The NFL and Player's Union Discussion Thread

[jocstrap 8]

Not a good sign...

 

A negotiating session between the NFL and players' union representatives in Washington has been canceled.

 

NFL LOCKOUT WATCH

Both sides met Wednesday to discuss a new collective bargaining agreement, but they canceled plans to continue talking Thursday. There also were talks Saturday in Dallas before the Super Bowl, the first formal discussions since November.

 

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah says he wishes negotiations were taking place Thursday.

 

Neither Atallah nor NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith would discuss why the talks were halted.

 

Team owners opted out of the CBA in 2008 and the current contract expires March 3

 

 

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/nfl-union-cancel-contract-talks-021011?gt1=39002

[Mike FF Today 722]

ESPN

 

This story has a little more info about negotiations yesterday.

 

"Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."

 

At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.

 

Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.

 

Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits."

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

ESPN

 

This story has a little more info about negotiations yesterday.

 

"Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."

 

At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.

 

Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.

 

Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits."[/i]

 

Smith either isn't serious or he's stupid.

 

From what I can tell, the players don't have a lot of power here and will eventually cave. Especially once the money stops and, maybe moreso, the insurance.

 

The owners have the power, the money, the patience, and the experience to outlast the players.

[RLLD 4,194]

The key facet here is going to be Robert Batterman, the guy who more or less orchestrated the NHL's lost season. This guy is a tough negotiator with a serious attitude.

 

I assure you that the walk out was planned in advance, this was inevitable.

 

But it only takes a few days to work sh!t out, there is not a big rush on either side to step into a bad deal.

 

The owners want to shave off $2 billion instead of the current $1 billion before deciding on a sharing %, and I am not sure the players are on board with that at all......especially if they go to extra games.

 

I think that the extra games notion is a mere ploy to get that extra $1 billion. The owners make up the extra game to pretend to give up something. The owners seem less concerned about rookie salaries and even the final % so long as they get their cut off the top......

 

Who wins, the owners and players, no matter what they finally decide; its still just a crying match between billionaires and millionaires. Fock them all .....

 

Who loses, anyone who would like to go experience an NFL game in person, or have a jersey. The rest of us who continue to allow ourselves to be gouged by these focking crybaby arseholes.....

[RoadLizard 73]

The key facet here is going to be Robert Batterman, the guy who more or less orchestrated the NHL's lost season. This guy is a tough negotiator with a serious attitude.

 

I assure you that the walk out was planned in advance, this was inevitable.

 

But it only takes a few days to work sh!t out, there is not a big rush on either side to step into a bad deal.

 

The owners want to shave off $2 billion instead of the current $1 billion before deciding on a sharing %, and I am not sure the players are on board with that at all......especially if they go to extra games.

 

I think that the extra games notion is a mere ploy to get that extra $1 billion. The owners make up the extra game to pretend to give up something. The owners seem less concerned about rookie salaries and even the final % so long as they get their cut off the top......

 

Who wins, the owners and players, no matter what they finally decide; its still just a crying match between billionaires and millionaires. Fock them all .....

 

Who loses, anyone who would like to go experience an NFL game in person, or have a jersey. The rest of us who continue to allow ourselves to be gouged by these focking crybaby arseholes.....

 

Totally agree. Its hard for common folks to swallow any of this when they are losing their jobs, their retirements, their incomes, etc, etc.

 

Just play the damned game.

[Phurfur 70]

I hear about what the players and the owners want but it seems nobody cares what the fans want. This is because they don't have to. No matter what happens the majority of the fans will not leave the game. I left baseball in 1981 and I will leave football if there is a disruption of the season. That won't hurt the NFL but it will make me feel better.

 

Didn't baseball cancel the World Series one year? (and the fans keep coming)

 

Remember people they are fighting over your money.

[cbfalcon 825]

I haven't read much on this.

 

So what is the owners reasoning/rationale for thinking they should get to slice $1-2 billion off the top?

[Truck Jackson 0]

I haven't read much on this.

 

So what is the owners reasoning/rationale for thinking they should get to slice $1-2 billion off the top?

 

They own the teams, they are compensating the players more than fairly for them playing football every year. Why wouldnt they be the ones making the money here. If the players don't want to play for the millions they are getting, then they should just quit.

[Pavlov 0]

They own the teams, they are compensating the players more than fairly for them playing football every year. Why wouldnt they be the ones making the money here. If the players don't want to play for the millions they are getting, then they should just quit.

 

Owners do make a ton of money, in many cases for doing nothing other than being born into a rich family. If the high-end players all quit, it dilutes the product and you'll find that your franchise is suddenly worth a lot less money. Remember scab football the first time around?

[cbfalcon 825]

They own the teams, they are compensating the players more than fairly for them playing football every year. Why wouldnt they be the ones making the money here. If the players don't want to play for the millions they are getting, then they should just quit.

 

No doubt the owners should make more money.

 

But I don't understand why they can't just argue for a bigger split of the entire pie, as oppose to saying we take the first 20% (or whatever), then we'll argue about the split the other 80%.

[Truck Jackson 0]

Owners do make a ton of money, in many cases for doing nothing other than being born into a rich family. If the high-end players all quit, it dilutes the product and you'll find that your franchise is suddenly worth a lot less money. Remember scab football the first time around?

 

I don't think it matters how someone came to own a franchise, fact is they do. And didn't quite a few players never strike in the first place, and a lot of them crossed the line during the strike also? And in the end the strike ended with no resolution. The players will play, simply because they don't have jobs waiting for them that will pay even 1/10th of the league minimum otherwise. And they are getting paid a ridiculous amount the way it is now.

[Pavlov 0]

I don't think it matters how someone came to own a franchise, fact is they do. And didn't quite a few players never strike in the first place, and a lot of them crossed the line during the strike also? And in the end the strike ended with no resolution. The players will play, simply because they don't have jobs waiting for them that will pay even 1/10th of the league minimum otherwise. And they are getting paid a ridiculous amount the way it is now.

 

I don't have a problem with owners making money, but it's disingenuous for them to complain about player contracts when they're the ones who signed the contracts in the first place. It's also disingenuous to complain about financial hardship in a $8 billion revenue sport and refuse to open your books. If my boss came to me and told me I needed to work more and take a pay cut because times were tough despite the fact that we had signed a $4 billion contract so people could watch me work on television, it would be a tough sell.

[Phurfur 70]

Owners do make a ton of money, in many cases for doing nothing other than being born into a rich family. If the high-end players all quit, it dilutes the product and you'll find that your franchise is suddenly worth a lot less money. Remember scab football the first time around?

 

You have no way of knowing what these people do! You are spreading nasty lies.

[5-Points 3,471]

This whole thing is ridiculous. I've had the Sunday Ticket since it came out. Every year the price goes up and I pay it because I want to watch football. If these sh!td!cks can't reach an agreement, I'll never buy another jersey, I'll never go to another game and I'll never get the Ticket again.

 

That'll learn em!

 

Seriously though, I realize they'll never miss my tiny contribution to the overall revenue but I'll notice the extra money in my wallet.

[Pavlov 0]

You have no way of knowing what these people do! You are spreading nasty lies.

 

Uhh, what these people do is a matter of public record. I've got nothing against Jim Irsay, but the guy got the team from his father and hired Polian to run it. For that staggering contribution, he made around $25 million last year. Rooney inherited the Steelers, so did Bidwill, McCaskey, Brown, Lerner, Hunt, Mara, Tisch, and York. This isn't a terrible thing in and of itself--teams are amazing assets and I can understand why you'd want your children to have them. But to suggest that players contribute less to a franchise's value than someone lucky enough to be born into these families is misleading. Obviously, some of the owners are self-made and bought teams at the end of hyper-successful careers elsewhere (Dan Snyder, for example). Over the last 10 years or so, the average NFL franchise has doubled in value to roughly $1 billion each. A lot of things contribute to that, and the owners deserve their piece of the pie, but the single largest factor is television revenue, which is directly related to the product on the field. People don't watch NFL games because they love the rules. How many times have you had to explain the tuck rule? Or intentional grounding? Or what constitutes "a football move?" The rules of football are insanely complex and esoteric for the novice. They watch it because of the players and the skill and athleticism involved. That's the draw that drives the television revenue.

[PATSSOX 22]

bunch of idiots thats all i think about it

[jocstrap 8]

This guy pretty much just b!tched slapped Peyton Manning

 

 

(Rotoworld) According to Cardinals kicker Jay Feely, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson was dismissive and condescending when speaking to Drew Brees and Peyton Manning in a CBA negotiating session last Saturday.

Analysis: Speaking on Michael Kay's radio show in New York, Feelys says Richardson said "do I need to help you read a revenue chart son?" when talking to Manning, before adding "do I need to help break that down for you because I don't know if you know how to read that?" If the owners are treating even the league's most visible and respected players this poorly, there's no telling how bad things might get this offseason.

 

 

[ZeroTolerance 584]

"Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players’ safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, “What do you know about player safety?”

 

A shame Manning didn't respond to the Carolina owner with a straight, calm "what do you know about winning?".

[shovelheadt 71]

"Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players’ safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, “What do you know about player safety?”

 

A shame Manning didn't respond to the Carolina owner with a straight, calm "what do you know about winning?".

 

I absolutely love Peyton Manning, but good for Richardson. I'm betting about 1% of players even have the capacity to comprehend what's going on here..and Manning's hillbilly ass probably isn't one of them. On one hand they b*tch about player safety, and on the other hand the leauge's becoming too soft. And like someone else said, intelligence and experience is what the owners have going for them. The players will eventually cave because going back to my intelligence comment, the majority of them probably live paycheck to paycheck. I see us losing at least part of this season.

 

I will side with the players on one issue. The league needs to quick tweaking sh*t. 18 games, games overseas, they focked with the draft days, etc. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

Stupid, short-sighted, greedy owners are going to ruin the sport. The NFL is by far the most popular league in America and maybe in the entire world (when you look at how many people watch the Superbowl worldwide). And yet these d0uchebags are going to risk interrupting play just so they can get a few more bucks to line their pockets with.

 

Fock 'em, if they are stupid enough to lockout the players then I may just quit following the league entirely. People might say that is an empty threat, but look at baseball. A lot of people (myself included) never fully went back to that sport after the lockout.

[kmbryant09 1]

I absolutely love Peyton Manning, but good for Richardson. I'm betting about 1% of players even have the capacity to comprehend what's going on here..and Manning's hillbilly ass probably isn't one of them. On one hand they b*tch about player safety, and on the other hand the leauge's becoming too soft. And like someone else said, intelligence and experience is what the owners have going for them. The players will eventually cave because going back to my intelligence comment, the majority of them probably live paycheck to paycheck. I see us losing at least part of this season.

 

I will side with the players on one issue. The league needs to quick tweaking sh*t. 18 games, games overseas, they focked with the draft days, etc. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Huh?

 

Also - players are concerned with player safety, and long-term healthcare coverage. Yet owners somehow counter that by adding 2 more regular season games?

 

And as someone else mentioned: How can the owners b!tch about players' contracts?? That'd be like my boss & hiring manager complaining that my department makes too much money, yet we're very successful. And when the NFL is a $9 billion revenue sport, how can the owners cry about loosing money, yet won't open up their books to show??

 

I don't know too much about the negotiations, but from everything I've heard - the owners are selfish, egotistical, money-seeking bafoons, which is probably how the became an NFL owner in the first place.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I haven't read much on this.

 

So what is the owners reasoning/rationale for thinking they should get to slice $1-2 billion off the top?

 

Well, there has been a rise in expenditures that so far has been at a faster rate than revenue.

The only full example is the Packers as they are the only team that releases its actual financial information.

Their revenue has been rising pretty well over the past few years...but expenses have as well so overall profit continues to dwindle. The owners are trying to get ahead of that bump in expenses now.

 

That said, don't take this as me supporting either side...just explaining what I know of what the owners are trying to do as far as thinking they should get to slice some off the top.

The original 1 bil was to cover expenses (front office, insurance and other things in there I believe).

[cbfalcon 825]

Well, there has been a rise in expenditures that so far has been at a faster rate than revenue.

The only full example is the Packers as they are the only team that releases its actual financial information.

Their revenue has been rising pretty well over the past few years...but expenses have as well so overall profit continues to dwindle. The owners are trying to get ahead of that bump in expenses now.

 

That said, don't take this as me supporting either side...just explaining what I know of what the owners are trying to do as far as thinking they should get to slice some off the top.

The original 1 bil was to cover expenses (front office, insurance and other things in there I believe).

 

That explains to me why owners want to make more of the money, but I don't understand why they need the $2B off the top. A 60-40 split of $10B is the same as cutting $2B off the top and agreeing to a 50-50 split of $8B. Why the extra step?

 

Without any knowledge of the situation, from afar it looks like shady biz on the owners side. If the players get a percentage from the whole pie, they'd get to see everything. But if the owners take a chunk of the pie before the players are ever allowed to look at it, then the players can never really know how big the pie ever was.

 

I may be talking out of my ass, but it seems shady.

[Sho Nuff 720]

That explains to me why owners want to make more of the money, but I don't understand why they need the $2B off the top. A 60-40 split of $10B is the same as cutting $2B off the top and agreeing to a 50-50 split of $8B. Why the extra step?

 

Without any knowledge of the situation, from afar it looks like shady biz on the owners side. If the players get a percentage from the whole pie, they'd get to see everything. But if the owners take a chunk of the pie before the players are ever allowed to look at it, then the players can never really know how big the pie ever was.

 

I may be talking out of my ass, but it seems shady.

 

Probably to ensure a steady 2 bil every year...where as the revenue will change over time, they will always get for sure that $2 bil.

Given the players not wanting to give that up, the the owners not wanting to just do a 50/50 split, there is a difference there in all liklihood.

[Pavlov 0]

Well, there has been a rise in expenditures that so far has been at a faster rate than revenue.

The only full example is the Packers as they are the only team that releases its actual financial information.

Their revenue has been rising pretty well over the past few years...but expenses have as well so overall profit continues to dwindle. The owners are trying to get ahead of that bump in expenses now.

 

That said, don't take this as me supporting either side...just explaining what I know of what the owners are trying to do as far as thinking they should get to slice some off the top.

The original 1 bil was to cover expenses (front office, insurance and other things in there I believe).

 

Yes and no. The Packers (and other teams) point to their debt ratios when they talk about financial hardship, but a huge chunk of that is the result of the recession and their portfolio's taking serious hits. Imagine your 401k, but on a larger scale. The players have nothing to do with that. It's true that player costs have increased, but it was an uncapped year so whatever spike in player costs your team incurred was entirely self-inflicted and, assuming the new CBA brings back the cap, will be a blip and not a trend. What goes unmentioned is how when the year became uncapped, it also lost its minimum payroll (called a "hard floor"). There wasn't a hard floor in 2010, but going off the 2009 numbers, 17 teams took the opportunity to field a team whose payroll would have been below the hard floor in 2009. Further, the biggest chunk of the increase in player expenses (Green Bay's payroll actually went down from 2009-2010, but player expenses went up) is benefits, an expense that is increasing for HR departments all over the country. From 2000-09, Green Bay player expenses rose 42%. Over the same period, revenues increased 112%. The recession flattens this line in more recent years, but basically I can't help but hear the owners' complaint as, "But we're not making money FAST enough during a recession!"

[shovelheadt 71]

Huh?

 

Also - players are concerned with player safety, and long-term healthcare coverage. Yet owners somehow counter that by adding 2 more regular season games?

 

And as someone else mentioned: How can the owners b!tch about players' contracts?? That'd be like my boss & hiring manager complaining that my department makes too much money, yet we're very successful. And when the NFL is a $9 billion revenue sport, how can the owners cry about loosing money, yet won't open up their books to show??

 

I don't know too much about the negotiations, but from everything I've heard - the owners are selfish, egotistical, money-seeking bafoons, which is probably how the became an NFL owner in the first place.

 

I think you're looking at it the same way the players are, without looking at what's happened over the past few years. While there's still a decent profit for most teams, it's dropped significantly over the past few years. The Packers have proven this with their publicly released finances. On the flip side, players salaries have continued to sky rocket out of control. Can't remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of 'why wait till we're standing on the edge of a cliff to fix things'? Even if the league opened up their books, the players union would try to discredit it somehow..insinuating the numbers weren't valid. Regardless of who's side you're on, the players have no leverage here. It's pay me now or pay me later. The owners are owners for a reason..they're rich. They can weather this a lot longer than the players can. Unfortunately, most players are too stupid to realize this.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

I think you're looking at it the same way the players are, without looking at what's happened over the past few years. While there's still a decent profit for most teams, it's dropped significantly over the past few years. The Packers have proven this with their publicly released finances. On the flip side, players salaries have continued to sky rocket out of control. Can't remember who said it, but it was something along the lines of 'why wait till we're standing on the edge of a cliff to fix things'? Even if the league opened up their books, the players union would try to discredit it somehow..insinuating the numbers weren't valid. Regardless of who's side you're on, the players have no leverage here. It's pay me now or pay me later. The owners are owners for a reason..they're rich. They can weather this a lot longer than the players can. Unfortunately, most players are too stupid to realize this.

 

1st off, they need a rookie wage scale, which I believe everyone agrees on.

 

2nd, the players are going to have to take less money. Like you said, the owners have the leverage here.

 

3rd, the owners are pricks, banking on the NFL being popular whether we go a year without it or not.....and that really pisses me off as a fan. They have the leverage and they're not looking to "negotiate" at all. They're playing hardball and obviously feel like they can crack the union.

 

It may not be popular on this board but for me, bring on the boys of summer. Baseball is right around the corner and the NFL can get bent. I enjoy fantasy baseball much more than football anyway. I've become more of a baseball fan every year anyway, and this will just push me more toward baseball.

[cbfalcon 825]

The owners will get whatever they want.

 

But the simple fact that they refuse to allow the players to see the books is most of the evidence I need to think the owners are crooked.

[Jarvis Basnight 119]

The owners will get whatever they want.

 

But the simple fact that they refuse to allow the players to see the books is most of the evidence I need to think the owners are crooked.

But why would they do that if they don't have to?

[cbfalcon 825]

But why would they do that if they don't have to?

 

So it's only the correct way to do things if you have to do it that way?

[RLLD 4,194]

If the players want owner-like money, they should go buy a focking team....

[cbfalcon 825]

If the players want owner-like money, they should go buy a focking team....

 

I don't think the players should get owner like money. I just think they should be allowed to know how much money the league is making each year. Then they can argue a split.

[Pavlov 0]

I don't think the players should get owner like money. I just think they should be allowed to know how much money the league is making each year. Then they can argue a split.

 

Agreed. If someone asked me to participate in a revenue sharing arrangement, I don't think my insistence that the revenue amounts be transparent would shock anyone.

[The Elevator Killer 522]

It's looking more and more like a lock out is going to happen. The owners have the TV contract. They are going to get that money even if there is no season. So they have that war chest set aside. It's just a matter of how long before the players give in to the owners demands.

[kmbryant09 1]

But why would they do that if they don't have to?

Because they want pity that they are making money at a slower rate. Mind you, we have been in a recession for a few years, so that should be expected, but if a business is going to complain about their $$ - specifically information that is found in their books, then they should at least provide said data.

 

If the players want owner-like money, they should go buy a focking team....

They don't want that. There's 32 owners in the league. There's 50-70 players per team...aka roughly 2,000 players.

[kutulu 1,670]

NEW YORK (AP)—The NFL and players’ union have agreed to mediation in their labor negotiations.

 

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service will oversee negotiations in Washington beginning Friday.

 

FMCS director George H. Cohen says, “Due to the extreme sensitivity of these negotiations … the agency will refrain from any public comment concerning the future schedule and/or the status of those negotiations until further notice.”

 

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells The Associated Press in an e-mail Thursday that “We are now in mediation.”

 

The collective bargaining agreement between the league and the players expires March 3.

[IGotWorms 4,057]

I don't see mediation going anywhere if they are a billion dollars apart and can't even have a meeting without someone walking out.

[RLLD 4,194]

The mediator is mostly an observer, their purpose is to try to keep everyone in the room, or perhaps in the same building if possible. They have no "power" to do anything.

 

The owners are in a strong bargaining position due to player reps mouthing off about how they got the better of the owners in the last deal, and the owners keep bringing this up over and over. Additionally, of the two sides, the players can least afford to miss time.

 

Through their own unadulterated greed they have more or less built the need to keep those paychecks rolling in, while the owners have established other revenue streams. This is why the owners are "wealthy" and the players are "rich".

 

As important, once the current agreement ends, so does the medical support the players currently enjoy, think about that for a few minutes.

 

Neither side wants to agree to anything right now, because both firmly believe that only a bad deal can result in a fast agreement.

[Mike FF Today 722]

It's now day 5 of negotiations in front of the federal mediator. I'm sure some of major media types are frustrated with the lack of information coming out of these talks, but I kind of like the "zip-it" approach. The public posturing tends to hurt negotiations like this more than it helps.

 

Keep talkin' boys, and let's get this thing done!

[Mike FF Today 722]

League calls special meeting

 

The league has called a meeting for tomorrow at the Combine for all GMs and coaches.

 

At the meeting, the NFL is expected to brief teams on any number of issues pertaining to labor uncertainty and football operations, including what to expect in the days leading up to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement, the manner of league business that will be allowed this offseason, and the type of contact that teams will be permitted to have with agents.

 

The meeting is expected to be held at 5:30 p.m. ET Thursday.