the owners did their part :) Lets Play

[pbmax]

Vincent Jackson reported by Schefter to have been herded into line. No longer demanding FA or $10 mil. One item down...

[vince]

I stand (partially) corrected. While I can certainly see how the players would want a number of these things, the fact that the owners may not agree with them doesn't mean they've been slipped in or that the players didn't know the owners' positions.

A number of those issues, including the anti-trust litigation have been agreed to be dropped pending the CBA agreement, so they're only open from the standpoint of not being legally resolved yet.

The $320 million was part of the last agreement and was collectively bargained out of the the last deal as part of the owners' opt-out clause, so the players are not going to get that money and that's been addressed. Again, just because they want the money, have no legal or contractual basis for it and owners don't agree to it doesn't mean it's been "slipped in."

Other items listed here the owners simply won't agree to, so the players need to vote the agreement up or down based on that.

As Mark Murphy said, the owners have put down their pens and the players need to vote the CBA up or down.

[vince]

Given that the League has agreed to indemnify the NFLPA* against charges that it is still a union while it negotiates, somehow I doubt the trade association status would really prevent either side from negotiating over these terms. Finalizing them or signing off on them may be a different matter, but I'd be stunned if they had not been discussed. They could be open items because of the status question or from a failure to agree, but I doubt its from a lack of opportunity to negotiate.

Agreed but these issues should not keep the CBA from being voted on or the uniion from recertifying. They're not "open" issues related to the CBA at all.

[MJZiggy]

When in doubt, the snap count is always one. You may look dumb, but not as dumb as the one guy on the entire field who waits to move.

Maybe not when you're the center. No one goes anywhere until you do.

[vince]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/seven-year-opt-out-isnt-necessary-or-helpful/

Seven-year opt out isn’t necessary, or helpful

Posted by Mike Florio on July 23, 2011, 11:39 AM EDT

As best we can tell, there are two primary issues that need to be resolved before the labor deal can be worked out. First, the league and the players need to figure out how best to reconstitute the union. Second, the league and the players need to agree on the length of the deal.

On the latter point, the league has approved a deal that covers a firm 10 years. The players want the ability to cancel the contract after seven years.

Moments ago, a league source who best can be described as the closest thing to neutral in this process (if anything, the source is positioned to be more aligned with the players’ interests) explained why the deal should cover a full and firm 10 years, with no opt out for either side.

First, if revenue continues to grow, the deal will never be bad for the players. NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has pushed the owners from wanting to pay the players 40 cents of every dollar earned up to 48 cents per dollar. Though 49ers linebacker and team player representative Takeo Spikes said Friday on ESPN that inflation could be a factor down the road, inflation never will be a factor when the players are getting paid on the gross revenue generated by the owners, who will necessarily adjust prices to reflect inflation, since the owners are getting the other 52 cents of each dollar.

Second, if the revenue shrinks, it won’t matter whether the players aren’t happy with the deal. They’d still be paid on the gross, and the league wouldn’t be likely to give the players a bigger piece of an unexpectedly shrinking pie.

Third, the upside will be better if the league can sell long-term labor peace to the networks. The source of big money over the next decade will be TV contracts, and the folks who’ll decide how much to pay for the privilege of broadcasting NFL games will be more comfortable with the notion of locking in at huge numbers if the dark clouds of labor unrest can’t return until 2021, at the earliest.

And so the players who are pushing for the opt out need to ask themselves a frank and candid question: Am I doing this simply because I don’t like the fact that the owners opted out of the last deal, and I want to have the ability to make them worry about whether we will do it, too?

If the TV money weren’t potentially going to be impacted by the potential uncertainty, the best move would be for the league to agree to the opt out, confident that the players won’t. But with the networks looking for long-term peace in order to break out long-term billions, this needs to be a 10-year deal, with no opt out.

If that means the players need to take a little more time to figure things out, so be it. But with this being the only truly substantive point left, they need to do it soon. At some point, here’s hoping that the players will decide that 10 years makes sense for everyone.

[pbmax]

I stand (partially) corrected. While I can certainly see how the players would want a number of these things, the fact that the owners may not agree with them doesn't mean they've been slipped in or that the players didn't know the owners' positions.

A number of those issues, including the anti-trust litigation have been agreed to be dropped pending the CBA agreement, so they're only open from the standpoint of not being legally resolved yet.

The $320 million was part of the last agreement and was collectively bargained out of the the last deal as part of the owners' opt-out clause, so the players are not going to get that money and that's been addressed. Again, just because they want the money, have no legal or contractual basis for it and owners don't agree to it doesn't mean it's been "slipped in."

Other items listed here the owners simply won't agree to, so the players need to vote the agreement up or down based on that.

As Mark Murphy said, the owners have put down their pens and the players need to vote the CBA up or down.

He did say that but if the parties still, apparently, don't have solid, agreed to language about the cash minimum, the per team amount and the overall league minimum (and presumably the mechanism to account for the number that fall outside acceptable parameters) means there are still substantial areas that are not yet done. So to say the League has their pens down is misleading, unless an agreement on that issue happened after these notes were taken. There is a clear disconnect here, though it may simply be a matter semantics and degree in the end.

The anti-trust legislation settlement has been agreed to now that Jackson has stepped into line (presumably its the CBA that stands as that settlement), but that wasn't the case Wednesday night apparently with Jackson (possibly others) refusing to go along. And we have no idea what the parties have agreed to for settlement of the TV lockout insurance case. The players will receive something for it, as revenue was not maximized in 2009 and '10 because of it. You can maintain that it won't be the benefit money, but if the settlement is for $293 million, does the distinction really make a difference?

[Harlan Huckleby]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal.

I was most interested in the analysis given in the series of videos on that page. I don't know enough detail to argue about DeMaurice Smith's specific claim. See PBMax's posts if you are interested in pesky facts, facts are outside my purview.

To plagarize a sentence from the Wash Post: The owners acted as if their proposal was some kind of grand concession, and claimed the players would be reneging on a handshake if they refused to endorse it in the next 24 hours, thus shifting any blame for a failed deal.

Whether you want to characterize the owners' ploy as bargaining in bad faith, or just hard bargaining, I think they were foolish to risk alienating their partners.

[pbmax]

First, if revenue continues to grow, the deal will never be bad for the players. NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith has pushed the owners from wanting to pay the players 40 cents of every dollar earned up to 48 cents per dollar.

This quote from Florio's piece kills me. Previously, the players received between 50 and 52% of revenue each year, and that revenue grew every year except one that we are aware of (previous published numbers ran from 2000 or 2001 to 2009 I think).

However, according to this player friendly league source, 48% of the growing pie cannot be a bad deal. Somehow I don't think he has captured the players feelings on this issue. For a man who initially caught my attention for his ability to detail the important items in player contracts, Florio seems lost when it comes to dollars and economic issues. *

Now, theoretically, the 2-4% difference could be the magical game reinvestment that Goodell and Co. were talking about after the economic issues they initially raised fell away. But this agreement doesn't cover how that will be spent and its not clear at all (and may never be) that it will result in growth far enough beyond the previous rate that will make up the difference in total dollars. It might, it might not.

The inflation thing is a red herring unless there are still significant cost hold backs from the Total Revenue dollar amount.

But the biggest question of all is how much the players end up receiving every year. It will be more than a year before that number is in. It might 48%, but odds are that there is enough wiggle room and variability that it will be some range of numbers below the previous 50-52%. Only then can it be judged a good or bad deal for the players in terms of the dollars.


* Completely irrelevant aside:
Florio was befuddled for a week by the difference between an 18% paycut and a 9 percent reduction in cost, and then again befuddled why every example calculation came out as a 2:1 ratio, cut:cost reduction. The fact that this was because the players represented a 50% cost against revenue never penetrated his thinking. He maintained it was just an artifact of this particular set of numbers.

[vince]

And we have no idea what the parties have agreed to for settlement of the TV lockout insurance case. The players will receive something for it, as revenue was not maximized in 2009 and '10 because of it. You can say it won't be the benefit money, but if the settlement is for $293 million, does the distinction really make a difference?

Regardless of whether the players want to tie the “lost benefits” issue to the “lockout insurance" case, they’re obviously distinct and the lost benefits the players are wanting to have recouped is a bogus claim. My understanding is that number should and will be zero. That comes from Chris Mortensen who has been the players’ mouthpiece. The players signed off on the last collective bargaining agreement, which included the opt-out clause which the players knew (or should have known) resulted in the lack of benefits paid as part of the last agreement.

The players may or may not have a claim regarding the lockout insurance case, but it is unnecessary to tie that to the approval of this CBA moving forward. That could and perhaps should be negotiated and/or litigated on its own merits. The owners obviously are willing and ready to do that - not that they have a choice.

[vince]

This quote from Florio's piece kills me. Previously, the players received between 50 and 52% of revenue each year, and that revenue grew every year except one that we are aware of (previous published numbers ran from 2000 or 2001 to 2009 I think).

However, according to this player friendly league source, 48% of the growing pie cannot be a bad deal. Somehow I don't think he has captured the players feelings on this issue. For a man who initially caught my attention for his ability to detail the important items in player contracts, Florio seems lost when it comes to dollars and economic issues. *

Now, theoretically, the 2-4% difference could be the magical game reinvestment that Goodell and Co. were talking about after the economic issues they initially raised fell away. But this agreement doesn't cover how that will be spent and its not clear at all (and may never be) that it will result in growth far enough beyond the previous rate that will make up the difference in total dollars. It might, it might not.

The inflation thing is a red herring unless there are still significant cost hold backs from the Total Revenue dollar amount.

But the biggest question of all is how much the players end up receiving every year. It will be more than a year before that number is in. It might 48%, but odds are that there is enough wiggle room and variability that it will be some range of numbers below the previous 50-52%. Only then can it be judged a good or bad deal for the players in terms of the dollars.

From what I've read, Florio has been pro-owner throughout the summer. His perspective is that 48% is a good deal for the players. The old formula didn't work for low rev teams. It had to be changed - hence the owners' opt-out of the last agreement. Obviously it's a matter of perspective, but pushing the percentage up to nearly the old rate from what the owners originally were proposing (even though it's not apples to apples) can be seen as a win for the players, particularly when you look at all the concessions regarding offseason workouts, the elimination of the 18-game season, player safety, etc. It seems that the owners conceded on most of the core issues the players had.

As one of the team representatives said (paraphrasing), "The only thing the players didn't get was someone to play for them."

[pbmax]

... snip

The players may or may not have a claim regarding the lockout insurance case, but it is unnecessary to tie that to the approval of this CBA moving forward. That could and perhaps should be negotiated and/or litigated on its own merits. The owners obviously are willing and ready to do that - not that they have a choice.

The owners will want that case tied up with a bow before agreeing to any CBA. They are not going to lift the lockout and sign a CBA (thereby closing the books on their leverage) and still have that case outstanding in District Court. It will be settled before the CBA gets its final approval.

As for the dollar amount, like I said, whether each party agrees that the players have a claim to previous benefit money is irrelevant. Its price, $320 million is the player's asking price for agreeing to settle the case. Or at least, it was the price at some point. They may have moved beyond that after Wednesday.

[pbmax]

From what I've read, Florio has been pro-owner throughout the summer. His perspective is that 48% is a good deal for the players. The old formula didn't work for low rev teams. It had to be changed - hence the owners' opt-out of the last agreement. Obviously it's a matter of perspective, but pushing the percentage up to nearly the old rate from what the owners originally were proposing can be seen as a win for the players, particularly when you look at all the concessions regarding offseason workouts, the elimination of the 18-game season, player safety, etc. It seems that the owners conceded on most of the core issues the players had.

As one of the team representatives said (paraphrasing), "The only thing the players didn't get was someone to play for them."

Actually vince, that is one of the unanswered questions of this CBA. The player costs, as far as we know from published figures, did not go up in terms of percentages after the 2006 deal. They still compromised 50-52% of revenue. Nearly exactly what they were from the deal prior to 2006. What DID change was supplemental revenue sharing: local revenue was shared for the first time in 2006.

So the likeliest explanation for this whole thing (from the 2009 opt-out on) is that owners did not like 50-52% player cost PLUS local revenue sharing. Lower revenue teams would have been dependent on it, higher revenue teams would have taken a very real hit. The lower revenue teams, with lower and slower local revenue streams, likely saw their costs increase faster then revenue. Higher local rev teams suddenly had a new cost.

So in essence, you could argue that the players are paying back for subsidizing the lowest revenue teams. As I said earlier, the league would be healthier if those franchises moved, sold or sold naming rights to their stadium (Bengals). But those theoretical new owners and revenue streams do not vote. And wealthier teams saw an opportunity to lower their costs substantially.

And the 18 game schedule is only off the board for 2 years, at last report.

[pbmax]

Actually, vince raises a good point/question:

What kinds of clubs were represented regularly at the bargaining table? I know Jones (Cowboys), Kraft (Pats), Richardson (Panthers), Murphy (he was absent a lot late), Hunt (Chiefs) and Rooney (Pittsburgh) were there a lot. Others you remember?

And does anyone have a recent list of revenue by club (or a ranking)? I would think the Chiefs and Panthers would be the bottom of this group, but no idea where.

[vince]

So the likeliest explanation for this whole thing (from the 2009 opt-out on) is that owners did not like 50-52% player cost PLUS local revenue sharing. Lower revenue teams would have been dependent on it, higher revenue teams would have taken a very real hit...

And the 18 game schedule is only off the board for 2 years, at last report.

Right. In the absence of the high amount of local rev support that the owners agreed to in 2006 the old player-cost structure is not workable. The bottom line is that increasing player costs have significantly outpaced increasing revenues and many teams could not survive that under the existing structure. I remember Jerry Jones commenting on why the deal took so long to make. He said something like, "If you can put off getting your ass whipped until tomorrow, then you do that."

Getting that number very close to the old number could easily be seen as a win for the players. Plus the owners wanted an 18 game schedule now. The fact that the owners conceded that and they can only implement that with the approval of the players is also a win for the players.

[pbmax]

Well, your statement that player costs have outpaced revenues is the crux of the matter. If its a simple matter of percentages, and it was a decade long spread of 50-52%, then that argument doesn't hold up league-wide. However, it might very well for specific teams.

The other thing we do not know is the line of comparison for those published percentages. If years 2006-2009 were 50-52% Total Revenue+Expense Credits then that number is substantially different from 2000-2005's 50-52% Adjusted Gross Revenue+Cost Credits.

If that numerator is ALL REVENUE for the entire decade, then as a percentage, player costs weren't going up league wide.