DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Part Deux

I'm kind of thinking that the owners weren't going to make any significant concessions until they got the rulings in those court cases. Throw in the fact that, on the last day, they got notice of some big names who would be plaintiffs in an antitrust case against the league, and that maybe pushed them to really consider compromise for the first time.

But, if that was the case, that's poor planning on the league's part (unless they always just assumed they'd be able to get this extension). I would have had two plans, one if the lawsuits went our way, the other if they didn't (or some combination).

Hey, in the end, I just hope they work it out and don't put in some stupid opt-out clause that puts us back into this position in a couple years.

I do agree that if the owners are claiming they need all of this money then they should open up some books and prove it.

Quote:

---

Hey, in the end, I just hope they work it out and don't put in some stupid opt-out clause that puts us back into this position in a couple years.

---

I think that's the censuses here.

Just saw on NFL.com (video) that all transactions are stopped.. I guess that means you can't sign another teams FA,, I also get that it means the end of tendering our own guys..

That's my impression anyway, its a short video on the NFL.com site,,,,The one talking about the extension.

ok, thanks.

All very good points

That is a excellent point.


These guys had time shares if not own a jet outright before owning a team, not to mention race horses and who knows what else.


It isn't like they came up from the streets, panhandled a billion or so and bought a football team.

I find it laughable that the players think they are on the same plane as the owners. These are coddled athletes that have gotten carried though high school and college because they can play a sport. The owners on the other hand are businessmen that have built wealth over time. The players go from rags to riches with some not even understanding what they have .

Like I've said before, I'm not against unions, but this is just like many other labor disagreements, where workers, who have their position because an owner took a chance on them, and agreed to compensate them for their position, have been convinced by a union leader that they are somehow entitled to more than they agreed upon.

We feel sorry for a player making three quarters of a million a year, because his boss is a billionaire. Yet, the billionaire boss has spent years acquiring the wealth, through business ventures or what have you, to be able to buy a professional franchise. But he is supposed to give an equal share to a 20 year old coddled athlete, who, besides being a good athlete has done nothing to else to earn the millions he makes.

I'm sorry, but when greed is used to describe the situation, I think the owners are put in a bad light. Most of these players are earning ten times the money most of the owners earned when they started out.

Bottom line is, IMO, the players union thought that they could squeeze the owners for more using the "woe is us' mentality. When the fact is that they have it really good. What sucks is that the older retired players, that didn't make the millions, are being used by the young millionaire players to try and get what they want. IMO these young players now could care less about the guys who built the league they now get rich from. I would be really surprised if an agreement was reached that truly took care of the "legacy" guys. Todays NFL player is a selfish, egotistical, spoiled brat. If they could cut off any money from the older retired players, I'd bet they would do it in a minute.

A seven day extension means that there will be no lock out or strike. Billions of dollars are on the table, everyone involved knows that, and noone wants to miss out on the payday...........and who would blame them.

That reads like more of the same class-warfare propaganda garbage we're seeing spewed around in the political threads.

Oooh! They've got billions, so they're the bad guys. They've got billions, so they should just be the nice guys and hand over whatever the players want.

What a load of crap.



And 7 day extension..... ::shaking my head::.


All that says to me is that they should have made better use of the PREVIOUS 7 days.

I agree with most of what you said, and overall I think I am siding with the owners.

I do feel bad (if I do at all anyway) for the league players that are just fighting to make it. Guys who know they might only have a year or two in the league before they are forced out by the next group of 6th and 7th round picks and undrafted free agents ... if the AVERAGE time in the league is between 3 and 4 years ... then some of these guys might only have 1 or 2 seasons. The league minimum is 285k (it was in 2010) ... so these guys might more or less be losing 285 thousand just because the rest of them can't play ball.

Let's be honest ... it's not the owners that are hurting ... but they do have a right to run a business and make it profitable.

It's not the players like Manning and Brady that are hurting at 15 to 20 million a year ... but they do have a right to negotiate the terms of their employement.

The ones being hurt are the bottom of the roster guys who within a year or two might be "working stiffs" just like the rest of us ... they're the ones who are being told they can't play and get the shot to make a name for themselves, and if they are only a first or second year player ... it's unlikely that they have much saved at all

I'm sure this has been said many times, but I don't like how this potential work stopage is centered around owners and players.

Shouldn't the hierarchy go owners, players, fans, from bottom to top? Where is the fans voice in all of this?

You can't have players without fans, you can't have players without owners.

The fans mean nothing to these people but a payday.

I'm glad they extended. Means they'll probably reach an agreement.

The fans are the ones who buy 75 dollar tickets, PSL's and 8 dollar beers to support this carnival. The PSL is the biggest ripoff in sports history. It's a slap in the face to those that support these teams....and it's why I'll never buy season tickets.

j/c in for some general mudslinging.

Based on the "millionaire vs billionaire" argument, I hold no empathy for either side. But I have stated that I am on the owners side, simply because they are the owners of the business.

I never told the Commandant what to do in the Corps.

HOWEVER,....there are things that need addressed, and concessed to, by both sides.

I truly believe that, bottom line, player salaries are too high,...maybe we should say, SOME players' salaries are too high. This part of the bottom line is a troublemaker that was paved on the two-way street of both players and owners. It needs to be fixed.

I don't think adding games is part of ANY answer here. 16 is already too many. The game is not safe enough as it is, let alone that 18 games will require MORE players and thus MORE expense. Would that overall cost be recovered,....in dollar$, most surely, but in common sense, I don't think so. We don't need more of the NFL, we need what there is, to be a better product.

Aside from a complete overhaul of the payroll structure as it pertains to player salaries and incoming rookies, I don't know what else really needs fixing. It isn't gonna get fixed the way I would do it, so it's all moot. (Non-position related straight salary & longevity based pay, with special incentives for statistical leaders, and playoff bonus winnnings.)

Someone mentioned where is the "fan voice" in this negotiation ? I about busted up laughing. We pay the ALL the bills and that will never get reccognized. I would be happy just to hear that any new stadium financing would have to come from the NFL istself, instead of off the backs of the taxpayer that already pays for everything anyway,....

I gotta say it again, I will not be heartbroken if this goes to a lockout.

And, I will be shocked if it lasts a day beyond deadline. (I know it already has in terms of the original, but the money involved has already achieved a 7 day extension,....)

And finally, I am not hoping for a lockout, but I will watch replacement football.

Quote:

---

And finally, I am not hoping for a lockout, but I will watch replacement football.

---

OoooRah,

Great post! A lot of what you say makes a lot of sense - therefore, it won't happen! As for replacement football, I'll watch it too. If for no other reason than curiosity, I think others will too (maybe not in droves, but enough that the regulars would see the game could go on without them). The longer it would go on, the more likely it would be that the regulars would cross and come back. That being said, I don't know if a lockout allows for replacement players or games at all, but, again, I'd watch it.

Quote:

---

Bottom line is, IMO, the players union thought that they could squeeze the owners for more using the "woe is us' mentality.

---

Here we go again.

It was never the players complaining. It was and is the owners wanting the players to take an 18% pay cut while adding 2 games to the regular season.

The players are happy with the statis quo. The players are not the ones asking for more. The owners want them to take less.

With all the information on the CBA talks and pending lockout how does this get so twisted around?

There's no way to have a meaningful discussion on the subject while fans are arguing from the standpoint that is opposite of what is actually happening?

My comment was not about who started it all, it was about the tactics being used.

Quote:

---

18% pay cut

---

Again, using this claim is decieving.

Using that claim is not deceiving. If the owners get the additional 1 billion off the top, before the split as they want, it amounts to approximately an 18% cut in the the player's take.

Of course the owners don't come out and say, "We want the players to take an 18% cut in pay", in those hard sounding words. But since they already get 1 billion off the top before the split and now they're wanting 2 billion off the top before the split it amounts to an 18% cut for the players.

Where you, and some others, come up with "the players are asking for too much" comments are confusing. The players and union seem to be fine with the way things currently are.

It does seem however, that if the owners want the extra 1 billion then the players want concessions such as some you mentioned which include better care for the retired guys, not adding the extra 2 regular season games, etc.

The players seem willing to compromise. But nobody wants less then what they are getting now and to do more work for it without some concessions.

Blame them for that?

How so?

Dynamics for Roger Goodell, DeMaurice Smith to reach potential CBA agreement are in place: sources

Gary Myers
web page
Originally Published:Sunday, March 6th 2011, 1:48 AM
Updated: Sunday, March 6th 2011, 11:34 AM

WASHINGTON - Roger Goodell vs. DeMaurice Smith won't fill an 80,000-seat stadium like Peyton Manning vs. Tom Brady, but their battle in the negotiating room this week will have a greater long-term impact on the NFL than any game.

Goodell's letter-writing campaign to league executives earned him an entry-level internship in the NFL office in 1982 soon after college and he worked his way all the way up to commissioner in 2006.

Smith was previously a trial lawyer and litigation partner in a Washington law firm. He had no connection to the league other than being a Redskins season-ticket holder before he was elected to succeed Hall of Famer Gene Upshaw as the executive director of the NFL Players Association in March of 2009. Upshaw died of pancreatic cancer on Aug. 20, 2008. He had been the union's executive director since 1983.

Although he was right under Paul Tagliabue on the league's power chart for the last collective bargaining negotiations five years ago, this is the first time Goodell has been in charge in labor talks. Smith is also doing this for the first time for the players.

Goodell and Smith each face tremendous pressure to make the right deal in this showdown between billionaires and millionaires. Goodell has to satisfy 32 powerful owners, whose franchises are worth an average of $1.02 billion, according to Forbes, and Smith must take care of nearly 2,000 players whose average salary last year was $1.7 million and whose average career is only about four years.

"They need to have success and go through pain together to develop the strong relationship that happened with Gene and Tag," said one source.

Goodell celebrated his 52nd birthday on Feb. 19 during the second session in federal mediator George Cohen's office. Smith turned 47 last month. They are each strong family men. Goodell's wife and twin daughters came to Washington for his birthday. And after the seven-day extension was announced Friday, Smith said he would be coaching his daughter's basketball team Saturday.

Goodell and Smith are just getting to know each other, but they are building a solid relationship. They've had many breakfast and lunch meetings over the last two years. They interacted regularly in the mediator's office last week.

And now, with the talks for a new CBA in double overtime with the new deadline Friday at 11:59 p.m., sources said Saturday that the dynamics for a potential agreement are in place. In other words, despite the major differences that still exist on all the important issues, the mood in the room is more conducive for Goodell and Smith to have a realistic chance to start making significant progress when talks resume Monday.

One source said more progress was made last week than in the last two years. If the sides are close enough Friday but still need more time, the clock will be stopped again. It's expected to be a six-year deal.

Goodell and Smith still hold the disaster scenario in their back pocket: Goodell could trigger a lockout; Smith could decertify the union (the new deadline is 5 p.m. Friday to hand in papers in U.S. District Court Judge David Doty's courtroom in Minneapolis) and file an injunction to try to stop a lockout.

Rather than compromise, will union attorneys instead convince Smith to fight this out in Doty's courtroom, where the players have won major battles, including last week's crucial $4 billion television ruling that turned the momentum and gave the players leverage in these negotiations? The union motto has become, "Let Us Play." Goodell keeps saying, "Talking is better than litigating."

That should lead to an agreement without a work stoppage.

Smith has done an impressive job winning over the players. If talks fall apart and the union files an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL, the three biggest names in the league have agreed to be among the nine named plaintiffs: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady and Drew Brees. That is a strong show of support for Smith.

"I would attach a lot of significance to it," one union source said Saturday.

In 1987, when the NFL used replacement players to break the 24-day strike, a long list of star players, including Joe Montana, Howie Long, Lawrence Taylor, Danny White and Mark Gastineau, crossed the picket line. Upshaw could not hold the players together.

If this does lead to a lockout in the next week, it will be interesting to see if Smith can hold the players together in August when they realize they will soon start losing game checks. The league is counting on the players falling apart when they don't get paid.

Goodell grew up right in front of the eyes of many of these NFL owners. Now he leads them. Building a consensus among so many strong personalities is going to be a challenge when the time comes to present them with a deal.

Clearly, the key issue is money and then everything, including the 18-game season, falls into place. The NFL wants to take an extra $1 billion off the top of its $9 billion annual revenue before the players get their 60%. They already take off $1 billion. The players don't want to give back anything. This is a negotiation. The owners clearly will drop down from $1 billion. The union will come up from nothing. And they will find a middle ground.

Tagliabue and Upshaw worked well together and became good friends. But it didn't start off that way. In 1992, Tagliabue's third year on the job, he was being grilled by union attorneys in a Minneapolis courtroom with Upshaw watching. But when the union's decertification in 1989 eventually resulted in a deal through the courts in 1993 - which created current system of free agency and the salary cap - and there was labor peace, Tagliabue and Upshaw worked together very well. But they were never really friends socially.

Upshaw was often criticized that his cozy relationship with Tagliabue didn't always lead to the best possible results for the players. If that was ever true, then it's also true that Upshaw took Tagliabue to the cleaners in the final CBA negotiations for both of them in March of 2006 that was so one-sided the owners opted out of the last two years of the deal in 2008. It was to run through the 2012 season.

The league was so desperate to get a deal in '06 - it was petrified of an immediate $10.5 million reduction in the projected salary cap that season and then an uncapped year in 2007 - that it gave up way too much. Tagliabue also planned to retire - it had not been made public - and was able to leave with labor peace. Less than two weeks after the deal, Tagliabue announced he was leaving.

Goodell and Smith are working on building the trust that helped Tagliabue and Upshaw extend the CBA five times without a work stoppage. Goodell is trying to convince Smith to give back some of the gains made by Upshaw.

Upshaw could have gone to the players and sold them on the concept that he won the last round in a landslide and even though they would give something back in the short term, they would gain in the long term with the additional revenue streams the owners would create with the givebacks. Upshaw had done so much for the players, he had enough collateral to pull that off.

"Gene negotiated such a good contract, De (Smith) can't give anything back," one source said.

It's going to be difficult for Smith, in his first CBA negotiation, to surrender any significant gains made by Upshaw in 2006 without getting something big in return to sell to the players. It would make him look bad.

Goodell worked for Pete Rozelle and Tagliabue. He has Rozelle's PR savvy and is a consensus builder like Rozelle. When necessary, he has Tagliabue's hard edge to him without being condescending. The NFL has not had a work stoppage since 1987 - Rozelle endured three of them, Tagliabue none. The ability to keep games from being canceled will go a long way toward determining Goodell's legacy.

Smith has a more open approach with the players than Upshaw. He is a better communicator. The players were very active in the negotiating room last week.

Goodell said in late January that if there is a work stoppage, he will cut his salary to $1. Smith countered by announcing he would cut his salary to 68 cents if a deal was reached before the Super Bowl. Smith's salary remains intact. Goodell still has some work to do to avoid a $10 million cut.

Thanks for the read shep

Quote:

---

One source said more progress was made last week than in the last two years.

---

I kinda thought this must have been the case.. otherwise, why even bother with an extention.

YW

Exactly......any extension is a good thing.

League, union continue mediation with 9-hour-plus session
By Albert Breer NFL Network
NFL Network Reporter
Published: March 8, 2011 at 09:40 a.m. Updated: March 8, 2011 at 11:49 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The NFL and the NFL Players Association held their longest talks Tuesday, their 13th day at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service building, going 9½ hours before departing around 6:30 p.m. ET.

During the mediation session, the union held a conference call with NFL Network and The Associated Press to announce it has retained an international investment bank to help players interpret any financial numbers they receive from the league.



NFLPA president Kevin Mawae arrives at Tuesday's federal mediation session -- his first appearance this week -- in Washington. (Alex Brandon/Associated Press)

The union has long demanded full financial statements from the league, which has declined, while the sides decide how to divide $9.3 billion in total revenue. Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday said on his way from the FMCS building Tuesday that having the bank involved now "was to help judge how helpful the material they were offering to give us -- how worthwhile it was in helping us make a decision."

George Atallah, NFLPA assistant executive director for external affairs, said on the conference call that the union has had the bank on retainer for "a couple months." On Tuesday, an auditor whom the NFLPA has used "for years," according to a union source, arrived at the mediation.

According to league and union sources, significant financial differences remained entering this round of negotiations.

"We feel like we've given a lot of financial information," NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said. "And we understand they may have a different view. I'm not going to get into what we discussed with them this week, because of the agreements we have with (mediator George Cohen)."

Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, an NFLPA executive committee member, said on the conference call that the financial information "shared over the last couple years has not been sufficient." Fujita also said he was hopeful of reaching a new deal, although he said 'hope' -- I don't know if that means anything."

The CBA expires Friday at 11:59 p.m. ET. It originally was scheduled to expire this past Thursday, but that deadline was extended 24 hours. The deadline was pushed back another week after Friday's meeting.

The league and the union met for seven consecutive days starting Feb. 18, then for four days in a row last week. The plan now is to meet every day this week.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was joined at Tuesday's meeting by Pash, league outside counsel Bob Batterman, Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay and Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, who arrived in the afternoon.
Seven members of the NFLPA’s 11-man executive committee walked through the FMCS doors Tuesday: President Kevin Mawae, Charlie Batch, Domonique Foxworth, Sean Morey, Tony Richardson, Jeff Saturday and Mike Vrabel. Also part of the group were Arizona Cardinals kicker Jay Feely, and retired players Pete Kendall and Cornelius Bennett.

Mawae made his first appearance at the mediation last Wednesday, but he wasn't at the FMCS building Monday. He took a 6:15 a.m. flight from his Nashville home to participate in Tuesday's talks.

Notable by his absence, again, was Jeffrey Kessler, NFLPA outside counsel. Kessler wasn't at Monday's meetings, and while he was in Washington on Tuesday morning, he didn't participate in early meetings.

As he entered the building, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith delivered a short tribute to NFL Films president Steve Sabol, who suffered a seizure Saturday night. NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen also was in the group.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is another good sign that they are having outside financial groups looking at the money issue and breaking it down into understandable numbers.

I look for the players to still get a decent chunk of the pie with the addition of 2 regular season games to the schedule. These additional 2 games mean a lot more revenue and it's been an ace in the owner's pockets all along.

Just KEEP talking...

Extend it again come Friday...We gotta get this done...

Agreed, Dawg in Dayton. They want a deal IMO, because thproof is in the pudding: They stayed engaged, regardless of the reason, whether it is fear of anti-trust or lost wages. Hope each side is seeing the other's upside. Players can keep a good chunk AND shift to players' priorities for post-career, health assurances, and assistance to vets (Ditka?). Owners get their games and unruffle some fans, In my experience, I agree with observation above that "more good things happened in this round of bargaining than any time in the past" in so many words. Setting up agreed ways to consider issues and having the trust built to where information can be shared does a lot for future and ongoing discussions. If the job isn't done yet, it is because the right tools haven't been found. Think it is important they are looking, and moreso, that they seem to be looking together. The right people are there to get a deal done. Keep talking, 'cause DiD sez so!

I don't like the 18 game schedule,...it will make teams like the Browns 5-13 instead of 5-11 and Indianapolis 15-3 instead of 13-3.

In all seriousness, it's major change will be that the coaching staffs will have to make better, quicker decisions about who they want to cut in the preseason that just shrunk from 4 to 2.

Of course, there is the shift in value from pre to regular season gate intake and TV money,...

Does it sound like they will start the season(s) 2 weeks earlier ?

I see some minor scheduling problems -- do you add one game each from both conferences or two from your home conference -- and, I suppose there will be ANOTHER Bye Week ?

How about roster sizes ?

As a Browns fan, we are going to have to get better faster, in order to compete for a longer haul.

Another thing I see as a future outtake will be, "We need MORE teams to balance 18 game schedules,.." I think the NFL is oversized as it is now. Somebody is moving to LA soon,....

Quote:

---

During the mediation session, the union held a conference call with NFL Network and The Associated Press to announce it has retained an international investment bank to help players interpret any financial numbers they receive from the league

---

Allow me to interpret this:

They gave us financial information and we don't understand it so we hired a banker to figure it out and explain it in terms we can understand...

I'm kinda kidding, there are some very bright players out there who I'm sure have a grasp of the financials. This move is just an attempt to make sure they are getting info that's actually useful..

THis isn't going to get settled by Friday...it's gonna require another extension I think.. Not being a guru on the league finances, I have to believe that it's way more complicated than meets the eye so I get the feeling it's going to take longer than Friday to delve into and sort out all the details...

Just a guess...

Thanks for the read Shep

Interesting thought.. so you have to be at 58 maybe for week 1 then after week 2 cut it down to 53.. I could see that.

But would those fringe players actually see the field for the first two games? When we're talking real games that count towards the standings, would you rather see the headliners play or those on the fringe who *might* make it as a back up positional player?