Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;789108][B]First of all the owners arent asking for any money back.[/B] [B]They are asking to pay the players less in the future.[/B] And Who cares whether the owners "need" the more money in a future deal or not? It's a negotiation and both sides have the right to ask for more of the pie. Finally, according to the league, they offered the union even more than what they asked for in terms of financials and the union didn't even look at it...

In my opinion all the evidence points toward the union negotiating in bad faith.[/quote]

Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

The owners feel as if the CBA they agreed to was not a good deal for them, so they used their out in the contract to get what they consider a more fair deal. Regardless of if you agree with the owners or the players, the owners aren't taking money from anyone. They sucked it up until they were able to change the CBA and took their opening. I don't see any issues with that.

I agree with an above poster who said the players really had no intention of coming to an agreement. They have one team with open books, the rest aren't. Deal with it. At this point, I hope the owners play hardball and take even more than they offered at the table. Would be a good lesson for next time bargaining happens.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789095]Good article before all this mess

[url=http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2010/09/nfl_labor_agreement.html]The NFL's Win-Win Labor Agreement: Why Collective Bargaining Works Well[/url][/quote]


[quote]The owners argue that the current collective bargaining agreement signed in 2006 did not serve them well—despite the rising value of their franchises—and that the cost of building new stadiums and the upkeep of league-owned assets are eating into their bottom line. [B]These specific claims are hard to evaluate because only the publicly owned Green Bay Packers release any detailed financial information[/B]—details that show the team is quite profitable, though somewhat less so during the Great Recession.[B] The NFL hasn’t released data on any other teams[/B], including those likely to be much more profitable, such as the Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins.[/quote]

I really don't get how any rational person can side with the owners. If they are going to tell the players we're going to give you 50% of the revenue one is left to wonder 50% of what? If they want to get away from that system of sharing that's fine but don't tell the players we won't show you all the financial details in light of the current structure in place.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;789094]$1B was the initial bargaining point. They came way down from that. The owners have provided a lot more financial data than "Just trust us".

[/quote]

The 1 bil referred to as the starting point . .is that the orig 1 bil the owners have gotten to take from the top under the expiring CBA or are you referring to the second 1 bil the owner want to take off the top before they start to negotiate how to split the remaining profits (7 bil)?

This is textbook, ask for an extra 1 bil that you dont really believe you will get at the start, then make concessions only to that extra 1 bil and claim the other side walked away from a great deal. "Hey we came down from 1 bil to 240 mil but that still wasnt enough to satisfy the players." In reality, the players would be giving up 240 mil, not gaining 760 mil b/c the NFL has no right to that extra 1 bil just cuz they asked for it, just like the NFLPA has no right to all 9 bil just b/c they may ask for it.

The NFL's impression of the strating point was not the same as the NFLPAs i suspect.

I thought the initial starting point should be based off the orig agreement, then each party makes concessions/modifications based off that.

What stops the NFLPA from demanding that the intial starting point is they want 57.5% of 9 bil? (the NFLPA probably started at 50/50 of the whole 9 bil imo).

I just find the NFL's stance that the initial starting point of how to split 7 bil (and not 8 or 9 bil) was in bad faith. This isnt some car accident or accounting being fired. There are alot of smart people in the room and they can see tactics for what they are. Starting unreasonably and artifically high, then making concessions only to that unreasonableness is an obvious and petty negotiating tactic.

If I was the NFLPA I wouldnt have responded either, it was just such an unreasonable demand it doesnt deserve a response b/c once you start responding/rebutting you find yourself negotiating ... and negotiating from their orig unreas starting point the other side tried to force upon you.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/ryan-grant-takes-issue-with-adrian-petersons-slavery-comment/]Ryan Grant takes issue with Adrian Peterson’s slavery comment | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

This was a good read

[url=http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1183342/1/index.htm]Issues of trust and transparency led to the collapse of - 03.21.11 - SI Vault[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789111]Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.[/quote]Revenues don't have to decrease, it's profitability.

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8191dcca/article/packers-cite-player-costs-in-103m-drop-in-operating-profit]NFL.com news: Packers cite player costs in $10.3M drop in operating profit[/url]

From the link:
"Packers officials said Wednesday that the team posted an operating profit of $9.8 million in the fiscal year that ended March 31, down from $20.1 million the previous year. The team has been in a slide since posting an operating profit of $34 million four years ago."

"The team said player costs have increased 11.8 percent annually over the past four seasons, while revenue went up just 5.5 percent annually during the same timeframe. "It's not just this year," Murphy said. "We've seen these trends for a number of years now that really point out some of the issues that we have with the current agreement."

The Packers I'm sure are fairly typical in the NFL. If you look at it in terms of operating profit, the Packers are down over 50% in operating profit year over year and down approximately 74% from 2006. The 2006 CBA was a bad deal for owners that they are working to correct. The NFLPA says they're not taking ANY salary reduction without seeing the full books (again they know the owners will never do this). Doesn't seem like a "partner" negotiating in "good faith".

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Seems to me there was lot more in that article than just that blurb

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789151]Seems to me there was lot more in that article than just that blurb[/quote]Absolutely, but the blurbs reinforce my point that the profitability decline due to increased player costs is pretty dramatic.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;789111]Semantics. Whatever you want to call it, they should still prove their revenues have decreased if that's the reason they are using to support their need for that money. Bad faith is saying trust us, we need the money but we're not going to show you why.[/quote]
It's funny why the media never mentions NET INCOME, which actually represents what a company has after deducting expenses, etc. The amount of revenues taken do not take into account any expenses.

Gross profit = Net sales – Cost of goods sold.
Net income = Gross profit – Total operating expenses – taxes – interest.

[url=http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netincome.asp]Net Income (NI) Definition[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Defensewins;789162]It not unusual for the two teams in the Super bowl to report a lower profit margin in that year. I remember Jack Kent Cooke mentioning back in the day that on the years the Redskins won Super Bowls he did make as much money as well, and he did not mind one bit. He was happy. Your season is over a month longer and the expense are much more during a SB run. That is not somethign new.
Plus you have to consider in 2008 when the Pack reported $34M in profit they are 6-10 and did not make the playoffs. In 2009 they lost in the first round and reported $20.1M.
This year they played four extra games and reported $9.8M. The gradual drop off seems about right considering they played four extra games and had to pay for extra things like hotels, buses, practice facilities, SB parades and celebration expenses. Not to mention the salaries raise as you win more. This is more of an internal NFL thing that the winning teams and playoff teams should get more money then those that do not make it to make up for these additional expenses.[/quote]


Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I think we are now truly seeing the havoc the recession has wreaked on publicist everywhere. Obviously no one can afford them anymore, hence comments about modern day slavery, draft boycotts, and frivolous lawsuits/naming request being perpetrated by a certain owner (who shall remain unnamed to avoid litigation) all made within the last week. Please economy, pick up again and get these publicist hired so we can stop being witnesses to this influx of stupidity.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789170]Well the numbers are in reference to the 2009 season.

That said the Packers numbers, while not as terrible as they are presented to be, are not indicative of the situation for all teams...or are they? Open the books, and we'll find out[/quote]

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only [B]non-profit[/B], community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/15/jerry-jones-gesture-may-have-set-the-stage-for-decertification/]Jerry Jones’ gesture may have set the stage for decertification | ProFootballTalk[/url]