Will there be a 2011 NFL season?

Countertrey · Post by **Countertrey** » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:35 pm

Here's the question... in WHAT business does management "open" it's books to a union that it is negotiating with? ALL businesses use problems with the bottom line as a reason for seeking concessions from the union. Why would the NFL be different?

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:09 pm

I'm not picking sides but players saying that they are being treated like "modern day slaves" is not good - no wonder there's so little progress

i do still think that somehow, someway, these 2 parties will find a way to bring in revenue and the only way that happens is by playing football

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sun Mar 27, 2011 7:28 pm

Countertrey wrote:Here's the question... in WHAT business does management "open" it's books to a union that it is negotiating with? ALL businesses use problems with the bottom line as a reason for seeking concessions from the union. Why would the NFL be different?

What business does management open its books to a union? A business where the union has some heavy leverage. The NBA owners did it. Of course the NBA union has more leverage with the players being even more important to the game than the NFL players. When the NBA owners did it, it amounted to nothing, except score a PR vote for the owners. What have the owners to lose in showing their books. They have a lot to gain unless they are hiding something.

The Bears and a couple of other teams have agreed to do it what is holding up the others?

Why should the NFL and other sports business be different? What other businesses share revenue with their unions?

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:50 am

MAYBE because some of the owners do not want their franchise business details in the hands of other owners OR the NFLPA

this is still ALL about BOTH parties trying to get the most

if the 'details' would enable the owners to 'get more' they'd provide them

the lack of getting the 'details' is purely a ploy on the NFLPA to try and 'get more'

BOTH sides are ONLY interested in one thing - getting a bigger slice of the incredibly big pie that is the revenue from the NFL

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:48 am

Countertrey wrote:Here's the question... in WHAT business does management "open" it's books to a union that it is negotiating with? ALL businesses use problems with the bottom line as a reason for seeking concessions from the union. Why would the NFL be different?

The NFL is unique and not comparable to other industries, though. In the NFL the players are essentially the "product" so they have far more leverage than a steelworkers union, for example. Also, if you go by what the league has said publicly, the owner/player relationship is not a traditional employer/employee relationship. The league and owners have continuously referred to the players not as "employees", but as "partners."

And in this instance the league and owners are trying to make the argument that they lost money, and are therefore asking for an increased percentage of the revenue off the top, so it's reasonable, if you're the union, to ask the league and owners to substantiate that claim.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:35 pm

Seems to me that the players want to be considered as 'partners' AND as individual players - depending on what's best for them monetarily :wink:

fanforlife · Post by **fanforlife** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:51 pm

I believe that there will be. However, I also believe that some fans will not come back once every thing is said & done. Kinda like in Baseball & in Hockey.

langleyparkjoe · Post by **langleyparkjoe** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:26 am

fanforlife wrote:I believe that there will be. However, I also believe that some fans will not come back once every thing is said & done. Kinda like in Baseball & in Hockey.

.. buuuuuuuuut, in baseball and hockey the fans eventually did come back. Granted most of it had to do with talent and it may have taken a little time but they came back. Football whether or not we have it this season will still remain the #1 sport in America.

I agree though, it will be sorted out and we'll have football. Just one of those things that we have to have faith in.

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:33 pm

fanforlife wrote:I believe that there will be. However, I also believe that some fans will not come back once every thing is said & done. Kinda like in Baseball & in Hockey.

Post-strike baseball is doing better than ever. Hockey has really picked up again too. Look no further than the Caps; there is more fan excitement about that team than any other in the DC area, Redskins included.

skinsfan#33 · Post by **skinsfan#33** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:44 pm

Yes

100% lock

Place your bets!

fanforlife · Post by **fanforlife** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:52 pm

CanesSkins26 wrote:
Post-strike baseball is doing better than ever. Hockey has really picked up again too. Look no further than the Caps....

Is that because people like hockey there, or is it because of players like Alex Ovechkin? Everyone loves to see a super star, but it may not necessarily mean that they like hockey.

fanforlife · Post by **fanforlife** » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:56 pm

langleyparkjoe wrote: Football whether or not we have it this season will still remain the #1 sport in America.

& even though I live in Canada, it will always remain #1 for me as well.

Always has been.

Deadskins · Post by **Deadskins** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:07 am

Countertrey wrote:Here's the question... in WHAT business does management "open" it's books to a union that it is negotiating with? ALL businesses use problems with the bottom line as a reason for seeking concessions from the union. Why would the NFL be different?

One that has congressional anti-trust protection. :wink:

CanesSkins26 · Post by **CanesSkins26** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:17 pm

fanforlife wrote:
CanesSkins26 wrote:
Post-strike baseball is doing better than ever. Hockey has really picked up again too. Look no further than the Caps....

Is that because people like hockey there, or is it because of players like Alex Ovechkin? Everyone loves to see a super star, but it may not necessarily mean that they like hockey.

It goes beyond just Ovi. The Caps have done a great job of marketing the team and attracting fans to the sport. Out of all the DC sports the Caps BY FAR provide the best game day experience and the fans recognize that. Leonsis is the exact opposite of Snyder and he has done a phenomenal job with the Caps. I'm got friends, who a few years ago couldn't name a single Caps player, that now drive up to Hershey to watch the minor league team play, for example. It's amazing how popular hockey has become in DC.

TCIYM · Post by **TCIYM** » Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:42 pm

According to Andrew Brandt, the difference between ownership and the NFLPA is $300 Million, or $9,375,000 per NFL franchise. Or half of what Peyton Manning is about to make. Yes, once the sides decide to stop being petty there will be a season, even if the Judge has to force the sides to play nicely, which she is renowned for in legal circles.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:22 pm

Freeman McNeil, the former New York Jets star running back who was the lead plaintiff in a case won by jury verdict in 1992 that struck down the NFL's so-called Plan B free agency system:

"I look at both sides and say, 'You guys are in partnership. That's the way this game is going to be from here to eternity. You have to have reconciliation,' " he says. "As owners, you have a guaranteed product that will make you money. But these players make the league. The owners have to recognize that."

When labor talks broke down on March 11, the biggest issue remained percentage of revenues paid to players, which was roughly 50% in the previous collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football ... abor_N.htm

Everybody agrees that the NFL is doing better financially than it ever has before and it looks like it will continue to keep growing, so why are the owners wanting to change a CBA that has worked for the good of the sport?

Why should the players voluntarily give up what has been working been working?

If your business "partner" came to you and said, this deal is no longer working for me, I want to work out another deal with you. How many of you would give up the money without proof that your partner is losing money? Let's not forget that your business is generating more money than ever before and is projected to make even more.

Jerry Jones has made it clear that he doesn't want to share his revenue with the other owners. Ths is the real problem. I can't understand why people are pointing the finger at the players when an owner like Jones doesn't want to share in the profits with fellow owners. Jerry doesn't want to give money to fellow owners. Why should players give money back to owners who they don't trust?

Jerry Jones doesn't want to share his revenue with a Jacksonville and conversely a Jacksonville can't compete with a Jones.

The crux of this current labor argument -- the fat ass elephant -- is that owners want to take back from players so they can solve their revenue sharing problems. The owners, theoretically, want to take that extra few billion or so (what's a few billion between friends) and make sure smaller markets don't suffocate under the weight of their big brothers.

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entr ... 3/27825155

This is why the owners need to open the books when they claim that they are losing money.

A July 1992 article from the New York Times regarding financial information disclosed in conjunction with the antitrust lawsuit filed following union decertification in the wake of the failed 1987 strike points out that former Eagles owner Norman Braman paid himself a $7.5 million salary for 1990.

The financial expert testifying at the time said that the salary showed up on the book as “general expenses,” even though it could have been counted as profit for Braman.

Other litigation has revealed that Bengals owner Mike Brown paid himself for 18 years, twice calling it a “general manager” bonus of $1.237 million and $1.947 million.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... formation/

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 4:43 pm

Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.

A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.

I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:

July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.

He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

Owners, open those books!

GoSkins · Post by **GoSkins** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:05 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.

A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.

I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:

July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.

He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

Owners, open those books!

If the players want to see the books; fine, but they must agree beforehand to "buy in" and thus take an ownership position in their repsective NFL franchise. Before "buying in" the players, as minority owners, should demand GAAP Accounting as well as cash flow statements that are audited with the statements receiving a "Clean" opinion from a mutually agreed to independent accounting firm. If the players become owners must purchase shares. Then they too will share in the risks and rewards of their business. Once a player leaves the professioanl ranks he must sell his shares back to other players. The price of those shares will be determined by a predetermined formula.

GoSkins · Post by **GoSkins** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 6:06 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.

A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.

I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:

July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.

He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

Owners, open those books!

If the players want to see the books; fine, but they must agree beforehand to "buy in" and thus take an ownership position in their respective NFL franchise. Before "buying in" the players, as minority owners, would demand GAAP Accounting income statements and balance sheets as well as cash flow statements that are audited with the statements receiving a "Clean" opinion from a mutually agreed to independent accounting firm. Once the numbers are available the players must purchase shares. Then they too will share in the risks and rewards of their business. Once a player leaves the professioanl ranks he must sell his shares back to other players. The price of those shares will be determined by a predetermined formula.

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:44 pm

GoSkins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.

A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.

I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:

July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.

He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

Owners, open those books!

If the players want to see the books; fine, but they must agree beforehand to "buy in" and thus take an ownership position in their respective NFL franchise. Before "buying in" the players, as minority owners, would demand GAAP Accounting income statements and balance sheets as well as cash flow statements that are audited with the statements receiving a "Clean" opinion from a mutually agreed to independent accounting firm. Once the numbers are available the players must purchase shares. Then they too will share in the risks and rewards of their business. Once a player leaves the professioanl ranks he must sell his shares back to other players. The price of those shares will be determined by a predetermined formula.

Uh, your proposal doesn't even begin to address the article. Oh yeah, change the subject that is a good tactic. Well let's have a go.

If the owners show the books, I propose that the fans get to buy shares. It works in Greenbay!!! Greenbay's books are open. Of course they are and they don't have owner/fans skimming $7 mil and claiming that they are broke - No Green Bay owners/fans paying themselves $7 mil, huh?

Look owners can do whatever they want with their teams. I mean, they can charge fans to watch practice, right? Sell Super Bowl seats that don't exist, huh? No one is saying the owners do not have the right to keep their books private. Nno one is saying an owner doesn't have the right to make as much money as he can - Dan and Jerry.

The issue at hand is if you want an extra billion dollars from your "partners" who SHARE (yes share) the revenue with you, then the onus is on you to convince them to give it up (Maybe instead of spending two years plus planning a lockout, you spend two years making better relations with your partners, then maybe they would have welcomed negotiations on a new CBA). They don't want to give it up. Why should they? The previous CBA was working. $9 billion dollars worth and projections saying even more in the future. Courts here we come.

Hey GoSkins, show us your evidence that the CBA wasn't working or are you too busy tweaking that proposal of yours.

chiefhog44 · Post by **chiefhog44** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:21 pm

langleyparkjoe wrote:
fanforlife wrote:I believe that there will be. However, I also believe that some fans will not come back once every thing is said & done. Kinda like in Baseball & in Hockey.

.. buuuuuuuuut, in baseball and hockey the fans eventually did come back. Granted most of it had to do with talent and it may have taken a little time but they came back. Football whether or not we have it this season will still remain the #1 sport in America.

I agree though, it will be sorted out and we'll have football. Just one of those things that we have to have faith in.

I think you are exactly correct, and this is why, ultimately, the players have ZERO leverage. The fans that leave will be replaced with new fans. It may take a few years, but they will come back. They always do...especially if the game is improved

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 10:50 pm

chiefhog44 wrote:
langleyparkjoe wrote:
fanforlife wrote:I believe that there will be. However, I also believe that some fans will not come back once every thing is said & done. Kinda like in Baseball & in Hockey.

.. buuuuuuuuut, in baseball and hockey the fans eventually did come back. Granted most of it had to do with talent and it may have taken a little time but they came back. Football whether or not we have it this season will still remain the #1 sport in America.

I agree though, it will be sorted out and we'll have football. Just one of those things that we have to have faith in.

I think you are exactly correct, and this is why, ultimately, the players have ZERO leverage. The fans that leave will be replaced with new fans. It may take a few years, but they will come back. They always do...especially if the game is improved

And you are exactly correct when you say the players ultimately, have ZERO leverage which is why the players have turned to the courts. They have one victory with the Lockout TV money lawsuit. They are still waiting on a ruling for the damages - May 12th. We all know about the April 6th hearing date coming up. If the players lose there, they are hoping for Judge Doty to end the lockout as part of their damage award. Without the courts, the players, like you said, have ZERO leverage. Remember it was the courts that brought on the foundation of the just recent past CBA. It is often said history repeats itself.

SkinsJock · Post by **SkinsJock** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:56 am

No matter which way the issue's are decided or whatever the instructions from the judges involved - EVERYTHING is going to be appealed

when the players decided that the best course of action was to stop negotiating and take their issues to the courts they (the players) essentially put everything on hold no matter what Doty or any other judge rules

I think there will be a season but the quickest way to get things back to 'normal' here is for the players to get back to negotiating and take this out of the courts

of course the owners are not exactly 'helping' get things back on track either

this is a big mess but I think the 2011 season is not at risk just yet

GoSkins · Post by **GoSkins** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:47 pm

Red_One43 wrote:
GoSkins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.

A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.

I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:

July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.

He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

Owners, open those books!

If the players want to see the books; fine, but they must agree beforehand to "buy in" and thus take an ownership position in their respective NFL franchise. Before "buying in" the players, as minority owners, would demand GAAP Accounting income statements and balance sheets as well as cash flow statements that are audited with the statements receiving a "Clean" opinion from a mutually agreed to independent accounting firm. Once the numbers are available the players must purchase shares. Then they too will share in the risks and rewards of their business. Once a player leaves the professioanl ranks he must sell his shares back to other players. The price of those shares will be determined by a predetermined formula.

Uh, your proposal doesn't even begin to address the article. Oh yeah, change the subject that is a good tactic. Well let's have a go.

If the owners show the books, I propose that the fans get to buy shares. It works in Greenbay!!! Greenbay's books are open. Of course they are and they don't have owner/fans skimming $7 mil and claiming that they are broke - No Green Bay owners/fans paying themselves $7 mil, huh?

Look owners can do whatever they want with their teams. I mean, they can charge fans to watch practice, right? Sell Super Bowl seats that don't exist, huh? No one is saying the owners do not have the right to keep their books private. Nno one is saying an owner doesn't have the right to make as much money as he can - Dan and Jerry.

The issue at hand is if you want an extra billion dollars from your "partners" who SHARE (yes share) the revenue with you, then the onus is on you to convince them to give it up (Maybe instead of spending two years plus planning a lockout, you spend two years making better relations with your partners, then maybe they would have welcomed negotiations on a new CBA). They don't want to give it up. Why should they? The previous CBA was working. $9 billion dollars worth and projections saying even more in the future. Courts here we come.

Hey GoSkins, show us your evidence that the CBA wasn't working or are you too busy tweaking that proposal of yours.

Don't be cute. The $7mm skim was the owner's compensation which is an expense item. And that was in 1992. The issue is some of the owner's have real financial issues because of the stadiums they built with the resultant revenues below projections. Now what are those owner's going to do? Hello, the economy has just experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression. And the players don't get that?

Red_One43 · Post by **Red_One43** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 5:59 pm

GoSkins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
GoSkins wrote:
Red_One43 wrote:
Red_One43 wrote: from post on Sat Feb 26, 2011 1:58 pm on this same thread.

A former Eagles owner claimed that he was losing money. When he was forced to sell the team, they looked at the books and found that he was paying himself a $7 million dollar salary. SO much for losing money.

I knew that my memory served me well. Read the following:

July 2, 1992
Discrepancies In N.F.L. Revenue
MINNEAPOLIS, July 1— Roger Noll, a Stanford University economics professor, testified today in the National Football League antitrust trial that the league's reported $1.3 billion in revenue for 1990 was "substantially understated" because of the way the owners do their books.

He said his research found that the N.F.L. reported 1990 total operating expenses of $411 million. Operating profits were reported as $163 million, but Noll said the profits were shielded from costs such as the $600,000 per team contributed to the World League of American Football and two antitrust lawsuits that are "the costs of defending and maintaining a monopoly."

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... nted=print

Owners, open those books!

If the players want to see the books; fine, but they must agree beforehand to "buy in" and thus take an ownership position in their respective NFL franchise. Before "buying in" the players, as minority owners, would demand GAAP Accounting income statements and balance sheets as well as cash flow statements that are audited with the statements receiving a "Clean" opinion from a mutually agreed to independent accounting firm. Once the numbers are available the players must purchase shares. Then they too will share in the risks and rewards of their business. Once a player leaves the professioanl ranks he must sell his shares back to other players. The price of those shares will be determined by a predetermined formula.

Uh, your proposal doesn't even begin to address the article. Oh yeah, change the subject that is a good tactic. Well let's have a go.

If the owners show the books, I propose that the fans get to buy shares. It works in Greenbay!!! Greenbay's books are open. Of course they are and they don't have owner/fans skimming $7 mil and claiming that they are broke - No Green Bay owners/fans paying themselves $7 mil, huh?

Look owners can do whatever they want with their teams. I mean, they can charge fans to watch practice, right? Sell Super Bowl seats that don't exist, huh? No one is saying the owners do not have the right to keep their books private. Nno one is saying an owner doesn't have the right to make as much money as he can - Dan and Jerry.

The issue at hand is if you want an extra billion dollars from your "partners" who SHARE (yes share) the revenue with you, then the onus is on you to convince them to give it up (Maybe instead of spending two years plus planning a lockout, you spend two years making better relations with your partners, then maybe they would have welcomed negotiations on a new CBA). They don't want to give it up. Why should they? The previous CBA was working. $9 billion dollars worth and projections saying even more in the future. Courts here we come.

Hey GoSkins, show us your evidence that the CBA wasn't working or are you too busy tweaking that proposal of yours.

Don't be cute. The $7mm skim was the owner's compensation which is an expense item. And that was in 1992. The issue is some of the owner's have real financial issues because of the stadiums they built with the resultant revenues below projections. Now what are those owner's going to do? Hello, the economy has just experienced the worst recession since the Great Depression. And the players don't get that?

My answer to your "Hello" - How does an organization pull in $9 billion in the worst recession since the Great Depression? The recession didn't seem to bother the NFL. Projections are that there will be continued growth. You still didn't produce any evidence that the owners are losing money. You say some owners are losing money - which ones? How do you know that they are aren't paying themselves $7 mil or some other amount that could be shown as profits. So what is it that the players who are "partners (not normal employees - normal employee relationships do not result in revenue sharing) don't get?

When does it make good business sense for a person or organization who shares revenue with another person or organization just give up a billion dollars just because the other person or organization says that they are losing money? Keep in mind there is an air of distrust and why wouldn't there be - owners have been known to exaggerate losses (see quote from the article below).

Noll said his analysis of the N.F.L.'s financial statement showed that Norman Braman, owner of the Philadelphia Eagles, paid himself a salary of $7.5 million for 1990. That salary was recorded as general expenses, when it could have been counted as profit for Braman, Noll told the jury.

According to the article which specifically states that the $7 mil could have been counted as profit. The point being - You don't know who is really losing money until you open the books - THAT was the case then (1992) and the case now (2011). In that case in 1992, the owner wasn't being truthful about profits. How do we know that isn't the case now? What evidence have you seen? Which teams want to build new stadiums but can't afford to? The Bengals, a team that didn't agree to the old CBA, have a state of the art stadium. BTW Mike Brown was mentioned other litigation article as well as the Eagles Owner.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... formation/

If the owners are in fact losing money then get it from Jerry (just built a stadium) and Dan and the other big market successes like the NY teams who just built a stadium. Of course, Jerry doesn't like that he is too busy building stadiums that double as museums (not to mention in recession).

If the NFL owners are in dire straits ($9 Billion in revenue and counting) then let them prove it to their "partners," the players (yes, they are partners - they SHARE revenue). If they prove it, I will jump on the owners side in a heartbeat.