ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?

[red]

reports are coming out this evening that the owners and players have agreed on a rookie wage scale which was the last remaining hurdle to a new cba.

the momentum is suppose to be high and things are now moving fast. mortensen is saying that the deal should be done in the next 24 to 48 hours

the hall of fame game is only like 3 weeks away

looks like all is going to be OK

[MJZiggy]

It was 'cause I called them dumbasses this afternoon, isn't it? They just needed some tough love.

[RashanGary]

I'm ready. It's been a really boring offseason. I never thought I'd miss minicamps and OTAs so much.

[Lurker64]

I really want to beat the Saints (and the Panthers, Bears, Broncos, Falcons, Rams, Vikings, Chargers, Vikings, Bucs, Lions, Giants, Raiders, Chiefs, Bears, and Lions).

[Tarlam!]

I really want to beat the Saints (and the Panthers, Bears, Broncos, Falcons, Rams, Vikings, Chargers, Vikings, Bucs, Lions, Giants, Raiders, Chiefs, Bears, and Lions).

I don't know if my heart will hold up in a SB at 18-0. I'm not even sure how I survived the last NFCCG at Lambeau!

Don't wish for things that might lead to the death of fellow posters!

[GrnBay007]

Time to plan a PR posters game at Lambeau!!!!! :)

[wootah]

I'm ready. It's been a really boring offseason. I never thought I'd miss minicamps and OTAs so much.

Man, I miss those too. Summertime's always slow at work and it seems even slower with minicamps and OTA's it seems. I'm genuinly looking forward to seeing the pictures of Cobb riding a kid's bike and people discussing Neal guns (what was it again; arms the size of legs?).

Are you going to some of the camps this year?

[Tarlam!]

Are you going to some of the camps this year?

I think the questions is how many. I can't imagine JH missing a TC.

I love the reports he brings back and shares on this site.

[wootah]

I dug up this gem:


Well, I can't say I saw very much to talk about today.

Finley looked smooth in pass catching drills.

Tramon had the nice pick and looks comfortable out there

Barbre didn't get burned any of the times I watched him

Raji was often lined up between the center and RG in nickle (Kamp/Raji/Jolly/Thompson) were the down lineman in nickle/dime. I like that look. It almost forces an offense to double Raji because he's so quick out of his stance and so powerful. One on one, with that angle would be a disaster. That's how I was hoping to see him used and that's how he was used today.

Rodgers did a fake spike that worked out really slick.

Brad Jones looked kind of slow in some drills. I don't know why, but that guy has been underwhelming when I've watched him. Maybe he's a gamer.

Jeremy Thompson looks incredibly fast for his size.

I sat next to a red head with a low cut shirt. Her bosoms were propped up nicely by her bra displaying all of her jiggly wonder. I didn't want to appear like a perv so I only looked a couple times when I knew she was laughing for the whole bounce effect. It was nice. At one point the linebackers were running drills about 10 feet in front of us, she was making comments to them. I got jealous, but I still liked her boobs.

[Pugger]

Thank God! This has been one weird and sad offseason. Which is a shame because we all should have been revelling in the SB win instead of reading about lockouts and the 2 sides bickering.

[Fosco33]

Get it done!

So will the Pack still be able to visit Obama?

[MJZiggy]

Get it done!

So will the Pack still be able to visit Obama?

They better be able to. I want to go. If the timing's right, I may be able to have lunch with some old colleagues...

[mission]

Yeah, it's been too boring for me to hang out here at all. Or really anywhere else.

I wanna get back in the mix!

[Tony Oday]

Get it done!

So will the Pack still be able to visit Obama?

God I hope not everything he touches burns in flames!

[Joemailman]

Owners give up on right of first refusal. That's really the last major obstacle.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners-give-up-on-right-of-first-refusal-push.html

[Lurker64]

Owners give up on right of first refusal. That's really the last major obstacle.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Owners-give-up-on-right-of-first-refusal-push.html

It was a silly thing to insist on anyway, since pretty much any of the free agents you're on good terms with would offer you a chance to match whatever offer they receive elsewhere.

[gbgary]

yup, ready!! our Packers were cheated a lot of attention they would have gotten had it not been for the lockout. ya know...that might end up being a good thing but lockout talk was/is boring as hell.

[Guiness]

I've seen reported in a few places that the players had some sort of lockout insurance, and this was a big ace in the hole for them.

It occurs to me that this is eerily similar to the lockout plans the owners made wrt making sure they had TV money coming in regardless. Would it not be the case that the players are also not bargaining in good faith if they were guaranteed money regardless?

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30629137




The threat that changed everything


Earlier I wrote on how the players made a threat that proved somewhat jarring to ownership and forced them to make concessions. Well, Sports Illustrated just reported what that threat was and it was a game changer.

The details I've heard are slightly different but the core facts are the same. The NFLPA had secured lockout insurance (there is such a thing?) for each player in the amount of $200,000 (one player told me the amount was $300,000) in the event the season was missed.

The union told the owners this late Wednesday night and, I'm told, it shook the owners. The next day, on Thursday, is when progress was made so quickly.

This is a huge deal and explains why the owners made concessions. While $200,000 or even $300,000 isn't a lot of cash to Peyton Manning (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/players/playerpage/12531), it is for most of the rank and file.

By playing this card, the players, at the last minute, outmaneuvered the owners. I'm told it completely stunned ownership.

Wow. Just wow,

This is the second biggest piece of news to only the fact a deal is all but done.

This was the players saying "checkmate."

[Lurker64]

I think the players saying "checkmate" is sort of hyperbole. The players may have been able to play the "oh, we all have lockout insurance, didn't you hear?" card to win the last few battles (notably the battle over the 5th year for top 10 picks in the rookie wage scale, and the "right of first refusal thing") but when the dust clears it will be clear that the Owners will have won the war.

The fact that the player's portion of the revenue will drop to 47-48% below the 50% line that the players said back in March that they were unwilling to cross, and that there's going to be a rookie wage scale at all means that, whatever battles the owners lost, in total they will have won the war.

[Smidgeon]

I've seen reported in a few places that the players had some sort of lockout insurance, and this was a big ace in the hole for them.

It occurs to me that this is eerily similar to the lockout plans the owners made wrt making sure they had TV money coming in regardless. Would it not be the case that the players are also not bargaining in good faith if they were guaranteed money regardless?

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30629137

I've got some points to make against the likely validity of such claims, but I think Florio says it better:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/15/players-lockout-insurance-fund-may-have-broken-the-ice-on-thursday-or-not/

[Tarlam!]

I've seen reported in a few places that the players had some sort of lockout insurance, and this was a big ace in the hole for them.

It occurs to me that this is eerily similar to the lockout plans the owners made wrt making sure they had TV money coming in regardless. Would it not be the case that the players are also not bargaining in good faith if they were guaranteed money regardless?

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30629137

Wow. That is clever, indeed. But, couldn't they have played that card in April?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The fact that the player's portion of the revenue will drop to 47-48% below the 50% line that the players said back in March that they were unwilling to cross, and that there's going to be a rookie wage scale at all means that, whatever battles the owners lost, in total they will have won the war.

I agree. The 50-50 split is a huge psychological barrier. The owners will be back trying to lower the players share at the next negotiation.

I'm surprised that the owners backed-off on the 18-game season so early and completely. Maybe it was just a bluff to get other concessions. An 18 game season would have hurt the league, the 16 game season is grueling enough for the players.

[pbmax]

I too get the sense that the owner's hold the field at the end of the day. But the exact percentage the players actually receive is going to take a while to calculate. There are still exclusions for certain costs (though it sounds like there are fewer than before), the cap is pegged through a different mechanism (and the adjustment for revenue above projection [true up] is different as well) and there is the new cash minimum.

So wait a year or two and the unhappy party will leak the true cost of the players and then we will know. It will also be fascinating to see if there are changes to supplemental revenue sharing. This agreement makes that less a necessity. Worst part of this deal is more Thursday football. But that was inevitable.

But all of that is sideshow compared to getting actual football back.

Though I have been enjoying Hope Solo and Alex Morgan.

[RashanGary]

59% to 48%. . .


That's a punch in the sack. I'd be curious if they added other streams of revenue to that total revenue pot because that seems like a big kick in the bag.

[RashanGary]

The owners original proposal was a billion off the top and the same split as before. Using 9bil, that's 4.72B to the players. Using the same 9B, 48% is 4.32B. So the owners actually ended up with a better deal than the originally offered by about 400,000/yr?

It looks that way at first glance. I'd be curious to see if any new revenue streams were added to the pot or if the owners are partly responsible for the legacy fund. . . . . . . It seems like an odd deal right now.

Whatever though, if it gets football back, I'm excited.

[pbmax]

59% to 48%. . .


That's a punch in the sack. I'd be curious if they added other streams of revenue to that total revenue pot because that seems like a big kick in the bag.

That's apples to oranges. 59% applied only to a subset of revenue. For most of the 2000s, the players averaged 50-52% of all revenue. It will take some time to get similar figures for comparison under the new deal.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The owners original proposal was a billion off the top and the same split as before. Using 9bil, that's 4.72B to the players. Using the same 9B, 48% is 4.32B. So the owners actually ended up with a better deal than the originally offered by about 400,000/yr?

It looks that way at first glance. I'd be curious to see if any new revenue streams were added to the pot or if the owners are partly responsible for the legacy fund. . . . . . . It seems like an odd deal right now.

Whatever though, if it gets football back, I'm excited.

Didn't they get a billion off the top before and then were asking for another billion off the top?

[bobblehead]

The way I have heard it, now they are getting a cut of total revenue before anything. This eliminates the funny book keeping aspect that they accused owners of.

[Lurker64]

Didn't they get a billion off the top before and then were asking for another billion off the top?

Yeah, the NFL was getting a billion off the top, and then the players were taking like 59.1% of what remained. The owners opening proposal was that the league would take 2 billion off the top and the players would get 59.1% of what remained. Obviously, this wasn't going to happen, but nobody ever expects to get what they ask for in their opening proposal. Every opening proposal is crafted as a pie-in-the-sky wishlist sort of thing, so you have room to move when you're negotiating.

[ThunderDan]

The owners original proposal was a billion off the top and the same split as before. Using 9bil, that's 4.72B to the players. Using the same 9B, 48% is 4.32B. So the owners actually ended up with a better deal than the originally offered by about 400,000/yr?

It looks that way at first glance. I'd be curious to see if any new revenue streams were added to the pot or if the owners are partly responsible for the legacy fund. . . . . . . It seems like an odd deal right now.

Whatever though, if it gets football back, I'm excited.

I think the issue was that players comp was going to be tied to current revenue and not readjusted once the new TV contracts were negotiated. The players agreed to the 48% and that allows them to "reep" the rewards of the new TV contract revenue being counted for the players.

[Lurker64]

I think the issue was that players comp was going to be tied to current revenue and not readjusted once the new TV contracts were negotiated. The players agreed to the 48% and that allows them to "reep" the rewards of the new TV contract revenue being counted for the players.

I think the looming new TV contracts are a large part of what made the owners want to change the formula. Since if the total league revenue (X) gets high enough .5X > (.4(X-$1b)+$1b). You want your part of the pie to grow with the factor of .5 not the factor of .4

[Patler]

Both sides will spin the information to make it look like they "won". There is lots of misinformation being put out as well. I, for one, do not believe that overall league revenue for for 2011 will be less than it was in 2009; yet reports are that the salary cap for 2011 will be the same as or slightly less than 2009. That seems to indicate that the owners are getting a bigger piece of the pie, which was their key issue. On the other hand, the players may have realized it was necessary, and may feel satisfied with having limited the size of the giveback. It could be a "win" for both sides.

If this is in fact a good settlement, both sides will feel like they did "OK" on the most important issues to them, and "lost" on some others of lesser importance. If either side feels they have "lost" more than they have "won" in reaching the new deal, it may not last.

As for the 18 game schedule - I read a very interesting article that said inside info from the Union was that the Union leadership too is very much in favor of it as a long term issue because it will increase revenue considerably. The pie will get much larger. But, it was not an easy sell to the rank and file players right now who look at it as more work for not a lot more pay. It needs to sit for a while so details can be worked out, like adjustments to existing contracts, roster sizes, possible changes to IR rules, etc. The league was happy to agree with that and took it off the table quickly. Looks like a union "win" right now, but actually both sides are working to the same goal, an 18 game schedule. The article said to expect it as a fleshed out proposal without strong Union opposition in about 3 years.

[RashanGary]

I was surprised the 18 games came off so quickly. There is a demand for more football. Fans love it. Even though they sit here and say they won't watch 18 games, I guarantee we ALL would. The owners know it, I guarantee every singe one of them would bet on it.

Yeah, Arod, Jennings, Mathews, Raji, Wood, Collins, Twil and the bunch line up on Sunday and HarveyWallbangers, JustinHarrell and Bretsky tune into baseball. . . . I doubt it. I like my baseball as much as the next guy, but if football is on, if the Packers are playing in Lambeau. . . I'm watching. That's just a fact.

As far as business men go, only an idiot wouldn't want more money.



With the cap going down to 120M, I think the players have taken some of their money and put it toward the retired players benefits fund. That can't be cheap. And I think they probably took a small cut. I don't doubt the league had rising expenses, rising faster than revenue even. NHL, NBA, NFL. . . . Even MLB, since the older deals of Arod and Jeter a while back, they haven't had record breakers. That was what? 5 years ago. 5 years go by without anyone breaking those deals. . . .

It seems like at the end of the day reason prevailed. I don't think anyone got bent over the barrel here. The NFL is still a big time money maker and everyone seems to be cashing in. Anyone who's talked about this, I've always said. . . 9B guarantees this gets done.

[red]

this might not be over just year. PFT is saying that the players are making a last minute power mover and trying to get back all the money they lost in the uncapped year (like 250 to 300 million)

assholes

[Patler]

Interesting issue is that the retired players may have significant control here. They have not been part of the contract negotiations but have been joined to the lawsuits. Some are saying that withdrawal of the lawsuits is a key component to the CBA resolution. Withdrawal of the lawsuits will not occur without the assent of the retired players, since they are parties. If they aren't happy with what the new CBA gives them, they could withhold their assent to the withdrawal of the lawsuits and hold up the entire settlement.

In a way, I think that would be kind of OK.... I don't think they will be greedy, and I think they have an understanding of what's fair.


NOTE: Per the discussion below, I very well could be wrong about their actual joinder, in which case their only leverage is resolution of their separately pending suit(s).

[pbmax]

I think the issue was that players comp was going to be tied to current revenue and not readjusted once the new TV contracts were negotiated. The players agreed to the 48% and that allows them to "reep" the rewards of the new TV contract revenue being counted for the players.


I think the looming new TV contracts are a large part of what made the owners want to change the formula. Since if the total league revenue (X) gets high enough .5X > (.4(X-$1b)+$1b). You want your part of the pie to grow with the factor of .5 not the factor of .4

The new cap calculating mechanism is pegging the cap to expected revenue in advance of knowing actual revenue. Previously, I think it was calculated year by year in the offseason with a reasonable idea of what revenue would be for the following year. Its unclear whether all 10 years (proposed) have been (or will be) calculated or if there is an alternate schedule.

The debate then began over how to reconcile actual revenue to the cap, which they referred to as true up. The exact mechanism is unknown to me except there is a bare minimum figure that player compensation cannot fall below in actual realized revenues.

[pbmax]

As for the 18 game schedule - I read a very interesting article that said inside info from the Union was that the Union leadership too is very much in favor of it as a long term issue because it will increase revenue considerably. The pie will get much larger. But, it was not an easy sell to the rank and file players right now who look at it as more work for not a lot more pay. It needs to sit for a while so details can be worked out, like adjustments to existing contracts, roster sizes, possible changes to IR rules, etc. The league was happy to agree with that and took it off the table quickly. Looks like a union "win" right now, but actually both sides are working to the same goal, an 18 game schedule. The article said to expect it as a fleshed out proposal without strong Union opposition in about 3 years.

I haven't read that about the NFLPA* leadership, but public player comments (not just from those attending negotiations) have run against the idea. The owners have been said to give up the idea entirely this time, but it will be interesting to see if there is the same language from the previous CBA that allowed 22 games. The owner's didn't invoke it, as they could have, unilaterally, but its time may come again. The fact that the idea was abandoned so fast when the letter of the contract was on their side makes me feel like this was a chip to throw in during negotiations.

And it might still get played depending on the language.

[pbmax]

Interesting issue is that the retired players may have significant control here. They have not been part of the contract negotiations but have been joined to the lawsuits. Some are saying that withdrawal of the lawsuits is a key component to the CBA resolution. Withdrawal of the lawsuits will not occur without the assent of the retired players, since they are parties. If they aren't happy with what the new CBA gives them, they could withhold their assent to the withdrawal of the lawsuits and hold up the entire settlement.

In a way, I think that would be kind of OK.... I don't think they will be greedy, and I think they have an understanding of what's fair.

Have they been joined? I thought that was yet to be determined? I know that was their goal, to force both sides to include them in negotiations, but that hasn't happened yet. With Kevin Mawae and Mike Vrabel on the NFLPA* exec committees (Vrabel retired, Mawae possibly close), that argument doesn't have as much weight as it did a few months ago.

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/05/retired-players-make-power-play/

The retired players who filed the initial suit against the NFL filed a new suit against the players and de Smith around the 4th of July. I can't find any action that the courts have taken on either case.

[Patler]

Have they been joined?

I guess I don't know for sure. I thought they had been, but I might be wrong. Maybe I'm just remembering when they filed the petition to be joined.

[Joemailman]

Players will not be taking a vote today. I'm having a hard time figuring out if it's because a deal is not quite in place, or if there is a deal that the NFLPA now needs to sell to its rank and file.

[MJZiggy]

I thought they weren't supposed to vote until tomorrow.

[Joemailman]

Owners weren't supposed to vote until tomorrow. It was hoped the players would vote today.

[Smidgeon]

What's this where the players want money they didn't get in benefits in the uncapped year? How is that "owed" to them? It wasn't a part of the last CBA and it apparently isn't a part of the newly proposed one...

[pbmax]

Much of the reporting is confused and incomplete, but the most consistent version seems to be that the players were presented with basically two items: a settlement of the anti-trust case and the tentative CBA. One piece of info (Trotter of SI I think and another I have forgotten[Freeman from CBS maybe?]) seems to be that the 32 player reps gave Smith a tentative green light on the settlement and have questions that need to be answered about the CBA.

If true, it makes some sense. The league will not lift the lockout if the anti-trust case is looming over their heads but might if the CBA is close to done to terms they can live with.

Its possible that in this scenario, then, that Jackson and Mankins are really the roadblocks (the new version is that neither is seeking FA, but both are seeking $10 million) but nothing is clear and I can't see how the ink is dry on the settlement of the suit but that both players are still holding out on the deal. You think someone would have asked them before setting the lawyers to work on the draft.

[pbmax]

What's this where the players want money they didn't get in benefits in the uncapped year? How is that "owed" to them? It wasn't a part of the last CBA and it apparently isn't a part of the newly proposed one...

You make a good point. However, if the owners insist on it, then the players will insist on the award and damages from the TV deal/lockout insurance lawsuit they won in Federal Court. So it might be wise to agree to a sum and then dump the lawsuit. The insurance money was $320 million. The league revenue from the TV lockout insurance was $4 billion. Part of that $4 bil was a loan, the rest would be used to calculate the money left on the table by the owners when they were essentially buying insurance.

Some negotiated portion of $320 mil might seem a small price to pay to keep this year's entire TV revenue pie, rather than have to split 59.6 percent off of it.

[Iron Mike]

Awwww, c'mon.....let's get back in the mix!!!!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju-J_2oajto&feature=relmfu

[Iron Mike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixus84Bar0I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cwAFUWWc2I&feature=relmfu

[Iron Mike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTSHMcN2tzM&feature=relmfu


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0dWHPIv5-w&feature=relmfu

[Iron Mike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNoohoaFjM&playnext=1&list=PL71FDD28008A2BB3E

[Iron Mike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrkhADOjHJM

[Iron Mike]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9riktIdfG0&feature=related

[pbmax]

I wonder if Justin has staked out his seat for his first practice yet?

[swede]

My goodness Derek Sherrod has outstanding feet! I don't know how he anticipates the defenders 2nd move so well--it's a little spooky. I was so busy watching him and admiring his footwork in pass pro that it surprised me to see him hit the deck and take a defender down with him. I rolled it back to look again and it was a running play, something like a delayed handoff/draw. If Sherrod doesn't go low and dump the defender, the defender would roll off the feigned pass block and cut off the running lane.

He's going to be good.

Thanks for the football-related welcome to the new season meet the new kids post Iron Mike.

[Iron Mike]

LMAO at the JS this morning....somebody's comment:

"Will be nice to see the Packers catching passes from Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler real soon." :)