First cracks showing in NFLPA?

[Metaphors]

Here are statements from less than a month ago:

Smith and Mawae said that if next season goes forward with no salary cap, it would be highly unlikely to have a new CBA with a cap reinstated.

"Virtually impossible," Smith said.

"A very difficult task," Mawae said.

Clearly talking tough with the underlying threat of..."Get a deal now or kiss the cap bye-bye forever." As mentioned in numerous other threads, if you lose the cap you also lose the salary floor, revenue sharing as we know it and probably a couple of teams.

Now here is today's statement:

Smith said the union's most recent proposal contains an offer to keep the current capped system for another year to allow both sides to continue negotiations.

"It is our view that obtaining an extension to the CBA prior to the uncapped year is in the best interest of both the players and the owners," Smith wrote.

Ummm...why can't you continue negotiating during an uncapped year? Bluff called. The players now realized (or realized all along but didn't state it publicly) that they stand to lose big in 2010. Besides the hundreds of players sitting on RFA tenders instead of UFA megabucks, owners are likely to use the uncapped and unfloored year to align their salary structures more to their liking...meaning less than 60% of revenue to player salaries.

One other interesting quote:

Smith closed the memo by asking players and agents to keep the NFLPA updated on their individual contract negotiations because "it will allow us to be informed of the trends in the market for player services.

"With that information, we can then help all players maximize their ability to get the best contracts possible. In the meantime, the NFLPA will continue its efforts to reach agreement with the league on a new CBA."

Total and complete crap. The players have agents that are paid to be informed of trends in the market. That is a not-so-subtle threat of a collusion lawsuit if salaries tumble across the league in a suspicious way.

I read this as the players getting slowly backed into a very tight, scary and money-deficient corner. While owners laugh in a large room wallpapered with the DirecTV contract.

 

[Brady2Welker]

I think the NFLPA will crack long before the owners. As crazy as some of the owners are, they found a way to make bank before buying a team. The majority of them still have a foot in their various organizations that got them their cash and thus aren't in need for the money because they have other skillsets to net them cash.


As far as players, if you aren't a super-star player; (Brady, Manning, now Brees etc) who can gobble up endorsements, the odds are you have very little income going into 2011. Most of these guys don't manage their finances very well either, I predict that they'll be quaking in their boots if they have to pay for their large houses, and expensive cars without sunday game checks.

 

[patsfan-1982]

good i hope there is a cap there would be a lot more FA's and it would make the off season a lot more fun for fans and the players that will get paid.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Ownership will always win at this. Players aren't disciplined enough or wealthy enough to hold out, while the owners (most of them, at least) have been preparing for this for at least the last few years.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Ownership will always win at this. Players aren't disciplined enough or wealthy enough to hold out, while the owners (most of them, at least) have been preparing for this for at least the last few years.

preparing for what? empty stadiums?

the owners caused this mess by agreeing to the deal they could not stomach

you don't think players can prepare the same way?

gonna be interesting what some of you will have to say about brady when he starts to speak up on behalf of the players.........

 

[DarrylS]

Owners have a very unique position of power here, they will get paid by the networks in '11 regardless of whether or not they have a product on the field, 50 billion worth of pay...

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Owners have a very unique position of power here, they will get paid by the networks in '11 regardless of whether or not they have a product on the field, 50 billion worth of pay...

true.....but there is so much for the owners to lose on the longer term.......

but the bottom line is that it would be a 'lockout', so it is the owners call.......

I'm just wondering how on an individual basis that a lockout can't be considered a breach of contract .... I guess unless there is some verbiage in there

 

[chevss454]

Owners have a very unique position of power here, they will get paid by the networks in '11 regardless of whether or not they have a product on the field, 50 billion worth of pay...

Yes, but don't forget, it's really just an advance of payment since any amount paid to owners during a lockout is subtracted from amounts owed at the end of the contract. It's not free money.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

Yes, but don't forget, it's really just an advance of payment since any amount paid to owners during a lockout is subtracted from amounts owed at the end of the contract. It's not free money.

Yeah but it sure makes it easier to pay the bills when you have the cash on hand. The owners have been preparing by having asst coaches signing contracts for lesser pay if there is no season in 2011 and they will trim staffs and stil have debt service on their stadiums etc but they will ( unfortunately) shed support staff, parking staff and concessions.....
They could always rent their stadiums out to college teams if they'd be willing to play on Sundays....

 

[spacecrime]

preparing for what? empty stadiums?.........

Yes. Exactly. They are preparing for a year without statium income. That's what BradyFTW said.

the owners caused this mess by agreeing to the deal they could not stomach
.........

Again, agree. And since they found they cannot stomach the deal, they will do the next deal differently. Learning from past mistakes is one of the reasons why they are business savvy enough to afford teams.

you don't think players can prepare the same way?

Nope. As BradyFTW said, the owners have multiple sources of income and except for a very few NFL players who have endorsements, the players not only have none, they are famous for not managing money properly.

Not just football players, workers in general are not smart. When conditions are intolerable, when workers are just as well off without their job as they are with it, strikes are powerful things and the united stand of workers is immovable.

Football players don't fit this. They have nothing in common with coal miners, 19th century millworkers, etc.

In 1972 I worked in the auto industry, in the Scout plant of International Harvester in Fort Wayne. The workers went on strike. They planned for it by demanding more overtime, building a strike fund. The owners planned for it by letting workers work all the overtime they wanted, stockpiling Scouts.

I was on salary, working in Engineering, and kept my job through the strike.

When the strike came, the strikers had enough money to last a couple months, some more, most less. The company had vehicles to last three months in stock. The workers struck, the company locked out. When stockpiles of Scouts got low, the company negotiated with the now desperate workers. They all got a raise, about what the company offered to begin with (we basically ended up with what Ford-GM-Chrysler-AMC got).

The company lost nothing, in fact had higher earnings due to no salaries. The workers lost two+ months pay. Some were hit hard with medical bills.

No, workers cannot prepare as well as owners.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

true.....but there is so much for the owners to lose on the longer term.......

but the bottom line is that it would be a 'lockout', so it is the owners call.......

I'm just wondering how on an individual basis that a lockout can't be considered a breach of contract .... I guess unless there is some verbiage in there

Because of the anti trust exemption owners would have to lock out because absent a collectively bargained agreement their existing work rules would be open to challenge. That is why in the alternative the union may attempt to decertify, essentially stepping out of the picture. Under that scenario the NFLPA would attempt to spin itself as the savior of football (because games would continue without interruption) since the league would continue to operate under the last contract offer from the owners and the union would start the protracted court battles challenging one provision after another in hopes some would end in rulings in it's favor. This is a less palatable solution from an ownership standpoint, because while they get whatever deal they want going forward they risk the courts chipping away at their various rules over time. That was how FA came to be.

I think it's comical that Gene Upshaw's attempt to re-write his epitaph has ended with players even more screwed than they ever were throughout his much maligned tenure...

 

[Triumph]

The owners will say no to extending the cap. Thats why they opted out of the cba.

Some are losing money due to the current economic climate. Defaults on luxury box payments by companies or not leasing a box at all, higher operating/construction costs, J Jones cannot find a business to lease the naming rights to his stadium.

Some owners arent hurting because local municipalities own and run the stadium they play in.

 

[Metaphors]

The owners will say no to extending the cap. Thats why they opted out of the cba.

This is the comical part of the NFLPA statements. They threaten the owners with losing the cap and the owners don't even pay attention. Their magnanimous gesture was to keep the cap in place for 2010, but the owners would rather have an uncapped/unfloored year to get their finances in better shape.

The players thought they had an ace up their sleeve (losing the cap) but the owners are holding all the cards. The owners don't want to lose the cap long-term since it provides some level of cost certainty. But losing the cap/floor in the short-term hurts the players far more.

The only trick the players have left is a lawsuit (price fixing on player contracts) but that isn't easy without proof and with a lousy economy to justify reduced spending. Owners for teams like the Steelers and Cowboys have already publicly said that they don't anticipate doing much spending.

I'm actually surprised the players let it get this far. 2010 is going to effectively set a new baseline for player compensation. That is going to be the new reference point for CBA negotiations, not the 2009 level. The players should have negotiated for a lower cap (somewhere between 50% and 55% like other leagues) and focused on getting whatever other perks they can on their terms. The road they are on now isn't pretty for them.

 

[Rob0729]

I still think there could be a new CBA by March 5. This is around the time the owners cracked the last time around and they got a deal done in two weeks.

The players are screwed in an uncapped year. Many guys who thought they were going to cash in are going to get a RFA tender of several million dollars rather than seven figure signing bonuses and $20 plus million guaranteed. Older veterans with big salaries or big roster bonuses due are going to get cut and have a hard time finding suitors to give them decent deals.Even big name free agents will have trouble finding someone to give them an impact deal. More teams will be taking advantage of no salary cap floor than no salary cap ceiling. I think many of the players are starting to wake up to the reality of that an uncapped year will not be the money bonanza they thought it would be.

It already looked before this that there were cracks. The agents are already complaining that the NFLPA are keeping information of an uncapped year away from them (probably to hide how bad things could be for their clients if the NFLPA doesn't give in). I think there will be a revolt of free agents with 4-5 years of experience and players who are bound to be cut and looking at the prospect of playing for the veteran minimum where it would be impossible to cut them if there was a cap.

 

[Metaphors]

I still think there could be a new CBA by March 5. This is around the time the owners cracked the last time around and they got a deal done in two weeks.

I was hopeful until Monday. The decisions since then (tags and cuts) were made based on the current rules for 2010. Changing the rules now would be unfair and subject to lawsuits. So there could be a CBA by March 5th but I doubt it will change anything for 2010. If that is the case, there really isn't any sense of urgency for March 5th versus a deal later in the year.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I was hopeful until Monday. The decisions since then (tags and cuts) were made based on the current rules for 2010. Changing the rules now would be unfair and subject to lawsuits. So there could be a CBA by March 5th but I doubt it will change anything for 2010. If that is the case, there really isn't any sense of urgency for March 5th versus a deal later in the year.

Owners had been hinting for a while that there was a drop dead date for changing the rules, and realistically that passed a while ago. Teams weren't going to be able to re-think decisions they made about contracts and negotiations over the last several months in a week or two. So it was a given even if they got a new CBA it was going to be at the expense of the year 5 and 6 players this year regardless... And the union would have to have something it could sell as a huge concession in order to sell that...And there will be few concessions of any import in this next agreement unless the owners get back at least what equates to a 10% rollback on the revenue calculations or the % representing the players cut.

 

[Rob0729]

I was hopeful until Monday. The decisions since then (tags and cuts) were made based on the current rules for 2010. Changing the rules now would be unfair and subject to lawsuits. So there could be a CBA by March 5th but I doubt it will change anything for 2010. If that is the case, there really isn't any sense of urgency for March 5th versus a deal later in the year.

Nah! Everyone can agree to reset the clock and delay the start of free agency. That is what almost happened the last time around. If the NFLPA give the owners most of what they want, the owners may collectively agree to do away with the uncapped year in return and extend the start of free agency two weeks to give teams times to cut deals with players who are hitting free agency. At this point, that is not a high degree of probability, but the door isn't closed either.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Nah! Everyone can agree to reset the clock and delay the start of free agency. That is what almost happened the last time around. If the NFLPA give the owners most of what they want, the owners may collectively agree to do away with the uncapped year in return and extend the start of free agency two weeks to give teams times to cut deals with players who are hitting free agency. At this point, that is not a high degree of probability, but the door isn't closed either.

Totally different situation in 2006...they only had to delay to get a deal. There were no repurcussions, in fact getting any deal in place got a few owners off the hook (Polian was almost forced to really restructure Manning and Harrison's deals because he couldn't convert their roster bonuses and absent that or restructure he was going to have to cut players...). This is different. For 2 seasons now teams have been operating under expiring CBA rules that included more restrictive player movement into FA. You can't undo that in a couple of weeks... They would have to leave those rules in place for 2010 regardless or owners wouldn't do a deal.

 

[alamo]

the owners caused this mess by agreeing to the deal they could not stomach

A nonsensical statement. The alternative was to create a mess in 2006, the start of the league year was extended for several days while they negotiated. Had no agreement been done, 2006 would have been uncapped (and the owners wouldn't would have been planning on it, so it would have caused bigger problems then). And had the economy not tanked the owners might have been OK with the deal as it was.

Because of the anti trust exemption owners would have to lock out because absent a collectively bargained agreement their existing work rules would be open to challenge. That is why in the alternative the union may attempt to decertify

Another reason the NFL isn't rushing to a new CBA is the "American Needle" case, expected to be decided in court this year. The case has the possibility (though low) of strengthening the NFL's antitrust position, eliminating decertification as a viable strategy.

I think it's comical that Gene Upshaw's attempt to re-write his epitaph has ended with players even more screwed than they ever were throughout his much maligned tenure...

I disagree on your opinion of Upshaw. I think he did a good job, and it was the malignment of him by others leading up to 2006 which actually led to the problems.

For years Upshaw understood the long-term picture which led to steady growth and prosperity for both teams and players from 1993-2006. In 2006 players (mostly agents actually I think) got greedy and decided to go for every last penny they could get, and started threatening Upshaw's position, accusing him of not standing up to the owners enough. So Upshaw did the only possible thing for his personal situation and demanded concessions from the owners. Since Tagliabue had already bought his plane ticket to the retirement village, there was no way the owners could stand firm.

And for the last couple of years the strategy worked for the players, the cap went up at a much higher rate. They traded long-term stability and wealth for immediate profit. Now the time has come to clean up the resulting mess. (Remind you of the economy as a whole?)

 

[Triumph]

This is the comical part of the NFLPA statements. They threaten the owners with losing the cap and the owners don't even pay attention. Their magnanimous gesture was to keep the cap in place for 2010, but the owners would rather have an uncapped/unfloored year to get their finances in better shape.

The players thought they had an ace up their sleeve (losing the cap) but the owners are holding all the cards. The owners don't want to lose the cap long-term since it provides some level of cost certainty. But losing the cap/floor in the short-term hurts the players far more.

The only trick the players have left is a lawsuit (price fixing on player contracts) but that isn't easy without proof and with a lousy economy to justify reduced spending. Owners for teams like the Steelers and Cowboys have already publicly said that they don't anticipate doing much spending.

I'm actually surprised the players let it get this far. 2010 is going to effectively set a new baseline for player compensation. That is going to be the new reference point for CBA negotiations, not the 2009 level. The players should have negotiated for a lower cap (somewhere between 50% and 55% like other leagues) and focused on getting whatever other perks they can on their terms. The road they are on now isn't pretty for them.

Agreed, the players dont have a leg to stand.

IMO, there will be solidarity among the big money franchises like Redskins, Pats, Cowboys to keep spending down on UFAs in this uncapped season because they are the teams that wanted out of the cba to begin with. Some of the small market teams dont spend up to the total cap limit anyway.