Ongoing CBA discussions

I tend to believe that the show your books argument is a huge strawman put out their by the NFLPA. The NFL does give total revenue information, GB's books are open and seem to lend some credence to the owners arguments, and if that was a huge problem, I think Cohen would come out at whenever the end of the mediation comes and say, the owners refusal to cooperate led to mediation breaking down. I don't think that will happen though.

Having said that. One Sirius announcer (maybe it was Andrew Brandt in an interview with Tucker) said if that is the big issue, have an independent auditor come in, make "blind" copies of the books and give 3 sample sets (ie low -, mid -, and hi-revenue teams) for both sides to use in negotiations.

1) No they do not. Green Bay is the only team that does and is obligated to that because the are publicly traded. The others teams are not and do not share all the information. It is not public information. The IRS would know, but the do not share that information.

2) The NFL owners will not agree to even that. Bottom line is they do not want any of the undisclosed revenue being part of the CBA. Negotiation tactic. They will most likely give in and share the remaining information in exchange for a concession on the part of the players. Like some % points off the top. But how can the players negotiate that in good faith do that with out knowing what that dollar amount is?

Thanks. Well personally, I feel if the players feel they are getting cheated.... go play in the CFL, or UFL. Maybe they can make their money there, get all the concessions they want, and the fan base who follows players will follow them.

My problem is when the 90's hit I was sorta on the players side. In the aspect that the owners were making all this money and the players hardly getting any. This go around I sorta side with the owners. Part of my issue's have to do with the fact that prior to the CBA players could stay with a specific team their whole career, show loyalty, and have a fan base. When the CBA was put in place players started jumping ship like rats. Going to different teams, going where the money was, and smiling all the way to the bank. There is no team loyalty. There is money loyalty, and honestly I don't see the arguement if players are getting paid what they are asking for? Manning getting $50 mill? Haynesworth getting his big payday? I could see if players were asking 2-4 mill a year and the owners saying no I'll pay you 400,000 thousand. But even then the player can say no thank you and either look to another team or not play if they think they are worth more.

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.

Matty,

That may be the case, but the owners, if they feel they gave up too much, have the opportunity to get back what they feel they're missing. The players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players. When it comes down to it, as long as the owners aren't completely unreasonable the players will break. If I were the owners I'd be playing it the same way. Don't give them information either way.

It's all about getting a deal that keeps your product strong while also protecting your revenue stream. The heart of capitalism. Personally, I side with the owners here for the most part. They take a lot of the financial risk in this equation and have to put up a lot of capital to make things work. Players sacrifice their bodies and personal lives for this sport, and deserve to be compensated handsomly, but there need to be controls built in to this scheme.

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.


Which is why I believe the owners are happy to let this CBA expire. So they can roll into a new one with out giving up so much. On top of that putting a Rookie salary in place.

Matty,

That may be the case, but the owners, if they feel they gave up too much, have the opportunity to get back what they feel they're missing. The players need the owners a lot more than the owners need the players. When it comes down to it, as long as the owners aren't completely unreasonable the players will break. If I were the owners I'd be playing it the same way. Don't give them information either way.

It's all about getting a deal that keeps your product strong while also protecting your revenue stream. The heart of capitalism. Personally, I side with the owners here for the most part. They take a lot of the financial risk in this equation and have to put up a lot of capital to make things work. Players sacrifice their bodies and personal lives for this sport, and deserve to be compensated handsomly, but there need to be controls built in to this scheme.

1) That kind of talk will lead to a long strike. I do not think anyone wants that. Both sides need eachother. I do not want to suffer through scab games again. If the owners feel they gave up too much, open the books and prove it. Show that some teams are operating at a loss. Then it will be easier to solve. But you can not hide the numbers and cry foul. That is childish.

2) The owners do not take a lot of risk. what are you talking about? The NFL makes money hand over fist. The NFL makes billions of dollars. Don't cry poor for the owners. Name me one owner that did not have enough money operate in a lavish way and was forced to sell and came out losing money on the deal. Every former owner went out making a ton of money on their initial investment.
Did you hear the story about the New Orleans owner that was really upset that his 34 year old daughter did not have a limo waiting for her at the airport at superbowl? He was upset that all are her expenses were not paid for. The daughter is 34! LOL!
These billionaires get real cheap when they need too and take money off the top to pay for their jet set life styles.
The owners hold the cities hostage and threaten to move if the local goverments do not put up bonds to back construction of new stadiums.

Which is why I believe the owners are happy to let this CBA expire. So they can roll into a new one with out giving up so much. On top of that putting a Rookie salary in place.

Actually the owners opted out 2 years ago.

That kind of talk will lead to a long strike. I do not think anyone wants that.
Both sides need eachother. Id not want to suffer through scab games again.
If the owners feel they gave up too much, open the books and prove it. Show that some teams are operating at a loss. Then it will be easier to solve. But you can not hide the numbers and cry foul. That is childish.

Exactly.

I'm always kinda confused when people stick up for the owners. I'm really not seeing where the owners are in a position to be pitied. Neither side is really... but the owners are the ones that have dug their heels in the ground here and are demanding a bigger slice of the pie, without showing what it is they are losing exactly.

Going to another league is not a realistic option for the players or the owners. Nobody wants a watered down league void of top talent.

You do realize the owners agreed to this current CBA... so it's their own fault they gave up too much (in their view) to begin with. It's tough to take something back once it's been given. Especially if the owners aren't willing to negotiate in good faith by showing their books.

And the players agreed that the owners could opt out. The owners didn't do anything back-handed by opting out, and the players shouldn't try and make it seem like they did.

Exactly.

I'm always kinda confused when people stick up for the owners. I'm really not seeing where the owners are in a position to be pitied. Neither side is really... but the owners are the ones that have dug their heels in the ground here and are demanding a bigger slice of the pie, without showing what it is they are losing exactly.


Ok, I'm tracking with you here on the "demanding a bigger slice of the pie" but let me ask you is it not a companies job to try to get the best talented worker for the cheapest price? The less the company pays out the more the business makes in order to spend on equipment, supplies, other staff like in this case secretaries, coach's, and scouts.

So if under the CBA there is a rule as to how much of the income must go to the players then why do they even negotiate dollar amounts? The amount could be set at 30% for the players but if an owner wants to pick up players he still has to negotiate an agreed dollar amount and if doing this for 52 players plus the 8 practice squad members I'd imagine the 30% wouldn't matter and why would the players care if their team is putting the majority of the teams money towards players contracts if they are getting the money each individual is asking for? It's more like "Who's line is it anyway" where the players % doesn't matter. Heck the owners could agree to 70% toward players contracts but if they are sitting down trying to negotiate the cheapest deals and the players agree to the amount then it really doesn't matter.

Maybe there would be more money to put towards an in door practice facility.

On another note I thought it was said that if the CBA expired then there would be no draft and the players could sign with whomever they wanted to possibly the highest bidder. Yet all I keep hearing about is how it will effect the FA's and that there will be a draft no matter what but signing the players might be difficult.

When actually would there be a situation where there is no draft? Next year?