Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

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

Kurb

By Kurb,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

riddel Newbie

riddel

Posted
Posted

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.

Dude!

What's there to make up? Either you lost money or you didn't. It's not really that hard. If you claim you lost money....show it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SPANKY Newbie

SPANKY

Posted
Posted

I'am starting to think D.Smith is the wrong guy to rep. the union if they walked away from all that was offered. It's like he was going to walk away unless he got everything he wanted, how about meeting in the middle? Everything will change when player's waterfall of cash suddenly stop's flowing. When Bently's start getting repo'd, the player's will call for his head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
twylyght Rookie

twylyght

Posted
Posted

Dude!

What's there to make up? Either you lost money or you didn't. It's not really that hard. If you claim you lost money....show it!

There is no specification as to how much data the union is allowed to demand. The mandate is only that a reasonable amount necessary to bargain in good faith. It seems to me that bargaining in good faith can't happen when one side gets to determine all of the rules. Why stop at 10 years? Why not all of it?

Don't worry though... Judge Doty will find a way to have this league obliterated within the decade. Then the players can get all of the revenue... which will be nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riddel Newbie

riddel

Posted
Posted

There is no specification as to how much data the union is allowed to demand. The mandate is only that a reasonable amount necessary to bargain in good faith. It seems to me that bargaining in good faith can't happen when one side gets to determine all of the rules. Why stop at 10 years? Why not all of it?

Don't worry though... Judge Doty will find a way to have this league obliterated within the decade. Then the players can get all of the revenue... which will be nothing

More mis-information.....Judge Doty is the reason the current or soon to be expired CBA is in place.....if not for Judge Doty...the NFL would be made up of about 20 teams in the largest markets with the most wealthy owners....it's because of the CBA that there is an level playing field....

I like the way everyone jumps on the NFL's side, when they have already been proven to be a monopoly in court and were required to set up a CBA. The owners greed has cost them their league...now the courts will set the league up.....all because their forecasted profits were not as high as they liked....GREED!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thunderraiden Veteran

thunderraiden

Posted
Posted

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.

Are you dumb bro. They had 60 mil income 3 years ago, then 40 mil the next, and finally 20 mil last year. What can a brain dead 5th grader guess what next years revenue be for the Packers based on their current pattern. I'll give you a guess, it doesn't involve the word "positive."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
riddel Newbie

riddel

Posted
Posted

Are you dumb bro. They had 60 mil income 3 years ago, then 40 mil the next, and finally 20 mil last year. What can a brain dead 5th grader guess what next years revenue be for the Packers based on their current pattern. I'll give you a guess, it doesn't involve the word "positive."

You guys act like the players % continues to grow even when the owners % decreases....profit is still a profit...don't tell me you're losing money and ask for a wage decrease, when that's not the fact.

by the way, the salary cap continues to grow each year and the salary cap is based on reported profits, meaning that the NFL's profits are increasing, based on the increase in salary cap....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JawnyBlaze Grand Master

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

Maybe I just never saw it, I haven't thoroughly researched this issue, but I don't remember anyone saying the owners were actually losing money. I heard that it was becoming unsustainable....which is exactly what the Packers figures show...a loss of profit every year will eventually be a net loss. That is the definition of unsustainable. And I'm curious what that out-of-context "rule" that riddel posted came from and under what conditions it is in effect.

You can't expect a business owner to have a constantly shrinking profit margin and not take action, such as reducing wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snake Grand Master

Snake

Posted
Posted

Maybe I just never saw it, I haven't thoroughly researched this issue, but I don't remember anyone saying the owners were actually losing money. I heard that it was becoming unsustainable....which is exactly what the Packers figures show...a loss of profit every year will eventually be a net loss. That is the definition of unsustainable. And I'm curious what that out-of-context "rule" that riddel posted came from and under what conditions it is in effect.

You can't expect a business owner to have a constantly shrinking profit margin and not take action, such as reducing wages.

Thats what most people dont understand. They are not in the red but they are losing more money each year due to the cap. There is a lot of wiggle room with the CBA to fix that so thats why I dont understand why the NFLPA is not moving an inc. Its just seems like there out there to prove they can piss longer in the wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mav1234 Grand Master

mav1234

Posted
Posted

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.

What law is this from and how is it defining "financial data"? Mostly the financial data bit. I know they need to provide things but I'm curious what it is defined as, would like to check some things.

Plus, with the union dissolved, meh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...