Skip to content

Pash: “I’m not convinced they want to see the numbers”

Jeff Pash, Greg Aiello, Jerry Richardson

In a wide-ranging 20-minute interview on PFT Live, NFL’s lead negotiator Jeff Pash said he’s not convinced that the NFLPA* actually wants to see their financial statements.

“We went a long way towards satisfying their financial transparency demands,” Pash said.  “Frankly,  I’m not convinced they want to see the numbers.  I think they like it better as an issue to whack us upside the head with then actually look at the numbers.”

Pash said the league was prepared to work with an agreed upon third party to give full audited financial team statements from the last five years.  What exactly that third party would report on — whether it was more than just generalized profits or not — was uncertain.

We are going to be posting more quotes, analysis, and video from Pash’s segment throughout the day.  With a weekend to digest everything that happened, Pash’s words were in general far less divisive and antagonistic towards the union than they were Friday.  (The quote above was a notable exception.)

The words above, in fact, were about as divisive as it got.   Jay Feely struck a similarly sober tone following Pash.

Hopefully that tone continues between the two sides in the coming weeks.

Permalink 41 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
41 Responses to “Pash: “I’m not convinced they want to see the numbers””
  1. unfkwthabl says: Mar 14, 2011 12:57 PM

    The players are employees… I say cut em all and bring in Falco!

  2. clintonportisheadd says: Mar 14, 2011 1:01 PM

    “We went a long way towards satisfying their financial transparency demands,” Pash said. “Frankly, I’m not convinced they want to see the numbers. I think they like it better as an issue to whack us upside the head with then actually look at the numbers.”

    ————————-

    So call their bluff (if you REALLY think it is a bluff) and give them what they want. But don’t play this particular card. You can’t have it both ways Jeff.

  3. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 14, 2011 1:11 PM

    They just want to see the real numbers, not the cooked spreadsheet you tried to pass off.

  4. 3octaveFart says: Mar 14, 2011 1:19 PM

    What? You mean the players didn’t take you seriously when you shoved some illegible scribbling on the back of a strip club bar napkin across the table? Those bastards.

  5. KIR says: Mar 14, 2011 1:19 PM

    One way to find out. Open the books

  6. madtolive5 says: Mar 14, 2011 1:20 PM

    “We went a long way towards satisfying their financial transparency demands,” Pash said.

    Yes you did…by cooking your own numbers on a 2 line spreadsheet.

    The players don’t trust you!!

  7. scudbot says: Mar 14, 2011 1:23 PM

    The offer was for audited financials passed along to a neutral third party, FoozieGrooler. Read before posting.

  8. larryfinfan says: Mar 14, 2011 1:24 PM

    Pash makes a lot of sense here. We all know that even if they sent their own auditors to the NFL teams to check out the books, that they won’t be happy. It happened with the NBA and would happen with the NFLPA…they won’t be satisfied that the numbers mean what they do or they’ll be scrutinizing how the teams are run versus what they claim they want to see the numbers for…

    The NFL is right on this point…no doubt.

  9. basexc9 says: Mar 14, 2011 1:35 PM

    I wonder if the NFL did fully disclose 10 years of teams’ financial data, if the players would have come back and said, “Sorry, we actually want 15″.

  10. nothimagain says: Mar 14, 2011 1:42 PM

    The more and more Jeff Pash speaks the more and more I like the guy. Pash’s stock is rising!

  11. 52crabcakes says: Mar 14, 2011 1:43 PM

    if they open the books, what else is lurking there that we should/don’t want to see!!!!! Payoff to politicians and the like. Just sayin. . . .

  12. hawknut says: Mar 14, 2011 1:50 PM

    What an unprecedented moron you are clintonportisheadd. Sheesh! All your posts are beyond stupid. I’m convinced 90% of the posters here have a 70 IQ or less.

  13. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 14, 2011 1:58 PM

    scudbot says: Mar 14, 2011 1:23 PM

    “The offer was for audited financials passed along to a neutral third party, FoozieGrooler. Read before posting.”

    Right, there’s virtually no chance that numbers could be skewed THAT way…
    Try thinking before posting…

  14. pitpig says: Mar 14, 2011 2:05 PM

    Without the best football players, the owners have no product. Either call the players’ “bluff,” if that’s what it is, or shut your mouth.

  15. touchdownroddywhite says: Mar 14, 2011 2:07 PM

    The idea that the numbers weren’t going to be good enough makes enough sense to me at this point. When the players saw that payroll for a given team was X(not counting player salaries), what was to stop the players from saying, “Well, why is your payroll so high? Why is this like this? Instead of taking our money, just remove some of this”

    They said they wanted to see that the leagues profit was down. What the really meant to say was they wanted to see WHY the leagues profit down. Very different requests, if you ask me.

  16. touchdownroddywhite says: Mar 14, 2011 2:08 PM

    52crabcakes says: Mar 14, 2011 1:43 PM

    if they open the books, what else is lurking there that we should/don’t want to see!!!!! Payoff to politicians and the like. Just sayin. . . .

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Not that it doesn’t happen, but it certainly doesn’t go on the books. Get serious or get out. Anybody who doesn’t have anything intelligent to say needs to go post on ESPN with the rest of the trolls.

  17. chatham10 says: Mar 14, 2011 2:20 PM

    I read these posts regarding the owners cooking the books etc, I do believe the NFL does have to file Federal Income Tax and if they lie and cheat on those they would have additional problems, I say “provide them with the last 5 years of tax returns”.

  18. herokravon says: Mar 14, 2011 2:23 PM

    Im convinced nobody cares.

  19. mick730 says: Mar 14, 2011 2:24 PM

    Pash is correct. The union ignores the Packers’ books, which are public documents, because the numbers don’t support the union’s stance.

    Why would they care at all about the other team’s books, other than to make a big deal about how much Jerry Jones or the Irsay’s might pay a relative or two?

  20. rbcallaway says: Mar 14, 2011 2:27 PM

    file under: “you can’t handle the truth!”

  21. mitrodge says: Mar 14, 2011 2:31 PM

    The players wouldn’t know what to do with the financial statements of the owners even with the most articulate CPA in America spoon feeding the numbers to them like baby food. These are the same functional idiots that receive millions of dollars in salaries and then squander their fortunes on such meaningful ventures as trips to the Opium Club in Miami…..and well….I guess they ARE pretty creative on how to disintegrate a million dollar balance sheet to NADA!! The fact is, they’re morons. And despite the inadequacies of greedy, dysfunctional, nepotistic (not sure if that’s in Webster’s) owners, I tend to fall on the side of free enterprise and laissez faire over these fools.

  22. hedleykow says: Mar 14, 2011 2:31 PM

    This was obviously never about numbers or transparency. It should be apparent to everyone by now that what the players really want to see is the tons of bs falling from Pash’s face every time he opens his mouth. That is worth the price of a paycheck every time.

  23. eagleswin says: Mar 14, 2011 2:39 PM

    basexc9 says:
    Mar 14, 2011 1:35 PM
    I wonder if the NFL did fully disclose 10 years of teams’ financial data, if the players would have come back and said, “Sorry, we actually want 15″.

    ————————

    Noone has ever explained why they need 10 years? Nor has anyone explained why it has to be the NFLPA auditors who see the books versus an independent 3rd party?

  24. ckg0913 says: Mar 14, 2011 2:39 PM

    I agree with Pash. The players want ammo for the courts and litigation, NOT negotiation.

  25. mdpickles says: Mar 14, 2011 2:43 PM

    So, does this mean I can take my boss/employer to court and argue that I should be paid more? Or do I need to be in a union first?

  26. sdboltaction says: Mar 14, 2011 2:43 PM

    All the pro union comments and thumbs down on valid points that reflect the league positively, are probably the mindless, progressive, socialist liberal sheeple out of Wisconsin that are pissing on the walls outside the capital building and being drug out of the halls like limp rag dolls as if it were the 60s all over again. I’m getting sick of this crap.

  27. jcaro5566 says: Mar 14, 2011 2:56 PM

    If I were the owners I would give the players exactly what they want and then turn around and cut ticket prices to the point that would in effect lower players salaries by 50%.

    If that doesn’t work, then lock them out and wait until they come back on the owners terms. One term I would insist on is no union affiliation and no agent representation. Let the players understand what it’s like to live in the real worl like most americans.

  28. souldogdave says: Mar 14, 2011 2:58 PM

    Leave it to some fool in San Diego to totally whiff on whats happening. If they don’t show complete and real numbers, they are negotiating in bad faith. Wait until they devalue your pension,teabagger.

  29. dirtybird06 says: Mar 14, 2011 3:00 PM

    A lot of you guys are ridiculous! If it isn’t obvious by now, the Owners were going to lock out the players regardless, especially if they got that 4.5billion from the network contract. Why is that so hard to see?

    They had this planned out ever since 2008. Have you been following all along or just listening to the spin the NFL has been bombarding the airwaves with?

    I mean seriously…

  30. daesch says: Mar 14, 2011 3:02 PM

    I don’t get this. The whole point to audited GAAP financials is to produce a set of financial statements and disclosures appropriate for external users – like the labor union you’re negotiating with.

    Other business partners – banks, and counterparties in acquisitions in particular – get way more information than the carefully limited info in the audited financials. And, yes, compared to the internal management reporting of an organization, GAAP financial statements are very carefully limited. That’s their reason for being.

    So the players request to see everyone’s audited financials is not in the least bit inappropriate, and the refusal to provide this disclosure seems questionable at best to me.

  31. radrntn says: Mar 14, 2011 3:34 PM

    the dip “smith” who is leading the players does not have a clue…….he is not stupid, the longer this drags on , and the more “legal” fees that are made, is all the more money for him, and his crew.

    If I have to hear one more time how these guys are asked to “swallow their pride” or how they risk thier lives everyday, I am going to barf.

    That is a total insult to our troops serving in harms way, to provide the freedom that these guys have to play a “game”

  32. steveospeak says: Mar 14, 2011 3:37 PM

    I’m sorry but the Players screwed up big time here, they were offered more financial information then they’ve every come close to getting before, and a deal that would have basically given them 60% of $7 billion dollars, and they walked away and brought out the big guns. Had they just agreed to another week extension I think they probably could have worked it out. Now everyone loses. If they declare free agency only guys 6 years+ are UFA’s, that screws a lot of members of their union that were expecting to get paid.

  33. kev86 says: Mar 14, 2011 3:38 PM

    Is it me or has a lot of time been wasted? This is so lame. There better be a god damn season.

  34. kotapug says: Mar 14, 2011 3:49 PM

    Im sick of this web site deleting my posts !!!!!!

  35. thefiesty1 says: Mar 14, 2011 3:53 PM

    They wouldn’t understand the figures if they had them. The players already think they are attorneys and accountants. Wanting full financial statements was just another ploy in their iffy bitty minds. No matter what the owners and league the’d never be satisfied.

  36. broncfanor says: Mar 14, 2011 4:15 PM

    dirtybird06, Your ridiculous if you can’t see the union was going to decertify regardless. The owners tried to gain some sort of common ground by compromising on some of the issues including the financial statements and the union said no at EVERY turn.

    The owners tried to reach an agreement especially after the ruling on the T.V. money but DeMoron Smith thinks he’s a modern day Jimmy Hoffa and it trying to further his own goals and aspirations.

  37. flaccotoboldin says: Mar 14, 2011 4:18 PM

    Owners and Pash ARE FULL OF IT

    They offered 5 years of financial data. You know what that will show?

    It’ll show “declining profits” because they are paying the players more. Which is exactly what happens when you pay your employees more. Thats not an inherent problems. Why?

    Its not a problem because, gross they are still profiting more than ever.

    10 Year data will show that the league is making a TON more money in 2010 that it was making in 2000

    5 year data is the owners wet dreams. Oh, us poor broke billionaires only profiting per team 200 million instead of 300 million! The horror! (made up figures, but i’m proving a point)

    The league is still highly profitable. The owners just want more of the profit for themselves.

    The billionaires can’t stand to see the players who live the rest of their lives with brain damage, terrible knees, joint, pains, auto-dislocating fingers, etc getting paid well.

    The owners are the bad guys here. Its sad that Americans though seem to be taking the side of ownership / management in this economy. Lambs to the slaughter.

  38. jerseydevil856 says: Mar 14, 2011 4:19 PM

    I think the agreed upon third party would have been Pacman Jones. After all, he’s always makin it rain…

  39. marjones45 says: Mar 14, 2011 4:49 PM

    mick730 says:
    Mar 14, 2011 2:24 PM
    Pash is correct. The union ignores the Packers’ books, which are public documents, because the numbers don’t support the union’s stance.

    Why would they care at all about the other team’s books, other than to make a big deal about how much Jerry Jones or the Irsay’s might pay a relative or two?

    Actually the Packers made a profit. 9 million I believe. Smallest market in America.

  40. iffybiz says: Mar 14, 2011 5:07 PM

    Pash is both correct and incorrect. It’s not that the players want to see what each team is making.
    It’s that they want the other owners to know what each club is making.
    There is going to be a huge swing in profit among the teams. Some like the Packers, Bills and Bengals aren’t going to make much. When they find out how much more their “partners” are making, the call will go out for revenue sharing.
    The players will force that issue too saying “why should we be forced to help the less profitable teams when you aren’t willing to do it?”
    The players want revenue sharing because everyone will have the same resources to sign players. With more teams able to fight for free agents, salaries will go up.

  41. bsizemore68 says: Mar 14, 2011 6:16 PM

    Lots of blogger are calling people stupid, shame on them. Having said that, I will do the same. If you think the players are looking out for the fans, you are an idiot. If you think the owners are looking out for you, you are a bigger idiot. Both sides are looking out for # ONE. Bill

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!