Decertification

[Marguide]

pure speculation and a dumb reason not to be transparent

Ok, I get it. It's ok for you to speculate about all the hidden pork, but when I offer a counter argument it's dumb?

You really put a lot of thought into that post, didn't you?

[Happy Panther]

pure speculation means you just randomly threw an idea out there that has no merit whatsoever. It's hardly a counter argument. In fact it's not an argument at all.

[mav1234]

pure speculation means you just randomly threw an idea out there that has no merit whatsoever. It's hardly a counter argument. In fact it's not an argument at all.

it is supposedly what has happened when other sports have opened the books to unions. could be mistaken there, but so I've heard.

[Marguide]

pure speculation means you just randomly threw an idea out there that has no merit whatsoever. It's hardly a counter argument. In fact it's not an argument at all.

Look, you don't side with the owners. They are just a bunch of fat cats trying to take food off the player's table. We get it.

But just because you think (read speculate) that the owners are hiding things like accounts in the Caymans doesn't make it so. You do understand that, right?

It is also entirely reasonable to believe, as I do, that no matter what the books show, the union will keep asking for more info (i.e. on every little line item) and will never be sufficiently satisfied to make a single concession.

But thanks for the lesson on counter arguments. I will be sure to take your advice to heart.

[Happy Panther]

it is supposedly what has happened when other sports have opened the books to unions. could be mistaken there, but so I've heard.

I don't think anyone has opened the books. Not sure what MLB did.

In the NHL lockout, the league hired its own guy and without telling anyone produced a "profitability report." You can even read it online. NHL hires its own guy, uses its own numbers and assumptions and voila!

However it was basically a public relations exercise as the figures in the report were easily dismissible.

Any financial reports have to be complete transparent and purely independent.

The NFL owners have done the same thing. Hey we will not give you full independent financials but let us sum it up for you. You can trust us!

It surprising that people think the owners are really offering anything

Here is what Senator Rockefeller says and i agree 100%:

What I'd like to see from NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the owners is a simple display of good faith: 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. Ask a neutral third party to review your financial data, redact anything sensitive and prepare an unbiased bottom-line assessment of the league's finances.

[Happy Panther]

But thanks for the lesson on counter arguments. I will be sure to take your advice to heart.

It appears as if you have not.

[mav1234]

I don't think anyone has opened the books. Not sure what MLB did.

In the NHL lockout, the league hired its own guy and without telling anyone produced a "profitability report." You can even read it online. NHL hires its own guy, uses its own numbers and assumptions and voila!

hmm, I was thinking of the NBA. I thought they had opened their books and gave tax information to the Union and they said that even though there were losses they didn't think they were as great as the NBA had claimed. Could be wrong though, it's been a long time since I read about it.

I understand why you think they should open their books, and I admit it is suspicious they refuse at all, but I suspect it is because they don't want to have to do so in every labor negotiation from here on out.

[stirs]

Even Rooney, the pro union, players coach from Steeltown says the union was just running out the clock so they could go to court.

interesting read on PFT

D Smith is scum

[Happy Panther]

I don't follow the NBA deal as much so I'm just googling.

The NBA and union are arguing over revenue projections not financials. Which is a step ahead of where the NFL is.

If anyone has a link on what the NBA provided as far as books I would read it

[mav1234]

edit:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/06/03/stern.presser/index.html

describes what they gave a bit. Having real trouble finding anything more.

Q. Billy Hunter used the word "baloney" in response to your citing a $400 million loss for the year. Why do you think you're so far apart on that? And how does that impede your ability to move forward?

COMMISSIONER DAVID STERN: I grew up in Stern's Delicatessen. He has his meats mixed. This is substance. We've given him our certified financial statements. We've provided access to our tax returns, and we're awaiting their review of those, and if there's more needed, they'll get more. And then eventually we'll get around to talking about it and we'll work our way through it. But the facts on the ground will be what they are, and we're very comfortable because we've given the Players' Association more financial information than has ever been done in the history of sport.

SBJ article on Billy Hunter's response to NBA saying they were losing money:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2010-06-01/sbj-nbpa-chief-billy-hunter-calls-nbas-claim-400-million-loss-baloney?developing-stories-sport-NFL=MLB

"There may be some inconsistencies between, you know, what they are representing in terms of the finances they have given us, versus what they are saying to these folks," Hunter said. "Because if things are really as abysmal as, I won?t say abysmal, that may be too harsh of a word, but if they are as questionable ... I want the message to be consistent. I want to see the same things [NBA clubs are telling prospective buyers] that they are telling us."

also, while doing searches, came across something that people can read and stew over relating to WHY the NFL may not have to release it's books:

http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=759:big-difference-between-nfl-and-nba-labor-disputes-boils-down-to-the-supreme-court&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61 I'm no lawyer and I'm sure the players have a counter and I'm sure our business and accounting experts here know more about this than I do, so I'll just give the the jist of it:

...a large part of the battle has been over the NFL’s instance that they legally do not have to release financial information showing that they are seeing a cash flow decline, hence their want for approx. $1 billion more in expense credits for things like new stadium development.

In the meantime, the NBA, who sees their labor agreement expire on June 30, has released their audited financial information to the NBPA saying they are losing money.

Notice that the NFL is saying they are in a “cash flow decline” while the NBA is saying they are “running at a loss.” The difference between the two is significant and the Supreme Court’s ruling on a labor case from the 1950s plays a role in the matter.

SEE LINK FOR RULING

This key ruling is why when the NBA says that they “in a decline” or “losing money” they are compelled to release financial information to the NBPA -- the union for the NBA's players -- to prove as such. Since the NFL is not saying that – they are profiting but seeing cash flow declines – they are not compelled to release financial information to the NFLPA, the union for the NFL's players.

[Marguide]

Providing tax returns would be reasonable and sufficient. If it is good enough for the IRS, it is good enough for the players.

What would not be beneficial is the type of line item analysis that has the two sides arguing over whether Jerry's company car should be a Bentley or a Kia. That is not going to lead to a return to the field anytime soon.

[Happy Panther]

Providing tax returns would be reasonable and sufficient. If it is good enough for the IRS, it is good enough for the players.

This is about as wrong as you can get

[Happy Panther]

edit:

http://www.nba.com/2010/news/06/03/stern.presser/index.html

describes what they gave a bit. Having real trouble finding anything more.

SBJ article on Billy Hunter's response to NBA saying they were losing money:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2010-06-01/sbj-nbpa-chief-billy-hunter-calls-nbas-claim-400-million-loss-baloney?developing-stories-sport-NFL=MLB

also, while doing searches, came across something that people can read and stew over relating to WHY the NFL may not have to release it's books:

http://www.bizoffootball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=759:big-difference-between-nfl-and-nba-labor-disputes-boils-down-to-the-supreme-court&catid=44:articles-and-opinion&Itemid=61 I'm no lawyer and I'm sure the players have a counter and I'm sure our business and accounting experts here know more about this than I do, so I'll just give the the jist of it:

Good stuff.

A couple of random thoughts

1) I think the only guy in the universe who has said the NFL is losing money is our esteemed owner who stated "And we have a negative cash flow of $200 million." I reiterate our owner is either delusional or a liar. As riddel has astutely pointed out union law states that if the owners are claiming financial hardship then they have a legal duty to open the books. I am guessing the owners lawyers were on the phone to JR to zip it within 8 minutes after his retarded Jan 4 press conference

2) I think the NBA is in a much better position that NFL as far as negotiations. The fact that the league has provided "certified" financial statements, assuming that means properly audited, is a great thing. This is a much better way to get a fair deal. While both sides may be arguing, BS arguments are done and they are arguing over things like accounting issues and revenue projections. Things like deprecation of assets.

An NFL analogy would be me and you arguing over the price of apple stock next year except you will not tell me the price today.

[mav1234]

The original point of bringing up the NBA was that even when you do open the books, the union still claims that it shouldn't have to give ground. Not saying it's true, just saying that is one of the arguments against opening the books.

JR did say negative cash flow. He didn't say operating at a net loss. I believe the owners knew exactly what he was going to say before he said it and approved of it. I could be wrong though, I don't have inside info! :)

I also admit I know less about this stuff than some other posters here. I don't think JR is senile or crazy, I suspect he knows what he said and why he said it. I'd be curious to see why, too.