foxworth on the negotiations

[purplepoe]

Anyone just see Smith's little press conference with the piece of paper?

PP

[festivus]

Please find me where owners have made such claims or even hinted as such.



They run teams in a league that provides a luxury, high ticket entertainment option for a select few of the public.

You really think after this recession we're in they didn't take a hit the past few years? If so, I have a bridge that spans the bay I'd like to sell you.

Jacksonville cannot sell out their upper levels.

Cincy, Cleveland, Oakland, SF, Seattle, NOLA, Carolina are just a handful of cities that faced TV blackouts in the past two years.

San Diego cannot pay their bills and is looking to the Mayor for help.

And since when should a private business be forced to "open the books"? Does the dude down the street who runs a chain of restaurants be forced to as well?

Because that's the essence of what the players are asking -- a privately run company, who offers no stocks, to open up and reveal private information that's only privy to the IRS.

And in spite all of that, the owners are still willing to open the books to a 3rd party private auditing firm.

The union is playing the class warfare card to a "T" and some here are buying it. Shameful tactic, IMO.

You're making it sound like they're doing something wrong, Houston.

They aren't.

They are negotiating. They can ask the owners to open the books. Hell, the owners can ask *them* to open *their* books, and just for kicks both sides can try to get a clause that says the other side has to walk on its hands across a basketball court. It's negotiations, it's posturing.

I don't think I'm the one buying anything here, Houston. I just want to see football, and I was surprised at how articulate Dominic Foxworth was.

"Shameful"? No, it's not shameful. It's business. Just like a lockout would be business, just like the money the owners tried to get loaned to them from the networks so they could stay afloat while they locked out the players, it's business.

[psuasskicker]

Foxworth is still right though. The owners are asking the players to make additional concessions because their costs have gone up. But they're just asking the players to trust that costs have gone up. It'd be like me telling you "Hey, I know you were making [$X], but now I'm going to start paying you [$X - 15%] cause I've got higher costs. Cool?" Are you just going to agree to that? Take the guy's word for it?

The players are the product here. These aren't some dudes making widgets. The owners don't have to open their books for them, that's true. But some people here are implying that the players should simply take the owners' words that costs are up and therefore they should exclude the additional money the owners want. They shouldn't do that...it'd be idiotic of them not to say "Yeah? Prove it," and then force them to actually prove it.

And Houston, you're IMO wrong about the recession argument. Recession arguments are based on dwindling revenues FAR more than increasing costs. If the recession was really hitting them hard, you'd see revenues down. The NFL has enjoyed incredible revenue growth the past decade. I buy the argument that their costs may be up. But I don't buy that they're up close to what they're claiming, cause if they were then they'd be gladly opening their books to prove it. The recession isn't going to be having close to the impact on the NFL that some seem to claim it's having/had.

- C -

[justifythegame]

I can.

The owners paid hundreds of millions for their teams.

THEIR teams. They own the teams.

Players work for the owners. PERIOD.

Where in the hell do the players get off demanding to be treated like co-owners?

because the players make the teams. no one is going to go watch a team without the players. if the owners want to keep asking for more while increasing the games played in the regular season, asking players to but their bodies through more while getting nothing back, then the should hold out. Maybe vince mcmahon will give them a job if he can reboot the xfl:D

[Mista T]

Anyone just see Smith's little press conference with the piece of paper?

PP

No, but it would be helpful to have given a hint as to what's on the piece of paper: A map to the Ark of the Covenant? A photo of Roger Goodell doing Rx's wife's feet? Minutes of an owners' meeting conspiracy?

[purplepoe]

No, but it would be helpful to have given a hint as to what's on the piece of paper: A map to the Ark of the Covenant? A photo of Roger Goodell doing Rx's wife's feet? Minutes of an owners' meeting conspiracy?

Smith also referenced a court ruling last week, when the federal judge overseeing NFL labor matters sided with players in their case accusing owners of improperly negotiating TV deals to stockpile $4 billion to prepare for a work stoppage.

Smith handed out a document, which he said was obtained "through discovery," that included language pertaining to an NFL decision tree. It stated a "key factor" in the league's decision to extend the TV deals as "cash needed during lockout."

Basically what he did was respond to the NFL's spokesman man by pulling this paper out and painting it as the NFL being very shady by putting together a master plan to make sure you would secure the TV money as a war chest in case of a lockout.

PP

[HoustonRaven]

And Houston, you're IMO wrong about the recession argument. Recession arguments are based on dwindling revenues FAR more than increasing costs. If the recession was really hitting them hard, you'd see revenues down. The NFL has enjoyed incredible revenue growth the past decade. I buy the argument that their costs may be up. But I don't buy that they're up close to what they're claiming, cause if they were then they'd be gladly opening their books to prove it. The recession isn't going to be having close to the impact on the NFL that some seem to claim it's having/had

Again, nobody is saying the owners are in dire straights. Or as festivus put it, losing money "hand over fist". Their revenue is not "dwindling" as you put it.

What they are saying, and the media is twisting (gotta love class warfare), is that expenses are outpacing revenue causing some teams to cut back. Some teams are doing fine, some are not, including those teams I listed earlier. You don't need to open the books to make that argument. We know what the cap is, we know what the floor is, we know what players are paid, we know what teams spend on infrastructure, etc.

The only thing the owners do not have to show are profits and good for them. If they are protected from that, so are we. It's a sham argument designed to gin up emotional support and it's root is in this class warfare nonsense that the union is employing.

If you wish to look at this as a decade-wide stance, then I suppose you have a point but that's not what the league is arguing. It's the past two years that have been especially bad for luxury items all over the world and the NFL is no different.

How you can deny the impact is mind boggling, especially given the dramatic increase in TV black outs, the other pro leagues facing similar issues, etc.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

Foxworth is still right though. The owners are asking the players to make additional concessions because their costs have gone up. But they're just asking the players to trust that costs have gone up. It'd be like me telling you "Hey, I know you were making [$X], but now I'm going to start paying you [$X - 15%] cause I've got higher costs. Cool?" Are you just going to agree to that? Take the guy's word for it?

The players are the product here. These aren't some dudes making widgets. The owners don't have to open their books for them, that's true. But some people here are implying that the players should simply take the owners' words that costs are up and therefore they should exclude the additional money the owners want. They shouldn't do that...it'd be idiotic of them not to say "Yeah? Prove it," and then force them to actually prove it.

And Houston, you're IMO wrong about the recession argument. Recession arguments are based on dwindling revenues FAR more than increasing costs. If the recession was really hitting them hard, you'd see revenues down. The NFL has enjoyed incredible revenue growth the past decade. I buy the argument that their costs may be up. But I don't buy that they're up close to what they're claiming, cause if they were then they'd be gladly opening their books to prove it. The recession isn't going to be having close to the impact on the NFL that some seem to claim it's having/had.

- C -

How can someone look at this economy and not see that it's extremely likely that the owners are not making the profits they have in the past.

Every week, there are 4-5 teams that have a threat of a blackout...and I know for a fact that some of the Ravens suiteholders have had to relinquish those suites because of the economy.

The players have not had to suffer one iota here in regards to the economy tanking...their salaries have still gone up, while potential NFL and team sponsors business have gone belly up.

Nobody is saying that teams are losing money, but the decline in profits shown by the Packers says it all. Sure, Bisciotti probably still comes out with a $30 million profit as opposed to the $9 by the Packers, but when it's continually dropping, you're damn right as a business owner you don't want to see that happening.

I don't want the players to get railroaded here, but I think the insistance that they see the entire books is rediculous when you just take a look at how many people and businesses are struggling.

[psuasskicker]

Basically what he did was respond to the NFL's spokesman man by pulling this paper out and painting it as the NFL being very shady by putting together a master plan to make sure you would secure the TV money as a war chest in case of a lockout.

It's more than just that though. The reason the union exists is to stand as a place where the NFL and union have agreed to work together collectively, and the players allow the NFL to go out and negotiate to gain revenues such that it maximizes what will be given both to the owners and the players. The owners are bound to negotiate to get the highest deal possible, since part of that deal will go to the players.

In this case, it was clear evidence that the owners didn't negotiate the best deal for everyone. They took less money in order to get protection in case there was a lock-out, which takes money out of the players' pockets.

How you can deny the impact is mind boggling, especially given the dramatic increase in TV black outs, the other pro leagues facing similar issues, etc.

Dude, don't put words in my mouth. Never did I ever say it's had no impact on the NFL. In fact, I explicitly stated the opposite.

The point is that I don't believe that it's had nearly the impact that the owners are claiming it's having. Yes, costs are increasing faster than revenues are increasing. That's also the owners' fault in many cases, not the players'...the players were receiving a fixed amount of revenue based on the past CBA, so costs aren't going up faster than revenues due to the players. (And if they are, it's due to owners giving out ridiculous signing bonuses to circumvent the cap, and this is again the owners' fault, plus would be impacting the bigger market teams, not the smaller market ones.)

And more than that, if it is having as big an impact on the owners as they claim:
1) The NFLPA is right to force them to prove it. It would be moronic for them to simply give in and say "Okay, go ahead and take that extra money off the top cause we trust you when you say your costs are way up."
2) The NFLPA is also right to say "Who cares if your costs are way up? If they are, then control them, it has nothing to do with us."

Not to say they'll get what they want, but it'd be stupid for them to just give in just because the NFL is claiming costs are up. People (not necessarily you) keep arguing that the NFL owners are these very smart businessmen that will outsmart the players at several steps. I'm not seeing that happening at all. So far, the players look like they're on about equal footing in terms of business sense here, and they're not just going to give in to owner demands.

- C -

[psuasskicker]

I don't want the players to get railroaded here, but I think the insistance that they see the entire books is rediculous when you just take a look at how many people and businesses are struggling.

What you're saying (and HR, and some others) here is, "You and I agreed that you would pay me $10,000 for my helping you build this widget. We've done that, now you want me to build you another one, but you only want to pay me $5,000 cause you say the costs to build that widget have gone up by $5,000. I should just take your word from it cause I know the economy is bad so everyone's struggling, and take your $5,000 to build this widget. No need for me to verify your costs have actually gone up that much."

Is that what you're really advocating is okay? It's fine if you want to argue that point. But that's also HORRENDOUS business practice.

Some of the worst business decisions anyone makes are ones where you do not do an adequate amount of research before making the decision. The owners are asking the players to make a huge business decision without researching it. They can ask that if they want, but the players would be moronic to do it.

- C -

[HoustonRaven]

Well, PSU, nobody ever accused you of over-exaggerating .... until this post ^^^^

Come one dude, you're equating a fictitious 50% drop in pay against widget workers what the owners are asking? Really?

This hyperbole doesn't do anything for the debate.

[psuasskicker]

Wow...you could not have missed the point more.

Fine, say $8,000 instead of $5,000. Who cares...the point is, it's advocating shaving pay and asking the person to just trust you that their costs are going up. That's stupid business practice if the worker agrees to it. Do you really not see that?

- C -