official: union decertifies

[pbmax]

Are you sure about that? I thought they turned down information audited by a third party. Wouldn't that also provide accurate information without divulging the unnecessary?

All the owner's books are already audited. So anything you read about audited books or numbers (or auditing by a third party) signifies nothing other than these are the numbers we and our accountants officially and legally stand by. Like the line from Frank Burns in M*A*S*H about how his buried fortune is detailed in the red ledger he has frozen with the pot roast in the freezer, not the blue ledger he shows the government.

The real questions are length of time (10 years versus 5) and level of detail. An audited financial statement is very useful and telling, however, if you suspect duplicity (and it has happened before) then those numbers in the statements can be confirmed only by a look at the actual books, which detail the items that make up specific categories in the statements.

Make no mistake about it, the players are asking the owners to basically reveal their last colonoscopy video. But when the players talk about trust, ignore Silver, King and all the rest, ignore all talk about Jerry Jones banging his fists together like a monkey and understand what the players mean is that they do not trust the owners to reveal the true financial state of their franchise. Franchises have tried to bury profit before, in both football and baseball, in cases where they were negotiating with a Union.

The owner's have a vested interest in not showing their fiscal hand too early if it can't be avoided completely. Because that will make the Union dig in at certain numbers. If the two parties were closer, it might be more likely that the owners would open the books with an agreement that if the numbers were verified, a predetermined player cost percentage would be set.

[Bretsky]

YO..........PB called upon you to make the next draft pick as a FYI

[Smidgeon]

Something to consider from Vic (again):

"In reference to your response to Andi, could you explain how the money for the jersey gets split between the players vs. the team? This could enlighten everyone on why the last CBA was such a bad deal for the teams.

Vic: I’ll give you a simpler example of how the money was split and applied, according to the CBA that just expired. We did an “Ask Vic” golf tournament in Jacksonville. It was purely a for-fun event; one year we somehow and mistakenly were left with a nine-dollar profit, which we put into the next year’s tournament in the way of prize money. For the first several tournaments, golfers sent us a check and then we cut a check to the golf course. After the CBA of 2006, however, when the league went to a Total Football Revenue (TFR) model, we had to make sure we didn’t touch any of the money. From that point on, the golfers had to pay the golf course directly. Why? Because if they had paid us, 60 percent of the money they sent us would’ve gone to the players off the top, leaving us with 40 percent of that money to pay 100 percent of the costs. That’s not a good formula for doing business. I think you can easily see that we would’ve had to build in some serious margins just to break even."

[swede]

...From that point on, the golfers had to pay the golf course directly. Why? Because if they had paid us, 60 percent of the money they sent us would’ve gone to the players off the top, leaving us with 40 percent of that money to pay 100 percent of the costs. Thats not a good formula for doing business. I think you can easily see that we woulve had to build in some serious margins just to break even."

You may have to help out some of the nflpa lovers here. What exactly are costs? jk

[RashanGary]

So if they're going to do a charity, they have to do it in a way that doesn't count toward revenue? Big whoop. Same outcome, different way of doing it. Don't let some pro-owner paint it as the players taking charity money while the owners cover the costs, haha. They said right out, they change the way the collect so that doesn't happen. Read guys, just read and it wouldn't all be a shock to you.

And if that type of setup is their big beef, just open up the books and agree to a new method or go to court.


This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out. The courts will settle what is fair and that will be that. The owners are fine with being in court or they woudln't be there. The players are fine being in court or they wouldn't be there. There is too much money to not have a season. This is overblown drama. My money is on everything working out.

[ThunderDan]

So if they're going to do a charity, they have to do it in a way that doesn't count toward revenue? Big whoop. Same outcome, different way of doing it. Don't let some pro-owner paint it as the players taking charity money while the owners cover the costs, haha. They said right out, they change the way the collect so that doesn't happen. Read guys, just read and it wouldn't all be a shock to you.

And if that type of setup is their big beef, just open up the books and agree to a new method or go to court.


This isn't as big of an issue as you're making it out. The courts will settle what is fair and that will be that. The owners are fine with being in court or they woudln't be there. The players are fine being in court or they wouldn't be there. There is too much money to not have a season. This is overblown drama. My money is on everything working out.

Both sides don't want the courts to rule on this. They want a ruling on the lockout and that is all. Which ever side "wins" with the judges ruling will have more leverage in the negotiation that's all.

[ThunderDan]

Something to consider from Vic (again):

"In reference to your response to Andi, could you explain how the money for the jersey gets split between the players vs. the team? This could enlighten everyone on why the last CBA was such a bad deal for the teams.

Vic: I’ll give you a simpler example of how the money was split and applied, according to the CBA that just expired. We did an “Ask Vic” golf tournament in Jacksonville. It was purely a for-fun event; one year we somehow and mistakenly were left with a nine-dollar profit, which we put into the next year’s tournament in the way of prize money. For the first several tournaments, golfers sent us a check and then we cut a check to the golf course. After the CBA of 2006, however, when the league went to a Total Football Revenue (TFR) model, we had to make sure we didn’t touch any of the money. From that point on, the golfers had to pay the golf course directly. Why? Because if they had paid us, 60 percent of the money they sent us would’ve gone to the players off the top, leaving us with 40 percent of that money to pay 100 percent of the costs. That’s not a good formula for doing business. I think you can easily see that we would’ve had to build in some serious margins just to break even."

To bring this up is so silly.

I am sure the players have absolutely no objection to the charity events. It was probably a mis-"do" by the lawyers in the agreed upon CBA document they signed.

This quote is specifically intended to make the players look bad. What it really shows is that the lawyers f*cked up!

[RashanGary]

To bring this up is so silly.

I am sure the players have absolutely no objection to the charity events. It was probably a mis-"do" by the lawyers in the agreed upon CBA document they signed.

This quote is specifically intended to make the players look bad. What it really shows is that the lawyers f*cked up!

And if you really read it, the players aren't taking money while the owners cover costs. They just have to change the way money is transferred so it doesn't get treated as revenue.

This is why I'm not a fan of the owners. They spill this misinformation in ways that confuses the people here and probably everywhere else too. You guys are being played. Wake up. Read. Understand.

[RashanGary]

Both sides don't want the courts to rule on this. They want a ruling on the lockout and that is all. Which ever side "wins" with the judges ruling will have more leverage in the negotiation that's all.

That's the first step. My understanding is if they rule against the lockout they'll have to play the season while a long term agreement is worked out in court. Teh way I read it, the players had a small window to walk away from teh bargaining table so they could set this up. If they had not walked away, the owners would have had all the leverage. Everything the players have done has showed a very strong want to do this in the court room. Going off past history, they're making the right move.

[SkinBasket]

To bring this up is so silly.

It's not really that silly, and despite JH's blustering, this was an nothing more than an example of the business formula that the last CBA established. The example, by definition, illustrates how the entire model - not just this example - was a disaster of a successful business model. As owners, it's their job to make the business successful. That means making money.

The example wasn't proffered to make the players look bad. Only a simpleton trying too hard to find something that isn't there would come to that conclusion. The example was presented to illustrate for people without a deep understanding of the both the micros and macros of the TFR model how the system was not a sustainable business model for any business looking for continued and, god forbid, furthered economic success.

[Smidgeon]

And if you really read it, the players aren't taking money while the owners cover costs. They just have to change the way money is transferred so it doesn't get treated as revenue.

This is why I'm not a fan of the owners. They spill this misinformation in ways that confuses the people here and probably everywhere else too. You guys are being played. Wake up. Read. Understand.

Well, this particular piece isn't "owners...spill[ing] this misinformation". It's a former reporter for the Jaguars (who now works for the Packers) explaining how the process changed with the 2006 CBA extension.

[Smidgeon]

Here's something else I read about the available financials. If someone else posted this or commented on it, I apologize for not seeing it:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Show-us-more-of-your-books.html

[Patler]

It's not really that silly, and despite JH's blustering, this was an nothing more than an example of the business formula that the last CBA established. The example, by definition, illustrates how the entire model - not just this example - was a disaster of a successful business model. As owners, it's their job to make the business successful. That means making money.

The example wasn't proffered to make the players look bad. Only a simpleton trying too hard to find something that isn't there would come to that conclusion. The example was presented to illustrate for people without a deep understanding of the both the micros and macros of the TFR model how the system was not a sustainable business model for any business looking for continued and, god forbid, furthered economic success.

Well, this particular piece isn't "owners...spill[ing] this misinformation". It's a former reporter for the Jaguars (who now works for the Packers) explaining how the process changed with the 2006 CBA extension.

Exactly. It changes the way they have to do business, and in some instances, that might be detrimental. In his example, (which I think was a poor one BECAUSE it was so simple) the last thing you want to do for a charitable event (was this even a charitable event? Maybe not.) is make it more complicated for the guests. For example, if the change requires the guests to send two checks instead of one (one to the golf course, another for the event itself) that will discourage some. If they have a tie to you, but no tie to the venue, they want to deal with you, not the venue. Then, of course it puts an added burden on the golf course, who will have to process a bunch of checks instead of one. Again, as the sponsor you want to simplify, not complicate the matter for those who work with you.

This one certainly isn't a big deal, but it is an indication of what can be a more difficult problem. He would have been better off answering the question the reader asked about jersey sales, instead of using his golf tournament example.

BTW - so far this guy (Ketchman) isn't very impressive or entertaining, in my opinion. I think I will start a thread to discuss our initial opinions of him.

[RashanGary]

The owners, commissioner and NFL employees who want to have a job or maybe get a new one in the future are all going to hum the same tune.

The players want the itemized data.


Just take it to court. Let the NFL bitch and whine all the way, but take it straight to court.

[red]

the one thing that we should all take away from this is that we "the fans" piss away WAY to much money on this sport. not only through buy tickets and and buying jersies and shit but also by our cities and states giving up so much for these assholes to build their stadiums when the money could be better spent on schools and infrastructure


its becoming tougher and tougher to give a shit about either side in this matter