NFL Players preparing for a lockout

[CaptainKickass]

Thanks to Packrulz for the earlier link regarding Sitton. As I read that, I also found this quite interesting:

From here: http://www.kffl.com/hotw/nfl#57960

Players told to save for possible lockout

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:19:20 -0700

Mark Maske, of The Washington Post, reports the NFL Players Association has advised players to save at least 25 percent of their salaries in each of the next two seasons to protect against the possibility of a lockout by owners in 2011. The union calls the program "25/25" and announced it on their website Tuesday, July 14. The director of the union's financial programs and advisor administration, Dana Hammonds, said, "It's essential that players are financially prepared to withstand the loss of income due to a lockout. A financially sound membership represents a strong bargaining group.

Intriguing that they've developed an internal "program" and are actively advertising it. Even more intriguing that they're so concerned 2 years in advance.

Is the possibility of a lockout that real?


.

[CaptainKickass]

Re: NFL Players preparing for a lockout

Sorry - please comment argue or otherwise opine.

There is no other post on this topic, I was a moron and made a mistake by hitting submit twice.


.

[The Leaper]

I think a lockout is a very real possibility.

The owners caved too much last time, and want a bigger cut of the pie...but the players aren't likely to give back what was conceded to them previously.

[Rastak]

I think a lockout is a very real possibility.

The owners caved too much last time, and want a bigger cut of the pie...but the players aren't likely to give back what was conceded to them previously.

It's complicated. As always I guess.


If there is no deal at the end of 2010 it's a certainty there will be a lockout.

Big issues?

1) Overall percentage of the revenue going to the players. It grows and grows.
2) Rookie wages at the top of the draft.......they are daft.
3) NFL diciplinary procedures. Judge and Jury won't fly anymore.
4) Drug testing. The Starcaps incident will prompt a complete overhaul. Program has to be consistent and written in such a way that it supercedes state law to be effective.
5) Longer schedule.
6) Games played outside USA.

Lots of stuff to hash out.

[SnakeLH2006]

Lockout is impossible. The NFL makes 3 times the money MLB could hope to make. Worst case scenario is that Ocho Cinco make $30 million. Then Snake would kill EVERYONE.

[Lurker64]

Well, the NFLPA understands that the league holds the nuclear option in that "they can elect to lock out and there's nothing the players can do about it" (many of the players are millionaires, but they're up against a pack of billionaires, and those guys can hold out longer.)

So to improve their bargaining position, it behooves the NFLPA to make it appear as though the players aren't averse to a lockout, because the way lockouts usually work is "the players are locked out until they can't take it anymore and they cave, giving the league what they want". The longer the league thinks the lockout will last, the less likely they are to want to go through with it (longer=more expensive), and the more likely they are to give concessions to the NFLPA.

But a lot of this is just a front put up by the NFLPA. The players certainly don't want a lockout, and thus their representation ought not either.

[SnakeLH2006]

Well, the NFLPA understands that the league holds the nuclear option in that "they can elect to lock out and there's nothing the players can do about it" (many of the players are millionaires, but they're up against a pack of billionaires, and those guys can hold out longer.)

So to improve their bargaining position, it behooves the NFLPA to make it appear as though the players aren't averse to a lockout, because the way lockouts usually work is "the players are locked out until they can't take it anymore and they cave, giving the league what they want". The longer the league thinks the lockout will last, the less likely they are to want to go through with it (longer=more expensive), and the more likely they are to give concessions to the NFLPA.

But a lot of this is just a front put up by the NFLPA. The players certainly don't want a lockout, and thus their representation ought not either.

Exactly....an NFL Lockout is nearly impossible. They (players) make much cash and regardless of the global economy, this is 1 league that is impervious. NFL is economy proof. They want to get it done with raises for players/owners. As shitty as we all have it (economy) the NFL is a boom cuz they keep makinga profit/make peeps (us fans) happy.

[Bretsky]

some players recently went to Congress and asked them to intervene on their behalf

They have a real fear that the owners are going to play the tough economy card in their negotiations

[]{ilr]3]

I used to be a big baseball fan until the player strike that cancelled the World Series (around 1995-96 maybe???).

I havent watched more than a 2-3 games since and those were only post season games, none of which were from the World Series.

The strike pissed me off and I lost my interest in MLB. I fully expect to find other interests if the NFL does the same thing.

[Scott Campbell]

{ilr]3]I used to be a big baseball fan until the player strike that cancelled the World Series (around 1995-96 maybe???).

I havent watched more than a 2-3 games since and those were only post season games, none of which were from the World Series.

The strike pissed me off and I lost my interest in MLB. I fully expect to find other interests if the NFL does the same thing.

Damn - almost the same exact story here. I was the kind of baseball fan that reveled in a 1-0 game.

Bud Selig is an idiot.

[pbmax]

Big issues?

1) Overall percentage of the revenue going to the players. It grows and grows.

How is the percentage growing when it is fixed at 59.2 or so?

[CaptainKickass]

I guess I just don't fully understand the mechanics/repurcussions of a lockout.

Who makes the call and says "Ok boys, time for a lockout"? And what happens operationally from a player perspective, and what happens from an organization perspective?

I'm not nearly as educated on the business side of the NFL as I'd like to be. I think I need sort of an "NFL Lockouts for dummies" guide or cliff notes.

Help?

[Scott Campbell]

Big issues?

1) Overall percentage of the revenue going to the players. It grows and grows.

How is the percentage growing when it is fixed at 59.2 or so?

True. My understanding is that ownership thinks that Upshaw pulled one over on Tags by bumping up the number that high - the highest in all of sports. And that's why they opted out. The union typically counters with the appreciation of NFL franchises, which is where the real money has been for NFL owners. But only if you're willing to sell. Appreciation is obviously not part of revenue, and not subject to sharing with the players.

[Scott Campbell]

I'll take a quick stab at it.

Who makes the call and says "Ok boys, time for a lockout"?

The owners.

And what happens operationally from a player perspective?

They are being told to put money away to survive for a while without paychecks, and unions often pay small amounts out of strike fund to help guys get by. Picketing would be ridiculous. They sit around waiting for union leadership to negotiate a deal, and then would have to vote to ratify it.

What happens from an organization perspective?

Last time we saw replacement players. Hard core fans like us might enjoy that, but casual fans just find other things to do on Sunday. The owners through Goodell would continue to negotiate a new CBA with the union.



In general, I believe that ownership is far better suited to survive a work stoppage. However, this thing is a golden goose, and both sides would be leaving tremendous amounts of money on the table by allowing it to go that far.

[pbmax]

Big issues?

1) Overall percentage of the revenue going to the players. It grows and grows.

How is the percentage growing when it is fixed at 59.2 or so?

True. My understanding is that ownership thinks that Upshaw pulled one over on Tags by bumping up the number that high - the highest in all of sports. And that's why they opted out. The union typically counters with the appreciation of NFL franchises, which is where the real money has been for NFL owners. But only if you're willing to sell. Appreciation is obviously not part of revenue, and not subject to sharing with the players.

Appreciation of franchise value and total revenue are going up. Which is an indication of the health of the sport. The owners are countering the current economy but most persuasively, the costs associated with credit. Teams with significant debt are paying more to finance some of that longer term debt.

Compared to the year the new CBA was negotiated, some teams costs have risen significantly.

But there is also the question of recovery of player money due to player misconduct. The owners lost a significant battle over their rights to reclaim bonus money paid to players.

Tags was a lame duck and did not have a vote. I think the owners are worried about costs and recovery of bonus money more than the Upshaw/Tags dynamic.

I also have a hard time believing that football percentage of player costs is the highest in all sport. Basketball, baseball and higher echelon soccer clubs would seem to have higher player costs.