Originally posted by Shorteous:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by fryet:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Can anyone who is siding with the owners tell me why the players should take a pay cut if the amount of profit has not decreased?
The players were fine with the last CBA, the last CBA which was created bc the OWNERS opted out of it and was created bc the OWNERS opted out of the last one.
this looks like nothing more than the owners wanting a bigger piece of the huge pie every time a CBA is up for negotiations.
This CBA was supposed to run to 2013
This is the first time, to my knowledge that the owners have demanded more money. Every other time it was the players demanding more money and more benefits. I could be wrong here, but I think the only reason why the owners agreed to the last CBA which gave more money to the players was because there was an upstart league that was forming (I can't remember the name). They didn't want to risk a lock-out and the players jump to the other league and the NFL fail entirely. So they agreed to the old CBA, inserted a provision that allowed them to opt out, and waited for the competing league to fold. Once that happened, they opted out with a stronger hand to negotiate a new CBA. You can call it shrewd, but it is legal. It isn't like they broke their word or anything. The former CBA that the players and owners agreed to permitted the opt out.
So Basically
1. There was going to be football next year
2. Owners got mad
3. Now there isnt going to be football
If the owners NEED the money, open the books and prove it. If you dont open the books it shows that you WANT the money. They really dont want to open the books bc the ones making big money dont want the small market teams to know how much they COULD SHARE with them.
these greedy owners have been plotting this lock out by opting out early and strike proof TV deals. the players would have happily continued under the previous deal, which was massively profitable for all parties involved. owners look greedy by rocking the boat.
owners are at fault as far as i can see, and they are a union in my eyes as well.
It has been reported that the owners offered to have a third party come in and review the books and report it to the players. If that's not good enough for the players, their whole stance is just a tactic.
Having a 3rd party coming in gives the ball to an independent business (auditor) while it is already in the hands of the judicial system. Not a fair trade from the players perspective. Auditors make money from large business's, not athletes. So the union would be justifiably dubious about this arrangement.
Also, it is so easy to rig the books that it would not serve a purpose. Many owners have their hands on revenue, not directly from the team, but related. I read once how much one team made from sales in and around the stadium and was amazed.
As a business person, I would not open my books, but would demonstrate the numbers to the union using hypothetical teams. This is done all the time and prevents the kind of nitpicking that results from the books being microspically examined. Build a picture showing revenue and expense in general terms.
Right now there is a balance in the NFL, dictated by the old CBA, and the owners would like to change that balance. They could argue that they need to build stadiums, etc. Then they could offer the players a piece of the risk in owning and operating these stadiums in exchange for their share of the pie. Of course, the owners would benefit much more from tax write offs...and on we go...
[ Edited by dtg_9er on Apr 28, 2011 at 07:14:42 ]