Blog Entry

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Posted on: March 8, 2011 10:38 am
Edited on: March 8, 2011 7:41 pm
  •  
 
Posted by Will Brinson

One of the biggest complaints throughout the labor disagreement between the NFL and NFLPA is that the owners won't "open their books" for the players. In case that term isn't clear, the players want to scrutinize the financial records of the owners to see if the owners are making as much (or as "little," if you will) money as they claim they are.

This opening of the books may turn into a dealbreaker. In fact, Liz Mullen of the Sports Business Journal reports that it might become a dealbreaker beginning almost immediately.

According to one of Mullen's sources, the union has decided that they will give "not 1 dollar more [without] financial transparency."

This is in reference to the fact that there's been movement on the issue of revenue sharing between the two sides -- once $1 billion apart, they were reportedly just $750-800 million apart by the time mediation ended on Monday night.

NFL Labor

"The players really think that the NFL opening their financials has become the key to getting a deal done," Mullen's source told her early Tuesday.

The players are probably correct. As of right now, the owners keep claiming "We're making only $XX,XXX,XXX.XX." This is a problematic claim, however, because they refuse to provide any evidence to prove that this claim is true.

Given what the NFLPA was able to uncover in the most recent momentum victory -- Judge Doty's ruling on the NFL's television "war chest" contracts -- it's difficult to blame them for completely and inherently trusting that whatever the owners tell them is 100 percent true.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
  •  
Comments

Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 9, 2012 5:07 pm
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Required time to studies each from a strategies, but I primarily loved info. That it showed clearly to get staying In reality successful with me with this particular specific to every towards the commenters below


fghdfre
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: January 4, 2012 6:10 am
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator



hgtrerte
Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 7, 2011 6:47 pm
This comment has been removed.

Post Deleted by Administrator




Since: Dec 2, 2011
Posted on: December 5, 2011 7:20 pm
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Web site with thank you doing this legendary internet site .We definitely loved each and every very dose of it all. I've truly yourself saved your web blog place to view near the present-day things print.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: March 14, 2011 11:58 am
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Calling me names, and making wrong assumptions doesn't really support your arguments

So you are playing the game of repeating to me what I said to you? Nice try Junior.

My wife's laughing too.

I have the feeling most people do that when you try to speak seriously, why should your wife be any different?
We mainly criticize in others what we dislike about ourselves...

Is that why you hate the pinto driver?

It is true, LOOK LOOK... We agree on something.  We agree that someone could fail to "do do" in kind (very poetic), just as we saw this last year, that while football players may be following the rules, their counterparts might NOT be following the rules, and can hit them late, 'cause them concussions, crumple them like an aluminum can in a scene from Jaws.  That's pretty much a risk of danger that most player's don't agree to (I'm making assumptions for the players here-- sorry

You really love to deflect from the topic with nonsense don't you? Where did you learn dabate? Romper room?
And a typo? Yep...

"Quite the opposite actually, Liability the only insurance that is mandatory was to protect the guy in the pinto from the guy in the mercedes that could buy their way out of responsibility. Still, auto insurance does pay for your repairs, unless you choose to buy more coverage than the law requires. You were incorrect to attempt to use this as a point in your spin, and incorrect as to what insurance is for, and who it really protects."


This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  And couldn't possibly be more wrong.  Liability is the cheap version of insurance, for people who own used cars (you CAN'T have liability insurance if you're still paying for your car-- you're required to have full coverage-- that would be the people with money, and expensive cars, that usually aren't paid in full upfront-- duh... wait that requires capital letters DUH DUH DUH!).  Rich people can AFFORD to pay for their accidents, and their injuries (hence having NO NEED for mandatory health insurance, NOR mandatory car insurance... Because they can afford both, and already have their own coverage to protect their own bodies against injury...)


You really don't understand insurance. All cars must maintain liability whether paid for or not, full coverage is optional. Of course if you are driving a car that your bamk owns and not you they require full coverage but the law does not.

You definately showed you should be saying Duh, that was the only accurate statement you made trying to prove to someone you are smart, but like in your failed attempt to lie, you again falied. You are a fraud.

Did I say "DUH" yet? 


Yes, we got it, you don't understand the subject, or insurance. Got you loud and clear.

You don't mind looking this silly, do you?  I apologize if you're embarrassed, because that's honestly not my intent.


Why would I be embarrassed for know what I am talking about, and a loud mouthed fraud trying to correct me with nonsense?

Then we get your own admission of brilliance, in case we weren't sure you thought so yet?:


You don't actually think you corrected anyone did/do you? You would have to understand what you were talking about, and that clearly is not the case.

It's because you didn't know what insurance was for, and why you got angry at exposing yourself for the fraud that you are.
You didn't understand insurance and thought it fixed people's cars. Dumb, yes you.

Hmmm... Evidently you've been injured in far more auto accidents than I have (hence a sort of logical admission that you DO in fact accept and understand the dangers of driving an automobile-- and continue to do so?).  I've never been injured in an auto accident, and I've never caused an accident, but I've been rear ended 3 times, and also been hit in the rear corner panel by someone who didn't notice a red light.

Are you insane as well as less than intelligent?

There were no injuries to cover, but Collision One was SO GOOD at dealing with all these sorts of things, I never even had to deal with EITHER insurance company in all instances.  Just sign things.  Get a rental car.  And wait for my repairs.  Not a dollar out of my pocket, and never touching my own insurance's coffers.

That's what liability insurance is for, even though you have previously disagreed. You really should attempt to be coherent.

So, explain to me again how that's not how car insurance works.  And how it only exists to cover injuries?

No one said that, you stated it was to fix your car, I pointed out you are wrong in your tirade about not being able to afford insurance, yet doing quite well in the music industry. Pay attention.

I don't know what to say.  Clinton specifically targetted and attacked Bin Laden a decade before George W did...


Only if you are delusional. Firing to missles at a baron mountainside while ignoring multiple attacks hardly suggests "specifically targetting."
He ignored completely the first attack on the trade centers.

You should have stopped with "I don't know what to say" and clarified it's because you do not know enough to respond intelligently.

 And never gave up looking for him.


And never started looking for him.

  While George W (admitted by Connie Rice) declined to act on intelligence the very month of 9/11 that we were in danger of being attacked, by hijacked aircraft...

Who is Connie Rice? And link to it, because you are again making things up.

But don't fancy me a Clinton lover.

You lie for him, but...

 I would have been happy if he'd been thrown out of office.  If the President of the United States doesn't have to tell the truth under oath, than who does?  Reagan did things I supported, and LOTS of things I didn't.  Same with George H (actually, I liked him quite a bit, other than his speech live about "What recession?  All this talk about a recession... I (a rich guy) don't feel a recession").  

But you said you were a rich guy earlier, between not understanding or being able to afford insurance...

Clinton did things I really REALLY liked, and some of the things I've hated most ever by a President...  And most sane people can agree that Carter and George W were mistakes, to varying degrees-- Carter more than W.


You don't quite qualify as sane if you really think you have corrected me on even one point thus far. But I am sure in your heart, from your place of desperation for even one person to respect you, you are winning like Charlie Sheen up in here!

But to your point, I sure wish Clinton had finished the job (while he was dealing with the thing that you claim he wasn't dealing with), but there were folks from both sides back then who didn't want us messing with the middle East.

*sigh*


He never started the job, he made a token gesture.

You've convinced me to go cancel my employees' health coverage

More pretend...

All you have is make believe and misunderstanding things as simple as insurance. Good luck with convincing people you are something you have never been.



Since: Dec 1, 2008
Posted on: March 10, 2011 8:51 am
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Surprise surprise, not 24 hours after the league provided financial data to the union they come back and say it's not enough.



Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: March 9, 2011 6:24 pm
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

IRREGARDLESS (I used Caps just to bug you)
You're a class act... Especially the:

"Do you really think as a fast food employee you will be able to afford COBRA at arounf $475 a month?

And yes, I meant you."


Do you? Do you really think that garbage they contend is fair to the public is the best we could do?

We'll skip "arounf", which is way more interesting than the other guy using ALL CAPS-- you really showed him, didn't you, by mentioning the ALL CAPS thing 30 times.

Yeah, I'm an old guy that used to have a young lady that typed things for me. Just never was that important to me in my line of nusiness.

I actually own my own business, but thanks for your brilliant guess.  I have employees, and I contract workers-- in a very similar way actually: they're the talent, and I hire their services.  I work in the produciton end of the music industry.  Doing quite well thank you.

Are any of them going to be at SxSW? Can I check your references? So you run a sound board?

Which is why I've seen this all happen before.  In both the music and the film worlds.  Used to be, studios owned their actors, and "took all the risks" (right!?), and record labels owned their acts (and took all the risks, again, right?!).

But as media made these enterprises much more powerful, and filled the coffers with many more dollars, and made the "employees" icons and stars, the talent realized they were actually the valuable commodity being brokered and began to leverage more and more control.


So you are under the illusion that performers do not currently seek recording and film contracts to get a foot in the door? That it isn't the goal of every garage band and youtubers out there to "sign a deal."

I love the internet world of make believe.

This is all a moot point anyways.


At least you didn't say "mute point" but "anyways" and you are correcting me? Good stuff junior.

 The NFL owners already agreed to the old CBA, which worked just fine thank you,

No it didn't, thank you, or their wouldn't be an issue thank you, try to keep up.

 but NOW, under the threat of stopping the NFL completely


Because it is no longer economically viable. can't forget that point.

(after brokering a little "rainy day" deal with the networks),

Loan.

 holding the game and its fans ransom,


That's the players

 they want the players to agree to a lesser deal.

Fair deal.

  AND play more games.


It's thier league, they don't have to become millionaires by playing for the NFL, the CFL has a 2.4 million dollar salary cap, and players average $50k a year, and I hear they like NFL talent to come north.

  AND (don't you love CAPS) ignore the fact they just signed a better TV deal in doing these things.

Really? So a lower, more fair percentage would be more like a freeze in wages? Interesting.

Meanwhile, the poor poor insulted and taken advantage of owners have done horribly with their investments in the NFL.  As evidenced by the Forbes numbers that show that the top 19 franchises are all worth over $1 Billion dollars...  The lowest, the Raiders, are worth $750+ million.

But net worth is not annual profit, a person that owned a business would understand that would they not?

Let's look at those numbers...  When Al Davis bought into the Raiders, they were worth $1.8 Million (about 2% of their current worth-- pretty nice return on investment by my math-- he paid $18,000 for 10% ownership).

And that was almost 50 years ago correct? Your jaw will really drop when you look at what the Giants were acquired for. So punish those with Business savy? Are you a closet communist?

The Raiders are considered the LEAST valuable team in the league currently, mind you (and in no small part because of the STUPID- all caps again-- contracts Davis has thrown at guys like Darius Heyward-Bey).

Yet those stupid moves saw them sweep the division last year, and things are looking up...

The highest valued NFL team is the Cowboys, at $1.6 Billion... Jerry Jones bought them for $160 million.  So, I'm no engineer, but that seems like a simple math equation too.

That would have anything to do with a Billion dollar stadium would it?

In our horrible horrible economy with skyrocketing player salaries, only 7 teams lost money last year... With the Raiders the worst again, down 7%.  Still their overall debt to value margin is still only 7%.

Lost money, but the players would see the ship sink to increase their wages, because they are employees...like auto workers that miss their jobs, or Charlie Sheen "winning" while others try to process it.

Meanwhile the Cowboy are struggling so bad they just built the grandest stadium in the history of the game, with the world's largest High Definition television taking up 60% of the field.

Have you been there? It's actually hung over the field. The game wouldn't be the same if it took up 60% of the field, and even that is a bit off isn't it? We all know it's length, but what about the width? Tell you want, do some research and get back to me, having been there several times, I am interested in what someone thinks that absolutely doesn't know what they are talking about, kind of why i am engaging you now.

And they want the players to take less money, and play more games.


Because the owners would like to see the NFL survive and grow, and because more football is better for everyone.

Spin it how you want.

You are trying to be the spin doctor. Hey, do you happen to own a karoke show?

Even if I WAS working at McDonald's-- that just don't make no dang sense.


Yes, you are right on that point, given what you have offered here, I sure would trust you to make my fries.

You own your own business and you don't understand what insurance is for. Riiiigghhhhtt. Good stuff...

You might want to think about calling in some help, when do the grown ups get home from work?




Since: Dec 2, 2007
Posted on: March 9, 2011 5:52 pm
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

You're funny IR...
I'm what people consider "middle aged" but your genius rears it AMAZING head again, in assuming youthfulness instead.  (Are you hitting on me, or is that just a compliment-- I'm trying to figure it out...  Nice try, either way, but I'll kind decline either version...  My wife's laughing too.)

Calling me names, and making wrong assumptions doesn't really support your arguments-- back when you were actually making real arguments-- and thankfully, your opinion of my worthiness and ability to deduce reasonable explanations about things has NO bearing on the truth or reality.  (Somewhat obviously to everyone but you.)

I would suggest you reread YOUR posts, with this brilliant little tidbit of ancient knowledge I adhere to:  "We mainly criticize in others what we dislike about ourselves..."  You're really quite telling in your genius.

I'm glad you're so level-headedly still responding to my counters, too, with your superior "oh, you little no nothing boy" tone towards me-- and no remorse for your wrong assumptions as they pile up-- but even THAT doesn't make you right.  Although if you really are smarter than me to a degree that you can make that not true-- all I can say is WOW!  You actually ARE a genius beyond measure.  That's really cool.  Glad to know you.

I mean, you're SUCH a genius, you took the time to justify your own screen name, against accusations that were OBVIOUSLY in all caps... Er, I mean, said in jest. 

Let's review some of your wisdom (I'm gonna use your favorite "bold instead of ALL CAPS" choice, in case you can't distinguish your comments from mine... Memory fails us old guys, I know that one we agree on): 
"No, that is pure nonsense. You could be driving safely, and anyone could fail do do so in kind and harm you. Hence liability insurance, just like businesses must carry, if you really understood what you were talking about."

It is true, LOOK LOOK... We agree on something.  We agree that someone could fail to "do do" in kind (very poetic), just as we saw this last year, that while football players may be following the rules, their counterparts might NOT be following the rules, and can hit them late, 'cause them concussions, crumple them like an aluminum can in a scene from Jaws.  That's pretty much a risk of danger that most player's don't agree to (I'm making assumptions for the players here-- sorry).

And unless you're a kicker with an unfortunate way of celebrating just another ordinary field goal (remember that one?) as an NFL player you're most often injured by OTHER NFL owner's possessions, who hit you on purpose, and caused your injury with a collision they intended.

Is that not true?  Do you disagree with that one too?  Honestly?  I wanna see you pretend to believe something other than that, to REALLY see your genius at work.

I can understand how, while so busy correcting all the ignoramus out there (ie, "me") that you have little time for self reflection (especially about comments you've made on a sports blog), but that one was decidedly lazy thinking.  And ill-defended.  I must be boring you.

Apologies.

But let's play with this one:
"Quite the opposite actually, Liability the only insurance that is mandatory was to protect the guy in the pinto from the guy in the mercedes that could buy their way out of responsibility. Still, auto insurance does pay for your repairs, unless you choose to buy more coverage than the law requires. You were incorrect to attempt to use this as a point in your spin, and incorrect as to what insurance is for, and who it really protects."

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  And couldn't possibly be more wrong.  Liability is the cheap version of insurance, for people who own used cars (you CAN'T have liability insurance if you're still paying for your car-- you're required to have full coverage-- that would be the people with money, and expensive cars, that usually aren't paid in full upfront-- duh... wait that requires capital letters DUH DUH DUH!).  Rich people can AFFORD to pay for their accidents, and their injuries (hence having NO NEED for mandatory health insurance, NOR mandatory car insurance... Because they can afford both, and already have their own coverage to protect their own bodies against injury...)

Did I say "DUH" yet?  You don't mind looking this silly, do you?  I apologize if you're embarrassed, because that's honestly not my intent.

Then we get your own admission of brilliance, in case we weren't sure you thought so yet?:

"I am clearly more knowledgable in these areas than you...reread what nonsense you have written. You thought auto insurance paid for repairs to your car."

Hmmm... Evidently you've been injured in far more auto accidents than I have (hence a sort of logical admission that you DO in fact accept and understand the dangers of driving an automobile-- and continue to do so?).  I've never been injured in an auto accident, and I've never caused an accident, but I've been rear ended 3 times, and also been hit in the rear corner panel by someone who didn't notice a red light.

There were no injuries to cover, but Collision One was SO GOOD at dealing with all these sorts of things, I never even had to deal with EITHER insurance company in all instances.  Just sign things.  Get a rental car.  And wait for my repairs.  Not a dollar out of my pocket, and never touching my own insurance's coffers.

So, explain to me again how that's not how car insurance works.  And how it only exists to cover injuries?

Then there's this gem:

George W. inherited a problem Clinton didn't deal with and as a result the Nation was attacked. Or are you a loose change kind of kook?

I don't know what to say.  Clinton specifically targetted and attacked Bin Laden a decade before George W did...  And never gave up looking for him.  While George W (admitted by Connie Rice) declined to act on intelligence the very month of 9/11 that we were in danger of being attacked, by hijacked aircraft...

But don't fancy me a Clinton lover.  I would have been happy if he'd been thrown out of office.  If the President of the United States doesn't have to tell the truth under oath, than who does?  Reagan did things I supported, and LOTS of things I didn't.  Same with George H (actually, I liked him quite a bit, other than his speech live about "What recession?  All this talk about a recession... I (a rich guy) don't feel a recession").  Clinton did things I really REALLY liked, and some of the things I've hated most ever by a President...  And most sane people can agree that Carter and George W were mistakes, to varying degrees-- Carter more than W.

But to your point, I sure wish Clinton had finished the job (while he was dealing with the thing that you claim he wasn't dealing with), but there were folks from both sides back then who didn't want us messing with the middle East.

*sigh*

I guess I'm a "loose change kind of kook" afterall, and being less smart than you, I had NO IDEA what that meant, much less that it meant that I was actually smarter than... er... wait...  I can't be smarter than you, because you knew that I was and I didn't...  Wait...  This is so confusing.

I give up.  Let's just agree that you win, even though none of your points ever made any sense. 

Congratulations on your superior intellect.  You've convinced me to go cancel my employees' health coverage, and take up donations on behalf of the NFL owners.





Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: March 9, 2011 5:01 pm
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Someone wants to play...
Oh IRREGARDLESS-
(Gotta say, I love your handle...  It's one of my favorite wastes of space, the "IR" on Irregardless, because it means the same exact thing as saying simply regardless...  So you, my fellow business owning non-Republican/non-Democrat friend, are quite literally, a waste of space... I like that...)


If you were even as close to being as informed as you pretend to be, and anywhere near as intelligent as you wish people would one day believe you to be, you may just understand why I chose that screenname. It's because ignorance  forced Websters and every other dictionary in the world into making irregardless a word. Because in this internet age, ignorance is popular, you should know, you are clearly participating in it. And because more people approach issues from a position of ignorance, their will is being forced on the not so ignorant, like you wish you could do to me with your flawed logic.

Oh, my actual other point-- about the car insurance thing.  You really think that's why it became mandatory, don't you?  Not because people who own $60,000 Mercedes don't want to pay for their own repairs if a McDonald's worker (let's use your favorite unimportant person) plows their Pinto into your luxury sedan after running a red light?

Quite the opposite actually, Liability the only insurance that is mandatory was to protect the guy in the pinto from the guy in the mercedes that could buy their way out of responsibility. Still, auto insurance does pay for your repairs, unless you choose to buy more coverage than the law requires. You were incorrect to attempt to use this as a point in your spin, and incorrect as to what insurance is for, and who it really protects.

Plus, that's ridiculous by your own logic...  You've been driving a car since you were 16 (not playing football though, right... or maybe, I dunno?), so you understand the risks involved, and have always been willing to take those risks of injury to yourself before, but now you want SOMEONE ELSE (but not NFL owners, right?) to pay for any injuries you took by deciding to travel 60 miles per hour in a 2000lb bullet, all the while hoping none of the other 2000lb bullets run into you in a moment of confusion (or while checking their fantasy football scores on their iPhone)?


No, that is pure nonsense. You could be driving safely, and anyone could fail do do so in kind and harm you. Hence liability insurance, just like businesses must carry, if you really understood what you were talking about.

Just like in football, players do not need to go for the blow up hit, and launch themselves like a missle. they didn't used to. But I am quite sure given your overall lack of knowledge I have been around and watching far longer than you.

So the logic applies to football players who risk their health on a football field... It's THEIR risk...  But NOT to you when you drive a car, that's somebody else's responsiblity?

If they are the one doing wrong, absolutely. If someone drives their car into your house should you be responsible? Junior you are making it worse for yourself.

You're a confusing guy.  But maybe you're just smarter than most of us, in ways I can't quite rationalize, but you can?

I am clearly more knowledgable in these areas than you...reread what nonsense you have written. You thought auto insurance paid for repairs to your car.

(Absolutely willing to believe that last part...  Since you so finely stated that because Carter and Clinton admitted their own culpability in harming our economy, that Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, don't have any culpability to admit...?
 

Reagan grew the enconomy, George W. inherited a problem Clinton didn't deal with and as a result the Nation was attacked. Or are you a loose change kind of kook?

Those are some serious rationalization skills you have there, I'm just not able to unravel that logic in a way that makes sense... at least to some of us other non-liberal/non-conservatives, who never even claimed in the first place that Carter and Clinton had nothing to do with it)

You more than likely lack the ability to rationalize more than just our conversation.

But you seem to enjoy showing your butt, so carry on.



Since: Dec 2, 2007
Posted on: March 9, 2011 1:52 pm
 

'Not $1 more' from NFLPA without books opened?

Oh IRREGARDLESS-
(Gotta say, I love your handle...  It's one of my favorite wastes of space, the "IR" on Irregardless, because it means the same exact thing as saying simply regardless...  So you, my fellow business owning non-Republican/non-Democrat friend, are quite literally, a waste of space... I like that...)

Oh, my actual other point-- about the car insurance thing.  You really think that's why it became mandatory, don't you?  Not because people who own $60,000 Mercedes don't want to pay for their own repairs if a McDonald's worker (let's use your favorite unimportant person) plows their Pinto into your luxury sedan after running a red light?

Plus, that's ridiculous by your own logic...  You've been driving a car since you were 16 (not playing football though, right... or maybe, I dunno?), so you understand the risks involved, and have always been willing to take those risks of injury to yourself before, but now you want SOMEONE ELSE (but not NFL owners, right?) to pay for any injuries you took by deciding to travel 60 miles per hour in a 2000lb bullet, all the while hoping none of the other 2000lb bullets run into you in a moment of confusion (or while checking their fantasy football scores on their iPhone)?

So the logic applies to football players who risk their health on a football field... It's THEIR risk...  But NOT to you when you drive a car, that's somebody else's responsiblity?

You're a confusing guy.  But maybe you're just smarter than most of us, in ways I can't quite rationalize, but you can?

(Absolutely willing to believe that last part...  Since you so finely stated that because Carter and Clinton admitted their own culpability in harming our economy, that Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II, don't have any culpability to admit...?  Those are some serious rationalization skills you have there, I'm just not able to unravel that logic in a way that makes sense... at least to some of us other non-liberal/non-conservatives, who never even claimed in the first place that Carter and Clinton had nothing to do with it)


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com