1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Could NFL labor strife hurt D*?

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by wilbur_the_goose, Feb 6, 2010.

  1. Feb 22, 2010 #81 of 103
    cartrivision

    cartrivision Hall Of Fame

    3,862
    0
    Jul 25, 2007
    Well that's certainly what the NFL is leaking to the press and what they want the Players Association to think, but I still think that no company would ever agree to pay billions of dollars for the broadcast rights to games that may not be played without having some kind of protection in the contract to mitigate the financial damages that would result from the regular games not being played.

    If they did do such a thing, a risk of that financial magnitude would probably fall under requirements for disclosure to investors under SEC regulations. As far as I know, there has been no Form 8-K filed with the SEC by DirecTV disclosing such a substantial financial risk.
     
  2. Feb 22, 2010 #82 of 103
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    There wouldn't be until the financial risk was created. The CBA is still enforce. No lockout has started.

    Heck, there is still time to have a capped 2010. :)

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  3. Feb 22, 2010 #83 of 103
    cartrivision

    cartrivision Hall Of Fame

    3,862
    0
    Jul 25, 2007
    The risk would have been created when the contract was signed, not if and when any lockout actually happens. Under your reasoning, no risks would ever have to be disclosed to investors until after the potential risk had actually played out and was sure to adversely impact the company and investors.

    The purpose of the SEC disclosure requirements is to allow investors to evaluate potential risks before the risks play out and affect their investment, not to let them know why they got hosed after the fact.
     
  4. Feb 22, 2010 #84 of 103
    dcowboy7

    dcowboy7 Hall Of Fame

    4,761
    27
    May 22, 2008
    Pequannock, NJ
    per Jeff Pash from NFL counsel:

    "It is hardly the first time that a television contract has had that type of provision in it," Pash said. "That goes back in my experience at least to the early 1980's. More to the point, it is nothing more than a financing mechanism. The networks aren't going to hand over large amounts of money to us, and if they don't get a product [in return] tell us to go ahead and keep that money. We will have to give it back to them and take reductions about what we get from them for future years. I am quite certain that the networks will make sure that they are made whole and then some if we are not able to televise games. It is not a payment, it is a financing mechanism. It is no different than borrowing on a home equity line. You still have to pay it back."


    So yes the nets would pay but theyd get the $$ back & then some in the long run.
     
  5. Feb 22, 2010 #85 of 103
    Tom Robertson

    Tom Robertson Lifetime Achiever DBSTalk Club

    21,331
    247
    Nov 15, 2005
    There is always presumed risk in any contract. The NFL could suddenly cease to exist, or go bankrupt, or ... Those risks are only required to be identified when they are actually apparent.

    Cheers,
    Tom
     
  6. Feb 23, 2010 #86 of 103
    cartrivision

    cartrivision Hall Of Fame

    3,862
    0
    Jul 25, 2007
    That is incorrect . You are mixing up disclosure of "material events" with disclosure of "material agreements". A material event typically cannot be disclosed until it happens, because there is no way of knowing if it will happen, but the fact that it would have a substantial negative effect on the company if it happens is already known or presumed.

    An example of a material event that is disclosed only if and when it happens (or is about to happen) would be the unexpected loss of a satellite. On the other hand, if DirecTV entered into an agreement to share some substantial capacity of their satellites with a third party if that third party had some emergency need, that would come under disclosure of material agreements and would have to be disclosed when the agreement was made, not just if and when the emergency event happened.

    The difference is that the material agreement is creating a risk for the investor beyond any "presumed" risks... and that can't be done in secret... it has to be disclosed to investors when the risk was assumed (when the agreement was made), not just if any negative effects related to that risk happen or are about to happen.
     
  7. Feb 24, 2010 #87 of 103
    cousinofjah

    cousinofjah AllStar

    75
    0
    Feb 16, 2010
    One would think the Union could also create some sort of financing mechanism, and from what Mawae said at the Super Bowl presser it sounds like they were working on some sort of fund, but no doubt it's not as deep as TV contracts.
     
  8. Feb 24, 2010 #88 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    The players funds will be less, but so will their burn rate. Also, players will only have fixed short term financial loss. Owners face rippling financial issues. So, all in all I see it is a fairly even playing field. Which is unfortunate. That's why there will almost certainly be a lock-out. When two sides are evenly matched it the fight usually lasts a long time.

    You really need to take seriously the issue of the union wanting to see the books. The owners won't do it. The players won't take a cut without it. The negotiations won't even start until that issue is resolved.
     
  9. Mar 3, 2010 #89 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    Union and league trade barbs

    So the question should be changed to "WHEN the league locks out, will it impact D*"

    The answer is still moderately. A few people will ditch because they fell ST is the only reason to be on D*. But, most people will recognize that it is a meaningless waste of time to play the provider shuffle.
     
  10. Mar 6, 2010 #90 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    Welcome to the uncapped year!
     
  11. Mar 6, 2010 #91 of 103
    cousinofjah

    cousinofjah AllStar

    75
    0
    Feb 16, 2010
    and surprisingly nothing from Dallas or esp. Washington
     
  12. Mar 6, 2010 #92 of 103
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,611
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Dallas can't do much. The top 8 teams are very limited in the $ they can spend.
     
  13. Mar 6, 2010 #93 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    They are not limited by $ amount, the final 8 are barred from signing UFAs unless someone signs one of theirs.
     
  14. Mar 6, 2010 #94 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    hehe, and this would explain it completely.

    "Dallas - Unrestricted Free Agents: None"

    So the rule really means Dallas can't sign UFA's during the open period. A player being released is different though. For example Thomas Jones (Jets RB) is not considered a UFA under these rules. Dallas can sign guys like that if they want.
     
  15. Mar 6, 2010 #95 of 103
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,611
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    Top 8 teams are free to sign 1 and only Free Agent whose first year is worth over $5.5m. After that, they have to lose a player of equal or greater value before signing another one.
     
  16. Mar 6, 2010 #96 of 103
    DawgLink

    DawgLink Woof Woof Woof

    1,543
    3
    Nov 5, 2006
    Washington, DC
    But they could sign others that got released....right? I really dont know....
     
  17. Mar 6, 2010 #97 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    hmm...I'll take your word for it, but I didn't think the 5.5mil rule was in play until after they lost a player of equal or greater value. Do you have a link to that rule? The one on NFL.com explains the way I posted it. Although, it is EXTREMELY poorly worded.
     
  18. Mar 6, 2010 #98 of 103
    JMCecil

    JMCecil Godfather

    316
    0
    Jan 20, 2007
    Players that are released are open for anyone to be signed. So, vets getting dumped to avoid the roster bonus can be signed by anyone.
     
  19. Mar 6, 2010 #99 of 103
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    14,611
    373
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    http://www.jetsinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206068

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/02/15/final-eight-plan-limitations-apply-to-trades-too/
     
  20. Mar 6, 2010 #100 of 103
    Lord Vader

    Lord Vader Supreme Member DBSTalk Club

    8,758
    42
    Sep 20, 2004
    Galactic Empire
    Indeed. A cut of maybe 5 or 10%? Maybe, but to expect the players to take a 31% cut in gross? No way.
     

Share This Page