ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?

[Lurker64]

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.

I think the looming new TV contracts are a large part of what made the owners want to change the formula. Since if the total league revenue (X) gets high enough .5X > (.4(X-$1b)+$1b). You want your part of the pie to grow with the factor of .5 not the factor of .4

[Patler]

Both sides will spin the information to make it look like they "won". There is lots of misinformation being put out as well. I, for one, do not believe that overall league revenue for for 2011 will be less than it was in 2009; yet reports are that the salary cap for 2011 will be the same as or slightly less than 2009. That seems to indicate that the owners are getting a bigger piece of the pie, which was their key issue. On the other hand, the players may have realized it was necessary, and may feel satisfied with having limited the size of the giveback. It could be a "win" for both sides.

If this is in fact a good settlement, both sides will feel like they did "OK" on the most important issues to them, and "lost" on some others of lesser importance. If either side feels they have "lost" more than they have "won" in reaching the new deal, it may not last.

As for the 18 game schedule - I read a very interesting article that said inside info from the Union was that the Union leadership too is very much in favor of it as a long term issue because it will increase revenue considerably. The pie will get much larger. But, it was not an easy sell to the rank and file players right now who look at it as more work for not a lot more pay. It needs to sit for a while so details can be worked out, like adjustments to existing contracts, roster sizes, possible changes to IR rules, etc. The league was happy to agree with that and took it off the table quickly. Looks like a union "win" right now, but actually both sides are working to the same goal, an 18 game schedule. The article said to expect it as a fleshed out proposal without strong Union opposition in about 3 years.

[RashanGary]

I was surprised the 18 games came off so quickly. There is a demand for more football. Fans love it. Even though they sit here and say they won't watch 18 games, I guarantee we ALL would. The owners know it, I guarantee every singe one of them would bet on it.

Yeah, Arod, Jennings, Mathews, Raji, Wood, Collins, Twil and the bunch line up on Sunday and HarveyWallbangers, JustinHarrell and Bretsky tune into baseball. . . . I doubt it. I like my baseball as much as the next guy, but if football is on, if the Packers are playing in Lambeau. . . I'm watching. That's just a fact.

As far as business men go, only an idiot wouldn't want more money.



With the cap going down to 120M, I think the players have taken some of their money and put it toward the retired players benefits fund. That can't be cheap. And I think they probably took a small cut. I don't doubt the league had rising expenses, rising faster than revenue even. NHL, NBA, NFL. . . . Even MLB, since the older deals of Arod and Jeter a while back, they haven't had record breakers. That was what? 5 years ago. 5 years go by without anyone breaking those deals. . . .

It seems like at the end of the day reason prevailed. I don't think anyone got bent over the barrel here. The NFL is still a big time money maker and everyone seems to be cashing in. Anyone who's talked about this, I've always said. . . 9B guarantees this gets done.

[red]

this might not be over just year. PFT is saying that the players are making a last minute power mover and trying to get back all the money they lost in the uncapped year (like 250 to 300 million)

assholes

[Patler]

Interesting issue is that the retired players may have significant control here. They have not been part of the contract negotiations but have been joined to the lawsuits. Some are saying that withdrawal of the lawsuits is a key component to the CBA resolution. Withdrawal of the lawsuits will not occur without the assent of the retired players, since they are parties. If they aren't happy with what the new CBA gives them, they could withhold their assent to the withdrawal of the lawsuits and hold up the entire settlement.

In a way, I think that would be kind of OK.... I don't think they will be greedy, and I think they have an understanding of what's fair.


NOTE: Per the discussion below, I very well could be wrong about their actual joinder, in which case their only leverage is resolution of their separately pending suit(s).

[pbmax]

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.

I think the looming new TV contracts are a large part of what made the owners want to change the formula. Since if the total league revenue (X) gets high enough .5X > (.4(X-$1b)+$1b). You want your part of the pie to grow with the factor of .5 not the factor of .4

The new cap calculating mechanism is pegging the cap to expected revenue in advance of knowing actual revenue. Previously, I think it was calculated year by year in the offseason with a reasonable idea of what revenue would be for the following year. Its unclear whether all 10 years (proposed) have been (or will be) calculated or if there is an alternate schedule.

The debate then began over how to reconcile actual revenue to the cap, which they referred to as true up. The exact mechanism is unknown to me except there is a bare minimum figure that player compensation cannot fall below in actual realized revenues.

[pbmax]

As for the 18 game schedule - I read a very interesting article that said inside info from the Union was that the Union leadership too is very much in favor of it as a long term issue because it will increase revenue considerably. The pie will get much larger. But, it was not an easy sell to the rank and file players right now who look at it as more work for not a lot more pay. It needs to sit for a while so details can be worked out, like adjustments to existing contracts, roster sizes, possible changes to IR rules, etc. The league was happy to agree with that and took it off the table quickly. Looks like a union "win" right now, but actually both sides are working to the same goal, an 18 game schedule. The article said to expect it as a fleshed out proposal without strong Union opposition in about 3 years.

I haven't read that about the NFLPA* leadership, but public player comments (not just from those attending negotiations) have run against the idea. The owners have been said to give up the idea entirely this time, but it will be interesting to see if there is the same language from the previous CBA that allowed 22 games. The owner's didn't invoke it, as they could have, unilaterally, but its time may come again. The fact that the idea was abandoned so fast when the letter of the contract was on their side makes me feel like this was a chip to throw in during negotiations.

And it might still get played depending on the language.

[pbmax]

Interesting issue is that the retired players may have significant control here. They have not been part of the contract negotiations but have been joined to the lawsuits. Some are saying that withdrawal of the lawsuits is a key component to the CBA resolution. Withdrawal of the lawsuits will not occur without the assent of the retired players, since they are parties. If they aren't happy with what the new CBA gives them, they could withhold their assent to the withdrawal of the lawsuits and hold up the entire settlement.

In a way, I think that would be kind of OK.... I don't think they will be greedy, and I think they have an understanding of what's fair.

Have they been joined? I thought that was yet to be determined? I know that was their goal, to force both sides to include them in negotiations, but that hasn't happened yet. With Kevin Mawae and Mike Vrabel on the NFLPA* exec committees (Vrabel retired, Mawae possibly close), that argument doesn't have as much weight as it did a few months ago.

[pbmax]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/05/retired-players-make-power-play/

The retired players who filed the initial suit against the NFL filed a new suit against the players and de Smith around the 4th of July. I can't find any action that the courts have taken on either case.

[Patler]

Have they been joined?

I guess I don't know for sure. I thought they had been, but I might be wrong. Maybe I'm just remembering when they filed the petition to be joined.

[Joemailman]

Players will not be taking a vote today. I'm having a hard time figuring out if it's because a deal is not quite in place, or if there is a deal that the NFLPA now needs to sell to its rank and file.

[MJZiggy]

I thought they weren't supposed to vote until tomorrow.

[Joemailman]

Owners weren't supposed to vote until tomorrow. It was hoped the players would vote today.

[Smidgeon]

What's this where the players want money they didn't get in benefits in the uncapped year? How is that "owed" to them? It wasn't a part of the last CBA and it apparently isn't a part of the newly proposed one...

[pbmax]

Much of the reporting is confused and incomplete, but the most consistent version seems to be that the players were presented with basically two items: a settlement of the anti-trust case and the tentative CBA. One piece of info (Trotter of SI I think and another I have forgotten[Freeman from CBS maybe?]) seems to be that the 32 player reps gave Smith a tentative green light on the settlement and have questions that need to be answered about the CBA.

If true, it makes some sense. The league will not lift the lockout if the anti-trust case is looming over their heads but might if the CBA is close to done to terms they can live with.

Its possible that in this scenario, then, that Jackson and Mankins are really the roadblocks (the new version is that neither is seeking FA, but both are seeking $10 million) but nothing is clear and I can't see how the ink is dry on the settlement of the suit but that both players are still holding out on the deal. You think someone would have asked them before setting the lawyers to work on the draft.