got as out of hand as they have, and is why the players have gotten too big for their britches. In a down economy with bills coming due, the owners have clearly realized they messed up during the last CBA, and that it's time to reclaim some of the ground they surrendered. It's necessary for the owners to do exactly that, but it's not going to be a quick or painless process.

[BillsVet]

One fact that I found interesting is unlike in the NBA, 75% of the teams were well under the salary cap in 2009. They're not really running out of cap room, (or maybe they were preparing for the lockout)

 

A second fact is if the NFL already knows what the "nuclear Bomb" is and has two years to prepare, wouldn't you think 32 Billionaires and their lawyers would come up with something to counter the bomb drop?

 

First, teams had to spend above the salary floor in 2009, and all of them did.

 

Second, those 31 teams plus the Packers offered via their negotiators, the chance for the players to take 50% of the potential 9 billion dollar revenue pool. If that's not good enough, then this thing is going to drag out for months, because the owners aren't revealing their numbers.

[JohnC]

No wonder they want more money - and no wonder why the Owners dont want to give them more.

 

Repeating a falsehood doesn't make it become true. The players are not asking for more. They want to maintain what they have. It was the owners who re-opened the CBA asking for more upfront revenue before the players' percentage kicked in.

 

Having a different perspective on an issue is understandable. Distorting a basic fact is not.