the owners did their part :) Lets Play

[pbmax]

Mortenson and Florio both have sources that a vote is expected today. Its not clear how Mort squares the uncertainty of last night to a vote today's vote, but Florio paints it as incomplete information. While the player reps in DC had the details (otherwise those two emails couldn't have been sent), other players giving quotes, Tweets and source material couldn't have had the proposal to look at.

Florio's source is supposedly a high ranking someone in the NFLPA*.

[pbmax]

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.

OK. [edit: after a re-red of Patler]

Supplemental revenue sharing is different from national contract revenue sharing because it affects teams differently. Each team receives the exact same share of TV revenue, but the supplemental funds affect teams differently. If I was a player, I would want to know it because it would help set the floor for salaries. Is it significant? I think so. But its not at the top of the list. Total revenue is still more important. The flip side is that owner's whose teams contribute probably feel that its a cost and diminishes their operating funds. They clearly want to know what the agreement will be so they can get a manageable top end.

However, I don't think that revenue sharing is the basis of the complaints last night. Its mentioned in Smith's email explaining what the owners voted on and he dismisses it as something they weren't engaged on.

And that has been the case the entire negotiation, as several observers have wondered why the players never seemed to ask about the supplemental revenue sharing plan. So while having one suddenly was confusing, it isn't a point of contention in either Smith's nor Berthelsen's emails to players last night.

The complaints last night were something about the CBA, not a supp. revenue sharing plan that the players themselves weren't interested in.

[pbmax]

I think Patler is spot on in at least one respect, we have not seen the sell job yet to the players.

[vince]

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.

Regardless of how much money the lowest revenue teams do or do not cost the league, players, fans and all the other stakeholders in this game - the players have no authority whatsoever to be involved in any way in the decisions affecting total revenue and/or how the league owners divy up their share of the revenue. They're called owners for a reason.

EDIT: didn't see your response PB. Smith brought up the supplemental plan as another "reason" in the NFLPA's weak meme as to why the owners were hoodwinking the players at the last hour. That includes accusations of sneaking things into their agreement and the inherently confilcting argument that they didn't know the details of the agreement. Take your pick as to what the NFLPA's problem was. They were making a power play. If/when De Smith recommends the deal to the players and takes a vote - it will pass easily.

[vince]

If I was a player, I would want to know it because it would help set the floor for salaries.

As a player, you have no right to know. You are guaranteed by the CBA to be treated equally in terms of available money regardless of what team you play on.

[pbmax]

Actually vince they are involved in decisions about revenue, and that language was in the last CBA and I expect the same language will be in this CBA. Each side makes a contractual promise to do everything it can to maximize revenues. Its the basis for the league losing round 1 of the TV lockout lawsuit and its the reason the players sign over their likeness rights to the league while they are active for marketing and merchandising opportunities.

But as your edit might reflect, that is not my point about supplemental revenue sharing. The players SHOULD have cared that a deal was in place and it would have been beneficial to know the rough outlines. But they never expressed any desire to find out anything about it.

As for Smith and displeasure over the Supp Revenue Sharing plan, the only place I have seen his reaction is a Twitter version of his email that Jim Trotter put out after the owner's vote. It said:

2) As u may have heard, they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obly, we hv not bn a part of those discussions.

which sounds to me like an explanation of what the owners did, but not a concern. If you saw something else about his reaction, I would like to read it if you know where you found it.

[pbmax]

As a player, you have no right to know. You are guaranteed by the CBA to be treated equally in terms of available money regardless of what team you play on.

I agree vince. But I am not talking about a "right" to know. I am talking about a negotiation, and what events happen first, second, etc.

[vince]

I'm hearing you pb. I apologize if I was terse or offensive or misinterpreted what you were saying. I often just type and send without editing enough.

[vince]

Here's a good summary from Andrew Brandt.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/We-have-a-proposed-deal.html

We have a (proposed) deal.

We have a proposed NFL deal and re-opening of football, although labor pains have not ceased. Commissioner Goodell and NFL Owners announced a new ten-year collective bargaining agreement (CBA) – with no opt-outs – with the Players. However, in a day of twists and turns that is a microcosm of the problems of trust and communication in this long-running dispute, the Players did not reciprocate.

Pending approval by the Players, let’s take a look at some of the key terms, with instant analysis of deal points that may be in place for the next decade:



ICONOwners like Richardson were intent on changing the revenue split.

Revenue Split

Unlike the previous CBA – where $1 billion was skimmed off the top for credits and set-offs – the new revenue model will be based upon all revenue, beginning with an accounting after this season. Owners will receive approximately 52% and Players 48%, with true-up provisions for Owners to have a higher percentage in the event of certain revenue targets, and downside protection with a requirement that their ten-year to not dip below 47%.

In 2012, Players will receive:
• 55% of national media revenue
• 45% of NFL Ventures revenue
• 40% of local team revenue

Also, owners that spend on actual stadium investment will receive a credit of up to 1.5% of revenue each year.

Analysis: The Owners will have forged the change in the system they were seeking, albeit more limited than they had hoped. Coming off a net revenue share of 50/50, Owners were determined for change, initially offering $1 billion less. The final deal will result in approximately $200 million in positive change for them, with the numbers growing in the future.

This was the Owners’ top priority and they were able to extract significant monies, as well as a credit for stadium spending.

Salary Cap

Owners have agreed to a 2011 Salary Cap of $120.375 million with increases depending on the share of revenues each year.

Analysis: The amount allocated to salary and bonus money in the last capped year – 2009 – was $123 million (plus a $5 million one-time credit). While the number looks $3 million per team less than 2009, the Players have a $3 million “credit” this year to borrow against the future. In that sense, the Cap remains flat from the last capped year. With Owners desiring a different model, the Players were able to hold the line at roughly the same level as the last year of a Cap.

There is also $22 million of benefits – money taken out of negotiable dollars – including the Minimum Salary Benefit (allowing older players to be paid a higher cash number with a lower Cap number) and the all-important Player Performance Benefit, rewarding low salary players who log significant playing time.

Cash Minimum (Guaranteed Spend)

In 2011 and 2012, there is league-wide commitment to cash spending of 99% of the Cap.

In 2013-16 and 2017-20, this number drops to 95%. Also during these years, each team must commit to cash spending of 89% of the Salary Cap.

Analysis: This is perhaps the most player-friendly aspect of this deal. Previously there were Cap minimums but not cash minimums, requiring teams to collectively spend hard cash to the level of the Cap. To put it simply, this will require more spending on players. Teams will not be able to free-ride their way to Cap minimums only.

Minimum Salaries

First-year minimum salary will go from $320,000 to $375,000; second year minimum salary will rise from $395,000 to $450,000. In fact, all minimum salary levels have gone up $55,000 from 2010 levels. The minimums will rise $15,000 per year from there.

Analysis: Approximately half of the Players in the league are playing under minimum salaries. These are healthy increases. This may be the unsung hero issue of the deal.

Rookie Compensation

All drafted rookies will sign four-year deals; all undrafted rookies can sign three-year deals.

For top ten picks in the Draft, Owners agreed to fifth-year options at an average of the top 10 veteran salaries at a player’s respective position. Players selected 11-32 will be paid an average of the top 3-25 salaries at a player’s respective position.

There will also be what is described as “anti-holdout” provisions.

Analysis: We have known for two years that rookies at the top of the Draft would be the sacrificial lambs of this deal, and they are. Beyond that, rookies in rounds 2-7 will not be affected much.

I am also told that these contracts will be far simpler than in the past, likely meaning that there will be limited and restricted use of escalators and “one-time” incentives that allowed rookies a “second rookie pool” that took advantage of the system.

Reduced contact

The future offseasons may look more like this locked-out offseason than previous ones. Offseason workout programs, OTAs and time at the facility will all be curtailed compared to the past. And training camp will feature less padded practices and contact.

Analysis: Players pushed for less hitting and reduced offseason work. They got it. Although coaches and evaluators will not like the limited time they see the players before August, this was an easy "give" by the Owners, especially with the focus on health and safety.


18-Game Schedule

This was a deal breaker for the Players, especially in light of an uptick in concussions. The proposed agreement delays an enhanced season until at least 2013, where the addition of any extra games must be approved by the NFLPA.

Analysis: This was a priority issue for the Players, especially in light of the brutality of the game and the increased numbers on the injured reserve list. There appears to be an opening for the future, however, with the right compensation to the players.

Supplemental Revenue Sharing

Although the NFL may unilaterally implement revenue sharing mechanisms, the Players feel as though this was sprung on them last minute.

Though this is an owner-to-owner issue, the key is for the Players is to ensure that there is language included that mandates teams to commit their revenue sharing funds on player spending. A revenue sharing system with no earmarks on where to spend has little meaning to Players.

Recertification

This has become a highly divisive issue. In order to recertify, 50% + 1 of the players must vote in favor of reconstituting the union.

Owners want this vote to take place electronically so that Players can quickly agree to the proposed CBA. Players would rather proceed cautiously and know if they recertify too quickly, it can be used against them in the future.

Further, Players are agitated by what they feel is coercion on the part of Owners dictating the terms of recertification, alleging that this pressure violates federal labor laws.

Lingering Issues

Certain issues which remain – workers’ compensation, disability, benefits, personal conduct policy, drug testing – must be collectively bargained. This means that final resolution of these issues cannot occur until the NFLPA recertifies.

Additionally, the Players had specifically requested an opt-out clause at the 7-year mark. The Owners' proposed agreement contained no such provision.

At the end of the day, despite the momentary hysteria of the evening, hope still floats. The contractions have arrived; the baby will be here soon.

[vince]

The divisive issue is how to recertify. Really? It's hard to blame the owners for pushing for the deadlines to play the HoF game. The game is meaningless, but the price NBC would have paid to televise the game isn't. Since the players have squashed that potential revenue over recertification adminstration, there's now some time.

[Brandon494]

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.

Haha I give it to the owners by making a power move. They knew the media would make the players look like the bad guys and people like you would eat it up.

[Zool]

Haha I give it to the owners by making a power move. They knew the media would make the players look like the bad guys and people like you would eat it up.

You mean white guys?

[smuggler]

Double burn. I see both sides of the fence on that one, but you should probably phrase things differently, B494.

The owners put the pressure on the players, which would have happened with or without media involvement, but there are those who will definitely take the news as fuel for their platform. The thing is, people who are pro leadership/management or pro talent/labor will always try to cherry-pick to support their platform. Which, by the way, is why your last comment smacks the wrong way.

[vince]

The owners are done negotiating, according to Mark Murphy. I think De better get this thing to a vote before it turns really ugly for him.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110721/PKR01/110721144/Green-Bay-Packers-president-Mark-Murphy-says-NFL-owners-done-negotiating

“We’ve put our pens down,” Murphy said. “We’ve negotiated in good faith with the union. We’ve reached an agreement on all the key points.

“They know what we ratified and they’re voting to ratify the same thing.”

[MJZiggy]

The owners are done negotiating, according to Mark Murphy. I think De better get this thing to a vote before it turns really ugly for him.

http://packersnews.greenbaypressgaze...ne-negotiating

I kind of agree with this. Give the players the full information and let it go to a vote. If it fails, then you can figure out what the players thought was wrong with it, but everyone needs to shut up until then. Especially those with law degrees.