the owners did their part :) Lets Play

[wpony]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl;_ylt=Akb0I5tBM7vBmMCPsAEXwGZ9t7l now lets hope the players dont hold it up its time for FOOTBALL :)

[pbmax]

The Saturday Packer meeting may be on: via PFT

Goodell says facilities can open Saturday, league year can start Wednesday (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/goodell-says-facilities-can-open-saturday-league-year-can-start-wednesday/)

Those who called for the kind of personal relationship between Goodell and Smith as existed between Tags and Upshaw might have gotten their wish. Settlement accepted, lockout lifted and a week to recertify for the NFLPA* (see link for evidence) (http://packerrats.com/showthread.php?22276-Packers-are-telling-players-to-be-ready-to-show-up-on-Saturday&p=598517#post598517) mean that Goodell is trusting Smith to deliver on recertification and CBA vote.

[pbmax]

Also in the PFT piece above:


“The clubs approved an agreement that was negotiated with the players,” Goodell said. “We also approved a supplemental revenue sharing system for the next 10 years.”
Would love to know what happened to that plan. Was the CBA win back enough, or did the cash minimum keep the agreement the same?

[Joemailman]

Great move by the owners. Players ratify or almost everyone blames them.

[pbmax]

It gets better/worse (SI Jim Trotter):

SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
for clarification, the owners didn't ratify a settlement agreement that was ok'd by the players. they ratified their OWN proposal. ...

[pbmax]

Something about that just doesn't make sense. They spent a week going over the settlement language. And they spent the three weeks before that working through the details of the revenue split and rookie pool.

This must mean that details over non-monetary issues such as discipline, suspensions, drug policy, Play Conduct, etc. have not been settled yet.

[pbmax]

I should just go to bed.


SI_JimTrotter on Twitter summarizing email to player reps:

1) "As you know the Owners have ratifified their proposal to settle our differences. It is my understanding they are forwarding it to us.
2) As u may have heard, they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obly, we hv not bn a part of those discussions.
3) As you know from yesterday, issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open. ...
4) other issues such as workers compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms remain unresolved.
5) There is no agreement between the NFL and the Players at this time. I look forward to our call tonight.

[pbmax]

Schefter reports that the owners did not just vote on the legal settlement. They have voted on a CBA as well and given the players a deadline of the 27th (midnight of the 26th technically).

Meanwhile, a raft of issues remain unresolved. As this cannot have been unanticipated, negotiations apparently will continue.

[vince]

It sounds like the players have been kept mostly in the dark throughout this process. That is a major fail by the NFLPA. De Smith was hired by the players to negotiate a deal. He did that. He should have been keeping the troops up to speed and getting more feedback from them through the process. Educate the players and get to a vote for chrissakes.

[pbmax]

From Breer on Twitter:

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver told us much as he wasn't thrilled w/how revenue sharing went in '06, he's happy w/where it's going in new deal.

So revenue sharing (which the Jags are most definitely collecting) went up? Oh Jerry Jones, where have you gone?

Does this mean that new investments in the game meant new investments in the Jaguars?

[Joemailman]

Hall Of Fame game has been scrapped. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFL-cancels-Hall-of-Fame-Game.html

[pbmax]

It sounds like the players have been kept mostly in the dark throughout this process. That is a major fail by the NFLPA. De Smith was hired by the players to negotiate a deal. He did that. He should have been keeping the troops up to speed. Educate the players and get to a vote for chrissakes.

Maybe. But the CBA vote and the compressed time to finalize unaddressed options might have been the price the NFLPA* paid to get the lockout lifted before the recertification.

It could also simply be posturing to make it obvious the players are still considering all options.

The owner's hadn't seen any of this until today either.

[red]

fuck this, right now it sounds like the whole thing might have just blown up

they're saying on NFL network that we might be going back to square one. lots of confusion right now,

fuck the players, bring in the scabs

[pbmax]

If the Owners voted on a CBA that contained provisions that hadn't been negotiated, they run the very real risk of having the deal blow up in their face. Because the players main leverage remains the TV lawsuit and the end of the 6 month moratorium on courts acting to lift a labor action, which they can't sign off on until the CBA is all but done.

If this wasn't the plan by Goodell and Smith, then the owners think they have called a bluff. And I suspect given the compressed timeframe, the players aren't going to judge this with a cool head.

It seems like the owners put the until then unfinished CBA on the table as the price for having to lift the lockout while the decertification and CBA are still unresolved.

[pbmax]

fuck this, right now it sounds like the whole thing might have just blown up

they're saying on NFL network that we might be going back to square one. lots of confusion right now,

fuck the players, bring in the scabs

Forget the scabs, those games were horrendous. Play college games on Sunday.

[pbmax]

We might be paying the price for Smith and Goodell being new to this. The lawyers, even I agree now, seem to be running amok.

[red]

If the Owners voted on a CBA that contained provisions that hadn't been negotiated, they run the very real risk of having the deal blow up in their face. Because the players main leverage remains the TV lawsuit and the end of the 6 month moratorium on courts acting to lift a labor action, which they can't sign off on until the CBA is all but done.

If this wasn't the plan by Goodell and Smith, then the owners think they have called a bluff. And I suspect given the compressed timeframe, the players aren't going to judge this with a cool head.

It seems like the owners put the until then unfinished CBA on the table as the price for having to lift the lockout while the decertification and CBA are still unresolved.

smith and goodell have been working on the thing all day, i thought thats what the owners agreed on? it seems to me like the players are pissed because smith negotiated some things without asking or telling all the players what he was doing.

isn't that why you hired de smith in the first place?

what a mess, you're right. lawers run amok, fucking up a game they don't care about for their own glory.

you can kiss goodbye to the first week of preseason games

[vince]

The players attorney's are haggling over legal bs. De Smith, man up, be a leader and get it done.

[gbgary]

from what i understand the stupid owners did this unilaterally. the players don't even have a full copy of the proposal. trying to put pressure on the players and all it's done is make the owners look ridiculous. lol

[red]

pft is saying that the nfl owners have included a new revenue sharing system between the teams. the players are pissed because this issue was never discussed, even though they never brought it up.

i don't get why a deal between teams for revenue sharing and keeping a level playing field has anything to do with the players in the first place. seems to me just another reason to stall and bitch.

[Joemailman]

I think the average fan sees that the owners are lifting the lockout, and the players aren't going along. I think the owners are winning this one.

[vince]

How the teams split their share of revenues should not need to be negotiated with the players IMO.

[Old School]

1. I know from experience how union leaders don't keep union members up to speed on negotiations. They lie to their own members to further their personal agenda.
2. Shakespeare was right about lawyers.
3. If the players don't approve this deal, they need a 1 year time out to get over their juvinile snit, and the NFLPA should be disemboweled like the public sector unions.
4. It'll be comical to see how many players end up in jail in order to eat because they don't have the ability to earn a living in the real world, and can't live lawfully in society without a coach for a mommy.
5. I'm as eager as anyone to get this Packer dynasty rolling, but not when I think the players are taking the fans for granted.

[gbgary]

I think the average fan sees that the owners are lifting the lockout, and the players aren't going along. I think the owners are winning this one.

by the end of the evening everyone will know better. espn is hammering the owners.

[red]

stupid owners did this unilaterally. the players don't even have a full copy of the proposal. trying to put pressure on the players and all it's done is make the owners look ridiculous. lol

haven't the players been putting off a vote for awhile now? they're the ones stalling. smith and goodell came up with something they both liked. the owners jumped on it to get things going. i'm guessing the owners had a certain zone that they were comfortable accepting. when goodell got they, they said good enough. i'm sure smith and the union had the same type of zone. smith probably got it, but all they players want time to go through everything. one lawyer even wants to send out by snail mail, union cards to be signed so the union can recertified. lawyers and played are dragging this out.

REMEMBER, the players were originally trying to get rid of some preseason games, and also cut offseason workouts and training camp. this could be a way for them to get rid of that.

NFLN is going over dates right now. WE have our first regular season game in 49 days. christ, what a joke

[gbgary]

haven't the players been putting off a vote for awhile now? they're the ones stalling. smith and goodell came up with something they both liked. the owners jumped on it to get things going. i'm guessing the owners had a certain zone that they were comfortable accepting. when goodell got they, they said good enough. i'm sure smith and the union had the same type of zone. smith probably got it, but all they players want time to go through everything. one lawyer even wants to send out by snail mail, union cards to be signed so the union can recertified. lawyers and played are dragging this out.

REMEMBER, the players were originally trying to get rid of some preseason games, and also cut offseason workouts and training camp. this could be a way for them to get rid of that.

NFLN is going over dates right now. WE have our first regular season game in 49 days. christ, what a joke

i don't think they've ever had anything to vote on. even tonight they still don't have a copy of the proposal.

[red]

How the teams split their share of revenues should not need to be negotiated with the players IMO.

absolutely vince. why are these not two completely separate deals. one between the owners and the players, and one between the teams how how to share their money.

[Tony Oday]

If they miss one game I am cancelling NFL Ticket, not doing fantasy and just watching Packers Games. Fuck the players and the NFL.

[red]

If they miss one game I am cancelling NFL Ticket, not doing fantasy and just watching Packers Games. Fuck the players and the NFL.

good for you tony, i hope more people have that attitude

[gbgary]

If they miss one game I am cancelling NFL Ticket, not doing fantasy and just watching Packers Games. Fuck the players and the NFL.

don't worry. it'll get done. the owners will be losing millions for every preseason game missed...nearly a billion by the end of preseason.

[vince]

...about NFL network supposedly bashing the ownersI've been watching NFLN and that's not my perception at all. They've been balanced and have expressed ample consternation over the chaos on the players' side at this stage of the game. I agree with PB except to say that it's the players are being led astray by the lawyers IMO. The owners have their shit together.

[red]

question?

could the owners have just decided to say "fuck the players union"?

it sure sounds like the owners are done and ready to get things rolling. can the owners move on without a players union? could this end up as a free for all?

[red]

I've been watching NFLN and that's not my perception at all. They've been balanced and have expressed ample consternation over the chaos on the players' side at this stage of the game. I agree with PB except to say that it's the players are being led astray by the lawyers IMO. The owners have their shit together.

i get that feeling too. the owners are a bunch of businessmen who know they're shit, and have lawyers that know theirs. most football players aren't the smartest guys in the world, and their reps lack smarts and knowledge of how to do this.

players side seems like a complete cluster fuck

[gbgary]

I've been watching NFLN and that's not my perception at all. They've been balanced and have expressed ample consternation over the chaos on the players' side. I agree with PB except to say that it's the players are being led astray by the lawyers IMO. The owners have their shit together.

nfl network IS the league/owners. take a look at espn for a couple of hours. they don't have a dog in this fight. sal pal, mort, john clayton and all the other reporters are saying what's really happening.

[pbmax]

smith and goodell have been working on the thing all day, i thought thats what the owners agreed on? it seems to me like the players are pissed because smith negotiated some things without asking or telling all the players what he was doing.

isn't that why you hired de smith in the first place?

what a mess, you're right. lawers run amok, fucking up a game they don't care about for their own glory.

you can kiss goodbye to the first week of preseason games

Well, they have been working for weeks, the question is how much of the plan approved came as a surprise to the NFLPA* leadership. If the move to approve a CBA surprised Smith, the NFL might have played too big a hand and forced a standoff.

If Smith failed to disclose that move was coming (or that certain provisions had been agreed to) then he is in serious trouble. But that is a huge mistake to make, almost incomprehensible.

[Tony Oday]

nfl network IS the league/owners. take a look at espn for a couple of hours. they don't have a dog in this fight. sal pal, mort, john clayton and all the other reporters are saying what's really happening.
ESPN has a ton of skin in the game...think their viewership won't go down without Football?

[red]

can the owners lift the lockout allowing players to show up and work out without the players agreeing to this thing?

listening to goodells interview he said that the owners have agreed to the proposal that was worked out and agreed to earlier in the day with the union. he then said that they owners have also come to a agreement on revenue sharing. he makes it sound like to completely different things that the players have nothing to do with.

he also says flat out the him and smith agreed on the proposal. he took that to the owners and they liked it. but the players are balking

i can't see how this isn't anything but the players fault

[pbmax]

How the teams split their share of revenues should not need to be negotiated with the players IMO.

As a practical matter, it has a huge effect. It effects the salaries that the lowest revenue teams can afford. While the players can't dictate the terms, a good case can be made that a decision about it would have made negotiating player costs for the league easier.

[vince]

nfl network IS the league/owners. take a look at espn for a couple of hours. they don't have a dog in this fight. sal pal, mort, john clayton and all the other reporters are saying what's really happening.
same stuff on espn. This is a power play by the NFLPA attorneys.

Item still outstanding according to Mort - workman's comp - players want to file in California rather than the state in which they were injured. What a joke.

[red]

wingo is right, looking at the details, this is a great deal for the players. the owners gave up a lot in the end. it sure looks like the players won big. but its not good enough for them

[vince]

As a practical matter, it has a huge effect. It effects the salaries that the lowest revenue teams can afford. While the players can't dictate the terms, a good case can be made that a decision about it would have made negotiating player costs for the league easier.
Negative. The owners have agreed in the CBA to a cap floor that they MUST spend on players each year. That was properly negotiated. How revs are split up doesn't change the cap ceiling or floor.

[pbmax]

haven't the players been putting off a vote for awhile now? they're the ones stalling. smith and goodell came up with something they both liked. the owners jumped on it to get things going. i'm guessing the owners had a certain zone that they were comfortable accepting. when goodell got they, they said good enough. i'm sure smith and the union had the same type of zone. smith probably got it, but all they players want time to go through everything. one lawyer even wants to send out by snail mail, union cards to be signed so the union can recertified. lawyers and played are dragging this out.

REMEMBER, the players were originally trying to get rid of some preseason games, and also cut offseason workouts and training camp. this could be a way for them to get rid of that.

NFLN is going over dates right now. WE have our first regular season game in 49 days. christ, what a joke

If reports are to be believed, there are still outstanding issues that had yet to be negotiated in the CBA. Remember that the NFL instructions said if the new terms aren't approved, the old rules on the remaining subjects go into affect. That would seem to make it clear that changes they agreed to (revenue split) are in this deal, but other items have not been finalized. Absent other info, it looks like a power play.

[pbmax]

Negative. The owners have agreed in the CBA to a cap floor that they MUST spend on players each year. That was properly negotiated. How revs are split up doesn't change the cap ceiling or floor.

The floor is now a cash minimum. And supplemental revenue sharing DIRECTLY affects the amount low revenue teams can afford to dish out yearly. Its plain as day.

[pbmax]

absolutely vince. why are these not two completely separate deals. one between the owners and the players, and one between the teams how how to share their money.

They are two separate deals this time around. And it makes little sense from the players perspective. How else can you determine the amount of salary the lowest revenue clubs can afford if you don't have a solid idea of their actual revenue? Especially if it changes substantially, which Wayne Weaver has seemed to indicate that it did.

[red]

They are two separate deals this time around. And it makes little sense from the players perspective. How else can you determine the amount of salary the lowest revenue clubs can afford if you don't have a solid idea of their actual revenue? Especially if it changes substantially, which Wayne Weaver has seemed to indicate that it did.

i was under the impression that the cap wasn't based on what the lowest earning team could afford. it is based on total revenue taken in by the whole league.

[pbmax]

can the owners lift the lockout allowing players to show up and work out without the players agreeing to this thing?

listening to goodells interview he said that the owners have agreed to the proposal that was worked out and agreed to earlier in the day with the union. he then said that they owners have also come to a agreement on revenue sharing. he makes it sound like to completely different things that the players have nothing to do with.

he also says flat out the him and smith agreed on the proposal. he took that to the owners and they liked it. but the players are balking

i can't see how this isn't anything but the players fault

If the owners acted as Goodell advised Smith they would, then I agree. But if they undercut Goodell, then its trouble.

The owners could lift the lockout anytime but wouldn't, because the lockout was the impetus for all of this.

If we get to six months past the expiration of the deal (September I think) then the anti-trust case continues with the Appellate Courts concerns having been addressed.

Which means if there isn't an agreement before then, its back to court, lockout or no, if there is no CBA.

[vince]

The rev sharing structure guarantees that the small market teams can afford to pay the players at least up to the cash floor. That was what didn't work with the last agreement and the biggest reason the owners opted out in order to solve that problem with the low rev teams.

IMO, the players are way out of line if they think it's their right to dicate what the league does with revenues outside the immediate scope of player contracts.

[pbmax]

i was under the impression that the cap wasn't based on what the lowest earning team could afford. it is based on total revenue taken in by the whole league.

The cap is. But new this time is a per team cash minimum per year. That cash minimum cannot, as a practical matter, be more than the low revenue teams can afford, unless the higher revenue clubs are looking to force relocation or ownership changes which, theoretically, could increase their own bottom lines.

This doesn't seem to have been the case, therefore, that cash minimum could have been higher.

[pbmax]

The rev sharing structure guarantees that the small market teams can afford to pay the players at least up to the cash floor. That was what didn't work with the last agreement and the biggest reason the owners opted out in order to solve that problem with the low rev teams.

IMO, the players are way out of line if they think it's their right to dicate what the league does with revenues outside the immediate scope of player contracts.

The last agreement had a salary cap floor. Which could be satisfied with dead money, not new cash spent.

So it affects the new agreement even more. And I don't think anyone is suggesting the players dictate anything. But knowing the plan ahead of time would have affected the calculus. It was a miscalculation by the players. Not to decide the revenue sharing proposal (they didn't last time) but to not have it known before agreeing to the revenue split.

[pbmax]

wingo is right, looking at the details, this is a great deal for the players. the owners gave up a lot in the end. it sure looks like the players won big. but its not good enough for them

The owner's got back 3-4% of their revenue from the players compared to the last deal. There may be aspects of the deal that are good for the players, but there is less a percentage of revenue flowing to them. So I think "great deal" would not be the reaction of the players to less money.

Just look at the cap for this year: $120 million when 2 years ago is was $129. And that is after new television deals.

[pbmax]

Players conference call ends with no vote.

PFT calling it a power play, but still no reporting on whether Smith had agreed to this approach.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/nflpa-conference-call-ends-with-no-vote/

[pbmax]

Not good news.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/players-owners-tried-to-slip-items-into-cba/

Heath Evans and other player reps maintain the league has added items into their version of the CBA that were never negotiated or agreed to. Money quote from Mike Silver's Twitter: (http://twitter.com/#!/MikeSilver/statuses/94206622171271168\)

Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports talked to an NFLPA* source who had a telling quote, when he said the NFL “will never learn” about backing players into a corner.

The real question is whether these items that weren't agreed to are negotiable in a few days time, or whether each side is dug in on them.

[gbgary]

Not good news.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/players-owners-tried-to-slip-items-into-cba/

Heath Evans and other player reps maintain the league has added items into their version of the CBA that were never negotiated or agreed to. Money quote from Mike Silver's Twitter: (http://twitter.com/#!/MikeSilver/statuses/94206622171271168\)


The real question is whether these items that weren't agreed to are negotiable in a few days time, or whether each side is dug in on them.

they'll have to be or nothing will be finalized. the power-play was made by the owners by announcing this prematurely, unilaterally, and giving a deadline. the whole thing was a total surprise to the player's reps and players. goodell admitted he hadn't told/advised smith he was going to announce anything.

[pbmax]

Albert Breer says the players did not even have a copy of the owner's version of the CBA for the conference call. Would seem to point to this being an unexpected development.

But I am missing the public declaration of outrage from their leadership. Seems strange to only have internal email to go by.

[vince]

The last agreement had a salary cap floor. Which could be satisfied with dead money, not new cash spent.

So it affects the new agreement even more. And I don't think anyone is suggesting the players dictate anything. But knowing the plan ahead of time would have affected the calculus. It was a miscalculation by the players. Not to decide the revenue sharing proposal (they didn't last time) but to not have it known before agreeing to the revenue split.
The owners theoretically could choose to hurt the league and cause the financial demise of some teams, but eliminating a fair revenue sharing model has never been a realistic possibility and would never get the votes necessary to pass. Even if they chose to do that, it's not the players right to dictate or even know what the league and owners do with their portion of the revenue. They're paid to play, not secure the league. That's the league's job alone and they've done quite well at it thus far.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It sounds like the HOF game will be canceled. Big Whup. I don't mind if training camp starts later next week.

[pbmax]

Two separate trains of thought about Supplemental Revenue Sharing:

1. The players, by the letter of the agreement are entitled to a fair accounting of all league revenues and certain costs. But its plain obvious that one restraining factor in any agreement with 32 separate teams is what the least of them can afford. So it has a definite impact. I am not suggesting the lawyers hold out for the agreement itself to be subject to the CBA, that would be lunacy and they don't do it with TV contracts and sponsorships, etc. But its also plain as day the NFLPA* should have pushed the issue forward in their agenda so that they were negotiating against a number that would not change after an agreement was struck.

2. Local revenue sharing, which is the largest portion of the Supplemental Revenue Sharing plan that they just renewed might in the end cost the League money. I think there is a good case that could be made that the League has several under performing teams that would benefit from new ownership, relocation or taking advantage of new revenue streams. Moving Jacksonville and Buffalo to LA would increase revenue in TV deals alone, not to mention local revenue.

Indeed, one of the longest running criticisms of the NFL was that because of (at the time it was mainly TV revenue sharing) revenue sharing, teams that were simply incompetent could continue to exist in the NFL because of the enormous television fees.

Now its plain why the NFLPA wanted it to be required by the last CBA, because the fastest growing streams of revenue were from local sources and not all teams were benefiting. If the NFLPA was to secure a better deal for its players than 56% of Gross Adjusted Revenue, it needed the NFL to increase dollars flowing to smaller market teams. Because in the short term, those teams vote and the theoretical new ownerships do not.

But in the long run, being in Jacksonville, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Minnesota (it shouldn't be in this list but it is) costs everyone money.

[Brandon494]

Haha I find it hilarious how some are still blaming the players for this.

[SkinBasket]

Haha I find it hilarious how some are still blaming the players for this.

What's so funny?

The owners would not have gone through the trouble of drafting and voting on something that Smith didn't agree to. It would be a waste of time. Looks more like other have pointed out: the players think they can dictate every aspect of the new CBA and are now playing the part of the incredulous victim child when they find out the league has to figure out the adult stuff that only has a tangential relation to the players. That's the problem with working with a mob of functional retards who've had their asses wiped for them their entire lives.

[Patler]

I fail to see that the owners did anything wrong by doing what they did.
I fail to see that their agreement on revenue sharing is any significant concern of the players (sorry PB, we disagree here).

Basically, the owners have reached a point of saying this is the best they are willing to do to save a full season. It's now up to the players to decide if it is enough for them or not. If it's not, then potentially the whole thing goes back to the drawing board. As more and more of the season is jeopardized over the details of the CBA, I suspect the owners may become less and less agreeable to change, and may even pull back on some things tentatively agreed to.

On the other hand, sometimes agreements are reached and the "sell" to the membership is the hardest part. The negotiators form both sides may have agreed this was the best way for some reason we are not privy to.

[pbmax]

Mortenson and Florio both have sources that a vote is expected today. Its not clear how Mort squares the uncertainty of last night to a vote today's vote, but Florio paints it as incomplete information. While the player reps in DC had the details (otherwise those two emails couldn't have been sent), other players giving quotes, Tweets and source material couldn't have had the proposal to look at.

Florio's source is supposedly a high ranking someone in the NFLPA*.

[pbmax]

I fail to see that the owners did anything wrong by doing what they did.
I fail to see that their agreement on revenue sharing is any significant concern of the players (sorry PB, we disagree here).

Basically, the owners have reached a point of saying this is the best they are willing to do to save a full season. It's now up to the players to decide if it is enough for them or not. If it's not, then potentially the whole thing goes back to the drawing board. As more and more of the season is jeopardized over the details of the CBA, I suspect the owners may become less and less agreeable to change, and may even pull back on some things tentatively agreed to.

On the other hand, sometimes agreements are reached and the "sell" to the membership is the hardest part. The negotiators form both sides may have agreed this was the best way for some reason we are not privy to.

OK. [edit: after a re-red of Patler]

Supplemental revenue sharing is different from national contract revenue sharing because it affects teams differently. Each team receives the exact same share of TV revenue, but the supplemental funds affect teams differently. If I was a player, I would want to know it because it would help set the floor for salaries. Is it significant? I think so. But its not at the top of the list. Total revenue is still more important. The flip side is that owner's whose teams contribute probably feel that its a cost and diminishes their operating funds. They clearly want to know what the agreement will be so they can get a manageable top end.

However, I don't think that revenue sharing is the basis of the complaints last night. Its mentioned in Smith's email explaining what the owners voted on and he dismisses it as something they weren't engaged on.

And that has been the case the entire negotiation, as several observers have wondered why the players never seemed to ask about the supplemental revenue sharing plan. So while having one suddenly was confusing, it isn't a point of contention in either Smith's nor Berthelsen's emails to players last night.

The complaints last night were something about the CBA, not a supp. revenue sharing plan that the players themselves weren't interested in.

[pbmax]

I think Patler is spot on in at least one respect, we have not seen the sell job yet to the players.

[vince]

Two separate trains of thought about Supplemental Revenue Sharing:

1. The players, by the letter of the agreement are entitled to a fair accounting of all league revenues and certain costs. But its plain obvious that one restraining factor in any agreement with 32 separate teams is what the least of them can afford. So it has a definite impact. I am not suggesting the lawyers hold out for the agreement itself to be subject to the CBA, that would be lunacy and they don't do it with TV contracts and sponsorships, etc. But its also plain as day the NFLPA* should have pushed the issue forward in their agenda so that they were negotiating against a number that would not change after an agreement was struck.

2. Local revenue sharing, which is the largest portion of the Supplemental Revenue Sharing plan that they just renewed might in the end cost the League money. I think there is a good case that could be made that the League has several under performing teams that would benefit from new ownership, relocation or taking advantage of new revenue streams. Moving Jacksonville and Buffalo to LA would increase revenue in TV deals alone, not to mention local revenue.

Indeed, one of the longest running criticisms of the NFL was that because of (at the time it was mainly TV revenue sharing) revenue sharing, teams that were simply incompetent could continue to exist in the NFL because of the enormous television fees.

Now its plain why the NFLPA wanted it to be required by the last CBA, because the fastest growing streams of revenue were from local sources and not all teams were benefiting. If the NFLPA was to secure a better deal for its players than 56% of Gross Adjusted Revenue, it needed the NFL to increase dollars flowing to smaller market teams. Because in the short term, those teams vote and the theoretical new ownerships do not.

But in the long run, being in Jacksonville, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Minnesota (it shouldn't be in this list but it is) costs everyone money.
Regardless of how much money the lowest revenue teams do or do not cost the league, players, fans and all the other stakeholders in this game - the players have no authority whatsoever to be involved in any way in the decisions affecting total revenue and/or how the league owners divy up their share of the revenue. They're called owners for a reason.

EDIT: didn't see your response PB. Smith brought up the supplemental plan as another "reason" in the NFLPA's weak meme as to why the owners were hoodwinking the players at the last hour. That includes accusations of sneaking things into their agreement and the inherently confilcting argument that they didn't know the details of the agreement. Take your pick as to what the NFLPA's problem was. They were making a power play. If/when De Smith recommends the deal to the players and takes a vote - it will pass easily.

[vince]

If I was a player, I would want to know it because it would help set the floor for salaries. As a player, you have no right to know. You are guaranteed by the CBA to be treated equally in terms of available money regardless of what team you play on.

[pbmax]

Actually vince they are involved in decisions about revenue, and that language was in the last CBA and I expect the same language will be in this CBA. Each side makes a contractual promise to do everything it can to maximize revenues. Its the basis for the league losing round 1 of the TV lockout lawsuit and its the reason the players sign over their likeness rights to the league while they are active for marketing and merchandising opportunities.

But as your edit might reflect, that is not my point about supplemental revenue sharing. The players SHOULD have cared that a deal was in place and it would have been beneficial to know the rough outlines. But they never expressed any desire to find out anything about it.

As for Smith and displeasure over the Supp Revenue Sharing plan, the only place I have seen his reaction is a Twitter version of his email that Jim Trotter put out after the owner's vote. It said:


2) As u may have heard, they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obly, we hv not bn a part of those discussions.

which sounds to me like an explanation of what the owners did, but not a concern. If you saw something else about his reaction, I would like to read it if you know where you found it.

[pbmax]

As a player, you have no right to know. You are guaranteed by the CBA to be treated equally in terms of available money regardless of what team you play on.

I agree vince. But I am not talking about a "right" to know. I am talking about a negotiation, and what events happen first, second, etc.

[vince]

I'm hearing you pb. I apologize if I was terse or offensive or misinterpreted what you were saying. I often just type and send without editing enough.

[vince]

Here's a good summary from Andrew Brandt.
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/We-have-a-proposed-deal.html


We have a (proposed) deal.

We have a proposed NFL deal and re-opening of football, although labor pains have not ceased. Commissioner Goodell and NFL Owners announced a new ten-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) – with no opt-outs – with the Players. However, in a day of twists and turns that is a microcosm of the problems of trust and communication in this long-running dispute, the Players did not reciprocate.

Pending approval by the Players, let’s take a look at some of the key terms, with instant analysis of deal points that may be in place for the next decade:



ICONOwners like Richardson were intent on changing the revenue split.

Revenue Split

Unlike the previous CBA – where $1 billion was skimmed off the top for credits and set-offs – the new revenue model will be based upon all revenue, beginning with an accounting after this season. Owners will receive approximately 52% and Players 48%, with true-up provisions for Owners to have a higher percentage in the event of certain revenue targets, and downside protection with a requirement that their ten-year to not dip below 47%.

In 2012, Players will receive:
• 55% of national media revenue
• 45% of NFL Ventures revenue
• 40% of local team revenue

Also, owners that spend on actual stadium investment will receive a credit of up to 1.5% of revenue each year.

Analysis: The Owners will have forged the change in the system they were seeking, albeit more limited than they had hoped. Coming off a net revenue share of 50/50, Owners were determined for change, initially offering $1 billion less. The final deal will result in approximately $200 million in positive change for them, with the numbers growing in the future.

This was the Owners’ top priority and they were able to extract significant monies, as well as a credit for stadium spending.

Salary Cap

Owners have agreed to a 2011 Salary Cap of $120.375 million with increases depending on the share of revenues each year.

Analysis: The amount allocated to salary and bonus money in the last capped year – 2009 – was $123 million (plus a $5 million one-time credit). While the number looks $3 million per team less than 2009, the Players have a $3 million “credit” this year to borrow against the future. In that sense, the Cap remains flat from the last capped year. With Owners desiring a different model, the Players were able to hold the line at roughly the same level as the last year of a Cap.

There is also $22 million of benefits – money taken out of negotiable dollars – including the Minimum Salary Benefit (allowing older players to be paid a higher cash number with a lower Cap number) and the all-important Player Performance Benefit, rewarding low salary players who log significant playing time.

Cash Minimum (Guaranteed Spend)

In 2011 and 2012, there is league-wide commitment to cash spending of 99% of the Cap.

In 2013-16 and 2017-20, this number drops to 95%. Also during these years, each team must commit to cash spending of 89% of the Salary Cap.

Analysis: This is perhaps the most player-friendly aspect of this deal. Previously there were Cap minimums but not cash minimums, requiring teams to collectively spend hard cash to the level of the Cap. To put it simply, this will require more spending on players. Teams will not be able to free-ride their way to Cap minimums only.

Minimum Salaries

First-year minimum salary will go from $320,000 to $375,000; second year minimum salary will rise from $395,000 to $450,000. In fact, all minimum salary levels have gone up $55,000 from 2010 levels. The minimums will rise $15,000 per year from there.

Analysis: Approximately half of the Players in the league are playing under minimum salaries. These are healthy increases. This may be the unsung hero issue of the deal.

Rookie Compensation

All drafted rookies will sign four-year deals; all undrafted rookies can sign three-year deals.

For top ten picks in the Draft, Owners agreed to fifth-year options at an average of the top 10 veteran salaries at a player’s respective position. Players selected 11-32 will be paid an average of the top 3-25 salaries at a player’s respective position.

There will also be what is described as “anti-holdout” provisions.

Analysis: We have known for two years that rookies at the top of the Draft would be the sacrificial lambs of this deal, and they are. Beyond that, rookies in rounds 2-7 will not be affected much.

I am also told that these contracts will be far simpler than in the past, likely meaning that there will be limited and restricted use of escalators and “one-time” incentives that allowed rookies a “second rookie pool” that took advantage of the system.

Reduced contact

The future offseasons may look more like this locked-out offseason than previous ones. Offseason workout programs, OTAs and time at the facility will all be curtailed compared to the past. And training camp will feature less padded practices and contact.

Analysis: Players pushed for less hitting and reduced offseason work. They got it. Although coaches and evaluators will not like the limited time they see the players before August, this was an easy "give" by the Owners, especially with the focus on health and safety.


18-Game Schedule

This was a deal breaker for the Players, especially in light of an uptick in concussions. The proposed agreement delays an enhanced season until at least 2013, where the addition of any extra games must be approved by the NFLPA.

Analysis: This was a priority issue for the Players, especially in light of the brutality of the game and the increased numbers on the injured reserve list. There appears to be an opening for the future, however, with the right compensation to the players.

Supplemental Revenue Sharing

Although the NFL may unilaterally implement revenue sharing mechanisms, the Players feel as though this was sprung on them last minute.

Though this is an owner-to-owner issue, the key is for the Players is to ensure that there is language included that mandates teams to commit their revenue sharing funds on player spending. A revenue sharing system with no earmarks on where to spend has little meaning to Players.

Recertification

This has become a highly divisive issue. In order to recertify, 50% + 1 of the players must vote in favor of reconstituting the union.

Owners want this vote to take place electronically so that Players can quickly agree to the proposed CBA. Players would rather proceed cautiously and know if they recertify too quickly, it can be used against them in the future.

Further, Players are agitated by what they feel is coercion on the part of Owners dictating the terms of recertification, alleging that this pressure violates federal labor laws.

Lingering Issues

Certain issues which remain – workers’ compensation, disability, benefits, personal conduct policy, drug testing – must be collectively bargained. This means that final resolution of these issues cannot occur until the NFLPA recertifies.

Additionally, the Players had specifically requested an opt-out clause at the 7-year mark. The Owners' proposed agreement contained no such provision.

At the end of the day, despite the momentary hysteria of the evening, hope still floats. The contractions have arrived; the baby will be here soon.

[vince]

The divisive issue is how to recertify. Really? It's hard to blame the owners for pushing for the deadlines to play the HoF game. The game is meaningless, but the price NBC would have paid to televise the game isn't. Since the players have squashed that potential revenue over recertification adminstration, there's now some time.

[Brandon494]

What's so funny?

The owners would not have gone through the trouble of drafting and voting on something that Smith didn't agree to. It would be a waste of time. Looks more like other have pointed out: the players think they can dictate every aspect of the new CBA and are now playing the part of the incredulous victim child when they find out the league has to figure out the adult stuff that only has a tangential relation to the players. That's the problem with working with a mob of functional retards who've had their asses wiped for them their entire lives.

Haha I give it to the owners by making a power move. They knew the media would make the players look like the bad guys and people like you would eat it up.

[Zool]

Haha I give it to the owners by making a power move. They knew the media would make the players look like the bad guys and people like you would eat it up.

You mean white guys?

[smuggler]

Double burn. I see both sides of the fence on that one, but you should probably phrase things differently, B494.

The owners put the pressure on the players, which would have happened with or without media involvement, but there are those who will definitely take the news as fuel for their platform. The thing is, people who are pro leadership/management or pro talent/labor will always try to cherry-pick to support their platform. Which, by the way, is why your last comment smacks the wrong way.

[vince]

The owners are done negotiating, according to Mark Murphy. I think De better get this thing to a vote before it turns really ugly for him.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110721/PKR01/110721144/Green-Bay-Packers-president-Mark-Murphy-says-NFL-owners-done-negotiating

“We’ve put our pens down,” Murphy said. “We’ve negotiated in good faith with the union. We’ve reached an agreement on all the key points.

“They know what we ratified and they’re voting to ratify the same thing.”

[MJZiggy]

The owners are done negotiating, according to Mark Murphy. I think De better get this thing to a vote before it turns really ugly for him.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110721/PKR01/110721144/Green-Bay-Packers-president-Mark-Murphy-says-NFL-owners-done-negotiating

I kind of agree with this. Give the players the full information and let it go to a vote. If it fails, then you can figure out what the players thought was wrong with it, but everyone needs to shut up until then. Especially those with law degrees.

[vince]

I kind of agree with this. Give the players the full information and let it go to a vote. If it fails, then you can figure out what the players thought was wrong with it, but everyone needs to shut up until then. Especially those with law degrees.
The problem is the guys with law degrees know it would pass and they would stop collecting fees and making names for themselves.

[mraynrand]

It looks like the owners did well - they got some monies for those who fix up the ole' homestead. They got lower percentages to fork over to the players, but on the whole enchilada. It looks like the players got a lot too. They got lower on the initial cap and top tier rookies, but they got less hittin' and a share of all the revenue - even if the percentage is lower, it looks like there are no excluded pools, plus higher minimums and more actual cash on the cap. And collective bargaining on all the other sticky points - if they recertify.

What's the possible deal breaker for the players?

[vince]

More accurate is what is the possible deal breaker for the players' attorneys...

For the attorneys, it's an electronic vs. snail mail recertification voting process to cover their asses for the next time they want to decertify.
The players supposedly want a 7-year opt-out option, but I highly doubt that will sway the voting.

Other than that there's a bunch of chest thumping, misdirection and spin by the players' attorneys and reps.

[MJZiggy]

The problem is the guys with law degrees know it would pass and they would stop collecting fees and making names for themselves.

I think we have a winner!

[Tony Oday]

Fuck the players and the NFL. You miss a season I stop watching and spending what I do which I believe a lot of people will.

[mraynrand]

Fuck the players and the NFL. You miss a season I stop watching and spending what I do which I believe a lot of people will.


I don't think missing a season will happen, nor will even a loss of significant numbers of games drive fans away - based on the '82 and '87 work stoppages. What will depress the fan base is if they think competition is destroyed or if they see one side players/owners getting way way too much. It looks like they averted all of these land mines

[SkinBasket]

Haha I give it to the owners by making a power move. They knew the media would make the players look like the bad guys and people like you would eat it up.

You're not making any sense. Which part was funny? How is the media making the players the "bad guys?" You say all these words. Let's try to make them mean something. I'm here to help. It'll be like community service.

[red]

It looks like the owners did well - they got some monies for those who fix up the ole' homestead. They got lower percentages to fork over to the players, but on the whole enchilada. It looks like the players got a lot too. They got lower on the initial cap and top tier rookies, but they got less hittin' and a share of all the revenue - even if the percentage is lower, it looks like there are no excluded pools, plus higher minimums and more actual cash on the cap. And collective bargaining on all the other sticky points - if they recertify.

What's the possible deal breaker for the players?

Jerry jones i think said it best last night when he was interviewed. he said something to the effect that, it would seem to be a good deal for all sides because no one is really happy with it.

it is a good point

[red]

i find it pretty funny that we had all these players shooting their mouths off last night about how the owners were trying to screw them. and today, most of the reps are saying they just want time to read through and understand what they might be agreeing to.

i still don't really get it. the owners had goodell negotiating for them, the players hired de smith to do the same for them. those two men came to an agreement. goodell tells the owners its done, the owners vote on it because their negotiator did his best. de smith turns to the players with the same stuff, and the players are bitching because they didn't get all they want.. do you think all the owners had to have copies of the agreement and they all had to go through the whole thing with a fine tooth comb?

thats why its called a negotiation, although i wouldn't expect many of those meatheads to understand the meaning of the word

[smuggler]

With how far under the cap some teams have been in recent years, it seems like players will definitely be making more money with this new deal. Cincy is 35 million under the cap. Tampa is 50 million under. Once this deal gets done, both teams will be forced to spend more than $20mil more this season, and can't fall below about $110mil from here on out.

The owners should be happy, because it keeps teams from bottom-feeding on revenue shares like the Panthers, and makes the league more competitive and the product better.

[red]

one nfl executive that has attended todays meeting where teams learn the new rules said that that "the only thing players didn't get was someone else to play for them"

[vince]

i find it pretty funny that we had all these players shooting their mouths off last night about how the owners were trying to screw them. and today, most of the reps are saying they just want time to read through and understand what they might be agreeing to.

i still don't really get it. the owners had goodell negotiating for them, the players hired de smith to do the same for them. those two men came to an agreement. goodell tells the owners its done, the owners vote on it because their negotiator did his best. de smith turns to the players with the same stuff, and the players are bitching because they didn't get all they want.. do you think all the owners had to have copies of the agreement and they all had to go through the whole thing with a fine tooth comb?

thats why its called a negotiation, although i wouldn't expect many of those meatheads to understand the meaning of the word
The Dude speaks the truth.

[vince]

More proof the players' attorneys are doing nothing but making a power play.
http://twitter.com/#!/jharrison9292


NFLPA* issues warning on website that’s trying to reconstitute a union

Posted by Mike Florio on July 22, 2011, 1:56 PM EDT

In the opinion of NFLPA* lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, it can take as long as two weeks to reconstitute the union. In the opinion of NFL lawyer Bob Batterman, it can take as few as two hours.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, much closer to two hours than 312.

But someone out there is trying to take matters into their own hands, setting up a website aimed at harvesting signatures for the reconstitution of a union. And the NFLPA* is scrambling to keep players from using it.

The NFLPA* has sent the following e-mail to all agents: “We have received information from players indicating that they are being referred to a website – nflvr.com. The website is asking players to vote to reconstitute as a union and that the players can use the site to facilitate that action. Please be advised that this site is not affiliated with either the NFL or the NFLPA. You should ignore this site and advise your players to do so as well.”

Based on available online information, the site was created on Thursday by Austin Jordan of Roanoke, Virginia.

The fact that the NFLPA* felt compelled to point out the existence of the site — and to encourage players not to use it — suggests that the NFLPA* had reason to believe that players were thinking about using it. (Or maybe were actually using it.)

The truth is that, if 50 percent of the players plus one vote to create a union, they’ll be a union. It doesn’t matter whether the NFLPA* organizes it; anyone can. (Indeed, there was talk back in April and May of a group of free agents trying to unionize separate and apart from the NFL.)

It’ll be interesting to see whether there are any players out there who want to push this thing along — and who perhaps feel that the NFLPA* Executive Committee and board of player representatives are keeping them from voting on the final proposal — will register.

UPDATE: Last night, Steelers linebacker James Harrison re-tweeted the link to the site.

[smuggler]

The Rooster abides. I am at work. Has anyone been to the site?

[vince]

Yeah I went to it. Here's a portion of what it says...

Due to recent conversation in between us and George Atallah of the NFLPA via Twitter, we have removed some content of our site. We learned that the NFLPA is not interested in doing voting on our site in order to recertify the NFL Player's Union once an agreement has been made.
Is this about lawyers padding their bills and trying to gain notoriety?
Does the Pope shit in the woods?

[MJZiggy]

Yeah I went to it. Here's a portion of what it says...

Is this about lawyers padding their bills and trying to gain notoriety?
Does the Pope shit in the woods?

On the first point, yes, on the second, doubtful. I don't think the popemobile has the traction to get him to the woods to shit.

[MJZiggy]

i find it pretty funny that we had all these players shooting their mouths off last night about how the owners were trying to screw them. and today, most of the reps are saying they just want time to read through and understand what they might be agreeing to.

i still don't really get it. the owners had goodell negotiating for them, the players hired de smith to do the same for them. those two men came to an agreement. goodell tells the owners its done, the owners vote on it because their negotiator did his best. de smith turns to the players with the same stuff, and the players are bitching because they didn't get all they want.. do you think all the owners had to have copies of the agreement and they all had to go through the whole thing with a fine tooth comb?

thats why its called a negotiation, although i wouldn't expect many of those meatheads to understand the meaning of the wordI thought they were just being pissy because they wanted a vote on the contract, but the players hadn't seen the full contract yet. I thought I read that they are supposed to get it and vote today?

[Patler]

i still don't really get it. the owners had goodell negotiating for them, the players hired de smith to do the same for them. those two men came to an agreement. goodell tells the owners its done, the owners vote on it because their negotiator did his best. de smith turns to the players with the same stuff, and the players are bitching because they didn't get all they want.. do you think all the owners had to have copies of the agreement and they all had to go through the whole thing with a fine tooth comb?

Yes, I suspect the owners had copies and all the information that was available, and I suspect their accountants and top advisers went into it as deeply as possible. I suspect they were being fed information on an ongoing basis through out the negotiations, so they knew were they stood on the issues all along. I can't imagine any owner agreeing to it just because Goodell said he should.

[vince]

They received the contract last night, and knew what was in it long before that. They participated heavily in writing the damn thing.

De Smith is at the Patriots' owner's wife's funeral today in Boston, so there will be no vote today.

[vince]

.
Player reps emailed a letter to players saying, "We will meet again Monday to discuss our options and the direction we want to go."

[Patler]

I love it when parties decide to posture instead of finalizing a deal!
I suppose they couldn't find anywhere to meet over the weekend. :rolleyes:

[vince]

A self-described collective bargaining expert's take on the state of the CBA, in response to Football people not reacting well to new CBA rules (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/football-people-not-reacting-well-to-new-cba-rules/).


I have a good idea of the collective bargaining process so let me explain and offer my opinion of what happened:

(The media speculation on this has been horrible and sad at the same time.)

1. Almost all of the 1800 players really DON’T have any idea what is going on. They werent part of any negotiations. (So Stallworth and Evans giving phone interviews talking about this is absurd. Those two were not involved in anything and they are not even player representatives. They have no idea what they are talking about and should be muzzled by D. Smith.)

The only players who really know what is going on and know the inner-workings of the CBA proposed are the ones on the negotiating team (Jeff Saturday, Dominique Foxworth, Charlie Batch, and the few others.) Thats it!

It appeared that D Smith and this negotiating team got what they thought was a fair deal this week and called the 32 player reps in to look at it and vote on it on Wednesday. (If D Smith and the negotiating team thought they had a good deal then this shouldve been a no brainer to pass. These guys wouldnt have been called in to vote otherwise IMO.) For whatever reason the 32 reps did not vote “yes” on it despite it being presented to them as a “good deal.”

I am sure this stunned the owners because they were under the assumption from the NFLPA negotiating team that both parties thought they had a fair deal. It obviously ticked the owners off too as they carried forward with their plans to ratify the agreement Thursday. It appeared that the phone conversation between D Smith and the Commish yesterday D Smith trying to get more things changed in the CBA. Obviously the owners and the commish refused being they thought both parties had agreed to a fair deal, so they ratified it.

That is essentially what happened. That is why you have player reps saying they were hoodwinked or didnt get what they wanted,etc……because the owners passed the deal that D Smith and the negotiating team thought was fair, not the ones the player reps wanted to be passed (It is really shocking the player reps did not listen to D Smith on this. It clearly indicates there is in house fighting going on now. It seems these reps have a problem with league discipline issues, which to have this brought up at this point is unbelievable). Nevertheless, this debacle ultimately falls on D Smith and the negotiating team because they failed to convince the player reps to accept this deal.

So like I said, the negotiating team knows everything, but that is only a handful of guys. The 32 reps know the main parts of the new CBA proposed by the owners. The rest of the players really do not know anything other than what their buddies may have told them……that is why Heath Evans really needs to be quiet!

[Smidgeon]

I've been patient throughout the entire process. But now I'm getting fed up. I want some d@mn football. Games (even if they're preseason games) are on the line. I want to see the rookies in their uniforms and speculate on their learning curves. I want to read about the progress Burnett, Neal, and Shields have made. Get it done!

[red]

so, the players aren't going to be getting together again until next week to discuss this. this won't be signed monday, meaning there will be no training camp next week

so we're looking at august 1st as a possible opening of training camp, IF, and that is a big if, the players pull their heads out of their asses. our first preseason game is the 13th and its an away game.

now with the new deal the owners signed, there are no more 2 a days, and really all they have to do is show up and sit in lawn chairs. how are players gonna be in shape, not all of them our working out right now

its bull shit. the players have had the whole offseason off, why can't the reps meet over the weekend to talk about this? players don't want to be at training camp, that is crystal clear, and they are using this to get out of doing more then they want to.

bunch of overgrown, spoiled brats IMO

[Freak Out]

It sounds like Favre is leading the players side...and he's in no hurry to get to camp. :)

[mraynrand]

I love it when parties decide to posture instead of finalizing a deal!
I suppose they couldn't find anywhere to meet over the weekend. :rolleyes:

The Chuck E. Cheese is closed for renovations

[mraynrand]

It sounds like Favre is leading the players side...and he's in no hurry to get to camp. :)

Well, yes and no, sort of. But he knows he can still play.

[Joemailman]

Best tweet on the lockout is by Tom Crabtree:



@TCrabtree83
Tom Crabtree
Whatever happens with the lockout, it better not interfere with Shark Week.
8 hours ago via Twitter for iPad

[HarveyWallbangers]

I kind of liked T.J. Lang's tweet (regarding Josh Sitton). :)

[MadScientist]

Best tweet on the lockout is by Tom Crabtree:

@TCrabtree83
Tom Crabtree
Whatever happens with the lockout, it better not interfere with Shark Week.
8 hours ago via Twitter for iPad

I'd say Sitton and Lang have him beat:
TJLang70 TJ Lang
Listen everyone the problem is @jsitton71 wont sign the deal until the nfl agrees to pay for his post career liposuction.. how selfish
8 hours ago

jsitton71 josh sitton
@TJLang70 breaking news. @tjlang70 wont sign deal until they find a helmet big enough for his head
8 hours ago

TJLang70 TJ Lang
@jsitton71 actually said he will retire if he doesn't get the same hair deal that Clay has.. thinks its unfair

jsitton71 josh sitton
@TJLang70 its funny they cant find at helmet big enough for his head and a cup small enough for his other head

[vince]

Here's Heath Evans basically saying, "I didn't really mean it last night when I tweeted,
Here's what the "real" fans need to know. The owners tried 2 slip many things N2 the CBA "they" voted on that were never agreed 2!
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d820eaacb/Evans-Deal-close-to-being-done
Now that things have becoming clear, it's a joke.

[Joemailman]

If Lang wins the LG job, they should mic up him and Sitton during a game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here's Heath Evans basically saying, "I didn't really mean it last night when I tweeted,
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d820eaacb/Evans-Deal-close-to-being-done
Now that things have becoming clear, it's a joke.

Not sure where you are coming down on this. From what I've been reading, the deal that the owners voted on contained provisions that weren't negotiated with the union. That's a bogus and foolish ploy by the owners.

I don't think the two sides are very far apart, this latest bump is an unfortunate mistep by the owners.

[red]

Not sure where you are coming down on this. From what I've been reading, the deal that the owners voted on contained provisions that weren't negotiated with the union. That's a bogus and foolish ploy by the owners.

I don't think the two sides are very far apart, this latest bump is an unfortunate mistep by the owners.

what i have read and understand is that the owners did sign the proposal that the union agreed to (through d smith). you then had a bunch of moron players shooting their mouths off when they had no clue what was going on

heith evans was saying that the owners were trying to slip shit by the players, at the same time you have players reps saying that they haven't even received the proposal yet. so how in the hell could players like evens even begin to know what was going on in the proposal?

[vince]

Not sure where you are coming down on this. From what I've been reading, the deal that the owners voted on contained provisions that weren't negotiated with the union. That's a bogus and foolish ploy by the owners.

I don't think the two sides are very far apart, this latest bump is an unfortunate mistep by the owners.
That was one of the accusations as to why the players weren't ready to vote. It was false. The only thing that isn't in the agreement is the players' request, (which was made after the point De Smith had agreed in principle to bring the agreement to a vote with the Executive Committee and Player Reps (a step he failed to fulfill) is a 7-year opt-out option, which the owners didn't include in the agreement and likely won't at this point. That was the accusation that Heath Evans made last night via Twitter, and when pressed to cite those issues, Heath backtracked faster than French soldier, saying that it was really the time frame that the owners were wanting to move forward was unacceptable to the NFLPA.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Vince, my head is spinning. My information came from reading columns in today's papers, so maybe that news is old. But I just looked at more recent columns at ESPN.com, and they don't refute the accusation, which is odd. In fact, its clear that the owners did add some "finishing details" that the players now have to consider.

I agree with Skip Bayless, the players got sucker punched.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6793054/nfl-lockout-nflpa-work-weekend-sources-say

[mraynrand]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.


Before NFLPA leaders had seen the owners' proposal, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith wrote in an email to the 32 player representatives: "Issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open; other issues, such as workers' compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms, remain unresolved. There is no agreement between the NFL and the players at this time."

The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

[bobblehead]

If Lang wins the LG job, they should mic up him and Sitton during a game.

How would you like to be Wells, caught in the crossfire. "shut up you guys, I can't here the snap count!!"

[MJZiggy]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.



The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

You're right that the article gives us nothing to judge what may have been added, but the question it leaves me with is if D. Smith is telling players that if items are left open for discussion, why would they be included in the proposal? If they aren't in the proposal, then he'd have no reason to say that. And that goes against what the league is saying that the deal is done enough to vote on.

[vince]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.

The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.
+1. Harlan, the "finishing details" excuse is a cop-out.
1. ESPN has been spinning for the players since the beginning. With NFLN owned by the NFL (although 45% of revenues derived from it will now go to the players), but far more objective IMO, De Smith has buddied up to the ESPN reporters, giving them his side of the story before anyone else. They're as bad here as they were throughout the Favre fiasco.
2. As Ayn said, some issues such as workers' compensation, discipline, and drug testing CANNOT be bargained until the union recertifies, which the players' attorneys are dragging their feet on so that their decertification doesn't appear to be the sham that it was.
3. The "economic issues" are the class actions (Brady, et al vs. NFL) that have not yet been dropped, but have been previously agreed to be dropped in conjunction with the terms of the CBA.
4. The "end of deal terms" is the 7-year opt-out that the players - not the owners - have added to their demands after the parties came to an agreement on the 10-year term of the agreement.
5. You must not have watched the NFLN interview of Heath Evans linked to above. After immediately accusing the owners of adding things to the agreement via twitter, he could not cite anything to back up that claim when pressed on it the next day. He was full of shit originally. And I'm not sure if this is news to you or not, but so is Skip Bayless.

[pbmax]

Here is a list of the open items as they stood between players and owners before the owners vote, obtained by Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange and taken here from PFT.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/the-open-items-before-the-leagues-approval-of-the-labor-deal/


The open items are set forth below.

First, the minimum team expenditure would be only 89 percent of the salary cap. The term would be coupled with a guaranteed league-wide cash spend of 95 percent of the salary cap. If half of the teams spend 100 percent of the cap, half could spend 90 percent of the cap, preserving as a practical matter a 10-percent spread between the highest-spending and lowest-spending teams. If, alternatively, all teams have a minimum cash spend of 95 percent, the total cash spend would be 97.5 percent or more, assuming at least half of the teams spend 100 percent of their allotment, with the other half spending 95 percent.

Second, those offseason workout bonuses (such as the $750,000 due to Jets tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson) would be paid if the player reports to training camp and performs the services required of him. Thus, under this term, players who report for work (and then work) would earn all offseason workout bonuses, despite the absence of an offseason workout program.

Third, for rookie pay, an escalator would be available to push the fourth-year salary to the lowest level restricted free agency tender, which is $1.2 million in 2011, but which will increase with the salary cap.

Fourth, players would be guaranteed up to $3 million for the second and third year after a catastrophic injury. Balzer reports that, in the deal approved by the league on Thursday, the number had been cut to $1 million in the second year and $500,000 in the third year.

Fifth, the California loophole for workers’ compensation benefits would continue.

Sixth, the possibility of an opt out was included as an open item. Balzer reports that the final version included no opt out, making it a firm 10-year deal. (It has been reported that the players want a potential opt out after seven years.)

Seventh, payment of $320 million in lost benefits would be made for the 2010 season. In the summary document, the lump sum expressly is linked to the “lockout insurance” case. Basically, the players are proposing the restoration of those lost benefits as the payment of damages for the league’s failure to max out TV money when persuading the networks to pay rights fees during a lockout.

Eighth, a settlement of the Brady antitrust case would need to be made, separate and apart from the labor deal.

Ninth, a player would be subject to the franchise tag only once in his career.

Tenth, short-term injured reserve would be available, along with a possible game-day roster of 47. The deal approved by the owners reportedly limits the game-day roster to 46.

Apparently, Sports Xchange is a premium service, so I cannot go to the source on this. Florio's summary is a little vague in places, but that is all he has got so far.

[pbmax]

Assuming they are open items because there has not been an agreement reached on the terms in the 10 items, the two that stand out are the cash minimum and term. That is a sizable economic issue and a basic framework of the deal still open.

However, neither seems to be a huge obstacle. If the owners did remove/fail to include an opt out when it was still an open issue, they may have contributed to a blow up over not much.

This list also seems to be the options from the player perspective as only on the contract terms are the two possible options (or at least the last proposal from each side) are included. Its been reported decisively that the owners wish to close the California work comp option.

[pbmax]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.



The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

Agreed. But if that was the case, why squeeze the balance of the CBA negotiations into 3 days after 3 days to reconstitute the union?

It almost looks like the owners voted on a mis-prepared document that may have left as little as one item closed that should have been open (term). And by including the timeline, they made it look like they were squeezing the players to agree quickly to terms they weren't familiar with.

If we have accurate reporting about what remains unsolved, the haste to vote may have caused an unnecessary delay.

[pbmax]

2. As Ayn said, some issues such as workers' compensation, discipline, and drug testing CANNOT be bargained until the union recertifies, which the players' attorneys are dragging their feet on so that their decertification doesn't appear to be the sham that it was.

Given that the League has agreed to indemnify the NFLPA* against charges that it is still a union while it negotiates, somehow I doubt the trade association status would really prevent either side from negotiating over these terms. Finalizing them or signing off on them may be a different matter, but I'd be stunned if they had not been discussed. They could be open items because of the status question or from a failure to agree, but I doubt its from a lack of opportunity to negotiate.

[pbmax]

How would you like to be Wells, caught in the crossfire. "shut up you guys, I can't here the snap count!!"

When in doubt, the snap count is always one. You may look dumb, but not as dumb as the one guy on the entire field who waits to move.

[pbmax]

Vincent Jackson reported by Schefter to have been herded into line. No longer demanding FA or $10 mil. One item down...

[vince]

I stand (partially) corrected. While I can certainly see how the players would want a number of these things, the fact that the owners may not agree with them doesn't mean they've been slipped in or that the players didn't know the owners' positions.

A number of those issues, including the anti-trust litigation have been agreed to be dropped pending the CBA agreement, so they're only open from the standpoint of not being legally resolved yet.

The $320 million was part of the last agreement and was collectively bargained out of the the last deal as part of the owners' opt-out clause, so the players are not going to get that money and that's been addressed. Again, just because they want the money, have no legal or contractual basis for it and owners don't agree to it doesn't mean it's been "slipped in."

Other items listed here the owners simply won't agree to, so the players need to vote the agreement up or down based on that.

As Mark Murphy said, the owners have put down their pens and the players need to vote the CBA up or down.

[vince]

Given that the League has agreed to indemnify the NFLPA* against charges that it is still a union while it negotiates, somehow I doubt the trade association status would really prevent either side from negotiating over these terms. Finalizing them or signing off on them may be a different matter, but I'd be stunned if they had not been discussed. They could be open items because of the status question or from a failure to agree, but I doubt its from a lack of opportunity to negotiate.
Agreed but these issues should not keep the CBA from being voted on or the uniion from recertifying. They're not "open" issues related to the CBA at all.

[MJZiggy]

When in doubt, the snap count is always one. You may look dumb, but not as dumb as the one guy on the entire field who waits to move. Maybe not when you're the center. No one goes anywhere until you do.

[vince]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/seven-year-opt-out-isnt-necessary-or-helpful/

Seven-year opt out isn’t necessary, or helpful

Posted by Mike Florio on July 23, 2011, 11:39 AM EDT

As best we can tell, there are two primary issues that need to be resolved before the labor deal can be worked out. First, the league and the players need to figure out how best to reconstitute the union. Second, the league and the players need to agree on the length of the deal.

On the latter point, the league has approved a deal that covers a firm 10 years. The players want the ability to cancel the contract after seven years.

Moments ago, a league source who best can be described as the closest thing to neutral in this process (if anything, the source is positioned to be more aligned with the players’ interests) explained why the deal should cover a full and firm 10 years, with no opt out for either side.

First, if revenue continues to grow, the deal will never be bad for the players. NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has pushed the owners from wanting to pay the players 40 cents of every dollar earned up to 48 cents per dollar. Though 49ers linebacker and team player representative Takeo Spikes said Friday on ESPN that inflation could be a factor down the road, inflation never will be a factor when the players are getting paid on the gross revenue generated by the owners, who will necessarily adjust prices to reflect inflation, since the owners are getting the other 52 cents of each dollar.

Second, if the revenue shrinks, it won’t matter whether the players aren’t happy with the deal. They’d still be paid on the gross, and the league wouldn’t be likely to give the players a bigger piece of an unexpectedly shrinking pie.

Third, the upside will be better if the league can sell long-term labor peace to the networks. The source of big money over the next decade will be TV contracts, and the folks who’ll decide how much to pay for the privilege of broadcasting NFL games will be more comfortable with the notion of locking in at huge numbers if the dark clouds of labor unrest can’t return until 2021, at the earliest.

And so the players who are pushing for the opt out need to ask themselves a frank and candid question: Am I doing this simply because I don’t like the fact that the owners opted out of the last deal, and I want to have the ability to make them worry about whether we will do it, too?

If the TV money weren’t potentially going to be impacted by the potential uncertainty, the best move would be for the league to agree to the opt out, confident that the players won’t. But with the networks looking for long-term peace in order to break out long-term billions, this needs to be a 10-year deal, with no opt out.

If that means the players need to take a little more time to figure things out, so be it. But with this being the only truly substantive point left, they need to do it soon. At some point, here’s hoping that the players will decide that 10 years makes sense for everyone.

[pbmax]

I stand (partially) corrected. While I can certainly see how the players would want a number of these things, the fact that the owners may not agree with them doesn't mean they've been slipped in or that the players didn't know the owners' positions.

A number of those issues, including the anti-trust litigation have been agreed to be dropped pending the CBA agreement, so they're only open from the standpoint of not being legally resolved yet.

The $320 million was part of the last agreement and was collectively bargained out of the the last deal as part of the owners' opt-out clause, so the players are not going to get that money and that's been addressed. Again, just because they want the money, have no legal or contractual basis for it and owners don't agree to it doesn't mean it's been "slipped in."

Other items listed here the owners simply won't agree to, so the players need to vote the agreement up or down based on that.

As Mark Murphy said, the owners have put down their pens and the players need to vote the CBA up or down.

He did say that but if the parties still, apparently, don't have solid, agreed to language about the cash minimum, the per team amount and the overall league minimum (and presumably the mechanism to account for the number that fall outside acceptable parameters) means there are still substantial areas that are not yet done. So to say the League has their pens down is misleading, unless an agreement on that issue happened after these notes were taken. There is a clear disconnect here, though it may simply be a matter semantics and degree in the end.

The anti-trust legislation settlement has been agreed to now that Jackson has stepped into line (presumably its the CBA that stands as that settlement), but that wasn't the case Wednesday night apparently with Jackson (possibly others) refusing to go along. And we have no idea what the parties have agreed to for settlement of the TV lockout insurance case. The players will receive something for it, as revenue was not maximized in 2009 and '10 because of it. You can maintain that it won't be the benefit money, but if the settlement is for $293 million, does the distinction really make a difference?

[Harlan Huckleby]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal.
I was most interested in the analysis given in the series of videos on that page. I don't know enough detail to argue about DeMaurice Smith's specific claim. See PBMax's posts if you are interested in pesky facts, facts are outside my purview.

To plagarize a sentence from the Wash Post: The owners acted as if their proposal was some kind of grand concession, and claimed the players would be reneging on a handshake if they refused to endorse it in the next 24 hours, thus shifting any blame for a failed deal.

Whether you want to characterize the owners' ploy as bargaining in bad faith, or just hard bargaining, I think they were foolish to risk alienating their partners.

[pbmax]

First, if revenue continues to grow, the deal will never be bad for the players. NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has pushed the owners from wanting to pay the players 40 cents of every dollar earned up to 48 cents per dollar.

This quote from Florio's piece kills me. Previously, the players received between 50 and 52% of revenue each year, and that revenue grew every year except one that we are aware of (previous published numbers ran from 2000 or 2001 to 2009 I think).

However, according to this player friendly league source, 48% of the growing pie cannot be a bad deal. Somehow I don't think he has captured the players feelings on this issue. For a man who initially caught my attention for his ability to detail the important items in player contracts, Florio seems lost when it comes to dollars and economic issues. *

Now, theoretically, the 2-4% difference could be the magical game reinvestment that Goodell and Co. were talking about after the economic issues they initially raised fell away. But this agreement doesn't cover how that will be spent and its not clear at all (and may never be) that it will result in growth far enough beyond the previous rate that will make up the difference in total dollars. It might, it might not.

The inflation thing is a red herring unless there are still significant cost hold backs from the Total Revenue dollar amount.

But the biggest question of all is how much the players end up receiving every year. It will be more than a year before that number is in. It might 48%, but odds are that there is enough wiggle room and variability that it will be some range of numbers below the previous 50-52%. Only then can it be judged a good or bad deal for the players in terms of the dollars.


* Completely irrelevant aside:
Florio was befuddled for a week by the difference between an 18% paycut and a 9 percent reduction in cost, and then again befuddled why every example calculation came out as a 2:1 ratio, cut:cost reduction. The fact that this was because the players represented a 50% cost against revenue never penetrated his thinking. He maintained it was just an artifact of this particular set of numbers.

[vince]

And we have no idea what the parties have agreed to for settlement of the TV lockout insurance case. The players will receive something for it, as revenue was not maximized in 2009 and '10 because of it. You can say it won't be the benefit money, but if the settlement is for $293 million, does the distinction really make a difference?
Regardless of whether the players want to tie the “lost benefits” issue to the “lockout insurance" case, they’re obviously distinct and the lost benefits the players are wanting to have recouped is a bogus claim. My understanding is that number should and will be zero. That comes from Chris Mortensen who has been the players’ mouthpiece. The players signed off on the last collective bargaining agreement, which included the opt-out clause which the players knew (or should have known) resulted in the lack of benefits paid as part of the last agreement.

The players may or may not have a claim regarding the lockout insurance case, but it is unnecessary to tie that to the approval of this CBA moving forward. That could and perhaps should be negotiated and/or litigated on its own merits. The owners obviously are willing and ready to do that - not that they have a choice.

[vince]

This quote from Florio's piece kills me. Previously, the players received between 50 and 52% of revenue each year, and that revenue grew every year except one that we are aware of (previous published numbers ran from 2000 or 2001 to 2009 I think).

However, according to this player friendly league source, 48% of the growing pie cannot be a bad deal. Somehow I don't think he has captured the players feelings on this issue. For a man who initially caught my attention for his ability to detail the important items in player contracts, Florio seems lost when it comes to dollars and economic issues. *

Now, theoretically, the 2-4% difference could be the magical game reinvestment that Goodell and Co. were talking about after the economic issues they initially raised fell away. But this agreement doesn't cover how that will be spent and its not clear at all (and may never be) that it will result in growth far enough beyond the previous rate that will make up the difference in total dollars. It might, it might not.

The inflation thing is a red herring unless there are still significant cost hold backs from the Total Revenue dollar amount.

But the biggest question of all is how much the players end up receiving every year. It will be more than a year before that number is in. It might 48%, but odds are that there is enough wiggle room and variability that it will be some range of numbers below the previous 50-52%. Only then can it be judged a good or bad deal for the players in terms of the dollars.
From what I've read, Florio has been pro-owner throughout the summer. His perspective is that 48% is a good deal for the players. The old formula didn't work for low rev teams. It had to be changed - hence the owners' opt-out of the last agreement. Obviously it's a matter of perspective, but pushing the percentage up to nearly the old rate from what the owners originally were proposing (even though it's not apples to apples) can be seen as a win for the players, particularly when you look at all the concessions regarding offseason workouts, the elimination of the 18-game season, player safety, etc. It seems that the owners conceded on most of the core issues the players had.

As one of the team representatives said (paraphrasing), "The only thing the players didn't get was someone to play for them."

[pbmax]

... snip

The players may or may not have a claim regarding the lockout insurance case, but it is unnecessary to tie that to the approval of this CBA moving forward. That could and perhaps should be negotiated and/or litigated on its own merits. The owners obviously are willing and ready to do that - not that they have a choice.

The owners will want that case tied up with a bow before agreeing to any CBA. They are not going to lift the lockout and sign a CBA (thereby closing the books on their leverage) and still have that case outstanding in District Court. It will be settled before the CBA gets its final approval.

As for the dollar amount, like I said, whether each party agrees that the players have a claim to previous benefit money is irrelevant. Its price, $320 million is the player's asking price for agreeing to settle the case. Or at least, it was the price at some point. They may have moved beyond that after Wednesday.

[pbmax]

From what I've read, Florio has been pro-owner throughout the summer. His perspective is that 48% is a good deal for the players. The old formula didn't work for low rev teams. It had to be changed - hence the owners' opt-out of the last agreement. Obviously it's a matter of perspective, but pushing the percentage up to nearly the old rate from what the owners originally were proposing can be seen as a win for the players, particularly when you look at all the concessions regarding offseason workouts, the elimination of the 18-game season, player safety, etc. It seems that the owners conceded on most of the core issues the players had.

As one of the team representatives said (paraphrasing), "The only thing the players didn't get was someone to play for them."

Actually vince, that is one of the unanswered questions of this CBA. The player costs, as far as we know from published figures, did not go up in terms of percentages after the 2006 deal. They still compromised 50-52% of revenue. Nearly exactly what they were from the deal prior to 2006. What DID change was supplemental revenue sharing: local revenue was shared for the first time in 2006.

So the likeliest explanation for this whole thing (from the 2009 opt-out on) is that owners did not like 50-52% player cost PLUS local revenue sharing. Lower revenue teams would have been dependent on it, higher revenue teams would have taken a very real hit. The lower revenue teams, with lower and slower local revenue streams, likely saw their costs increase faster then revenue. Higher local rev teams suddenly had a new cost.

So in essence, you could argue that the players are paying back for subsidizing the lowest revenue teams. As I said earlier, the league would be healthier if those franchises moved, sold or sold naming rights to their stadium (Bengals). But those theoretical new owners and revenue streams do not vote. And wealthier teams saw an opportunity to lower their costs substantially.

And the 18 game schedule is only off the board for 2 years, at last report.

[pbmax]

Actually, vince raises a good point/question:

What kinds of clubs were represented regularly at the bargaining table? I know Jones (Cowboys), Kraft (Pats), Richardson (Panthers), Murphy (he was absent a lot late), Hunt (Chiefs) and Rooney (Pittsburgh) were there a lot. Others you remember?

And does anyone have a recent list of revenue by club (or a ranking)? I would think the Chiefs and Panthers would be the bottom of this group, but no idea where.

[vince]

So the likeliest explanation for this whole thing (from the 2009 opt-out on) is that owners did not like 50-52% player cost PLUS local revenue sharing. Lower revenue teams would have been dependent on it, higher revenue teams would have taken a very real hit...

And the 18 game schedule is only off the board for 2 years, at last report.
Right. In the absence of the high amount of local rev support that the owners agreed to in 2006 the old player-cost structure is not workable. The bottom line is that increasing player costs have significantly outpaced increasing revenues and many teams could not survive that under the existing structure. I remember Jerry Jones commenting on why the deal took so long to make. He said something like, "If you can put off getting your ass whipped until tomorrow, then you do that."

Getting that number very close to the old number could easily be seen as a win for the players. Plus the owners wanted an 18 game schedule now. The fact that the owners conceded that and they can only implement that with the approval of the players is also a win for the players.

[pbmax]

Well, your statement that player costs have outpaced revenues is the crux of the matter. If its a simple matter of percentages, and it was a decade long spread of 50-52%, then that argument doesn't hold up league-wide. However, it might very well for specific teams.

The other thing we do not know is the line of comparison for those published percentages. If years 2006-2009 were 50-52% Total Revenue+Expense Credits then that number is substantially different from 2000-2005's 50-52% Adjusted Gross Revenue+Cost Credits.

If that numerator is ALL REVENUE for the entire decade, then as a percentage, player costs weren't going up league wide.

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/in-season-padded-practices-plummet-under-new-cba/

You know who took the brunt of the CBA bargaining? Coaches.

Might be enough for them to form the Vince Lombardi "What The Hell Is Going On Out There" Coaches Association (the VLWTHIGOOTCA).

Actually, for the Packers, the weekly schedule isn't that much of a change. M3, if memory serves, usually had one padded practice per week anyway, with the occasional double and the occasional week off. In fact, with two a days gone, it looks very much like the Packers current schedule.

[vince]

Well, your statement that player costs have outpaced revenues is the crux of the matter. If its a simple matter of percentages, and it was a decade long spread of 50-52%, then that argument doesn't hold up league-wide. However, it might very well for specific teams.

The other thing we do not know is the line of comparison for those published percentages. If years 2006-2009 were 50-52% Total Revenue+Expense Credits then that number is substantially different from 2000-2005's 50-52% Adjusted Gross Revenue+Cost Credits.

If that numerator is ALL REVENUE for the entire decade, then as a percentage, player costs weren't going up league wide.
Yeah. Without citing specific figures for team revs over time, I don't think there is any question that the problem lies with supporting the low rev teams whose revenue growth hasn't kept pace with the high rev teams and player costs. I think it's in everyone's long-term best interests to see that teams don't fold, but it's also understandable that high-rev owners have some limits as far as what they'll accept with regard to the revenue sharing structure.

[Patler]

Whether you want to characterize the owners' ploy as bargaining in bad faith, or just hard bargaining, I think they were foolish to risk alienating their partners.

Alienating? Pfft! No such thing. It's not like the players are going to walk away and do a deal with a different league, or something. If they get their nose out of joint over relatively trivial details, who cares???

[pbmax]

If anyone dares, Mort has gotten his hands on the document reviewed by players on Wednesday.

http://es.pn/nNutZK

[vince]

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article_ketchman/article-1/This-CBA-fixes-flaws-in-06-deal/0e2dc0ec-2aa6-431f-aabc-c60677b7b8f4

This CBA fixes flaws in '06 deal

The whole problem centered on a model that didn’t work. That’s what the owners were saying when the lockout began, that the TFR (Total Football Revenue) model for distributing revenue to the players and to which the owners agreed in 2006, and from which they opted out just two years later, was a failed business model.

In some cases, it only took a few months after agreeing to the ’06 CBA for owners to know they had made a major mistake. In effect, what they had done is to have agreed to pay 100 percent of the costs with 40 percent of the gross.

This lockout, which is nearing five months in length, is all about undoing what was hurriedly and ill-advisedly put into place five years ago. Retracing their steps, however, was not completely possible, so the owners did the next-best thing: They addressed the issue of those costs.

Here’s the plan for doing that, a plan that is the result of long and exhaustive negotiations between the two sides. As Packers President Mark Murphy told reporters in a conference call on Thursday, “We’ve put our pens down.” Murphy, a former player, was expressing satisfaction for the performance of both sides.

• Beginning in 2012, revenue will fall into three categories and it’ll be distributed to the players at three different amounts. Players will receive 55 percent of the national TV revenue, 45 percent of NFL ventures (NFL Network, licensing, etc.) revenue, and 40 percent of local team revenue.

That final category, “local team revenue,” was the sticking point and possibly the lynchpin in this CBA proposal. If this gets done, the 40 percent provision for “local team revenue” might be what made it happen.

Local team revenue is, by and large, ticket sales. It is the most costly of the three revenues to generate and service, inasmuch as teams have to employ ticket departments and all costs associated with marketing and distributing tickets, which can include substantial credit card charges. In the previous CBA, the players received a flat 60 percent of the ticket revenue gross.

In effect, this agreement flips the ’06 CBA, at least as it pertains to local team revenue. The owners are, in effect, getting a 20 percent cost reduction. It was something they absolutely had to have, just as it would seem the players were equally adamant on not playing an 18-game schedule.

Compromise is a wonderful thing. Each side gets the one thing it absolutely had to have. In this case, compromise on these two major issues helped stimulate agreement on other sticking points, such as a rookie wage scale, where both sides realized gains.

This is a good deal because it’s good for both sides and, just as importantly, it’s good for the game and its fans. The players didn’t need to subject themselves to another two weeks of abuse and, frankly, there had been no public outcry from fans for two more regular-season games, just for two fewer preseason games. Hey, you can’t have everything, can you?

The previous TFR model was a formula for contraction. Slowly but surely the teams at the bottom of the league’s revenue rankings would’ve run into a financial wall. In that business model, the salary cap system could not have survived because those low-ranking revenue teams could not conscionably have been forced to spend to a cap minimum that would’ve eventually put them into the red. The great fear was that without a salary cap to level the playing field, the low-revenue teams would become uncompetitive.

How bad was the old model? Well, it was so bad that a lot of front office people lost their jobs because they worked in departments that couldn’t produce the profit margin necessary to overcome such a lopsided split of the revenue.

Though players will continue to share in all revenue, as opposed to the defined-revenue system employed prior to ’06, the allowance for costs, combined with a continuation of revenue-sharing for low-ranking revenue teams, will give this system a chance to succeed.

This is a proposal worthy of the players’ ratification. It will grow the game and it will grow player salaries.

[vince]

Details are sketchy, and we've heard this before, but it sounds like a deal in principle has been struck. Jason LaCanfora is reporting on NFLN that NFLPA sources are telling him that the new league year can in fact start on Wednesday and practices will open as early as Friday.

This depends of the timing of the judge signing off on the global settlement, the owners approving some new language and the players voting on Tuesday.

According to this new schedule, free agency would start in conjunction with training camps.

[vince]

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Major-progress-reported-on-labor-front-today-impasse-expected-to-end-soon.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

The labor impasse could be about to end.

The NFL and the decertified NFL Players Association have reportedly agreed to a schedule where the NFLPA executive committee would recommend voting to ratify the proposed collective bargaining agreement, according to ESPN.

That would also include a plan for the NFLPA to formally recertify as a union after decertifying and operating as a trade association during the NFL lockout.

Per the report, players would be allowed to report as soon as Wednesday and then vote on recertification by Friday at the soonest.

Plus, there was reportedly progress as both sides got close to settling the $4 billion TV lockout insurance case.

A meeting from the NFLPA executive committee is expected to be held Monday in Washington, D.C.

In order to pass as far as the terms of the CBA recertify, the NFLPA needs a 50-percent plus one majority vote.

It's still possible that free agency might not start until July 30

[vince]

Here's PFT's report
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/report-nflpa-expected-to-meet-monday-recommend-ratification-of-deal/

Report: NFLPA* expected to meet Monday, recommend ratification of deal

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 23, 2011, 6:24 PM EDT


We’ve been so “close” to the end of the lockout for so long that we hesitate to get too excited about any report.

With that disclaimer out of the way, ESPN’s Chris Mortensen has news that should make football fans smile from coast to coast.

After “significant progress” was made Saturday, Mort reports the NFLPA* executive committee is expected to meet in Washington D.C. Monday to recommend the ratification of the next Collective Bargaining agreement.

“De Smith and Roger Goodell have worked directly to assure that nothing goes off path,” Mortensen writes. “Expect a presser Monday.”

It’s uncertain how the hanging details were settled and whether there will be a seven-year opt out for the ten-year deal. After the union reconstitutes, the two sides will still have to collectively bargain issues like player discipline.

DeMaurice Smith has reportedly assured Goodell that those issues would be handled in time for he first full week of the preseason to go on schedule. The NFL’s labor committee had a conference call Saturday that helped push the ball forward.

NFL Network’s Albert Breer is a little less certain in his timeline. He reports talks are ongoing and the NFLPA* executive committee is on “standby” for Monday.

We’ve learned to that a deal isn’t done until it’s done, so we’re tempering our optimism slightly.

But folks that had July 25th in their office lockout pool should be feeling pretty good at the moment.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Alienating? Pfft! No such thing. It's not like the players are going to walk away and do a deal with a different league, or something. If they get their nose out of joint over relatively trivial details, who cares???

all things being equal, there is no advantage in angering your negotiating partner. In this instance, you may be right that the substance was small, but the owners misrepresented the state of negotiations to the public in an attempt to grab a little leverage.

The owners paychecks start with the preseason games. The players paychecks start with the regular season. The players have a modest bargaining edge during the coming weeks, so I expect the owners were trying to accelerate a deal.

I'm not screaming bloody murder over what the owners did. However, I don't think the maneuver worked.

[vince]

Greg Aiello, NFL PR man, said on Twitter,
More nonsense. Players get full share of preseason revenue. RT @RonBorges: Tired hearing doom if lose preseason games.
so it seems that everyone loses out if any preseason games are missed, which it appears they won't.

[vince]

According to Mike Florio (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/under-new-cba-rookies-wont-have-much-of-a-reason-to-hold-out/), the NFLPA will recommend ratification of the exact deal that the owners have already adopted, including the no opt-out clause.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Greg Aiello, NFL PR man, said on Twitter, More nonsense. Players get full share of preseason revenue.
so it seems that everyone loses out if any preseason games are missed, which it appears they won't.

this may be true in an indirect sense, the salary cap level reflects preseason revenues. But the individual players get 1/16 of their salary each regular season game.
I expect the owners have a more immediate stake in the preseason revenues.

[pbmax]

It seems like good news is headed our way.

But this quote from the packers.com site posted in the previous page:

In some cases, it only took a few months after agreeing to the ’06 CBA for owners to know they had made a major mistake. In effect, what they had done is to have agreed to pay 100 percent of the costs with 40 percent of the gross.

is an outright falsehood. It fails to mention the nearly $1 billion in credits off the top. So I think the rest of their info on the splits in this article may be dubious as well. In fact, if I am not mistaken, its the same storyline initially pushed by League sites when this all began and started the first public fight. It was after that squabble that the $1 billion dollar figure was thrown out.

[pbmax]

According to Mike Florio (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/under-new-cba-rookies-wont-have-much-of-a-reason-to-hold-out/), the NFLPA will recommend ratification of the exact deal that the owners have already adopted, including the no opt-out clause.

Elsewhere on the site (and from other sources) they have mentioned that there is new language. I think Florio is trying to turn a phrase here, not meaning a literal exact same package.

Example from Mortenson of ESPN:
Owners tentatively agreed Saturday to a players-recommended plan for the NFL Players Association to bring players into team facilities starting as early as Wednesday to physically vote on whether to recertify the current trade association as a union, a source said. Progress in other talks with the owners has put the players' 11-member executive committee in a position to have a vote Monday to recommend accepting the 10-year collective bargaining agreement.

[vince]

Elsewhere on the site (and from other sources) they have mentioned that there is new language. I think Florio is trying to turn a phrase here, not meaning a literal exact same package.

Example from Mortenson of ESPN:

Owners tentatively agreed Saturday to a players-recommended plan for the NFL Players Association to bring players into team facilities starting as early as Wednesday to physically vote on whether to recertify the current trade association as a union, a source said. Progress in other talks with the owners has put the players' 11-member executive committee in a position to have a vote Monday to recommend accepting the 10-year collective bargaining agreement.
I haven't seen anywhere that indicates any new language in the agreement. That quote doesn't indicate such. Although vague, it implies that there is no new language. We'll likely find out more details on Monday, but we know the 7-year opt-out the players were supposedly holding out for is not included (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/early-word-on-length-of-deal-firm-10-years-no-opt-out-clause/). There is no indication that I've seen that indicates the owners need to vote on any changes to the agreement they've ratified. Pending new details, it appears that, other than the 7-year opt-out, which isn't included, all the items the NFLPA was holding up the CBA for fall outside the realm of the CBA itself.

[Patler]

The situation of the last few days is starting to look to me like the result of a minor failing and a miscalculation by the players' leadership/negotiating team. I suspect they did not keep the team reps adequately informed about what was going on and the status of things during the negotiations, then they misjudged the depth the reps would want to get into before voting. Issues that the negotiating team viewed as details that could be resolved later were viewed as big issues by the team reps when presented to them. The team reps began asking questions rather than just rubber stamping what their team negotiated.

I think the last few days have been spent informing the team reps about things that should have been explained to them as the negotiations went on. The NFLPA is playing catchup. Not a big deal, just a few days lost, that's all.

[vince]

I agree. The owners had their shit together, while the players were freaking out and in many cases spewing misinformation.

That's not to say that the antitrust litigation didn't need to be cleaned up, but that should have been ready long ago IMO.

[red]

its amazing that after all the bitching and bellyaching by players over the deal, that now they are saying its fine and that they'll be voting to ratify it in the morning.

it sounds now like it is for sure a done deal, like espn says, the players wouldn't be getting together to vote if they weren't 100% sure it would pass

doors will then be opened on wednesday , and camps should be good to go by this weekend

thank god

[pbmax]

From SI:

Owners approved a tentative agreement to end the four-month lockout on Thursday. But the players said they need more information before they can vote.

On Saturday, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and players association head DeMaurice Smith spoke on the phone, and lawyers from both sides worked to clarify language. That work is not completed, the person said.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/07/23/nfl.monday.meeting.ap/index.html#ixzz1T2nVY0V6


Also remember, they are working twin tracks. The lifting of the lockout is dependent on the lawsuits being settled and I read elsewhere that they had reached an agreement on the settlement for the TV lockout payment on Saturday (I should say finalized would be a better description). The CBA vote must come after recertification and Goodell and Smith were also said to have been negotiating the terms of what that remaining unsettled terms will look like once the union is back in existence.

But I think you both have a point, whatever disagreements they had were either known in advance or of a small enough scale that the outcry that followed (often by players outside the player rep group) dwarfed the areas of disagreement. The two leaked emails citing the remaining issues didn't help the cause either.

Its also worth noting that Kevin Mawae predicted before Thursday's owner's meeting that there might not be a player vote on either Wed or Thurs. He may have known there would be too much to review (or do) for a vote the same day. So the lack of a vote mostly surprised the media, who were convinced it was all about to end by Saturday.

[pbmax]

Still a dispute over the opt-out: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/24/some-dispute-over-opt-out-clause/

And a list of other items they have been negotiating from Saturday: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820ede10/article/nfl-owners-players-make-significant-progress-in-labor-talks

However, as mentioned previously, none of these items seems to have been unknown on the previous Wednesday. The second link from Breer and nfl.com says that the vote is more likely to happen Tuesday to recommend the agreement to the entire 32 player reps. I am curious if the timeframe for finalizing a CBA has been extended, since the schedule PFT have published still gives them 2 days at team facilities to vote to reform.

Here is my question: Do the NFLPA and NFL need to vote again once the union is reformed and the CBA finalized? I think that answer would have to be yes. But I haven't read anything about that.

[MJZiggy]

I think Bretsky wrote this:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Ten-ways-the-NFL-can-make-things-up-to-the-fans?urn=nfl-wp3862

[Bretsky]

I think Bretsky wrote this:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Ten-ways-the-NFL-can-make-things-up-to-the-fans?urn=nfl-wp3862



I AM BUSTED

I wanted to put the Friday Night Lights at #1 but they wouldn't let me !! Janet topless........classic

[MJZiggy]

I thought you'd like that...:wink:

[MJZiggy]

VERY nice article on the Krafts and their role in ensuring that the CBA got done.

http://wtop.com/?nid=357&sid=2469083