Richardson ...Lockout Article

[Panthers_Lover]

Kinda just proved my point...you'll pay to hear the no name cover band bc you like the song. It might not be as good but you still are there for the music.

Nah ... I might not even go to the bar, even if there's no cover charge, if the Stones aren't going to be there.

[ElIngeniero]

The owners offered to show their books to a third party that was agreeable to both sides for the last 5 years. The players didn't want a third party and requested the last 10 years (a time frame which is completely unnecessary and was only requested for political cover to decertify). And if a third party certified their findings on the owners books and they lied or manipulated they would be on the hook for fraud so I doubt they would fudge the numbers in the owners favor.

So they offered to prove it, and the NFLPA refused.

Most major corporations get tax breaks in the millions or even billions by state governments and many are also subsidized by the federal government. Often times they are tax exempt and are given land to build their buildings free of charge. Is there a difference??

Both the players and owners live pretty lavish lifestyles. The owners however carry all the risk and expenses.

As far as manipulating profit/loss that is serious fraud and I doubt anyone would do that.

The real negotiations won't really start until a counter proposal is on the table. Until then the NFLPA will continue to piss on our legs and tell us it is raining.

The NFLPA sent a letter to the NFL in May 2009 (long before they 'forced their own decertification') specifying EXACTLY the financial details they were looking for. These financial details included each teams operating income, total operating expenses, such as player costs, team expenses, sales/marketing, game expenses, salaries/payments to owners., profit from operations, net income, and cash assets. Those are pretty standard details that any well-run business should have no problem quickly producing. I have to provide this information to other businesses often before we sign large contracts. The NFL recently offered to provide VERY general information that amounted to little more than Richardson's egg-shaped drawing. I don't doubt that the third party would validate the information they offered...but that doesn't make the provided info useful. Specifically, they offered league-wide profitability data from 2005-2009 (5 years)...nothing specific here indicating how the owners are using the money. They also offered to show the number of teams that have seen 'a shift in profitability' during those 5 years...Profitability shifts every year--so it seems like the number here would be 32. If, what they mean, is that they'll provide a number of teams whose profitability went down, then that does not mean that profitability went down due to player's expenses.

Again, the owner's are barking that they are broke and it's because of the player expenses. Nothing offered has any relation to player expenses and certainly doesn't prove that player expenses are the root cause of a supposed decline in profitability.

As of last year, the average NFL player salary was 1.9 Million. The average career length is ~3.5 years for a career salary of ~6.5 Million. That's certainly a lavish lifestyle compared to the average American. I don't discredit that. But comparing a football player's lifestyle to that of an NFL owner is ludicrous.

Profit and loss can and IS legally manipulated everyday. Perhaps you're confusing profit/loss with Revenue, which cannot be manipulated legally. Example: You sell 1 Million in goods--that's revenue. Deduct expenses, etc and you are left with profit or loss. Part of those expenses could be a significant bonus you gave to yourself at the end of the year, leaving the company with little profit or even a loss. Thus, profit has been manipulated.

Understand that I want what's best for the NFL--growth, profitability and continued success for the greatest sport in the world (as far as I'm concerned). If their biggest expense (player costs) is too high, then they should work to reduce it. But demanding a reduction in those expenses without backing up their claims is dubious.

There is a 'breakeven point' where the cost incurred by the owner's will surpass the benefit gained by reducing salaries. I'm sure the owner's are already aware of the approximate date when that happens.

However, thus far they've negotiated TV deals that will pay them 4 billion even without a season...that's almost 50% of revenue and GREATLY reduced expenses--so they likely produce a profit without an NFL season. More importantly, it pushes that 'breakeven point' back further so the players almost certainly give in to their negotiation tactics. That, to me, solidifies my stance that the NFL owner's are more interested in padding their pockets than providing fans with entertainment.

[MadHatter]

The NFLPA sent a letter to the NFL in May 2009 (long before they 'forced their own decertification') specifying EXACTLY the financial details they were looking for. These financial details included each teams operating income, total operating expenses, such as player costs, team expenses, sales/marketing, game expenses, salaries/payments to owners., profit from operations, net income, and cash assets. Those are pretty standard details that any well-run business should have no problem quickly producing. I have to provide this information to other businesses often before we sign large contracts. The NFL recently offered to provide VERY general information that amounted to little more than Richardson's egg-shaped drawing. I don't doubt that the third party would validate the information they offered...but that doesn't make the provided info useful. Specifically, they offered league-wide profitability data from 2005-2009 (5 years)...nothing specific here indicating how the owners are using the money. They also offered to show the number of teams that have seen 'a shift in profitability' during those 5 years...Profitability shifts every year--so it seems like the number here would be 32. If, what they mean, is that they'll provide a number of teams whose profitability went down, then that does not mean that profitability went down due to player's expenses.

Again, the owner's are barking that they are broke and it's because of the player expenses. Nothing offered has any relation to player expenses and certainly doesn't prove that player expenses are the root cause of a supposed decline in profitability.

As of last year, the average NFL player salary was 1.9 Million. The average career length is ~3.5 years for a career salary of ~6.5 Million. That's certainly a lavish lifestyle compared to the average American. I don't discredit that. But comparing a football player's lifestyle to that of an NFL owner is ludicrous.

Profit and loss can and IS legally manipulated everyday. Perhaps you're confusing profit/loss with Revenue, which cannot be manipulated legally. Example: You sell 1 Million in goods--that's revenue. Deduct expenses, etc and you are left with profit or loss. Part of those expenses could be a significant bonus you gave to yourself at the end of the year, leaving the company with little profit or even a loss. Thus, profit has been manipulated.

Understand that I want what's best for the NFL--growth, profitability and continued success for the greatest sport in the world (as far as I'm concerned). If their biggest expense (player costs) is too high, then they should work to reduce it. But demanding a reduction in those expenses without backing up their claims is dubious.

There is a 'breakeven point' where the cost incurred by the owner's will surpass the benefit gained by reducing salaries. I'm sure the owner's are already aware of the approximate date when that happens.

However, thus far they've negotiated TV deals that will pay them 4 billion even without a season...that's almost 50% of revenue and GREATLY reduced expenses--so they likely produce a profit without an NFL season. More importantly, it pushes that 'breakeven point' back further so the players almost certainly give in to their negotiation tactics. That, to me, solidifies my stance that the NFL owner's are more interested in padding their pockets than providing fans with entertainment.

You are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are EMPLOYEES who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, I suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their JOB.

End of story.

[teeray]

The NFLPA sent a letter to the NFL in May 2009 (long before they 'forced their own decertification') specifying EXACTLY the financial details they were looking for. These financial details included each teams operating income, total operating expenses, such as player costs, team expenses, sales/marketing, game expenses, salaries/payments to owners., profit from operations, net income, and cash assets. Those are pretty standard details that any well-run business should have no problem quickly producing. I have to provide this information to other businesses often before we sign large contracts. The NFL recently offered to provide VERY general information that amounted to little more than Richardson's egg-shaped drawing. I don't doubt that the third party would validate the information they offered...but that doesn't make the provided info useful. Specifically, they offered league-wide profitability data from 2005-2009 (5 years)...nothing specific here indicating how the owners are using the money. They also offered to show the number of teams that have seen 'a shift in profitability' during those 5 years...Profitability shifts every year--so it seems like the number here would be 32. If, what they mean, is that they'll provide a number of teams whose profitability went down, then that does not mean that profitability went down due to player's expenses.

Again, the owner's are barking that they are broke and it's because of the player expenses. Nothing offered has any relation to player expenses and certainly doesn't prove that player expenses are the root cause of a supposed decline in profitability.

As of last year, the average NFL player salary was 1.9 Million. The average career length is ~3.5 years for a career salary of ~6.5 Million. That's certainly a lavish lifestyle compared to the average American. I don't discredit that. But comparing a football player's lifestyle to that of an NFL owner is ludicrous.

Profit and loss can and IS legally manipulated everyday. Perhaps you're confusing profit/loss with Revenue, which cannot be manipulated legally. Example: You sell 1 Million in goods--that's revenue. Deduct expenses, etc and you are left with profit or loss. Part of those expenses could be a significant bonus you gave to yourself at the end of the year, leaving the company with little profit or even a loss. Thus, profit has been manipulated.

Understand that I want what's best for the NFL--growth, profitability and continued success for the greatest sport in the world (as far as I'm concerned). If their biggest expense (player costs) is too high, then they should work to reduce it. But demanding a reduction in those expenses without backing up their claims is dubious.

There is a 'breakeven point' where the cost incurred by the owner's will surpass the benefit gained by reducing salaries. I'm sure the owner's are already aware of the approximate date when that happens.

However, thus far they've negotiated TV deals that will pay them 4 billion even without a season...that's almost 50% of revenue and GREATLY reduced expenses--so they likely produce a profit without an NFL season. More importantly, it pushes that 'breakeven point' back further so the players almost certainly give in to their negotiation tactics. That, to me, solidifies my stance that the NFL owner's are more interested in padding their pockets than providing fans with entertainment.

This whole argument seems to be based on the idea that the owners would manipulate the profit loss data to a third party because "they could pay themselves large bonuses to cover up their actual profits and therefore the data would not be reliable or useful (paraphrasing).

I assume you bolded salaries/payments to owners to suggests they manipulated their profit/loss by paying themselves higher than normal salaries or giving themselves big bonuses in order to essentially lie and say that they are losing money when they really are not.

IMO there is one glaring fallacy with that opinion. It would be unworldly stupid from a business perspective.

As soon as you cut yourself that bonus check you would have to turn around and cut a check to Uncle Sam for @40% of that bonus.

SO if Richardson gave himself (or any employee) a $50 million dollar bonus to "cook the books" a little bit he would immediately lose @$20 million dollars to the government. That is a big bite to absorb just to say "Nana nana boo boo stick your head in doo doo" to the NFLPA.

But as long as that money stays within the Panthers it is untouchable by the government because NFL teams are tax exempt because the NFL umbrella is considered a non-profit organization.

And I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) as long as you are the owner of the NFL team you can borrow against your team which is also not taxable. As a matter of fact (if I am correct) the interest on said loan can be written off on your income taxes.

So from a business perspective I don't see how in the world it would make any sense to pay yourself a higher salary or give yourself a large bonus just to manipulate profit/loss.

As far as I know the only reason other companies ever do this is to reduce the corporate taxes they owe which isn't an issue for NFL teams.

[panthers55]

Personally I want to see football this year

The only thing of relevance you said. As for your analogy, it was totally off base. This isn't a car sale but an employment negotiation. They have nothing in common.

[ElIngeniero]

You are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are EMPLOYEES who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, I suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their JOB.

End of story.

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.

[panthers55]

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.

The owners are asking for concessions and the players are refusing so there is an impasse. The issue is that the owners want a fixed cap and the players want a moving one. The major issue is that players want their salaries tied to the league revenue and the owners want it to be tied to a fixed rate of increase. The only reason it is perceived as a pay cut is because the cap has increased way in excess of expectations when the last deal was done. And owners want more money excluded from this "split pot" to account for current and expected increased costs.

As for increased wear on the body that is not true, they have largely abandoned the 18 game season and are willing to cut down on OTAs, offseason training and some other issues.

THe point here is that the players don't want any changes and aren't negotiating for a deal. This last owner proposal is a negotiating point not a final offer, which the players could use to continue to negotiate. But from I have seen they have taken the position of litigating to avoid any concessions and gain leverage not work to make the best deal. Opening the books has been a major deal but it really isn't. They didn't lose money and everyone knows it. That isn't the point really. They aren't at the point of needing to renegotiate to survive but are looking to gather a bigger piece of the pie. So the players need to make the best deal they can and see what concessions they can get. There is a lot the players can do to protect their interests.

[DaveThePanther2008]

you are missing the biggest point....

Owners invested their own wealth and debt for the team. They pay all the bills. They have all the risk. Their reward and upside whould be comensurate with this risk.

Players are employees who are paid a wage to perform a job.

If the players want the benefits of ownership, i suggest that they pony up their hard earn cash and invest in the teams. Until then, they can shut up and do their job.

End of story.

bam

we have a winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveThePanther2008]

No...I'm not missing the point. I'm a business owner and am about to open a second business so the idea of owner investment is not lost on me. However, the reward of the players for risking their bodies and investing all their time training should also be comensurate with their sacrifice. Its impossible to accurately say who makes a greater sacrifice....but my entire argument is that the owners are asking for major paycuts and increased wear on their bodies...without providing concrete reasoning.

I think 6.5 million dollars as you put it, is more than enough...

I also believe the cuts would come in Rookie Salaries. You have a problem with a Rookie making more than a VET. I DO!!!!