CBA

[ThunderDan]

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

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

[Fritz]

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

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

[3irty1]

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

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

[NewsBruin]

Issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MJZiggy]

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

[NewsBruin]

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

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

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

[red]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[red]

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

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

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

[ThunderDan]

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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

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

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

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

[Smidgeon]

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

...or their personal financial analysts would be.

[Patler]

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

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

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

[pbmax]

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

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