Jerry Jones holds firm on financial information

AP

Lost in the rush of news items emanating from the league meetings in New Orleans were comments from Cowboys owner Jerry Jones regarding the players’ request for audited financial information in connection with the negotiations on a new labor deal.

Jones believes the offer that the league previously made to provide general information regarding total profitability and the number of teams experiencing a loss in profits provides more than enough data.

“I’m very impressed with the financial information that we offered when we were talking,” Jones said, according to TrueBlueFanClub.com, a website owned by the Cowboys.  “That information, with what other is available, can be reconciled and you can easily ascertain where you are financially.  So there’s no issue on our part relative to the financial information that was offered.  It exceeds anything that we’ve ever done in any negotiation.

“More importantly there’s information they’d see that I haven’t seen about the other clubs, and won’t see.  We don’t share that information among the clubs.”

That’s fine, but with the league trying to get the players to take a smaller cut of each dollar based on unsupported assertions of reduced profitability since 2006, the league needs to provide something more than a league-wide summary of profits and the raw number of teams experiencing reduced profits over the past five years.

Though we’re not convinced a decade worth of audited financial statements is needed, we think that true profit numbers — with a shifting into the profit column of payments made to owners and their family members and related companies — is necessary.

To further support its reluctance to offer greater financial transparency, the league points to a recent ESPN.com item regarding the disagreement that has arisen between the NBA and its union based on the opening of the teams’ books.  The fact that the NBAPA has spotted potential fluff in the NBA’s numbers has no relevance, in our view, as to whether more information should be given to the NFLPA by the NFL.

And if fair questions regarding the validity of the numbers can be raised by the NFLPA, why shouldn’t fair questions be raised?  The mere possibility that the players will point out that additional profits are masquerading as expenses shouldn’t stand in the way of making a legitimate and genuine disclosure of financial information.

99 responses to “Jerry Jones holds firm on financial information

  1. They should not have to show one bit of private financial data.

    It is the owners business. It is time for the players and their self-important stance to get a haircut.

  2. He must be afraid of the general public finding out how much money they made last year and then getting upset that tax dollars were spent on the new stadium. This includes the stadium and parking taxes Jerr-ah put into effect before the stadium was completed.

  3. Jerry just doesn’t want the world to know that he lost money trying to fit too many temporary seats in his stadium. If such information was leaked to the press, we might all finally realize what a jackass he is.

    My favorite comment is “I’m very impressed with the financial information that we offered when we were talking.”……..I’m sure you were impressed with your own offer, Jerry.

  4. How about this. Hey players, if you want to make good money and play in the NFL, STFU, and take what you are being offered. And if you don’t like it, the owners can simply slap their logos on other players and we the fans will still cheer for them. Hell, if I was the owners, I would find homeless bums on the streets and pay them 1/100th of what I am paying you players. I am a Phins fan. It doesn’t matter who puts on a dolphins helmet, I will still cheer and watch the TEAM

  5. You go Jerrah !!! you idiot . Like the players, you want to prove who is right and wrong in the media when you should be hammering out a deal at the bargaining table.

  6. Funny –

    So we aren’t opening the books because the players may see where we are ‘cooking’ the books to make us less profitable. See look at the NBA!!!!

    It would be better for us if you just agreed with our numbers son, just trust me. What a crock, just open up the books and then negotiate from there.

    The bottom line is the owners are asking the players to invest and additional $1 Billion in the NFL through exempting that from the amount used for salaries, but they don’t want them to be able to see the books. Would you invest in a company that told you hey, you don’t need to see the books.

    Again this is not an Employee, Employer relationship but an investor relationship!!!

  7. Your Pro players slant never ends – a coup[el of things to remember…its not “general” data that the union gets now – for years – (years) the Union has always rcvd a comprehensive audited breaksown of all revenues associated with the NFL.

    Additionally – the Union has always held a contractual right to further audit the financials.

    The league had agreed to provide addl data to the Union

    This notion that the union is flying blind is a joke – its a pr play trying to get people to fall for the players whining about wanting more of the pie.

  8. Think his financial statements are lost somewhere with the permits to the Super Bowl temporary seating, anyway.

  9. Writes Abbott, “The NBPA contends the reality is more complex than is expressed in those documents. Hunter questioned some accounting procedures on what constitutes operating losses, and pointed out that, in many markets, team owners also earn revenue from also owning local TV networks that carry the teams’ games. He also said owning an NBA team comes with a high profile that helps owners’ other businesses.”

    ————

    Thaey are not talking about fluff. They are talking about the union going after money in the owners other businesses. Fluff?

    The NBA is in for a world of hurt because they opened the book and now the union is acting like the mob, wanting to get a cut of everything those owners own.

    The NFL isn’t that stupid and they can point to the NBA as example one.

    The union won’t get what it’s asking for exactly because of this problem.

  10. “Though we’re not convinced a decade worth of audited financial statements is needed, we think that true profit numbers — with a shifting into the profit column of payments made to owners and their family members and related companies — is necessary.”

    There is your key statement. Once those payments are made from the club to other entities, they become an “expense” to the club and it reduces “profit”. Thus, Jerry Jones can pay himself (or his personal corporation for an improved tax position) 99 % of dollars that would otherwise be profit and it would look as though the Cowboys are barely scraping by. Jerry does not want that info shared with other teams because they have revenue/profit sharing arrangements among the teams within the league. Once the genie is out of the bottle….

  11. Gosh, I wish I understood why the meddling ‘leader’ of a team that hasn’t done squat in now approaching two decades gets so much ink and so much face time. I’d be far more interested in the thoughts of an owner who can actually brag legitimate NFL success rather than a sleezy grandstander who seems to forget he was born rich and who has no other appreciable skills that being a braggart, a loud mouth, and a big spender. I mean, really– pull an average NFL mind out of the local sports bar, give him a bottomless budget, and that guy would be bound to win at least a divisional title at a better clip than 1 every decade or so.

    If the NFL is truly struggling, they owe at least part of the blame for allowing Jones to be out front…

  12. The players have summary data and they have the Packers’ financials, neither of which they’ve addressed honestly. I understand why they’d like more data to a point, but demanding 10 years is a ploy. HI’d like to see a real article that addresses specifically what the players have now and have actually been offered as far as financials go.

  13. The billionaires will kill it. I’m fed up and I’ve been watching since the 60s. Let the league die if the likes of Jerry Jones have a say in it. I don’t care anymore.

  14. It doesnt matter how much the owners or teams make. It should ony matter what the teams offer, and if players will play for that. How the players have it in their heads that it should be any different makes me really nervous for the future of this league.

  15. I’m no fan of Jerry Jones, but at the end of the day the Cowboy’s are his private property, he shouldn’t have to show the books to anyone other than his banker and the IRS.

    The players need to go pound sand.

  16. tnphinsfan says:
    Mar 23, 2011 3:56 PM
    How about this. Hey players, if you want to make good money and play in the NFL, STFU, and take what you are being offered. And if you don’t like it, the owners can simply slap their logos on other players and we the fans will still cheer for them. Hell, if I was the owners, I would find homeless bums on the streets and pay them 1/100th of what I am paying you players. I am a Phins fan. It doesn’t matter who puts on a dolphins helmet, I will still cheer and watch the TEAM
    ========================

    That may be the most pathetic post in the history of PFT.

    You would honestly watch anyone, even if it was a homeless bum, play football just because they are wearing your team’s uniforms?

    LOL. You are the NFL’ dream fan.

    A complete sucker.

  17. JSpicoli says:
    Mar 23, 2011 3:52 PM
    They should not have to show one bit of private financial data.
    ================

    So if your salary was tied to the revenue and profitability of the company you worked for, you would just accept whatever they told you?

    You must be awfully replaceable.

  18. You know what else you don’t usually get to see, Jerry? THE PLAYOFFS.

    That’s right. I just totally burned Jerry Jones. I rule. Somehow, he will see what I said and be very upset. I am completely sure of it. Up yours, Skeletor.

  19. The more the owners try to spin it in public, the more you realize their position is weak, ragged, won’t hold up in Court and won’t get a deal done.

  20. Someone on here recently put it perfectly. Let’s open up all of the books so we know exactly what all inclusive pool of money we are sharing as we are clearly partners in this endeavor! Let’s begin by examining every players endorsement deals as this will obviously be part of the pool that we as partners share…….De smith?? Bueler…Bueler…Where did you guys go??

  21. I’d point out that the Dolphins pretty much already are a bunch of homeless bums, but that wouldn’t be very nice of me, would it?

  22. I LOVE the Right Wing plants in here. Oh well … last poll … support for Players pushing 70%!

    Nice try.

  23. I’m a Browns fan and it’s hard enough watchy those lousy teams year after year. Sure just get some homeless peeps to wear the uniform. The owners will still make millions.. NOT. Way to show off your dumb person skills. It’s the Owners, not the players. Stop being jealous that these players make so much money. Boo hoo.

  24. When do employees at private companies have rights regarding opening the books? Other than tax money for new stadiums, why should owners have to open the books for these guys?

  25. I still don’t understand, please excuse my ignorance, but since the players make 60% of the total revenue and the owners make 40%-what are the players complaining about?

  26. @ tnphinsfan

    How about this. Hey players, if you want to make good money and play in the NFL, STFU, and take what you are being offered. And if you don’t like it, the owners can simply slap their logos on other players and we the fans will still cheer for them.
    _______________

    How many good QB’s are in the NFL as it is? 15? That number might even be high. Do you have any idea how drastically the level of play would drop if they replaced the 1,696 or so NFL players and replaced them with the next best 1,696? It would be a disaster.

    And in case you were unaware, the NFL already tried that strategy once. Remember 1987? It didn’t work so well then and it won’t work at all now.

  27. …and so he should!!! i’ts no one’s business but his (and the irs’ – wink, wink, nudge, nudge) what he makes – LEAST of all his damned employees!

  28. Why is this so hard for people to see? Everyone’s so interested in bashing the players for being greedy that they forget simple, BASIC facts.
    1. The league is making record profits.
    2. The owners are saying their costs are rising with no proof to back it up.
    3. The owners are asking the players to take a PAY CUT (the players are NOT asking for a raise!!!!!) to cover these purported rising costs.

    If the players said to the owners, “we want more money, show us your books”, they’d be completely in the wrong. That’s private info. BUT, if the owners are saying, “take a paycut, our costs are up even though profits are skyrocketing, we have no proof we’re going to give you on this, take it on faith”, then the players have every right to ask for proof. Any other situation, no, but in this case, yes. If you ask me to take a pay cut, prove to me why.

    And to every jackass who thinks their job is like being an NFL player, it’s not. Get over it. There are several major differences:
    1. The players are the product. I pay the NFL to watch my favorite players. I don’t pay Safeway because John Smith drove the truck to bring tomatoes to the market.
    2. In any other industry, there is freedom of choice in employment. That does not exist in the same way in the NFL. A star graduate coming out of Stanford university isn’t told by Univac, “You can only work for us; we’ve agreed on this with IBM, Microsoft, and Google. If you don’t like it, don’t work in business.”
    3. Every other industry is subject to anti-trust laws. The NFL is not. There are reasons why this is so, and I’m not going to debate the merits of them, but at the end of the day, it means things are special in the NFL in a way that they aren’t in the “real world” that everyone is claiming the players need to live in.

    If the players have to live in the real world, then so does the NFL. This means
    1. No draft
    2. No franchising rules or other impediments to true free agency
    3. No anti-trust protection
    4. No public funding for the stadiums you claim it’s costing you so much to build.

    That last one galls me. The NFL owners are crying about how butt-hurt their stadium costs are making them, but nowhere in there is there any mention of the taxpayer money that is basically subsidizing them. Here’s an idea: Al Davis pays back Alameda county for all the money he hustled and sued them for before anyone in the NFL can cry about stadium costs.

  29. Every time I see a picture of Jerry Jones, I think, “Who is that?”. Then when I see a picture of Jimmy Johnson I think, “Why are they calling Jerry, Jimmy?”

    Am I the only one who gets them mixed up?

    Ps. Vote Jerry off the island and let’s keep moving forward. This is retarded.

  30. Good Lawd the commenters on da ProFootballTalk.com site on dat dayuh internets sho do get mad when dem players get all uppity and tries to not take a pay cut.
    Does you want dem owners gone and teach em dey place?

  31. It’s sickening listening to some of the fans that comment on PFT. Most of them are selfish a-holes. I’m really starting to think that the ones that make comments about the players taking pay cuts are jealous that they didn’t choose the career path of an NFL player, and make millions of dollars. Why should these guys take a pay cut when they are the ones out there putting their bodies on the line for our entertainment? The owners need these guys just like they need the owners. So that, to me is a PARTNERSHIP! The players are labored help. The NFLPA is considered to be the players broker, which makes the relationship between the players and the owners a PARTNERSHIP. If we were partners, why would you negociated a tv deal without the players being represented? The players was not going to get a cut out of any of that money, but we are supposed to be partners? Come on, cut it out!

  32. Again, simple hypocrisy.

    If you were to ask the players to open up their financials to the owners to show that they really needed the money, you would think that that was un-called for and perhaps even un-American. But if you ask the same from the owner’s it’s somehow unquestionably ok.

    Why is it ok for the players to feel violated by such a request, but when the owners feel violated by such a request, they must be hiding something.

    You want to know what the books of an NFL team look like? Go buy one.

  33. @sterling7

    Allow me to correct your ignorance. The players got about 50% of total revenue. Not 60%.

    And that 50% was agreed by the owners in the contract the owners willing & voluntarily signed two freakin’ years ago.

    So two years ago, the owners agreed that was an appropriate amount.

    Ask Jurry what happened in those two years that made him change his mind?

  34. And Jurry, if you don’t want to open your books, negotiate a split of total gross revenue without any subtractions for your expenses.

    Players don’t need to see any books then. They’ve said so.

    The players have already offered a 50/50 split of total gross revenue.

    What’s your counter offer Jurry???????? 45/55, 40/60, 35/65? What???

    Cat got your tongue?????

    SPEAK UP

  35. @taxlaw26

    No player has said they would feel violated. You just made that up.

    Anyhow, the players are not asking that Jurry’s own personal finances are made available.

    Just the finances of the Dallas Cowboys.

    A hugely different thing.

  36. The old saying goes “What do you have to hide?” The same holds true here…what is the issue? Evading taxes? Laundering money? Buying steroids?

  37. …wow – lot’s of moochers and looters commenting tonight – where’ve you guys been – oh yeah in wisconsin – welcome back!!!

  38. this site likes to keep doing jerry jones articles because they know most people cant stand him. they do it to try to get people against the owners

  39. taxlaw26 says:
    Mar 23, 2011 4:51 PM
    Again, simple hypocrisy.

    If you were to ask the players to open up their financials to the owners to show that they really needed the money, you would think that that was un-called for and perhaps even un-American. But if you ask the same from the owner’s it’s somehow unquestionably ok.
    =========================

    AARGGHHH!!! Enough of this stupid argument!

    Seriously. Don’t you understand that player salaries are tied to LEAGUE REVENUE?

    And that the owners are trying to CUT the share of revenues that they split with the players due to rising expenses?

    Don’t you think if someone is going to claim that they have rising expenses as a reason to CUT compensation that they should have to prove it?

    The players aren’t asking for MORE money. They are asking the owners to justify paying them LESS.

    Has anyone heard a SINGLE player or player rep say they needed more money because their expenses have gone up? Anyone, anyone?

    Then why do I keep seeing this ridiculous argument on here time after time after time?

    Be jealous of the players for being younger and richer than you all you want, but at least know the facts.

    Seriously.

  40. Well clearly the NFL prima donnas’ I mean players have found their way on to this site and someone (Fl0ri0) taught them how to sign in and vote. The numbers went from about 90/10 owners to 50/50 on here. Good job Jeff Saturday and De Smith, glad to see you are keeping busy, since you decided not to negotiate!

  41. Gosh, I wish I understood why the meddling ‘leader’ of a team that hasn’t done squat in now approaching two decades gets so much ink and so much face time. I’d be far more interested in the thoughts of an owner who can actually brag legitimate NFL success

    —————————————————

    Not many team owners can boast three Super Bowl wins no matter how far you want to go back. Are you saying that you’d rather hear from Tom Benson?

  42. The players was not going to get a cut out of any of that money, but we are supposed to be partners?

    —————————————————

    If they want to be true partners, perhaps they’d like to share expenses as well as profits.

  43. @ Leeweezy8

    “If we were partners, why would you negociated a tv deal without the players being represented? The players was not going to get a cut out of any of that money, but we are supposed to be partners? Come on, cut it out!”

    Who are you? You talk like you’re a player. Trust me….you’re not putting your health on the line for our entertainment. You put your health on the line for a game that you probably started to play when you were in elementary school. You are just lucky/talented enough to have it pay off dividends….you think you deserve hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to play a game that many fans play with no pads every thanksgiving on frozen dirt in their backyard. Many people disagree with me, but I’d be happy to watch scrub-teams wear my favorite teams jersey. I’d rather watch the existing players, but I just want a football season. I can’t blame you for sticking up for your best interests…don’t blame the fans for sticking up for theirs.

  44. reality police

    There was a clause put in the 06 agreement stating if the agreement wasn’t working out for either side, then they can opt out. So the owners are opting out. They put that clause in there for a reason. That’s like you make an agreement with your boss to get paid a certain commission, your not too sure it’s the right thing to do so ur boss says, we will do it for a few years and if its not working for you, you can opt out and we will do a new agreement. Then you opt out and now you are a slave driver?

  45. Has anyone heard a SINGLE player or player rep say they needed more money because their expenses have gone up? Anyone, anyone?

    ————————————————-

    I’ve heard some say that they need more money because they have mouths to feed. I guess it’s a hard life when you got 3 or 4 baby mamas.

  46. laeagle says: Mar 23, 2011 4:27 PM

    1. The players are the product. I pay the NFL to watch my favorite players. I don’t pay Safeway because John Smith drove the truck to bring tomatoes to the market.
    ____________________________________
    I think this is the point where people have a divide. Some will pay only to watch the stars , some love the game itself more than the stars that arise from it.

    I love the game. I watch TONS of preseason football. I love seeing who I think will and won’t make it and tracking guys’ and my team’s progress. I watched NFLE for gods sake…and (I am STILL ticked off it’s gone thanks to Roger the dodger’s regime) because that was the NFL rules game (with a couple little differences). Star players are great and add a lot, no doubt. But Brady, Welker, Wilfork, etc could drop off the planet tomorrow and I would still root for my team just the same.

  47. I still don’t understand, please excuse my ignorance, but since the players make 60% of the total revenue and the owners make 40%-what are the players complaining about?

    ———————————-
    Hey dumb ass the owners opted out of the old deal. The players offered to go to 50/50 and the owners walked out. This is after they already take a billion off the top and tried to get two billion off the top. I dont think if the union is giving up a piece of the pie, there shouldn’t be a problem getting some financial information to justify that. If they didn’t ask they would be like doing business like Charlie Batch. I can’t stand all the idiots making post on here.

  48. It’s amazing that pro-union sites like this one, and the union itself, are ignoring the League’s latest proposal. Even Peter King pointed this out this week.

    This article had ZERO recognition of the fact that the NFL offered to have a third-party auditor go over every one of the 32 teams’ financials for the past five seasons and report to the player’s union how much each team had made each season.

    Instead, this site, and the union, continue to gripe about League positions that they moved away from already.

    Read it again if I typed it too fast. The League’s current offer is to have an auditor provide -NOT general- but specific profit and loss number for EACH team, for each year, for five years.

    This comes from Sports Illustrated by the way, not a League site. Catch up union guys and gals.

  49. Regardless the longer the owners hold out, the more it seems a little (or maybe a lot) fishy.
    Otherwise, if all their expenses were legitimate, and letting the NFLPA take a peek in private was all that was necessary to settle this thing, don’t you think they’ve have done it?
    Instead they’re sure devoting a lot of time and energy in making sure that never happens. So, they’re hiding something.

  50. Why would you think that a person who sold 400 Superbowl Tickets he didn’t have at his own stadium be taken seriously? Would you believe HIS books? Bet he’s got more than one!

  51. Jerruh’s the kind of guy that after you shake hands with him, you better count your fingers afterward.

  52. The pro player schills have flooded the board…….must be done washing the players cars and shining the bling.

  53. They should not have to show one bit of private financial data.

    It is the owners business. It is time for the players and their self-important stance to get a haircut.

    —————————–

    BS. It becomes the players’ business when the owners write off expenses as “football expenses” and then try to get the players to help shoulder the burden of those expenses. Who here wants to bet their home that Jerry isn’t paying big salaries to family members (including that pansy looking grandson of his that’s always in the box with him) and writing those off as staff expenses? Hint: you’ll lose your homes if you take that bet.

    So yeah, if you want the players to shoulder the burned of “football costs” then you better damn well provide proof that your costs are football related.

  54. “That’s fine, but with the league trying to get the players to take a smaller cut of each dollar based on unsupported assertions of reduced profitability since 2006, the league needs to provide something more than a league-wide summary of profits and the raw number of teams experiencing reduced profits over the past five years.”

    Uh, no, they don’t “need to provide something more”. An employer can give cut your pay, or cut your job, and not have explain anything to you. If you don’t like it, go work somewhere else. The Arena league is looking for talent. Compare salaries, then see which job you’d like to apply for.

    That’s how the rest of us do it.

  55. nfl52 says:
    Mar 23, 2011 5:34 PM
    reality police

    There was a clause put in the 06 agreement stating if the agreement wasn’t working out for either side, then they can opt out. So the owners are opting out. They put that clause in there for a reason. That’s like you make an agreement with your boss to get paid a certain commission, your not too sure it’s the right thing to do so ur boss says, we will do it for a few years and if its not working for you, you can opt out and we will do a new agreement. Then you opt out and now you are a slave driver?

    ============================

    Thanks for making my point for me.

    First of all, I never called the owners slave drivers. They are completely within their rights to opt out.

    And what in my post would lead you to believe I don’t understand the concept of “opting out”?

    As a matter of fact, as a independent business consultant, I work on 1 or 2 year contracts with multiple companies, all of which can be reviewed, modified or voided often with 30 to 60 days notice. So I’m no stranger to companies wanting to modify agreements.

    As you so helpfully pointed out, the OWNERS opted out on the basis that the deal isn’t working for THEM. The players haven’t done that.

    Wouldn’t that put the burden of proof on the owners to prove that they were justified in opting out due to escalating costs?

    Again, I thank for your making my point for me.

  56. melonnhead says: Mar 23, 2011 5:39 PM

    Has anyone heard a SINGLE player or player rep say they needed more money because their expenses have gone up? Anyone, anyone?

    ————————————————-

    No….. your right melonnhead…. sort of, the players have not come right out and said they want more money in so many words. They just want to keep things the way they were in the previous CBA ……. extremely slanted in favor of the players. Status Quo is a WIN for the players and not a valid solution. The deal the owners opted out of was not sustainable long term. The players know it and want like hell to keep it. Nice try…….we see right through your propaganda smoke screen.

  57. I actually agree with skelator for a change. Hell i asked my wife for our financials and even she got pissed. Maybe she’s hiding something….. j/k

  58. I don’t know what to do. I am so conflicted. I hate the Cowgirls and especially Jerrah, but I don’t want to come off as pro-Union. Can we have a thumb sideways designation?

  59. Well clearly the NFL prima donnas’ I mean players have found their way on to this site and someone (Fl0ri0) taught them how to sign in and vote. The numbers went from about 90/10 owners to 50/50 on here. Good job Jeff Saturday and De Smith, glad to see you are keeping busy, since you decided not to negotiate!

    —————————–

    Go back to watching Fox News and defending tax brackets you’ll never inhabit. Leave rational thought to those that are capable of it.

  60. realitypolice says:

    And that the owners are trying to CUT the share of revenues that they split with the players due to rising expenses?

    Don’t you think if someone is going to claim that they have rising expenses as a reason to CUT compensation that they should have to prove it?

    The players aren’t asking for MORE money. They are asking the owners to justify paying them LESS.

    Has anyone heard a SINGLE player or player rep say they needed more money because their expenses have gone up? Anyone, anyone?

    _______________________

    And, I am tired of this agrument. You KEEP talking like there is a CBA. The owners are not asking them to take a cut. They are negotiating a new CBA….

    If you want to call it a “cut”, didn’t the owners then take a “cut” in the last CBA??? Didn’t the players get a “sweet deal” in 06? Didn’t their percent go up?

    Well guess what? That CBA is gone (and it is gone because the Union agreed to it by signing the CBA). Time to NEGOTIATE a new one.

    So, I agree with some other posters. You want to be be “partners” and split 50/50, include the player endorsements.

    Bottom line, someone will get more, someone will get less. I don’t care who it is (I am for anyone trying to make as much as they can, it is the American way….but the players CAN take less like the owners DID) just get it done.

  61. realfann says:
    Mar 23, 2011 6:12 PM
    In May 2008 the owners decided to opt out of the CBA they had signed in 2006.

    20008 minus 2006 equals two years.

    ____________

    Umm, I think he was talking about this comment….

    realfann says:
    Mar 23, 2011 4:52 PM

    @sterling7

    And that 50% was agreed by the owners in the contract the owners willing & voluntarily signed two freakin’ years ago.

  62. melonnhead says:
    Mar 23, 2011 5:30 PM
    The players was not going to get a cut out of any of that money, but we are supposed to be partners?

    —————————————————

    If they want to be true partners, perhaps they’d like to share expenses as well as profits.

    ____________________________________

    I hear that melonnhead – If they could be owners – they WOULD be owners – but all they want to do is whine about how dangerous it is to play a game that someone OBVIOUSLY held a gun to their heads to make them play rather than use the BLESSING they received of a free education to get a regular job like the rest of us and take your chances with bosses that are not as heavily scrutinized as NFL owners…crazy world we live in mate!!!

  63. sterling7 says: Mar 23, 2011 4:18 PM

    “I still don’t understand, please excuse my ignorance, but since the players make 60% of the total revenue and the owners make 40%-what are the players complaining about?”

    For starters, the 40% given the owners is split 32 ways.
    The remaining 60% is divided (unevenly I might add) between 1696 players. Do the math.

  64. ..and the players aren’t complaining, the owners are the ones who want more. The players would be happy to leave things as they are.

  65. liontomyself says: Mar 23, 2011 6:29 PM

    “The owners are not asking them to take a cut. They are negotiating a new CBA….”

    ..where they reduce the players income by $1 billion.
    Sure sounds like a cut to me.

  66. the players arent investors. they buy bling and get it taken away at gunpoint. so, their “investments” walk.

    data before the current agreement started is irrelevant. duh was fishing.

    duh is unemployed. why isnt he out there washing windshields with a water bottle and squeegee…

    players crash the polls. good little dimmyrats! protests and threats are next.

    the 87 strategy worked fine. not all players stayed away and they all came crawling back. cant eat bling.

    the players do want more $. duh is fishing. he doesnt have any strategy except go to court and pound the damn table. like osamabama.

  67. For starters, the 40% given the owners is split 32 ways.
    The remaining 60% is divided (unevenly I might add) between 1696 players. Do the math.
    —————
    Plus, the percentages of the former CBA are AFTER a $1billion dollar giveback to the owners. So, the pot to split is (total revenue – $1 billion).

    Remember that this nonsense is all happening because the owners opted out, claiming that the NFLPA should give them $2 billion in a giveback prior to splitting the pot, because of increase costs. The players aren’t asking for a raise; the owners literally want another $1 billion dollars to cover costs they can’t prove, on good faith.

  68. realitypolice says:
    Mar 23, 2011 6:11 PM

    Thanks for making my point for me.

    First of all, I never called the owners slave drivers. They are completely within their rights to opt out.

    And what in my post would lead you to believe I don’t understand the concept of “opting out”?

    As a matter of fact, as a independent business consultant, I work on 1 or 2 year contracts with multiple companies, all of which can be reviewed, modified or voided often with 30 to 60 days notice. So I’m no stranger to companies wanting to modify agreements.

    As you so helpfully pointed out, the OWNERS opted out on the basis that the deal isn’t working for THEM. The players haven’t done that.

    Wouldn’t that put the burden of proof on the owners to prove that they were justified in opting out due to escalating costs?

    Again, I thank for your making my point for me.
    ——————–
    Thank you for making my point for me.

    At what point during any of your contract modifications/voids did the companies offer to show you their audited books for the last several years to justify their decisions? My guess is it didn’t happen, not even once. Most likely you accepted what they told you and either modified your contract or they found another contractor or you didn’t like what they said and moved on with your life.

    Again, I thank you for making my point for me.

  69. taxlaw26 says: Mar 23, 2011 4:51 PM

    “Again, simple hypocrisy.

    If you were to ask the players to open up their financials to the owners to show that they really needed the money, you would think that that was un-called for and perhaps even un-American. ”

    The owners pay the players.
    The owners already KNOW how much the players make.

    See how easy that was?

  70. Liontomyself says:

    So, I agree with some other posters. You want to be be “partners” and split 50/50, include the player endorsements.

    ====================

    Another ridiculous argument. Players are asking to see the financials related to the business they are “partners” (this is what the owners have called the players numerous times) in.

    The players are not partners with the owners in their off field activities, just as the players are not partners with the owners in the owners stadium businesses.

    Which is why owners don’t split stadium revenue with the players and the players don’t split endorsement revenue with the players.

    If you had a part time job, would you be required to share part of your wages with your full-time employer.

    And I think we all understand that there is no CBA, but thanks for pointing that out.

    It doesn’t change the fact that the owners are claiming that the previous CBA hurt their business.

    In my opinion, they should have to prove that. If you’re willing to take them at their word, that’s great. It’s not your money.

    As far as who won or lost in 2006, it’s irrelevant.
    Like I said before, I have no problem with the owner’s trying to get a better deal, none at all.

    They have a responsibility to get the best deal they can.

    But shouldn’t they have to prove that they need a better deal, since they were the ones who opted out early? Isn’t the burden of proof on them?

  71. @realfann

    They get 60% of the total revenue, which is 50% of all revenue. (8 billion – 1 billion = 7 billion. The players get roughly 60% or 4.2 billion. That’s more than 50%, but it’s ballpark).

    The players offered to take 4. billion (half) before ever seeing a financial statement. That should tell you something.

    Also, the deal was signed in 2006 – not 2009 (which was two years ago).

  72. Jerry and his fellow owners should act like grown ups and pay the players what the market says they should be paid.

    If the market says greater than 60%, then the owners will pay that.

    If the market says less than 30%, then the owners will pay that.

    Don’t open the books. Just drop the cap and drop the floor.

    This is simple–or it would be if the owners had the guts to operate their teams absent artificial caps on expenses.

  73. jeff061 says: Mar 23, 2011 4:03 PM

    “..its a pr play trying to get people to fall for the players whining about wanting more of the pie.”

    They don’t want more of the pie – the owners do.
    Why do so many posters still not understand this?

  74. 3octaveFart says:
    Mar 23, 2011 7:34 PM
    liontomyself says: Mar 23, 2011 6:29 PM

    “The owners are not asking them to take a cut. They are negotiating a new CBA….”

    ..where they reduce the players income by $1 billion.
    Sure sounds like a cut to me.

    __________________________

    So, do you feel bad for the owners taking a reduction in 2006? Or is that just what happens during negotiations? And, so now that they are doing it again, the owners should just stick with what worked for the players? Or, maybe they should NEGOTIATE for what is fairer, in their eyes, for the next CBA?

  75. If (a big if at that)….the NFL disolves and the 32 teams can now truly run as independent businesses with no draft, no salary cap, etc……who in their right mind believes that Jerruh wouldn’t be the first to have a half a billion dollar payroll ala the Yankees. That’s if Danny Snyder doesn’t do it first. AND they claim to be hard up for cash? I call BS.

  76. realitypolice says:

    But shouldn’t they have to prove that they need a better deal, since they were the ones who opted out early? Isn’t the burden of proof on them?

    _______________

    Valid point. But the simple answer is…no. There really is no burden of proof…as, again, there is no CBA and these are negotiations (when the players come to the table). But as you said, the owners stated, I think stupidly, (PR?) that they are losing money……..and that bluff was called……notice that you don’t really hear any owners saying that anymore………

    In reality, we all know the truth. Someone is not getting as much of the profits as they think they should. Players want status quo because they cleaned up last time…..the owners want some if it back…….it is as simple as that.

    But, prove they need a better deal? No. There is no CBA (in case I haven’t pointed that out previously). It’s whoever blinks first.

    And the players “opted out” when they signed an agreement that had an opt out clause. IF something can be used, ASSUME it WILL be used. They agreed to it…..and it was there because everyone knew it was a bad deal for the owners (otherwise, why agree to let the owners use it?). That, in 2006, set the stage for where we are now…the owners opted out of a bad deal and want some of those profits back. If they didn’t agree to a bad deal with an opt out, what we are seeing now (decertification and lockout) would have happened then.

    And, I wish they had…..because 0-16 wouldn’t have happened if they did.

    But, the point is…..and this is my (lying to myself) view, the owners caved in 06 so that we could have football (ok…I’m sure that is a lie) and all of them could have (more) money……..so, now it is time for the players to give back….and they will if they don’t get their way on 06-Apr-11.

    And that is fine with me.

  77. Personally, I’d miss the draft, and miss the parity, and miss the drama of never knowing who is going to win on any given year. And I’d hate it if my team was like the Kansas City Royals who rarely have a chance because of their small payroll.

    Which is one reason I’m rooting against the anti-trust suits. I kinda like NFL football. And if the players win, their precious 9 billion dollar pie is going to shrink. That’ll be funny in a sad sorta way.

    Besides, it’s not the Danny Snyders of the world who are in trouble -although they do have much higher expenses now- it’s the Green Bays of the world who are struggling the most.

  78. That a boy Jerry show them idiotic player`s who`s boss, flex your muscles and punch your fists together and only let them play if it`s a terrific deal for the owners!!!screw the players like they deserve, do it Jerry be a man!!!!don`t wimp out.

  79. @liontomyself

    You are correct. I should have said the owners reneged on the contract two years after voluntarily signing it.

    So please replace my “ago” with “after”.

    My point still remains: what happened in those two years that persuaded Jurry Jones he was losing money where previously he was OK?

    You could also ask him why did the league in that period hire a lawyer that specializes in lockouts if they weren’t planning one?

  80. 3octaveFart says:
    Mar 23, 2011 8:10 PM

    If you were to ask the players to open up their financials to the owners to show that they really needed the money, you would think that that was un-called for and perhaps even un-American. ”

    The owners pay the players.
    The owners already KNOW how much the players make.

    See how easy that was?
    —————————
    Please think before you make snide remarks. It is better to be thought stupid than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

    Both the players and the owners know each other’s income. What is the question is the net profit (income – expenses). The players want to approve the owners expenses as they relate to the net income. What he was trying to say was that if the players had to prove they needed the money (ie .. make the owners show them their expenses and get them approved) that there would be holy hell to pay. Also, you would see the players living way beyond their means.

    If you would read the ESPN article that is linked in the article you would also see that the NBPA is also going after revenue in the owners other businesses that the players union say benefit from the owner owning an NBA team.

    Opening the books completely in the NBA caused more problems and has not helped resolve any differences to this point.

  81. realfann says:

    You are correct. I should have said the owners reneged on the contract two years after voluntarily signing it.

    – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Reneged??? Umm…wrong. The players union agreed to it (or didn’t they sign the same CBA?)….therefore, they agreed to the CBA expiring 2 years early….no reneging….it was a contract which expired….per an agreement by BOTH sides.

    ________________________

    realfann says:

    My point still remains: what happened in those two years that persuaded Jurry Jones he was losing money where previously he was OK?

    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Bad deal for the owners maybe? Maybe they extended the CBA, with a bad deal for them, instead of a lockout in 06?

    ________________
    realfann says:

    You could also ask him why did the league in that period hire a lawyer that specializes in lockouts if they weren’t planning one?
    – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    Duh Mo is not a specialist as well (and yep, I know Upshaw died after the last CBA….opprotunities)? Maybe when the CBA was signed in 06, both sides knew this day was coming….because it was a bad deal for the owners???? Maybe?

    And if there is a possibility of something…..and you have the means….wouldn’t YOU hire THE BEST??? You would prefer to take your chances with mediocre???? If YOU asked him….he would probably just say that that is why he is Jerruh and you are just a “fann”…….and…..I (love to) hate the “boys”….

  82. I wonder what would happen if the cities that have NFL teams would organise their own league, lease their own stadiums and hire their own players. The money made by the cites would be nothing but a win for the whole community. To hell to the owners and to the players.

  83. @eagleswin

    No. Wrong. The players have zero interest in owner’s personal finances.

    The players are asking for financials of the 32 NFL franchises.

    How much Jurry spends on plastic surgery is of no interest to anyone.

    How much the Cowboy’s pay for Jurry’s invaluable, and apparently irreplaceable, skills as the general manger is of great interest.

    I’m guessing he pays himself a lot more than he pays any of his players. Maybe more than all his players combined. He’s that good.

    And, of course, anything he pays himself magically changes from profit to expense.

  84. Hey guys it’s not the owners who pay the players. It’s the franchises that do.

    Now this Jerry Jones has bought the franchise Dallas Cowboys for 100 million $ let’s say.

    Today it’s value is 2 billion or whatever.

    That’s the profit of the owner.

    The players are partners in the business of all this 32 franchises.

    That makes Jerry happy in the way that the antitrust laws are not a factor so he can pay his wife 10 million dollars a year for organizing half time shows and buying art for the stadium. His sister’s son also gets 5 million a year for opening bottles of champagne of 10.000 dollars (‘presents’ from the franchise) at half time.

    He can do this because they have a DEAL with their partners… the players. CBA for NO ANTITRUST rules.

    Now the owners broke the deal and demand more money. The partners know about the wife, the son, the grandma and the sister’s son. They don’t want to make a new deal for less money because they are not stupid.

    So they opt out of the deal and attack the franchises on the antitrust laws.

    YOU WANT TO TAKE OUR SHARE OF THE MONEY WE WILL ATTACK THE WAY YOU SPEND THE MONEY OF YOUR FRANCHISE.

    Simple as that.

    You americans should learn more about how a republic works or what democracy means. Maybe learn from the french who go on strike once a week..

  85. in return, the owners should ask the players to open up their books so they can see how the players SPEND their money. remember when NBA player kenny smith divulged that his electricity bill alone was $14,000 a month? ha-ha

  86. Okay, people, let’s be straight about something. The players are in a unique position in regards to their employment. They have very little choice what “company” they play for. They can be forced to relocate at any time. And they are a vital, fairly irreplacable component in their business.

    Imagine you go through all the trouble to become a doctor. Then you are told that there is only 1 hospital that you can work at, you can be forcibly relocated at any time, and now you need to take a pay cut. You ask to see why and get told no. The hospitals all get together and say you take less pay or we’ll get rid of you and replace you with people who weren’t quite good enough to be doctors, but we can pay them less, so it’s all good to us. Oh, you don’t have to be a doctor, you can go work elsewhere for much less money, even though you know that whoever replaces you will be less capable than you are…… Ridiculous? Well……

    Do I think the players make too much money. Yes. So do the owners. But that should not be the issue. The issue should be whether the people who have these unique skill sets and that we pay so much money and devote so much time to are being compensated fairly, or whether the owners are getting fat off exploiting them.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.