CBA

[HowardRoark]

This team is a lot of fun to watch. Sure, we won he Super Bowl and all, but halfway through the game Sunday I realized that there would not be any Packer games to watch for awhile.

I have not followed the whole CBA issue at all; does anybody out there have a good handle on the issues?

[SkinBasket]

Issues:

1) Money.
2) Money.
3) Money.
4) expanding season to 18 games to generate more money.
5) rookie salary cap to free up more money for vets.
6) Money.
7) NFL brings in about 9 billion a year. Owners get the first billion before the players get paid their 6 billion. Owners want a guaranteed 2 billion before the players get paid, which would come from the player pool of 6 billion, reducing it to 5 billion. It wasn't explained to me where that other 2 billion goes. Maybe the CBO does the accounting for the NFL.

[vince]

Good summary.

[Guiness]

I tend to agree with Howard that we're likely not to see football for a while. Too many egos involved. We seem to have gone through the rotation since the last NFL strike...MLB, NHL and NBA have all had their strikes and/or lockouts.

Interesting view of how the money gets split up Skin. Where did you get that from.

[HowardRoark]

It wasn't explained to me where that other 2 billion goes. Maybe the CBO does the accounting for the NFL.

Maybe high speed trains or something.

[SkinBasket]

Interesting view of how the money gets split up Skin. Where did you get that from.

I think I heard it from Shepard Smith on FoxNews. I was probably drunk though, so someone should probably verify that I wasn't asleep and just dreaming that part.

here's another explanation:


The problem is the owners don’t like the current setup. Under the current CBA, 60 percent of the revenue goes to players salaries. The owners feel that’s too much. That’s why they opted out of the deal in 2008. The owners want a new deal in which the players take less – 18 percent less, to be exact. The players say no way.

The reason the owners don't like the setup is that while overall profits have been up, profit margins have been shrinking steadily since the last CBA, based mostly on the data from the Packers, as the rest of the owners are keeping their numbers private.

Also from the same article:


The owners and the players union have not begun serious negotiations and with so much ground to cover and so much at stake, there is no way they will be able to work out a new deal in less than a month. So March 3 will come and go without a new CBA.

That’s when the rhetoric will heat up and the reality will set in. The players will lose their medical insurance, which is no small matter. Ex-Eagle Brian Dawkins, now the player rep in Denver, said that securing comparable medical coverage for his family will cost $2,400 a month.

Too bad most guys blow 100x times that much on bling and cars. Good thing they'll have Obamacare when they trip over their massive gold chains and that 1 million dollar diamond stud gets lodged in their brain.

[Patler]

Issues:

1) Money.
2) Money.
3) Money.
4) expanding season to 18 games to generate more money.
5) rookie salary cap to free up more money for vets.
6) Money.
7) NFL brings in about 9 billion a year. Owners get the first billion before the players get paid their 6 billion. Owners want a guaranteed 2 billion before the players get paid, which would come from the player pool of 6 billion, reducing it to 5 billion. It wasn't explained to me where that other 2 billion goes. Maybe the CBO does the accounting for the NFL.

Skin; I think you are missing the point. It's really about money.

[swede]

Skin; I think you are missing the point. It's really about money.

I'd root for them to squeeze the goose that lays the golden eggs without killing it, but I realize now that I'm the goose.

[Fritz]

I'd root for them to squeeze the goose that lays the golden eggs without killing it, but I realize now that I'm the goose.


Lovin', touchin', squeezin'

[pbmax]

Issues:

1) Money.
2) Money.
3) Money.
4) expanding season to 18 games to generate more money.
5) rookie salary cap to free up more money for vets.
6) Money.
7) NFL brings in about 9 billion a year. Owners get the first billion before the players get paid their 6 billion. Owners want a guaranteed 2 billion before the players get paid, which would come from the player pool of 6 billion, reducing it to 5 billion. It wasn't explained to me where that other 2 billion goes. Maybe the CBO does the accounting for the NFL.

Goes to teams and like the first billion, part of it covers non-player costs, expenses and debt.

Florio said the one clear positive from the past weekend meeting was that the joint statement issued agreed on a March 4th deadline. In negotiating terms, if there is not an agreed deadline, then the true bargaining and real offers will not be made. I fear he may be reading too much into that statement. The League can survive well past that point and the players would need a lockout or a declaration of an impasse (and owner's last best offer being imposed as business rules) to engage in decertification.

[pbmax]

And be careful of the cap percentage (59.2%) being rounded to 60 and used as the percentage of player costs. As Skin's numbers show, the league and NFLPA agreed to subtract 1 billion from total revenue before calculating the cap. The actual number compared to total revenue is around 52%.

But even that number is fuzzy, as some teams (including the Packers) spend more cash than cap space in a given year. Several teams do not. I am unsure of the revenue percentage when considering cash expenditures only.

[Iron Mike]

I think the CBA folded a few years ago.....

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5010/5284141152_228826669b_z.jpg

[Joemailman]

Stories like this make me worry if a settlement can be reached anytime soon.

http://nfl-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/27503438

There's also, apparently, a little vitriol between the groups. That's not shocking. But Jay Feely's mention -- on the Michael Kay Show via Pro Football Talk -- of the way Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly spoke to NFL icons Peyton Manning and Drew Brees during a Dallas negotiating session is terrifying for anyone who thinks a peaceful ending to labor talks is coming soon.

"Jerry Richardson, the lead negotiator for the owners, he's going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?" Feely said. "And sit there and say dismissively of Manning 'Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don't know if you understand how to read that?'"

How come the owner of the worst team in the league gets to lead the owner negotiations?

[SkinBasket]

There's a good chance that neither of those two really do understand a revenue chart. Why is it that suddenly Manning and Breese are any more qualified to be representing the players in financial/employment negotiations than Richardson is to represent the owners? This is akin to having a couple of guys who wash cars at the corner auto lot coming into the HQ of a major car manufacturer and telling them how to do business. Of course the owners are going to get annoyed. They're dealing with people who in all likelihood do not understand even a fraction of the business side of the NFL, but still think they are some of the most important people in the world who are used to getting whatever they want whenever they want.

[Patler]

Perhaps Manning or Brees said something that prompted Richardson to say what he said. You can be a very smart person, but you may not understand fundamental things about something you have little training or experience in.

We've seen how some of these players manage their finances, and go broke just a few years after their playing days are done. Look at the example of Mark Brunell, who filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. He has made over $50 million in just the last 10 years, but is $24 million in debt. I wonder how well he read revenue charts for his businesses?

[ThunderDan]

There's a good chance that neither of those two really do understand a revenue chart. Why is it that suddenly Manning and Breese are any more qualified to be representing the players in financial/employment negotiations than Richardson is to represent the owners? This is akin to having a couple of guys who wash cars at the corner auto lot coming into the HQ of a major car manufacturer and telling them how to do business. Of course the owners are going to get annoyed. They're dealing with people who in all likelihood do not understand even a fraction of the business side of the NFL, but still think they are some of the most important people in the world who are used to getting whatever they want whenever they want.

I am guessing here but with Drew and Peyton's charity work they are probably on the board of directors of their foundations. They would be analyzing the financial statements every quarter to see if the charities are meeting their goals.

[Fritz]

I am guessing here but with Drew and Peyton's charity work they are probably on the board of directors of their foundations. They would be analyzing the financial statements every quarter to see if the charities are meeting their goals.


Or, as my students would write, they would be analizing the financial statements...

[3irty1]

Skin did a good job of summing up what the Owners want.

The players want 50% of everything before the owners take anything. Essentially making the pie bigger but taking a smaller slice. This is what Ogden was fighting for forever if I remember correctly and was the starting point of the NFLPA's negotiations. The owners predictably walked out of negotiations at this proposal.

[NewsBruin]

Issues:

1) Money.
2) Money.
3) Money.
4) expanding season to 18 games to generate more money.
5) rookie salary cap to free up more money for vets.
6) Money.
7) NFL brings in about 9 billion a year. Owners get the first billion before the players get paid their 6 billion. Owners want a guaranteed 2 billion before the players get paid, which would come from the player pool of 6 billion, reducing it to 5 billion. It wasn't explained to me where that other 2 billion goes. Maybe the CBO does the accounting for the NFL.

Assuming those were the right numbers, I think the owners take the first billion for costs and expenses. Then out of that remaining $8B, the owners and players do the revenue splitting. The owners want more of that initial take for new media and property/construction expenses.

Aside from SkinBasket's accurate list, other issues that have been tangentially mentioned over the past year (and my depth is limited to SI.com and the occasional Pro Football Insider article):

-- Reduced off-season practice and in-season contact practices. The players want to spend less time in full-contact practices if they're playing 18 full games. I don't think there will be more slacking off-season as a whole, as there will always be some gym rat somewhere that everyone will live in fear of taking their spot, and we'll always have a dumbass or two show up completely bloated and embarrassed.
-- Expanded Rosters. The NFLPA and NFL have been discussing expanded rosters if there are 18-game seasons. The only published numbers I recall reading were 1 more on the active roster; 2 more on the practice squad. I really think this would hurt the players more, as the revenue % split won't change, but would be diluted to 3-5 more players across each team's roster. That would average out to a 4-8% pay cut if you had more players splitting the same slice of pie.
-- Retired player health benefits. The NFLPA would like the league to offer more to cover health-care needs of retired players. As I recall, the league offered to increase the health (or pension?) benefits, but out of the players' revenue split. When the NFLPA said it didn't like that proposal, the NFL said it was the players' choice to let the vets suffer.

Granted, I come out on the players' side on this, so I'm not going to be the most neutral dude. I think careers are short, and post-career life is long (although shorter than non-players on the average). Players can take as good care of themselves as they can, and still be hurting long after. I expect to see Bert using a cane in less than 10 years.

There's a slight bit of savings on the employment side if the league went to a 2/18 season: All players get paid a per diem during training camp, and their annual salary is split over 17 game-weeks (ex: Randy Moss played 17 games this year and he'll get the same number of checks as another traded player who lucked into 2 bye weeks). It wouldn't be huge savings, but the league wouldn't have to pay two weeks' of per diem checks if the regular season went longer. As I understood it, the league offered the players the same revenue split (over 19 weeks) that they get currently if they'd agree to a 2/18 season.

I would like to see an explanation as to how a 2/18 season would generate more revenue than a 4/16 season. For the average attending fan, the costs are not any different from preseason to regular season. The only thing I can think of is the broadcast contracts coming up in 2014 (I think). It would be nice if a NBC or FoxSports or ESPN or SI reporter interviewed the broadcast execs to ask if they would be willing to pay more for a changed season, and how much they'd be willing to pay. Also, I'd like to have a reporter ask the teams for concrete examples of how their profits have dropped and the effect it's had on the teams. I don't expect the owners to approach anything that could be used as concrete evidence in negotiations, but I haven't heard anything that's swayed me to their side yet.

Again, I try to be completely honest in the facts I quote, but I'm not neutral. Take my comments as "the best I can remember," but not objective.

[MJZiggy]

Interesting post NB. I think the reason that the owners want the 2/18 over the 4/16 is that they can get better tv contracts for and ticket prices for regular season games than they can for the preseason that they have now. Do all of the teams sell out their preseason games? Just because GB can do it doesn't mean everyone in the league can, but when the games count, it's a different story.

[NewsBruin]

Good point, Zig. I haven't checked around, but I just took it for granted across the league that the preseason games cost as much as regular-season games, and that they're included in the season-ticket requirement. While Green Bay (yay!) and Dallas (boo!) sell out their entire capacity as season tickets, many other teams don't, and would sell at the gate. I wonder if they think more casual fans would attend a regular-season game than a preseason one?

From my light research, I remember seeing that the average regular-season week dwarfed the ratings of the average preseason week. I think the league's dead-on that they could get more broadcast cash from an expanded regular season, but surely the networks have had some internal discussions about how much they could take of "more football" before the injuries and viewer fatigue water down the ratings.

A reader wrote Peter King that the NFL should negotiate for a 16-game season with 2 bye weeks. That way, the players stay rested, but there's one more week of regular-season programming that the networks could program around. I think that's not half-bad.

[red]

if there is a lockout or strike for a long period of time, i for one am likely to lose a lot of interest in the game

much like how i have not watched a baseball game since their last strike, or hockey or basketball

these asshole have their teams make their money and play the game strickly for our amusement, if they aren't there then i'm ready to say fuck them

my problem is that i was born and raised a packer fan, they are my religion and my reason for living, so it would be next to impossible for me to turn my back on the team or players

however, i noticed while watching this season that i am no where near as passionate about the packers as i was 15 or ever 10 years ago. it has almost become a chore or something, something i have to do on sundays rather then something i look forward to doing. i think to me the game isn't just a game anymore, its just another giant corporation trying to make as much money off of me as possible

i don't know. my love for football is starting to slip away and a lockout or strike right when my team should be making a run would damage my love a lot i fear

i hope the owners and players realise they are there to entertain us, that is their worth. and they better continue to fucking do it, uninterupted

[red]

Interesting post NB. I think the reason that the owners want the 2/18 over the 4/16 is that they can get better tv contracts for and ticket prices for regular season games than they can for the preseason that they have now. Do all of the teams sell out their preseason games? Just because GB can do it doesn't mean everyone in the league can, but when the games count, it's a different story.

there are a lot of teams that can't sell out regular season game, my guess is most teams don't sell out preseason games

green bay is really a rarity when it comes to selling tickets

[ThunderDan]

there are a lot of teams that can't sell out regular season game, my guess is most teams don't sell out preseason games

green bay is really a rarity when it comes to selling tickets

23 games were blacked out thru week 16 of the NFL schedule and a majority of those were Oakland and Tampa Bay home games.

That's 23 of 240 games and if you remove Tampa and Oakland its like 9 of 226 or roughly 4% of total games. If you look at the other 9 its teams like Cincinnatti with horrible records that don't sell out.

[pbmax]

Skin did a good job of summing up what the Owners want.

The players want 50% of everything before the owners take anything. Essentially making the pie bigger but taking a smaller slice. This is what Ogden was fighting for forever if I remember correctly and was the starting point of the NFLPA's negotiations. The owners predictably walked out of negotiations at this proposal.

Can't be just that. Because right now, and for the last decade, the players have been OVER 50% of total revenues in compensation. And the players proposal was reportedly a range between 49 and 51%. Its a negotiation, so unless there was something unusual, those numbers would represent a starting point.

Its seems more likely that the players wanted to see the books before they took a reduction, which also was reported as one of their proposals.

[pbmax]

There's a good chance that neither of those two really do understand a revenue chart. Why is it that suddenly Manning and Breese are any more qualified to be representing the players in financial/employment negotiations than Richardson is to represent the owners? This is akin to having a couple of guys who wash cars at the corner auto lot coming into the HQ of a major car manufacturer and telling them how to do business. Of course the owners are going to get annoyed. They're dealing with people who in all likelihood do not understand even a fraction of the business side of the NFL, but still think they are some of the most important people in the world who are used to getting whatever they want whenever they want.


Perhaps Manning or Brees said something that prompted Richardson to say what he said. You can be a very smart person, but you may not understand fundamental things about something you have little training or experience in.

We've seen how some of these players manage their finances, and go broke just a few years after their playing days are done. Look at the example of Mark Brunell, who filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. He has made over $50 million in just the last 10 years, but is $24 million in debt. I wonder how well he read revenue charts for his businesses?

Or it could be that the wealthy owner of a business is used to getting his way and gets testy when questioned. Its difficult to know without any other context.

But if that is Richardson's approach (and he has been reported as one of the most hawkish about slashing costs) he may have blown an opportunity to sell a couple of influential players on his vision of the league's finances and instead settled for a few minutes of feeling like the biggest man in the room. A poor way to conduct a negotiation. And a clear sign things haven't gotten serious yet.

[pbmax]

Interesting post NB. I think the reason that the owners want the 2/18 over the 4/16 is that they can get better tv contracts for and ticket prices for regular season games than they can for the preseason that they have now. Do all of the teams sell out their preseason games? Just because GB can do it doesn't mean everyone in the league can, but when the games count, it's a different story.

For most teams (if not all at this point), if you buy season tickets, you must buy the preseason games. The face value ticket prices will not change simply going to a 2/18 split.

The additional two games mean more TV revenue. And there will likely be an increase in playoff games. Perhaps not at the same time, the networks might first be offered the extra reg. season games to help bump the value of the package. Then the next go around they can be offered additional playoff games (depending on the proposal) possibly a new week of playoff games.

NB, I think you only missed one item I have read about that is being discussed, though it seems less likely than the others: a second bye week. It would also add a week to the broadcasters schedule, thereby increasing TV revenues even more. However, the last time the league commented, they were not interested in pushing the start of the season back into August. So 2 additional regular season weeks, one more week of playoffs and one more bye week could put the Super Bowl into March.

And if there would be only 3 additional roster spots for the season, the players might be better asking for more training camp slots instead. Might reduce wear and tear more in August and cost them less.

[Smidgeon]

I am guessing here but with Drew and Peyton's charity work they are probably on the board of directors of their foundations. They would be analyzing the financial statements every quarter to see if the charities are meeting their goals.

...or their personal financial analysts would be.

[Patler]

Or it could be that the wealthy owner of a business is used to getting his way and gets testy when questioned. Its difficult to know without any other context.

But if that is Richardson's approach (and he has been reported as one of the most hawkish about slashing costs) he may have blown an opportunity to sell a couple of influential players on his vision of the league's finances and instead settled for a few minutes of feeling like the biggest man in the room. A poor way to conduct a negotiation. And a clear sign things haven't gotten serious yet.

If that is the worst thing that happens in the negotiations, it will be damned harmonious.
And if the players took great offense to it, they are too thin-skinned for contract negotiations.

[pbmax]

If that is the worst thing that happens in the negotiations, it will be damned harmonious.
And if the players took great offense to it, they are too thin-skinned for contract negotiations.

Well, they are just getting started, so harmonious might be a short term condition. But it was a lost opportunity. It seems much more of a mind thinking take it or leave it. Reports about Richardson say he is among a handful that are willing to lose a season to lower the player cost number.

[Patler]

Well, they are just getting started, so harmonious might be a short term condition. But it was a lost opportunity. It seems much more of a mind thinking take it or leave it. Reports about Richardson say he is among a handful that are willing to lose a season to lower the player cost number.

Ya, I suspect it will get more and more contentious. It always does when time limits are pushed this much. Richardson might be in the room to make it very clear to the players that the owners are very, very serious about this matter. He is their sacrificial lamb who can play the jerk, later to be replaced by the more moderate compromisor who will get it done. Murphy could be a candidate to serve the role of the finisher. An "owner" without the typical ownership interest, a former player familiar with the workings of both sides, and a former litigator. He could darned near serve as a mediator!

[SkinBasket]

I am guessing here but with Drew and Peyton's charity work they are probably on the board of directors of their foundations. They would be analyzing the financial statements every quarter to see if the charities are meeting their goals.

Have you ever served on a board? There's usually not a whole lot of analyzing of anything going on. It's more like a 4H meeting without the decorum and the pledge.

I still don't understand what two players are doing in the room if the union is serious about working out a deal. Like I said, it's like having two hourly workers from a corner lot meeting with the CEO of Ford and trying to tell him how to run his business. Sounds more to me like those two were sent in to elicit a reaction to be "leaked" to the press about how mean and old and angry the owners are.

[Patler]

Have you ever served on a board? There's usually not a whole lot of analyzing of anything going on. It's more like a 4H meeting without the decorum and the pledge.

I still don't understand what two players are doing in the room if the union is serious about working out a deal. Like I said, it's like having two hourly workers from a corner lot meeting with the CEO of Ford and trying to tell him how to run his business. Sounds more to me like those two were sent in to elicit a reaction to be "leaked" to the press about how mean and old and angry the owners are.

It's not unusual for representative members of a union to be part of a negotiating team. I doubt that Brees and Manning were there by themselves.

[ThunderDan]

Have you ever served on a board? There's usually not a whole lot of analyzing of anything going on. It's more like a 4H meeting without the decorum and the pledge.

I still don't understand what two players are doing in the room if the union is serious about working out a deal. Like I said, it's like having two hourly workers from a corner lot meeting with the CEO of Ford and trying to tell him how to run his business. Sounds more to me like those two were sent in to elicit a reaction to be "leaked" to the press about how mean and old and angry the owners are.

Yes as a CPA I am asked all the time to be on boards and I have been for 5 of the last 7 years. While most financial reviews are quick and dirty when I am the treasurer I spend a lot of time to get even the most "financial illiterate" members up to speed. How can the borad and the staff do their jobs effectively if they have no idea what the bottom line is? Members routinely compain that meetings are going much longer when we review the financials.

[sharpe1027]

Yes as a CPA I am asked all the time to be on boards and I have been for 5 of the last 7 years. While most financial reviews are quick and dirty when I am the treasurer I spend a lot of time to get even the most "financial illiterate" members up to speed. How can the borad and the staff do their jobs effectively if they have no idea what the bottom line is? Members routinely compain that meetings are going much longer when we review the financials.

Simply put, many of them are not effective. ;)

[ThunderDan]

Simply put, many of them are not effective. ;)

Sad but true.

With United Way donations and regular donations from the community down it is vital to maximize contributions and efficencies. The office worker who is negative to the people coming thru the door and gives poor customer service can be a huge financial drain on the whole organization.

[bobblehead]

If that is the worst thing that happens in the negotiations, it will be damned harmonious.
And if the players took great offense to it, they are too thin-skinned for contract negotiations.

I disagree patler. I think when you are in a negotiation and one side insults or gets flippant and dismissive it says volumes about THAT person, not the ones who are offended by it. In my own dealings if this happened to me I likely wouldn't be offended, but I would simply get up and tell them to call me when they are ready for discussion rather than lecture.

It takes quite the fool to think he can bring the other side closer to him by being rude. Such closed mindedness basically tells me that the individual isn't serious about compromise....yet.

[Patler]

If that is the worst thing that happens in the negotiations, it will be damned harmonious.
And if the players took great offense to it, they are too thin-skinned for contract negotiations.


I disagree patler. I think when you are in a negotiation and one side insults or gets flippant and dismissive it says volumes about THAT person, not the ones who are offended by it. In my own dealings if this happened to me I likely wouldn't be offended, but I would simply get up and tell them to call me when they are ready for discussion rather than lecture.

It takes quite the fool to think he can bring the other side closer to him by being rude. Such closed mindedness basically tells me that the individual isn't serious about compromise....yet.


I've been in a lot of those types of rooms in my career, once even to negotiate a labor contract for an AFSCME local about 40 years ago. I stand by what I said. If that is the most contentious statement made, it will have been a very harmonious negotiation. No one is trying to draw anyone closer to them at this point, and they might never do so.

The reality is that in most of those types of things, if the negotiations are long or difficult with the parties initially a long way apart, at some point everyone will feel insulted, unappreciated or misunderstood. That's just the way it goes.

We have no insight into the circumstances that prompted the statement. Maybe an unreasonable demand or an ill-formed argument prompted Richardson to actually believe that Brees and Manning did not understand the paper in front of them. Maybe he's just an ass, I don't know. It really doesn't matter. He is the one in the room, and the players have to deal with him at least for now. They aren't going to change him. If the players are going to come out and belly-ache over any little statement that is barely offensive, this will never get done. In a big-deal type negotiation with long range repercussions like this one, everyone in the room has to feel that they can speak their mind and speak frankly, without petty details or grievances being made public. If the negotiators have to proof their comments for public dissemination the negotiations will take for ever. No one should have to worry about hurting someone's feelings by an off-hand comment. There's real work to be done.

It was a minor thing that the players should have kept to themselves. If they start negotiating this in public, start planning fall activities to replace the NFL for you entertainment, because it won't get done.

[Guiness]

It was a minor thing that the players should have kept to themselves. If they start negotiating this in public, start planning fall activities to replace the NFL for you entertainment, because it won't get done.

Regardless of whether Richardson's statement was meant to ridicule or inform, and how it was received, this last line from your post is the most pertinent.

Once one party or the other goes public with the quibbles they've got, the whole thing blows up. Sure, the owners have conducted their own PR campaign, but it was portrayed as informational...as opposed to coming across as being whiney.

We've seen this with the Pack time and again. When a player deserves a new contract, if he's quiet and has his agent conduct a reasonable negotiation with the team, he's much more likely to get it then if they pull a Revis or Chris Johnson (or Javon Walker...) type of move and run to the media with their claims of 'disrespect'. I can't remember the last time a Packer complained about their contract and got a new one. I think Grant was unhappy, but didn't carry on about it.

[ThunderDan]

Stories like this make me worry if a settlement can be reached anytime soon.

http://nfl-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/27503438

There's also, apparently, a little vitriol between the groups. That's not shocking. But Jay Feely's mention -- on the Michael Kay Show via Pro Football Talk -- of the way Panthers owner Jerry Richardson reportedly spoke to NFL icons Peyton Manning and Drew Brees during a Dallas negotiating session is terrifying for anyone who thinks a peaceful ending to labor talks is coming soon.

"Jerry Richardson, the lead negotiator for the owners, he's going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?" Feely said. "And sit there and say dismissively of Manning 'Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don't know if you understand how to read that?'"

How come the owner of the worst team in the league gets to lead the owner negotiations?

Per NFL radio what Richardson said was so bad that the other owners in the league have been calling Peyton and Drew to apologize since the meeting.

[denverYooper]

Per NFL radio what Richardson said was so bad that the other owners in the league have been calling Peyton and Drew to apologize since the meeting.

"Jerry just has a little quarterback envy, that's all."

[Smidgeon]

Why is Jay Feely--who wasn't at the meeting--the one commenting on this story?

[Guiness]

Because this is likely to be a lockout, and not a strike, the owners can't bring in replacement players, right?

If someone could explain why the union is considering de-certifying, and how that would help the players, I'd appreciate that as well!

[Smidgeon]

Because this is likely to be a lockout, and not a strike, the owners can't bring in replacement players, right?

If someone could explain why the union is considering de-certifying, and how that would help the players, I'd appreciate that as well!

1) Correct
2) Decertifying means the league can't lock out the players since there'd be no union to lockout. The decertified union (whose ploy is being sued by the NFL since the union only intends to decertify long enough to file before re-forming) would file an antitrust case once the NFL imposed league-wide rules as a collusion acting oligopoly. But I think the biggest thing it would do would be to re-align the balance of leverage. Right now the league has most of it and the union little. Decertifying and suing the league would rebalance said leverage.

Anyone feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

[Guiness]

A 'collusion acting oligopoly'. That's a mouthful. Google it, select 'feeling lucky' and you end up here

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gnXlGcYZdrwC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&source=bl&ots=heJaBMl4bR&sig=KszTxr-S4dXl76ggS23rt8x50YY&hl=en&ei=as9aTd-pHYSKlwe0o72yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

:shock:

[Smidgeon]

A 'collusion acting oligopoly'. That's a mouthful. Google it, select 'feeling lucky' and you end up here

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gnXlGcYZdrwC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&source=bl&ots=heJaBMl4bR&sig=KszTxr-S4dXl76ggS23rt8x50YY&hl=en&ei=as9aTd-pHYSKlwe0o72yDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

:shock:

Oh, Microeconomics.... <sigh>

[MJZiggy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/16/AR2011021603846.html?hpid=topnews

[Scott Campbell]

Per NFL radio what Richardson said was so bad that the other owners in the league have been calling Peyton and Drew to apologize since the meeting.


I wonder if Richardson is just playing the bad cop role.

[packrulz]

Ten simple questions, answers about potential NFL lockout


By Clark Judge
CBSSports.com Senior Writer
Feb. 15, 2011
There's a lot of talk about an NFL lockout next month, and, quite frankly, that's a problem. There's just too much talk and not enough action for a settlement to take place in the next three weeks.

That doesn't mean one can't happen. It just means one isn't likely.


So then what? Well, then you pick a Major League Baseball team to follow, bone up on labor law and settle in for a long offseason -- with no minicamps, no training camps, no OTAs, no nothing until the NFL and NFL Players' Association produce a new collective bargaining agreement.

Don't ask me when that happens. Don't ask them, either. They can't even decide on the next meeting. But we can try to figure out what all of this means for you, me and, most important, the 2011 NFL season. So let's get started.

1. What are the chances of a work stoppage by March 4?

They're so good that a high-profile agent and a GM each told me they envision CBA talks going into mid-to-late summer before they're resolved. One guy said August. The other, September. The point is that both believe a work stoppage -- with a lockout the most likely scenario -- seems inevitable. I said "seem" because I never say never. The 2006 talks seemed dead, too, until last-minute maneuvering and extensions provided a deal that lasted until now. People on the inside tell me the next week-to-10 days will determine what happens, but my guess is that what happens is nothing. So let's just say the chances of a work stoppage are high. Very, very high.

2. Any chance of an extension to the deadline?


Can DeMaurice Smith hold the union together after the paychecks stop? (AP) Only if there is substantial progress in talks -- or the kind of progress that is missing now. Look, it's not just core economic issues that demand agreement; it's the language for those issues, too, and you tell me what happens when you have a room full of lawyers trying to reach a consensus over terminology. Somebody cue Jim Mora: "Extension? You kidding me? Extension?" At this juncture, there's a better chance of the Cleveland Cavaliers making the NBA playoffs.
3. What are the implications of a union decertification?

Now this is where it could get interesting. You can't lock out a union if there's no union, right? By decertifying, the NFL Players Association would become a group of non-union workers, with the league compelled to implement new rules governing acquisitions, the draft and players' salaries. Suffice it to say that the move would provoke litigation. In fact, it already has. The NFL on Monday filed an unfair labor practice charge against the union, alleging that it is not bargaining in good faith because of plans to decertify. The union last season gained approval from every team to decertify but hasn't said whether it plans to exercise that option. If the NFLPA were to follow through, it no longer would serve as the negotiating body for players but could avert a lockout. One problem: If the union were to decertify, in all likelihood it would file an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. But if it lost, players would be in worse shape than they are now.

4. How long can a work stoppage last before the regular season is affected?

My guess is sometime in early-to-mid-August, and here's why: Teams will have to be pulled together on the fly. They must sign and re-sign players, stage training camps, play preseason games, formulate rosters, formulate strategies and, basically, overcome six months of inactivity before we get to a regular season. But let's not concentrate on the front end of the schedule. The NFL can and will sacrifice regular-season games if necessary as it did in the strike-truncated 1982 and 1987 seasons. Pay attention, instead, to the back end -- more specifically, the Super Bowl -- and work forward. You don't have much flexibility with Super Bowl dates. The bye before the Super Bowl gives you one weekend you can use, but that's about it. You can't keep pushing back and back because Indianapolis, site of Super Bowl XLVI, has hotels and venues locked into place for Super Bowl week ... and right now that week is Jan. 30-Feb. 5.

5. How many games would the league be willing to sacrifice?

In 1982 the NFL played nine regular-season games and held a playoff tournament, with the Super Bowl at the Rose Bowl. One big difference: That was a year in which there was a players' strike, initiated after the start of the regular season. In all likelihood, this would be a lockout initiated in March. So there would have been no training camps. No rosters would be fixed. No free agents signed. No players cut. No preseason games played. No regular season games played. In short, there would be nothing, meaning it would take at least 3-4 weeks to get teams in order. In 1982, games resumed one week after a 57-day strike, but rosters were in place, and training camps had been held. Heck, regular season games had been played. That's not the case here. This is unchartered terrain, with both sides unsure what happens if a work stoppage goes deep into the summer. All I know is that the NFL had a nine-game season in 1982, and it counted. So you might want to use that as your baseline. It also had a postseason tournament of 16 participants that was devised especially for the strike-shortened season, and it had a Super Bowl that went off without a hitch because the NFL pushed its playoffs into the bye week before Super Bowl XVII.

6. You mention player signings. Is that really a big deal?

You tell me. There would be well over 1,000 players who must be signed before teams start playing again, and I'm talking about almost 500 unrestricted free agents, an estimated 200 restricted and exclusive free agents, over 230 draft picks and roughly 400 undrafted players. Before you assemble a roster, you better sign your players. And tell me how you compress that into, say, a week to 10 days. You don't. Bottom line: Yes, it is a big deal.

7. Kobe Bryant said he's open to the option of playing in Europe if there's an NBA lockout. In lieu of a settlement, can NFL players seek employment elsewhere -- like the CFL?

Yes. But if they're under contract they must return to the NFL once there's an agreement. If they are unrestricted free agents there are no limitations, but they are then subject to CFL rules -- signing contracts that may prohibit their returns until specified dates. Also, keep this in mind: Anyone who goes to the CFL risks injury. If and when that player returns to the NFL he could be put on the reserve/non-football-injury list. So players can go ... but at their own risk.

8. What player transactions can take place during a work stoppage?

None, but there will be a three-day draft in late April. Now, while there are no trades of players allowed during a work stoppage, teams are permitted to trade draft picks. That is, I can deal my second rounder, say, for Team A's third-and-fourth-round choices. But I cannot deal a player I drafted for someone another club chose.

9. Is an 18-game season negotiable?

Yes. In fact, executive vice president of labor/league counsel Jeff Pash indicated as much at the Super Bowl, saying that, "We have not drawn a line in the sand on 18 games or anything else. Realistically, it's an easier deal to make, but it's not the only deal to make." OK, only there's just too much talk about it not to believe it won't happen or, at worst, wouldn't be used as leverage. The league won't impose something players don't want, and they don't want 18 regular-season games -- not, that is, without significant compensation. So find out what that compensation is, see if there's a middle ground, then make a decision. The NFL is sold on the idea that a four-game preseason doesn't work, one reason commissioner Roger Goodell keeps pumping the 18-game format. But players understandably are worried about the risk of increased injuries, and they're opposed. Nevertheless, I didn't hear executive director DeMaurice Smith rule out the possibility of 18 games at the Super Bowl. What I heard is someone who is philosophically opposed but might be willing to deal. And in case you're wondering, no, the idea of 16 regular-season games and two preseason contests won't fly. Why? Easy: Money. Fewer games means less money for players and less for owners, one reason Goodell said, "The status quo is unacceptable" at his annual Super Bowl news conference.

10. Is the urgency to settle less after the deadline passes?

Probably, only you have a lot of players who start missing March bonus checks. That may not be a factor immediately, but it will as time goes on. Remember, the last time there was a work stoppage, players crossed the picket line. I guarantee you that owners remember, and you can't tell me they don't think players will cave because history says they will. And have. Both sides will lose money. We all know that. But who has more resources to withstand a prolonged work stoppage? I think you know the answer, and so do these two sides. "The uncertainty about a labor agreement will have a clear and cumulative effect on our revenues," said Pash. "As our revenues are affected in a negative way it obviously makes it harder not to reach an agreement. It makes the work stoppage ... if one occurs ... more costly. That's a cost that will impede the negotiation process." Bottom line: If we get to March without an agreement get ready to hunker down.

[ThunderDan]

Wrong thread!

[ThunderDan]

I wonder if Richardson is just playing the bad cop role.

I was actually wondering the same thing. You get some owner that comes in ranting and raving and them you send someone else in and say we will give you "X". The "X" sounds a lot better than what looneytunes was saying.

[Smidgeon]

Hopefully, a good next step. (click link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/17/league-union-agree-to-federal-mediation/))

[mission]

Hopefully, a good next step. (click link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/17/league-union-agree-to-federal-mediation/))

This is a very good sign (League/Union agree to mediation)

[Smidgeon]

I'm still skeptical, but I agree that it's a good sign. Hopefully a mediator (and starting tomorrow!!) will keep them working on a negotiation. Continuing negotiation can only be a good thing.

[Joemailman]

This should help reduce the influence of the most hard-line members on both sides. This at least suggests that both sides are serious about finding a solution relatively soon, as opposed to trying to win a waiting game, hoping the other side will cave.

[gbgary]

hope this gets done by the deadline. the owners are their own worst enemy.

[Joemailman]

Time is on the owners side. I would think the players would want a free agency period before the draft is held.

[Smidgeon]

Time is on the owners side. I would think the players would want a free agency period before the draft is held.

I think the GMs would too. That way they can attempt to fill some holes via free agency and not be forced in the draft...

[Smidgeon]

This should help reduce the influence of the most hard-line members on both sides. This at least suggests that both sides are serious about finding a solution relatively soon, as opposed to trying to win a waiting game, hoping the other side will cave.

According to the updated PFT blurb, they've committed to seven straight days of talking. Now, we know what happened last time they committed to more than one day of talking, but with a mediator, maybe the seven days gets things done.

[RashanGary]

I'm blaming the owners here. They won't open the books and show what they're making. Obviously it would hurt their case, not help it. They signed the deal a few years ago and then got a nice fat guaranteed extension on their TV deal. Now they know they're getting paid no matter what and many of the players really need their paychecks. They have the upper hand to push this thing to the limit. As a fan, I hope the players cave a little. The lawyers aren't going to want to. They know they're being pushed around. Maybe sign a deal that goes through the current TV contract and then expires. Bend a little now and give back like the owners are asking, but then have it set up where the next negotiation, the owners don't have so much leverage.

[Joemailman]

Yep. One of the main points of the mediator is that you don't have one side pack up and go home because they don't like the way things are going.

[Kiwon]

Q. - Is this Binding Mediation or Non-binding Mediation?

[Joemailman]

The mediator does not have the power to impose a ruling. Arbitration, which this is not, can sometimes be binding.

[Smidgeon]

Q. - Is this Binding Mediation or Non-binding Mediation?

Non.

[Patler]

I hope mediation fails.
I hope both sides become even more firm.
I hope a lockout occurs and carries into late September, at least.
I hope at least two months of the regular season are lost.
I hope fans lose interest and stay away when games return.

Only then will the players and owners realize that you really can kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

I think that the cost of entertainment of all sorts is completely out of control in our society. I want that to change. I am also delusional to think that will ever occur.

[pbmax]

I hope mediation fails.
I hope both sides become even more firm.
I hope a lockout occurs and carries into late September, at least.
I hope at least two months of the regular season are lost.
I hope fans lose interest and stay away when games return.

Only then will the players and owners realize that you really can kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

I think that the cost of entertainment of all sorts is completely out of control in our society. I want that to change. I am also delusional to think that will ever occur.

That's a tough one. Right now, the Hockey lockout is viewed as a success, despite a lost season. Player costs have gone down, but I am not sure prices have. Of course, the NFL has farther to fall. MLB took a hit for several years after canceling the World Series but while it cratered their TV ratings, attendance recovered first and I am doubtful there was much downward pressure on prices after the following two desultory seasons.

[MadScientist]

The worst thing for the NFL would be to let the fans find out that they can get by without football.

Back in the 80's baseball and football were nearly tied as the favorite sport of the fans. Then the 92 strike and the screwed up economics hit, and now football is way ahead. If they loose next season, they will feel the effects for years.

Also, how long will it take to recoup the $9 billion in lost revenue from a lost season?

[swede]

I hope mediation fails.
I hope both sides become even more firm.
I hope a lockout occurs and carries into late September, at least.
I hope at least two months of the regular season are lost.
I hope fans lose interest and stay away when games return.

Only then will the players and owners realize that you really can kill the goose that is laying the golden eggs.

I think that the cost of entertainment of all sorts is completely out of control in our society. I want that to change. I am also delusional to think that will ever occur.

Until we discover a generous vein of Unobtanium under the plains of Nebraska this country has a deflating economy among all things real. The only source of wealth we seem to have is the creation of products that have arbitrary cultural value. Are you the Alan Greenspan of this new, volatile economy? Tap the brakes firmly with a lockout so that the bubble deflates without ripping apart the product, is that the idea?

[Smidgeon]

Until we discover a generous vein of Unobtanium under the plains of Nebraska this country has a deflating economy among all things real. The only source of wealth we seem to have is the creation of products that have arbitrary cultural value. Are you the Alan Greenspan of this new, volatile economy? Tap the brakes firmly with a lockout so that the bubble deflates without ripping apart the product, is that the idea?

Well, either that or figure out a way to profitably export the NFL to the world...

[Patler]

Until we discover a generous vein of Unobtanium under the plains of Nebraska this country has a deflating economy among all things real. The only source of wealth we seem to have is the creation of products that have arbitrary cultural value. Are you the Alan Greenspan of this new, volatile economy? Tap the brakes firmly with a lockout so that the bubble deflates without ripping apart the product, is that the idea?

I guess I never quite looked at it that way, but yes, maybe I am! :lol:

[swede]

Well, either that or figure out a way to profitably export the NFL to the world...

Perhaps in 2026 I can expect the Super Bowl to be played at 4 a.m. after China outbids the West Coast for prime time rights.

[Patler]

Perhaps in 2026 I can expect the Super Bowl to be played at 4 a.m. after China outbids the West Coast for prime time rights.

The NFL would be OK with that. Every business has to nurture new customers and cater to their customer strength.

[Smidgeon]

Perhaps in 2026 I can expect the Super Bowl to be played at 4 a.m. after China outbids the West Coast for prime time rights.

I envision a future where There are 32 other teams outside the US. A week after the Super Bowl, the winner meets the winner of the international teams' World Bowl in the final game between the winners, heretofore called the Universe Bowl, to determine who really is the master of the cosmos. Bwa-ha-ha.

[Patler]

Now this is interesting. Drew Brees, who was at the meeting, contradicting the report by Jay Feeley, who wasn't at the meeting. Brees said nothing was derogatory or demeaning. Blown out of proportion.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Drew-Brees-downplays-Jerry-Richardsons-comments.html


In reality, I suspect they were insulted at the time, but realized after that negotiations do get emotional at times, both in what is said and in how it is interpreted. You can't take it personally.

[Guiness]

Now this is interesting. Drew Brees, who was at the meeting, contradicting the report by Jay Feeley, who wasn't at the meeting. Brees said nothing was derogatory or demeaning. Blown out of proportion.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Drew-Brees-downplays-Jerry-Richardsons-comments.html


In reality, I suspect they were insulted at the time, but realized after that negotiations do get emotional at times, both in what is said and in how it is interpreted. You can't take it personally.

The players continue to look like a bunch of rank amateurs. Feeley, who wasn't there, is releasing reports? Brees is one of the head guys for the players, and it's is first session? WTF?

If nothing else, the players need to get the membership in line, and let everyone know that they need to learn to say 'no comment' when asked questions about the CBA. Everyone blabbing their opinion just shows chinks in the armour.

If they don't get their shit together, the owners are going to have them for lunch. Indentured servitude (ok, at an average of $3million/year) is coming up.

[pbmax]

Mike Silver, Yahoo! Sports, Feb 14th, 2011 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-richardsonnfl021411%C2%A0)

Well, according to two people who were at the meeting:

Richardson complained about being asked to negotiate on the busiest weekend of the year (Super Bowl). And then dismissed Manning's question about taking another billion off the table before calculating revenue for cap purposes and Brees' request to see financial documents (the current NFLPA position).

That was followed by an angry Richardson outburst about players making so much money that they should be able to own their team after three years. At that point, the owner's side suggested a break.

Three owner's and others apologized to the players present and one of the sources said Richardson later apologized to Manning.

Richardson seems to be taking this very personally. He is a former player who had a short career and turned that money (though its unclear if that was his only resource) into a Hardee's franchise ownership, which led to him owning Spartan Foods and on his way to making himself quite wealthy. The connection Richardson made to a mention of an injury shortened three year career with his own career path is probably not coincidental.

Is probably also worth noting that there are two absences being reported in the first round of mediation talks. Jeffrey Kessler, long a thorn in the ownership side, the NFLPA outside counsel and Richardson, were not present when meeting with the mediators.

[Patler]

An angry outburst at a negotiation session is hardly newsworthy. It doesn't even merit a mention, in my opinion. There will be a lot more of them from both sides before this gets done. When one occurs, from whom and what is said should be kept in the negotiation room.

[Freak Out]

Perhaps in 2026 I can expect the Super Bowl to be played at 4 a.m. after China outbids the West Coast for prime time rights.

2026? China is going to own the NFL before then.

[swede]

2026? China is going to own the NFL before then. I have an inkling of how THAT first CBA meeting goes.

Oh look! Here come the new owners now! I believe the first limo belongs to the owner of the Tiananmen Tigers. Looks like he is ready to offer a first proposal.

http://www.creativeroots.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/tiananmen-square-protesto-001.jpg

[Smidgeon]

Good news:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/21/labor-talks-going-well-after-fourth-day/

[Jimx29]

if there is a lockout or strike for a long period of time, i for one am likely to lose a lot of interest in the game

much like how i have not watched a baseball game since their last strike, or hockey or basketball

these asshole have their teams make their money and play the game strickly for our amusement, if they aren't there then i'm ready to say fuck them

my problem is that i was born and raised a packer fan, they are my religion and my reason for living, so it would be next to impossible for me to turn my back on the team or players

however, i noticed while watching this season that i am no where near as passionate about the packers as i was 15 or ever 10 years ago. it has almost become a chore or something, something i have to do on sundays rather then something i look forward to doing. i think to me the game isn't just a game anymore, its just another giant corporation trying to make as much money off of me as possible

i don't know. my love for football is starting to slip away and a lockout or strike right when my team should be making a run would damage my love a lot i fear

i hope the owners and players realise they are there to entertain us, that is their worth. and they better continue to fucking do it, uninterupted

Couldn't of said it any better, Red

[Tarlam!]

What is to stop the NFL Team owners and Murphy plus their aides getting into a room, drawing up a rule book on cap, rookie cap, revenue sharing, # of games etc and saying take it or leave it to the players? Especially if they move on with their plans to disband the NFLPA? Sure one has the Snyders, Jones' and Davis', but if a 7/10ths rule was employed, there'd be unity pretty quickly. Maybe the upcoming season would suck from a quality standpoint, but really, you just tell the players if they don't report for duty by day "x", they lose a year's paycheck.

I mean, I don't get it.

[pbmax]

What is to stop the NFL Team owners and Murphy plus their aides getting into a room, drawing up a rule book on cap, rookie cap, revenue sharing, # of games etc and saying take it or leave it to the players? Especially if they move on with their plans to disband the NFLPA? Sure one has the Snyders, Jones' and Davis', but if a 7/10ths rule was employed, there'd be unity pretty quickly. Maybe the upcoming season would suck from a quality standpoint, but really, you just tell the players if they don't report for duty by day "x", they lose a year's paycheck.

I mean, I don't get it.

If it happened AFTER decertification, it would probably be successfully challenged in court as an Antitrust violation. That was how Free Agency began. Football has much more limited protection from antitrust laws than baseball does.

One of the arguments for tolerance of a monopoly is the presence of a collective bargaining agreement. To have such an agreement subjects the NFL and other sports leagues to laws governing collective bargaining, one of which is to bargain in good faith. If the owners impose work restrictions while the Union exists but the agreement has expired, those rules could be challenged if they do not represent the owner's last offer in negotiations.

And the sides have a fiduciary duty to each other. For the owners, maximizing revenues is one such duty. And the NFL could be sued by the Union over such matters as the limited Thursday night NFL lineup that broadcasts over the NFL Network. Most feel that if even the partial season package were offered to competitive bid, the owners could increase TV revenue. As it stands, the availability of games on NFLN hasn't caused it to be picked up by some of the major cable providers. Having a CBA prevents such arguments.

So could they do it? Yes. But it would not be the end of it.

[Tarlam!]

Thanks PB, but with the existance of other Amreican football leagues, it's not strictly a monopoly, is it? It's just the best in it's product category. One could argue it to be an ogliopoly. I'm not sure what the law says about that.

If the NFLN policy is the only real threshhold, then that has little to nothing to do with the players. As I understand it, the average fan is sick and tired of the NFLN policy anyway. So the Owners and the League have a golden opportunity to get fans on their side right there and, if I understand you correctly, actually increase revenue!

Personally, I have zero issues with OPB (open book policy). My experience of supplying McDonald's for nearly 15 years made it a pre-requisite. PLCs are forced to open their books by law, it's the way they increase their value or it is decreased. I am quite suspicious about the owners' stance on this, so I understand where the players are coming from. I also think they're trying to eat a cow in one gulp, rather than butcher it and eat it in digestable portions. Any all or nothing stances are difficult. I understand the league to have made monumentous cocessions on this point, so maybe the players should take it for now, hammer out the other stuff and set up for this year only. They could have a real great deal hammered out if they use the mediatory for 10 more months ready to sign next year long term.

I've been toying with the idea of starting my own firm and one of the foundations would be OPB and profit sharing from day 1. Once we achieved a certain attraction, I'd be looking for vendors that agreed to OPB with our firm; it indicates trust and a willingness to partner. Any tools to keep an "us attitude" versus a "them versus us" is good for business.

[Guiness]

Apparently the league and union have made some headway, agreeing on a rookie wage scale.

Four year contract for 1st rounders, 3 year deals players drafted after the first round, but the RFA tag remains available for the 4th year.

There will also be a wage scale, but no news on what it will be. Initial offer by the owners was 5yrs, $19million, $6million guaranteed. Wrong number of years, of course.

While it's nice to hear that they've agreed on something, if it took them this long to come to terms on something everyone thought was going to be the easy negotiation, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the issues!

[Smidgeon]

Apparently the league and union have made some headway, agreeing on a rookie wage scale.

Four year contract for 1st rounders, 3 year deals players drafted after the first round, but the RFA tag remains available for the 4th year.

There will also be a wage scale, but no news on what it will be. Initial offer by the owners was 5yrs, $19million, $6million guaranteed. Wrong number of years, of course.

While it's nice to hear that they've agreed on something, if it took them this long to come to terms on something everyone thought was going to be the easy negotiation, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the issues!

I'm just hoping that agreement on one thing leads to agreement in others.

[pbmax]

Thanks PB, but with the existance of other Amreican football leagues, it's not strictly a monopoly, is it? It's just the best in it's product category. One could argue it to be an ogliopoly. I'm not sure what the law says about that.

If the NFLN policy is the only real threshhold, then that has little to nothing to do with the players. As I understand it, the average fan is sick and tired of the NFLN policy anyway. So the Owners and the League have a golden opportunity to get fans on their side right there and, if I understand you correctly, actually increase revenue!

Personally, I have zero issues with OPB (open book policy). My experience of supplying McDonald's for nearly 15 years made it a pre-requisite. PLCs are forced to open their books by law, it's the way they increase their value or it is decreased. I am quite suspicious about the owners' stance on this, so I understand where the players are coming from. I also think they're trying to eat a cow in one gulp, rather than butcher it and eat it in digestable portions. Any all or nothing stances are difficult. I understand the league to have made monumentous cocessions on this point, so maybe the players should take it for now, hammer out the other stuff and set up for this year only. They could have a real great deal hammered out if they use the mediatory for 10 more months ready to sign next year long term.

I've been toying with the idea of starting my own firm and one of the foundations would be OPB and profit sharing from day 1. Once we achieved a certain attraction, I'd be looking for vendors that agreed to OPB with our firm; it indicates trust and a willingness to partner. Any tools to keep an "us attitude" versus a "them versus us" is good for business.

Except for the Packers, no NFL team is a publicly owned or traded corporation, and thus only the Packers must publish their books. Not sure if that is what PLC strictly translates to or not, but that is the starting point to resistance to opening books.

As for competition, there are alternate leagues, but just as with IBM and AT&T (and Standard Oil, etc), the NFL team position in the marketplace is so dominant, allowed freely to coordinate, they could set almost any terms they wish and not be harmed by the competition. Its an interesting question, because the only true competition for the NFL would be the other sports leagues. And even they try to avoid competing head to head.

[Joemailman]

Apparently the league and union have made some headway, agreeing on a rookie wage scale.

Four year contract for 1st rounders, 3 year deals players drafted after the first round, but the RFA tag remains available for the 4th year.

There will also be a wage scale, but no news on what it will be. Initial offer by the owners was 5yrs, $19million, $6million guaranteed. Wrong number of years, of course.

While it's nice to hear that they've agreed on something, if it took them this long to come to terms on something everyone thought was going to be the easy negotiation, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the issues!

NFP is reporting that no deal is done yet. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Union-source-No-agreement-yet-on-rookie-wage-scale.html

[pbmax]

You know, Bedard presented some challenges reading his work at JSO, but he at least worked for most of the week.

JSO right now has nothing up for a story on Tuesday's bargaining. Not even an AP article. And there is nothing on the blog since yesterday's deconstruction of Jones' desire to start somewhere for someone. They have two full-time reporters on the Packers beat (Nickel and Silverstein) and McGinn who works intermittently in the offseason. They need to hire that web person soon.

The Press Gazette has been knocking them silly this offseason.

[Guiness]

I saw an interesting post at Sportsline. Obviously a worst case scenario, it made me laugh...

Why owners don't want an antitrust suit

For me, the funniest scenario possible is as follows:
(1) In a move that may prove astoundingly stupid, the NFL colluded with the networks by trading the latter's promise to front the TV rights for the first year for SOME consideration, which a court could only fairly conclude, WITHOUT the need for a trial, was a decrease in the rights fees (pro-rated over the length of the contract.)

(2) The judge could rule that the $4 billion be fronted, pro rata, to players and teams. Existing percentages of upfront money could then arguably go to individual players, where appropriate (pro rata, as they are guaranteed) and the interest on the remainder could then be distributed to all players under contract (by vote.)

(3) Meanwhile, the NFLPA could file suit to recover the value of the players' share of the foregone rights fees. I would suggest that they argue that the league's anti-trust exemption should be pierced (on a one-time basis) as a matter of public policy. (As punishment for the collusion.) Treble damages. Plus, I believe that the court is entitled to also award the actual non-professional costs of the lawsuit as an added amount in anti-trust cases.

(4) To gild the lily, any players who are subsequently let go should front a complaint against the NFL for both anti-trust collusion and RICO violations. The union and current players would be bystanders for that circus.

[packerbacker1234]

Thanks PB, but with the existance of other Amreican football leagues, it's not strictly a monopoly, is it? It's just the best in it's product category. One could argue it to be an ogliopoly. I'm not sure what the law says about that.

If the NFLN policy is the only real threshhold, then that has little to nothing to do with the players. As I understand it, the average fan is sick and tired of the NFLN policy anyway. So the Owners and the League have a golden opportunity to get fans on their side right there and, if I understand you correctly, actually increase revenue!

Personally, I have zero issues with OPB (open book policy). My experience of supplying McDonald's for nearly 15 years made it a pre-requisite. PLCs are forced to open their books by law, it's the way they increase their value or it is decreased. I am quite suspicious about the owners' stance on this, so I understand where the players are coming from. I also think they're trying to eat a cow in one gulp, rather than butcher it and eat it in digestable portions. Any all or nothing stances are difficult. I understand the league to have made monumentous cocessions on this point, so maybe the players should take it for now, hammer out the other stuff and set up for this year only. They could have a real great deal hammered out if they use the mediatory for 10 more months ready to sign next year long term.

I've been toying with the idea of starting my own firm and one of the foundations would be OPB and profit sharing from day 1. Once we achieved a certain attraction, I'd be looking for vendors that agreed to OPB with our firm; it indicates trust and a willingness to partner. Any tools to keep an "us attitude" versus a "them versus us" is good for business.

It still is. XFL failed. UFL presently is losing a lot of money, and outside of Arena Football, which is a different style of league, there is no direct competition in the United States to the NFL. UFL is the closest you get, and it's already cut down to 4 (maybe 5) teams and most likely will be rubbed out in a year or two. So yes, the NFL is a monopoly that is an exception to the normal rules of business. This means They do have to do things different;y and can't just tell the PU to screw themselves, this is what were doing, take it or we replace you with others.

It just doesn't work that way.

I agree that short term, a temporary one year deal could be struck to buy them more time - but they've had this on their plate all last season and well and made little noise until after the season. I fear with a short 1 year extension agreement they would simply put it off yet again, and we'll be back to square one in 2012. The players union isn't even necessarily disagreeing with the NFL and what they want to to do.

18 game schedules? Fine, as longas the money is there to compensate the players. Control on the rookie wage scale? Yup, everyone wants it. better retirment packages and stuff for players - sure, everyone is in agreement. The only thing stopping this for moving forward is the owners continual refusal to open the books. I get it, it's a power play. The revenue is the one thing the owners can hold over the players. If the players knew exactly what each team was making they would have a better understanding of how to proceed, but the owners also want to keep their high profit margins.

Packers we're ananomoly because of our front loaded contracts - I think in a normal year we make what, 15 million+? I imagine that income is similar for other successful teams, and then most likely not very good for teams like minnesota (before the last 2 seasons), redskins, raiders, etc. Chronically bad teams with bad attendence most likely are not doing so hot.

The final straw is agreeing on how the money is to be spread out going forward. Owners wnat it to be the way it was, players just want to see what money is available before agreeing to potentially screw themselves. In the end it's all bad for the fans, because it's millionaires arguing with millionaires, and really us fans don't give a rats ass.

Get back to fucking practice.

[Smidgeon]

Technically, the NFL is constructed of 32 different teams operating as a collective oligopoly.

[MJZiggy]

This is an interesting viewpoint: namely that the owners owe us, as the people who paid for stadiums and seat licenses, etc. a season. (contains a nice jab at Jerry Jones too)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nfl-housing-plan-owners-get-the-keys-fans-get-the-bills/2011/03/15/ABVOyCY_story.html?hpid=z4