8th Circuit Court Grants Stay, Lockout Continues

That doesn't say they offered to open their books to a third party. The "audited' information that they offering is going to hide any personal expenses they may be masking as their business expenses. This isn't the real information needed to ascertain whether the owners are lying about their claim of loss of profits. THIS is what the owners don't want players seeing because it'll kill their very plea that they are losing money when in fact they are blowing it for personal gain. (See the LA Dodgers for a prime example) Now, most owners aren't going to go all out like the McCourts but I will bet you my life that owners do use their business stuff for personal use and write it off as a "business expense". In fact, every owner I know in America does this. Goes back to my idea that you can't expect the players to take cuts all because you run your business horribly.


It would have most likely been audited by a public firm, companies which ever since the fall of Arthur Anderson and Enron are under intense scrutiny (which is an understatement) to audit statements correctly. They already know 99% of the tricks companies use to either inflate earnings for stock purposes or report losses for tax purposes.

What's amazing, and what shows the absolute distrust the players have for the owners, is that the NFL offered the players to have an independent auditor -- to be determined by both sides -- study the audited financial statements. The independent auditor would have studied the statements, then reported to the union the year-by-year profit-and-loss statements for each team. Theoretically, that would have shown whether teams were becoming less profitable in the past two or three years, a core argument of the ownership.

Read more: Full access to financial statements at core of NFL labor issues - Peter King - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/03/11/fallout.from.decision/index.html#ixzz1MkcLBeYH)

In short if the owners try to pull a fast one it would most likely be discovered by the auditors and corrected. Remember these aren't the accountants employed by the teams or the NFL. This would be done by an outside firm that would be putting it's reputation on the line in the interest of providing accurate financial reports.

And also remember this is a very public case thats being watched closely by the government, no accounting firm in their right mind is going to help the owners, or the players for that matter, cook the books.

Bottom line I would fully expect the third party audits to be accurate. What I wouldn't trust is the players getting their hands on these reports and not trying to toy around with the numbers to help their case. As has been said before the players are obsessed with obtaining leverage, as are the owners but the players seem to be under more pressure, and pressure is one of the key motivators when it comes to potential fraud.

They didn't exactly offer to open the books. They offered to open a couple of pages of the book. Pages that likely didn't answer the players' questions

I imagine that you are quite capable of the math, but I guess the off season is ripe for mathematics

59% of 9B = 5.31Bill
53% of 10B = 5.3Bill

59% of 10B = 5.9Bill
53% of 11B = 5.83Bill

59% of 11B = 6.49Bill
53% of 12B = 6.36Bill

etc
extra credit
(suppose the additional 1b credit was issued then what % are we talking about)
start at 9B, subtract 2B = 7B (note the NFL has moved off the 2B number)
now use 59% (as that is the % after the exemption) = 4.13B
now find new % (4.13B/9B)*100 = 47% (approx)
that is the % the NFL initially asked the players to accept using the TGR system.

or something along those lines.

Let's recap...if they players take the 59% proposal, they are getting the short end of the stick compared to the last CBA...if the players take the 53% they care getting screwed in the long run compared to the 59% proposal. On top of that they can't look at the books and If they don't take any deal they get locked out.


Sounds like the players are #winning.

CRedskinsRule, what would you do differently from the players?

In short if the owners try to pull a fast one it would most likely be discovered by the auditors and corrected. Remember these aren't the accountants employed by the teams or the NFL. This would be done by an outside firm that would be putting it's reputation on the line in the interest of providing accurate financial reports.



You still aren't getting it. You obviously don't understand what a "audited" version of their books is, but they are basically offering a watered down version of their numbers that will not show any improper financial entries.

Something like this.

Revenue : $900 million
Player Cost: $285 million
Business Costs: $600 million
----------------------------------------------
Profit: 15 million

From this, you can't tell diddly squat about those "business expenses". You know that trip he took his private jet overseas with for a vacation? Yup, wrote it off as a "business trip" since he had a business meeting for 1 hour out of the 2 weeks he was there.

It's stuff like that are being hidden in "audited" numbers that the players want to see, and they have that right to see it if they are being asked to cut 1 billion from their payroll.


edit: D. Smith (and other players) have said they have gotten more information about the teams financial data from the Wall Street Journal reports than they have from the teams themselves. Again, I say open your books (unedited and unaudited) to a 3rd party and let them decide.

There are things called income statements, balance sheets, statement of retained earnings, and statement of cash flows.

That is what the audit would probably tell them.

There are things called income statements, balance sheets, statement of retained earnings, and statement of cash flows.

That is what the audit would probably tell them.

Right hypothetically they should be giving the third party access to information that they won't let the NFLPA see for themselves. From that the Third Party should determine weather or not the records are accurate and not a repeat of Mike Browns "General Manager Bonus" or the Eagles Owner $7 million salary being counted as a general expense.

Maybe I need to look into this more as I can't find an article that says either or, but what I'm hearing the third party would be able to see the details while the NFLPA would have to settle for the basic summary.

For months, the NFL has refused to provide the players’ union with financial information. Now, the league has offered to crack the books open, but the NFLPA wants the information to be fully disclosed.

In our view, the union wants too much.

Per a league source (some of this has been reported elsewhere, including by Albert Breer of NFL Network), the league offered on Tuesday to provide collective profitability information over the past five years, and to have that information verified by an independent, mutually-selected firm. The league also offered to identify the number of teams that have experienced reduced profits.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but having information verified in accounting usually means seeing the source documents. Receipts, expense reports, etc.

Let's recap...if they players take the 59% proposal, they are getting the short end of the stick compared to the last CBA...if the players take the 53% they care getting screwed in the long run compared to the 59% proposal. On top of that they can't look at the books and If they don't take any deal they get locked out.


Sounds like the players are #winning.

CRedskinsRule, what would you do differently from the players?

I don't understand your first part. The 59/53 numbers are from the 2006 CBA. The owners refer to 59 because it makes the players side nearly 60%. The players use the 53 because they want the whole pot considered. I would say when owners of a business are accepting less than half of their businesses revenue that is a win for the employees(players). that isn't all the employees either coaches league officials, team staff, all come fro the owners half as well.

As for what I would do if I were a player. First as NC_SKINS points out, I really can't imagine that bargaining position. But since you asked, I will give it a shot.

1) hire a corporate lawyer who is skilled in negotiating not a diehard litigator. [The time for that was as soon as the owners opted out]

2). Focus on positive messages and positive results. For example, rather than harping on not getting 10 years of data, refer to data shared as a good start, but more would be better.

3). Be ready to respond to an owner bullet list with specific alternatives.

4). Lose the high strung rhetoric, for example refer to the owners march 11th as a disappointment but certainly now we can have a dialogue. Not "its the worst offer in the history of sports". That simply creates untenable positions on both sides.

5). Knowing the owners were intent on locking us out, prep the players for that fact and in the end I may still have decertified like they did, but I would have been in intense dialogue before march and if necessary making very frequent public calls for negotiations. Including times places and set asides to meet.

6). And in the end I would be prepared to compromise and make sure that the union members got a) the best deal that avoided a long lockout and b) not incite them but help them understand the realities and benefits to avoiding lockout/litigation. Yes the most high paid players might balk but a cash floor, better health and a minimal reduction of the salary cap could and would be sold to the bulk of the players as a better deal. I would take a tough stance on 18 games not included at all, tough stances on many non cash but quality of life issues such as OTAs, voluntary work outs etc.

Hope that makes sense.

And on #5 above, I would certainly have enlisted the FMRC long before, and if the owners weren't responsive I would have pushed for the FRMC to find or declare an impasse and have it on record for any litigation to follow. If the FRMC had formally found that the NFL was not bargaining in good faith the positions now would be much different.

And just for fun if I were the owners this is what I would have done differently:

1). Once we opted out, focus our internal intentions and goals. Start with underlying assumptions that players today a) will have competent representation and as such prepare full fledged briefs, P/L statements, charts and projections that explain and show the stated concerns. Don't hire a lawyer who brought hockey through a year long lock out as a primary attorney, though put him on as a consultant.

2). Get past the past history question, find a reputable accounting firm, and let them make representative case books. Show a merged high, med and low rev team. And present that to the players early on. Let that be known publicly, so there is little reason for distrust.

3). If you believe a lockout is inevitable, again be forceful about getting to a FRMC mediation. Make every effort to have intense mediation dates. If the players are not going to budge at all then atleast have it on record that you were trying your hardest.

4). The tv deal is a hindsight thing. Chances are when being done most felt or atleast let themselves be convinced it was just reasonable measures. At this point I would obviously say don't make those deals.

5). If DSmith was a stumbling block, appeal to player reps directly. At first there might be pushback, but the owners know these guys and vice versa. Have Saturday and Irsay talk, have kraft and their player rep talk, etc. Obviously this is early on and has to be handled delicately, but reach out and listen to the players side. While maintaining the message that somethings have to change, find out what non cash issues resonate with the players and the reps.

6) don't threaten lockout 2years out, focus on moving points through negotiation.

7) finally, make sure the deal is a solid one for the longterm

And of course both players and owners should always stay at a holiday inn the night before mediation,