the owners did their part :) Lets Play

[pbmax]

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

If the owners acted as Goodell advised Smith they would, then I agree. But if they undercut Goodell, then its trouble.

The owners could lift the lockout anytime but wouldn't, because the lockout was the impetus for all of this.

If we get to six months past the expiration of the deal (September I think) then the anti-trust case continues with the Appellate Courts concerns having been addressed.

Which means if there isn't an agreement before then, its back to court, lockout or no, if there is no CBA.

[vince]

The rev sharing structure guarantees that the small market teams can afford to pay the players at least up to the cash floor. That was what didn't work with the last agreement and the biggest reason the owners opted out in order to solve that problem with the low rev teams.

IMO, the players are way out of line if they think it's their right to dicate what the league does with revenues outside the immediate scope of player contracts.

[pbmax]

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.

The cap is. But new this time is a per team cash minimum per year. That cash minimum cannot, as a practical matter, be more than the low revenue teams can afford, unless the higher revenue clubs are looking to force relocation or ownership changes which, theoretically, could increase their own bottom lines.

This doesn't seem to have been the case, therefore, that cash minimum could have been higher.

[pbmax]

The rev sharing structure guarantees that the small market teams can afford to pay the players at least up to the cash floor. That was what didn't work with the last agreement and the biggest reason the owners opted out in order to solve that problem with the low rev teams.

IMO, the players are way out of line if they think it's their right to dicate what the league does with revenues outside the immediate scope of player contracts.

The last agreement had a salary cap floor. Which could be satisfied with dead money, not new cash spent.

So it affects the new agreement even more. And I don't think anyone is suggesting the players dictate anything. But knowing the plan ahead of time would have affected the calculus. It was a miscalculation by the players. Not to decide the revenue sharing proposal (they didn't last time) but to not have it known before agreeing to the revenue split.

[pbmax]

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

The owner's got back 3-4% of their revenue from the players compared to the last deal. There may be aspects of the deal that are good for the players, but there is less a percentage of revenue flowing to them. So I think "great deal" would not be the reaction of the players to less money.

Just look at the cap for this year: $120 million when 2 years ago is was $129. And that is after new television deals.

[pbmax]

Players conference call ends with no vote.

PFT calling it a power play, but still no reporting on whether Smith had agreed to this approach.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/nflpa-conference-call-ends-with-no-vote/

[pbmax]

Not good news.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/players-owners-tried-to-slip-items-into-cba/

Heath Evans and other player reps maintain the league has added items into their version of the CBA that were never negotiated or agreed to. Money quote from Mike Silver's Twitter:

Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports talked to an NFLPA* source who had a telling quote, when he said the NFL “will never learn” about backing players into a corner.

The real question is whether these items that weren't agreed to are negotiable in a few days time, or whether each side is dug in on them.

[gbgary]

Not good news.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/players-owners-tried-to-slip-items-into-cba/

Heath Evans and other player reps maintain the league has added items into their version of the CBA that were never negotiated or agreed to. Money quote from Mike Silver's Twitter:


The real question is whether these items that weren't agreed to are negotiable in a few days time, or whether each side is dug in on them.

they'll have to be or nothing will be finalized. the power-play was made by the owners by announcing this prematurely, unilaterally, and giving a deadline. the whole thing was a total surprise to the player's reps and players. goodell admitted he hadn't told/advised smith he was going to announce anything.

[pbmax]

Albert Breer says the players did not even have a copy of the owner's version of the CBA for the conference call. Would seem to point to this being an unexpected development.

But I am missing the public declaration of outrage from their leadership. Seems strange to only have internal email to go by.

[vince]

The last agreement had a salary cap floor. Which could be satisfied with dead money, not new cash spent.

So it affects the new agreement even more. And I don't think anyone is suggesting the players dictate anything. But knowing the plan ahead of time would have affected the calculus. It was a miscalculation by the players. Not to decide the revenue sharing proposal (they didn't last time) but to not have it known before agreeing to the revenue split.

The owners theoretically could choose to hurt the league and cause the financial demise of some teams, but eliminating a fair revenue sharing model has never been a realistic possibility and would never get the votes necessary to pass. Even if they chose to do that, it's not the players right to dictate or even know what the league and owners do with their portion of the revenue. They're paid to play, not secure the league. That's the league's job alone and they've done quite well at it thus far.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It sounds like the HOF game will be canceled. Big Whup. I don't mind if training camp starts later next week.

[pbmax]

Two separate trains of thought about Supplemental Revenue Sharing:

1. The players, by the letter of the agreement are entitled to a fair accounting of all league revenues and certain costs. But its plain obvious that one restraining factor in any agreement with 32 separate teams is what the least of them can afford. So it has a definite impact. I am not suggesting the lawyers hold out for the agreement itself to be subject to the CBA, that would be lunacy and they don't do it with TV contracts and sponsorships, etc. But its also plain as day the NFLPA* should have pushed the issue forward in their agenda so that they were negotiating against a number that would not change after an agreement was struck.

2. Local revenue sharing, which is the largest portion of the Supplemental Revenue Sharing plan that they just renewed might in the end cost the League money. I think there is a good case that could be made that the League has several under performing teams that would benefit from new ownership, relocation or taking advantage of new revenue streams. Moving Jacksonville and Buffalo to LA would increase revenue in TV deals alone, not to mention local revenue.

Indeed, one of the longest running criticisms of the NFL was that because of (at the time it was mainly TV revenue sharing) revenue sharing, teams that were simply incompetent could continue to exist in the NFL because of the enormous television fees.

Now its plain why the NFLPA wanted it to be required by the last CBA, because the fastest growing streams of revenue were from local sources and not all teams were benefiting. If the NFLPA was to secure a better deal for its players than 56% of Gross Adjusted Revenue, it needed the NFL to increase dollars flowing to smaller market teams. Because in the short term, those teams vote and the theoretical new ownerships do not.

But in the long run, being in Jacksonville, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Minnesota (it shouldn't be in this list but it is) costs everyone money.

[Brandon494]

Haha I find it hilarious how some are still blaming the players for this.

[SkinBasket]

Haha I find it hilarious how some are still blaming the players for this.

What's so funny?

The owners would not have gone through the trouble of drafting and voting on something that Smith didn't agree to. It would be a waste of time. Looks more like other have pointed out: the players think they can dictate every aspect of the new CBA and are now playing the part of the incredulous victim child when they find out the league has to figure out the adult stuff that only has a tangential relation to the players. That's the problem with working with a mob of functional retards who've had their asses wiped for them their entire lives.

[Patler]

I fail to see that the owners did anything wrong by doing what they did.
I fail to see that their agreement on revenue sharing is any significant concern of the players (sorry PB, we disagree here).

Basically, the owners have reached a point of saying this is the best they are willing to do to save a full season. It's now up to the players to decide if it is enough for them or not. If it's not, then potentially the whole thing goes back to the drawing board. As more and more of the season is jeopardized over the details of the CBA, I suspect the owners may become less and less agreeable to change, and may even pull back on some things tentatively agreed to.

On the other hand, sometimes agreements are reached and the "sell" to the membership is the hardest part. The negotiators form both sides may have agreed this was the best way for some reason we are not privy to.