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

Continue discussion here.

From the other thread on this subject:

Peen wrote:

Quote:

---

Don't buy tickets....great answer.



I choose to buy tickets, so yes, my opinion does have more weight.....not that your's doesn't have any.



Just telling it like it is.

---

Look man,, if you wanna pay for something that you seem to not believe is worth the price,,, that's ok with me. I have nothing to say about it.

But don't sit there and tell me that because i don't buy tickets, my thoughts are less valid or carry less weight.

No, I don't by tickets, No, I don't go to games, No, I don't care if there
are 16 or 18 games, No I don't care how many preseason games there are.

I do want the Coach to have the number of Pre season games HE feels he needs. that I do care about.


You aren't telling it like it is, you are telling it like you want it to be.. Don't expect me to buy in.. that's all I'm saying..

Experts suggest NFL, players union aren't widely split on financial issue

Written by Pete Dougherty
Green Bay Post Gazette
9:54 PM, Mar. 9, 2011

(apologies for the format but I'm not gonna restructure it)

Though negotiations for the NFL’s collective
bargaining agreement hit a roadblock on
how much of their finances NFL owners
should disclose, three sports economists
see good reason to think the sides will
reach a new CBA sooner rather than later,
and likely in the next few weeks.

The rhetoric on financial disclosure
Wednesday suggested emotions are raw on
both sides, but all three economists —
Rodney Fort of the Universityof, Andrew
Zimbalist of Smith College and Brian Goff of
Western Kentucky — said the fundamental
issue is how to split money in a profitable
league. That suggests the sides aren’t as
far apart as they might seem.

The issue is whether the owners should
take $1.8 billion off the top of the league’s
$9 billion in gross revenues, instead of
their current $1 billion credit, before
paying the players 60 percent of the
remaining money. The owners say they
need the extra $800 million — they were
asking for $1 billion, but the players union
said Wednesday the league has dropped
that to $800 million — to cover the i
ncreased debt from upgrading and
building stadiums the past few years that
increase revenue to the benefit of both
parties.

“It seems to me they’re not really arguing
over the fundamental survival of teams in
theNationalFootball,” said Fort, who teaches
sports economics and sports law at
Michigan and has written and consulted
extensively on both subjects.

“They’re not really arguing over some
inalienable belief about a right they have,
like players in free agency. Just like two
kids with a Popsicle. They’ll eventually
realize the Popsicle’s melting and it’s time
to split it and get on with it.”

If the cost credit is the essence of the
negotiations, though, the issue to help get
there is how much financial information the
players need before agreeing to the extra
$800 million, or whatever final figure, for
debt management.

Based on reports on ProFootballTalk.com,
NFL.com, CNBC.com and
NationaFootballPost.com, the owners had
agreed to share the league’s annual profit
figure from the last five years, and this
week agreed also to identify the number of
teams with declining profits, with all
information verified by a neutral party
chosen by both sides.


The players, who have hired an investment
bank to advise them on the matter,
rejected the offer. They say they need
audited financial reports, not simply profit-
loss statements, from the 32 teams
individually that include details such as
money spent on salaries for owners and
their families; marketing and administrative
expenses; and income before and after
taxes.

Fort said the players need more financial
information than the owners have offered
but less than they’re requesting. He said
they could accurately determine the
owners’ debt position by having an agreed
upon third party examine the audited
financial report of every team.

“Literally, the independent investigator can
go in, look it up, add it up,” Fort said, “and
walk out with a number written on a post-it
note and hand it to the players and say,
‘That’s what I think their debt position is
over the next six years.’ And it’s either a
billion bucks a year (more) or isn’t.”

The owners are loathe to share the
detailed financial information the players
are requesting for a couple of reasons.
Most obviously, embarrassing information
could become public, such as an owner
paying himself or family members large
salaries or loans that reduce profits on
paper. However, Fort said those abuses,
while bad for public relations, are
inconsequential in the big picture of a $9
billion business.

The owners also don’t want to share
detailed information on individual teams
because players would gain bargaining
leverage over specific clubs. So if the
owners haven’t shared the information by
now, they probably aren’t going to.

“This isn’t just, ‘We (owners) like secrecy,’”
said Goff, who contributes to the blog
TheSportsEconomist.com. “There’s a real
advantage to holding onto that information.
So I can’t see (the owners) handing out
much. And the players, I don’t know what it
is other than the total disclosure that would
cause the players to say, ‘OK, we’ll go with
(the $1.8 billion) now.’ I don’t know how
much players are gaining from looking at
the books. To some degree that’s a
negotiating ploy to take away the owners’
information advantage.”


This is where the players gain leverage
from threat of antitrust litigation. If the
union decertifies and sues, the NFL will
have to share relatively detailed financial
information in the discovery process, which
becomes available to the public unless the
league convinces the judge to subject it to
confidentiality rules. That’s a big risk.

The owners also lost leverage when a
judge recently placed an injunction on $4
billion in TV payments the owners had
bargained for even if there’s a lockout.
That would have provided badly needed
cash to pay major operating costs such as
stadium debts.

“It’s hard to see the owners going to a full-
blown lockout of the (regular) season,” Goff
said, “they’re making too much money, that
would be killing the goose that laid the
golden egg. But I could see them, had they
won that (TV case), ‘OK, we’re going to put
some pressure on the players, we’re going
to hold out for two months, or we’re going
to hold out through the beginning of
training camp, and we’ll see, maybe even
hold out near the beginning of the season.’

“That (injunction) changes things. When you
get people arguing about that extra piece
of pie, occasionally people cut off their
neck just to win that extra piece. But
usually when it’s about the extras there’s a
strong motive to eventually give in.”

The talks have stalled on sharing financial
information in large part because of
mistrust between the sides. The owners
are suspicious that the players are asking f
or detailed financial information not
because they need it, but because they
want to litigate. They know the owners
won’t give what they’re requesting, and that will
give them the excuse to go to court.

The players are suspicious because the
owners bargained a de facto lockout fund
into the TV deal at the expense of the
players. They had to go to court to prevent
that from happening.

Talks could blow up by Friday’s deadline
because of that mistrust, but both sides
also have professional negotiators and a
highly respected mediator to buffer
emotions. So despite gloomy reports,
there’s reason to think that over the next
few weeks the players will accommodate
the owners to some degree for the stadium
debt that’s grown revenue in which they all
share, and the owners will compromise to
avoid revealing financial details in court.

“It makes sense for that ($1 billion cost
credit) to go up,” said Zimbalist, who’s a
prolific author and consultant on sports
economics. “So there are areas where the p
layers should be compromising, and the
rookie salary cap should be hardened, it’s g
ot too many loopholes now to be
meaningful. But I just think it’s very obvious h
ere that there’s a bargain to be struck,
there are compromises that can be made
and need to be made. I think they will be
made, it’s just that with what we’re getting
so far is a lot of bluster and a lot of
rhetoric, and that’s what you get in these
things until push comes to shove.”

Said Fort: “I think (the owners) already
know the number they’ll take (for the cost
credit), and as soon as they hit they’ll stand u
p, shake hands and leave the room. I
don’t know what that number is, and
nobody can, which is why they’re holding
the debt information so close to the chest.”

LOL Yeah, that is one odd format.. But readable,, Thanks Shep..

Odd, but good and encouraging read, Shep. I agree. The momentum is there for this to go with each side leaving more for the game when they shake hands. Don't overlook the principle and process in settlement. They found a way to sit, stay engaged, and bargain the issues each side feels strongly about. That process will be helpful in future talks, and the precedents of decisions will be stronger down the road. The items settled can be adjusted; if the Game grows, so can the pieces of the pie as well. Given the times, a framework can get you over the roughspots before they evolve into roadblocks.

I still say that we won't have a resolution until October.

Hope I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

But don't sit there and tell me that because i don't buy tickets, my thoughts are less valid or carry less weight.

No, I don't by tickets, No, I don't go to games, No, I don't care if there
are 16 or 18 games, No

---

Well, actually they do carry less weight. Because Peen, or any other season ticket holder, has stepped up to the plate and put his money where his mouth is he gets a bigger vote in this matter, theoretically speaking.

If your company were publicly owned the stockholders would have more of a say, however small, in how it were run than a guy off the street.

The same holds true here. Peen is a stockholder. His vote counts more than yours.

Not that the owners actually care what either one of you thinks, really.

Personally, I'd drop the mandatory requirement for season ticket holders to purchase preseason tickets and leave the games at 16/4. But that will never happen because they know they'd lose money. So eventually it will go to 18/2.

Whether anyone likes it or not.

I will be surprised if there is football in 2011. The union believes they are united and they had this huge victory over the lockout insurance. They got all the momentum but what they are forgetting is the grumpy old man factor.

Doesnt matter who is right and who is wrong, once they get pushed far enough they wont quit until they get everything they want. They will cut off their nose to spite their face.

This coupled with the potential of a lost Buckeye season if the NCAA comes down hard (which I think they will) will make for a really crappy year of football for me.

I still hold out hope that the players/owners won't kill their cash machine, but every day it is looking like that might just happen.

While it's true that the "grumpy old men' that own the teams have the financial ability to out last the players... I don't think they'll use it..

THey didn't get the money by being dumb enough to kill the cash cow. Plus the PR nightmare would be crazy hard to fix.

The players have a different kinda problem as they are often perceived as overpaid, over hyped, coddled punks who think the rule of law and the rules of society don't apply to them. Certainly not all, but a lot.

The backlash will hurt the sport. They have to know this... They all gotta understand that it's better in the long run to find a solution sooner rather than later.

I'm counting on them be to be smarter than to let this conflict kill the league...

I hope they don't disappoint me.. I hope they are as smart as I believe they are.

Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale

By Jason Cole,

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-rookiewagescale030911

WASHINGTON – While the NFL Players Association and owners remain far apart on the most critical issue – how to split approximately $9 billion in revenues – the two sides have reached agreements on a couple of smaller issues.

According to two sources familiar with the negotiations, the league and the union have reached a basic compromise on a rookie wage scale that will replace the current rookie salary cap. The owners backed off the idea of requiring first-round picks to sign five-year deals, instead limiting the contracts to four years before a player could become a free agent. The agreement is also expected to include a stipulation limiting the amount of guaranteed money and signing bonus offered to draft picks.

In addition, the league agreed that all players drafted after the first round would be limited to three-year deals, but teams would be allowed to put restricted free agent tags after the three years. That’s essentially similar to the current process where players can be tagged as restricted free agents after a three-year deal, although the existing rule allows players drafted after the first round to sign four-year pacts.

The key change is for the players in the first round. Currently, the first 16 players taken in the first round can sign for up to six years. The next 16 players taken can sign up to five years.

The reason the union wanted shorter deals is that it allows good players to get to free agency faster. While the owners and players agreed that high picks such as quarterbacks JaMarcus Russell(notes), Matthew Stafford(notes) and Sam Bradford(notes) were paid too much under the old system, it was important to the union that good players who proved themselves got a chance to cash in faster and avoid the risks of injury. Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson and Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker LaMarr Woodley(notes) are among recent late first-rounders or second-round picks who have sought (and in the case of Johnson, was granted) new contracts because they felt they had outperformed their rookie deals.

In the process, the NFL backed off its desire for what would have been potentially onerous contracts. For instance, the league’s first proposal called for the top pick in the draft to get a maximum five-year, $19 million deal. Only $6 million of that would have been guaranteed. The deal would have included no bonuses for play time or achievement, such as making the Pro Bowl.

That would have been in stark contrast to the six-year, $72 million deal that Bradford received last year. That deal included $50 million guaranteed.

“We all saw the problem with the current system, but you have to give a guy a chance to get paid if he’s a good player,” one source said. “After three years, you pretty much know if a guy is a good player.”

In addition to the rookie wage scale, the NFLPA is also expected to agree on stronger language to allow teams to recoup money from players who get in trouble with the law, such as then-Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick(notes) or Plaxico Burress(notes) with the New York Giants. In the Vick case, he was allowed to keep approximately $20 million in signing-bonus money despite going to prison for dog-fighting and related charges.

In essence, the NFLPA received strong support from other players who said that players such as Vick and Burress should not be allowed to keep money in those situations.

I do too.


Once you get people agreeing, it's easier to find the compromise on the sticky issues.

I like that the NFLPA hasn't even allowed the 18-game schedule to be put on the table.

I think going to 18 games is part of the natural progression of growth with the League. I think this will also possible open debate for adding up to 4 more teams in the future.

"Off the table" hmmm...we haven't heard the end of this debate yet.

I don't have any "serious" issues with 18,...but I think any natural progression sits on a bell curve that peaks at some point, then the return diminishes.

Analogizing with the NBA, I have always followed the Cavs until this year because of the LeBron fiasco. If that franchise dries up and blows away in all of the talk about "retraction." I will not go haywire. Can't say the same if that were to happen to the Browns.

Quote:

---

Can't say the same if that were to happen to the Browns.

---

I agree with that, because I don't know if I could survive another loss in one life time.

I feel the same about the Cavs I haven't watched a game all year (we all knew it would not be pretty) The only thing I miss is Joe Tate on the radio, because he made it like being there.
When I heard how the Jackwagon disrespected him while in Cleveland.

There left little doubt in my mind we had a Sociopath... puppet pretending to be a King.

I don't even really blame LeBron anymore,...I let it go. The leagues themselves are a bunch of greedy egomaniacs -- all of 'em.

But I'm with you. I can honestly say I have not watched a single dribble of ANY NBA ball this season. Not a single dribble, not even the highlight shows, because I don't watch ESPN anymore.

In NFL talks, barbs but no progress
Another deadline is looming today


By Greg A. Bedard
Globe Staff / March 11, 2011

This time they might be out of timeouts.

And patience.

One day after the sides sparred vocally over the key point in financial transparency, they had a fruitless and frustrating day of negotiations.

And then, as the clock ticked down, they took shots at each other again.

“I’ve said it many times: If both sides have an equal commitment to getting this deal done, it will get done,’’ said NFL lead counsel Jeff Pash. “I don’t know if both sides have an equal commitment.

“Obviously, we have the commitment. No question about it.’’

Though Pash seemed to be suggesting that the union was not interested in bargaining, he added, “I’m not suggesting anything about the other side. I’m saying if there’s an equal commitment on both sides, there’s a deal to be made.’’

NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith, who had left his office about an hour earlier, then made a beeline for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services building to offer a rebuttal.

“We have been committed to this process,’’ Smith said. “For anyone to stand and turn to the American people and question that . . .

“Look, I understand that there’s probably some things Jeff Pash just has to say. But this is the truth: We know that as early as March of 2009, from the discovery in the television case, that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money to lock out our fans and lock out our players, even if the games weren’t played.’’

Smith referenced a court ruling last week in favor of the players regarding that TV money, saying that it “talks about how they were going to go about securing television money — and I quote — ‘for cash during a lockout.’

“So with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one party’s commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you [to read the court decision].’’

That was followed by a Twitter snipe from league spokesman Greg Aiello.

“Ask him when is union going to respond to our 150 pages of draft CBA provisions?’’ he wrote in reference to NFLPA assistant executive director for external affairs George Atallah.

And with that, both sides stood down on the eve of the possible NFL apocalypse.

The CBA is due to expire at midnight tonight, and the union will need to decertify before 5 p.m. to shift the negotiations from the boardroom to the courtroom.


Since NFLPA officials spent most of the afternoon in their offices while federal mediator George Cohen met with league personnel, it appears decertification is looming.

Tweet Be the first to Tweet this!..
Yahoo! Buzz ShareThis .In a Twitter to players, Smith told them they would be updated by 2 p.m. today.

There are essentially three possibilities today: The sides can get the new deal done, a third extension could be agreed upon, or the union can decertify and set the stage for antitrust lawsuits filed by players against the NFL.

A new deal doesn’t appear to be on the immediate horizon.

For the first time since last Wednesday, there was a large contingent of owners present for the talks. However, they did not meet with the players, which continued to frustrate the NFLPA.

The players, including Saints quarterback Drew Brees, were likely to confront the ownership group on its lack of attendance in the negotiations (two days out of the 15 days of mediation).

While the owners met among themselves and with Cohen in the afternoon, Smith and his contingent were holed up a few blocks away. They said they were supposed to be called back after 4 p.m. but left at 6:30 when no word came.

“We had players, executive committee members here, our entire negotiating team has been here all day as we have for the past two years and we are still hopeful that there’s some positive activity,’’ Atallah said. “But we can no longer keep our players, that have been ready for two years to get positive movement, in a holding pattern.’’

The entire 10-owner NFL labor committee — minus Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who is in Israel on a trade mission with Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick — reported to the FMCS.

The main issue continues to be the additional $1 billion the NFL originally wanted credited by the union off the $9.3 billion in revenue the league generates. That’s in addition to more than $1 billion worth of credits — for things such as stadium investments and improvements — the league and union negotiated into the previous CBA.

The players received 59.5 percent of the remaining revenue since the 2006 agreement was put into place.

The sides were able to bridge the gap to about $800 million last week, according to statements made by Smith.

But Pash said, “I never understood it to be $800 million. I don’t know where that came from.’’

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the gap was “substantially’’ less than $700 million and the progress had not come in the past 24 hours.

A union source said there has been progress on money, but the sides are still essentially “nowhere’’ with such a large chunk left. Neither wants to give any more ground.

The union has stated its desire to see more financials from the owners if negotiations are to continue. They want to see exactly where profits have dwindled.

It seems the NFL won’t give up more than what it has given — aggregate profitability reports prepared by independent accounts — and that could permanently stall talks.

“I think we’ve set forth what our offer is, and the union’s told us what it thinks about it, and if they want to reopen that discussion, we’ll have that discussion,’’ Pash said. “At this point, I don’t see anything new going on.’’

Union sources said they have not seen formal proposals on a 16-game season, let alone an 18-game enhanced schedule.

“We’ve just been told they want a billion dollars back,’’ the source said.

That’s exactly where the sides were before the season ended.

The only hope now seems to be another extension. But both sides would have to have an inclination to negotiate for that to happen. That would likely have to mean more financial disclosure by the owners, who held a conference call last night. They could determine that they would have to do so anyway if the players decertify and file an antitrust lawsuit.

An extension, said Pash, “is something that we’re going to wait to hear from the negotiator on and where things stand. If there’s a basis to having an extension, I think we’ve shown ourselves open to talk about that. We’ll have to see where we are [today].’’

Greg A. Bedard can be reached at gbedard@globe.com. Twitter: @greg_a_bedard.

web page

Again, thanks for the read Shep..

Man this isn't looking good, I may have to change my prediction from this ending just before the draft to maybe just before Camp.....

Going to be good days and bad days.

The key is extensions. Keep the process going.

Okie-Dokie...

The NFLPA systemically obtained approval from its players last year to decertify (technically, disclaim interest) as shield against a lockout.

The process is simple. The union shuts down, and the owners have no union to lock out. Instead, the 32 NFL teams would be dealing with non-union employees, and the league would have to decide whether and to what extent rules would be developed and applied to all teams regarding free agency, the draft, salary cap, and other matters.

The players then would file an antitrust lawsuit, claiming that any attempt by 32 separate businesses (hence the importance of last year’s American Needle case) to impose rules collectively violates the law. The good news for fans is that football would continue while the fight shifts to a courtroom, with the eventual settlement of the lawsuit becoming the next Collective Bargaining Agreement.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/03/union-may-be-reluctant-to-decertify/

Quote:

---

The good news for fans is that football would continue while the fight shifts to a courtroom, with the eventual settlement of the lawsuit becoming the next Collective Bargaining Agreement.

---

so, if that's correct, then we end up where we could be now.

The only ones that win on that deal, are the lawyers

Makes you wonder what is really going on behind the doors. I can't imagine hours and hours of meetings of this:

Players: Show us your books.
Owners. No

Players: Come on, Show us your books.
Owners. No

Players: Why wont you show us your books.
Owners. Because we don't have to

Players: How do we know you really need the money?
Owners. Because we told you so.

Players: Show us your books.
Owners. No

Players: Come on, Show us your books.
Owners. No

Players: Why wont you show us your books.
Owners. Because we don't have to

Players: How do we know you really need the money?
Owners. Because we told you so

and on and on and on.

Someone needs to throw in there "c'mon, I'll be your friend if you show me your books!"

The sniping at each other so late in the game here is worrisome to me. Hopefully, though, it's just some last minute posturing before another extension.

Peen, it strikes me as odd that if roster number goes up so teams have enough "widgets" , players to cope with injuries (seem to be a LOT more season ending injuries than I remember a few years ago), they need fewer preseason non-games to pick over the litter. So we want more guys, we want more PS folks? I like fewer preseason pointless games; Hardesty pointed that up when the OC ran him up in there til he got broke. Stupid and pointless IMO.

It's not that I want larger rosters. The players do. More jobs

I'd like to see bigger, more flexible rosters. I would also like to see the NFL develop a minor league system. It would mean more jobs, and better depth. I think the teams need a better way to protect more than the 53 players on their roster, more like baseball.

Plus a minor league may mean more games in different areas. Love to see a Cleveland Browns Minor league team in Newburgh NY for example, LOL.

isn't the UFL basically a minor league system much like the World League was before that? I mean, you don't have control of the players that are there like you do in the MLB system, but it's essentially the same thing.

A little over 1 hour before the 4:59 decertification deadline...

Lots of stuff around the net saying it's looking really, really bad. They are saying no chance on a deal and slim chances on an extention. Decertification is right around the corner....and so goes the 2011 NFL season (at least some of it).

I won't post links becuase I'm not sure what blog posts are legit (even though the ones I've just read are written by longtime cbs.sportsline journalists). Oh well...we'll know the real details soon enough.

http://www.nfl.com/


NFLPA applies for decertification
The union has filed paperwork in a Minnesota court to dissolve, Albert Breer reports.

Morons... All of them. I want my money back.

Neither side could concede a little, and now they both face losing out. It has come to the point for me that I just don't care and only see millionaires whining and billionaires whining back.