the owners did their part :) Lets Play

[vince]

...about NFL network supposedly bashing the owners

I've been watching NFLN and that's not my perception at all. They've been balanced and have expressed ample consternation over the chaos on the players' side at this stage of the game. I agree with PB except to say that it's the players are being led astray by the lawyers IMO. The owners have their shit together.

[red]

question?

could the owners have just decided to say "fuck the players union"?

it sure sounds like the owners are done and ready to get things rolling. can the owners move on without a players union? could this end up as a free for all?

[red]

I've been watching NFLN and that's not my perception at all. They've been balanced and have expressed ample consternation over the chaos on the players' side at this stage of the game. I agree with PB except to say that it's the players are being led astray by the lawyers IMO. The owners have their shit together.

i get that feeling too. the owners are a bunch of businessmen who know they're shit, and have lawyers that know theirs. most football players aren't the smartest guys in the world, and their reps lack smarts and knowledge of how to do this.

players side seems like a complete cluster fuck

[gbgary]

I've been watching NFLN and that's not my perception at all. They've been balanced and have expressed ample consternation over the chaos on the players' side. I agree with PB except to say that it's the players are being led astray by the lawyers IMO. The owners have their shit together.

nfl network IS the league/owners. take a look at espn for a couple of hours. they don't have a dog in this fight. sal pal, mort, john clayton and all the other reporters are saying what's really happening.

[pbmax]

smith and goodell have been working on the thing all day, i thought thats what the owners agreed on? it seems to me like the players are pissed because smith negotiated some things without asking or telling all the players what he was doing.

isn't that why you hired de smith in the first place?

what a mess, you're right. lawers run amok, fucking up a game they don't care about for their own glory.

you can kiss goodbye to the first week of preseason games

Well, they have been working for weeks, the question is how much of the plan approved came as a surprise to the NFLPA* leadership. If the move to approve a CBA surprised Smith, the NFL might have played too big a hand and forced a standoff.

If Smith failed to disclose that move was coming (or that certain provisions had been agreed to) then he is in serious trouble. But that is a huge mistake to make, almost incomprehensible.

[Tony Oday]

nfl network IS the league/owners. take a look at espn for a couple of hours. they don't have a dog in this fight. sal pal, mort, john clayton and all the other reporters are saying what's really happening.

ESPN has a ton of skin in the game...think their viewership won't go down without Football?

[red]

can the owners lift the lockout allowing players to show up and work out without the players agreeing to this thing?

listening to goodells interview he said that the owners have agreed to the proposal that was worked out and agreed to earlier in the day with the union. he then said that they owners have also come to a agreement on revenue sharing. he makes it sound like to completely different things that the players have nothing to do with.

he also says flat out the him and smith agreed on the proposal. he took that to the owners and they liked it. but the players are balking

i can't see how this isn't anything but the players fault

[pbmax]

How the teams split their share of revenues should not need to be negotiated with the players IMO.

As a practical matter, it has a huge effect. It effects the salaries that the lowest revenue teams can afford. While the players can't dictate the terms, a good case can be made that a decision about it would have made negotiating player costs for the league easier.

[vince]

nfl network IS the league/owners. take a look at espn for a couple of hours. they don't have a dog in this fight. sal pal, mort, john clayton and all the other reporters are saying what's really happening.

same stuff on espn. This is a power play by the NFLPA attorneys.

Item still outstanding according to Mort - workman's comp - players want to file in California rather than the state in which they were injured. What a joke.

[red]

wingo is right, looking at the details, this is a great deal for the players. the owners gave up a lot in the end. it sure looks like the players won big. but its not good enough for them

[vince]

As a practical matter, it has a huge effect. It effects the salaries that the lowest revenue teams can afford. While the players can't dictate the terms, a good case can be made that a decision about it would have made negotiating player costs for the league easier.

Negative. The owners have agreed in the CBA to a cap floor that they MUST spend on players each year. That was properly negotiated. How revs are split up doesn't change the cap ceiling or floor.

[pbmax]

haven't the players been putting off a vote for awhile now? they're the ones stalling. smith and goodell came up with something they both liked. the owners jumped on it to get things going. i'm guessing the owners had a certain zone that they were comfortable accepting. when goodell got they, they said good enough. i'm sure smith and the union had the same type of zone. smith probably got it, but all they players want time to go through everything. one lawyer even wants to send out by snail mail, union cards to be signed so the union can recertified. lawyers and played are dragging this out.

REMEMBER, the players were originally trying to get rid of some preseason games, and also cut offseason workouts and training camp. this could be a way for them to get rid of that.

NFLN is going over dates right now. WE have our first regular season game in 49 days. christ, what a joke

If reports are to be believed, there are still outstanding issues that had yet to be negotiated in the CBA. Remember that the NFL instructions said if the new terms aren't approved, the old rules on the remaining subjects go into affect. That would seem to make it clear that changes they agreed to (revenue split) are in this deal, but other items have not been finalized. Absent other info, it looks like a power play.

[pbmax]

Negative. The owners have agreed in the CBA to a cap floor that they MUST spend on players each year. That was properly negotiated. How revs are split up doesn't change the cap ceiling or floor.

The floor is now a cash minimum. And supplemental revenue sharing DIRECTLY affects the amount low revenue teams can afford to dish out yearly. Its plain as day.

[pbmax]

absolutely vince. why are these not two completely separate deals. one between the owners and the players, and one between the teams how how to share their money.

They are two separate deals this time around. And it makes little sense from the players perspective. How else can you determine the amount of salary the lowest revenue clubs can afford if you don't have a solid idea of their actual revenue? Especially if it changes substantially, which Wayne Weaver has seemed to indicate that it did.

[red]

They are two separate deals this time around. And it makes little sense from the players perspective. How else can you determine the amount of salary the lowest revenue clubs can afford if you don't have a solid idea of their actual revenue? Especially if it changes substantially, which Wayne Weaver has seemed to indicate that it did.

i was under the impression that the cap wasn't based on what the lowest earning team could afford. it is based on total revenue taken in by the whole league.