Ongoing CBA discussions

Here's my take: the players made significant gains for themselves (but not for retired players) in 2006 though the process of collectively bargaining. That negotiation was far more time sensitive than this current one. They couldn't let the 2006 league year begin without a deal because there was no language in that deal to protect against teams leveraging the last capped year to their benefit, and muddying the waters for any potential future labor deal. The salary cap, very seriously, may never have returned and the quality of football declined.

It should not be perceived as a liability of the owners that the players were seemingly unwilling to collectively bargain away some of the gains they had made in 2006 without seeing the financials. Should they have just given back $1 Billion in future revenues? Probably not, but the players association came from a totally false premise that there would be anything close to a "give back" in these negotiations.

There was no agreement. That's why there is currently a lockout. Right now, the players have nothing. There is no agreement, and until a court rules that a lockout violates anti-trust law, no contracts for the upcoming season are valid.

Ultimately, the players are worth a certain amount. They are probably worth less than the owners "best" offer, but more than what they would have gotten if the union had "given back" $1 Billion of the revenue pie. Whatever the number was, it certainly could have been achieved through collective bargaining, but both sides (particularly the players) would have needed to check false entitlement at the door.

It's hard to sympathize with the owners because they certainly are underestimating their own ability to create new revenue streams. They certainly didn't NEED to opt out of the CBA to remain profitable. They may have needed to alter their business models a bit to cut costs and increase revenues (and I thought the 18 game season was a fairly ingenuous was to accomplish this).

The players are fully entitled to choose the litigation route via decertification, but fair value (plus a little extra) could have been achieved through collective bargaining. The only logical reason for going this route has little to do with fair value and mutually ensured prosperity, but with "going to war" and "winning" the labor dispute. That's an excellent example of the greed that they NFLPA leadership is accusing the owners of.

The NFLPA probably does have better laywers and likely can "win" in court, and the fans ultimately aren't going to give a damn when football is here next season, and as an observer it's hard for me not to root for the players to get whatever they can in the negotiations.

But the buck will eventually just be passed along to the fans anyway.

I wonder if things like this will accelerate getting this thing fixed.

Jets put pay cuts, furloughs in place.
As expected, the Jets introduced 25 percent pay cuts on Saturday for every employee under their football operations umbrella.That includes head coach Rex Ryan and GM Mike Tannenbaum. Meanwhile, every worker on the business side of things will be required to take unpaid furloughs until a new CBA is agreed to. However, if an agreement is reached before the start of the preseason, all employees will be reimbursed for their lost pay. Mar 12, 4:53 PM

Mark Sanchez - New York Jets - 2011 Player Profile - Rotoworld.com (http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/5192/mark-sanchez)

Do any of you people actual pay attention to facts or do you chose a side and just stick your head in the sand in hopes to ignore any of the real facts going on? It bewilders me that people are still spouting off rhetoric when the facts are plain and simple. Look in the mirror and repeat....

Yeah, because those asshats representing the NFL corporation are any better?Actually, the two point men are Roger Goodell and D. Smith. Here's Goodell's NFL background:

Goodell's career in the NFL began in 1982 as an administrative intern (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Intern) in the league office in New York (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/New_York) under then-Commissioner Pete Rozelle (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Pete_Rozelle) – a position secured through an extensive letter-writing campaign to the league office and each of its then 28 teams. In 1983, he joined the New York Jets (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/New_York_Jets) as an intern, but returned to the league office in 1984 as an assistant in the public relations (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Public_relations) department.[12] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-11)
In 1987, Goodell was appointed assistant to the president of the American Football Conference (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/American_Football_Conference) (Lamar Hunt (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Lamar_Hunt)), and under the tutelage of Commissioner Paul Tagliabue (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Paul_Tagliabue) filled a variety of football and business operations roles, culminating with his appointment as the NFL's Executive Vice President (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Vice_President) and Chief Operating Officer (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Chief_Operating_Officer) in December 2001.
As the NFL's COO, Goodell took responsibility for the league's football operations and officiating, as well as supervised league business functions. He headed NFL Ventures, which oversees the league's business units, including media properties, marketing and sales, stadium development and strategic planning.
Goodell was heavily involved in the negotiation of the league's current collective bargaining (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/Collective_bargaining) agreement. He had worked extensively with Tagliabue since the latter became commissioner in 1989.[3] (http://www.thewarpath.net/#cite_note-cbc1-2) He has played an extensive role in league expansion, realignment, and stadium development, including the launch of the NFL Network (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/NFL_Network) and securing new television agreements as well as the latest collective bargaining agreement with the National Football League Players Association (http://www.thewarpath.net/wiki/National_Football_League_Players_Association).

Here's Smith's NFL (also labor negotiation background): ......

So in the sense of experience in the situation at hand who's the asshat?

To me, many of the issues with players stem from pure jealousy on the amounts they make and the ability to have leverage in their work place. Get over it, we all would like that ability but the fact is we are expendable, they are not.To me, people who make statements like this have no valid, substantive argument and are reduced to speculation and rhetoric. If my issue with the players stemmed from jealousy of the amount of money they make and leverage, I'd be a lot more jealous of the billionaire who holds the keys to the kingdom than the well-paid millionaire whose career spans an average of 3-4 years.

Newsflash: The OWNERS opted out of the CBA, NOT the players. Also, the players walked away with the owners showing no signs of giving them the info they wanted. They had no option. Did you not read this thread? If you had, you'd notice where I posted the federal mediator said this.The owners were out-leveraged into a bad deal in 2006 and are working to correct that. They have agreed to provide detailed financial info to the NFLPA, but not a line-by-line accounting for the last ten years for each team. No way in hell as an NFL owner would I ever agree to that....and the players know this as well. Smith's strategy was to take this to court all along. The NFLPA had an option...how about bargain in good faith and realize there will be some level of "give" in a negotiation. Everything I've heard (directly from NFL player reps) is that they are unwilling to give any salary relief to the owners unless they get full and open disclosure...which again they know the owners won't give.

So why stay at the table when it's obvious nothing was going to get done. Why keep prolonging something you know the sides aren't going to agree. The NFLPA isn't going to take a 1 billion in salary cut without seeing books. End of Story. You don't negotiated business deals on "trust me". You base them on numbers and facts. Both of which the NFL does not want to disclose.see above and my last post. The latest NFL offer had a gap of approx. $ 185M to bridge with the players, not $ 1B. The NFLPA "took their ball and went home" because they seek leverage in the courts.

I can't repeat this enough. 1696 players are splitting 4 billion and 32 owners are splitting 5 billion. Are you seriously still siding with the owners?...lol Mind boggling. Yeah, sure looks like it's in favor of NFLPA. /sarcasm offGet your number rights, under the current CBA the owners are only getting in the area of 42% of the NFL "pie" yet they take all the financial risk.

It may seem like a "fair deal" to average people that have no concept of this money or leverage. The reality of it is when the owners ask them to take a billion dollar cut, you better have numbers to back it up.It seems like a "fair deal" to anyone with an ounce of common sense who isn't blindly in the players corner.

It's funny you complain about the NFLPA trying to gain leverage, but you totally ignored the leverage the NFL owners have been trying to get since 2006.
1) Tried to get exempt from rules governing monopolies via Supreme Court (they failed)
2) Signed TV contract enabling them to get paid even during lock out. (they failed)
So you have no problem with them getting leverage long before they even opted out of the CBA, but have issue with NFLPA gaining leverage as it's LAST recourse? Hey, don't let those things called facts get in your way though.#2 is a business deal with the networks. What's wrong with a business negotiating a deal that is in their interest. #1 is trying to keep this negotiation out of the courts' hands and in the realm of a negotiation, not doing business under a court order. My problem is the NFLPA planning as their strategy to settle this in the courts rather than through negotiation.

This is where most of the ignorance comes into play when discussing this topic. I'm sorry, but do you understand that the NFL has a product/service? That product/service ARE the players. They aren't normal employees. Normal employees would be the trainers, the team secretary and PR guy, and even the coaches. Why? Because you can replace them easily without the talent level dropping off, which is the whole reason the NFL exists. The talent level. Grasp that concept and then you'll be able understand the situation in it's entirety. We don't watch the games to see Fed Ex field. We don't watch the games to see the hot dog vendor. We don't watch the games to see David Donovan give legal representation. We don't watch the games to see Mike Shannahan call time outs. We watch the game because of the PLAYERS. The only reason the NFL exists.Here's where condescention boomerangs and smacks back in the face. The NFL is far more than the current members of the NFLPA, it's more than what's on the field this upcoming season. The current players can be replaced and the talent level would be back to where it is today within 3-4 years. Would it take a couple more years to find the next Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, possibly. But the NFL will go on, it's fans will still be there and they come to watch their team not specific players. Especially in the era of Free Agency folks are used to players switching teams. Don't overestimate the value of this current crop of players....and don't think there won't be those who cross the picket line. There were many before who did.

Are the owners going to give back some of their salaries to reduce the costs for fans? Nope. Why would you expect them to do the same for owners.Because if the players truly want to be "partners" then they should be prepared to share in the risk.

Is Dan Snyder going to lower ticket costs when his team does shitty? Nope. Is he going to raise them if we make the playoffs? Yep. Do you think they care? Nope.Irrelevant to this discussion.

Show me where a team is having difficulties making stadium payments. I will give you season tickets in club level for life if you can prove this.As the NFLPA says, "show me". When you show your ability to give me season tickets in club level for life, I'll spend some time researching this.

Also, you do realize the owners strong arm the community into providing them with tax cuts and funding their new stadiums at the expense of the tax payers. It's either that or they threaten to leave.Again, irrelevant to this discussion. But if the community doesn't feel having the team is worth the tax cuts then don't give themn what they want. No court steps in to decide if a team stays or goes in a particular city.

If you had the slightest idea or any facts to back up anything you said, then you might have a point but it's obvious you don't like D. Smith for whatever reason and have chosen the side of the owners. I also see a lot of resentment in average joes over the players. The sheer jealousy of them having leverage (and salaries) in a way they could never dream of makes the average fan foam at the mouth. The NFL exists soley because of the service those players provide. They are the product. You on the other hand, had no leverage or bargaining chip to hold your employers accountable. You act is if they are asking for more. That isn't the case. They want the system to remain the same, it's the owners who are asking for me. I suggest you recognize that main fact.Actually it's you who appears to be lacking in understanding of the situation and facts and appear to be blindly siding with the players over the "greedy owners". I would suggest you ask yourself why an owner of a business (even the NFL) would shoulder all the expenses, take all the risks, and give over 58% of the total revenue to the employees.

Nevermind...

The owners were out-leveraged into a bad deal in 2006 and are working to correct that. They have agreed to provide detailed financial info to the NFLPA, but not a line-by-line accounting for the last ten years for each team. No way in hell as an NFL owner would I ever agree to that....and the players know this as well. Smith's strategy was to take this to court all along. The NFLPA had an option...how about bargain in good faith and realize there will be some level of "give" in a negotiation. Everything I've heard (directly from NFL player reps) is that they are unwilling to give any salary relief to the owners unless they get full and open disclosure...which again they know the owners won't give.

Sorry bro, but you don't negotiate over the table about 1 billion dollars on "good faith" or "trust me". If you make the claim of losing profits, you better be prepared to back it up to the fullest. I don't blame the NFLPA for requesting everything. Not their fault the owners are shady and don't want people to see how much they are making or foolishly spending.

The Phone Slamming King: How Snyder Communications made Dan Snyder rich, 1997-1999 ... rich enough to buy the Washington Redskins (http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343947-The-Phone-Slamming-King-How-Snyder-Communications-made-Dan-Snyder-rich-1997-1999-...-rich-enough-to-buy-the-Washington-Redskins)

These are owners that have made money crookedly and you expect them now to be honest? Gullible much?


see above and my last post. The latest NFL offer had a gap of approx. $ 185M to bridge with the players, not $ 1B. The NFLPA "took their ball and went home" because they seek leverage in the courts.

Not sure where you getting that from.

Smith Responds To Offers - ESPN Video - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=6209672)

Listen to D. Smith responds to Parish video. He says the NFL wants them to write them a check for 500 million the first year and escalates up to 1 billion in the final year. So I have no idea about that 185 million you are referring to. Sounds like smoke being blown up your people's asses.

Get your number rights, under the current CBA the owners are only getting in the area of 42% of the NFL "pie" yet they take all the financial risk.


Do what? Last time I checked, the total revenue in the NFL is 9 billion. The owners get 1 billion off the top for expenses. They then share the revenue 50/50. Where are you getting your numbers from?


#2 is a business deal with the networks. What's wrong with a business negotiating a deal that is in their interest. #1 is trying to keep this negotiation out of the courts' hands and in the realm of a negotiation, not doing business under a court order. My problem is the NFLPA planning as their strategy to settle this in the courts rather than through negotiation.

Hey, they are using their leverage just like the NFL tried to use it on them. Had they got the 4 billion from TV revenue during this lockout, they would have held all the leverage. Now it's a even playing field. The problem with the illegal contract is that the NFL was supposed to be doing contracts in the interests of both the players and themselves. Hence why they aren't getting any of the cash now. Guess the court system doesn't agree with you (or them) at all.

The NFL is far more than the current members of the NFLPA, it's more than what's on the field this upcoming season. The current players can be replaced and the talent level would be back to where it is today within 3-4 years. Would it take a couple more years to find the next Peyton Manning or Adrian Peterson, possibly. But the NFL will go on, it's fans will still be there

LOLOLOLOL. Probably the funniest post of all. You realize the owners can't bring in scabs. The owners are locking the players out, not the other way around. This isn't a player strike. The NFL wouldn't survive 2 years. How many people watched the NFL back when scabs played? Nobody. Would TV hand out 4 billion a year for scabs? Nope. The sole reason people watch the NFL is because the talent level is the best in the world. Take into account these things if this lockout remained:

1) They have no revenue coming in (TV contracts, Tickets, parking, merchandise, vendors, ad sponsors).....all gone.

2) They'd still have to pay maintenance/expenses/taxes/etc on their current infrastructure.

3) There would be no union to represent players so no future pro-player would work for them besides scabs.


Also, once the NFL closed shop, new investors would arise and form a new league to bring that talent over. That would become the new NFL and the league the future college kids go to. Your theory of the NFL would survive is laughable at best.

Because if the players truly want to be "partners" then they should be prepared to share in the risk.

Pathologist says Waters' brain tissue had deteriorated - NFL - ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2734941)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/sports/football/06worker.html
John Mackey: From The NFL To Dementia - CBS Evening News - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/28/eveningnews/main2738666.shtml)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sports/football/30dementia.html
Marshall's torments not likely to fade - USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/saraceno/2007-01-31-wilber-marshall_x.htm)

Nah, they don't share any risks at all. Nope.



As the NFLPA says, "show me". When you show your ability to give me season tickets in club level for life, I'll spend some time researching this.

In other words, you can't show (or prove) to me that the NFL owners profits are declining. Hey, I guess that makes 2 parties who can't. You and the Owners. I'm not the one making the claim, you are. (as are the owners) I think you fail to understand how the "burden of proof" works. It falls on the person making the claim.

I would suggest you ask yourself why an owner of a business (even the NFL) would shoulder all the expenses, take all the risks, and give over 58% of the total revenue to the employees.


Again with the wrong numbers. Can you document anything you are saying? I'm providing sources to all my stuff, and you haven't backed one statement up with any facts. Hey, I guess that's how negotiating with you and the owners work. Just take your word on it. Also, there really are no financial risks for NFL owners these days. If this were the 80's then you might have a point, but the NFL is a revenue monster. Even a monkey running a team can profit.

Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes (http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/01/17/instead-of-player-pay-cuts-nfl-needs-more-revenue-sharing/)


I suggest everybody read this article from Forbes. You know, the people would know and understand the finances of business.



There’s little doubting that player salaries come into the equation with the NFL’s finances. But, the complexities as to why there would be losses has to be tied to more than just saying, “because we said so.” The Forbes numbers paints two pictures: incredible growth for some clubs, while others have not grown at the same pace. That points to an internal matter for the league’s owners to handle, more than saying it solely rests on the shoulders of increased player salaries
.


Game. Set. Match.

GTripp,
The NFLPA probably does have better laywers and likely can "win" in court, and the fans ultimately aren't going to give a damn when football is here next season, and as an observer it's hard for me not to root for the players to get whatever they can in the negotiations.

I can see where your coming from in respect that I would hope anyone would lobby to get whatever money they can get, but I have a hard time siding with the players after hearing what the owners offered, how much the players are already making, and honestly I don't feel sorry for the retired players when they should have found a way to save during their playing days or saved during their jobs after football. All football players know they have about 10-20 yrs to play then age catches up with them and then they should be putting their degrees to good use for their retirement.

I just have a hard time feeling sorry when I make roughly $50,000 a year with overtime, have to pay for the majority of my medical and dental, a % of my earnings goes to retirement and another goes to social security and yet my job is no different then the medical professionals who have to worry about picking up a disease from their patients, firemen who face getting killed fighting fires everyday, or policemen who face getting killed everyday.

I understand fans being pissed because they think the owners are being greedy but no one goes into business to lose money. No one goes into business to give away half their earnings. Businessman start business in the hopes of making the most money they can. Plus how good your business goes determines how succesful you are. So most owners should appear greedy because they are trying to make the most. If anything I feel the players are the ones fans should be pointing their fingers at and calling greedy because it just seems they are trying to take and take from what the owners are earnging. It seems like they want the owners to fork over the money for everything that the common citizen has to pay for on their own. It seems like their taking their starting salaries of $400,000 + for granted when if they don't like what they are doing to what they are making then come join the rest of us who have to earn a fraction of what they make with worse conditions then what they have .... everyday, not just on Sundays. Instead of risking their lives for 16 days of the year how about they risk their lives for 365 days minus weekends or time off and holidays. Not to mention having to worry about a possibility of a furlough. or they can find another job that has a union if they like.

Better yet the players can decide to not play for the NFL anymore and maybe start their own league with the intention of giving 60% + of their earnings to the players they hire and paying for all medical expenses for the rest of the players lives as well as a retirement fund and they could cut the games played to maybe half of what the NFL has say 8 games a year then playoff time cause cutting the games played obviously saves the players from getting more injuries.

This thread is getting heated

This thread is getting heated

We need a mediator to settle things down here. LOL.