Ongoing CBA discussions

An interesting dynamic to me, that I did not realize, is that the agents are expecting full access to the owners books as well. Drew Rosenhaus was on with Ross Tucker on Sunday. And everything he talked about was a collective we in regards to DSmith, the players, and the agents. He said specifically that Smith had gone over the strategies with him and how to handle the cba/lockout issues.

Can you imagine the agents in negotiations with all the owners books. Ugghhh

Am I missing here? Aren't agents an extension of players?

Player: Get me paid!
Agent: Roger that!

Players would have been happy with the old deal. The owners wanted more money without showing the proof. All owners on this one.

I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone. :twocents:

I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone. :twocents:

Accounting fraud is hot.

I, for one, don't like the idea of the government forcing a business to show its financial records to anyone. :twocents:

Neither do I, and I can't for the life of me figure out why some people are all hung up on the fact the owners don't want to show them. The only businesses that have to show them are businesses that are owned by the general public and even then I think it's limited info.

I also don't see talent agencies opening their books to their clients. Nor do you hear of building owners or stadium owners having to show their books to a musician or comedian who is performing. What they do know is either how many seats the place holds and they figure on a sell out times how much per seat and they split the money accordingly. Or they sell tickets and pay the performer based off ticket sales. They don't figure in food and drink sales nor do they figure in any souvenir sales unless the performer has it copy written ie; CD's, or in this case football jerseys and such.

I just know that if I was the owner of a McDonalds or even the Kennedy Center I'd be pissed if my employees or the performing act said "show us your books or we are going to court." I'd say see you in court.

On top of this I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if the owners are forced to open their books it would set a huge precedence on other businesses that have union workers. So I'm almost certain other businesses are watching as well as unions. So for those throwing out there that businesses have to show their books for singers and comedians and the like, I think your wrong.

Neither do I, and I can't for the life of me figure out why some people are all hung up on the fact the owners don't want to show them. The only businesses that have to show them are businesses that are owned by the general public and even then I think it's limited info.

I also don't see talent agencies opening their books to their clients. Nor do you hear of building owners or stadium owners having to show their books to a musician or comedian who is performing. What they do know is either how many seats the place holds and they figure on a sell out times how much per seat and they split the money accordingly. Or they sell tickets and pay the performer based off ticket sales. They don't figure in food and drink sales nor do they figure in any souvenir sales unless the performer has it copy written ie; CD's, or in this case football jerseys and such.

I just know that if I was the owner of a McDonalds or even the Kennedy Center I'd be pissed if my employees or the performing act said "show us your books or we are going to court." I'd say see you in court.

On top of this I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that if the owners are forced to open their books it would set a huge precedence on other businesses that have union workers. So I'm almost certain other businesses are watching as well as unions. So for those throwing out there that businesses have to show their books for singers and comedians and the like, I think your wrong.A classic case of fine ignorance and bad analogies here.

What publicly held companies show to auditors is everything that one learns in ****ing financial accounting. Grasp that first, then worry about the books.
Financial accountancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_accountancy)

Also, the "see you in court" is the threat of anti-trust litigation against the NHL. Anti-trust laws prohibit the monopolization--"natural monopolies" do not count because the agents don't perform the act of monopolization-- of a market. The employees of the ****ing Kennedy Center or McDonalds have no chance of proving that their respective employers are monopolizing the market nor does it have any ****ing relevance to their welfare of reduced benefits, etc.

Your analogies are caricatures. Do realize that the owners want to take 1 BILLION dollars for themselves because of "rising players costs", mean that they're claming that in their books, a good chunk of their books have journal entries that credit Cash and debit Players' Salaries Expense A LOT.

I'm feeling the kindness here thanks. No I'm not an ACCOUNTANT but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express one time :)

Ok, so your telling me that the steel industry has to show their books to the unions, the oil companies have to show their books to the unions, the coal companies have to show their books to the unions? Every cent is accounted for?

As I also said, in the 80's There was a monopolization because the NFL didn't want any other league football to come in and take viewer ship away which would cost money. Now there is the indoor league, UFL, and CFL which is shown also.

I provided bad analogies perhaps but it wasn't I who started saying that Rock stars are shown what the stadium makes that they played in in order to pay the Rock star. Basically what was stated was People that provide entertainment are entitled to see the books because they get paid a percentage of the total take for their performance. No it was not stated today or yesterday so I can see your confusion, but after putting their analogy to thought for a while and it really not holding water I figured out how I wanted to say that their analogy was BS. All you did was prove my point by saying they are bad analogies. But remember I was trying to tell others their analogy was idiotic also.

The whole point of a union is to protect the employee. Whether it be through health insurance, payment, safety rules and so forth. I don't have a problem with the union trying to get what they can for the employee. I have a problem with each individual player and their agent dickering out millions of dollars to get the most for the player yet the union wants to know what the books to make sure their not getting screwed. Trust me the players are not getting screwed if they are agreeing to the contracts.

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

The NFL is a unique situation. I cringe when people try to relate what's going on to other businesses. Totally apples and oranges. Not even in the same ballpark.

Certainly unique, but the legal issues w/anti-trust & labor law obviously apply to the nfl. I get what you're saying but at the same time it seems some general business principles/laws apply to the nfl. Maybe it's the quality of the comparisons that's the problem, I know the more I read about this the more I realize I don't know.