Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Once the 2nd extension is up, I think there's a deal or there's a lockout. I'm betting on deal.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;787581]Once the 2nd extension is up, I think there's a deal or there's a lockout. I'm betting on deal.[/quote]

Yea, no need for extension if they are not close.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Definitely leaning towards a deal. If they were too far apart, the union would have de-certified and taken it to court and we'd already be in the lockout.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Monkeydad;787589]Definitely leaning towards a deal. If they were too far apart, the union would have de-certified and taken it to court and we'd already be in the lockout.[/quote]

Agreed. Just the fact that they've agreed to continue talking indicates progress. I think both sides realize that a lockout would be a huge mess.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

From what I heard and understand, the extension allows both parties more time to come to an agreement, once the CBA is expired the players can decertify and take it to fed. court in Minn where a judge whom has ruled in the players favor the last 15 years or so will again get to be the judge. Once in the courts, an expert figured it would take approx 6 months for a ruling. So the players time to decertify and file in court without it resulting in those 6 mos cutting into the reg season is rapidly approaching.

I dont undertand how a judge can be specially set to a matter for over 15 years thoo. I know in Mont Co Cir Co there is one judge who handles the complex contract/business matters b/c those types of cases req a greater understanding of the principles, law in that particular specialized area vs your avg bench judge.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I think the big blow was the order that the owners CAN'T use TV money for 2 years even without games. That was their silver bullet, telling the NFLPA..."it doesn't matter to us, we're set for 2 years even without games". Their claim of a 2 year "war chest" was shot down.

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6172379]Federal judge backs NFLPA in dispute over TV money - ESPN[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

About the tv contracts, I found it alil misleading for the owners to say they would have to pay back the 4 bil but left out that they would get to keep 420 mil.

Also, odd was that directv would have to pay 9% more than usual to the nfl if there was a strike and no football.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=over the mountain;787593]From what I heard and understand, the extension allows both parties more time to come to an agreement, once the CBA is expired the players can decertify and take it to fed. court in Minn where a judge whom has ruled in the players favor the last 15 years or so will again get to be the judge. Once in the courts, an expert figured it would take approx 6 months for a ruling. So the players time to decertify and file in court without it resulting in those 6 mos cutting into the reg season is rapidly approaching.

[B]I dont undertand how a judge can be specially set to a matter for over 15 years thoo. I know in Mont Co Cir Co there is one judge who handles the complex contract/business matters b/c those types of cases req a greater understanding of the principles, law in that particular specialized area vs your avg bench judge[/B].[/quote]

The way I heard it is each CBA is basically an extension of the previous ones since 1987, so Judge Doty remains on the matter.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Just heard on 980AM that the CBA has been extended 7 days. That's got to be a good sign. Sorry, no link yet.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=GMScud;787617]Just heard on 980AM that the CBA has been extended 7 days. That's got to be a good sign. Sorry, no link yet.[/quote]

Yes!!!!!!!! Per Adam S. as well

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6181794"]ESPN: NFL, Union extend talks for 7 days[/URL]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

It's a good start. I'm starting to feel that this gets done now and not into the summer as I originally feared. (sent from phone)

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Things are definitely sounding encouraging

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/04/demaurice-smith-were-not-going-to-let-you-down/]DeMaurice Smith: “We’re not going to let you down” | ProFootballTalk[/url]

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/04/roger-goodell-talking-is-better-than-litigating/]Roger Goodell: “Talking is better than litigating” | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Big deal either way. It is like they are just doing this to add to the suspense so people will be ever so thankful that they got a deal done. I saythis because it is inevitable that a deal is going to be hammered out. Neither side can afford a lockout in the long run. The day of reckoning is going to come sooner or later though, as inflation is going to slowly kill of the dollar and raise prices on everything. Salaries and ticket prices need to come down or the NFL is going to price itself out of existence. An eighteen game season isn't going to help that much either.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Tedy Bruschi was right it seems...well, if there's an agreement by mid-March he'll have been right. He said back in January it would come down to the last day and there would either be a last minute extension or a one-two week lockout

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I know I come off as being cynical, but the bottom line is money for both sides, as well as the future of the NFL. With the economy in the tank and the dollar in doubt, a lockout would give the fans an extra incentive to take a hike. If the dollar does take a dive, the last thing folks are going to be worrying about is the NFL. And if they do lockout, any diehard fan is going to be very hardpressed to justify spending a dime on the NFL.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2011/03/04/VI2011030405510.html]NFL on CBA: Talking is better than litigating[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Ever since the NFL became certified it has always been my belief the "fan" should in some way have a seat at the negotiating table.

Public ownership of teams is an issue I don't see gaining much traction.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-frederick/fans-list-of-demands-for-_b_832050.html]Brian Frederick: Fans' List of Demands for New NFL Labor Agreement[/url]

[QUOTE=Longtimefan;787806]Ever since the NFL became certified it has always been my belief the "fan" should in some way have a seat at the negotiating table.

Public ownership of teams is an issue I don't see gaining much traction.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-frederick/fans-list-of-demands-for-_b_832050.html]Brian Frederick: Fans' List of Demands for New NFL Labor Agreement[/url][/QUOTE]

Although great conceptually, there are a ton of issues with publically owned teams. If there is too much public say, bad decisions result. Governments are also forced to make more team based decisions, which leads to wasteful spending.

See many european soccer clubs/teams for examples.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=hooskins;787808]Although great conceptually, there are a ton of issues with publically owned teams. If there is too much public say, bad decisions result. Governments are also forced to make more team based decisions, which leads to wasteful spending.

See many european soccer clubs/teams for examples.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk[/quote]

There are definitely drawbacks to public ownership. Advocates of private ownership argue that team owners assume tremendous financial risk, putting up large amounts of money and taking on debt. Conceptually, this is true; in practice, the financial risk is minimal. NFL ratings continue to soar, delivering a reliable audience in an otherwise fragmented media era.
Not coincidentally, franchise values also continue to rise. Located in a city of just 102,000 people, the Packers have an estimated worth of $1 billion.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Longtimefan;787814]There are definitely drawbacks to public ownership. Advocates of private ownership argue that team owners assume tremendous financial risk, putting up large amounts of money and taking on debt. Conceptually, this is true; in practice, the financial risk is minimal. NFL ratings continue to soar, delivering a reliable audience in an otherwise fragmented media era.
[B]Not coincidentally, franchise values also continue to rise.[/B] Located in a city of just 102,000 people, the Packers have an estimated worth of $1 billion.[/quote]

Got to wonder if there's some sort of franchise bubble.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Dirtbag59;787819]Got to wonder if there's some sort of franchise bubble.[/quote]

Funny thing about those financial bubbles - they are far easier to see in hindsight.

The ongoing NFL-NFLPA dispute is simple really. The owners overspent on unnecessary stadiums, and now they want the players to work more for less pay to help pay down the debt. That's your entire labor dispute in one sentence.

The NFL produces three things: stadium debt, intellectual property, and bureaucracy. None of these things should be confused with "free market" values. The league is a prime example of what happens when you mix politically influential egos with easy credit and a media environment that largely promotes economic ignorance. You have the perfect boom business.

But the networks face their own economic challenges, and unless you can guarantee that Fox, ESPN, CBS, et al., will be stronger in the future than they are now, then you can't say with any confidence the NFL will survive and thrive indefinitely. The league is built on consumption, and when you adopt that model, eventually you'll eat yourself out of your $1.3 billion house and home.

Found this from Forbes.

[url=http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/13/nfl-cowboys-yankees-biz-media-cx_tvr_0113values.html]The Most Valuable Teams In Sports - Forbes.com[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6189122]NFL: Taking stock of free-agent moves - ESPN[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

»
Albert Breer

Filed to NFL.com: Confirming that International Investment Bank has been retained by the NFLPA to review any financials released by NFL.

Additionally, according to a source, NFL has not released any additional financial info yet. This, for the PA, is to be ready for that. ...

... And on top of that, an auditor who the union has used for years arrived at the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service at 3 p.m.
3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

One would hope that this means that the NFL and PA have agreed on some way of "opening the books"

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

or not:

AlbertBreer
Fujita on financials: "What's shared with us is not sufficient. It's more or less just a snapshot." Bank helps players use info they DO have
1 minute ago

Even if I agreed with the players about the books, which I don't, I see a lot of "attitude" in this quote that irritates me.

I still can't for the life of me understand why they can't reach an agreement along these lines:
The PA gives the owners a list 10 teams that they'd like to see the books of. The owners select 5 of those and redact personal information so the books aren't team specific, and then give those books to PA's auditing firm.

There just has to be a way to get around both sides fears...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Can't help but think the owners are hiding something with this selective view of the financials. If you "need" a bigger piece of the pie, just open the books and prove it. The numbers don't lie. Why is that so hard to understand?

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/09/impasse-approaches-regarding-financial-information/]Impasse approaches regarding financial information | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Andrew Brandt, who has quickly become a go to source of info for this dispute, was on Sirius with Peter King and Ross Tucker this morning. He had a very accurate answer when asked specifically why the owners wouldn't open the books.

(from my memory) He said that, basically, the books today show a healthy business, and that the owners argument is that IF the CBA as it was continued forward, than the books in 2014-5 would show a very different and very unhealthy league. He continued, saying, that the owners point of view is that they are trying to be pro-active in getting a working model, but if they open the books completely the PA would simply harp on the current state, and not look to the future state [when put in this context Jerry Richardson's outburst about the P/L statements and ratios makes more sense].

Peter King pressed ABrandt about if it was possible that some teams were simply trying to hide 50-60 million dollars, and ABrandt simply said yes.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Seems like owners are trying to bring in level headed owners to get something done. Mara yesterday, today Rooney from the Steelers.

Man, regardless of side, I hope they get this thing done!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Latest update on the CBA talks now in a critical, and perilous, state.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Two good articles on the "Show us the books" issue.

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Show-us-more-of-your-books.html]Show us (more of) your books! | National Football Post[/url]
by Andrew Brandt

and

[url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d81ead445/article/union-wants-more-financial-information-than-nfl-has-offered?module=HP_headlines]NFL.com news: Union wants more financial information than NFL has offered[/url]
by Albert Breer

From Breer's article
[QUOTE]Additionally, the NFL offered to illustrate the effect of economic conditions, the number of clubs who have experienced a shift in profitability over the aforementioned five-year period, 2005-09, and a third-party auditor to assess all information.

The union declined the offer to view the information.

According to a league source, the NFL's feeling was that it had made a major concession to reveal information on profitability that isn't even available to its clubs. The union's feeling, according to a players association source, was that it was important not to accept any offer to see additional information until it felt the information was sufficient to make decisions on how the $9.3 billion in revenue will be split up going forward, which remains the biggest issue in these labor talks.[/QUOTE]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

One more by Schefter:

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6196585]NFL insisting union has enough financial info - ESPN[/url]

[QUOTE]When the NFL did, the NFLPA declined to see it, a source familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter, because it would compromise its public position on financial transparency.

The NFL's proposal, also reported by The Associated Press, included:

• audited league-wide profitability data with dollar figures from 2005 to 2009, based on individual club statements;

• the number of teams that have seen a shift in profitability in that span;

• an independent auditor to examine the data.

The league thought it was the first step in the beginning of financial transparency, but it was not transparent enough for the NFLPA.

The NFLPA declined comment when contacted by ESPN, saying it has been asked by the mediator not to discuss specific matters with respect to negotiations.

What's intriguing about these latest developments, with the NFL offering documented financial information, is the NFL provided Smith with what he has asked for in the past.

In September, Smith told WGR sports radio in Buffalo, "If there is anything wrong with this deal, if any team is losing money, if any team has lost money over the last five years, if profits are trending down over the past five years, show me and I'll change the CBA."[/QUOTE]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;788309]One more by Schefter:

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6196585]NFL insisting union has enough financial info - ESPN[/url][/quote]

So WTF more does Smith want.This guy is starting to piss me off. He asked for something the NFL said ok here look then he says no thanks still not good enough. I swear to god a deal better happen by Friday or I'm taking this into my own hands. I'll show them!!!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

What is this "death bomb" expense? It was $76 billion last year alone?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-rookiewagescale030911]Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;788329][URL="http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-rookiewagescale030911"]Sources: Agreement reached on rookie scale - NFL - Yahoo! Sports[/URL][/quote]

Well that's some progress at least.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

The rookie wage scale was likely the easiest issue on which the sides could agree. Nonetheless it is better than no agreement at all.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Regarding an agreement on the rookie wage scale:


1. Yes, it was one of the easier issues to resolve since the union is negotiating away some of the leverage of folks who are not members of the union at the moment.

2. Yes, any agreement on any issue more germane to a new CBA than agreeing that "night" will come after "day" is a plus.


3. However, let us continue to be rational and maintain our scorn for both sides of this mess. Remember, these guys are arguing over how to split ANNUAL revenues of $9B+ - - and that is money that comes from the fans. Realize they could still have a work-stoppage over how to split up OUR money.


Take the news of this "settled issue" positively but do not get carried away just yet...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

^ You are correct. While it is good to retain some optimism, the only fruit picked so far is the low-hanging variety.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Bruce Allen is there again today. Actually a little concerned that our GM is spending so much of this time in these sessions. I would say at this point he needs to be back focused on our team needs, and let the NFL Exec committee and the NFLPA hash it out (or not, as the case may go)

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I'm sure BA can handle both duties, and that's what the rest of his front office team is for.