What Are Owner's Expenses? Why Not Help Themselves?

1. Owners put a big money to buy a team and have a right to see a return on their investment that is above and beyond just the operating expenses they incur during the year.

2. If an owner makes poor choices on how they put together their team or manage it they feel a revenue decline in the form of depressed ticket sales but the employees still all get the same pay their contract dictates.

3. I wonder how the players would like to provide the owners with what they are asking for from them. How about these players open up their financial records so the owners can scrutinize if they need all the money they make. Let them justify why the ability to move a ball up and down a field justifies 14 mil dollar homes and having a different colored sports car for each day of the week.

Personally I can care less how they work this all out. Both sides are being greedy and they are fighting over our money without the least bit of consideration of how much it costs for us to be a fan and follow our team. The cost to us keeps going up and they keep crying for more. I'm at the point now that I do not even care if we have a season this year. Let the lockout roll on and lets see how the owners and players alike feel about taking a 9 billion dollar loss this year. I'll gladly keep my money in my pocket for a season.

 

Sorry, there is no such thing as "right" to work. At least not in the way you think. Especially a right to work for whomever you wish. I can't demand NASA to hire me and a football player can't demand the NFL to hire them. The NFL, as is their right, decides how they hire and whom they hire.

With most higher paying jobs there is a lot of competition.

 

It's a labor dispute, what are you talking about? The owners want an extra billion yet they are unwilling to prove their point?

Not that I don't think the players are being equally greedy...Yeah, I don't really have a horse in this race.

 

No, they do it because it's legal. I can't just "allow" my employer to do something illegal.

Yes, the courts at this time have decided that the 32 teams are separate entities. However, that only relates to the selling of team trademark merchandise. The teams are actually franchise-hybrid businesses. Again, their special circumstances afford them special privileges. Although, they are also bound by certain laws that other "businesses" are not.

 

Collusion between businesses is legal. Collusion between businesses that restrains trade of anyone else, is illegal.

Please then, provide a link or some evidence of these special privileges or special laws you keep referencing. I look forward to this information.

 

What do they need to "prove"? It's their business and if they want an extra billion they can get it. However, they must also decide what's more important; a lock out or that extra money.

 

You keep calling it collusion. It's not. Other than the apparel merchandising for each team, they are FRANCHISES. NFL FRANCHISES. "FRANCHISE" Tag, etc. etc. etc.



“In today’s decision, the Supreme Court recognized that ’special characteristics’ of professional sports leagues, including the need for competitive balance, ‘may well justify’ business decisions that among independent competitors would otherwise be unlawful. The court noted that the NFL teams’ shared interest in making the league successful and cooperating to produce NFL football provide ‘a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions,’” the NFL said.


http://www.blairjacksonlaw.com/blog/?p=26


BAM!!! lol

 

Yes, and those collective decisions are????

It doesn't get any clearer than this:

 

They need to justify or prove their grievance that they deserve more money. But yeah, I'm not being realistic, just idealistic.

 

To who?

 

I'm not sure why they need to prove anything. It's their business so they can decide that spending 40% of revenues on players is the perfect model or they can decide that spending 50% is. Conversely the players can decide if they want to play for that or not.

 

Care to share the link you got this from? lol


It's not that hard to pull up most of the collective agreements NFL team FRANCHISES have with each other. Again, the ONLY time an NFL team is not considered a franchise is when they sell their team logo apparel.


William Monts of the law firm Hogan & Hartson said:

While sports leagues usually consist of independent franchises that compete on the field, they cannot produce the league product, namely, games and a championship season, individually. That is true both at the professional and collegiate level. NFL franchises cannot produce a championship season or even single games on their own. But for the cooperation of the teams, there would be no NFL football. Thus, there is a threshold question about whether sports leagues have the requisite multiplicity of independent economic actors to create a section 1 agreement. The BCS, or for that matter any alternative post-season arrangement designed to determine a national champion in college football, stands on the same footing. It can only exist by virtue of cooperation among the various conferences, universities, and bowls. No single conference, institution, or bowl organization can produce a national championship arrangement, no matter how it is structured, on its own.

 

Why they deserve more money? How about it's their business and they can keep all the money they want? Again though, in order to be successful they must balance their gains and losses. They don't, however, need to justify what they "deserve" to anyone.

 

They’re contracted. The team or stadium owner (which is usually the team, though sometimes a government co-owns the stadium) contracts out to the company who runs, say, the concessions. They still eventually get paid by the football team, because the team contracted them.

You’re making a distinction without a difference. (And that $10 beer is evidence of the overhead, by the way.)

 

A little case of overweening hubris, have we?

 

Nobody except the fans

 

Its from the SCOTUS ruling. lol

 

Again, about the selling of team apparel, right?

 

“Football teams that need to cooperate are not trapped by antitrust law,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote. “The fact that NFL teams share an interest in making the entire league successful and profitable, and that they must cooperate in the production and scheduling of games, provides a perfectly sensible justification for making a host of collective decisions.”
Justice Stevens pointed out that the Supreme Court previously has recognized “‘that the interest in maintaining a competitive balance’ among ‘athletic teams is legitimate and important.’” Though that interest does not allow the NFL teams to make a group deal for the purposes of marketing team logos for apparel, it “may well justify a variety of collective decisions made by the teams.”

 

In this case the courts. Yeah, the courts need to open the owners books, and stop wasting their time (as is, of course, tradition).

However, ideally they would hold counsel with the wise one...



"Your arrogance carries the scent of undeserved impunity, sir!"

 

Why you no open books?

 

Here is the deal...the NFLPA is a union. Unions are under a different set of laws. Also, the way these things happen is by contract. A contract between the Union and the Owners, with the NFL there to collect a check from both. Lock outs and strikes happen all the time.

 

Again... Owners OWN the business and can put whomever they want on their payroll. It's none of their other employee's business how much money the owner is making. The employee (player) needs to negotiate a contract that he thinks is fair and if he doesn't get what he wants he's free to seek employment somewhere else. Now, of course if an employee knows how much money his employer is making he could better judge the offer he receives. However, it's not his right nor his place to request that the owner of the business he works for "open their books".

 

Nor his place? What is this feudalism?

 

Are you suggesting a system where a player is drafted by Team X, and if he doesn't want to play for Team X, he can go play for Team Y.

 

Wait, so in this magical made up NFL, if a player doesn't like his contract he can just pick up and go to another team, just like that?

EDIT: Stringer beat me to it.

 

A good employer will try and make his/her place of business a "team" atmosphere. (No pun intended)

This silly "ask" business is nothing more than the league trying to be nice and treat their employees nice.

 

Nope.

"Somewhere else" doesn't necessarily mean another team.

Again, the NFL has hiring policies just like all other places of employment. And just like with other places of employment, if an employee doesn't feel as if he/she is getting paid what they are worth they can look for employment elsewhere.

There is, after all, the CFL, UFL, X-League, and Arena football that may hire them.

 

If I am not getting paid enough at Seattle Denny's, I can get paid more at Tacoma Denny's.