Great news on CBA

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

SI_PeterKing Peter King
For fb fans, Doty's ruling that NFL can't use $4B in TV money for '11 expenses during lockout is gd news. Could push sides to legit talks.


AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
Doty ruled for Players in TV Case. Overturned Burbank's Decision. All TV Contracts violate CBA. Separate earing to come on the damages.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Laz

keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

I don't give a rat's ass about either side.

If the time comes that the usion asks for those things you are talking about, then I will be on the owner's side.

But the fact is, it has no bearing on what they are fighting for now.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If the owners claim they're losing money, they should be obligated to prove it.

Exactly.

And since the players are sharing in the profits, the books should be open so that the owners are showing that they are sharing honestly.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

This is one of the sticking points for me. I don't see why they shoud have to open their books for the NFLPA. I'm fairly certain that any one of our employers would balk at opening their books for their employees. I guess given the fact that they already participate in revenue sharing matters, but even still it wasn't in the expiring contract so why would it be in this one.

What wasn't in the expiring contract?

[WV]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

If the owners claim they're losing money, they should be obligated to prove it.

Taking $1 billion a year off the available income for stadium upgrades and improvements is ****ing bullshit, especially since most of those improvements are paid by the taxpayers.

They need to share their finance reports, period.

Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?
They want to double their take off the top, but let's face it there is still going to be what 7 or 8 billion to be split? Players and their agents are continually increasing the salary ceiling and while the owners ultimately have to approve those contracts (in a round about way) this has to cut into the owners profits. Isn't it understandable that at some point they would need an increase in their "wages" to cover their asses. Players demand more money each year and the salary cap increases, are the owners just supposed to absorb it?
And some improvements are paid for by the tax payers, but I'd be hesitant to say most. They have to get those passed and aren't exactly forcing people to vote for them. I would never vote to help them pay for it, you should be bitching at the taxpayers for that.

[WV]

Originally Posted by Brock

What wasn't in the expiring contract?

An agreement to open their books.

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by Laz

keeping the same financial package in the worsening economy IS getting more. Besides the owners should have the right to cut cost for THEIR business imo

and when the win this time, what do you think they will ask for next time?

naturally the players want to try and get the courts to force the issue. Judge Doty has been ruling on the NFL labor issues since about 1992 and has taken the Union side in virtually every situation.

looks like somebody is on the Union payroll

It's a revenue sharing model, not a flat wage model. The owners get the first billion, free and clear, and the players then get 60% of the amount made above that. If the percentage remains the same and the income goes down, the players get less. If the percentage remains the same and the income goes up, the players get more.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?
They want to double their take off the top, but let's face it there is still going to be what 7 or 8 billion to be split? Players and their agents are continually increasing the salary ceiling and while the owners ultimately have to approve those contracts (in a round about way) this has to cut into the owners profits. Isn't it understandable that at some point they would need an increase in their "wages" to cover their asses. Players demand more money each year and the salary cap increases, are the owners just supposed to absorb it?
And some improvements are paid for by the tax payers, but I'd be hesitant to say most. They have to get those passed and aren't exactly forcing people to vote for them. I would never vote to help them pay for it, you should be bitching at the taxpayers for that.

The percentage of profits to the players is what determines the salary cap.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?

Why wouldn't they want to prove it?

[Just Passin' By]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?

Because they are running a revenue sharing model and claiming revenue issues.

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

They want to double their take off the top, but let's face it there is still going to be what 7 or 8 billion to be split? Players and their agents are continually increasing the salary ceiling and while the owners ultimately have to approve those contracts (in a round about way) this has to cut into the owners profits. Isn't it understandable that at some point they would need an increase in their "wages" to cover their asses. Players demand more money each year and the salary cap increases, are the owners just supposed to absorb it?
And some improvements are paid for by the tax payers, but I'd be hesitant to say most. They have to get those passed and aren't exactly forcing people to vote for them. I would never vote to help them pay for it, you should be bitching at the taxpayers for that.

Again, it's a revenue sharing model. The owners pocket the first billion. The players get a 60% share of the revenue other than that first billion. There's only an increase in the cap if there's an increase in revenue. The owners aren't getting squeezed here.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

Ok this is where we disagree again....it's their business and ok they claim they are losing business, why exactly are they obligated to prove it?

Apparently, you don't understand the fact that the NFL is protected an Anti-Trust Exemption.

The NFL is not your typical corporate entity.

If the NFL is claiming it's losing money, they should be required to share their financials with the NFLPA. Otherwise, they should lose their Anti-Trust exemption.

[WV]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Apparently, you don't understand the fact that the NFL is protected an Anti-Trust Exemption.

The NFL is not your typical corporate entity.

If the NFL is claiming it's losing money, they should be required to share their financials with the NFLPA. Otherwise, they should lose their Anti-Trust exemption.

I understand why the NFLPA wants to see the books, to obviously protect their share of the revene (didn't know the Anti-Trust Exemption part). But why did they agree to the initial contract without seeing them?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

But why did they agree to the initial contract without seeing them?

Because the NFLPA was happy with the agreement. As a matter of fact, the NFLPA would be happy to continue with the agreement signed in 2006 moving forward. Unfortunately, the owners want a new agreement because they claim they're losing money.

If so, they need to prove it, don't you think?

[WV]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Because the NFLPA was happy with the agreement. As a matter of fact, the NFLPA would be happy to continue with the agreement signed in 2006 moving forward. Unfortunately, the owners want a new agreement because they claim they're losing money.

If so, they need to prove it, don't you think?

In that light then yes I would agree that they should show their loses.

The owners should have just renewed the old one and been done with it.
Given they'd just done that, then it wouldn't have given the NFLPA the opportunity to restructure anything or complicate matters like shitting their own bed with the "Lockout Insurance" scam.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

The owners are ****ing one who sucks the peniss. Piss on them.

[cardken]

Originally Posted by Laz

Brock teh major fail understanding the point


Players win = fans lose

everything the NFLPA wins pushes the cost of t.v.,tickets,parket,PSL's higher

Absolutely. QFT. NFLPA gets all they want we could be looking at the same landscape that the MLBPA has carved out for themselves, Zero Parody. Same 5 teams in the Playoffs very year and skyrocketing Player salaries, we ultimately pay for.