Fans suing owners?

[rbaloha1]

If the league is really so dissatisfied with the last CBA (which remember, the president of the NFLPA admitted was unbalanced in favor of the players) they would have had to ask for more than a few tweaks. Particularly since fully half of the tweaks you list are things that the players want and not the owners want.

Ultimately, it's the players who appeared to want to have their cake and eat it too. Since they wanted to reduce offseason programs, reduce OTAs, limit padded practices, lifetime medical coverage, a pension increase for retired players, increase post-career benefits and programs, and yet all of these things cost money and they were unwilling to to actually make financial concessions for any of this.

Generally in labor negotiations offers of the form "we will cut your pay but increase your benefits" are at least seriously considered. An offer to increase benefits by management should be greeted with some concessions by labor.

More blah blah blah. I am going on strike from this board.

[Lurker64]

More blah blah blah. I am going on strike from this board.

Don't worry, it will be a minimal loss.

[rbaloha1]

Don't worry, it will be a minimal loss.

Please set up the picket line.

[Scott Campbell]

Owners could have sidestepped all these issues if they agreed to renew the previous contract.

You're misinformed. The owners opted out of the current agreement which was initially set to run through 2012.

[rbaloha1]

You're misinformed. The owners opted out of the current agreement which was initially set to run through 2012.

I know.

[Patler]

In order to prevent the player's litigation the owners should have renewed with slight tweaks -- rookie wage scale and a better retirement system.

So you are suggesting that the owners should have opted out of the existing CBA to give the players even MORE? The rookie wage scale doesn't save the owners any money, it just distributes the money differently. "Better retirement" implies increased cost.

Hardly a reason for the owners to have opted out of the existing agreement.

[swede]

The more I think about it, Patler, I think you have the best take.

Politically, legally, psychologically... it all comes down to how much money you think owners deserve to make. If you believe their profits need to be limited by common sense and fairness you are probably siding with the players,

[Patler]

The more I think about it, Patler, I think you have the best take.

Politically, legally, psychologically... it all comes down to how much money you think owners deserve to make. If you believe their profits need to be limited by common sense and fairness you are probably siding with the players,

Not sure if your comment was cut off, because it ends with a ",". Are you suggesting that the owners profits are not limited today? That they make an unfair profit?

[rbaloha1]

So you are suggesting that the owners should have opted out of the existing CBA to give the players even MORE? The rookie wage scale doesn't save the owners any money, it just distributes the money differently. "Better retirement" implies increased cost.

Hardly a reason for the owners to have opted out of the existing agreement.

The rookie scale saves tremendous money (ie Matthew Stafford, Bradford, Alex Smith, etc.) by eliminating GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES.

Money saved by implementing a rookie scale (including bonuses) can be allocated towards an improved retirement system and more money for owners. Both need significant tweaking to provide a more equatable system.

[Patler]

The rookie scale saves tremendous money (ie Matthew Stafford, Bradford, Alex Smith, etc.) by eliminating GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES.

Money saved by implementing a rookie scale (including bonuses) can be allocated towards an improved retirement system and more money for owners. Both need significant tweaking to provide a more equatable system.

All rookie monies, including GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES count toward the salary cap. There was no discussion of lowering the salary cap in relation to the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES. The very simply fact is that the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES, will simply go into the pockets of the veteran players, and that is what was intended.

They are simply taking from Peter and paying to Paul. Net effect, no money saved.

[rbaloha1]

All rookie monies, including GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES count toward the salary cap. There was no discussion of lowering the salary cap in relation to the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES. The very simply fact is that the money saved on GUARANTEED ROOKIE BONUSES, will simply go into the pockets of the veteran players, and that is what was intended.

They are simply taking from Peter and paying to Paul. Net effect, no money saved.

Bonuses are pro rated over x years. The money saved can be divided amongst players and owners. Whatever the split the owners recoup some money. YOUR STATEMENT IS ONLY VALID IF THE GREEDY PLAYERS DEMAND ALL SAVINGS GO TO THEM WHICH IS WRONG.

[Patler]

Bonuses are pro rated over x years. The money saved can be divided amongst players and owners. Whatever the split the owners recoup some money. YOUR STATEMENT IS ONLY VALID IF THE GREEDY PLAYERS DEMAND ALL SAVINGS GO TO THEM WHICH IS WRONG.

Well, the players already have by the salary cap floor that has been in place.

yes, bonuses are pro-rated over years, but the appropriate portion counts against the cap each year. The cap has a floor and a ceiling between which all teams must fit. A rookie's contract is no different than a veterans contract in how it impacts the salary cap.

The owners like the limits on high 1st round payouts because it reduces the risk of excessive "dead money" for a player who flops, and it frees money for use with established veterans. Any money saved on a rookies contract will simply go to a veteran or two who is re-signed instead. The teams still have to meet the salary cap floor.

It's really no different than FA signings. Just as many teams are realizing that the most expensive FAs can be a risk, the league has learned that having a top 10 draft pick can be more of a cap burden than a roster advantage for the player taken. The wage scale simply lessens that risk.

[sharpe1027]

Sure they can. Because a lack of short term cash is a problem. So is opening the floodgates to unsustainable player salary increases. From what I'm reading, it's a pretty tough business to gage what player pay amounts are optimal, especially since the owners and the team situations are all so different. But the proposed salary increases by the owners seemed like a reasonable starting point that should have been negotiated in earnest.

Sure it is a complex business. I would expect that most multi-billion dollar businesses are complex. I am not saying that they shouldn't negotiate. My point is that the argument that owners are losing money because the players are greedy ignores that the owners have the final say in any contract. If the business is too complex for them, maybe they should invest their money elsewhere.

[Lurker64]

The rookie salary structure is not attractive to the owners because it saves them money, it doesn't. Same cap, same floor. The rookie salary structure is attractive to the league because it's pro-competitive, and the more competitive the league can be the more attractive (and valuable) the product is.

Salaries for high first round picks had grown to the point where if you have a high pick and you miss, you are devoting significant resources towards the cap towards a relatively useless players. So a team picking first overall who misses on the first overall pick, will find themselves picking high again, which will result in more money sunk towards a player of uncertain prospects. This illustrates itself in how we get several of the same teams picking towards the top of the first round consistently. The first overall pick was supposed to be a benefit, but with escalating rookie salaries it actually became a penalty. Keep in mind that the rookie salary structures proposed by both the league and the NFLPAs constituted a large reduction for the first 12 or so picks, a minor reduction for the next 12 or so picks, and virtually no reduction for anybody else. The difference between the NFLPA and the NFL's initial rookie wage scale proposals on the #50 pick? Roughly $50,000 over the length of the contract.

This is also why the rookie salary structure could potentially survive an antitrust challenge. Since the American Needle decision does recognize that the NFL needs to act collectively in order to further competition, which is precisely what the rookie salary structure serves to do.

[Jimx29]

Just as reported:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Cleveland-Browns-fan-sues-NFL-in-attempt-to-end-?urn=nfl-wp583

of course, it would make more sense if Cleveland had a professional football team