Deus Irae

I'll put in his final number, but people should read how he gets there. I make no claim to his being accurate, but it's the first hard data I've seen on this today:

Making sense of the financial divide between the two sides | ProFootballTalk

__________________
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."
- Marcus Aurelius

Metaphors

Not sure how you could read that article and not focus on this part:

So if you believe this article, the last offer from the owners was a $141M cap in 2011 rising to $161M in 2014. Plus adjustments if the financial projections turn out to be too low.

The gap is large because the players asking price is huge. The owners went higher than I ever thought possible...and it still wasn't enough. In fact, it wasn't even good enough to continue negotiating.

If this information is accurate, the entire response from DeMaurice Smith on Friday about the areas preventing an agreement are blatant lies.

bucky

Interesting that the NFL expects revenue to grow by only 4, 4, 2.5, and 2.5% over the next 4 years. Judging by increases in the salary cap, annual revenue appears to have grown by at least 5% over the past few years.

skinnydog

You do know that the owners 131M offer was below the2009 cap, right?

Metaphors

1) Wrong

2) I would expect the owners final offer to result in a cap figure in that range. Going to $141M (an additional $320M in league-wide player salaries or about $200K per player) is quite a concession.

If these figures are accurate, the owners are offering a solid deal. At the very least good enough to continue negotiating.

PatsWickedPissah

It finally dawned on Ol Marble Head here that the NFLPA never had any intent to negotiate. Hiring DeMaurice & Co who are litigators, not negotiators, was a leading indicator that their plan all along was to litigate their way to victory.

As to the figures, I find it difficult to discern which and whose figures are accurate. The signal to noise ratio on this info is way too low and exacerbated by the widespread lack of understanding of basic financial issues by the reporting media and fans. Top this off by everyone's emotions and throwing their political predilections into the fray and it's a fustercluck of mammoth proportions.

__________________
RIP Vince Flynn. Condolences to family and friends.

mgteich

The last owner offer of a $141M cap plus all the other goodies is an impressive offer. The alternative of $131M plus adders for growth is also an awesome offer.

The players will utilimately take a deal close to this. I think that they really wanted to avoid the 18 week season and wanted to see the books, at least for a couple of years. The owners have pulled off the extra games and have in fact reduced the time on the field. The requirement of open financials will come from the courts.
==============

BOTTOM LINE
Folks here said that Miguel was crazy to consider that the settlement cap might be as high as $135M. Posters thought that a cap of under $110M was more likely. Folks will learn to listen to Miguel!

$135M plus adders for growth based on percentage of revenue seems very reasonable indeed. Also $135M with a fixed schedule of increases seems reasonable. The owners are already offering these deals.

skinnydog

Try again. In 2009 the cap was 123M and the Cap + benefits was 149.1M. I believe the 141 number was the oweners offer of Cap + benefits for a reduction of about 8M as compared to 2009.

Take a look: BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet Blog Archive Behold! The NFL’s last offer to the union, according to the NFLPA

bucky

This pretty much sums up my feelings as well. The NFLPA's reluctance to continue negotiatiations after the NFL made considerable concessions is really a key indicator. That, plus the fact that they think they have a friendly judge.

signbabybrady

I have one question and I have not really seen an answer anywhere.

Lets assume no one comes back to the table for negotiating and the lawsuits make it to a judge what are the potential outcomes of these hearings?

From my very elimentary understanding of all this is that the players are basically suing the NFL stating they are not be treated fair and that things like the salary cap and franchise tags limit their freedoms and such. I would imagine the suit cant go backwards as there was a collectively bargained agreement on this so seems to me like they are suing to eliminate the things in the CBA that normal business cant do like drafting talent and locking them up with tags and such.

So if the players win what happens? They are free to sign and quit with anyone they want and basically would be like all of us free to find work for anyone that will hire them? I would imagine this would come with some side effects too like no cap or floor and I would imagine revenue sharing would go away as well.

So now players are free to chose where they want to go but they made half the league make less then the used to and they allowed those owners to pay out as little as they would like. Sure there may be a few red sox and yankees out there willing to spend more than they used to but there spending will be kept in check by the fact very few teams could actually spend that much. I would think this would have a very negative effect on what the players as a whole actually wind up getting paid while effectively killing the competive balance of the sport and hurting the sports ability to grow revenue in the future and instead it will be up to each team to grow their own revenue.

I would imagine there are a lot of false assumptions and faulty logic above but that is what I am getting at. I dont truly understand what is to be gained by the lawsuits and how it effects the business model moving forward. It would just seem to me that you can sue for unfair conditions and restriction but you cant sue your boss to pay your more or to pay you equal to what you made before in previous agreements. It would seem to me that no matter what happens the owners would still chose who and how much they are willing to pay it could be a completely different system that allows no guarentees to the owner the player wont leave for more elsewhere but it would still be up to the owners to chose how much to pay sure the guy might go elsewhere if they think they can get more but there are only so many rosters spots in the league.

I dont the superstars in this league would be to effected by this and infact might make more but I would think average salary would go done and length of careers would go done for back end of the roster as why keep bringing back a guy like Larry Izzo when a rookie will be much cheaper and there are endless amounts of talented kids to replace these guys just not endless amounts to replace guys like Brady.

__________________