What is a fair profit for an NFL owner?

[Patler]

You really seem to struggle with this whole issue Patler, and seem a little defensive when others strongly take the side of the players?

Struggle with this? No way, not at all. I have a very clear understanding of the concepts and what I would do as an owner or as a player. How am I being defensive??? Just trying to discuss the exact issue that is the stumbling block in the negotiations, how much the owners make relative to the players.

When did I get defensive? I have refrained from comment about the strike/lockout for several days, for the most part. Posted some links to a few articles before that, and summarized some impressions I had gotten from reading a lot about it. I do think the players have wanted to decertify from the get-go, but so what? That has nothing to do with being pro-player or pro-owner. After all, the players are pro-player and they decertified.

I am just trying to do what one does in a negotiation like this. The players have suggested that the owners make too much. The owners have said they need more money. In the end, if the players get to see the owner's books, and I suspect they will, it will come down to discussions about how much Jerry Jones and everyone else did or didn't make from owning their teams. I'm just trying to open a discussion about what people think an owner should make relative to the players. From that, we can build a discussion. It's exactly the discussion that the players want.

You have tried to draw parallels to other types of businesses/companies being in similar (strike/lockout) situations, but I think what you have to remember is that the NFL operates outside the regular rules, and even laws of corporate america. Hence the anti-trust exemption. For example, what business other than pro sports could force all of their employees to stand in a line while the only employers available to them got to pick where they went?

I did??? When? Refresh my recollection please. I don't recall drawing any such parallels. If I did, it sure wasn't a major issue in my mind, because I don't recall doing it. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or I have completely forgotten comments I may have made for the purposes of promoting a discussion.

I agree with Lurker's reply, that there is no 'fair' profit. It's not quantifiable, and while you are correct that all business should operate in a manner to maximize profits, that's just not necessarily how major leagues sports operate. There are no shortage of owners out there that care little or nothing of profits, as long as they get to sit in the owner's box, watch the games, and say 'mine.'

I recently read a book about hockey, and it's owners. It talked about how normally shrewd businessmen make ridiculous decisions when it comes to running their team.

Listen, I wasn't the one who raised this issue. The players are the ones who did. The owners said said they need more money. The players have suggested they make too much already. I am just trying to start a discussion about the issues raised by the parties.

If I were in the negotiating room (and I have been) I would be doing much the same thing. There is a point to all of this.

So what if some sports owners don't care if they make a profit? That has nothing to do with these negotiations. Should the players be getting a high enough % so that all owners are in that boat? If the players see the books and determine that the average owner makes $100M/year, should they ask for more, or should they say "That's fair."? If the average owner makes $5M, should the player capitulate?

I know very well this is not like a typical business, but so what?

[Guiness]

Struggle with this? No way, not at all. I have a very clear understanding of the concepts and what I would do as an owner or as a player. How am I being defensive??? Just trying to discuss the exact issue that is the stumbling block in the negotiations, how much the owners make relative to the players.

When did I get defensive? I have refrained from comment about the strike/lockout for several days, for the most part. Posted some links to a few articles before that, and summarized some impressions I had gotten from reading a lot about it. I do think the players have wanted to decertify from the get-go, but so what? That has nothing to do with being pro-player or pro-owner. After all, the players are pro-player and they decertified.

I think these last couple of lines are defensive sounding, but maybe that's just me. If you say you aren't, I believe you. That's what makes these types of forums so prone to flame wars. I can't see your facial expressions, if you arched your eyebrows when you said that, hear your tone of voice or see any of your other body english. So it's easy for me to read a (wrong) impression.

I did??? When? Refresh my recollection please. I don't recall drawing any such parallels. If I did, it sure wasn't a major issue in my mind, because I don't recall doing it. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else, or I have completely forgotten comments I may have made for the purposes of promoting a discussion.

[snip]
If I were in the negotiating room (and I have been) I would be doing much the same thing. There is a point to all of this.

I'm pretty sure it was you, and your second statement makes me think so even more.

The discussion was about how players wanted full disclosure, and you said you'd been involved in negotiations, and no one would ever think of asking a private business to reveal it's books.

[Patler]

I'm pretty sure it was you, and your second statement makes me think so even more.

The discussion was about how players wanted full disclosure, and you said you'd been involved in negotiations, and no one would ever think of asking a private business to reveal it's books.

I asked a fairly simple question at that time: how many people worked for privately owned businesses, and if they new exactly how much the private owners made. But I don't see how that makes me defensive, or shows me to be struggling with this issue. In fact, I think I saw through the players position quite clearly.

My point at the time was that the players were demanding detail that they weren't likely to get, nor did I think they were entitled to it. Some information, sure; but their own accountants auditing (for want of a better description) the teams' books? No way. If that had been a starting point, no problem. But, they never backed off it. Reportedly, they didn't even look at what WAS offered by the owners to see if it helped bridge the gap at all. Then they even seemed to up the demand at the last minute. All this leads me to believe they never had an interest in settling short of de-certification and the inevitable lawsuit.

During a negotiation it is necessary to try and determine what the other side is really after if they won't tell you. The union wants something, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not the teams' books. That's the front. It's something more important to them than that. Perhaps getting rid of the various franchise tags and RFA designations for a true free agency after a brief rookie contract. Perhaps abolishing the salary cap. Perhaps all of the above. Those may have changed during a negotiated settlement, but would likely have continued in some form or another. The real threat of an antitrust lawsuit could hasten those changes.

Somewhere in that hodgepodge is the real target of the NFLPA. Its not the teams books and the few million $/team that might be in dispute. It's power and control.

[Bossman641]

I asked a fairly simple question at that time: how many people worked for privately owned businesses, and if they new exactly how much the private owners made. But I don't see how that makes me defensive, or shows me to be struggling with this issue. In fact, I think I saw through the players position quite clearly.

My point at the time was that the players were demanding detail that they weren't likely to get, nor did I think they were entitled to it. Some information, sure; but their own accountants auditing (for want of a better description) the teams' books? No way. If that had been a starting point, no problem. But, they never backed off it. Reportedly, they didn't even look at what WAS offered by the owners to see if it helped bridge the gap at all. Then they even seemed to up the demand at the last minute. All this leads me to believe they never had an interest in settling short of de-certification and the inevitable lawsuit.

During a negotiation it is necessary to try and determine what the other side is really after if they won't tell you. The union wants something, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not the teams' books. That's the front. It's something more important to them than that. Perhaps getting rid of the various franchise tags and RFA designations for a true free agency after a brief rookie contract. Perhaps abolishing the salary cap. Perhaps all of the above. Those may have changed during a negotiated settlement, but would likely have continued in some form or another. The real threat of an antitrust lawsuit could hasten those changes.

Somewhere in that hodgepodge is the real target of the NFLPA. Its not the teams books and the few million $/team that might be in dispute. It's power and control.

Good point. My guess is that they are after the franchise tag and easier player movement in general.

[pbmax]

....

My point at the time was that the players were demanding detail that they weren't likely to get, nor did I think they were entitled to it. Some information, sure; but their own accountants auditing (for want of a better description) the teams' books? No way. If that had been a starting point, no problem. But, they never backed off it. Reportedly, they didn't even look at what WAS offered by the owners to see if it helped bridge the gap at all. Then they even seemed to up the demand at the last minute. All this leads me to believe they never had an interest in settling short of de-certification and the inevitable lawsuit....

Somewhere in that hodgepodge is the real target of the NFLPA. Its not the teams books and the few million $/team that might be in dispute. It's power and control.

They did receive the complete set of books in the last go around with this lawsuit, in 1992. So to say asking for them again is simply a stalling technique makes an assumption that the players don't agree with. Should the books be opened, their auditors will get to comb through them, whether the owners were willing or not. You think the lawsuit is the goal, but I think the lawsuit is simply the means. Its the point of greatest leverage.

The owners are making a similar calculation. They believe that they can withstand the request in court (or NLRB) this time.

But I would love to read what you read about the owner's increased financial information offer and the change in the player's demand. I have not found it yet.

[Guiness]

I'm pretty sure it was you, and your second statement makes me think so even more.

The discussion was about how players wanted full disclosure, and you said you'd been involved in negotiations, and no one would ever think of asking a private business to reveal it's books.

I asked a fairly simple question at that time: how many people worked for privately owned businesses, and if they new exactly how much the private owners made. But I don't see how that makes me defensive, or shows me to be struggling with this issue. In fact, I think I saw through the players position quite clearly.

My point at the time was that the players were demanding detail that they weren't likely to get, nor did I think they were entitled to it. Some information, sure; but their own accountants auditing (for want of a better description) the teams' books? No way. If that had been a starting point, no problem. But, they never backed off it. Reportedly, they didn't even look at what WAS offered by the owners to see if it helped bridge the gap at all. Then they even seemed to up the demand at the last minute. All this leads me to believe they never had an interest in settling short of de-certification and the inevitable lawsuit.

During a negotiation it is necessary to try and determine what the other side is really after if they won't tell you. The union wants something, but I'm not sure what it is. It's not the teams' books. That's the front. It's something more important to them than that. Perhaps getting rid of the various franchise tags and RFA designations for a true free agency after a brief rookie contract. Perhaps abolishing the salary cap. Perhaps all of the above. Those may have changed during a negotiated settlement, but would likely have continued in some form or another. The real threat of an antitrust lawsuit could hasten those changes.

Somewhere in that hodgepodge is the real target of the NFLPA. Its not the teams books and the few million $/team that might be in dispute. It's power and control.

Damn the quoting system on this board.

I tried to answer both of your questions, but the reply about you being defensive got nested in the quote box. I'm usually pretty good about previewing my posts, but it was late and I was tired

Your comment about how many people knew exactly how much their private owners made was what I meant about you drawing parallels to 'regular' businesses. The answer is no, I haven't seen audited books of my employers, but that has nothing to do with what is going on here.

I actually have seen the 'full' books of a company (albeit not audited, AFAIK) when the company I was working for hit some dire straights, and asked everyone to take a pay cut, as well as soliciting loans from us.