I don't understand this "lockout" talk

I just have a few things.
1) The Players are not striking
2) The NFLPA asked that a possibility of"LockOut" be taken off the table (which obviously didn't occur)
3) The owners have contracts with all the major/premium networks that ensure they get paid if there is an NFL season or not, that money is on top of everything else they get.
4) The owners of teams can make the decision to lock up the facilities to prevent player access
5) That would not happen in GB but is likely at other NFL facilities.

The owners can also effectively force a walkout by the players by declaring an impasse, saying they've made their best and final offer. The union can then either take the deal or "walk out."

2) If the owners agreed not to have a lockout, they lose any leverage the'd have.

3) The TV money has to be paid back. Funny how this keeps getting omitted in the press. The owners don't get to just keep the money, free and clear. They have to pay it back, with interest.

This might go a long way in settling the differences:



Feb 25, 2011
Sen. Rockefeller to NFL: Show us your money

10:17 AM

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., wants the NFL to disclose its finances to resolve a labor dispute.


CAPTION

By Susan Walsh, AP

The chairman of a U.S. Senate committee with jurisdiction over sports and communications is asking the NFL to open up its books to the players' union.Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, wrote in a column for The Washington Post today that coming clean about finances is the only way to resolve a bitter labor dispute that threatens the next pro football season.
He pleaded with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell: "Show the union your books. Don't keep secrets. If there are financial pressures that keep you from agreeing to the revenue-sharing plan proposed by the players, let's see the proof."
The NFL's collective-bargaining agreement expires on March 3, which could result in a work stoppage if the sides don't agree. George Cohen, the federal mediator overseeing talks between the NFL and the NFL Players Association, said on Thursday that progress has been made "but very strong differences remain."
Rockefeller is asking that a "neutral third party" review the league's finances and "prepare an unbiased bottom-line assessment."

The good Senator from West Virginia needs to stay out of it, as do ALL members of congress and the senate. This should not become a political hot button, and is no place for government involvement.

That said, I don't think the owners should open their books. No employee is entitled to know how much the company makes. Besides, it's a friggin negotiation for godsakes. Neither team needs to show their full hands, just figure out a number that works for both sides and call it a day. The sooner the union moves on from this ridiculous idea the owner need to show them their books, the sooner they can start to work together.

Besides, as we saw with the last NBA CBA, the union called the owners liars when they opened their books. It would be a pointless exercise here too, since the union wouldn't believe them anyway.

Based on your post:
Does that mean it's a union issue?
That they want to see how much the owners are making?
So we may get no football next season and it would be the unions fault?
Is that the understanding?

If that's the case, yet here in Madison Wisconsin folks are now showing their support and love for the unions.

I think the union's inability to move on from their "Show us your books" campaign is hampering the negotiation, yes. They're stuck on that one point because they really don't wish to make any concessions. I believe once they just accept it's not going to happen, negotiations and progress will move along faster.

As for whose at fault if there's no football, both sides should share an equal amount of the blame. The players union has already admitted the owners got screwed in the last deal, so I don't see why they shouldn't just make concessions and move on. When you have a $1 Billion company making less than 1% profit, the system becomes unsustainable, especially at the rate player salaries have increased.

Nope, it's purely political. West Virginia is a big union state, and his comments are more in support of the players union than they are in actually getting a deal done.

Yes, the NFL made a claim re: the status of their finances. Green Bay's books have supported that claim. There is no reason for every owner to open their books, regardless of what the union would have you believe.

And the Senators involvement is merely political. He needs to stay out of it, as do all government officials. If there's a law violation, it will go to court, not the Senate floor. He has no place in this discussion.

I wouldn't. Opening the books would be akin to showing your hand when you play poker. It's a negotiation, so it really doesn't matter what the books say anyway, kind of like buying a car. The dealer wants to sell it to you for a higher price, you want it for a lower one. They know how much they make per car, you don't, so you negotiate the price, the terms, etc. In this instance, the owners want a cut back, the players don't. Now they need to haggle on the details.

Someone says 1% is not enough profit for the owners. Where does this number come from? How does anyone know what the profit is without seeing the actual numbers? Without being honest with the books, no one knows how much profit is being made. I don't have a problem with people making a profit. I do have a problem with people taking advantage of other people. As the Senator says, open the books and everyone can make an opinion of what is fair. It's a negotiation that should be based on facts, not a poker bet.

The Green Bay Packers. A billion dollar organization that turned a $9.8MM profit. That's less than 1%:

#14 Green Bay Packers - Forbes.com

Even the Cowboys only turned a 7.96% profit:

#1 Dallas Cowboys - Forbes.com

The Chicago Bears, valued at $1.1 Billion had an operating income of only $37.3 Million. That's only a 3.4% profit:

#9 Chicago Bears - Forbes.com

Here's a slideshow dated 8-25-2010, showing the teams ranked in order of most to least valuable, with a link to the balance sheets. If I can find this, why can't the union?:

The Most Valuable NFL Teams - The Most Valuable NFL Teams - Forbes.com

So the owners open their books to Forbes? If not, the numbers are estimates, not fact.

Well, for estimates, they're pretty good. I imagine the good people at Forbes had to have done some kind of actual, verifiable research before printing that article, so take it for what you will..

Again, there's just no good reason the owners have to open their books to the union. It's a negotiation. You play your side, I'll play my side. Not sure why people can't understand that. You don't have your boss open his books to you to make sure you're getting paid what you think is fair, do you? Of course not. You tell them what you want, they make you an offer and you work from there. I see no reason why it needs to be different here. The players are acting entitled, a mentality that just sickens me.

The players literally donate their bodies to the game. They deserve 50% of the revenue, imo.

If that doesn't work for the owners, maybe they should get out of the game and turn their teams over to the communities. It seems to have worked o.k. for the Green Bay team.

So do firefighters and police officers, and they don't get 50% of the state revenue.

Sorry but this "The players put their bodies on the line" argument is weak with me. They do so willingly, knowing full well what the stakes are. And they are compensated quite well for it. Even the bottom of the end guys on the active roster made $350k last year, for limited action.

I'm not opposed to people making as much money as they can, especially through endorsements and jersey sales, but that goes for both sides as well. Owners are entitled to see a decent profit off their investment, and at the moment the feeling is it's not enough.

Just a few years ago, Green Bay had a profit of $34 Million. Now it's $9. Player salaries have increased exponentially in that time. Simple math, the system in it's current form doesn't work.

NFL Labor Relations, “On Any Given Sunday” « Lombardi Ave | A Green Bay Packers Blog

My question: would the Packers' owners lock out the players? I assume Mark Murphy has the Packers' vote at the owners' table, and he will place the vote for all the owners. But I'd also imagine that if it came to a vote of Packers owners, almost all of them would vote against a lockout. After all, they're mainly fans who don't get any money for owning the team.

I'd love to see the vote for a lockout come down 31-1, with the Packers' owners voting against it. But with Murphy having the business interests in mind, he'd vote for it.

Shareholders get to vote on the slate presented for Board of Directors. The President answers to the Board, and I would imagine the Board would have to approve any decision made by the President.

As things now stand, it appears almost certain there will be a lockout. Players and owners will be hurt the least.

I'm looking forward to Badger football more than ever.

You know, I keep thinking someone in the owners or NFLPA has to be smart enough to see what happened to both Baseball and Hockey when their disputes led to a shortened season. Both sports took a big hit in fan commitment. Are these two sides so arrogant they think people won't react in a negative fashion to a shortened or non-played season?

"Are these two sides so arrogant....?"

Absolutely.

Wow! Here's a real zinger aimed at the owners. It makes a lot of sense reading it from my middle class chair.

It's sad that one group of greedy selfish ingrates are arguing with another group of greedy selfish ingrates over a huge pile of money supplied by people who genuinely love the game (the fans).
Not that it will ever happen, but it would be only fair that they host a season or two absolutely free -- sort of a fan appreciation season.
It's not the owners who have made the game of football great; though there have been some great owners. It's not the players who have made the game of football great; though there have been some great players. It is the fans who have made football great and it is we who are about to be the ultimate losers in this contest of wills.
I ask, in the immortal words of Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along."