Smith contemplating permanent decertification

[Cash]

What you said!

 

If someone wants to work for a centrally organized employer even one with many outlets that are dependent on each other then that person must accept the assignments, salaries, and benefits established or negotiated by that employer and their employees. An example is the federal government. If someone graduating from college with a degree in government relations wants to work for the IRS or Social Security or another branch of the federal government they cannot negotiate with the local IRS office. They have to apply to work through the national IRS and then they will be assigned to a work location with a salary that is the same (with perhaps some locality adjustments) nationally. If they want to work for a State or local government then they do not get the benefits offered by the feds.

 

To me it should be the same with NFL players. If they want to work/play for the NFL well then the NFL sets the rules and establishes where they can play because the league is truly one entity dependent on the interaction of its franchises. It is not 32 competing businesses because otherwise merchandise, rules, working conditions, etc. would have to differ. Target and Wal-Mart do not plan a Spring sale together and then rotate the shared location for the sale (Opening Sale Day at Wal-Mart and the Sunday Night Sale at Target with both stores selling their stuff.).

 

If football players want the benefits of playing in the NFL then they have to follow the NFL rules and go where the NFL says they need to go for the benefit of the business (the NFL). If they don't like the NFL's work condtions they can go indoor league, CFL, or get a real job and play in some amateur league in the city of their choosing.

 

And this is why the NFL needs an antitrust exemption to be able to operate. But it's a limited exemption, which means that in the absence of collective bargaining, workers are allowed to bring antitrust litigation against the NFL.

 

Also, I don't know if the IRS specifically is different, but a number of friends of mine have government jobs in various departments, and none of their application processes involved central application followed by assignment. They all applied for specific jobs in specific offices, just like any other job. Not really sure what you were getting at there. Defending the draft, I guess? I like the draft as much as anyone, and would be furious if it went away, but it would be indefensible in any real business. Imagine if, to work at Target, you had to apply at the headquarters in Minnesota, then were assigned to one of their nation-wide stores with no say in the matter? It's a ridiculous notion. The only way the NFL gets away with it is that they have a monopoly on a job that is extremely desirable. Well, that and the fact that the draft as a TV event makes a good bit of money, some of which comes back to the players.

[Ramius]

And this is why the NFL needs an antitrust exemption to be able to operate. But it's a limited exemption, which means that in the absence of collective bargaining, workers are allowed to bring antitrust litigation against the NFL.

 

Also, I don't know if the IRS specifically is different, but a number of friends of mine have government jobs in various departments, and none of their application processes involved central application followed by assignment. They all applied for specific jobs in specific offices, just like any other job. Not really sure what you were getting at there. Defending the draft, I guess? I like the draft as much as anyone, and would be furious if it went away, but it would be indefensible in any real business. Imagine if, to work at Target, you had to apply at the headquarters in Minnesota, then were assigned to one of their nation-wide stores with no say in the matter? It's a ridiculous notion. The only way the NFL gets away with it is that they have a monopoly on a job that is extremely desirable. Well, that and the fact that the draft as a TV event makes a good bit of money, some of which comes back to the players.

 

If anyone doesn't like the terms of employment their future workplace is offering, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

[Sisyphean Bills]

And if they opened the books, we would all know exactly what the numbers say and who is being reasonable and who isn't. But they won't. Enter law suit. Enter the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Enter discovery. Books opened. No secrets. Deal done. And we have our football back.

Can you provide a list of all the privately held companies that are compelled to make their books public at litigious whims of a union?

 

You missed the point entirely by the way. I'm not simply rubber stamping the owner's stance in this as you assume. I was responding to the very specific notion that the NFL ownership is "nothing but overhead" and could be replaced trivially.

[BillsfaninFl]

There are a number of players in the NFL Hall of Fame who would be "average" if they played (and were in their prime) today. There was not the number of players seeking NFL jobs back then, the pay was not as ludicrous, the resources for getting/keeping in shape were not available, it was not a year-round occupation, etc.

 

But the competition was great and the fans were highly entertained. So it's not necessarily so that the NFL would be boring without the supermen of today.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't want the best players available, I do. But that's because if you offer me fine wine instead of rotgut I will certainly choose the better product.

 

My point is that it's silly to say that without 300 pound giants who can outrun all of us, the NFL would be unentertaining. But those who have stated here that if the league becomes dominated every year by the same few rich teams it will no longer be entertaining are right.

 

So, given the fact that it must financially worthwhile for both the owners and the players to continue, the key point in my opinion is maintaining parity. Other sports are a distant second to the NFL in my mind, because the few dominant teams are the elite almost every year. I would hate to see that be the case in the NFL and frankly have been disturbed by a trend toward that in recent years.

 

So, who do I want to win this fight? I want the fans to win by being able to watch competitive games. As long as that happens, I don't care if the league structure stays the same or changes. Everyone can argue about the many things influencing this, and good points have been made. But I just hope that the end result gives us fans what we deserve.

[1B4IDie]

Can you provide a list of all the privately held companies that are compelled to make their books public at litigious whims of a union?

 

You missed the point entirely by the way. I'm not simply rubber stamping the owner's stance in this as you assume. I was responding to the very specific notion that the NFL ownership is "nothing but overhead" and could be replaced trivially.

Are you familiar with profit sharing agreements in privately held companies?

Name another privately held company that in the midst of record profits decides to back out of a union contract and demand a significant change in the profit sharing agreement with their union for no other reason then they feel like it?

[justnzane]

Are you familiar with profit sharing agreements in privately held companies?

Name another privately held company that in the midst of record profits decides to back out of a union contract and demand a significant change in the profit sharing agreement with their union for no other reason then they feel like it?

 

 

actually the trend over the past 30 years in corporate America has been to fire the unions move the jobs overseas to generate even higher profits. Elminating the union and all jobs to me is a significant change in a profit sharing agreement.

[K Gun Special]

If anyone doesn't like the terms of employment their future workplace is offering, they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

 

The owners are free to hire new players if they dont like the conditions the former nflpa want.

 

Why arent they doing that?

[Mr. WEO]

There are a number of players in the NFL Hall of Fame who would be "average" if they played (and were in their prime) today. There was not the number of players seeking NFL jobs back then, the pay was not as ludicrous, the resources for getting/keeping in shape were not available, it was not a year-round occupation, etc.

 

But the competition was great and the fans were highly entertained. So it's not necessarily so that the NFL would be boring without the supermen of today.

 

That doesn't mean that I don't want the best players available, I do. But that's because if you offer me fine wine instead of rotgut I will certainly choose the better product.

 

My point is that it's silly to say that without 300 pound giants who can outrun all of us, the NFL would be unentertaining. But those who have stated here that if the league becomes dominated every year by the same few rich teams it will no longer be entertaining[/b] are right.

 

So, given the fact that it must financially worthwhile for both the owners and the players to continue, the key point in my opinion is maintaining parity. Other sports are a distant second to the NFL in my mind, because the few dominant teams are the elite almost every year. I would hate to see that be the case in the NFL and frankly have been disturbed by a trend toward that in recent years.

 

So, who do I want to win this fight? I want the fans to win by being able to watch competitive games. As long as that happens, I don't care if the league structure stays the same or changes. Everyone can argue about the many things influencing this, and good points have been made. But I just hope that the end result gives us fans what we deserve.

Looka t the the top grossing teams year in and year out in the NFL--other than NE, the only other outliers are the COwboys, the Skins and the Texans. None of them has "dominated"--except in futility. The SB winner list the past 10 years is dominated by middle of the road revenue teams (which includes about 80% of all teams.

 

What are you worried about? If you think parity has suffered because of revenue differences, you are worrying about nothing. The truth is that the NFL has had fewer different champs over the past 10 years than MLB--so revenue has little to do with parity. The best managed teams/franchises dominate post-season play in the NFL.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Can you provide a list of all the privately held companies that are compelled to make their books public at litigious whims of a union?

Asking for a list of "all" such companies is unreasonable. If you actually want insights into how at least some judges and courts think about the issue, please read the following excerpts (ALJ = administrative law judge), taken from:

 

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/880/880.F2d.1422.88-1084.html

 

"The Dubuque Packing Company is a closely-held corporation engaged in meat processing and packaging. The company operated a plant in Dubuque, Iowa, handling beef and pork. During the entire relevant period, the Dubuque plant was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union . . ."

 

* * * * * *

 

"As the ALJ stated his interpretation of events, it was not until the announcement of the proposed transfer of work to a different plant that "the Union realized how much more severe had been the consequences of rejecting the Respondent's wage freeze proposal then [sic ] had been previously made known by the Company." ALJ op. at 26. The union officials "had no way of knowing whether the 8 June concessions then being requested were justified,"1 and hence the leadership of the union responded by requesting detailed financial information about all the company's operations. ALJ op. at 27 & n. 39. The company balked at the extensive request, stating that it was "so extensive as to be unreasonable both as to subject matter and volume...." ALJ op. at 31."

 

* * * * * *

 

"At the June 28 membership meeting, which was attended by over 2,000 people, the union leadership recommended that the company's wage freeze/profit sharing proposal be rejected until after the union had been afforded the opportunity to review the company's books. In the end, the membership agreed, voting overwhelmingly to deny the company the concessions it sought."

 

* * * * * *

 

"1 Because the company was a closely-held corporation about which the union had no information, the ALJ apparently accepted the genuineness of the union's need to obtain this information from the company directly. Moreover, the ALJ's discussion appears to be sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested, apparently accepting the union's position that "in order to intelligently determine its position with regard to the contract concessions then being demanded, the Union would require an overview of the Company's entire financial picture." ALJ op. at 29

 

=================================================================

 

Whether the union ever actually got to see the extensive books and records it requested turned on the outcome of an issue that was remanded back to a lower court, so I don't know if the union ultimately received the financial records it requested. The above excerpts make it clear, however, that the administrative law judge involved in the case was "sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested."

Edited June 1, 2011 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[Mickey]

Can you provide a list of all the privately held companies that are compelled to make their books public at litigious whims of a union?

 

You missed the point entirely by the way. I'm not simply rubber stamping the owner's stance in this as you assume. I was responding to the very specific notion that the NFL ownership is "nothing but overhead" and could be replaced trivially.

 

That is not a fair comparison. The union didn't ask to look at the books based on a whim and it is misleading to suggest that they did. The owners, not the players, wanted to renegotiate the deal that is the only thing that got them out of the law suits they lost back in the late '80's and early 90's. The owners, not the players, are seeking to monkey with an agreement that has brought growth and prosperity for all concerned for decades. And they justified that by claiming to the players and the public that the numbers were no longer working. The players then said, "okay, if that is true we will work with you but we won't take that on faith, prove it". Any other response would have been, frankly, moronic. The offers by the league are based on percentages of revenues after costs, etc., to evaluate those offers, both sides need to know what the "take" is, not just the percentage of the take.

 

They didn't ask to see the books "on a whim", they did so as a prudent and reasonable request during what are essentially financial negotiations.

 

I have no problem with the league wanting a new deal if the old one was no longer financially viable but I think they should have to prove it first. And if it is the truth, it shouldn't be all that hard to prove. In the meantime, however they work this out, they ought to keep playing. There doesn't have to be a lockout. I am a football fan, not a balance sheet fan. No lockout = football Lockout = no football. And that is why I am for the injunction.

[Mr. WEO]

That is not a fair comparison. The union didn't ask to look at the books based on a whim and it is misleading to suggest that they did. The owners, not the players, wanted to renegotiate the deal that is the only thing that got them out of the law suits they lost back in the late '80's and early 90's. The owners, not the players, are seeking to monkey with an agreement that has brought growth and prosperity for all concerned for decades. And they justified that by claiming to the players and the public that the numbers were no longer working. The players then said, "okay, if that is true we will work with you but we won't take that on faith, prove it". Any other response would have been, frankly, moronic. The offers by the league are based on percentages of revenues after costs, etc., to evaluate those offers, both sides need to know what the "take" is, not just the percentage of the take.

 

They didn't ask to see the books "on a whim", they did so as a prudent and reasonable request during what are essentially financial negotiations.

 

I have no problem with the league wanting a new deal if the old one was no longer financially viable but I think they should have to prove it first. And if it is the truth, it shouldn't be all that hard to prove. In the meantime, however they work this out, they ought to keep playing. There doesn't have to be a lockout. I am a football fan, not a balance sheet fan. No lockout = football Lockout = no football. And that is why I am for the injunction.

 

The bolded is not completely true. The last CBA was significantly different from those prior to it is the player cut as a percent of total revenue (minus a billion). In 2008, when the owners opted out of the 2006 CBA early, the economic climate was much different than 2006, or now, for that matter.

 

Also, what many who blame the owners don't (or pretend not to) realize is that the 2006 CBA would have expired naturally in 2012. Therefore, all the dramatic wailing about the owners "pulling out of the the deal" is nonsense. Had they not pulled out, we would be having the same discussion in 2013. What's the difference? We would be no happier about a lockout 2 years from now.

 

I think the owners were foolish to lockout. They should have made their last offer, take it or leave it, and opened the doors. Without a lockout, there's likely no decert of the union and therefore, no lawsuit. Players would either have to accept the best offer of the owners or strike.

[Sisyphean Bills]

Are you familiar with profit sharing agreements in privately held companies?

Been there and done that, in fact. Not that you've made any sort of point at all.

Name another privately held company that in the midst of record profits decides to back out of a union contract and demand a significant change in the profit sharing agreement with their union for no other reason then they feel like it?

You might find this educational:

 

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/exportingamerica/outsourcing_problems.cfm

 

Asking for a list of "all" such companies is unreasonable. If you actually want insights into how at least some judges and courts think about the issue, please read the following excerpts (ALJ = administrative law judge), taken from:

 

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/880/880.F2d.1422.88-1084.html

 

"The Dubuque Packing Company is a closely-held corporation engaged in meat processing and packaging. The company operated a plant in Dubuque, Iowa, handling beef and pork. During the entire relevant period, the Dubuque plant was covered by a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union . . ."

 

* * * * * *

 

"As the ALJ stated his interpretation of events, it was not until the announcement of the proposed transfer of work to a different plant that "the Union realized how much more severe had been the consequences of rejecting the Respondent's wage freeze proposal then [sic ] had been previously made known by the Company." ALJ op. at 26. The union officials "had no way of knowing whether the 8 June concessions then being requested were justified,"1 and hence the leadership of the union responded by requesting detailed financial information about all the company's operations. ALJ op. at 27 & n. 39. The company balked at the extensive request, stating that it was "so extensive as to be unreasonable both as to subject matter and volume...." ALJ op. at 31."

 

* * * * * *

 

"At the June 28 membership meeting, which was attended by over 2,000 people, the union leadership recommended that the company's wage freeze/profit sharing proposal be rejected until after the union had been afforded the opportunity to review the company's books. In the end, the membership agreed, voting overwhelmingly to deny the company the concessions it sought."

 

* * * * * *

 

"1 Because the company was a closely-held corporation about which the union had no information, the ALJ apparently accepted the genuineness of the union's need to obtain this information from the company directly. Moreover, the ALJ's discussion appears to be sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested, apparently accepting the union's position that "in order to intelligently determine its position with regard to the contract concessions then being demanded, the Union would require an overview of the Company's entire financial picture." ALJ op. at 29

 

=================================================================

 

Whether the union ever actually got to see the extensive books and records it requested turned on the outcome of an issue that was remanded back to a lower court, so I don't know if the union ultimately received the financial records it requested. The above excerpts make it clear, however, that the administrative law judge involved in the case was "sympathetic to the union's need for the broad scope of the information requested."

I think anybody can see the reasons why there has to be some information flow in a negotiation. I never claimed otherwise. On the other hand, I was responding to a post that suggested the court would just "open the books" and that would solve the whole problem instantly. Giving the union some information from which to negotiate is one thing. Opening the books to the world is another.

[Sisyphean Bills]

The bolded is not completely true. The last CBA was significantly different from those prior to it is the player cut as a percent of total revenue (minus a billion). In 2008, when the owners opted out of the 2006 CBA early, the economic climate was much different than 2006, or now, for that matter.

 

Also, what many who blame the owners don't (or pretend not to) realize is that the 2006 CBA would have expired naturally in 2012. Therefore, all the dramatic wailing about the owners "pulling out of the the deal" is nonsense. Had they not pulled out, we would be having the same discussion in 2013. What's the difference? We would be no happier about a lockout 2 years from now.

 

I think the owners were foolish to lockout. They should have made their last offer, take it or leave it, and opened the doors. Without a lockout, there's likely no decert of the union and therefore, no lawsuit. Players would either have to accept the best offer of the owners or strike.

It's pretty obvious that $1B is a constant number. Assuming total revenue continues to increase (which is not what ownership is saying FWIW -- they claim that they have maxed their market and maintaining the revenue streams they have is becoming a struggle), it at best represents a diminishing percentage. Just being an owner of an NFL team doesn't mean one is immune to inflation and the general economy either. While it is fun on a message board to pretend that all large numbers are equal to infinity, I guess, it's just simply incorrect. The NFL is a big business with big costs, etc.

 

Anyway, back to squabbling over who's right and who's wrong here. Both sides seem to have their faults from where I sit.

 

PS: And I think it was said earlier in this thread, but the real issue here is Power. The NFLPA leadership wants it. The NFL owners also want it.

[1B4IDie]

Been there and done that, in fact. Not that you've made any sort of point at all.

 

You might find this educational:

 

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/exportingamerica/outsourcing_problems.cfm

 

 

I think anybody can see the reasons why there has to be some information flow in a negotiation. I never claimed otherwise. On the other hand, I was responding to a post that suggested the court would just "open the books" and that would solve the whole problem instantly. Giving the union some information from which to negotiate is one thing. Opening the books to the world is another.

You might want to read your own weak reference yourself.

The company had been suffering, by all accounts, serious losses since as early as 1977.

 

And comparing meat packers to hard to find highly athletic very skilled athletes is funny.

 

Here is the question if you'd like a second try

 

 

Name another privately held company that in the midst of record profits decides to back out of a union contract and demand a significant change in the profit sharing agreement with their union for no other reason then they feel like it?

 

 

The bolded is not completely true. The last CBA was significantly different from those prior to it is the player cut as a percent of total revenue (minus a billion). In 2008, when the owners opted out of the 2006 CBA early, the economic climate was much different than 2006, or now, for that matter.

 

I think the owners were foolish to lockout. They should have made their last offer, take it or leave it, and opened the doors. Without a lockout, there's likely no decert of the union and therefore, no lawsuit. Players would either have to accept the best offer of the owners or strike.

The bolded is not completely true.

 

And this is genius logic:

 

Also, what many who blame the owners don't (or pretend not to) realize is that the 2006 CBA would have expired naturally in 2012. Therefore, all the dramatic wailing about the owners "pulling out of the the deal" is nonsense. Had they not pulled out, we would be having the same discussion in 2013. What's the difference? We would be no happier about a lockout 2 years from now.

 

It doesn't count that the owners opted out early because at the end of the agreement they were going to try to renegotiate something different anyway?

 

Amazing.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[Ramius]

The bolded is not completely true.

 

The bolded is true. Prior to 2006, the salary cap and the % cut the players got were from a specific set of revenues. Which ones exactly, i dont remember. The 2006 CBA gave the players a % cut and based the salary cap on ALL revenues. Huge difference.

[K Gun Special]

The bolded is true. Prior to 2006, the salary cap and the % cut the players got were from a specific set of revenues. Which ones exactly, i dont remember. The 2006 CBA gave the players a % cut and based the salary cap on ALL revenues. Huge difference.

 

the 2006 did not. It gave a % on a reduced amount of revenues. Total minus 1 billion is when the calculation started.

[Ramius]

the 2006 did not. It gave a % on a reduced amount of revenues. Total minus 1 billion is when the calculation started.

 

The pool of revenues the players are drawing from was much much bigger, even with the billion off the top. Hence the reason the cap jumped from $85 million to $110 million or so in the first year after the new CBA.

 

Prior to 2006, i think the total % was based off just the TV money, or TV and ticket money. Now, the players get a cut of everything, including stadium revenue, etc.

[KOKBILLS]

Are you familiar with profit sharing agreements in privately held companies?

Name another privately held company that in the midst of record profits decides to back out of a union contract and demand a significant change in the profit sharing agreement with their union for no other reason then they feel like it?

 

I think it's WAY more then "they just feel like it..." WAY more...In case it's been lost on you there has been a MAJOR downturn in the Economy over the past couple years...Just thought I'd bring you up to speed...

 

Jerry Jones just made reference to this the other day...Major, monster Corporate Conglomerations are continuously tweaking with the future in mind. And the NFL is no different...You can sit around and talk about how peachy it is all you want, and sure in comparison to a lot of Industries the NFL is doing well...But that's not the way these Owners are looking at it and they are no where near alone...Times are tough...People have less money to spend...The Owners are trying to make certain they get the deal they want so that they continue to make the profits they desire...You may not like it, but they have their reasons...And the current Economic state of the Country is REAL high on the list of reasons...REAL high...

[1B4IDie]

I think it's WAY more then "they just feel like it..." WAY more...In case it's been lost on you there has been a MAJOR downturn in the Economy over the past couple years...Just thought I'd bring you up to speed...

 

Jerry Jones just made reference to this the other day...Major, monster Corporate Conglomerations are continuously tweaking with the future in mind. And the NFL is no different...You can sit around and talk about how peachy it is all you want, and sure in comparison to a lot of Industries the NFL is doing well...But that's not the way these Owners are looking at it and they are no where near alone...Times are tough...People have less money to spend...The Owners are trying to make certain they get the deal they want so that they continue to make the profits they desire...You may not like it, but they have their reasons...And the current Economic state of the Country is REAL high on the list of reasons...REAL high...

If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

 

Let me get you up to speed, this isn't the first recession in the history of the world.

 

How has the NFL faired through the last few recessions?

 

Oh just fine.

 

Why would this last recession be any different?

 

There is no real concern from the owners. The Stadium will be at near capacity and more importantly recession proof fast food, and beer is major advertising partners of the NFL. The Ad revenue will continue to be there to drive the TV contracts. Its just a guise.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[KOKBILLS]

PS: And I think it was said earlier in this thread, but the real issue here is Power. The NFLPA leadership wants it. The NFL owners also want it.

 

That pretty much sums it up...

 

I'm just guessing on the following...But I also think that the Owners who represented the "New Breed" in the previous CBA (Jones, Richardson, Kraft, Snyder, etc)...Those Owners who REALLY pushed the deal the last time around and probably made promises they are now trying to keep...IE..."If this does not work out (the last CBA), we'll fix it next time..." Those type of handshake promises...I think there are some bruised egos amongst those "NEW Breed" Owners. And some of the Old Guard like RW have said "I told you so." So now it is all about getting the power back, and in a way saving face for the Owners like Jones who pushed the last Deal through REAL hard...

 

It seems to me they are simply going to try to make the Union pay this time around for being wrong the last time around...If that makes any sense...

 

If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

 

Let me get you up to speed, this isn't the first recession in the history of the world.

 

How has the NFL faired through the last few recessions?

 

Oh just fine.

 

Why would this last recession be any different?

 

There is no real concern from the owners. The Stadium will be at near capacity and more importantly recession proof fast food, and beer is major advertising partners of the NFL. The Ad revenue will continue to be there to drive the TV contracts. Its just a guise.

 

Right...

 

I think you're getting a bit defensive and caught up in this and you're not seeing the forest for the trees...I said specifically The NFL is doing better than most Industries in this Economy so I'm not sure exactly why you're getting so excitable...But to say the current Economy is absolutely no factor is ridiculous...The Owners are penny-pincher's...EVERYTHING is relevant to them...Obviously you think the Owners are just a bunch of greedy bastards who are bound and determined to break the Union regardless of the any factors...The most obvious of all factors being they own the freaking Business and want to have control, and protection, of their Profits now and forever...Personally I think there is WAY too much discussion going around about this % or that...They are concerned about the growth potential of Revenues in the future and they absolutely want to take control of this thing and eliminate as many variables as they can...

 

I'm not really for or against either side anymore...I'm just trying to point out what I see as being pretty obvious issues exaggerated or otherwise...That's all...

Edited June 2, 2011 by KOKBILLS