NFLPA Didn't Even Look At Offer?

[Gadfly22]

That's pretty much what I'm saying, and as such I don't think either thing should be considered at all in the current negotiations.

We all went to school or had some form of training to get to our current jobs, I don't get compensated in any way for it. I am expected to or I wouldn't get the job.



Not true. Even if an owner inherited his money to buy/manage the team, he still has an opportunity cost. That money could be invested in other things, and it could be lost if the business goes sour.





Yes, he worked for his college education and received it as payment. Why should he get paid again for it in the NFL?

1. I'm not saying that the players' past training and investment of time and energy actually plays a part in the current negotiations. I'm just saying that, in terms of understanding certain economic analogies being discussed, that investment of time and training comprises human capital that the players are contributing to the NFL enterprise. But one thing that separates an NFL player's background from yours and mine is that his makes him a rare and valuable commodity, so it puts him more on par with the money-contributing owners than you or I would be.

2. Yes, an inheriting owner could certainly sell his interest. That just means his investment is more fluid than a player's human investment. Without a flourishing NFL, the player's investment would plummet in value. But I only brought that point up to note that an actual economic investment was not required for all NFL owners. In terms of the economic analogies, that point is probably irrelevant.

3. No college player is being paid for his college education in the NFL. He's being paid for his football performance value. But he could not provide that performance without years of training, some of which was done in college. The time invested in college training is like the cash invested by an owner in an earlier enterprise that was profitable enough to give him the funds to invest later in an NFL team. Both got something in return for that earlier investment that was parlayed into a later, more lucrative investment.

 

[noletime95]

It most certainly is. It may not be a perfect definition of profit, but it is akin to profit. Not all definitions of profits (or "earnings") are the same. Some take into account certain types of "expenses" and some do not. The CBA definition of revenue is neither truly based on profit nor revenue.

It wasn't intended to. It was intended to show the similarity between certain ownership and employment situations.

Akin to profit? Truth is we simply don't have the information to make statements like this. We don't know what % of expenses the owners are asking for. If it's akin to profit, does the figure change annually as expenses fluctuate? I don't think so. We don't even know if it's a ballpark esimation of profit.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Really great thread...

But did I really read some ppl say they missed Gene Upshaw? Lol

Gene Upshaw was respected, but he wasn't well liked, at all. He and De Smith are equals in that regard.

 

[theogt]

Akin to profit? Truth is we simply don't have the information to make statements like this. We don't know what % of expenses the owners are asking for. If it's akin to profit, does the figure change annually as expenses fluctuate? I don't think so. We don't even know if it's a ballpark esimation of profit.

You may have a different definition for "akin" than I do.

 

[speedkilz88]

Really great thread...

But did I really read some ppl say they missed Gene Upshaw? Lol

Gene Upshaw was respected, but he wasn't well liked, at all. He and De Smith are equals in that regard.

He wasn't so liked by some the players as well. Michael Irvin hated the (89?) deal and had some choice words about Upshaw.

 

[Hoofbite]

This has turned into one of the more fascinating threads we have ever had on this forum.

Really great thread...

But did I really read some ppl say they missed Gene Upshaw? Lol

Gene Upshaw was respected, but he wasn't well liked, at all. He and De Smith are equals in that regard.

How's about a 5 Star rating to make up for that 1 star rating thread I had a while back.

 

[WoodysGirl]

How's about a 5 Star rating to make up for that 1 star rating thread I had a while back.

3 stars...

5+1=6/2=3

WG math

 

[Hoofbite]

3 stars...

5+1=6/2=3

WG math

Alright.

Only need another few hundred more 5 star threads to get average up to where it deserves to be.

 

[Hostile]

How's about a 5 Star rating to make up for that 1 star rating thread I had a while back.

I gave it 5.

 

[Hoofbite]

I gave it 5.

Haha.

I wasn't all that serious but thanks.

 

[DallasEast]

This thread needs junk. Bad.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it's not, because only a certain amount is deducted, and it's enough to cover only a portion of the total expenses.

This is the entire argument.

There are very few people that actually know whether those deductions actually do cover costs and those that do only know it for their respective clubs.

They are debating the meaning of the word expense.

http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/pdfs/Financial_Pash_6_7_2010.pdf

Its been the same argument since last summer.

 

[Wood]

No they weren't. The NFL teams were fine, financially. But there's a difference between not losing money and making enough money to re-invest in the game. The owners opted out because there wasn't enough money for teams to invest in stadium construction, improvements and operations without going deep into debt. Because of the state of the economy, public funding for stadiums has decreased, and construction costs have gone up. The NFL owners argued that stadium construction and improvements are necessary to keep the NFL's revenues increasing, so they need to use some of the current revenues to fund those efforts. The players disagreed.

The NFL opening its books wouldn't change that underlying disagreement, and both sides know it.

Been saying this for while....the margin are down because NFL was in process of rebuilding its infrastructure (stadiums). The players assumed none of that debt. So the owners bear the resonsibility of that risk as they should also benefit from the growth. I still feel the players salaries should be tied to profit margin not revenue. Revenue only tells the tale of one side of business operations.

 

[PullMyFinger]

sounds like the players will lose out in the long run

 

[Doomsay]

Been saying this for while....the margin are down because NFL was in process of rebuilding its infrastructure (stadiums). The players assumed none of that debt. So the owners bear the resonsibility of that risk as they should also benefit from the growth. I still feel the players salaries should be tied to profit margin not revenue. Revenue only tells the tale of one side of business operations.

Under that scenario, the players would have contractual access to the books.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

sounds like the players will lose out in the long run

You think that the league is somehow going to be able to block the individual antitrust lawsuits?

From what i can tell that is there best bet but if that injunction fails in a couple of weeks, they are screwed.

A corporate lockout implemented by multiple firms is pretty textbook.

The NFL will stick around because they have a right to exist thanks to the TV negotiating deal if nothing else but its going to put a serious hamper on their ability to do much of anything else.

Or you just get a feeling?

 

[Beast_from_East]

No matter what the books showed, it wouldn't change either side's opinion. And "enough money to re-invest" is completely subjective.

But wouldnt you agree Adam that the books would at least be a good starting point?

In other words, it is alot easier to negotitate over what the numbers mean than to negotitate over what the numbers are. I guess what I am asking is how is a deal ever going to be negotitated if the owners refuse to show the players the books?

Do you actually think the players are going to just "take their word for it" and take less money in a new CBA?

 

[Beast_from_East]

There isn't a logical explanation for that request. You'd be nicer about it than I would.

The logical explanation for the request is simple.................the owners are telling the players that they need more money "off the top" for reinvestment purposes and such and the players are saying its nothing but a scam for the owners to rake in some extra cash. The request for the books is basically the players saying "prove it".


Now you may disagree with the request, you may think it is totally unreasonable, but there is a logical explanation for it. In other words, even if I dont agree with the request, I still understand the logic behind the request.

 

[Beast_from_East]

If this was one team, or if the league was a single entity, I would agree to an extent. But there are not two parties in this dispute. There are 33 -- 32 separately owned and operated competitors on one side, and the NFLPA on the other. More than anything else, the teams don't want the other teams to see their financials.

Wouldnt 32 seperately owned and operated competitors acting as a single entity in regards to salary compensation (salary cap), hiring restrictions (franchise tags), and their allowcation of their labor pool (the draft).....................constitute collusion?


I am no lawyer, but if the argument is going to be made that the NFL is 32 seperate entitites that are all competitors than the owners are going to get their balls handed to them in the courtroom when it comes to Antitrust violations.


Just ask yourself if 32 tech companies could do these things.

 

[AdamJT13]

But wouldnt you agree Adam that the books would at least be a good starting point?

No, I don't think it would change anything.

This article from Forbes explains why --

http://www.forbes.com/2011/03/14/nfl-nhl-contracts-opinions-contributors-deepak-malhotra.html

Do you actually think the players are going to just "take their word for it" and take less money in a new CBA?

Of course not. I don't think the players have any intention of taking a smaller percentage (not less money), regardless of what the books say.