Yahoo's Michael Silver: Goodell, Smith fight through rough patches

[RCowboyFan]

Granted, things could still blow up between now and next Friday. The two sides, according to a source familiar with the negotiations, remain $750 million apart on the central issue – how much money owners will be credited off the top before splitting up adjusted gross revenues with the players. And as has been the case for more than a year, union officials continue to insist that the owners open their books and reveal the financial justification for the increase they’re demanding. The owners, as they have all along, remain opposed to that request.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-smithgoodell030411


I am now really encouraged by this news. I was skeptical yesterday by the 7 day extension. But Michael has come out 2 revealing articles that seems like to indicate they most likely will get this done. Seems like Players are playing hard ball, more than I thought they were in this. I thought Owners were mostly playing hard ball at first.

 

[RS12]

The owners, as they have all along, remain opposed to that request.

I wonder why, according to half the people here the owners are beyond reproach.:laugh2:

 

[Sandman]

I wonder why, according to half the people here the owners are beyond reproach.:laugh2:

If I owned a bussiness I wouldnt show my books either. Who does that? Players are employees, if you dont like the NFL go to the UFL and see how much you can get to play a game.:laugh2:

 

[AbeBeta]

these two make it through this with a deal soon and they both are going to be in a very good spot to stay in their current jobs for a long long time. The last CBA was a good deal for the players but to get that they had to really agree to something shorter than the deal was advertised -- a ton of players lost FA time due to that deal -- the players lost a lot this past year.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I am now really encouraged by this news.

I wish I were. JMO but this extension won't bring a resolution to this issue.

 

[Randy White]

two key sentences in that column that peaked my interest:



Further, the owners were persuaded to include new provisions for revenue sharing that caused owners of the more profitable franchises to dole out millions to those with less lucrative operations.

The new deal, incidentally, will likely appease big-market owners like Jones and Kraft by eliminating some of the revenue-sharing provisions they found so odious.

I've been maintaining for over a year that this war was really about the big market teams vs the small market teams and this sentences, basically, back up my argument. HOWEVER, I had it completely backwads and was 100% WRONG when I said that we probably had to thank Jerry Jones if a deal was struck during this week ( on the contrary, he's one of the " hardbutts " in this entire drama ). I thought the small market teams were the ones looking for more revenues because of their attacks on, and hard stance against, the players. As it turn out, it appears that the big market teams were already sharing the extra revenues they get that small market teams don't, but wanted to stop the practice and to make up for the " shortfall ", the players would have to take the paycut.

It's basically the same argument I was making, only the sharing was already in place and the big market owners wanted it to stop, so they voted to void the current deal.

This is why the owners are reluctant to open their books. Doing so would prove the exact opposite of what they are claiming. Sure, they ( owners ) can claim that if the players don't restructure the deal small market teams will lose money, but that's because the revenue sharing streams would go back to the pre-current CBA agreement levels, when big market teams kept most, if not all, of certain revenues that they are currently sharing ( or were sharing before they opted out ).

They basically told the small market teams: " we're not going to share this particular pot with you any longer but in order to make up for it, we're going to get it out of the players' share come hell or hightwater ".

This is exactly why I always have a hard time being on management's side in labor disputes when they refuse to show evidence backing up their claims. Specially when it comes to dividing revenues in a fair manner.

 

[RCowboyFan]

I wonder why, according to half the people here the owners are beyond reproach.:laugh2:

Because most of people who work for a owner/manager don't have any right to demand the owner or manager to show them their books, so they could demand more money or equal share. Unless you work in such establishment.

Most people tend to think, Owners are the ones who take most risk and put their money in line. To most they are like themselves, just the zeros in the paychecks of players far exceed theirs.


Having said that, I am all in favor of players in their fight against owners for not having 18 games schedule. I don't like that idea, and I hope players stand firm against it. But seems like that is going to happen though, which I hate.

 

[Kevinicus]

two key sentences in that column that peaked my interest:



Further, the owners were persuaded to include new provisions for revenue sharing that caused owners of the more profitable franchises to dole out millions to those with less lucrative operations.

The new deal, incidentally, will likely appease big-market owners like Jones and Kraft by eliminating some of the revenue-sharing provisions they found so odious.

I've been maintaining for over a year that this war was really about the big market teams vs the small market teams and this sentences, basically, back up my argument. HOWEVER, I had it completely backwads and was 100% WRONG when I said that we probably had to thank Jerry Jones if a deal was struck during this week ( on the contrary, he's one of the " hardbutts " in this entire drama ). I thought the small market teams were the ones looking for more revenues because of their attacks on, and hard stance against, the players. As it turn out, it appears that the big market teams were already sharing the extra revenues they get that small market teams don't, but wanted to stop the practice and to make up for the " shortfall ", the players would have to take the paycut.

It's basically the same argument I was making, only the sharing was already in place and the big market owners wanted it to stop, so they voted to void the current deal.

This is why the owners are reluctant to open their books. Doing so would prove the exact opposite of what they are claiming. Sure, they ( owners ) can claim that if the players don't restructure the deal small market teams will lose money, but that's because the revenue sharing streams would go back to the pre-current CBA agreement levels, when big market teams kept most, if not all, of certain revenues that they are currently sharing ( or were sharing before they opted out ).

They basically told the small market teams: " we're not going to share this particular pot with you any longer but in order to make up for it, we're going to get it out of the players' share come hell or hightwater ".

This is exactly why I always have a hard time being on management's side in labor disputes when they refuse to show evidence backing up their claims. Specially when it comes to dividing revenues in a fair manner.

I usually dispute the employee's idea of "fair."

 

[fishspill]

They basically told the small market teams: " we're not going to share this particular pot with you any longer but in order to make up for it, we're going to get it out of the players' share come hell or hightwater ".

Which is why we'll be back next time asking for even more from the players before you know it. The owners can't get their house in order.

 

[RCowboyFan]

This is exactly why I always have a hard time being on management's side in labor disputes when they refuse to show evidence backing up their claims. Specially when it comes to dividing revenues in a fair manner.

Lets not get into political debate here shall we?

 

[Randy White]

I usually dispute the employee's idea of "fair."

When management is showing all of their cards and backing up their claims, me too. Overreaching goes both ways.

IT just happen that in this case, it's management who've been overreaching from the start. They knew that, they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar ( Doty's overruling of the special master, PR backfire ) and now they're coming to the table with, I suspect, a more humbled attitude.

We'll see where the final settlement ends up.

 

[Fletch]

I usually dispute the employee's idea of "fair."

I usually dispute the ideas of "realists". If you're not on board with Jerry, you're not a true fan. :laugh1:

 

[burmafrd]

two key sentences in that column that peaked my interest:



Further, the owners were persuaded to include new provisions for revenue sharing that caused owners of the more profitable franchises to dole out millions to those with less lucrative operations.

The new deal, incidentally, will likely appease big-market owners like Jones and Kraft by eliminating some of the revenue-sharing provisions they found so odious.

I've been maintaining for over a year that this war was really about the big market teams vs the small market teams and this sentences, basically, back up my argument. HOWEVER, I had it completely backwads and was 100% WRONG when I said that we probably had to thank Jerry Jones if a deal was struck during this week ( on the contrary, he's one of the " hardbutts " in this entire drama ). I thought the small market teams were the ones looking for more revenues because of their attacks on, and hard stance against, the players. As it turn out, it appears that the big market teams were already sharing the extra revenues they get that small market teams don't, but wanted to stop the practice and to make up for the " shortfall ", the players would have to take the paycut.

It's basically the same argument I was making, only the sharing was already in place and the big market owners wanted it to stop, so they voted to void the current deal.

This is why the owners are reluctant to open their books. Doing so would prove the exact opposite of what they are claiming. Sure, they ( owners ) can claim that if the players don't restructure the deal small market teams will lose money, but that's because the revenue sharing streams would go back to the pre-current CBA agreement levels, when big market teams kept most, if not all, of certain revenues that they are currently sharing ( or were sharing before they opted out ).

They basically told the small market teams: " we're not going to share this particular pot with you any longer but in order to make up for it, we're going to get it out of the players' share come hell or hightwater ".

This is exactly why I always have a hard time being on management's side in labor disputes when they refuse to show evidence backing up their claims. Specially when it comes to dividing revenues in a fair manner.

Maybe you should read Andrew Brandts columns at the National Football Post. He was the financial head of the packers until a few years ago. His columns, and he should know, indicate that you are quite wrong.

 

[sago1]

It's fine to say if you own a business you wouldn't open your books. Believe me you will if you want to borrow any money from a bank or if you want to expand & join the stock market.

As the small business owner you plan to remain, you are totally free to keep your books closed--except to the IRS. If the employee you want to hire, refuses your offer he is free to look elsewhere. That doesn't happen to NFL pro football players. They must play where they are drafted or not play pro bowl--going to Canada isn't an option. They can only leave that team thru injury, poor performance or finally achieve FA status. The whole concept of NFL football is tilted towards the owners.

Frankly if I was a young player with legit NFL talent, I'd hate to be drafted by a number of clubs--Bills, Bengals, Lions & a host of other teams. Y I have no choice if I want to play pro football--which is why I'm more sympathetic to the players then to the owners.

 

[Future]

I'm always shocked when I read stuff like this that the central issue isn't the 18 game schedule.

 

[Randy White]

Maybe you should read Andrew Brandts columns at the National Football Post. He was the financial head of the packers until a few years ago. His columns, and he should know, indicate that you are quite wrong.

When the Packers release ALL of their books ( and they never have ), then I might change my mind IF they prove me wrong. Until then, I'll stick with my position:


The Packers’ report is more than a novelty in the run-up to their playing the Pittsburgh Steelers in the Super Bowl on Feb. 6. It is a result of their being the league’s only publicly owned, nonprofit company, with 112,158 shareholders who own 4.7 million shares.

The Packers’ income statement is a proxy for the ones the 31 other team owners do not release and is of more than usual interest because owners are looking to alter the economics of paying their players in a new labor agreement. If the league and the N.F.L. Players Association cannot agree, owners could lock out the players.

Union officials frequently mention team revenue and profit; they want to examine every team’s books, but they cannot. The league insists that the union has audit rights to all league and team revenue, and player costs. But that is not enough for the union.

In fact, the Packers have a more detailed version of their public statements, but it is not available to the union. George Atallah, the union’s assistant executive director, said, “Nobody gives you one-thirty-second of the information you need to make a business decision.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/sports/football/28packers.html

 

[Kevinicus]

When management is showing all of their cards and backing up their claims, me too. Overreaching goes both ways.

IT just happen that in this case, it's management who've been overreaching from the start. They knew that, they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar ( Doty's overruling of the special master, PR backfire ) and now they're coming to the table with, I suspect, a more humbled attitude.

We'll see where the final settlement ends up.

Fair for the employee doing his job shouldn't really have anything to do with the books. The employee can get fair compensation without ever knowing anything about the other side.

I have no idea how much my company makes, and frankly, it's none of my business. Nor is it my business what anyone else at my company makes. How much management makes should not dictate what fair is for me. If I feel it's worth my time for what they're willing to pay me, then it's fair. Simple as that.

 

[AbeBeta]

Because most of people who work for a owner/manager don't have any right to demand the owner or manager to show them their books, so they could demand more money or equal share. Unless you work in such establishment.

Most people tend to think, Owners are the ones who take most risk and put their money in line. To most they are like themselves, just the zeros in the paychecks of players far exceed theirs.

Owners are the ones who take the risks? In a small business sure.

But what we are talking about here is not a business that most of these guys are in exclusively for profit. They are all good and strong business people so they want to make good money on the investment.

However, these owners are not like some rinky dink Subway franchise owners. They are guys who got bored with yachts, private jets, and a myriad of other status symbols. They've gone for one of the ultimate trophies -- a professional sports team. This is a hobby for them. If the business fails, they will still be rich.

So sure, the owners are taking the "risks" but that they are guys who do this for fun as much as profit. I support completely the players who make their franchises so desirable making as much as they possibly can.

 

[Randy White]

Fair for the employee doing his job shouldn't really have anything to do with the books. The employee can get fair compensation without ever knowing anything about the other side. I have no idea how much my company makes, and frankly, it's none of my business. Nor is it my business what anyone else at my company makes. How much management makes should not dictate what fair is for me. If I feel it's worth my time for what they're willing to pay me, then it's fair. Simple as that.

Your employer can come up to you and tell you he's going to cut your salary 10, 20, 30%. At that point, you have the choice to take it or go some place else for employment. NFL players do not.

Also, your employer is not afraid to deal with you as an individual because it's ( I'm going to assume is a company ) not subject to anti-trust laws since, most likely, it does NOT own more than 50% of it's market.

The NFL IS and they DO in both of those instances.

Therefor, you cannot begin to compare your work situation ( or of 99% of the country for that matter ) with that of an NFL player. It's not even close, and I'm not just talking in terms of salary.

Oh, and by the way, there's a reason why your employer does not want you to know what your co-workers are making and it's not because of privacy issues. Believe me.

 

[Kevinicus]

Your employer can come up to you and tell you he's going to cut your salary 10, 20, 30%. At that point, you have the choice to take it or go some place else for employment. NFL players do not.

Also, your employer is not afraid to deal with you as an individual because it's ( I'm going to assume is a company ) not subject to anti-trust laws since, most likely, it does NOT own more than 50% of it's market.

The NFL IS and they DO in both of those instances.

Therefor, you cannot begin to compare your work situation ( or of 99% of the country for that matter ) with that of an NFL player. It's not even close, and I'm not just talking in terms of salary.

Oh, and by the way, there's a reason why your employer does not want you to know what your co-workers are making and it's not because of privacy issues. Believe me.

NFL players are under contract and the team can't just tell them they're going to cut their pay. They can say "No." If the team decides to cut them, then they can sign with 31 other teams, or another league.

And for the record, I do know what my co-workers are making. I just believe it's not my business and should have no bearing on the wage I'm willing to accept.