ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?

[Lurker64]

Owners give up on right of first refusal. That's really the last major obstacle.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...usal-push.html

It was a silly thing to insist on anyway, since pretty much any of the free agents you're on good terms with would offer you a chance to match whatever offer they receive elsewhere.

[gbgary]

yup, ready!! our Packers were cheated a lot of attention they would have gotten had it not been for the lockout. ya know...that might end up being a good thing but lockout talk was/is boring as hell.

[Guiness]

I've seen reported in a few places that the players had some sort of lockout insurance, and this was a big ace in the hole for them.

It occurs to me that this is eerily similar to the lockout plans the owners made wrt making sure they had TV money coming in regardless. Would it not be the case that the players are also not bargaining in good faith if they were guaranteed money regardless?

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30629137

The threat that changed everything


Earlier I wrote on how the players made a threat that proved somewhat jarring to ownership and forced them to make concessions. Well, Sports Illustrated just reported what that threat was and it was a game changer.

The details I've heard are slightly different but the core facts are the same. The NFLPA had secured lockout insurance (there is such a thing?) for each player in the amount of $200,000 (one player told me the amount was $300,000) in the event the season was missed.

The union told the owners this late Wednesday night and, I'm told, it shook the owners. The next day, on Thursday, is when progress was made so quickly.

This is a huge deal and explains why the owners made concessions. While $200,000 or even $300,000 isn't a lot of cash to Peyton Manning, it is for most of the rank and file.

By playing this card, the players, at the last minute, outmaneuvered the owners. I'm told it completely stunned ownership.

Wow. Just wow,

This is the second biggest piece of news to only the fact a deal is all but done.

This was the players saying "checkmate."

[Lurker64]

I think the players saying "checkmate" is sort of hyperbole. The players may have been able to play the "oh, we all have lockout insurance, didn't you hear?" card to win the last few battles (notably the battle over the 5th year for top 10 picks in the rookie wage scale, and the "right of first refusal thing") but when the dust clears it will be clear that the Owners will have won the war.

The fact that the player's portion of the revenue will drop to 47-48% below the 50% line that the players said back in March that they were unwilling to cross, and that there's going to be a rookie wage scale at all means that, whatever battles the owners lost, in total they will have won the war.

[Smidgeon]

I've seen reported in a few places that the players had some sort of lockout insurance, and this was a big ace in the hole for them.

It occurs to me that this is eerily similar to the lockout plans the owners made wrt making sure they had TV money coming in regardless. Would it not be the case that the players are also not bargaining in good faith if they were guaranteed money regardless?

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports....64363/30629137

I've got some points to make against the likely validity of such claims, but I think Florio says it better:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/15/players-lockout-insurance-fund-may-have-broken-the-ice-on-thursday-or-not/

[Tarlam!]

I've seen reported in a few places that the players had some sort of lockout insurance, and this was a big ace in the hole for them.

It occurs to me that this is eerily similar to the lockout plans the owners made wrt making sure they had TV money coming in regardless. Would it not be the case that the players are also not bargaining in good faith if they were guaranteed money regardless?

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports....64363/30629137

Wow. That is clever, indeed. But, couldn't they have played that card in April?

[Harlan Huckleby]

The fact that the player's portion of the revenue will drop to 47-48% below the 50% line that the players said back in March that they were unwilling to cross, and that there's going to be a rookie wage scale at all means that, whatever battles the owners lost, in total they will have won the war.

I agree. The 50-50 split is a huge psychological barrier. The owners will be back trying to lower the players share at the next negotiation.

I'm surprised that the owners backed-off on the 18-game season so early and completely. Maybe it was just a bluff to get other concessions. An 18 game season would have hurt the league, the 16 game season is grueling enough for the players.

[pbmax]

I too get the sense that the owner's hold the field at the end of the day. But the exact percentage the players actually receive is going to take a while to calculate. There are still exclusions for certain costs (though it sounds like there are fewer than before), the cap is pegged through a different mechanism (and the adjustment for revenue above projection [true up] is different as well) and there is the new cash minimum.

So wait a year or two and the unhappy party will leak the true cost of the players and then we will know. It will also be fascinating to see if there are changes to supplemental revenue sharing. This agreement makes that less a necessity. Worst part of this deal is more Thursday football. But that was inevitable.

But all of that is sideshow compared to getting actual football back.

Though I have been enjoying Hope Solo and Alex Morgan.

[RashanGary]

59% to 48%. . .


That's a punch in the sack. I'd be curious if they added other streams of revenue to that total revenue pot because that seems like a big kick in the bag.

[RashanGary]

The owners original proposal was a billion off the top and the same split as before. Using 9bil, that's 4.72B to the players. Using the same 9B, 48% is 4.32B. So the owners actually ended up with a better deal than the originally offered by about 400,000/yr?

It looks that way at first glance. I'd be curious to see if any new revenue streams were added to the pot or if the owners are partly responsible for the legacy fund. . . . . . . It seems like an odd deal right now.

Whatever though, if it gets football back, I'm excited.

[pbmax]

59% to 48%. . .


That's a punch in the sack. I'd be curious if they added other streams of revenue to that total revenue pot because that seems like a big kick in the bag.

That's apples to oranges. 59% applied only to a subset of revenue. For most of the 2000s, the players averaged 50-52% of all revenue. It will take some time to get similar figures for comparison under the new deal.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The owners original proposal was a billion off the top and the same split as before. Using 9bil, that's 4.72B to the players. Using the same 9B, 48% is 4.32B. So the owners actually ended up with a better deal than the originally offered by about 400,000/yr?

It looks that way at first glance. I'd be curious to see if any new revenue streams were added to the pot or if the owners are partly responsible for the legacy fund. . . . . . . It seems like an odd deal right now.

Whatever though, if it gets football back, I'm excited.

Didn't they get a billion off the top before and then were asking for another billion off the top?

[bobblehead]

The way I have heard it, now they are getting a cut of total revenue before anything. This eliminates the funny book keeping aspect that they accused owners of.

[Lurker64]

Didn't they get a billion off the top before and then were asking for another billion off the top?

Yeah, the NFL was getting a billion off the top, and then the players were taking like 59.1% of what remained. The owners opening proposal was that the league would take 2 billion off the top and the players would get 59.1% of what remained. Obviously, this wasn't going to happen, but nobody ever expects to get what they ask for in their opening proposal. Every opening proposal is crafted as a pie-in-the-sky wishlist sort of thing, so you have room to move when you're negotiating.

[ThunderDan]

The owners original proposal was a billion off the top and the same split as before. Using 9bil, that's 4.72B to the players. Using the same 9B, 48% is 4.32B. So the owners actually ended up with a better deal than the originally offered by about 400,000/yr?

It looks that way at first glance. I'd be curious to see if any new revenue streams were added to the pot or if the owners are partly responsible for the legacy fund. . . . . . . It seems like an odd deal right now.

Whatever though, if it gets football back, I'm excited.

I think the issue was that players comp was going to be tied to current revenue and not readjusted once the new TV contracts were negotiated. The players agreed to the 48% and that allows them to "reep" the rewards of the new TV contract revenue being counted for the players.