DaBruinz

So, Goodell's letter basically confirms what Ian Rappaport reported last Friday (Good Job, Ian and my apologies on doubting you).

Yet, the player reaction to the letter ranges from calling it SPAM to calling him a liar and a cheat, etc.

Except for the salary cap resetting to 114 million, EVERYTHING else is a win for the players. Everything. And, on top of that, there is no asking of the players to take a salary cut.

One thing that I find intriguing is that Goodell states , " We believe the offer presented a strong and fair basis for continuing negotiations,"

To me, that sentence says, "Hey, this is our starting point. Let's work from here".

And, instead, the players de-certified.

And now, there are players who are signing with the AFL and some who are looking at the CFL and UFL.. With every player that signs in another league, the basis for the players to claim that the league is a monopoly is eroded.

upstater1

Except for that little hiccup, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

While I've been on the players side mostly throughout this, I do think the players need to give in ultimately on a deal that will guarantee the revenue sharing model that's currently in place. That's the most important thing to me as a fan. Why? Because it will keep the league at parity.

That being said, after reading the great article by Howard Balzer in which he gave a history of the current squabbles by referencing the opt-out in the CBA as it had been developed, and after reading Borges this morning with a piece that was pure PR for the players, filled with attributions from the NFLPA (thankfully there was very little of Borges in it, it was just filled with quotes) I've got a better idea of the money issues involved.

Since I now can see what the actual offer is, and that those figures have been verified by Pash, my mind is returning back to the Peter King article here: NFL lockout is bad, but resolution closer than it appears - Peter King - SI.com

And, King's emphasis on the deliberate refusal to meet with the players during the week hearkens back to the previous meetings when Jerry Richardson personally belittled Drew Brees and Peyton Manning.

I think a deal could have been made last week. But, the owners have clearly chosen to peeve the players, insult them, dismiss and ignore them. The players waited for 4 days without any true negotiations going on. Apparently, during those 4 days, they met with NFL lawyers for 30 minutes, and the players liked what they were hearing. There was some convergence. Come Friday, the NFL came in and laid down the hammer, setting a cap on the split of any overage. This was a giant step backward. The players were peeved, they decertified and headed to court.

This is probably by the NFL's design. Insult the players, send them to court, blame them in the court of public opinion, because they'll eventually break. If the owners wanted a deal done, they would have been at the negotiating tables, they would not be insulting the players whenever they could.

The NFL's strategy may very well yield fruit if it eventually divides the players, if the players lose the PR war. Guys like Cromartie and Petersen are just playing into their hands.

Miguel

I disagree. If revenues are more than the owners project, the owners in their offer keep 100% of the revenue over than the projected amount.

__________________
My youngest sister's best friend is on the board of directors of a food pantry in Malden, Massachusetts that distributed 285,000 meals and meal equivalents in 2005. I am asking that if you have found my salary cap pages useful that if you are able to do so, please make a donation to it. Please contact me for more information.

DaBruinz

Unless they totally changed Section XXIV, that makes no sense.

That being said the flip side of that is that if the revenue are less than expected, the owners side would take the hit.

Risk/Reward.

To follow that up, the next year, the projected amount would have to be adjusted up also. So, they may not get the money immediately, but they would still get it.

DaBruinz

Miguel - I posted in another thread 4 items that the players seem to be ignoring when it comes to the increase of owner costs.

1) The 82 million additional into the pension for pre-1993 players.. Totally owner subsidized.

2) The cost of the medical benefits for players and families, post career.

3) The increase in the injury coverage to 1 Million guaranteed for the 2nd year.

4) The additional benefits costs going into the CBA.

Right there are a lot of costs that the owners are having to shoulder and not the players. Yet, the players don't believe the owners' costs are rising..

Sciz

The problem is that the owners' projections are crazy low.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

DaBruinz

Where do you get that the owner's projections are "crazy low"?

jmt57

That's true, and that is a huge difference in the way things have been between owners ever since the beginning of the free agent/salary cap era. In addition, the projections for growth are much lower than what they have been for the last several years. On top of that the deal was for ten years; it's a bit unrealistic to expect the players to agree to ten years of not getting any of that upside over lowered projections.

Football revenues have increased by 7½% for the last decade. The NFL wants to use a figure for projected growth of 4% in 2011, 4% in 2012, 2½% in 2013, and 2½% in 2014.

In the previous offers the NFL was going to true up the difference. In the last offer they did not; the NFL owners were going to keep 100% of the overage.

The NFL may be trying to spin this that they made a great offer and a big concession with that final offer, but it was no compromise at all. As Sean Morey said, what the NFL is trying to do is privatize its profits and socialize its costs.

jcdavey

i side with goodell

even though my team's LB called him a liar haha

jczxohn1

IIRC, projected increases even seemed rigged; 7% for 2 yrs (as it has been recently), 4% for 2 yrs; and 2% for 2 yrs or some such declining tier scenario. Such a declining tier structure seems to deny any effect of a currently downturning economy, and predicts worse revenues 3 or 4 yrs out, when the economy should be past the bottom of a down cycle. (Parenthetically, if it isn't, we're all in trouble.)

The other issue, mentioned by Matt Light, of the disparity between the owner haves and have-nots, is addressed in no way in public at this juncture. The desire for return on investment and marketing (greed to you pro-union types) would point to little or no change in revenue sharing as a solution or ameliorative to the impasse. Regardless of the outcome of the CBA and the owners 11th hr proposal, IMO nothing will be done relieve the have-not teams, and within a few yrs they will be forced out to more demographically prosperous areas. Buffalo, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, possibly Cleveland, will all pound sand waiting for the other owners to bail them out.

__________________
Felger started his question, "Correct me if I'm wrong," BB quickly interjected, "I can't wait--"


``The officials now are evaluating the players and their performance, I mean, that's great,'' Belichick deadpanned. ``I can't say how much that means to me, really.''