official: union decertifies

[RashanGary]

(let's face it, Goodell and Smith are slimy lawyers, Owners are rich assholes, and Players are idiots), so the league simply believed that the union wouldn't budge no matter how much financial data they got.

I like this line and then I don't like the finish. Maybe the owners knew if the NFLPA knew the truth, it would only get worse.

[Bretsky]

Link about the egotistical douche? One who is more egotistical and douchetastic than the other wildly successful people in the room?

I said I've read about that egotistical dousche

Egotystical dousche would mean an opinion based off of my reading, and I don't value the debate of whether he's an egotystical dousche or not enough to go hunting for past readings

Plus, we probably don't have any wildly successful people here

[RashanGary]

Bretsky,

The owners are giving up partial financial information. It appears since they signed the last CBA they knew this day was coming. There is nothing stopping them from making large purchases that might make profit look smaller. I'm no NFL big wig, but it common sense says partial information can have major holes. That information can look far different (worse if the owners want it to) than it actually is. It's like settlers negotiating with drunk Native Americans over land. One side knows what's going on and the other is clueless. Rather than looking at it like the players wanted to make this ugly, consider the possibility that the owners want to fleece the players and the NFLPA would rather go to court than get ripped off.

So yeah, the owners keep asking the players to take a pay cut. The players are certainly open to it. Just show them why. The owners refuse to. Instead they tried to get a guaranteed TV deal and then break them down.

And keep in mind, the highest paid players are getting paid a lot of money. But the players are splitting their half 1700 ways. The owners are splitting theirs 32 ways. This is billlionaires (who do nothing for us that Mark Murphy or his equivalent couldn't do for a million) fighting with millionaires who we actually pay to see. I'm with the players here.

[RashanGary]

To all of those who think the players are more at fault than the owners, answer this question:

Do you think it's possible that the information the owners provided to the players does not give the players enough information to conduct a good, educated negotiation?

[Guiness]

Owners mean nothing to me. There could be 32 publicly owned teams like the Packers and the product would be just as good. I'd just as soon see the pie get divvied up between the players who bring us the great entertainment rather than the 32 rich old guys who could very easily be replaced by 32 Mark Murphy's who make a million per year. And probably, the product would get better without the owners. It would be nothing without the players.

+1

That's very well put, JH.

[jmbarnes101]

No. The NFLPA is using that as an excuse when all along they knew exactly where they wanted to be... in front of a largely pro-employee part-time judge who can pass whatever stand he wants based on whatever testimony he deems relevant. The owners are far from blameless but were at least negotiating in good faith.

Ask David Stern about sharing financial data with the players. The NBA capitulated to their requests and not only did it not help but it made it worse. A vast majority of teams in the NBA are barely treading water due to the last deal and the NBA needs to be fixed or become the NHL... an afterthought.

Players need to stop thinking they are above the team. For some reason they think they are the owners when they aren't even the only employees.

Rant on unions: I was cut from my teaching job last June and still unable to find a job to replace that one. Fat lot of good my union did for me despite paying nearly $100 a month in union dues. Unions are a sham with their own priorities and don't care about individuals. The players feel entitled for some reason, which I can't stand, and the sham that is the non-existant NFLPA can kiss my big fat hairy butt.

[Guiness]

heres the way i see this. they just gave profit or lose numbers, they didn't give the numbers on how they got there. an nfl team is just like any other business. the owner can say his team is losing money, and he can prove it. then you dig a little deeper at where all the money he brought in went. in those numbers is the compensation for employees. the team could be losing money, but these guys could be writing paychecks to themselves and their family members for very large sums of money

kind of like when a bank or other large company goes under and thousands of people lose their jobs, but the ceo gets a 20 million dollar bonus for that year

same old shit, different rich assholes trying to pull it off

oh well, the lockout is on as of midnight eastern. starting to sound like you can kiss the 2011 season goodbye

That's exactly it Red.

I read an article about the '82 strike, and it said the books were audited then...and the improprieties that were found were, well, probably not surprising, but pretty bad. One of the owners (Redskins, I think) had paid himself a $6million salary, and not counted it as profit. Each team in the NFL had contributed $500k towards supporting the WLAF, and deemed it an expense.

The article went on to say that the NFL got away with it that time, because the information wasn't all that widely disseminated, but if that happened now, every little bit of info would be plastered across the internet, and everyone would know all the dirty laundry. And the NFL can't afford that. And the NFLPA is leakier than my grand-dad's rowboat, so there's no chance of confidentiality.

Wish I could remember where I read that. If anyone else has seen it, I'd like a link.

[RashanGary]

I read an article about the '82 strike, and it said the books were audited then...and the improprieties that were found were, well, probably not surprising, but pretty bad. One of the owners (Redskins, I think) had paid himself a $6million salary, and not counted it as profit. Each team in the NFL had contributed $500k towards supporting the WLAF, and deemed it an expense.

Exactly, there can be a hundred and one little things like this in each teams dirty books. Final numbers can be skewed and owners will do that if it puts another billion dollars in their wallets. If the owners really need the players to take a pay cut, show them why. They won't because there is no reason.


Owners would love it if employees (skilled and non skilled alike) would just take what they wanted to pay them. Problem is, people get together now-a-days and they collectively don't go to work if they're getting ripped off. Look at countries with little or no labor laws, workers rights or unions. They make things cheaper and they sell things to the benefit of the country or owner, but no benefit to the people other than having a bad job with bad pay so they can barely survive. That's what owners would do if they could. Good for the players for standing up. They're all making 100x less than the owner anyway. The Packers prove, there is no need for an owner at all. They're just there to get rich off their workers.

[channtheman]

To all of those who think the players are more at fault than the owners, answer this question:

Do you think it's possible that the information the owners provided to the players does not give the players enough information to conduct a good, educated negotiation?

This. I was talking to my dad about this. How can the players union possibly counter offer the owners if they don't even have information on the subject. You can use the car analogy here again. Some guy is selling me a car I know nothing about and wants 8000 and tells me it's a good deal. Do I blindly say yes? How do I know how low to go with my counter offer? Point is, the players union simply didn't have enough information here.

[Tarlam!]

The Packers prove, there is no need for an owner at all. They're just there to get rich off their workers.

I couldn't disagree more with the Packers reference. The Packers are an institution like no other. Apart from maybe the Cowboys, how many other teams could ask their fans to shell out money for shares that give them no voting rights or profits? How many teams have fans that would stand by their teams the way the Packers' fans stood by them during the dark late 70's - early 90's? I seriously doubt even 'boys fans would go through that.

The Packers got lucky with Harlan. Just imagine they didn't. And even Harlan's hand-picked, personally trained successor is not named Mark Murphy. No way can the Packers or their fans be used as a cookie cutter for the rest of the league.

Which brings me to your second point that I have snipped; The Great American Dream, as I understand it, is that all men and women are born equal and can become whatever they want if only they work hard enough. Your great country is full of rags-to-riches lore and, as a result, is the envy of the free world and probably most in the non-free world, too. I do not get it when the right to multiply money becomes a moral crime. You state these owners are there to get rich off of their workers. I've got news for you: EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYER IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS, TOO!

BTW, the owners are already rich as it is. 31 owners could turn around tomorrow and add close to a billion in liquidity within a coupla months on top of that. To quote Godon Gecco "Greed is GOOD!" It is the owners' greed starting nearly 100 years ago that formed the product we fans love so much today. It was their capital at risk. They provided post college ball. Or, are you about to tell me you'd prefer the quality of the college game over the NFL product?

The fans of 31 other teams are fickle. They turn on their teams when the losses mount. They stop going to games, stop buying merchandise, clubs start suffering revenue losses. Players don't have that risk. They risk their health and could be cut and they should be compensated fairly for that. They should have lifelong health care, pension funds. But, nobody forces them to play the game. 99.9% coming into the NFL could use the degree they earned at college to go be whatever it is they want to be other than a football player.

[Tarlam!]

You can use the car analogy here again. Some guy is selling me a car I know nothing about and wants 8000 and tells me it's a good deal. Do I blindly say yes? How do I know how low to go with my counter offer? Point is, the players union simply didn't have enough information here.

When I was at college, my marketing professor had a fantastic role play excercise using an old ford as the object of a sale. The seller was sent out of the room with details of the car - all except one: The car was a collectors item and worth 50 K. They buyer and the class had all the info. So, the role play began and the car was sold for 3K.

[SkinBasket]

If I am selling you an automobile that is actually valued at $2000 and I am asking $4000 while you are offering $1800, then splitting the difference doesn't seem reasonable from the buyer's point of view.

Except value is a subjective variable. And the players don't want the "car." They need the "car."

[pbmax]

Very true. It's hard to filter fact from fiction in all the news stories, but recent things seem to point to an unreasonableness from the players:
snip
- supposedly the owners agreed to release unaudited financial information to an independent third party accounting firm, who would then issue a report to the players about the owners claims. The players rejected it, wanting all details in front of their own biased eyes, just like the owners biased eyes. Generally, an independent third party is the way to breach gaps such as this.

- apparently on Friday the players demanded 10 years of data immediately to secure another extension for negotiations. I believe they originally asked for 5 years. Upping demands at a critical time assures that no compromise will occur.snip

I did find this, which dates the request for the type of data the players have been asking for to May, 2009.

But there’s another side to the story. The union, we’re told, believes it consistently has been asking for much more than what the NFL is offering. In a May 18, 2009 letter from NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, a copy of which PFT has obtained, Smith requests “audited financial statements concerning the operations of the 32 clubs and the league.”

Attached to the letter is a list of specific information that Smith requested: total operating income, total operating expenses (including player costs, team expenses, sales and marketing expenses, operations/maintenance expenses, salaries/payments to owners, other general and administrative expenses), profit from operations, other income/expenses, income before provision for income taxes, provision for income taxes, net income, cash and investment assets, dividends and other distributions to owners and their families, financial statement notes (including descriptions of transactions with owners and their families and related entities).

In the PFT piece, http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-past-demands/, the owner's source spins without mentioning the letter. They say that the players have been talking about profitability (and that Smith has been quoted in public statements) talking about profitability and that is the data they are willing to share. That would be a single piece of paper (if an unsourced report is to be believed) with two numbers on it for each team.

The public (and probably, I think, private statements) however, seem to be merely shorthand for the financial condition of the clubs. That is, are they profiting similarly as they were prior to 2006. I don't think the League is interested in sharing data beyond that.

[pbmax]

Except value is a subjective variable. And the players don't want the "car." They need the "car."

Well, that is a part of any negotiation. Price elasticity, needs and wants. But each side still places a value on the item before entering negotiations. This CBA is tougher because there are fewer comparables than say in buying a home or a car.

[pbmax]

According to the Denver Broncos, the information so far was solely about profitabilty and the NFL agreed to have the numbers verified by a third party. In the Broncos case, they were willing to show more, but aren't sure the NFL wants to do so.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/12/broncos-are-willing-to-open-their-books/

Ellis also complained about the union’s failure to even eyeball profitability data that the league had offered.

“We offered to show the union league-wide and club profitability data,” Ellis said. “Not only that it can be verified by a mutually agreed upon third-party auditor. This is the type of information we don’t share with each other. In other words, we aren’t allowed to see how other teams are doing specifically in terms of revenues and expenses. Everything is very formalized in terms of information we get from other clubs. Now the union didn’t even want to look at it.”

The question remains, what access would the third party auditor have to the basis numbers that led to the profitability number? Otherwise, they are simply verifying that one column of numbers does indeed match another.