GhettoDogAllStars
03-17-2011, 12:01 PM
im pretty sure the NFLPA wants to see the audited fin docs. Audited meaning that an accounting firm has reviewed their statements and accounting practices and certifies that it is GAAP compliant, generally accepted accounting principles.
If teams were to provide their own docs w/out a 3rd party oversight, they could claim future losses in this fiscal year to make their expenses seem higher, accelerate interest incurring, defer recognition of rev to next year, etc.
Yeah, they could also "randomize" the data somehow, so as to hide the identity of any team. Of course, some teams would probably be obvious (i.e.: Cowboys).
SmootSmack
03-18-2011, 02:06 PM
Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx)
Lotus
03-18-2011, 02:13 PM
Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx)
Unlike much of the ink being spilled about the standoff, that is a helpful article.
FRPLG
03-18-2011, 02:41 PM
Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx)
Not sure I grasp the owners position on this. If the cap stays tied to revenue then it can go up, or DOWN based on growth or contraction of said revenues. How were the players offering no "downside" protection? Did their proposal include provisions for the cap to increase in spite of any theoretical revenue contraction? If not then I call BS on the owners for that.
I hadn't known this was part of the propoal until now. I would have said "hell to the no" on that too if I were the players.
What makes me perplex3e is that the players should be able to easily win this battle from a PR standpoint but they frittered away a lot of good will by appearing to only be interested in litigating this. They need to reverse course on that and get back into the negotiating room where they easily get the cap retied to revenue and settle the now managebale cost credit issue.
If the owners aren't willing to settle for just an increase to the cost credit, rookie wage scale, shared purvue over scheduling, and minor concessions on free agency and organizational things then go to court. But I bet they'd be willing to take all of that.
CRedskinsRule
03-24-2011, 12:43 PM
Andrew Brandt's latest column breaks down the owners legal paper for the April 6th hearing:
Prelude to April 6: primer on NFL's brief | National Football Post (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Prelude-to-April-6-primer-on-NFLs-brief.html)
skinsfaninok
03-24-2011, 03:05 PM
Sports Radio Interviews » Blog Archive » Chris Cooley Doesn’t Care About the NFL Lockout (http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2011/03/24/nfl-labor-dispute-chris-cooley/)
Alvin Walton
03-24-2011, 04:03 PM
Chris Cooley - Happy fun loving American guy, gotta love him!
44ever
03-24-2011, 04:05 PM
I think they should do away with preseason completely. Im all for 18 Game regular season.
SBXVII
03-24-2011, 04:07 PM
Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal (http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx)
No wonder I'm not an accountant... I must be an idiot cause when I read this...
“They were trying to make salary a fixed cost and, in the past, it had been a percentage of revenues,” said Pete Kendall, a former NFL player who is advising the NFL Players Association and was present at the majority of bargaining sessions held over the past two years. “In the past, if revenues went up, the salaries went up.”
I then wonder who's salaries went up? The current players on the field negotiate their contracts for what they will make each year. Their salaries only go up and down based off of their agreement of what the player is to make each year. It's not like a player would have made $400,000 and because the owners took in an extra 4 mill for the year all the players get a % increase.
So.... I'm assuming the only people who would be concerned about revenue would be retired players? because their retirement is based off of what the yearly take is? yes or no?
Again, I maybe the idiot in wondering how the revenue actually effects each individual player since their contracts are already set with the amount they will receive for each year over the life of the contract.
NC_Skins
03-24-2011, 04:08 PM
I think they should do away with preseason completely. Im all for 18 Game regular season.
2 preseason games and 16 regular season games. I'm 100% against a 18 game schedule. The sport doesn't need to be that much harder on players longevity.
There is enough football on as is. Between college and pro, 16 pro games is fine.