Jump to content

AP Source: NFL’s profitability data offer rejected


Jetfan13

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 247
  • Created
  • Last Reply

That's just it. They simply do not have that right. That was an agreement with the NFLPA. Decertify and all that goes out the window and they'll have to restrain themselves. We know that isn't going to happen.

I understand that. We will see if it gets to that. The owners, for sure are not aligned in this either. This can develop int the haves and the have nots, a la baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation but I think some major points are being overlooked.

First let's set things straight. It seems a lot of you are confused as to the role of the players. Let me clarify that the players are not partners of the league, they are employees. The players, as employees, get paid to perform a task. How well they perform that task has a direct correlation to the overall health of the business (the league). The players are in no way liable for maintaining a fiduciary responsible to the business (again, the league). In business, partners have a fiduciary responsibility, employees do not. If a partner costs the business substantially, that partner may be sued and held liable for the losses. An employee never would be found liable, unless gross negligence was proven.

Just like every other business in this country, the NFL must conform to labor regulations. The players have elected to form a union, and entered into a collective bargaining agreement. Without the players being unionized, a lot of this would not be happening. The players, have negotiated themselves a salary structure, through the use of the union, that ties their salary into the revenues of the business. Without the union this sort of compensation is usually only witnessed with high level executives of larger corporations.

The biggest point that I think needs to be addressed here is the fact that the NFL owners really dropped the ball in these negotiations. The mere mention of profitability is completely moronic. It opens the door in the negotiation process for the union to have a legitimate request that the owners provide access to their books. The question that must be asked here, is why would the owners do such a thing? Why would they use the term profitability? My guess is that they really are not doing as well as some may think. I believe this is a last resort for the owners to acquire a larger share of the cut. You see, a couple of years ago this wasn't an issue. The reason I think it is now an issue is because years ago public funding of stadiums was quite common. Now, with the economy in the mess that it is in, with the high taxes needed to coordinate efforts of balancing state and local budgets, the last thing any populace would go for is the public funding of a sports stadium. So, the owners need more money to cover operational expenses. makes sense if you think about it.

Oh, before I forget to touch upon this point, the owners have every right to run their business however they want. The point is that because the CBA has expired, the owners have zero contractual liability. They can do whatever the want. However, so can the players. The laws apply equally on both sides.

Without the owners there is no NFL. Without the players, there is no NFL. Just like in every business; management, investors, employees, etc have a role in the quality and marketability of the overall product.

And as far as the owners taking 80%, they could, but the union wouldn't go for it and it would be a horrible business model. I don't know of any business owner (myself included) that could run a sustaining business on on an operating budget of 20% gross revenues. Most business owners are lucky to pull 15-20% for a profit after allocating for operating expenses. From a business perspective, not a perspective of a fan, the players are grossly overpaid in proportion to their contribution to the overall product. Players should make about 35%-45% of gross, and that should be highly dependent on the financial risks that are involved, nothing more.

Anyhow, that's my take. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone seriously believe that the owners are not including profitability info on principle, instead of the fact that they are a lot more profitable than they are claiming?

I believe that both sides are ridiculously greedy. I believe that the NFL is a cash cow for both sides, but I also believe that should the books be opened up, which they never will, the NFL would lose a lot of fans. I really can't say one side is less entitled or more entitled than the other.

In the end, either way this works out, guess who loses...

The fans. When a family of four is looking at spending upwards of $500 - $1000 for only 3+ hours of entertainment, it really puts the utter disconnect that the league had with its primary customer.

Oh well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation but I think some major points are being overlooked.

First let's set things straight. It seems a lot of you are confused as to the role of the players. Let me clarify that the players are not partners of the league, they are employees. The players, as employees, get paid to perform a task. How well they perform that task has a direct correlation to the overall health of the business (the league). The players are in no way liable for maintaining a fiduciary responsible to the business (again, the league). In business, partners have a fiduciary responsibility, employees do not. If a partner costs the business substantially, that partner may be sued and held liable for the losses. An employee never would be found liable, unless gross negligence was proven.

Just like every other business in this country, the NFL must conform to labor regulations. The players have elected to form a union, and entered into a collective bargaining agreement. Without the players being unionized, a lot of this would not be happening. The players, have negotiated themselves a salary structure, through the use of the union, that ties their salary into the revenues of the business. Without the union this sort of compensation is usually only witnessed with high level executives of larger corporations.

The biggest point that I think needs to be addressed here is the fact that the NFL owners really dropped the ball in these negotiations. The mere mention of profitability is completely moronic. It opens the door in the negotiation process for the union to have a legitimate request that the owners provide access to their books. The question that must be asked here, is why would the owners do such a thing? Why would they use the term profitability? My guess is that they really are not doing as well as some may think. I believe this is a last resort for the owners to acquire a larger share of the cut. You see, a couple of years ago this wasn't an issue. The reason I think it is now an issue is because years ago public funding of stadiums was quite common. Now, with the economy in the mess that it is in, with the high taxes needed to coordinate efforts of balancing state and local budgets, the last thing any populace would go for is the public funding of a sports stadium. So, the owners need more money to cover operational expenses. makes sense if you think about it.

Oh, before I forget to touch upon this point, the owners have every right to run their business however they want. The point is that because the CBA has expired, the owners have zero contractual liability. They can do whatever the want. However, so can the players. The laws apply equally on both sides.

Without the owners there is no NFL. Without the players, there is no NFL. Just like in every business; management, investors, employees, etc have a role in the quality and marketability of the overall product.

And as far as the owners taking 80%, they could, but the union wouldn't go for it and it would be a horrible business model. I don't know of any business owner (myself included) that could run a sustaining business on on an operating budget of 20% gross revenues. Most business owners are lucky to pull 15-20% for a profit after allocating for operating expenses. From a business perspective, not a perspective of a fan, the players are grossly overpaid in proportion to their contribution to the overall product. Players should make about 35%-45% of gross, and that should be highly dependent on the financial risks that are involved, nothing more.

Anyhow, that's my take. :)

Good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation but I think some major points are being overlooked.

First let's set things straight. It seems a lot of you are confused as to the role of the players. Let me clarify that the players are not partners of the league, they are employees. The players, as employees, get paid to perform a task. How well they perform that task has a direct correlation to the overall health of the business (the league). The players are in no way liable for maintaining a fiduciary responsible to the business (again, the league). In business, partners have a fiduciary responsibility, employees do not. If a partner costs the business substantially, that partner may be sued and held liable for the losses. An employee never would be found liable, unless gross negligence was proven.

Just like every other business in this country, the NFL must conform to labor regulations. The players have elected to form a union, and entered into a collective bargaining agreement. Without the players being unionized, a lot of this would not be happening. The players, have negotiated themselves a salary structure, through the use of the union, that ties their salary into the revenues of the business. Without the union this sort of compensation is usually only witnessed with high level executives of larger corporations.

The biggest point that I think needs to be addressed here is the fact that the NFL owners really dropped the ball in these negotiations. The mere mention of profitability is completely moronic. It opens the door in the negotiation process for the union to have a legitimate request that the owners provide access to their books. The question that must be asked here, is why would the owners do such a thing? Why would they use the term profitability? My guess is that they really are not doing as well as some may think. I believe this is a last resort for the owners to acquire a larger share of the cut. You see, a couple of years ago this wasn't an issue. The reason I think it is now an issue is because years ago public funding of stadiums was quite common. Now, with the economy in the mess that it is in, with the high taxes needed to coordinate efforts of balancing state and local budgets, the last thing any populace would go for is the public funding of a sports stadium. So, the owners need more money to cover operational expenses. makes sense if you think about it.

Oh, before I forget to touch upon this point, the owners have every right to run their business however they want. The point is that because the CBA has expired, the owners have zero contractual liability. They can do whatever the want. However, so can the players. The laws apply equally on both sides.

Without the owners there is no NFL. Without the players, there is no NFL. Just like in every business; management, investors, employees, etc have a role in the quality and marketability of the overall product.

And as far as the owners taking 80%, they could, but the union wouldn't go for it and it would be a horrible business model. I don't know of any business owner (myself included) that could run a sustaining business on on an operating budget of 20% gross revenues. Most business owners are lucky to pull 15-20% for a profit after allocating for operating expenses. From a business perspective, not a perspective of a fan, the players are grossly overpaid in proportion to their contribution to the overall product. Players should make about 35%-45% of gross, and that should be highly dependent on the financial risks that are involved, nothing more.

Anyhow, that's my take. :)

The players are not employees in my mind, they are the Product!!!!, If they were beancounters or worked some boring job that most

of us do in life....it would be different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation but I think some major points are being overlooked.

First let's set things straight. It seems a lot of you are confused as to the role of the players. Let me clarify that the players are not partners of the league, they are employees. The players, as employees, get paid to perform a task. How well they perform that task has a direct correlation to the overall health of the business (the league). The players are in no way liable for maintaining a fiduciary responsible to the business (again, the league). In business, partners have a fiduciary responsibility, employees do not. If a partner costs the business substantially, that partner may be sued and held liable for the losses. An employee never would be found liable, unless gross negligence was proven.

The owners are asking the players to give up money to build new stadiums and what not. Where have you ever seen a business ask its employees to take a pay cut so the business can expand? Today, folks are taking less money in other areas of business to keep the lights and phones connected, but thats not the case here.

If the NFL truly is a partnership between its players and owners—and ''partnership'' is the word Roger Goodell uses—then let's make it a true partnership. Open the doors and the books. If the owners need help, well, friends do help friends. Otherwise, it sounds like all the owners want is to line their pockets with more cash.

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2011/03/if_nfl_owners_w.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that both sides are ridiculously greedy. I believe that the NFL is a cash cow for both sides, but I also believe that should the books be opened up, which they never will, the NFL would lose a lot of fans. I really can't say one side is less entitled or more entitled than the other.

In the end, either way this works out, guess who loses...

The fans. When a family of four is looking at spending upwards of $500 - $1000 for only 3+ hours of entertainment, it really puts the utter disconnect that the league had with its primary customer.

Oh well...

i have been to my share of games over the years.but no more.i found a way to beat the high cost of nfl entertainment.50"lcd upstares for the games and a 50"lcd with playstation downstares to keep things quiet during game time.i do miss the envirnment of live game time,but

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The owners are asking the players to give up money to build new stadiums and what not. Where have you ever seen a business ask its employees to take a pay cut so the business can expand? Today, folks are taking less money in other areas of business to keep the lights and phones connected, but thats not the case here.

If the NFL truly is a partnership between its players and owners—and ''partnership'' is the word Roger Goodell uses—then let's make it a true partnership. Open the doors and the books. If the owners need help, well, friends do help friends. Otherwise, it sounds like all the owners want is to line their pockets with more cash.

http://blogs.chron.com/sportsjustice/archives/2011/03/if_nfl_owners_w.html

If the NFL truly is a partnership between its players and owners—and ''partnership'' is the word Roger Goodell uses—then let's make it a true partnership. Open the doors and the books. If the owners need help, well, friends do help friends. Otherwise, it sounds like all the owners want is to line their pockets with more cash.

the above statement is all one needs to know about this crisis.the players beleive they are "entitled" to a bigger peice.sound exactly like what revis and his agent tried to pull last offseason.

revis-"coach ryan says i am the best,so i want to be paid like the best".even tho "the best" was a complete brainfart from al davis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the NFL truly is a partnership between its players and owners—and ''partnership'' is the word Roger Goodell uses—then let's make it a true partnership. Open the doors and the books. If the owners need help, well, friends do help friends. Otherwise, it sounds like all the owners want is to line their pockets with more cash.

the above statement is all one needs to know about this crisis.the players beleive they are "entitled" to a bigger peice.sound exactly like what revis and his agent tried to pull last offseason.

revis-"coach ryan says i am the best,so i want to be paid like the best".even tho "the best" was a complete brainfart from al davis.

Pure fact is, with a few notable exceptions, franchise values have gone down in recent years (the economy, obviously). Player salaries have not followed that trend.

I don't follow EBITDA evaluations for sports franchises, but I would assume the multiples are less than previous years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pure fact is, with a few notable exceptions, franchise values have gone down in recent years (the economy, obviously). Player salaries have not followed that trend.

I don't follow EBITDA evaluations for sports franchises, but I would assume the multiples are less than previous years.

also,lets not forget that the owners and such are the pioneers of the nfl.without their innovation,the nfl would not be where it is today.not the players

bill gates pioneered microsoft.you cant expect him to split the revenues down the middle with fabricators and retailers.microsoft is his.the nfl belonges to the owners.the players are the fabricators and retailers of the nfl world.players are rewarded for their job,and quite handsomely i might add.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also,lets not forget that the owners and such are the pioneers of the nfl.without their innovation,the nfl would not be where it is today.not the players

bill gates pioneered microsoft.you cant expect him to split the revenues down the middle with fabricators and retailers.microsoft is his.the nfl belonges to the owners.the players are the fabricators and retailers of the nfl world.players are rewarded for their job,and quite handsomely i might add.

You have No Clue

Owners did not invent football, they are making billions and their bodies do not turn into mush when they turn 50. They are

partners, we pay to see Players Play, we are not accountants. Partners share cost data plain and simple. 100% on Players side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well technically in this country that's really the only argument they need. The players have other leagues and other choices.

Everybody pretends that owning an nfl franchise is just a license to print money, and that there are no risks involved to the owners. Well, from what I have read and seen of interviews, Jerry Jones might disagree. Heck, the Bills are now playing home games in another country and Jax has like half their stadium seats sitting under tarps!

Are you sure about that? Once they have a contract they're stuck with that NFL team, they can't just decide to go to another team in the NFL...not sure if they can go to another league either while under contract. Only the owners/teams can unilaterally decide the player is no longer on their payroll.

I'm not 100% sure how the draft works. If you are drafted and then you just decide to go to another league are you allowed to do that, or does the NFL team that drafted you have rights over you against other leagues?

It'd be interesting to see the answers to these. Maybe these issues aren't even a problem. I just don't know if it's quite that easy however. My instinct is that the NFL has a lot more power over this and there aren't really choices, even if the money wasn't the issue.

Also people are missing that the owners are the one that opted out. Because they want more money. If you opt out of the current deal and create this mess, you should turn over your books to the other side. The Players have hired an investment bank which I'm sure is advising them also as to how to proceed and what data to accept. The problem is these negotiations are so public. I think people would be surprised at how dirty corporation negotiations and actions really are. You are essentially legally obligated to screw over the other side for your shareholder's benefit, and actively lying is even legally required in cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact that the owners won't open their books is a tacit admission they are full of crap. Who really believes that NFL owners are losing money? that the current CBA is affecting their ability to turn a profit? Does anyone believe that the NFL is in financial trouble? if it is... prove it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also people are missing that the owners are the one that opted out. Because they want more money. If you opt out of the current deal and create this mess, you should turn over your books to the other side.

+1 thank you this is a lockout not a strike. the workers want to work. the owners claim the previous arrangement, which saw the league revenue basically skyrocket over 5 years was a terrible agreement for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the fact that the owners won't open their books is a tacit admission they are full of crap. Who really believes that NFL owners are losing money? that the current CBA is affecting their ability to turn a profit? Does anyone believe that the NFL is in financial trouble? if it is... prove it!

They are full of crap to the players and thay are full of crap to each other. Profit sharing is big problem for both NFLPA vs owners and owners vs. owners. They are all in the same boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way off base, this is Entertainment business, Did Hoffman and Beatty give back $20M when Ishtar bombed?

Not off base at all-The franchises have values and that is very important to the owners.

Those values have diminished (marginally) in recent years.

Meanwhile, players salaries escalate.

I am not looking to take a side here, other than players do not deserve an open look at owners or league books. Out of bounds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not off base at all-The franchises have values and that is very important to the owners.

Those values have diminished (marginally) in recent years.

Meanwhile, players salaries escalate.

I am not looking to take a side here, other than players do not deserve an open look at owners or league books. Out of bounds

Bullcrap they are partners not employees, we pay to see them on field not the PR guy. partners deserve to see the books end of

discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bullcrap they are partners not employees, we pay to see them on field not the PR guy. partners deserve to see the books end of

discussion

Partners share risk. Players don't pay down the debt out of their profits. Players don't expose themselves to damages.

If a person slips at Foxborough and decides to sue, who is he going after-Robert Kraft or Tom Brady?

Don't delude yourself that they are partners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the players assume risk if the business heads south? If franchises are losing value?

1. If they want to flaunt the risk they would have to show there is risk. You can't expect the players to just accept what they say. This is just another example of why they have to open the books.

2. Do you honestly believe that tey aren't making money? They there isn't a ton of profit there? Even with a billion off the top and that insane TV deal? Even the owners aren't saying they aren't making a profit, they are whining that they aren't making a growing profit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. If they want to flaunt the risk they would have to show there is risk. You can't expect the players to just accept what they say. This is just another example of why they have to open the books.

2. Do you honestly believe that tey aren't making money? They there isn't a ton of profit there? Even with a billion off the top and that insane TV deal? Even the owners aren't saying they aren't making a profit, they are whining that they aren't making a growing profit.

I have never said that I don't think they are making a profit-They deserve every right to make as much as they want.

As long as the players are seeing healthy increases in their salary (which they have been by any imagination), why can't the owners make more? It is their ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Partners share risk. Players don't pay down the debt out of their profits. Players don't expose themselves to damages.

If a person slips at Foxborough and decides to sue, who is he going after-Robert Kraft or Tom Brady?

Don't delude yourself that they are partners.

LOL Players tend to die young, they assume plenty of risk

they are partners whether you like it or not

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never said that I don't think they are making a profit-They deserve every right to make as much as they want.

As long as the players are seeing healthy increases in their salary (which they have been by any imagination), why can't the owners make more? It is their ball.

Where the **** do they get "a right to make as much as they want"? The only reason they are able to make the crazy amount they do is the players. I'm not talking about the players as employees or as the product or for the risk or ability they show on the field. I'm talking about the fact that the players have given up a ton of their rights (actual RIGHTS) in the CBA in order to keep things running smoothly. The owners want and need the players to coninue to give up their RIGHTS to free agency, to allow the draft, to cap salaries, to prevent honest movement from team to team. That allows them both to earn more money. The players help the owners. If they want to keep things running smoothly the ownere have to help the players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where the **** do they get "a right to make as much as they want"? The only reason they are able to make the crazy amount they do is the players. I'm not talking about the players as employees or as the product or for the risk or ability they show on the field. I'm talking about the fact that the players have given up a ton of their rights (actual RIGHTS) in the CBA in order to keep things running smoothly. The owners want and need the players to coninue to give up their RIGHTS to free agency, to allow the draft, to cap salaries, to prevent honest movement from team to team. That allows them both to earn more money. The players help the owners. If they want to keep things running smoothly the ownere have to help the players.

I have lobbied all along that there has to be respectful balance between the two sides. That HAS to happen.

The Bigger problem is who is going to conquer the divide between the owners. There are haves and have nots.

To suggest that these are "partners" is a pipe dream. They are convenient bedfellows is all they are. One needs the other. That is not a partner. You think billionaire owners want to "partner" with the common riff-raff that is the player? Hardly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...