official: union decertifies

[bobblehead]

From what I could glean from various media coverage, the union had a curious lack of counterproposals. They seemed to react to absolutely everything with "show us your books."

It's silly to take sides here (especially for Packer fans, since our books are open), but generally when it comes to negotiations "Willingness to compromise" wins points with me.

Not that I am one to take a unions side, but is asking to know how much the owners are making off of your VERY specific skill set so out of line? I mean, the owners have a right to play with scabs after all, but they want the best. If the owners have the will power they can break this union. The NFL is ONE corporation and that is the way they should organize so they don't lose any more collusion lawsuits. They can then set the rules of play within their organization as they see fit for the future. The players can feel free to form their own leagues if they want. Jerry Jones can form his own league where he wins every year if he wants. They can both compete with the NFL. The fans will decide, and as usual, competition is whats best for fans/consumers. I say break the union. Break the monopoly. Play ball boys.

[bobblehead]

Mr. Smith is upholding the gains Eugene Upshaw negotiated successfully. The previous deal favored the players slightly. The owners vowed revenge -- failed to renew the recently expired collective bargain agreement and attempted to secure a $4 billion "loan" from the networks.

IMO Mr. Smith is an smart articulate black union chief that is standing "toe to toe" with white slave (oops I mean NFL) owners. The owners know the players have the courts on their side. Owner rhetoric attempts to turn the fans against players which works to an extent. A deal gets worked out since the owners do not want to be exposed for silly spending.

Stand-up and applaud the players for doing what is right.

You dishonor those that were actually cursed by being born/sold into slavery with such a ridiculous analogy.

[Guiness]

Cap in 2009 was $125-130 million.

An interesting thing...we had the uncapped year in 2010, and nothing spectacular happened, because the owners reingned themselves in, knowing what was coming in 2011.

If the player's injunction against a lockout succeeds, we could have an uncapped 2011 season. I wonder if the owners would behave again, or if Allen, Jones, Kroenke and, of course, Snyder would try and buy a SB?

Jones took a stab at it in 2010...

[bobblehead]

I'll just repeat a couple points that I thought were good so far.

1. This sucks because the Packers are on the verge of greatness
2. I'm definitely going to follow the Badgers very closely this year and I hope they can help me move on from the Packers


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.

Again with your co op? The players could do just that, I mean, its so easy to build and market a 9 billion dollar a year business with zero money down. I'm suprised everyone doesn't do it.

[Guiness]

Somewhat true. It was a bad deal for the owners. The owners promised to screw the players in the next round of negotiations. The players are wiser. Manning, Brady and Brees can sue the owners with no consequences to themselves.

Herm Edwards mentioned that previous players that took the lead in previous negotiations never played in the league again. Both sides are extremely competitive. Its unlikely a settlement is close. Its just about pr at the moment. The posturing is done.

That's interesting. Are you implying that Brady, Manning and Brees will not play in the NFL again?

[pbmax]

Cap in 2009 was $125-130 million.

An interesting thing...we had the uncapped year in 2010, and nothing spectacular happened, because the owners reingned themselves in, knowing what was coming in 2011.

If the player's injunction against a lockout succeeds, we could have an uncapped 2011 season. I wonder if the owners would behave again, or if Allen, Jones, Kroenke and, of course, Snyder would try and buy a SB?

Jones took a stab at it in 2010...

They didn't go crazy, but both the Packers and Cowboys are close to , if not above that number for next year. If your memory is correct, 2011, after 2010, would represent minimal increases at best for two straight years. Of course, that $131 mil number was only one proposal.

[pbmax]

Not that I am one to take a unions side, but is asking to know how much the owners are making off of your VERY specific skill set so out of line? I mean, the owners have a right to play with scabs after all, but they want the best. If the owners have the will power they can break this union. The NFL is ONE corporation and that is the way they should organize so they don't lose any more collusion lawsuits. They can then set the rules of play within their organization as they see fit for the future. The players can feel free to form their own leagues if they want. Jerry Jones can form his own league where he wins every year if he wants. They can both compete with the NFL. The fans will decide, and as usual, competition is whats best for fans/consumers. I say break the union. Break the monopoly. Play ball boys.

While collusion might go away, the risk of anti-trust violations increases. And efforts to maintain near exclusive stadium use and certain part of TV contracts might be under siege.

That plus the injection of investment dollars from a stock offering would need to be very large to meet the current owner's needs to give up control. With individual ownership of teams, I cannot forsee this happening.

[rbaloha1]

That's interesting. Are you implying that Brady, Manning and Brees will not play in the NFL again?

No. Its why franchise players were picked and not lower rated players. Ever heard of Kevin Mawae?

Owners can not get revenge on Manning, Brady and Brees since they are critical to the league. Is Kevin Mawae?

[rbaloha1]

Well, I think actually phrasing what the league is proposing as a "cut" or "the players writing a check to the owners" is simply buying into the rhetoric of the PA. Unlike, say, the NHL lockout where the owners actually won a reduction in all current contracts (so guys actually did have to give money back) the NFL owners are simply asking that the formula by which the salary cap is determined (which is how the players part of the pie is actually allocated) does not increase as fast on a year-to-year basis as it has in the past.

The owners are greedy bastards. The players have no choice but to force litigation. What would the owner's position be if they had that $4 billion? Owners are almost "begging" the players back to negotiating table.

[bobblehead]

Do you remember where you saw this? I am behind in my second job's reading, but last I saw the owners were claiming to be ready to release more information than they had ever made available to the Union and more than the clubs got reports on (from other clubs). However, the data was still profit data and did not include expense data. So claiming to hand out more info than ever before only points to the limited nature of previous disclosures.

The reason expense data is important is because owners report expenses that often belong either as profit or in another category entirely. The league had to release it complete financial picture during the last federal court proceeding and as an example, both Norman Braman and Mike Brown reported their own salaries as expenses, not profit. Brown took a double accounting dip in two different years, collecting salary as both GM and President. Each amount was recorded as expense.

If he did the jobs and the salaries were within the norm I don't see the problem with this. Should he do the job for free? Those may very well be reasonable expenses. Profit is for the company and what he is paid for legitimate services should be expensed. I reckon my friends employees think he should do his job for free since he is the owner as well, but he doesn't feel the same way....do we add the players salaries for playing back into the profits before we figure the owners cuts??

[pbmax]

You know, at a very basic level, this is a negotiation about money. And being emotional about either side really makes it harder to view the reality of the situation. Singling out the owners without knowing their situation is just throwing darts at a wall, whether its Jerry Jones or Richardson. We just don't know. And blaming the players reps or Smith is just as pointless. We don't know whose ego might be out of control (if at all) and how can you trumpet business expertise on one side and blame the other for maximizing leverage?

It occurs to me that this debate is about one thing. A fixed $1 billion off the top would be a bad idea if that is all there is to it. Not because it wasn't enough, but that it was fixed. As revenues grow, that $1 billion off the top looks less and less appealing. Now a complicating factor in all this is supplemental revenue sharing. If that should end and the owners have publicly stated they would like it to, it would change the revenue picture, lowering it for both the players and smaller market teams.

The other thing I don't know: has it always been $1 billion? I doubt that was the case in 1992. So that begs the question: how has it been adjusted in the past? Is it already an adjustable number despite reports that its a strictly flat skim off the top?

And that is another reason to just move to a flat percentage and forget a trumped up Total Revenue Figure.

[rbaloha1]

You know, at a very basic level, this is a negotiation about money. And being emotional about either side really makes it harder to view the reality of the situation. Singling out the owners without knowing their situation is just throwing darts at a wall, whether its Jerry Jones or Richardson. We just don't know. And blaming the players reps or Smith is just as pointless. We don't know whose ego might be out of control (if at all) and how can you trumpet business expertise on one side and blame the other for maximizing leverage?

It occurs to me that this debate is about one thing. A fixed $1 billion off the top would be a bad idea if that is all there is to it. Not because it wasn't enough, but that it was fixed. As revenues grow, that $1 billion off the top looks less and less appealing. Now a complicating factor in all this is supplemental revenue sharing. If that should end and the owners have publicly stated they would like it to, it would change the revenue picture, lowering it for both the players and smaller market teams.

The other thing I don't know: has it always been $1 billion? I doubt that was the case in 1992. So that begs the question: how has it been adjusted in the past? Is it already an adjustable number despite reports that its a strictly flat skim off the top?

And that is another reason to just move to a flat percentage and forget a trumped up Total Revenue Figure.

The $1 billion was reduced to $185 million on Friday. What does that tell you?

[pbmax]

If he did the jobs and the salaries were within the norm I don't see the problem with this. Should he do the job for free? Those may very well be reasonable expenses. Profit is for the company and what he is paid for legitimate services should be expensed. I reckon my friends employees think he should do his job for free since he is the owner as well, but he doesn't feel the same way....do we add the players salaries for playing back into the profits before we figure the owners cuts??

The owner can do what he wishes with whatever profit may exist. But for accounting purposes, the owner as employee receiving a salary has always been troublesome. Because its a tried and true method to lower profit numbers. I suspect there are laws about this as well as Accounting Principles that speak to it as well. Dan or RG might be able to speak more to that point.

Owners have often withdrawn money from the company for their own benefit. But such a withdrawl, as opposed to salary, is counted against the equity in the company, not as a salary expense. But we are well past the limit of my expertise, and this is mostly a guess on my part. But such a withdrawl would not affect the profit for that year.

The other problem with the NFL owners case in 1992, despite filling the same role for years, Braman and Brown only paid themselves in certain years. So it would seem likely that one year they were withdrawing equity from the business, and another year they classified it as salary, depending on what suit their purposes in an accounting sense.

[pbmax]

The $1 billion was reduced to $185 million on Friday. What does that tell you?

Once more, with a link or context?

[mraynrand]

I think I can safely say I am now decertifiably insane.