PFT: Comments from Jerry Richardson, Jerry Jones suggest lockout is coming

[DWhite Fan]

"The 1987 season was reduced from a 16-game season to 15 as the result of a 24-day players’ strike. The strike was called by the NFLPA on Tuesday, September 22, following the New England at New York Jets game. Games scheduled for the third weekend were canceled but the games of weeks four, five, and six were played with replacement teams. Striking players returned for the seventh week of the season, October 25."

- NFL.com's Chronology Of Professional Football, page 19, http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/history/pdfs/History/Chronology.pdf

Chicago SpareBears, Seattle Seascabs, Washington Scabskins, Rhinestone Cowboys...
I wonder how many games the replacements teams will play this time:starspin

 

[DallasEast]

Chicago SpareBears, Seattle Seascabs, Washington Scabskins, Rhinestone Cowboys...
I wonder how many games the replacements teams will play this time:starspin

The answer may be zero games:

"The NFL begins its playoffs this weekend, but the most intriguing action may be occurring behind closed doors. After the football season ends, the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners is set to expire, and without any new contract, it's expected that the NFL will lock out its players and there won't be any games to broadcast.

As much as the prospect of no football may hurt both owners and players, it's TV networks that might be the real victims in the dispute.

That's because ESPN, NBC, CBS, Fox and DirecTV have agreed to fork over an estimated $4 billion regardless of whether football is played or not."

Link to entire story: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/nfl-lockout-biggest-disaster-tv-68656

 

[dogberry]

Green Bay is the only team that releases their financial statements.

Their statements show operating profits for years ending March 31st of $34.02 million (2007), $21.4 million (2008), $20.1 (2009), and $9.8 million (2010).
(source: official website Green Bay Packers in News and Events July 14, 2010, http://www.packers.com/news-and-eve...s-Remain/131dac2e-ce57-4798-aade-384c565d01fb )

Forbes has five teams making less.

Has team appreciation stopped? Dallas and Washington maybe the only teams where a bank loan could be paid off by the operating income.

 

[Doomsay]

Perhaps the most telling observation in recent weeks drew far less attention that it deserved. In the web-only version of a 60 Minutes interview featuring Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, reporter Scott Pelley asked Jones if a lockout would be “disastrous” to the league.

“No. I do not,” Jones said.

He may be right, but it’s not something that any owner should be saying, in our view. It creates the impression that the owners are willing to force a lockout to get the concessions they want from the players.

Pains me to say this but Jerry isn't doing anything wrong by adopting a tough negotiating stance. Saying the teams could never afford a stoppage would be the dumb thing to say.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Green Bay is the only team that releases their financial statements.

Their statements show operating profits for years ending March 31st of $34.02 million (2007), $21.4 million (2008), $20.1 (2009), and $9.8 million (2010).
(source: official website Green Bay Packers in News and Events July 14, 2010, http://www.packers.com/news-and-eve...s-Remain/131dac2e-ce57-4798-aade-384c565d01fb )

Forbes has five teams making less.

Has team appreciation stopped? Dallas and Washington maybe the only teams where a bank loan could be paid off by the operating income.

The Packers are the smallest market in all of professional sports and are owned by shareholders. Those figures are so easy to cook as to the point its nearly worthless.

What do they gross? That is the question.

Revenue sharing would be a solution but its something that Jones and other big markets do n ot want to happen. Its the reason why Jones was so gung ho for the cap in the first place.

 

[DWhite Fan]

The answer may be zero games:

"The NFL begins its playoffs this weekend, but the most intriguing action may be occurring behind closed doors. After the football season ends, the collective bargaining agreement between the players and owners is set to expire, and without any new contract, it's expected that the NFL will lock out its players and there won't be any games to broadcast.

As much as the prospect of no football may hurt both owners and players, it's TV networks that might be the real victims in the dispute.

That's because ESPN, NBC, CBS, Fox and DirecTV have agreed to fork over an estimated $4 billion regardless of whether football is played or not."

Link to entire story: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/thr-esq/nfl-lockout-biggest-disaster-tv-68656

Tell me the owners didn't hedge the bets when they got the networks to agree to that stipulation. The owners are playing with a stacked deck...

 

[DallasEast]

Tell me the owners didn't hedge the bets when they got the networks to agree to that stipulation. The owners are playing with a stacked deck...

If the information in the article is accurate, it would not surprise me that the 1982 and 1987 NFLPA organized strikes played a major part in the networks' decision in agreeing to it. The networks suffered as well during those strikes by losing or minimizing broadcast product. By handing the owners such a powerful hand in a probable labor re-negotiation, it puts the players union at a disadvantage by taking away that bargaining chip.

In effect, they would be hedging their bets on the owners forcing the union into agreeing with their terms, effectively ending the lockout before the regular season began--thus protecting their own rear ends as well. Monetarily, it's high stakes poker, but a completely understandable bluff in my book.

 

[RS12]

What a shock Jerry Richardson a bad owner who is at front of the "I am not raking in enough money" line wants to bust the union.

 

[sbark]

What do they gross? That is the question.

Gross income is meaningless........GM was still "grossing" billions when it went broke............should've the UAW asked for more money yet??

Net Income is business........Its the only reason a business exists. And long term business planning involves managing risk---ie player contracts and other expenses. The trend in al business presently is to hoard cash.

Are not Pro-Football franchises Private property(except G.Bay)----why then the need for "transparency" in finances......Or do i also need to disclose to my employees my yearly finances?.....

 

[jamesdojr]

I'm an HR guy and have worked with union negotiations. Both sides are being told to say a lockout is inevitable. IT's one side trying to make the other one blink first.

Kinda like that Footloose scene where they play chicken on tractors...someone is going to bail before the crash...
_______________________________________

posted by Mike Florio on January 4, 2011, 10:18 PM EST

Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reports that no negotiations are scheduled, a depressing reality with only 60 days remaining before the labor deal ends. Earlier today, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson expressed pessimism regarding the pace of the discussions. (Said the league in response to Richardson, via NFL spokesman Greg Aiello: “We understand and share Mr. Richardson’s disappointment in the lack of engagement by the union and the slow pace of the negotiations.”)

Perhaps the most telling observation in recent weeks drew far less attention that it deserved. In the web-only version of a 60 Minutes interview featuring Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, reporter Scott Pelley asked Jones if a lockout would be “disastrous” to the league.

“No. I do not,” Jones said.

He may be right, but it’s not something that any owner should be saying, in our view. It creates the impression that the owners are willing to force a lockout to get the concessions they want from the players. And it validates the rhetoric from NFLPA executive director De Smith that a lockout is coming.

Read the full article: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ardson-jerry-jones-suggest-lockout-is-coming/

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gross income is meaningless........GM was still "grossing" billions when it went broke............should've the UAW asked for more money yet??

Net Income is business........Its the only reason a business exists. And long term business planning involves managing risk---ie player contracts and other expenses. The trend in al business presently is to hoard cash.

Are not Pro-Football franchises Private property(except G.Bay)----why then the need for "transparency" in finances......Or do i also need to disclose to my employees my yearly finances?.....

GM is a perfect example to make my point. After the management change, they sell off their unprofitable EU interests as well as extraneous engineering projects like Olds they have gone through three quarters of billion dollar gains.

You can cook the books with ease to show a loss if you want to and an NFL franchise has more of a reason to do that than distribute a dividend. Net income is disguised in many ways. You for example can buy stock or any other asset, list it as an expense and voila your net decreases while your net worth increases.

In this case the Packers could --for the sake of argument-- buy a cheesehead factory in Brussels for $10mil and reduce their net income by that much. Its all about revenue, not net income.

NFL players are not employees in any sense of the word and I am not talking about public disclosure but instead disclosure in terms of the CBA. The NFLPA has every right to demand an independent audit if the cap is going to be based on revenues.

 

[jobberone]

The owners have the leverage. The players will have to capitulate.

 

[LehighCowboy]

The owners have the leverage. The players will have to capitulate.

Not necessarily. If that were the case then the current CBA would be much more pro-owners than it already is. The owners won't admit to it but a lockout would hurt business down the road. As the NHL, NBA, and MLB lockouts proved, casual fans are turned off by lockouts. While die-hard fans will remain loyal, casual fans, who consist of a large percentage of the viewing audience, will likely lose a lot interest in the league and will probably turn to their attention (possibly permanently) to other sports/leagues such as College Football. This will lead to decreased TV viewership and ticket sales for many teams. The MLB, NHL and NBA still haven't been able to regain the casual fan viewership they enjoyed prior to their respective lockouts....both the players and owners know this.

 

[TonyRomo09]

well, i have a question, and it very well might be a stupid one... infact it is likely a stupid one... but if this doesn't happen, and there is no agreement.. would there just be no football games at all? or could NFL teams go get players of the street to play?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

well, i have a question, and it very well might be a stupid one... infact it is likely a stupid one... but if this doesn't happen, and there is no agreement.. would there just be no football games at all? or could NFL teams go get players of the street to play?

I do not think so. If the players went on strike they could but this is a lockout.

 

[DWhite Fan]

If the information in the article is accurate, it would not surprise me that the 1982 and 1987 NFLPA organized strikes played a major part in the networks' decision in agreeing to it. The networks suffered as well during those strikes by losing or minimizing broadcast product. By handing the owners such a powerful hand in a probable labor re-negotiation, it puts the players union at a disadvantage by taking away that bargaining chip.

In effect, they would be hedging their bets on the owners forcing the union into agreeing with their terms, effectively ending the lockout before the regular season began--thus protecting their own rear ends as well. Monetarily, it's high stakes poker, but a completely understandable bluff in my book.

So DallasEast, where does this end up, a courtroom? As you say, the players really are at a disadvantage. From what I have read in the Zone, the NFL players have voted to de-certify the union. So what can they do? Are we looking at a couple of thousand individual lawsuits against the owners, or can the players file a class-action suit as a group? Or will the players pretty much just have to accept whatever agreement the owners propose to them?

 

[DWhite Fan]

I do not think so. If the players went on strike they could but this is a lockout.

Hey Fuzzy, do you remember in the '82 strike, the players were gonna play exhibition games on their own? I don't recall they ever actual played a game. I think the owners prevented it in some way. I can't remember the exact details. LOL! I am getting old:laugh2:

 

[burmafrd]

Green Bay is not the lowest revenue franchize. Very loyal fans,etc. I would think that Jax or Carolina might be the lowest revenue; Tampa Has had a lot of empty seats for a while- which is stupid this year since they are a winning team.

 

[DallasEast]

So DallasEast, where does this end up, a courtroom? As you say, the players really are at a disadvantage. From what I have read in the Zone, the NFL players have voted to de-certify the union. So what can they do? Are we looking at a couple of thousand individual lawsuits against the owners, or can the players file a class-action suit as a group? Or will the players pretty much just have to accept whatever agreement the owners propose to them?

It would not surprise if several players eventually sue the owners, but I believe such a measure would ultimately fail for the most part. They may end up with one or two concessions conceded by the owners as an out of court settlement though, but that's would be it in my opinion.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Green Bay is not the lowest revenue franchize. Very loyal fans,etc. I would think that Jax or Carolina might be the lowest revenue; Tampa Has had a lot of empty seats for a while- which is stupid this year since they are a winning team.

Loyal fans or not, they are still the smallest media market in all of professional sports.