Jump to content

AP Source: NFL’s profitability data offer rejected


Jetfan13
 Share

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON (AP)—The NFL’s lead labor negotiator says the league offered to give the players’ union financial information that the league doesn’t even give its 32 clubs.

On his way into Wednesday’s mediation session, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said the issue of financial transparency—a key sticking point in labor talks this week—“really should be behind us.”

“We’ve made more information available in the course of this negotiation than has ever been made available in decades of collective bargaining with the NFLPA,” Pash said. “Far more information. And we’ve offered to make even more information (available), including information that we do not disclose to our own clubs.”

Pash did not reveal any specifics of the league’s offer and wouldn’t say what the union’s response was. But a person familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press that the NFL offered to turn over five years of profitability data to the players’ union—and the offer was rejected.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the mediator overseeing the labor talks has told participants to not discuss details publicly.

According to the person who spoke to the AP, the NFL’s proposal to the union included:

— audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005-09, based on individual club statements;

— the number of teams that have seen a shift in profitability in that span;

— an independent auditor to examine the data.

The NFL Players Association long has demanded that the league give it full access to financial data, making that a central issue in contract talks.

The union didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, union president Kevin Mawae(notes) and other members of their negotiating team entered the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service office before Pash spoke to the media.

The current collective bargaining agreement was set to expire last week, but two extensions now have pushed the cutoff to the end of Friday.

With various issues under discussion, the crux of the labor dispute is how to split more than $9 billion in annual revenues. NFLPA executive committee member Scott Fujita(notes), a linebacker for the Cleveland Browns, said Tuesday that what the NFL has turned over to the union so far “hasn’t been sufficient.”

The union retained a global investment bank to help it decide whether the league’s offer to reveal more financial information during negotiations will be enough to satisfy the union’s call for full disclosure.

Another executive committee member, Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday(notes), said as he left Tuesday’s 9 1/2 -hour mediation session that the investment bank would “help judge how helpful the material they were offering to give us” would be.

One key question is what cut team owners should get up front to help cover costs such as stadium construction and improvement. Under the old deal, owners received more than $1 billion off the top. They entered these negotiations seeking to add another $1 billion to that amount, before other revenues are divided with players.

Although progress has been made, both sides have stuck to their stances when it comes to two key matters: The NFLPA has not agreed to any major economic concessions; the NFL has not agreed to completely open its books.

“I don’t think there should be any issue of disclosure, I don’t think there should be any issue of transparency,” Pash said. “I don’t think there should be any issue of who knows what.”

Commissioner Roger Goodell was joined by three members of the owners’ 10-person labor committee: Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers, John Mara of the New York Giants, and Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs. More owners are expected to attend mediation Thursday, when once again the sides will be nearing the expiration of the CBA.

“We’ve got a long ways to go, but as long as we stay at it, we’ve got a chance of getting an agreement done,” Pash said.

If a deal isn’t reached by Friday, the sides could agree to another extension. Or talks could break off, leading to, possibly, a lockout by owners or antitrust lawsuits by players.

“The commissioner said ‘talking is better than litigating.’ Talking is better than, you know, going to DEFCON 3 or whatever term I’ve heard thrown around,” Pash said. “So let’s keep at it.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Owners and Players are partners, I think everyone should see where the money is going and how much is left after expenses.

The Owners are saying they need a bigger % of the pie. Fine, if the Owners are making peanuts after all is said and done, I dont know how the players could not agree to give up more of their take. Its in the best interest of both sides that the business grows and stays Americas # 1 sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Players have no right to see profitability.

If they need to see revenue, fine.

You are correct, they have no right.

BUT, if the owners are saying they should get an extra $1 billion off the top because of profitability issues, then the owners should back it up.

The NFLPA isn't asking for this financial info in a vacuum. It's directly related to the owner's claim that they are not as profitable as they should be.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a really good point. Revenue is the key figure here...

As noted above, revenue is not the key figure here. Everyone knows the total amount of revenues. The issue is the basis for the owners claiming they need a bigger cut because they're not as profitable as they'd like to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted above, revenue is not the key figure here. Everyone knows the total amount of revenues. The issue is the basis for the owners claiming they need a bigger cut because they're not as profitable as they'd like to be.

Revenue SHOULD be the key issue here. And the negotiations should evolve around what is a fair slice of revenue for the players. (I know this is overly, overly simplified).

Obviously, all clubs are going to have varying levels of profitability. Are you going to start penalizing clubs that have been able to market themselves better, or happen to manage to run their business better? Players should not have a say in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are correct, they have no right.

BUT, if the owners are saying they should get an extra $1 billion off the top because of profitability issues, then the owners should back it up.

The NFLPA isn't asking for this financial info in a vacuum. It's directly related to the owner's claim that they are not as profitable as they should be.

IN what industry is that practiced?

Is the NFLPA trying to break new ground here? In that case we all might as well forget about football for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly was wrong with the old CBA? Cant we just go with that

Uneducated guesses here:

-The owners were very unhappy the way Paul Tagliabue greased the last extension through, so he could live in peace until he retired.

-The model is outdated

-18 games are now on the docket

-Health Care and pensions need to be better addressed.

-There are all forms of new media and revenues that need accounting for.

That is probably 10% of all the issues

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahoo Sports' Jason Cole reports that the NFL and NFLPA have agreed on a "basic" compromise that would install a rookie wage scale to replace the current rookie salary cap.

The current "rookie cap" is totally ineffective. The wage scale would require teams to sign players to only three-year deals if they're drafted after the first round. First rounders would get four-year contracts, but the monetary commitment would be much less. For instance, the owners proposed a five-year, $19 million max contract for the No. 1 overall pick. Top pick contracts will be quite a bit more once the players union has its say, but it still sounds like the deals will be a far cry from Sam Bradford's six-year, $78 million blockbuster signed last year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahoo Sports' Jason Cole reports that the NFL and NFLPA have agreed on a "basic" compromise that would install a rookie wage scale to replace the current rookie salary cap.

The current "rookie cap" is totally ineffective. The wage scale would require teams to sign players to only three-year deals if they're drafted after the first round. First rounders would get four-year contracts, but the monetary commitment would be much less. For instance, the owners proposed a five-year, $19 million max contract for the No. 1 overall pick. Top pick contracts will be quite a bit more once the players union has its say, but it still sounds like the deals will be a far cry from Sam Bradford's six-year, $78 million blockbuster signed last year.

Interesting.

Some teams are just going to be development farms for other teams. This is a good era to be one of the teams that others will want to play for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IN what industry is that practiced?

Is the NFLPA trying to break new ground here? In that case we all might as well forget about football for a while.

Actually, in all professional sports where the owners are claiming they are losing money or not making enough money as they "should."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revenue SHOULD be the key issue here. And the negotiations should evolve around what is a fair slice of revenue for the players. (I know this is overly, overly simplified).

Obviously, all clubs are going to have varying levels of profitability. Are you going to start penalizing clubs that have been able to market themselves better, or happen to manage to run their business better? Players should not have a say in that.

I agree that revenue SHOULD be the key BUT the owners are making profits the key.

The NFL brings in $9 billion a year. The owners are claiming that they are not making enough of a profit off that $9 billion, so they want an extra $1 billion ($2 billion total) off the top.

Thus, if the owners claim that their profits are lower than they should be, they should prove that to the players. It's NOT the players having a say in profibility. It is the owners proving they NEED the extra $1 billion.

Edited by SMC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON (AP)—The NFL’s lead labor negotiator says the league offered to give the players’ union financial information that the league doesn’t even give its 32 clubs.

On his way into Wednesday’s mediation session, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said the issue of financial transparency—a key sticking point in labor talks this week—“really should be behind us.”

“We’ve made more information available in the course of this negotiation than has ever been made available in decades of collective bargaining with the NFLPA,” Pash said. “Far more information. And we’ve offered to make even more information (available), including information that we do not disclose to our own clubs.”

Pash did not reveal any specifics of the league’s offer and wouldn’t say what the union’s response was. But a person familiar with the negotiations told The Associated Press that the NFL offered to turn over five years of profitability data to the players’ union—and the offer was rejected.

The person spoke on condition of anonymity because the mediator overseeing the labor talks has told participants to not discuss details publicly.

According to the person who spoke to the AP, the NFL’s proposal to the union included:

— audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005-09, based on individual club statements;

— the number of teams that have seen a shift in profitability in that span;

— an independent auditor to examine the data.

The NFL Players Association long has demanded that the league give it full access to financial data, making that a central issue in contract talks.

The union didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, union president Kevin Mawae(notes) and other members of their negotiating team entered the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service office before Pash spoke to the media.

The current collective bargaining agreement was set to expire last week, but two extensions now have pushed the cutoff to the end of Friday.

With various issues under discussion, the crux of the labor dispute is how to split more than $9 billion in annual revenues. NFLPA executive committee member Scott Fujita(notes), a linebacker for the Cleveland Browns, said Tuesday that what the NFL has turned over to the union so far “hasn’t been sufficient.”

The union retained a global investment bank to help it decide whether the league’s offer to reveal more financial information during negotiations will be enough to satisfy the union’s call for full disclosure.

Another executive committee member, Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday(notes), said as he left Tuesday’s 9 1/2 -hour mediation session that the investment bank would “help judge how helpful the material they were offering to give us” would be.

One key question is what cut team owners should get up front to help cover costs such as stadium construction and improvement. Under the old deal, owners received more than $1 billion off the top. They entered these negotiations seeking to add another $1 billion to that amount, before other revenues are divided with players.

Although progress has been made, both sides have stuck to their stances when it comes to two key matters: The NFLPA has not agreed to any major economic concessions; the NFL has not agreed to completely open its books.

“I don’t think there should be any issue of disclosure, I don’t think there should be any issue of transparency,” Pash said. “I don’t think there should be any issue of who knows what.”

Commissioner Roger Goodell was joined by three members of the owners’ 10-person labor committee: Art Rooney II of the Pittsburgh Steelers, John Mara of the New York Giants, and Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs. More owners are expected to attend mediation Thursday, when once again the sides will be nearing the expiration of the CBA.

“We’ve got a long ways to go, but as long as we stay at it, we’ve got a chance of getting an agreement done,” Pash said.

If a deal isn’t reached by Friday, the sides could agree to another extension. Or talks could break off, leading to, possibly, a lockout by owners or antitrust lawsuits by players.

“The commissioner said ‘talking is better than litigating.’ Talking is better than, you know, going to DEFCON 3 or whatever term I’ve heard thrown around,” Pash said. “So let’s keep at it.”

this horsesh*t is rediculous.both sides wanting a bigger peice of the pie than they deserve.pure greed.but if i had to pick a side,i think the obvious choice is the owners side.a player has to perform.there is much more to the business side.an owner cuts the checks,the player collects the checks.things dont go exactly as planned on the owners side,tough.the player still collects his check if he does the one thing he is paid to do.perform his job.this is no different than a lot of companies where employees get a cut.obviously,the owner gets a bigger peice of the pie.much more involved where a player has 1 job.players are repleceable just like employees.the owners still have their company and everything involved in it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Owners and Players are partners, I think everyone should see where the money is going and how much is left after expenses.

The Owners are saying they need a bigger % of the pie. Fine, if the Owners are making peanuts after all is said and done, I dont know how the players could not agree to give up more of their take. Its in the best interest of both sides that the business grows and stays Americas # 1 sport.

First of all, who says they are partners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this horsesh*t is rediculous.both sides wanting a bigger peice of the pie than they deserve.pure greed.but if i had to pick a side,i think the obvious choice is the owners side.a player has to perform.there is much more to the business side.an owner cuts the checks,the player collects the checks.things dont go exactly as planned on the owners side,tough.the player still collects his check if he does the one thing he is paid to do.perform his job.this is no different than a lot of companies where employees get a cut.obviously,the owner gets a bigger peice of the pie.much more involved where a player has 1 job.players are repleceable just like employees.the owners still have their company and everything involved in it

The players aren't the owner's employees. They're partners.

Nobody goes to the NMS to see Woody Johnson.

You can't compare it to other industries.

And, no, the obvious choice isn't the owners side. The owners want any extra $1 billion of football generated money to use on non-football related things, including pocketing it for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this horsesh*t is rediculous.both sides wanting a bigger peice of the pie than they deserve.pure greed.but if i had to pick a side,i think the obvious choice is the owners side.a player has to perform.there is much more to the business side.an owner cuts the checks,the player collects the checks.things dont go exactly as planned on the owners side,tough.the player still collects his check if he does the one thing he is paid to do.perform his job.this is no different than a lot of companies where employees get a cut.obviously,the owner gets a bigger peice of the pie.much more involved where a player has 1 job.players are repleceable just like employees.the owners still have their company and everything involved in it

but but but but but the fans pay to see the PLAYERS play......lol

I agree with you for the most part. If a player doesn't like it, they have the freedom and ability to play for the ufl, cfl, or arena league, or go enter espn toughman competitions, lol.

Why isn't the screen actors guild doing the same kind of thing here, after all, i go to the movies to watch the actors, not the producers or studios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but but but but but the fans pay to see the PLAYERS play......lol

I agree with you for the most part. If a player doesn't like it, they have the freedom and ability to play for the ufl, cfl, or arena league, or go enter espn toughman competitions, lol.

Why isn't the screen actors guild doing the same kind of thing here, after all, i go to the movies to watch the actors, not the producers or studios.

The players aren't the ones asking for anything different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but but but but but the fans pay to see the PLAYERS play......lol

I agree with you for the most part. If a player doesn't like it, they have the freedom and ability to play for the ufl, cfl, or arena league, or go enter espn toughman competitions, lol.

Why isn't the screen actors guild doing the same kind of thing here, after all, i go to the movies to watch the actors, not the producers or studios.

LOL, the screen actos guild actually does. Actors not only get a salary, but, in many instances, a percentage of the profits.

So a movie star may not get the $10 million they sign for in making a picture, but an additional $30-40 million if the film is a big time success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The players aren't the ones asking for anything different.

DING! DING! DING!

Where were the fans decrying the CBA when it was signed? Why weren't they complaining about the system. Heck, why did 30 owners vote for it and then want to undo it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, the screen actos guild actually does. Actors not only get a salary, but, in many instances, a percentage of the profits.

So a movie star may not get the $10 million they sign for in making a picture, but an additional $30-40 million if the film is a big time success.

Players get playoff checks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DING! DING! DING!

Where were the fans decrying the CBA when it was signed? Why weren't they complaining about the system. Heck, why did 30 owners vote for it and then want to undo it?

As confusing as all of this nonsense is, I still havent heard a particular strong argument for the owners side other than -"they're the boss"

And it seems like they've come to an agreement upon the rookie pay scale. Which is really one of the few flaws other than the treatment of retired players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, the screen actos guild actually does. Actors not only get a salary, but, in many instances, a percentage of the profits.

So a movie star may not get the $10 million they sign for in making a picture, but an additional $30-40 million if the film is a big time success.

They aren't sitting there demanding a 50/50 revenue share. And yes, a lot of big name actors do get points on the film, but these are on the net, not gross, and they don't get to see all the studios books to confirm that. The studios manipulate those numbers to make the net look much smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guy who writes the paycheck. How can you consider Albert Haynseworth to be partners with Dan Snyder??? Is Brad Pitt partners with 20th Century Fox because he starred in The Titanic??

20th Century Fox is not the equivelent of an NFL team. AND, the film industry is not the equivelent of the NFL.

In the film industry, production teams find financiers to put up money for a film and find a studio as distributor to put up other money to cover expenses. The money generated by the movie is used to pay back all those who put up the upfront money. Thereafter, profits are distributed.

The NFL, on the other hand, has a ready made revenue stream based squarely on the players performing on the field. Fans aren't buying season tickets to see scrubs. They're going to see NFL players. Fans aren't buying jerseys for scrubs either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20th Century Fox is not the equivelent of an NFL team. AND, the film industry is not the equivelent of the NFL.

In the film industry, production teams find financiers to put up money for a film and find a studio as distributor to put up other money to cover expenses. The money generated by the movie is used to pay back all those who put up the upfront money. Thereafter, profits are distributed.

The NFL, on the other hand, has a ready made revenue stream based squarely on the players performing on the field. Fans aren't buying season tickets to see scrubs. They're going to see NFL players. Fans aren't buying jerseys for scrubs either.

I am pretty sure I saw Gholston jerseys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...