A Game in Flames by Sports Illustrated

[rbaloha1]

Tidbits

"I do not think we've got your attention," Jones said to the players, several of whom recounted the incident to SI. "You clearly don't understand what we're saying, and we're not hearing what you're saying. So I guess we're not hearing what you're saying. So I guess we're going to have to show you to get your attention.... If Jones's intention was to intimidate the players, he failed.

"I think everyone in the room thought it was overly dramatic almost hilarious...Jones's action, however help convince the players that the owners were serious ABOUT SHUTTING DOWN THE GAME IF THE UNION DIDN'T ACQUIESCE TO THEIR CORE DEMAND: AN INCREASE IN THE "EXPENSE CREDIT" THE AMOUNT THE OWNERS TAKE OFF THE TOP BEFORE SHARING REVENUES WITH PLAYERS. Arrogant Slave Owner

"Decertification allows us to negotiate and get a deal in place while we continue to play," said Colts center Jeff Saturday another executive committee member. "What we don't want to happen is, the owners lock us out and we have to wait six months before we can decertify and file the lawsuits...."

TO EXPLAIN THEIR INSISTENCE ON TRANSPARENCY, PLAYERS POINT TO A SEPARATE 1992 ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE NFL. IN THAT CASE, ROGER NOLL, A STANFORD ECONOMICS PROF, TESTIFIED THAT THE LEAGUE'S $1.3 BILLION IN REVENUE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATED" BECAUSE THE OWNERS' ACCOUNTING METHODS. FOR INSTANCE, EAGLES OWNER NORMAN BRAMAN REPORTEDLY PAID HIMSELF A SALARY OF $7.5 MILLION IN 1990 AND RECORED IT UNDER GENERAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF PROFIT. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THE PLAYERS FOUND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE NFL'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE CREDITS WITHOUT FIRST SEEING The TEAMS' DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

Peter King's Prediction: The games will be played while Brady, et al. v NFL continues. But nothing is certain. As one lawyer involved in the dispute said late in the week, "Its unlikely we'll lose games, but so much of that is out of our hands now."

[gbgary]

i'm assuming the "jones" in question is jerry. he's such an ass!

[woodbuck27]

" TO EXPLAIN THEIR INSISTENCE ON TRANSPARENCY, PLAYERS POINT TO A SEPARATE 1992 ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE NFL. IN THAT CASE, ROGER NOLL, A STANFORD ECONOMICS PROF, TESTIFIED THAT THE LEAGUE'S $1.3 BILLION IN REVENUE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATED" BECAUSE THE OWNERS' ACCOUNTING METHODS. FOR INSTANCE, EAGLES OWNER NORMAN BRAMAN REPORTEDLY PAID HIMSELF A SALARY OF $7.5 MILLION IN 1990 AND RECORED IT UNDER GENERAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF PROFIT. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THE PLAYERS FOUND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE NFL'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE CREDITS WITHOUT FIRST SEEING The TEAMS' DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. "

That seems logical to me.

[Patler]

" TO EXPLAIN THEIR INSISTENCE ON TRANSPARENCY, PLAYERS POINT TO A SEPARATE 1992 ANTI TRUST LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE NFL. IN THAT CASE, ROGER NOLL, A STANFORD ECONOMICS PROF, TESTIFIED THAT THE LEAGUE'S $1.3 BILLION IN REVENUE WAS "SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERSTATED" BECAUSE THE OWNERS' ACCOUNTING METHODS. FOR INSTANCE, EAGLES OWNER NORMAN BRAMAN REPORTEDLY PAID HIMSELF A SALARY OF $7.5 MILLION IN 1990 AND RECORED IT UNDER GENERAL EXPENSES INSTEAD OF PROFIT. AGAINST THAT BACKDROP THE PLAYERS FOUND IT INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THE NFL'S NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EXPENSE CREDITS WITHOUT FIRST SEEING The TEAMS' DETAILED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. "

That seems logical to me.

On the other hand, that was something that happened 20 years ago under a very different set of circumstances. With the salary cap now tied to revenues, there is a lot more transparency now than there was in 1992. Can there be games played with the numbers? Of course. Are they likely to be significant in view of the $9 billion pie? Probably not. A few million here or there isn't going to make a big difference.

If the player's lack of trust is based on a 20 year old situation, I think it is unfounded. If it is based on some things that have occured more recently I am more sympathetic.

[RashanGary]

Patler, you don't know what you don't know because it's not transparent. Just open the books. If it's no big deal to them, they should just open them so a deal can get done. Especially if it's only a few dollars like you suggest.

You have to admit, if the Players refuse to work out a deal without transparency, the owners are choosing this by not opening the books.

[Patler]

Patler, you don't know what you don't know because it's not transparent. Just open the books. If it's no big deal to them, they should just open them so a deal can get done. Especially if it's only a few dollars like you suggest.

You have to admit, if the Players refuse to work out a deal without transparency, the owners are choosing this by not opening the books.

...or, you could say:

"You have to admit, if the owners refuse to open their books, the players are choosing this by refusing to work out a deal without it."

Generally, whenever a stalemate occurs it is because both sides are insisting on something the other side finds unacceptable, and if you believe their public proclamations, that is the situation now. However, I am not convinced that the real issues for each are as they express publicly.

[RashanGary]

Patler, I'm with you about 90% of the time, but on this one I don't agree. Clearly the players have been deceived before. In the words of George Bush, "fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, well, I'm not going to get fooled twice, hehe."

For you to think having the books open is not important to the players and that there is some hidden agenda. . . I'm not following your logic at all. There are ways to negotiate core issues. There is no way to negotiate what they don't know.

[RashanGary]

Another interesting thing came out of the above story is how if the players wanted to litigate, they had a window, otherwise it could have been a 6 month process with no pay. If that's true, their haste to break away from the negotiating table while their window was still open makes a lot more sense.

Once it became apparent the owners were not going to negotiate in good-will, they were in a rush to get the process started so they could play the season while a long term deal gets worked out.

[Patler]

I could list all kinds of indicators why it seems more likely to me that it was the players who were not negotiating in good-faith, that they stonewalled the process. But this has been discussed at length before. Nothing has happened recently that is likely to change your mind or mine. In my opinion, the players are exactly where they wanted to be and intended to be. In my opinion they would not have settled, regardless of what the owners did short of a complete capitulation on every issue. But that's OK, it was an avenue open to the players that they chose to follow.

[RashanGary]

These owners are used to getting their way. I do think the players feel their best shot is in court. You make it sound like they're bad guys because they want to work out the best deal possible. We'll find out. It's nice to know there is a way to play while the court process goes on. That shows a lot more sensibility on the players part. Now it will be up to the owners if they want to force a lockout or play while court goes on.

I think the owners are fuming and do NOT want court because it doesn't help them. They tried to portray it like court meant no season, but court just means they show their cards.

The players are getting what they want. It angers the owners, but it is sensible. Wait and see.

If the owners want to lock it out and lose billions, fine. I doubt they'll push it that far. More likely they'll take teh temp deal, go to court and work through it that way.

[Patler]

JH - Then why do you make it sound like the owners are bad guys because they want to work out the best deal possible for them? It works both ways, it always does.

[sharpe1027]

The problem the owners have is that if they don't open their books they look like they are hiding something. If they do open their books, you can be certain that the players will hire a bunch of expensive accountants just to look for anything that will look band publicly, and when the find any error (and what billion dollar business is without mistakes?) they will run screaming to the media.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[ThunderDan]

The problem the owners have is that if they don't open their books they look like they are hiding something. If they do open their books, you can be certain that the players will hire a bunch of expensive accountants just to look for anything that will look band publicly, and when the find any error (and what billion dollar business is without mistakes?) they will run screaming to the media.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I would happily be hired to audit the NFLs books. How do I get on that list?

IF the books are opened for the players, I would hope the players don't do that unless something is really "bad" in the books. The players need to act like they want to get the deal done. Creating drama and running to the media by either side just creates hard feelings and makes the deal harder to sign.

Jerry Jones' quote is exactly what the owners need to avoid. AP's quote is exactly what the players need to avoid. The reality is both parties will be working together if not this season next, so there is no reason to make this a combative situation verses a collaborative one.

[Smeefers]

There not being a season doesn't really hurt the current players. These guys have been paid at a minimum a couple hundred thousand dollars already in their career. They don't need the season to survive. They could probably go a couple years without football before the minimum wagers in the NFL would even start to feel the pinch. The owners on the other hand have a responsibility. A responsibility to pay people, like the coaches and the front office, the maintenance crew, and a whole slew of other bills like water, electricity and taxes. If they don't keep up revenue, people start loosing their jobs. Quickly. The players can moan about how unfair it is, but they have absolutely no problem screwing the maintenance guy out of 45,000 a YEAR job so he can up his profits a couple hundred thousand a game.

So don't give me this righteous indignation about how the big bad owners are screwing over the poor defenseless players. The players are playing the game just like the owners are. Both sides have to come to the table to talk. And it's not like the owners are without fault either. The last person to stop getting paid is going to be the owner. They *could* open their books. Whether or not they open them or not though is irrelevant. The owners have a right to make profit, just like the players have a right to not work unless they get paid what they think they deserve. I can not come into my job in order to pressure by boss to pay me more and so can they.

Every action has consequence. Neither the players nor the owners are immune from the consequences of their actions, no matter how they try to place the blame. Blame, after all, normally lies with those willing to place it.

[sharpe1027]

I would happily be hired to audit the NFLs books. How do I get on that list?

IF the books are opened for the players, I would hope the players don't do that unless something is really "bad" in the books. The players need to act like they want to get the deal done. Creating drama and running to the media by either side just creates hard feelings and makes the deal harder to sign.

Jerry Jones' quote is exactly what the owners need to avoid. AP's quote is exactly what the players need to avoid. The reality is both parties will be working together if not this season next, so there is no reason to make this a combative situation verses a collaborative one.

And I had hoped that it never got to where it is currently at, but here we are.

Personally, I have little doubt that the players would gladly point out any perceived problems to justify their position the court of public opinion. For example, the players are bringing up a 20 year old example of what one owner did even though it probably isn't even possible to do the same thing under the current CBA. I see no reason to believe that the players wouldn't use anything they would get from the opened books.