CBA Negotiations

[DaBruinz]

The fact that there has been nothing on the front regarding CBA negotiations, i am having the same feeling I had back when they were negotiating the CBA extension in 2004 or whenever it was.. I think that we could, very well, see the owners lock the players out if there isn't significant strides made to get a CBA extension completed. And I expect that it will be announced after the draft.

What do you think???

 

[Rob0729]

I think the bad ecomony will now make people come to the table. First and foremost, the NFLPA need to get a new President to start doing serious negotiations.

I think with the tough economy, most of the teams are already feeling a bit of hit. With Buffalo, Jacksonville, and Cincy already struggling to various degrees and teams like Dallas and both the NY teams opening expensive stadiums requiring very large PSLs; I think the owners know they cannot afford to shutdown the league for any significant time. Players are losing endorsement money because companies who pay these guys to star in their commercials are slashing their advertising budgets.

I think one of the few positives of this bad economy may be the addition of the sense of urgency to get a deal done with a new CBA and maybe even a willingness for both sides to come to a fairer and more equitable conclusion.

Maybe I just live in a dream world.

 

[spacecrime]

What do you think???

Never underestimate greed and stupidity. You would think that the recent NHL fiasco would serve as a lesson, but I doubt it.

 

[Frezo]

Also many owners probably have substantial stock investments that are failing. They'll need as much income as possible.

 

[jczxohn1]

The main issues seem to be IMO, the owner's objection to the 60% threshold of direct income going to the players. While rich teams , such as the Pats, can probably live with it, teams such as Buff and Cincy cannot. On the players side, reps such as Vrabel look around at the likes of Patriot Place and want to know why players aren't getting a piece of this periforally generated money. While the rich owners may not like the 60%, they may have to shut up about it and pony up more to help the have-nots and bring them back on board thereby keeping the books closed on the side businesses. In a down economy, the ownership must keep ranks together and restrict the deal to a percent of the direct revenues such as gate, TV, etc. Allowing an un-capped season to occur will spell the end of the NFL, as we know it. The only way back to fiscal responsibility will be a MLB CBA model, and the Rozell days of parity will be mourned forever.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

If they strike, I will be very disappointed, it would signal a time to move away from the nfl.. Its been 20 years,with out a work stopage, I think some sense will be made at the last minute.. the bad economy ,you would hope brings them closer together.

 

[DarrylS]

The state of the economy will be a driving force to resolve this amicably on both sides...

 

[Jimke]

If they strike, I will be very disappointed, it would signal a time to move away from the nfl.. Its been 20 years,with out a work stopage, I think some sense will be made at the last minute.. the bad economy ,you would hope brings them closer together.

I hope the parties won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Like you I suspect there will be a last minute resolution. Rookie

contracts will be reduced and more money allocated to poor revenue

teams. It will be a cold day in hell; however, before Bob Kraft agrees

to share all his revenue with teams that do not agressively sell their

team's products.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I hope the parties won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Like you I suspect there will be a last minute resolution. Rookie

contracts will be reduced and more money allocated to poor revenue

teams. It will be a cold day in hell; however, before Bob Kraft agrees

to share all his revenue with teams that do not agressively sell their

team's products.

Team like
Arizona
Buffalo
Minnasota
Cincy
Jax

Are the teams that really dont promote there product, and Kraft is right why should I share something that Bill Bidwell cant do on his own.. Its assinine.. I hope the NFL has not reached its peak, dispite the last year, the nfl is still the best sport bar none... Ive been disapointed in them last year, but part of it Espn ruins it for me.. the nfl network has been a plus..

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's a misread of the Owners to conclude that they will be in any sort of a rush to settle with the Players because of the bad economy. In fact, guys like this are more likely to think that bad times are the perfect time to bite the bullet and fix things they don't like in the CBA. Their pockets are a lot deeper than their players' and most of the Owners are folks who got where they are by having a "take no prisoners" approach in their own businesses. Also, and perhaps most importantly, bad economic times would make it far more difficult for a potential rival league to take advantage of some temporary disarray in the NFL to begin operations. In addition, Goodell is a weakened, weaker CEO than was Tags.

I think we're going to see the gap expand between large and small market teams on many matters. Remember that that gap was bridged by Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones and a couple of other big market guys the last time around, led by Kraft. Kraft has given the impression that he is fed up with small market owners who expect him to pick up the tab for their own failure to market their own teams more aggressively, as was pointed out above.

Also, while I don't think that Bob Kraft will ever let his emotions get in the way of a business decision, I find it hard to imagine that he will be as sympathetic as he has been in the past to the "plight" of small market teams whose owners, managers and players used Spygate to systematically trash the franchise he had so adroitly built over the past decade. I doubt that Kraft thinks there is anything magic about "32" Franchises and I would be pretty certain that he doesn't think that the "32" all necessarily need to remain in their current markets.

I see a lockout with the owners ready to wait the Players out. I think a couple of smaller franchises could fail or have to move. I don't think the latter is a big problem.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The fact that there has been nothing on the front regarding CBA negotiations, i am having the same feeling I had back when they were negotiating the CBA extension in 2004 or whenever it was.. I think that we could, very well, see the owners lock the players out if there isn't significant strides made to get a CBA extension completed. And I expect that it will be announced after the draft.

What do you think???

Conventional thinking is that they'll work it out because they always work it out... though it will go to the last minute as it always does.

Seems to me that this might be a different situation this time.

Athough both sides are rolling in dough, in the last CBA negotiations the players were able to play their cards to make some significant profit sharing gains. By opting out early the Owners are making it clear that they feel they gave too much and want to recoup and adjust that agreement.

In my experience with unions, they're usually not too keen to give up anything. I think impasse is a very real possibility. For how long, who knows.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

What's different this time...
1. An incompetent NFL Comissioner, unfortunately intent in showing how powerfull he is
2. Union leadership in flux
3. A bad economy, affecting owners' outside business activities puting pressure on NFL revenue
3. A continuing widening gap between activist owners working hard to bring in peripheral revenue (Dallas, NE...) vs loser owners unwilling or unable to generate additional revenue (Buffalo, AZ...). The winners can withstand a higher % to the players, the losers cannot and the environment for "sharing the wealth" among the ownership is less welcoming than before.

This is a volitile mix fraught with unpredictability.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

What's different this time...
1. An incompetent NFL Comissioner, unfortunately intent in showing how powerfull he is
2. Union leadership in flux
3. A bad economy, affecting owners' outside business activities puting pressure on NFL revenue
3. A continuing widening gap between activist owners working hard to bring in peripheral revenue (Dallas, NE...) vs loser owners unwilling or unable to generate additional revenue (Buffalo, AZ...). The winners can withstand a higher % to the players, the losers cannot and the environment for "sharing the wealth" among the ownership is less welcoming than before.

This is a volitile mix fraught with unpredictability.

i think that's a pretty good analysis...the only place where i might diverge is that i think the owners might see the bad economy as a good time to push the Players Union...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

i think that's a pretty good analysis...the only place where i might diverge is that i think the owners might see the bad economy as a good time to push the Players Union...

But the bad economy isn't affecting the players as individuals or their union as yet. It IS quite likely affecting the owners' outside (of football) business interests. Can the owners in that situation afford a lockout with loss of revenue not just from games but from all the associated revenue, NFL Pro-Shop shirts, Patriot Place traffic, etc. ?

If I knew the answer I'd be a 7 figures financial consultant.

 

[Rob0729]

But the bad economy isn't affecting the players as individuals or their union as yet. It IS quite likely affecting the owners' outside (of football) business interests. Can the owners in that situation afford a lockout with loss of revenue not just from games but from all the associated revenue, NFL Pro-Shop shirts, Patriot Place traffic, etc. ?

If I knew the answer I'd be a 7 figures financial consultant.

Yes, it is affecting players as individuals. I guarantee you the endorsement opportunities especially for the lesser endorsement deals for mid-level players are most likely drying up. Businesses are slashing their advertising budgets and paying players to endorse their products is a big advertising expenditure. Players are not hurting with their salaries, but I bet you the outside additional money (which is almost as big as some player's salaries) is drying up quickly.

Look at it this way. Local car dealerships all around the country use sports stars to shill their cars. With the car industry in the toilet, I bet those deals are disapearing all over the place.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

But the bad economy isn't affecting the players as individuals or their union as yet. It IS quite likely affecting the owners' outside (of football) business interests. Can the owners in that situation afford a lockout with loss of revenue not just from games but from all the associated revenue, NFL Pro-Shop shirts, Patriot Place traffic, etc. ?

If I knew the answer I'd be a 7 figures financial consultant.

like you, i don't pretend to know the answer. but, just for the sake of discussion, let me try this out.

i'll take the position that owners can afford a stoppage a lot more readily than can the players. i don't know the cost structure of an NFL franchise, but i'd bet that the largest costs are debt, players salaries and maybe facility maintenance. so, one of the two or three biggest costs is gone in the event of a strike. i wouldn't be surprised if debt covenants didn't have a strike clause that allows the franchise to suspend payments while accruing interest for a sesason. i'm not saying they could survive forever, but i'd imagine that the large franchises have contingency plans to get through one season. franchises that are putting up a new stadium might have a problem--like the jets and giants...awwww.

the players on the other hand are almost certainly seeing their ancillary income drying up. endorsements and appearances are probably down already due to the economy. with a strike they would go away; i'd imagine that any endorsement contracts have a strike clause that suspends payment during a work stoppage. i doubt that all but the top echelon of players have any substantial savings; so a strike would be hard on most of the players who have only been around for a couple of years.

the economy right now would make it almost impossible for a new league to get started. the owners might see this as a chance to "fix" the CBA without having to worry about such a threat during a lockout or strike.

i'm not super confident of that analysis, but i think it does make some sense.