World's Most Boring Thread: The CBA

[pbmax]

As for the 4.5% versus 9%, the owners are asking for 18% being reallocated to costs and 9% being shouldered by each side.

In the strict terms of this CBA proposal, that figure is incorrect. The players would (using 2009 dollars) take an 18% cut. That money flows back to top line revenue. That is, the money not paid to players under the new proposal compared to the old goes to a pool of revenue that is excluded from player revenue calculations.

All that money is available to owners. Now some amount of that money may be used to pay increased non-player costs, but we have no figures available to know what those costs are.

I think you brought up a good point in this discussion. However, you can't use 2009 dollars to compare 2010 revenues and percentage splits. Right now, you can't calculate what the change will actually be, because you do not have 2010 revenues. Nor do we have all the provisions of the CBA to figure the exceptions to the agreed split.

If the union says "18%" you know it'll be less than that. If the NFL says "9%" you know it'll be higher than that. But, today, you can't fully calculate it.

But 2009 dollars are the closest set of numbers we have. The owners are not going to disclose revenue numbers expected in 2010. They are even reluctant to share cost data.

So its either deal with the last set of known figures or speculate on 2010. And if I was constructing the argument for the players, I would avoid speculating on unknown numbers. Look at the confusion sown by simply looking at the same, known numbers from two different perspectives.

[get louder at lambeau]

Well, pb, your thread is ruined. Lots of arguing, intervention from the Admin, strange disappearing posts. "World's Most Boring Thread" it is not.

[pbmax]

Ruined?! Hah!

We haven't even begin to argue. Wait 'til Patler gets here and shows us how we went wrong.

This article (and thread) is why I do not mind opinion pieces of any stripe in journalism. Its far better to lay out all the cards for people to view and argue about openly than to debate the aesthetics of the kabuki theatre that usually marks public debate.

Of course, its easier in this case as everyone agrees at the very least on what the numbers are. If not what they mean, or which are more important.

[Guiness]

I think you brought up a good point in this discussion. However, you can't use 2009 dollars to compare 2010 revenues and percentage splits. Right now, you can't calculate what the change will actually be, because you do not have 2010 revenues. Nor do we have all the provisions of the CBA to figure the exceptions to the agreed split.

If the union says "18%" you know it'll be less than that. If the NFL says "9%" you know it'll be higher than that. But, today, you can't fully calculate it.

But 2009 dollars are the closest set of numbers we have. The owners are not going to disclose revenue numbers expected in 2010. They are even reluctant to share cost data.

So its either deal with the last set of known figures or speculate on 2010. And if I was constructing the argument for the players, I would avoid speculating on unknown numbers. Look at the confusion sown by simply looking at the same, known numbers from two different perspectives.

I'm with pb on this part of the argument - the union has no better figures to use than 2009, and that's on the owners. If the owners really wanted open negotiations, they'd disclose more.

Having said that, the owners have no obligation to do so, and if I side with their decision to tell the players to go piss up a rope when they ask.

[Guiness]

Here some writers write something on a subject there is nothing to write about right now.

NDIANAPOLIS -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith spent about 1 hour, 40 minutes working on a new collective bargaining agreement Thursday, then left without saying a word.


Goodell eventually returned to the hotel lobby hours later, after participating in the league's competition committee meeting and reiterated the league's position of finishing a new deal before the CBA expires in March 2011.

"It doesn't pay to characterize everything," Goodell said. "They [the players] know our desire to get a deal done and we've got to keep working to do that."

The two sides held their latest round of negotiations in an Indianapolis hotel ballroom as the league's annual scouting combine began. Goodell said the two sides discussed "setting up" another meeting, but did not establish a date.

Thursday's topics included the appeals process for disciplinary actions and player safety issues, things Goodell expressed interest in implementing before a deal is completed.

Goodell declined to discuss other topics on the agenda, but said he remains hopeful the two sides will negotiate a deal before the CBA expires.

"I think it's natural that deadlines produce results, so I think deadlines help," he said. "I think there is a general desire on both sides to get a deal. But I don't think you can create artificial deadlines."

The first official deadline is March 5. If players and owners do not reach an agreement by then, the league will have its first non-salary cap season since 1993.

Goodell ruled out any chance of the owners agreeing to a temporary one-year salary cap to avoid an uncapped season, saying that's the reason owners opted out of the previous deal in the spring of 2008.

And it's increasingly likely no deal will be finished by then.

"I guess till you get to March 5, there's always a chance," Goodell said.

But players are looking to a more ominous deadline next March.

They believe no deal will lead to a lockout before the start of the 2011 season. The union has instructed players to plan appropriately so their families can have a similar lifestyle if there is a lockout. Player reps and union officials declined questions Thursday morning and Thursday afternoon.

Smith was joined at the negotiating table by several player representatives including Jeff Saturday of Indianapolis and Mike Vrabel of Kansas City. About 15 player reps also attended the competition committee meeting.

Goodell brought a group of league executives to the bargaining session, including executive vice president and general counsel Jeff Pash.

The meeting was supposed to last about one hour but went longer than expected.

Goodell appeared to be in good spirits when he entered the room. He smiled and hugged one player before negotiations began. When the session broke up, both sides came out expressionless.

The NFLPA also sent out a memo Tuesday saying it does not expect a new deal to be in place by March 5 when free agents can start signing with new teams.

Smith has said the sides have met more than 30 times in the past six months.

[sharpe1027]

I think you brought up a good point in this discussion. However, you can't use 2009 dollars to compare 2010 revenues and percentage splits. Right now, you can't calculate what the change will actually be, because you do not have 2010 revenues. Nor do we have all the provisions of the CBA to figure the exceptions to the agreed split.

If the union says "18%" you know it'll be less than that. If the NFL says "9%" you know it'll be higher than that. But, today, you can't fully calculate it.

It is true that they will each happily cook the books to win the PR war. However, if the NFL owners are saying 9%, they are essentially agreeing with the 18% since the two numbers are linked (18% is just 2 X 9%). For instance, if the NFL had said 4% change in shared revenue, then the players would be losing 8% from one CBA to the next. Make sense?

[Administrator]

I think you brought up a good point in this discussion. However, you can't use 2009 dollars to compare 2010 revenues and percentage splits. Right now, you can't calculate what the change will actually be, because you do not have 2010 revenues. Nor do we have all the provisions of the CBA to figure the exceptions to the agreed split.

If the union says "18%" you know it'll be less than that. If the NFL says "9%" you know it'll be higher than that. But, today, you can't fully calculate it.

It is true that they will each happily cook the books to win the PR war. However, if the NFL owners are saying 9%, they are essentially agreeing with the 18% since the two numbers are linked (18% is just 2 X 9%). For instance, if the NFL had said 4% change in shared revenue, then the players would be losing 8% from one CBA to the next. Make sense?

No it doesn't make sense. You are so wrapped up in your point you can't see the big picture. I know you think you can, but you cannot.

Until you understand ALL the ways to calculate this, you have blinders on.

The 18% could be and is most likely political BS. We won't know until the 2010 revenue figures are released and we figure the percentages exactly as Smidgeon showed.

The ONLY way that 18% is accurate is if 2010 revenue is EXACTLY the same as 2009 revenue. Otherwise, it's a wrong number. You take the odds on that. I know what I betting on. 18% is wrong.

[ThunderDan]

Why don't we look at actual numbers?

2009 Revenue $8,000,000,000.

1 billion comes off the top for the owners so that leaves 7 billion.

59.6% of 7 billion (as a CPA it sure is hard to write the b word when you are use to dealing with multi-million dollar entites) is $4,172,000,000 for the players.

Under the new system we take the 7 billion and take 18% (off the top) away and that leaves $5,740,000,000. Multiply that by 59.6% and the players get $3,421,040,000.

That is an 18% reduction in the compensation paid to the players.

As a % of the total 8 billion dollars in the first scenario the players get 52.15% and only 42.76% in the second. A 9.39% reduction of total revenue.

I have never ever heard an owner of a business that I work with say well my compensation only went down 9% of total revenue when his take home pay is cut 18%.

[ThunderDan]

Now lets look at another scenario.

Revenues increase by 10% for the league in 2010 to $8.8 billion.

1 billion dollars comes off the top right away (how many new reasonable stadiums will $1,000,000,000 build a year owners?).

With the old system $7.8 b x 59.6% is $4,648,800,000 for the players.

With the new system the we take off an additional 18% leaving $6,396,000,000 in the pool before multiplying by 59.6%. The players get $3,812,016,000. That is an 18% reduction from the old system.

Compared to 2009 player compensation would go from $4,172,000,000 to $3,812,016,000. An actual decrease of 8.7% from 2009.

The owners from $3,828,000,000 to $4,987,984,000 an increase of 30.3%

So to sum up, in this scenario the NFL grows 10% and the players get 8.7% less and the owners get 30.3% more.

[ThunderDan]

Lets look if the NFL vrevenues shrunk 10% next year.

Total revenues go down to $7,200,000,000.

$1 billion comes off the top leaving $6,200,000,000.

Under the old system the players would get $3,695,200,000.

Under the new system they would get $3,030,064,000. An 18% decrease from the old way.

Compared to 2009 they go from $4,172,000,000 to $3,030,064,000. A decrease of 27.4%.

The owners go from $3,828,000,000 to $4,169,936,000. An increase of 8.9%

So to sum this scenario up, a 10% decrease in revenues would lead to the players getting 27.4% less and the owners get 8.9% more than 2009.

[sharpe1027]

No it doesn't make sense. You are so wrapped up in your point you can't see the big picture. I know you think you can, but you cannot.

Until you understand ALL the ways to calculate this, you have blinders on.

The 18% could be and is most likely political BS. We won't know until the 2010 revenue figures are released and we figure the percentages exactly as Smidgeon showed.

The ONLY way that 18% is accurate is if 2010 revenue is EXACTLY the same as 2009 revenue. Otherwise, it's a wrong number. You take the odds on that. I know what I betting on. 18% is wrong.

You are being an ass for no good reason.

If the owners said that it shifts by 9%, then the math requires that the players lose 18%. It is irrefutable.

Total Revenue = R
Player Percentage Under CBA1 = P1
Player Percentage Under CBA2 = P2
Actual Player Money Under CBA1 = R X P1
Actual Player Money Under CBA2 = R X P2

P1 is near 50%. If the Owners agree that the amount of revenue shared shifts by 9%, then P2 = 41%.

Percentage of Player change:

(R X P2) / (R X P1) = P2/P1 = 41/50 = 18% change. So, again, if the owner's agree that the shift is 9%, then the actual player change between CBA agreements MUST be 18%. Other numbers do not matter.

Now, if the 9% is not assumed (e.g., the revenue changes from 2009 to 2010), then you are correct that we don't know where the real numbers will come out (see Thunderdan's post). However, what I said is correct: if it is a 9% shift, then it must be a 18% reduction. Please calm down.

[get louder at lambeau]

The ONLY way that 18% is accurate is if 2010 revenue is EXACTLY the same as 2009 revenue. Otherwise, it's a wrong number. You take the odds on that. I know what I betting on. 18% is wrong.

Looks like you would lose that bet, based on calculations by our resident CPA, ThunderDan, with both increased and decreased revenue scenarios represented in the math. I know you're the Admin and all, but in this case I think Dan outranks you, kinda like how Favre outranks Childress.

[Guiness]

Thanks for writing that up TD - I quickly scribbled it down and came to the same conclusion, but didn't get around to posting it.

[Guiness]

I will point out one problem with your numbers though TD, and it's that they're a bit of a straw man argument (not entirely - they are relevant)

The issue at hand is the claim that EXPENSES have risen faster than expected. The owners are saying that they can not make a reasonable profit with that portion of the revenue. That claim, of course, is unverifiable, and should be given little or no credence, since owners will not divulge what their expenses are...!

[get louder at lambeau]

I will point out one problem with your numbers though TD, and it's that they're a bit of a straw man argument (not entirely - they are relevant)

The issue at hand is the claim that EXPENSES have risen faster than expected. The owners are saying that they can not make a reasonable profit with that portion of the revenue. That claim, of course, is unverifiable, and should be given little or no credence, since owners will not divulge what their expenses are...!

Huh? The debate in this thread so far is about whether the NLFPA's claim of an 18% pay cut is accurate, not whether owners have a legitimate claim about expenses rising or not.