Stay Granted: Lockout On Til June, Breakthrough Reported

[SkinBasket]

Skin, I want to comment on your "from all reports" statement: Near the end of CBA negotiations, Goodell said the offer might not be made again. That might just be gamesmanship, but get folks like Richardson and Jerrah, and it might not be all olive branches.

The league offered a lot of different things at the CBA deadline, but a good chunk of them were low-cost or money-saving issues: fewer OTA's, shorter camps, less contact, independent drug-suspension appeal. They did start decreasing their drawback amount from $1 billion to something less, but still didn't really address the union's question directly: why they needed the money. I didn't examine the last offer much (because I didn't think it would be taken), but some players questioned the salary-cap staying stagnant for a while and not rising with revenues. (Okay, it came from Chris Kluwe's whiteboard.)

Were I a player rep (being a 34-year old, college-educated white male who follows the health-care industry doggedly), I'd have seriously considered their last offer when they threw in lifetime funded healthcare. I don't think that was a smart move on the league's part, but I'd have taken it.

Crazy as it sounds, a lot of the NFL's success has come from its selfishly socialistic setup, and if the owners or players screw that up, this league is not going to be as successful as it has been.

Patler x2 on the money issue.

It was dumb for the NFL to agree in mediation this last week to make another offer. At this point, they're just bidding against themselves while the players sit and pout and make zero concessions. That's not negotiation. Maybe they're hoping the mediator will see their willingness to be serious about concessions and push the players that much harder after the offer's drawn up. And while I believe that the league will make a fair offer should everything fall their way, I don't think it should be as good as the final offer before the desertification. That's just poor bargaining. Because this will happen again. The players need to understand they need to push their own leadership to be reasonable in negotiations.

[sharpe1027]

The owners could seek a set cap, but as far as I can tell they still want the percentage thing. Since the players have no set cap offer on the table, it seems logical for them proceed down the path of trying to determine what percentage they can/should get. IMO, the whole "open your books" thing is just a public opinion battle. The owners publicly cried foul saying they needed the money, and the players countered with "prove it." I don't see it as the players assuming they are entitled to X% so much as the players are simply negotiating within the framework setup by the owners.

[Patler]

The owners could seek a set cap, but as far as I can tell they still want the percentage thing. Since the players have no set cap offer on the table, it seems logical for them proceed down the path of trying to determine what percentage they can/should get. IMO, the whole "open your books" thing is just a public opinion battle. The owners publicly cried foul saying they needed the money, and the players counted with "prove it." I don't see it as the players assuming they are entitled to X% so much as the players are simply negotiating within the framework setup by the owners.

One of the owner's proposals provided 2 or 3 years of pre-defined salary caps. Fixed amounts that were greater each year. The players called it a cutback because they felt it was less than they would have gotten under the old CBA calculations. It was more and more each year, but didn't meet the percentage they felt they were entitled to.

The owners early on showed how some of their costs have increased at a faster rate than income, including travel, insurances and other player costs. But that wasn't good enough for the players. They remain fixated on a percentage of revenues type of entitlement. That's a hard way to run a business, when a huge part of the annual expense (the salary cap) is a constantly moving and poorly defined target.

[NewsBruin]

I don't dispute your summary at all, but therein lies the real issue. The owners should not have to prove they need the money. Arguably, with the old CBA terminated, its the owners money. Maybe the players should have to prove that THEY need the money, otherwise the owners should get to keep it.

This goes back to what I said has always bothered me with the players position. It presupposes that they are fundamentally entitled to a given % of some defined amount, or that the owners are entitled to only a given profit with everything else going to the players. Neither makes a lot of sense to me. I recognize that the expired CBA tried to establish that type of framework in fairly great detail. But times have changed. New stadiums are "needed" and owners are having to pay bigger and bigger shares. New revenue sources are needed and have been found. Owners need to have greater certainty in their costs to the extent they can so they can better plan capital improvements and business expansions.

I am in favor of scraping the silly calculation of the salary cap being an ever change percentage of poorly defined values. That only leads to confusion and misunderstandings, which lead ultimately distrust.

Sign a CBA with defined salary caps. Fixed dollar amounts known ahead of time for each year that the CBA covers. They did it in the past for minimum salaries, restricted free agent tenders, etc. No reason they can't just specify actual salary caps. Certainty is a good thing.

I know very little about labor law, and I work in a non-union state in a field that doesn't have any union history, so I don't know much about precedent, and, therefore, the following paragraph is based on little more than my opinion:

Normally, I don't think employees have a right to know what the employer makes. However, since the CBA determined player compensation as a percentage of income, and income in all measurable areas had been peaking in the past two years, if I were part of the union, I'd want to know under what circumstances I needed to give back 12.5% of my income ($4.8 vs $4.2). I'd want to know what costs had risen that made such a move necessary.

Patler, when you had made your poll about the max profit a team/owner should "deserve" to make, I was surprised no one asked why a team was entitled to any profit. If Jerrah Jones can pull off a Cowboys profit under the overall structure of the NFL (revenue-sharing, TV contracts, advertising, limits on the local revenues a team can keep), that's great. If Richardson can't get enough local businesses to buy Jags tickets to avert a blackout, should he still be guaranteed a profit?

[rant]
It seems the owners are asking the players to subsidize their losses/investments (new stadiums, NFL Network, breaking into transPac/TransAtlantic markets) and telling the players the league can't afford to have a year in the red (or a year less in the black than usual). There are many companies who have to take a "bad year" because of their unrealized investments. Why not the NFL? Which defensive back told the league it had to start a cable network? Which pulling guard told Jerrah, "You know, that thing would be bad-ass if you just included a retractable cutout and elite clubs in the walkways between the field and lockerroom? Go for an extra $100 million. You're worth it."

The league is also putting the players on the hook for all their outreach to older players. When league officials say, "Player Costs are rising faster than income," "Player Costs" includes the increased pension payouts, new dementia programs, transporting collegians to the Combine and contract players to OTAs, and 1/3 of the medical tape in the trainer's room. By those definitions, yes, "Player Costs" increases will always exceed income increases (unless there's a worldwide downturn in medical tape costs). In fact, if the "Player Costs" are X percent higher than than the player income, then the difference is taken from the players' income.

In short, if the Player Costs amount exceeds that X percentage, then when the NFL announces its next retired players' initiative to huge PR acclaim, the entire percentage is going to be borne out of money that would go to the players (I would guess as postseason/rookie bonuses and the like). Granted, all of this has been agreed to by both parties in the CBA, so I hope the players don't feel too badly about it, but are aware.

I just don't like the impression that increased investment costs and increased "Player Costs" are the often portrayed as the fault of the players.

So, as much as some praise the long-term vision of the owners (like Mike Brown, who charges the players for free shoes) and plaintively explain how their brave risk-taking is making the league better, it seems they don't deserve to take any loss for their risks, be it stadium mortgages, broadcast-revenue-tied lines of credit, cable companies not wanting to carry NFL Network, or very good-intended health programs. These lions of industry supposedly knew what they were getting into and had the MBAs on staff/contract to advise them. As much as some posters write that they don't know of another industry where the company can't make a deal expressly to get less money for the benefit of squeezing out labor in a work stoppage, I don't know of a profitable company that asks its employees to give back money because it's not making as much profit as it expected to.

But then again, I'm far from a labor expert, and I like this topic because of all it's teaching me.
[/end rant]

So, to answer Patler's question, normally, I don't think privately-held companies opening the books to labor is necessary, and shouldn't be law. However, when the only thing that's being asked for from labor is 12.5% money back after multiple profitable years, I think that's a fair question for labor to ask. And if the owners and players can work out a new CBA without opening the books, that's great.

If the owners and players can work out a new CBA with a cap that's tied to a set dollar amount, rather than a percentage, that's great, too. It puts more risk/reward on the owners, which is how I think most of the board wants it. However, I don't think the players would accept either a fixed amount or percentage deal that starts out with 88 cents on the dollar, unless the league could explain in detail why it needs that money.

[NewsBruin]

And, just to be clear, I don't think the players are entitled to sit back and say, "same as before or nothing." I agree with SkinBasket -- that's not negotiating. I also have described the quasi-union's legal strategies as "screwing the pooch." Just to be fair.

[Bretsky]

Peter King predicted that the final offer the owners made would be the offer the players end up accepting right after they rejected it. That was interesting.

I listened more to Smith today on Sirius. The guy really comes accross as a serious douchebag who talks down to people. The players union should shut this guy up. With every word he brings out the player popularity will be hurt more. But that's what they wanted

[sharpe1027]

One of the owner's proposals provided 2 or 3 years of pre-defined salary caps. Fixed amounts that were greater each year. The players called it a cutback because they felt it was less than they would have gotten under the old CBA calculations. It was more and more each year, but didn't meet the percentage they felt they were entitled to.

Wasn't that deal 10 years long though, with only the first years fixed? In any event, it all comes down to the final amount, same as any employee-employer battle. Just because their past reference point was expressed as a percentage doesn't mean they have no reason to believe they are worth more than what they were offered.

The owners early on showed how some of their costs have increased at a faster rate than income, including travel, insurances and other player costs. But that wasn't good enough for the players. They remain fixated on a percentage of revenues type of entitlement. That's a hard way to run a business, when a huge part of the annual expense (the salary cap) is a constantly moving and poorly defined target.

The key is they showed "some" of their expenses. Which expenses do you think they chose to share? The annual expense is a percentage calculated after their expenses are taken out. I am sure most other businesses would just hate to have that "difficulty."

[Lurker64]

Wasn't that deal 10 years long though, with only the first years fixed? In any event, it all comes down to the final amount, same as any employee-employer battle. Just because their past reference point was expressed as a percentage doesn't mean they have no reason to believe they are worth more than what they were offered.

I believe that all CBA proposals have been 5 years, which is the standard length for one of these. If I recall correctly, the player's opposition to the "pegged cap" proposal of the Players was that they were upset that the proposal didn't include a provision where the cap would increase by a certain percentage if revenues exceeded projections. That to me, seems unreasonable unless the cap were to also decrease by a certain percentage in the event that revenues fall short of projections.

[Deputy Nutz]

If the players have an issue with being locked out then they should sit out the season. It is the only way for them the gain anything at the bargining table. The owners hold all the power until the season starts. The owners still get paid from the TV contracts, but that isn't going to play out well to the fans. The bottom line is that the Owners locked out the players. It would then be on the owners to replace the players, bring in the scabs and prove that the NFL can be a viable sport and provide the entertainment value that the fans can expect and pay for.

The NFL has grown to be 9 billion dollar business, they have free agency and a salary cap, one of the firmer caps in all of sports. The owners had taken advantage of a weak player union for decades and they have finally run up against a players union that is refusing to back down.

I agree this has no business in the court system, but the owners have grown to 9 billion on the backs of their players, I am not buying Jerry Jones' business suits, I am buying jerseys of the players, I don't watch the day to day business dealing of a franchise on Fox, I watch the players that actually play the game. An owner of a NFL franchise is living on easy street(unless in upper New York).

Players don't get assistance from the Federal Government to play football, but the owners certainly don't mind asking us tax payers to fund their stadiums.

This is a free market society, the Players thought they were slick by de-unionizing, the NFL doesn't have to mediate with the former players union anymore, they can go and sign a whole new group of player to fill their rosters, and the owners can name their price. I just won't give a damn about the NFL, and the UFL sounds pretty good. Bring a team to Milwaukee!

[Patler]

Normally, I don't think employees have a right to know what the employer makes. However, since the CBA determined player compensation as a percentage of income, and income in all measurable areas had been peaking in the past two years, if I were part of the union, I'd want to know under what circumstances I needed to give back 12.5% of my income ($4.8 vs $4.2). I'd want to know what costs had risen that made such a move necessary.

If the CBA were still in existence, and the owners were requesting a reduction or change as a result of different circumstances, I would agree with you. But, that is not what happened. The CBA ended. Granted, it was not the full-life expiration but instead a proper kill-shot administered by the owners as they had a right to do. Accordingly, the players are not giving anything back. It is the start of a new deal.

Patler, when you had made your poll about the max profit a team/owner should "deserve" to make, I was surprised no one asked why a team was entitled to any profit. If Jerrah Jones can pull off a Cowboys profit under the overall structure of the NFL (revenue-sharing, TV contracts, advertising, limits on the local revenues a team can keep), that's great. If Richardson can't get enough local businesses to buy Jags tickets to avert a blackout, should he still be guaranteed a profit?

I never suggested that owners should be guaranteed profit. I simply wanted people to think and comment about owners profits compared to players incomes, because if and when the books are opened the players will comment and complain about the money certain owners are making. This is not a struggling industry, and revenue sharing assures all should profit. Granted, some will make a lot more than others due to higher unshared incomes, and that is how it should be. Clearly the players want to take away as much of the owners' profits as they can, but where does it become unreasonable? If top QBs will be making $20 M/year, what is reasonable for a good owner? When is he making so much that the players are being taken advantage of? I didn't expect to decide on an amount, I just wanted to stimulate a discussion about owners' profits

[rant]
It seems the owners are asking the players to subsidize their losses/investments (new stadiums, NFL Network, breaking into transPac/TransAtlantic markets) and telling the players the league can't afford to have a year in the red (or a year less in the black than usual). There are many companies who have to take a "bad year" because of their unrealized investments. Why not the NFL? Which defensive back told the league it had to start a cable network? Which pulling guard told Jerrah, "You know, that thing would be bad-ass if you just included a retractable cutout and elite clubs in the walkways between the field and lockerroom? Go for an extra $100 million. You're worth it."

The league is also putting the players on the hook for all their outreach to older players. When league officials say, "Player Costs are rising faster than income," "Player Costs" includes the increased pension payouts, new dementia programs, transporting collegians to the Combine and contract players to OTAs, and 1/3 of the medical tape in the trainer's room. By those definitions, yes, "Player Costs" increases will always exceed income increases (unless there's a worldwide downturn in medical tape costs). In fact, if the "Player Costs" are X percent higher than than the player income, then the difference is taken from the players' income.

In short, if the Player Costs amount exceeds that X percentage, then when the NFL announces its next retired players' initiative to huge PR acclaim, the entire percentage is going to be borne out of money that would go to the players (I would guess as postseason/rookie bonuses and the like). Granted, all of this has been agreed to by both parties in the CBA, so I hope the players don't feel too badly about it, but are aware.

I just don't like the impression that increased investment costs and increased "Player Costs" are the often portrayed as the fault of the players.

So, as much as some praise the long-term vision of the owners (like Mike Brown, who charges the players for free shoes) and plaintively explain how their brave risk-taking is making the league better, it seems they don't deserve to take any loss for their risks, be it stadium mortgages, broadcast-revenue-tied lines of credit, cable companies not wanting to carry NFL Network, or very good-intended health programs. These lions of industry supposedly knew what they were getting into and had the MBAs on staff/contract to advise them. As much as some posters write that they don't know of another industry where the company can't make a deal expressly to get less money for the benefit of squeezing out labor in a work stoppage, I don't know of a profitable company that asks its employees to give back money because it's not making as much profit as it expected to.

But then again, I'm far from a labor expert, and I like this topic because of all it's teaching me.
[/end rant]

So, to answer Patler's question, normally, I don't think privately-held companies opening the books to labor is necessary, and shouldn't be law. However, when the only thing that's being asked for from labor is 12.5% money back after multiple profitable years, I think that's a fair question for labor to ask. And if the owners and players can work out a new CBA without opening the books, that's great.

If the owners and players can work out a new CBA with a cap that's tied to a set dollar amount, rather than a percentage, that's great, too. It puts more risk/reward on the owners, which is how I think most of the board wants it. However, I don't think the players would accept either a fixed amount or percentage deal that starts out with 88 cents on the dollar, unless the league could explain in detail why it needs that money.

Well, either the players are "partners" with the owners or they aren't. They want to be paid like partners in sharing the wealth, but are less willing to be like partners when it requires an investment toward expansion/development.

In my opinion, the whole "partnership" scenario for determining the salary cap was doomed from the start, because the players have no say in the decisions for expansion and investment. If the league were to be run somewhat statically, it would work for a time. It may have worked well from the '70s through the early 2000's when the primary growth in revenue was from broadcast rights. But that is changing. Future growth will likely require investment. The players have to decide if they are partners in that, or not.

[bobblehead]

Were I a player rep (being a 34-year old, college-educated white male who follows the health-care industry doggedly), I'd have seriously considered their last offer when they threw in lifetime funded healthcare. I don't think that was a smart move on the league's part, but I'd have taken it.

.

You would have made a mistake. Forgoing money now for promises later. 10 years from now the NFL may declare bankruptcy as healthcare costs make them insolvent. NEVER take something promised later and lose something now.

[bobblehead]

I don't dispute your summary at all, but therein lies the real issue. The owners should not have to prove they need the money. Arguably, with the old CBA terminated, its the owners money. Maybe the players should have to prove that THEY need the money, otherwise the owners should get to keep it.

.

Your one problem here is that the NFL's setup is in anti trust violation without a union contract. Rookie draft, salary caps, limited FA....these are all violations unless you have an agreement with the union.

[Patler]

Your one problem here is that the NFL's setup is in anti trust violation without a union contract. Rookie draft, salary caps, limited FA....these are all violations unless you have an agreement with the union.

No, that's not a problem at all. My point was that the old CBA ended. The owners have nothing to prove under it. They could just as well take the position that they are negotiating a new CBA from a clean slate, and I honestly think they should.

[SkinBasket]

Your one problem here is that the NFL's setup is in anti trust violation without a union contract. Rookie draft, salary caps, limited FA....these are all violations unless you have an agreement with the union.

Maybe the NFL should become a private club, available to players through invitation only. Then they cans set whatever rules they want and the players can suck a fat cock or start their own socialist league that a few people around here are rooting for.

[sharpe1027]

Well, either the players are "partners" with the owners or they aren't. They want to be paid like partners in sharing the wealth, but are less willing to be like partners when it requires an investment toward expansion/development.

In my opinion, the whole "partnership" scenario for determining the salary cap was doomed from the start, because the players have no say in the decisions for expansion and investment. If the league were to be run somewhat statically, it would work for a time. It may have worked well from the '70s through the early 2000's when the primary growth in revenue was from broadcast rights. But that is changing. Future growth will likely require investment. The players have to decide if they are partners in that, or not.

I don't think the players need to decide if they are partners just because they get a percentage share of profits. The investment concern is an issue, but I don't think it's anywhere near as black and white as you make it sound. While the owners might make less return on their investment with the sharing model, they would still make a return on their investment. Sharing might result the owners being less willing to invest, but that might not be the worst thing since otherwise they would be more willing to take big risks.

In a normal business environment with a limited work force, the employee's wages would be implicitly tied to profits because different businesses would be competing for their services and would pay according to the possible return for getting good employees. The salary cap artificially keeps player's wages at a set level/percentage that all but guarantees that the owners can make a profit. In return, the players are asking that they get what they think is fair, and the owners strongly, and quite possibly correctly, disagree with what is fair. If, however, the owner's didn't have a salary cap, it is likely the players would make an even more than what they are asking for now and the amount they were paid would likely vary according to the success of the league.