1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

lockout/decertfication

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by neilfii, Mar 11, 2011.

  1. neilfii

    neilfii Hall of Fame Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,681
    Ratings:
    +714
    Exactly, but the good news is, if that's all there is to life you will be ready for the world to end in 2012.
     
  2. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Ratings:
    +1,410
    its a joke lol
     
  3. GreenBayGal

    GreenBayGal Cheese Goddess

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    4,374
    Ratings:
    +1,123
    Like bookends...first AND last. That thought is bitter-sweet.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. Wood Chipper

    Wood Chipper Fantasy Football Guru

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    4,076
    Ratings:
    +1,410
    we are the alpha and the omega beotches!!!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    Why? Why should the players be allowed to micromanage the owners? That's complete and utter nonsense and bullshit.

    What the players were being offered in terms of financial statements was MORE THAN FAIR. They were being offered audited proof that teams were losing money. They were also being offered information not even shared amongst themselves.

    Also, why in the bloody hell do they need 10 YEARS worth of financials? Shouldn't the financials dating back to 2006, when the last CBA was agreed to, suffice? If not, why not?

    I'm sorry, but the players are being absolutely unreasonable in their request of information. What they're being offered, simplified or not, is more than fair, especially since it will be audited information. The problem is they want to micromanage things, which they have no business doing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    I read all that stuff you posted. Your original post said the NFL didn't offer anything. Fact is they did, and again, they offered to show more information. The problem is the union wants to see EVERYTHING, which I believe to be an unreasonable request. Frankly, I don't think they need to see the books at all, and I believe their desire to do so is being used as an excuse so they can litigate. I believe decertification and litigation was the plan all along.

    The Packers are one of the more successful teams in the league in terms of marketing and revenue, so really, their books which are wide open, should be enough. In them they show an increase in expenses and a decrease in profits, which is an unsustainable model. Why this isn't more than enough information for the players is beyond me.

    And so what is the owners want to keep more of the pie for themselves? The players already admitted the owners got a crap deal last time, so this is the owners chance to correct it.

    By the way, it was the players who agreed to let the owners terminate this past CBA early. The owners merely exercised their right to do so.
     
  7. armand34

    armand34 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,861
    Ratings:
    +280
    I'm not claiming that I can be a successful billionaire, I'm stating that the decisions the owners make towards their NFL CLUBS, what kind of rocket scientist would I have to be make those decisions? Sponsors? Ads? They just own the joint...it's for the most part not ran by them. They are not picking up the phone and calling Gatorade directly themselves.
     
  8. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Ratings:
    +1,427
    They must have some logical reason for wanting to go back in the books for 10 years. They can't be just doing that to be pricks, surely there is some grounds for suspicion on somebodies part otherwise why the hell would they be pressing the issue? To me, that indicates suspicion. I maintain that I believe that if the owners have nothing to hide, then show it so they can put that particular issue to rest and move on. It's no longer a simple question of "should" the owners have to show their books to anybody but rather it's far more complex. The players (union) is questioning this for a reason, not because they don't have anything better to do. I have a feeling there is something going on here. Otherwise, why take it this far?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    They really don't have a logical reason and they are doing it just to be pricks.

    Why, when there was an agreement made in 2006, do the owners need to go all the way back to 2000? They should already have that information from the last agreement, they don't need it again.
     
  10. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,108
    Ratings:
    +3,182
    I blame both sides for this impasse and think part of the problem is the leader on both sides is new to the process. Neither Goodell nor Smith were in their current positions during the last CBA extension so both have to “prove” themselves to their respective employers.

    I agree with SpartaChris and think the union is wrong to ask for 10 years of financial records and don’t know where they came up with that number since the most recent CBA extension is 5, not 10 years old. As far as owners releasing financial data I believe there is a distinction between NFL owners and private businesses. I think there is a valid argument that every NFL franchise that is the beneficiary of a ballot initiative to help fund a new stadium or renovate an existing one should open its books. That’s not specific to the CBA but if that had been done, it wouldn’t be much of an issue now.

    I also disagree with the idea that “many” individuals are capable of doing the job of NFL owners. The main qualification for a new NFL owner is the ability to write a check with 8 zeroes that doesn’t bounce. Although some inherit great wealth, for most to get to that point in life requires unique talents. And I disagree with the idea that just because one side requests something there must be a logical reason for it. Why not give both sides that benefit of the doubt?

    IMO the players like the current deal and the owners think they gave away too much in the previous CBA extension. From that point of view saying the players don’t want more money rings hollow. I believe under the current deal the players get $4.98B and the owners get $4.32B of the $9.3B pie. The owners also have revenue that is not shared. How about extend it one or two years, 50/50? Somehow I think $4.65B for each side ought to be enough.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    LOL!

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. VersusTheMoose

    VersusTheMoose Greatest of All-Time

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,340
    Ratings:
    +161
    You are making pretty big assumptions. The last CBA was signed in a much different climate; the players want to now see the financial history of the last decade and who can really blame them? If you actually think they are doing this just to be "pricks", I question if you have been following any of this. The players have a very limited amount of time when they can make money, the owners on the other hand have a much greater amount of time to earn theirs (they don't risk permanent injury doing it, either), so the players have more to lose in all of this and just want to have the full picture of the financials before they make any MORE concessions. Is that really being unfair? I agree with Kitten, if they didn't have anything to hide why would they make this an issue? They are making this an issue because a) they do have something to hide or b) they do not want to set a precedent because in future CBA negotiations they may have something to hide. Either way, I am all for the NFL being honest and opening the books.

    Also, you act like the players shouldn't have any rights. The players deserve this further concession on the owners side because no one is buying tickets to see the owners sit up in a luxury box and watch the game. The players brought in this money, they should get to see the financials of the situation.
     
  13. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    The players absolutely love the status quo. They already admitted the owners took a crap deal last time in a rush to ensure harmony and the continuance of football operations. The owners opted this time to try and get a little back.

    The reason why the owners want concessions pie is because they are saddled with expenditures for things like new stadiums, remodels, and business developments, not to mention the exponential increases of the players salaries over the past several years. Hell, player salaries alone have increased at twice the rate of revenues since 2006. Imagine if one of your biggest bills increased at twice the rate of your salary. You couldn't afford it. That's what we have going on here.

    The players on the other hand, they merely collect a check. The players aren't coming out of pocket to pay for stadium upgrades like new scoreboards, or to re-sod the field. They don't pay for business creation or land development. They simply play a game and collect a check.
     
  14. VersusTheMoose

    VersusTheMoose Greatest of All-Time

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,340
    Ratings:
    +161
    It is not, and never will be the job of the players to pay for the owners mistakes. It isn't their job to rectify a situation they did not create. It isn't their problem some of those stadiums are not full. I do agree there has to be some concessions on the players side because 2011 is definitely not 2006. That said, the players have made the concessions they are comfortable with. I think it is only fair to open up the books at this point if the owners expect further concessions on the players part.
     
  15. SpartaChris

    SpartaChris Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,042
    Ratings:
    +965
    Why do they need it? Where did 10 years come from? Why isn't going back as far as 2006 sufficient?

    I believe it's because they want to micromanage the way teams spend their money, which simply isn't their right. A formal, audited profit loss statement of the league as a whole dating back to 2006 is more than enough information for the players to cut a deal. They don't need to see every single detail, as most of it isn't relevant. It's simply not the union's business to tell the owners how much to pay their employees. Nor is it their business to tell an owner that he's made enough profit.

    Oh cry me a river. It's a personal choice for the players to play football. They could choose safer careers if they wanted, but instead they chose a high risk/high reward career. And I'm absolutely grateful they did, because I love football. I love the game. But I don't feel the least bit sorry that their careers are shorter than your average American, because they willingly made that choice.

    Or C) because it's none of the unions goddamned business. A joint revenue, income and expenses statement would not only be relevant, but would also determine the overall health of the league. Seeing and micro-managing what the owners do with their portion of the pie is just none of the unions business.

    I never said the players shouldn't have rights, I just view the players merely for what they are- talented employees who make the business as a whole better.

    I also don't think the owners owe it to the players to prove anything. I mean, it's a negotiation, so really, neither side has to show anything at all. The owners have said they feel the current model is unsustainable for them. They don't need to prove it, they just need to sell the idea to the players. Likewise, the players don't need to agree to it, they need to sell their disagreement to the owners.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. VersusTheMoose

    VersusTheMoose Greatest of All-Time

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Messages:
    1,340
    Ratings:
    +161
    I think I need to see the books for myself to see if a "SpartaChris" is an employee of the NFL. For the right amount I know my view on this topic would change a great deal. Sign me up!

    Seriously though, none of their business? It isn't their business to see the full numbers when they are the ones who earned it on the field? The business of football wouldn't be where it is without these "talented employees". If they didn't earn the right to see the financials outright, they surely earned the right to fight to see the financials before they make further concessions.

    While it is the players choice to take up such a violent profession, it doesn't take away from the fact the players only get a brief period to earn all they can so why wouldn't they fight for every last dime? Or, in this case, need proof before they give up every last dime? I know I would.
     
  17. Kitten

    Kitten Feline Cheesehead Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    5,093
    Ratings:
    +1,427
    They must have suspicions somewhere if they are still pressing for 10 years retroactive. I simply cannot accept that they are doing it to be pricks. Now is not the time to act cute and try to press each others buttons. To me, it's as simple as this: The owners have stated their reasons for their actions and the players are simply asking them to substantiate their claim with supportive evidence. In a normal situation, you would not need to do this. But you are talking $9 billion here, it's not like the workers at Frankenferter: Hot Diggity Dogs are in an uproar because they think Franky is hiding money from them. To be honest, I personally have never even thought of questioning any of my employers books. Reasoning: They never gave me a reason to. Clearly there is suspicion here. Nobody just sat there and pulled 10 years out of their backside. That figure is there for a reason.

    We better hope the owners are not messing around with those books, otherwise if they are caught, they are gonna have a lot more problems then a bunch of angry football players. Ever hear of the IRS?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Incubes12

    Incubes12 Bay Harbor Butcher?

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    Messages:
    1,758
    Ratings:
    +317
    All of this is a non-point when you realize the players CHOOSE to play the sport.
     
  19. Lunchboxer

    Lunchboxer Guest

    Ratings:
    +76
    If Vince Lombardi was still alive and Coaching Football he would not be very happy about all of this.

    If he was alive the Owners and Players would make an agreement ASAP before Lombardi would get angry.
     
  20. neilfii

    neilfii Hall of Fame Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,681
    Ratings:
    +714
    Have you read something I haven't? What is their suspicion? If they have some reason let's hear it. I haven't heard anything. If they have some concrete evidence or sufficient basis they would care to articulate I would love to hear it. It seems like you are simply choosing to believe what the players are saying without requiring any proof of their need to see the books, and yes, I side with the owners because they are just doing what every other business/person does with their own finances. If you don't think so, let me ask when you will show all of your financial records for the last 10 years to your employees/creditors/whomever.
     
  21. ThxJackVainisi

    ThxJackVainisi Lifelong Packers Fanatic

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    4,108
    Ratings:
    +3,182
    Kitten,

    You continue to contend the NFLPA is justified in asking for ten years of financial records without laying out a logical reason for it. Why do you think they are justified for this request when the last CBA extension happened in 2006? Just saying the NFLPA must have a good reason isn’t an argument or a justification, is it? You seem to be arguing only the NFL owners can be unreasonable in this negotiation.

    And whether or not your employer has ever given you a reason to question their books is not the issue since you would not be given access to them. If you believe you are being underpaid and your employer disagrees, your remedy is to seek employment elsewhere.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  22. neilfii

    neilfii Hall of Fame Fan

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    4,681
    Ratings:
    +714
    If anyone can run an NFL team and if the players are the ones making all of the money then maybe they should go form their own teams. I know this may be simplistic, but sometimes simple is right: these players would not and could not make all of the money (a statement with which I fundamentally disagree, by the way) if there were not teams and owners of teams who provided them the opportunity to play.
    Without the owners there is no NFL football as we have come to know it, and yes, I understand, without the players there is no NFL football as we have come to know it, but there is still college ball -- Go Badgers!
     
  23. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    521
    Ratings:
    +495
    In the war of millionaires vs billionaires, I tend to side with the millionaires. Considering how the billionaires have often claimed poverty when it comes to building new stadiums and expect the taxpayer to bail them out I don't really trust their claims of poverty now.

    And it's not like Al Davis has only had a 3 year career because he got his spine crushed by an OLB. Guys like Al are able to linger like like an odor for decades.
     
  24. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +879
    No one is claiming poverty.

    The owners are investors who have invested their personal wealth in a NFL football team. They would like to ensure that they have a positive return on their investment. Apparently, they are not seeing this and are attempting to correct it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,529
    Ratings:
    +879
    ...besides...

    If Brett Favre is retiring, who cares if the NFL continues???

    :happy0005:
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page