Howe is local and relatively recent so it's likely his source is local too. Best guess would be Light.
As for what the players want:
1) You aren't going to get pro rated raises for the 18 game season, what you get is a larger pie from which your % evolves increasing the value of future deals. But I think it's telling that at the end of the day what it all comes down to for most players and for their union is the same thing it comes down to for owners, more money...
2) They already have the very best in healthcare. The issues revolve around who pays for it and for how long. If players want the league to carry them post career the logical tradeoff is % and $$ in the present. I think some of them have only just realized what it costs to provide that benefit in filing their COBRA paperwork in anticipation of a lockout. There were a lot of players over the years who lobbied for better healthcare benefits post career as well as better retirement to no avail because their union told them the better approach was get more money now. Sadly because 78% of them can't manage that money that approach has been a colossal failure.
3) See 2 above.
4) Next time they go to work they should look around at state of the art stadiums and practice facilities and wonder who paid for those... The answer will be either owners or taxpayers. The JETS and Giants both have franchise values in excess of a billion dollars. They also have stadium debt in excess of $650M and for a facility built on leased land... And most stadiums require not only maintenance but renovation if not total reconstruction every 20 years or so. Whats that old saying, it takes money to make money...
As for the rookie wage scale, that there will be one going forward was never in doubt. It's just the formula that remains at issue. The league wants 3-5 (6 for 1st round QB's) year terms and no restructure or extension for 3 years on drafted players with the $$$ saved to go exclusively to veterans and retirees. Once again the NFLPA has different ideas, including about what constitutes a veteran player... They want 2-4 year terms with new deals on the table after year w and half of the money to remain with rookies anyway whom they now contend become veterans apparently the moment they take the field.
I think most fans would be inclined to side almost exclusively with players if what they wanted was truly fair and reasonable and meant that all who played the game were insured of some level of reasonable protections for playing such a violent game that potentially takes a terrible toll on it's participants. That has just seldom been the case where the NFLPA is concerned. Some bank just forclosed on JaBustus Russell's Oakland home on which he is $195K behind in mortgage payments. After the Raiders paid him almost $40M because of percieved talent and received 3 years of indifference in return. Carson Palmer is threatening to take his ball and go home because the team who invested upwards of $80M in him over the last several seasons is NOW in his opinion incompetent. And while he may have a point, he needs to be willing to look in the mirror too, where he will find an entitled talent who was only too happy to take their $$$ while failing to work on eliminating his own shortcomings and improving his own performance along the way.
You nailed it here, as you usually do, in particular the points I've highlighted.
You are correct, I think, that most of us fans will naturally side with the players. What's exciting about football is primarily what we see the guys do on the field. Some of us also like following the draft, and the more savvy among us are fascinated by what the coaches are doing. I imagine very few of us understands or has much interest in what it is that the owners do, and all too often are annoyed at the owners for the shabby way they seem to treat the players, the coaches, and all of the other folks they employ (asking team employees to take unpaid time off during the lockout, for example). So, naturally it is very difficult for me and I'd expect for most of us average Joes to have any sympathy for the ultra-rich owners.
With that said, however, I know I'm already irritated hearing about the alleged "partnership" between the players and owners. Heck, I heard whats-her-name who does the news updates on the NFL Network a couple nights ago use this term when interviewing someone named Feldman (one of NFLN's correspondents?) about the Doty decision. Since when are the employees considered "partners" with their employers? Do any of us that are employees think that way about our employers? If not, then why is the NFL's arrangement any different? If so, then please explain to me why.
Look, I love what the players are able to do, and to your point on health care, I'm very sympathetic to the fact that most of them take a vicious beating doing it. There ought to be more and better provisions for them in their post-playing career than there is right now. However, in my view it is entirely up to the NFLPA to ensure that happens, through their contracts (the CBA and/or individual contracts) with the owners. If the NFLPA is incapable of managing those provisions themselves (as is done by plenty of unions), and they "need" the owners to take care of the retired players for them, then the NFLPA - not the owners - has an obligation to make sure that is addressed properly in the CBA.
The key to all of this CBA business I think pertains to your point about the huge investment the owners have made to upgrade stadiums. From what I can see, the two most significant developments affecting the economics of ownership in the NFL are (1) increased self-financing for stadium/facility improvements, and (2) increased "market price" to purchase franchises. Given what most of us are experiencing with rising health care costs, it isn't hard to think of that being a rising concern for the owners as well, especially since the issues relating to health care for retired players has become so much more of a focal point in the media. So, the costs of these businesses are going up and up, and even though (most of) the owners are wealthy beyond comprehension, if they don't manage the business well enough they can get wiped out pretty quick by even one or two poor decisions - just ask the Wilpons (NY Mets owners) about that.
Each of the owners obviously has their own reasons for wanting to get into this business, and there may be some who aren't in this to make a huge monetary return on their investment, but I'm pretty sure there isn't any one of them that wants to lose a ton of money. As successful as the NFL is, there have been plenty of owners over the years - including these past 5 years - that have been forced to sell their teams or do stupid things financially to hold on; as Patriots fans, we ought to understand that pretty well given what we saw from the Sullivans and Victor Kiam. I know that fact escapes people like Gerry Callahan, but its true, owning an NFL franchise is
not a guarantee to make obscene profits, or even acceptable profits.
I don't see how anyone can deny that the owners made a crappy and unsustainable deal last time, and that was before the economic meltdown. Whether they wind up getting that "lockout slush fund" or not, the owners are not going forward with a CBA without guaranteeing themselves what they consider to be an acceptable return on their investments. The union can decertify, appeal to Congress regarding antitrust issues, or whatever else they want to do, but in the end I really think they are going to lose this one. We may need to put up with scabs next season, and that would suck like it did back in the '80's, but if so I see it playing out the exact same way this time as it did last time: a massive failure for the players, probably within a month of replacement player games starting.
