NFL transcripts: Commissioner Goodell, Jerry Richardson, John Mara & Jeff Pash

[twylyght]

This whole negotiation process is predicated on the "fact" that the owners are losing money or aren't growing at the rate that they find acceptable. The FACT that they have been unwilling to show any evidence of that throughout the whole process has been an example of "not negotiating in good faith" all along.

How is it fair to blame the players for not taking anything the owners were conceding on without being able to get concrete evidence of what their whole premise is in this mess other than "trust us, we promise!"?

Asking for 5 years of that data when you are not a partner in business is not reasonable. The union got that and then held to the 10 year demand as the last possible refuge to decertify. Lawyers rejoice! You may get to kill pro football yet!

[Jaxel]

This whole negotiation process is predicated on the "fact" that the owners are losing money or aren't growing at the rate that they find acceptable. The FACT that they have been unwilling to show any evidence of that throughout the whole process has been an example of "not negotiating in good faith" all along.

How is it fair to blame the players for not taking anything the owners were conceding on without being able to get concrete evidence of what their whole premise is in this mess other than "trust us, we promise!"?

The current Super Bowl Champion Packers showed a huge decline over the last CBA... and that is a team with huge, huge, history... I would be shocked of some of the other clubs weren't doing the same.

[ncbobcat]

They DID offer information to the union, that the union refused to review.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81eb9686/article/nflpa-nfl-release-statements-about-labor-situation?module=HP_headlines

That's right, the owners were offering up to 5 years of information, but the NFPLA was insistant on 10-years. The country hasn't been recession for 10-years. The longer you go back, the less significant 2-3 year's seem. Looking at a 5 year snapshot, 2-3 year's look fairly significant in terms of loss.

[Sam Mills Fan]

The current Super Bowl Champion Packers showed a huge decline over the last CBA... and that is a team with huge, huge, history... I would be shocked of some of the other clubs weren't doing the same.

Everything I've seen from independent analysts like Forbes shows that the league is continuing to grow MORE every year. It's actually gotten STRONGER during the recession. 2010 brought in more revenue than 2009 did. 2009 brought in more revenue than 2008 did. 2008 brought in more revenue than 2007 did. They're *not* losing money, they're just upset that they forecasting slightly lower revenue under the current (or expired?) CBA if it continues.

[Jaxel]

They are having to pay out more and more money to the players every year as well... Cost of business goes up, even if the revenue goes up. In 2004 no QB was making a 100 million dollar contract agreement.

[Sam Mills Fan]

This is from the NFL's own labor propaganda site. Even it shows that the NFL is still growing every year: http://nfllabor.com/2011/02/17/wall-street-journal-nfl-revenue-flattens/

TV money increased 46% in the past 5 years alone and the league is now apparently freaked that it's projected to only grow by 9% in the next 3 years. I mean...come on. This is stupid. These are greedy sons of bitches. I hope you guys read Bill Simmons' brilliant takedown of the league in his Greed is Good article.

[riddel]

They may as well call this a strike now. Severe concessions were made on the part of owners to meet and sporadically exceed the NFLPA demands. The ball was in their court to negotiate. They walked away.

Wrong.

The concession that was REQUIRED was never provided.

2. Increased financial disclosure. The employer will have to make a claim of inability to pay or financial hardship. although the company's financial information normally need not be disclosed in collective bargaining, when the employer puts profitability or financial condition in contention, the financial data MUST BE provided to substantiate the position.

I'm going to keep posting this until you guys read it and understand it....the owners were REQUIRED to show the financial losses. They didn't. Now the courts will force their hand!

The union did what they had to do. Don't tell me to take a pay cut and not show me why...that's why the union is there...to protect the players against the owners greed.

[Sam Mills Fan]

By the way, re: the Packers, I'm pretty sure they were showed to have positive income too. I think it was something like $20 million. Not a loss.

[twylyght]

This is from the NFL's own labor propaganda site. Even it shows that the NFL is still growing every year: http://nfllabor.com/2011/02/17/wall-street-journal-nfl-revenue-flattens/

TV money increased 46% in the past 5 years alone and the league is now apparently freaked that it's projected to only grow by 9% in the next 3 years. I mean...come on. This is stupid. These are greedy sons of bitches. I hope you guys read Bill Simmons' brilliant takedown of the league in his Greed is Good article.

Why would any business in their RIGHT MIND expect that kind of growth to continue?!

[Montsta]

I saw somewhere a very valid point about how in an ultra-competitive business like the NFL, the owners are understandably reluctant to showcase their respective business models and financial mistakes with one another, let alone the whole public. Not an end-all be-all excuse by any means, but certainly a valid point IMO.

[Jaxel]

By the way, re: the Packers, I'm pretty sure they were showed to have positive income too. I think it was something like $20 million. Not a loss.

Significantly less profit each year.

[twylyght]

Wrong.

The concession that was REQUIRED was never provided.

2. Increased financial disclosure. The employer will have to make a claim of inability to pay or financial hardship. although the company's financial information normally need not be disclosed in collective bargaining, when the employer puts profitability or financial condition in contention, the financial data MUST BE provided to substantiate the position.

I'm going to keep posting this until you guys read it and understand it....the owners were REQUIRED to show the financial losses. They didn't. Now the courts will force their hand!

The union did what they had to do. Don't tell me to take a pay cut and not show me why...that's why the union is there...to protect the players against the owners greed.

I guess that depends on your definition of required. If the Union can play CalvinBall and make up whatever requirements they want, then there is no end in sight to what they can demand until the business folds. Then, the lawyers will seek out a new venture to exploit.

[Jaxel]

I guess that depends on your definition of required. If the Union can play CalvinBall and make up whatever requirements they want, then there is no end in sight to what they can demand until the business folds. Then, the lawyers will seek out a new venture to exploit.

And I am pretty sure it was posted in here that the NFL did indeed offer more financial info.

[twylyght]

And I am pretty sure it was posted in here that the NFL did indeed offer more financial info.

I posted it... from the worlds of D Smith himself... 5 YEARS of data to a NON-PARTNER

Not good enough apparently.