official: union decertifies

[RashanGary]

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.

It showed that they had to work around the current definition of revenue in some situations.

I don't see, not in the slightest, how that example showed their hindered financial success.

This is a pain in the ass detail painted as them losing money. They didn't lose any more money this way than the old way. Had they done it the same they wyoudl have, but they're not retarded. The adjusted and made it happen with no economic loss at all. Not even a penny. But to Patlers, point, obviously they should get that detail fixed. It's more frustrating than costly.

[RashanGary]

And I'm sure adjusting charitable cash flow to being a non revenue impacting process is the least of the players worries. I'm pretty sure they want to see the books so they know what they're negotiating on.

The owners are sending out, "oh, poor us, pity us" statements that sound like they're losing money, but when you read it they didn't lose even a penny.

[Patler]

Brandt seems to suggest that players have been given the information they want collectively for the league, but they want it detailed individually by team. Don't know how accurate that is.

[RashanGary]

Even skinbasket who writes like has a high level of intelligence is confused by this. How did they lose money in that situation? Yeah, you said it but you can't explain it at all. You're just confused.

[RashanGary]

Brandt seems to suggest that players have been given the information they want collectively for the league, but they want it detailed individually by team. Don't know how accurate that is.

That's not what I read. I read that teh teams had audited information in lump sum type numbers that the players cannot break down to see if there are hidden profits. For example, an owner paying himself 10M and writing it off as an expense rather than profit would be an example. It happened in 1992. They were caught doing exactly that. The players want to see detailed information not lump sum costs, salaries, etc. . .

[Patler]

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.

I think you are expecting much more from the court than will really happen. In the end, the parties will still have to work out the details of a new CBA. The judge will only alter the incentives of the parties by ruling on certain legal issues.

[RashanGary]

Well, not exactly. The NFLPA has had access to financial records of the league through direct and specific language from the current CBA. It is league-wide data, not detailed line items of each team, but it is significant and extensive.

The players want each line detailed so they don't count that 10,000,000 profit as an operating expense the way the audited information would suggest.

Even the most pro-owner poster would have to agree that it would be idiotic for the players to go off of numbers that have holes in them; holes that have been used by the very same owners to deceive you already. Clearly getting the full financial information is a benefit. Are we really talking about this like it's a question?

[RashanGary]

I think you are expecting much more from the court than will really happen. In the end, the parties will still have to work out the details of a new CBA. The judge will only alter the incentives of the parties by ruling on certain legal issues.

Like how much financial transparency is required. The players want to use the courts.

[Patler]

That's not what I read. I read that teh teams had audited information in lump sum type numbers that the players cannot break down to see if there are hidden profits. For example, an owner paying himself 10M and writing it off as an expense rather than profit would be an example. It happened in 1992. They were caught doing exactly that. The players want to see detailed information not lump sum costs, salaries, etc. . .

I have no idea what you read or where you read it. To be honest, I don't much care. Its probably just more pro-player propoganda published with the intent to confuse. As someone once wrote:

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

[RashanGary]

I posted Brandts exact line a couple posts up, Patler. He said it was NOT broken out line by line and unless you haven't read anything on this issue previous, you'd know listing profits as expenses and hiding them in the lump sum data was a proven tactic the owners have used in the past.

sighting a post where I was clearly opposing the pro-owner sentiment here doesn't change the facts taht you either forgot to aknowledge or misunderstood.

[RashanGary]

Do you agree that listing profits as expenses was something the owners were caught doing in 1992 by showing lump sum audited data rather than broken out full financial records?

Do you agree that the owners offering the same type of data leaves open the possibility that again they could be doing similar number manipulation?

Do you agree that Andrew Brandt said in his article that the information they were offered was not broken out line by line?

Do you agree that DeMaurice Smith and the players have been asking all along for the FULL financial data but have not received it?

Do you agree that the court mandated the NFL to open the books in 1992?



If you answer those questions with any type of intellectual honesty, you will understand why this is going to court. If not, well let it surprise you.

[MadtownPacker]

Do YOU always go off the fucking deep end and act like a fucking maniac? Just curious cuz I having been fighting the urge to attack you lately JH.

Please forgive, I just need a victim.

[RashanGary]

I think I have good points, but yeah, my delivery is awful.

[Patler]

I posted Brandts exact line a couple posts up, Patler. He said it was NOT broken out line by line and unless you haven't read anything on this issue previous, you'd know listing profits as expenses and hiding them in the lump sum data was a proven tactic the owners have used in the past.

sighting a post where I was clearly opposing the pro-owner sentiment here doesn't change the facts taht you either forgot to aknowledge or misunderstood.

Apparently my tongue in cheek post was not fully appreciated. You are completely missing the point. whenever you start believing all of what comes from one side and nothing of what comes from the other, you are in big trouble for understanding the issues. Both sides are spouting full rations of crap in an effort to win over the fans. Both sides are couching the issues and facts in the best light for them.

The owners have probably not given as much as they suggest, but also probably more than the players imply. The players likely need more than what they have, but less than they have asked for.

Now what is it that you think I "forgot to aknowledge or misunderstood."?

[Patler]

Do you agree that listing profits as expenses was something the owners were caught doing in 1992 by showing lump sum audited data rather than broken out full financial records?

I really do not know, as I have no access to primary data on this matter. All I have is anecdotal information and heresay.

Do you agree that the owners offering the same type of data leaves open the possibility that again they could be doing similar number manipulation?

The same type of data as what?

Do you agree that Andrew Brandt said in his article that the information they were offered was not broken out line by line?

No, I do not agree completely. What he wrote was:

"Well, not exactly. The NFLPA has had access to financial records of the league through direct and specific language from the current CBA. It is league-wide data, not detailed line items of each team, but it is significant and extensive." (emphasis original)

I believe the meaning is somewhat different than your recent rants imply.

Do you agree that DeMaurice Smith and the players have been asking all along for the FULL financial data but have not received it?

I can't answer that because I don't know what they were offered. I have not seen it, and reportedly neither has the NFLPA because they refused to even look at what they were offered. Who's to say that the NFLPA wasn't demanding more than they really needed, or that the owners didn't offer enough for the purpose? Certainly neither you nor I can answer that question, since we have no primary information about it

Do you agree that the court mandated the NFL to open the books in 1992?

Again, I really do not know, as I have no access to primary data on this matter. All I have is anecdotal information and heresay. I suppose I could dredge up the court orders, but I really have no interest in that.

If you answer those questions with any type of intellectual honesty, you will understand why this is going to court. If not, well let it surprise you.

I understand fully why this is going to court. I question whether you fully understand it however. I think you have a rather one-sided impression of it, but I'm not sure it is the most accurate.