NFLPA Decertifies, No 2011 Season??

[brado8236]

The NFLPA has voted to decertify their union, meaning the labor dispute is going to court. This means the players are gonna be locked out and there's a good chance we'll lose part, if not all of the 2011 season. You'd think with all those billions of dollars at stake, they'd have worked something out...I guess you can't account for greed.

NFLPA files paperwork to decertify as a union - NFL - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/11/union-labor/index.html?eref=sihp)

[Neas]

I betting it wont get worked out untell Aug/Sept that when both sides will start lose money if deal isnt work out by then.

[Brad]

Still months away from any real deadline. Therefore there wasn't much urgency in these negotiations. Don't get too worried yet.

[Weiss19]

Turning out to be a real joke...

[jr24ai3]

You can call them greedy, but you would be doing the same thing if you were in their positions.

I guess if you were a player you would be saying "no problem owners, you can take an extra 800 MILLION off the top since you are hurting soooo bad. Don't even worry about showing us your books, we believe you".

[brado8236]

You can call them greedy, but you would be doing the same thing if you were in their positions.

I guess if you were a player you would be saying "no problem owners, you can take an extra 800 MILLION off the top since you are hurting soooo bad. Don't even worry about showing us your books, we believe you".

I'm not taking a shot at either the players or the owners, I'm just disappointed that they couldn't come to an agreement without this kind of drastic action being taken.

[tedsports]

I guess the question I have in regards to this....why should the owners be compelled to open their books? If they are privately owned businesses, why should they allow people to review their books, particularly when you know the info would not be held confidential and would be leaked to the media. It is not my business, or for that matter, an employees "right' to know how much private ownership makes. Just because the nflpa thinks the owners are asking for too much in concessions, not sure it is their right to demand to see the books. Of course, I am operating under the assumption that the owners are giving accurate info.

[tehchamp]

Both sides being greedy turned into this.
Previous deal the players killed the owners, now the owners want their way.

[shadymccoy25]

it just sickens me about what has gone on....do they even care about us fans?

[bziddy]

it just sickens me about what has gone on....do they even care about us fans?

They only care about the gross receipts we generate.

[MI Rob]

I betting it wont get worked out untell Aug/Sept that when both sides will start lose money if deal isnt work out by then.

This is basically what was said a couple hours ago on the NFL Network. I agree with it. They will realize how much revenue will be lost if there's no season.

[redsoxx11]

Both sides being greedy turned into this.
Previous deal the players killed the owners, now the owners want their way.

Killed the owners? What happened they could only buy 1 rare arabian pony last year...BooHoo

[brado8236]

This is basically what was said a couple hours ago on the NFL Network. I agree with it. They will realize how much revenue will be lost if there's no season.

The problem with this way of thinking is that the entire offseason program will be lost for both teams and players. Injured players can't rehab at team facilities, draft picks can't start learning their new schemes, new coaches can't start implementing their schemes, undrafted free agents can't sign with teams and veteran free agency will be severely truncated. Those things are just the tip of the iceberg.

Maybe they'll see the light by August or September and not lose any games or money, but the product on the field will suffer greatly if there's no offseason program. As a fan, the worst thing aside from losing games would be an inferior product on the field.

[Lions2001]

I guess the question I have in regards to this....why should the owners be compelled to open their books? If they are privately owned businesses, why should they allow people to review their books, particularly when you know the info would not be held confidential and would be leaked to the media. It is not my business, or for that matter, an employees "right' to know how much private ownership makes. Just because the nflpa thinks the owners are asking for too much in concessions, not sure it is their right to demand to see the books. Of course, I am operating under the assumption that the owners are giving accurate info.

Which like most privately owned business, bluffing about the books is common practice. Which is why the players want to see WHY they need the $1B dollars right off the top. I really don't know all the REAL facts, we see what we read or hear from ESPN over and over again. But i think there is stubbornness on both sides. Players want nothing to do with 18 game season, but they want a bigger share of the revenues and retirement improvements etc. Owners want more money to cover "costs". Well now that it is in court I would imagine the owners will be forced to reveal more financial information. They had to of figured they would if it went to court, but we will see.

Far as the season. I am going to put money on it will happen right on schedule. Lot of time left to work it out as long as it doesn't get tied up in courts too long!

[silver_225]

What other private business is there that an employee is entitled to look at the employers books? These players are being paid absurd amounts of money. And don't tell me the average career is 5 years. Think about it. Even a person that makes 100K a year would have to work 30 years just to make what these guys made in their first year. These guys think they are entitled to this money. This is entertainment and only entertainment. Not crucial research to cure life threatening diseases.

If you had your own business would you open your books to your employees if you were paying them more than the best of the best salaries?

[brado8236]

It's not a matter of how much these guys are being paid to play. It's a matter of them not believing a statement made by ownership during collective bargaining. Owners are crying poor and demanding a larger share of a 9 billion dollar pie. All the players are saying is "prove it," which they have every right to do in collective bargaining. And the owners have every right to say "no," which they have. That, amongst other things, has led the two sides to today, and they're choosing to let the courts sort it out.

[Footsteps]

Guys - Read my support of the players here - http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/football/138730-artie-langes-voice-waaahhh-i-dont-make-enough-money.html

Anyone that sides with the owners, in my opinion, does not understand the issues.

Silver - what other private businesses? Let me answer your question - almost all private companies, especially if you are a stockholder. Businesses give stockholders audit rights/rights to review financials. Your statement is without basis.

All - a deal won't get done until late August/early September.

[Footsteps]

Which like most privately owned business, bluffing about the books is common practice. Which is why the players want to see WHY they need the $1B dollars right off the top. I really don't know all the REAL facts, we see what we read or hear from ESPN over and over again. But i think there is stubbornness on both sides. Players want nothing to do with 18 game season, but they want a bigger share of the revenues and retirement improvements etc. Owners want more money to cover "costs". Well now that it is in court I would imagine the owners will be forced to reveal more financial information. They had to of figured they would if it went to court, but we will see.

What real facts do you want to know? I can help here. Am I just a poster on here? Obviously. But, this situation has come into my world.

[pmannings#1fan]

So is Nascar gonna replace my Sunday football games???? I guess flippin so huh!!!

[silver_225]

Guys - Read my support of the players here - http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/football/138730-artie-langes-voice-waaahhh-i-dont-make-enough-money.html

Anyone that sides with the owners, in my opinion, does not understand the issues.

Silver - what other private businesses? Let me answer your question - almost all private companies, especially if you are a stockholder. Businesses give stockholders audit rights/rights to review financials. Your statement is without basis.

All - a deal won't get done until late August/early September.


No they're not. If you are a publicly traded company then yes, your BOD and stockholders have rights and governance. If you are private company you do not. There is a difference between a private and publicly held company. If you are a private company how are these 'stockholders' even able to buy stocks if they are not publicly traded? Maybe when you can be the boss someday, then you'll know what it's like to have employees and whether they are entitled to see your finances.

My statement is off basis? Here let me help you:

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/162.asp

Privately-held companies are - no surprise here - privately held. This means that, in most cases, the company is owned by the company's founders, management or a group of private investors. A public company, on the other hand, is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering of some of its stock, meaning shareholders have claim to part of the company's assets and profits.

One of the biggest differences between the two types of companies deals with public disclosure. If it's a public U.S. company, which means it is trading on a U.S. stock exchange, it is typically required to file quarterly earnings reports (among other things) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This information is also made available to shareholders and the public. Private companies, however, are not required to disclose their financial information to anyone since they do not trade stock on a stock exchange.

[brado8236]

No they're not. If you are a publicly traded company then yes, your BOD and stockholders have rights and governance. If you are private company you do not. There is a difference between a private and publicly held company. If you are a private company how are these 'stockholders' even able to buy stocks if they are not publicly traded? Maybe when you can be the boss someday, then you'll know what it's like to have employees and whether they are entitled to see your finances.

My statement is off basis? Here let me help you:

What's the difference between publicly- and privately-held companies? (http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/162.asp)

Privately-held companies are - no surprise here - privately held. This means that, in most cases, the company is owned by the company's founders, management or a group of private investors. A public company, on the other hand, is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering of some of its stock, meaning shareholders have claim to part of the company's assets and profits.

One of the biggest differences between the two types of companies deals with public disclosure. If it's a public U.S. company, which means it is trading on a U.S. stock exchange, it is typically required to file quarterly earnings reports (among other things) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This information is also made available to shareholders and the public. Private companies, however, are not required to disclose their financial information to anyone since they do not trade stock on a stock exchange.

The only thing you neglected is the NFL's workforce are members of a collective bargaining unit. During collective bargaining, when one side makes claims, the other side can ask for proof of said claims and is entitled to it if they are to concede anything.

The NFL is crying poor, so the NFLPA asked for the financial statements to prove just how poor they are. If the owners were truly losing as much as they claim to be, it would be easily provable and they'd have no problem with full transparency and opening their books. The fact that they're fighting tooth and nail to keep them closed is a signal that they're trying to hide their true profitability, which is why the NFLPA has rightfully held firm in their demand for transparency.

The NFLPA has no nefarious purpose in mind, IMHO, and if the owners were telling the truth about their dire financial situation and wanted labor peace, they'd have already proven their losses.

[Footsteps]

No they're not. If you are a publicly traded company then yes, your BOD and stockholders have rights and governance. If you are private company you do not. There is a difference between a private and publicly held company. If you are a private company how are these 'stockholders' even able to buy stocks if they are not publicly traded?

I absolutely understand the difference. If I didn't, I wouldn't have a job.

Public companies = companies that have a public market by which their stock (which is registered with the SEC) is freely/more easily traded.

Private companies = companies who stock is not publicly traded.

That is the basic difference. Are public companies required to file their financials with the SEC? Yep. They also have a slew of other filing requirements.

Do private companies have filing obligations? Nope. However, in the ordinary course, management and the company's board do share information with their stockholders (shareholders in California and other states). Why? Either the company wants to or because stockholders, most typically stockholders holding preferred stock, have a contractual right to review financials.

How do private stockholders acquire stock? Buy acquiring it in a private transaction. Folks that are the founders hold common stock (and employees typically hold options giving them the right to purchase stock at a set strike price). Also, you will find that VCs or other investors purchase stock by funding a company. In exchange for an influx of cash, companies issue preferred stock to these investors giving them rights, for example, to view audited (or unaudited) financials, to have a seat on the Board, a right of first refusal, certain preferences (liquidation preferences), etc. I think I made my point.

Stock in a private company can be sold via transactions exempt from registration with the SEC. Google Rule 144A or "resale exemptions".

So, feel free to let me know if you want to teach me anything else. Thank you.

[dxtrfn80]

I hope they get locked out until 2014 or so. Too greedy.

[Footsteps]

No they're not. If you are a publicly traded company then yes, your BOD and stockholders have rights and governance. If you are private company you do not. There is a difference between a private and publicly held company. If you are a private company how are these 'stockholders' even able to buy stocks if they are not publicly traded? Maybe when you can be the boss someday, then you'll know what it's like to have employees and whether they are entitled to see your finances.

My statement is off basis? Here let me help you:

What's the difference between publicly- and privately-held companies? (http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/162.asp)

Privately-held companies are - no surprise here - privately held. This means that, in most cases, the company is owned by the company's founders, management or a group of private investors. A public company, on the other hand, is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering of some of its stock, meaning shareholders have claim to part of the company's assets and profits.

One of the biggest differences between the two types of companies deals with public disclosure. If it's a public U.S. company, which means it is trading on a U.S. stock exchange, it is typically required to file quarterly earnings reports (among other things) with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This information is also made available to shareholders and the public. Private companies, however, are not required to disclose their financial information to anyone since they do not trade stock on a stock exchange.

Thanks, man. I didn't know any of that. Glad you used "investopedia". By the way, your statement is wrong. If a stockholder has a contractual obligation to review, among other things, financial records, then they are absolutely required to do so. If they do not, the stockholder(s) with that right could bring a breach of contract suit.

I'll add to your sarcasm or rude exchange by saying that I need to get back to my client who is tee'd up to file its S-1 on Monday. What's an S-1? Use investopedia.

Thank you.

[Footsteps]

The only thing you neglected is the NFL's workforce are members of a collective bargaining unit. During collective bargaining, when one side makes claims, the other side can ask for proof of said claims and is entitled to it if they are to concede anything.

The NFL is crying poor, so the NFLPA asked for the financial statements to prove just how poor they are. If the owners were truly losing as much as they claim to be, it would be easily provable and they'd have no problem with full transparency and opening their books. The fact that they're fighting tooth and nail to keep them closed is a signal that they're trying to hide their true profitability, which is why the NFLPA has rightfully held firm in their demand for transparency.

The NFLPA has no nefarious purpose in mind, IMHO, and if the owners were telling the truth about their dire financial situation and wanted labor peace, they'd have already proven their losses.

Well said. The PA wants information that supports owner's claims. The public doesn't need to see it, but the PA should absolutely see it.

[CODYJM]

Supposedly announcing lockout tonight. There will still be a draft so card companies will still produce product, but what does it do to the value of this upcoming draft class....Almost like we will be prospecting.

[Footsteps]

Well, suit was filed - Brady et. al. vs. National Football League et. al.

The players allege in the lawsuit that the organizations conspired to deny the players' ability to market their services, "through a patently unlawful group boycott and price-fixing arrangement or, in the alternative, a unilaterally imposed set of anticompetitive restrictions on player movement, free agency, and competitive market freedom."

[silver_225]

I absolutely understand the difference. If I didn't, I wouldn't have a job.

So, feel free to let me know if you want to teach me anything else. Thank you.

Wow, I guess you told me. Since we are talking about a private company and the football players aren't shareholders or owners, tell me, how are the owners obligated to show the players their books?

[Footsteps]

Obligated? No.

You don't understand the argument. The owners are claiming that they are losing money or that the piece of the pie is not as large as the PA thinks it is. The players are simply asking the owners to show [the players] the supporting financials to backup the statement the owners are making.

So, are the owners obligated? Again, no. Should they? Sure seems like it if they want to make money off of their NFL team in which they surely have plenty of cash tied up. Would the owners be poor if there was never another NFL season? Likely, no. But, they want to continue to run the business of having an NFL team.

[oldgoldy97]

[QUOTE=brado8236;1148654]The only thing you neglected is the NFL's workforce are members of a collective bargaining unit. QUOTE]


Not anymore, they're not.

Anyone else get an e-mail from Roger Goodell? Got one a couple days ago trying to lay down his side of things.

[ssj3goten]

Good job NFL one less fan right here.
I have already stopped buying cards over the last few months. Really I don't feel sorry for either side. Rising costs gas, food, clothes and everything else going to an NFL game is the last thing on my mind. For the players find a 6-7 figure job on your college education.
As a child in 1994 MLB went on strike and I lost all interest in the sport and the NFL is heading the same route

[ohiomike]

Supposedly announcing lockout tonight. There will still be a draft so card companies will still produce product, but what does it do to the value of this upcoming draft class....Almost like we will be prospecting.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the hobby. I would imagine players will have to negotiate a contract with card companies individually since their NFL Players Association Licensing agreements are now null and void. That could get messy, or some players may need the money if the lockout lasts a while. Also, the NFL may not want the card companies using players in NFL gear and using logos, so the licensed companies (Topps and Panini) may be too afraid of upsetting the NFL and potentially losing their license down the road to put out any products that feature the players.

I'm sure something will get figured out, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of products come out late this year, hoping for a resolution with these disputes before the season.

Upper Deck may be in the best position since they have the NCAA license already and can negotiate with players without fears of upsetting the NFL.

[MasterPattie]

Supposedly announcing lockout tonight. There will still be a draft so card companies will still produce product, but what does it do to the value of this upcoming draft class....Almost like we will be prospecting.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the hobby. I would imagine players will have to negotiate a contract with card companies individually since their NFL Players Association Licensing agreements are now null and void. That could get messy, or some players may need the money if the lockout lasts a while. Also, the NFL may not want the card companies using players in NFL gear and using logos, so the licensed companies (Topps and Panini) may be too afraid of upsetting the NFL and potentially losing their license down the road to put out any products that feature the players.

I'm sure something will get figured out, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot of products come out late this year, hoping for a resolution with these disputes before the season.

Upper Deck may be in the best position since they have the NCAA license already and can negotiate with players without fears of upsetting the NFL.

This is an interesting situation...

Let's take some of the summer products, such as Elite or Classics. Last year, in both Elite and Classics, the rookies were in NFL unis. The 35 rookies who were at the rookie premiere obviously had lots of photos taken of them at that event, and those photos were used for Elite and Classics. As for the rest of the rookies who were not at the Rookie Premiere, the vast majority of them were in their practice unis (probably from the mini-camps that take place a week or so right after the draft).

This year, if there isn't a deal in place by the Rookie Premiere, would that event still take place? In addition, obviously for the rookies who are not invited to the Rookie Premiere wouldn't have photos available of them in their practice unis because no mini-camps would be taking place without a new labor deal. So, what would card companies do regarding those players? Would they just be in edited NCAA unis like they will be for Prestige? I am not sure, but this siutation is something that could impact cards for sure (especially summer releases like Elite and Classics).

[ManInTheMirror]

Great post Pattie. I'm just glad this is a very weak Longhorn class! Only some defensive guy...

[Footsteps]

The lockout was official about 45 minutes ago (as I type this).

There will be no mini camps and not official rookie premiere. Which team do the players belong to? Well, do they belong to any one team? That is part of the antitrust suit along with the franchise tag designation, the putting a cap on what a player can earn, and any other anti-competitive restriction on a player's ability to freely bargain.

Happy to discuss this until I'm blue in the face. I am/was a contract advisor (now I'm not as there is no union).

What I do know is that players will continue to work out on their own or together with their college friends and teammates. There will also being unofficial workouts immediately after the draft (and there are a few in AZ at the end of this month).

What does the situation mean for Panini, Topps, UD? Thinking logically, Topps cannot use a likeness or name of a player without consent. Under the CBA, by being a member of the NFLPA, if more than 5 players have a deal (licensing for example) with one entity, the others had to follow suit (i.e., they were dragged along). Well, there is no union. I suppose players could negotiate on their own, but I wouldn't risk it if I were a rookie or any other player. The others would view that as that player/players giving in to the NFL.

The UD matter is tricky - sure, they have the NCAA license, but we know these players (after the draft) may or may not be loosely tied to an NFL team (weird argument there). UD may want to jump start their release on Sweet Spot, SPA, SPx. That said, I'm not sure how much that would interfere with how they run their operations.

Essentially, it's crazy out there.

[CeltsFanatic]

Regardless of the side you are on over this issue, both sides make obscene amounts of money. I don't really care who wins the litigation as it's just a bunch of rich, entitled white guys against crying, whiney, rich entitled athletes. The only people that lose are the fans. The owners don't lose, they got BILLIONS. The athletes don't lose as they make millions doing what they love. The fans are the ones that get the sh!t end of the stick and I'll be remembering this when they do finally get around to playing.

Neither side is conceding at all and it's bullcrap! The owners are trying to man up and take back what they willingly gave to the players (which I feel the players deserve) and the friggin' players want more benefits (as if being a multimillionaire athlete with pension and health insurance isn't enough) and don't want to play 2 more games a year.

For three million a year, you could tell me that instead of dragging my butt through 16 miles of broken glass I would have to do it for 18 miles and my reply would be "yes sir!".

Am I oversimplifying this? A bit I'm sure but it comes from the viewpoint of a genuine joe schmo fan and has to have atleast a few fundamental truths.

EDIT: And if anyone wants to argue that the players are fighting for the vets that paved the way for them. Tough cookies is what I say, those guys made more in the 50's and 60's than I do now (not accounting for inflation which makes it even more dramatic). I save and those guys should have too. You show me a guy that played for the NFL and is broke and I'll show you a man with ill equipped life skills that made some horrible mistakes with their money that should be held accountable for it.

[Footsteps]

Celts - While entitled to your opinion, I feel your arguments are not soundly based.

The players are entitled to better health benefits. Heck, is that no a huge issue for America? Did our President not support an albeit, awful, healthcare bill? Yes, he did and yes we all want better healthcare.

You don't have to support the game, but the players are the game. Without them, the owners would still be making money in their other business(es). Are they all rich? Absolutely not. Are a good portion well-off? Yes, but they deserve someone to cover their insurance after they leave the game. They should not have to shoulder the full burden of paying for their own insurance after they retire. Why? Well, they worked hard while they played and their health issues are vast and costly to treat. The owners need to assist their ex-players.

Thank you.

[MasterPattie]

Great post Pattie. I'm just glad this is a very weak Longhorn class! Only some defensive guy...

Thanks MITM....it's just something that concerns me because I am a pretty big Elite fan (one of my top 3 favorite products) so I wonder how it's gonna all play out.

And I believe you are referring to Aaron Williams, the CB from Texas. He'll likely go in the 2nd or 3rd round. Wouldn't mind the Lions ending up with him on the 2nd day of the draft.:)!