Florio tries to break down the financial differences

[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:

As of right now, then, the parties have a gap of $320 million ($10 million per team per year) plus whatever the league earns over and above its projections. And it’s not an insignificant amount. If the league earned $9 billion in 2010, revenue growth of four percent pushes that number to $9.36 billion. Revenue growth of 10 percent would move the number to $9.9 billion.

That’s a difference of $540 million above the league’s projection, which under the players’ interpretation of the league’s offer would make the actual gap between the two sides $860 million for 2011.

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

 

[Metaphors]

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

We’re told that, for 2011, the NFL had offered a per-team cap of $131 million and the players had asked for $151 million. The $20 million cap represented the $640 million difference that existed before Friday.

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]

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.

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

 

[Metaphors]

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

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]

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.

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.

 

[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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

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.

Those cap # offers are all inclusive of $27M in benefits. The actual salary cap # for the $141M offer is therefore $114M ($141M-$27M). The union was aiming for (at worst) $128 plus bennies. The "salary" cap was never going up in 2011. And it has to go up at a slower rate thereafter unless a revenue in excess of projections formula justifies it.

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

I didn't "focus" on any part but the final numbers, because there's a copyright law that Ian and company are very careful about. My post was just putting out the info. I didn't make any claim in any direction.

Have a nice day.

 

[upstater1]

The Balzer story implies what I have been saying on this board all along. That the real problem isn't increased NFL expenses, but rather the Supplemental Revenue Plan.

101 ESPN/Post: For Now, Only the Lawyers Benefit

The new deal had a term of seven years. However, because the owners would have to subsequently agree to a supplemental revenue-sharing plan where high-revenue teams would pay out money to lower-revenue teams, the owners had included in the CBA an option for either side to opt out of the final two years (2011 and 2012) by November, 2008.

So anxious were the owners to opt out, they notified the NFLPA of their intention in May, 2008, after just two years of the new terms. At that time, as has become clear, they also began plans for a lockout, renegotiating contracts with their broadcast partners, and pressuring them to include language that would pay the owners their entire $4.4 billion of TV money in 2011 even if no games were played. They also hired Bob Batterman, who had counseled the National Hockey League during its lockout of the players.

He seems to imply that the opt-out was put in place BECAUSE of the Supplemental Revenue Plan. If true, then for some reason the owners feel "higher expenses" is a better PR story and argument to use in bargaining than simply referring back to the Supplemental.

I'm sure I've totally simplified the dynamic but that's only because putting the onus of a Supplemental on the players instead of the owners makes sense to me. I have a hard time fathoming why the players would be against it but I will speculate at the end of this post as to why I think they may be against the Supplemental.

For now, the Supplemental HELPS the players since all redistributed money eventually reverts back to them. So they should take ownership of the Sup. Plan. But there's a catch: the money only reverts back to the players if the owners establish a soft salary cap floor and thereby prevent Mike Brown from stashing the money in his pocket, as happens in baseball.

The reason the NFL might not be able to argue that the players should take on the Sup. Plan is because the Sup. automatically implies a salary cap, and the players may be against the cap in the first place. It is totally poor thinking by the players, if that is the case.

 

[Ron Sellers]

I have seen multiple times over the last week or so where the proposed versus previous cap numbers get twisted a bit because there are the cap numbers, and then there are the cap plus benefits numbers. It's an important but often overlooked distinction. If you're not comparing apples to apples it can make the offer from the owners look to be far more generous than it really is.

 

[Urgent]

Reading the Florio article, it sounds like NFL owners were intentionally confusing. While creative, offering different packages with several offers seems to just make it more difficult to understand what they were offering.

The $141mm salary-plus-benefits for 2011 compared to $128mm salary only for 2009 was another confusing example.

 

[BradyManny]

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/gzx76ljj - Shared by RapSheet

Sorry, but this offer from the NFL was a joke. The cap is not going down to $114 million.

Pete Kendall was on WEEI this morning and said the owners final offer was worse than the one the week before. The notion that the owners were making huge compromises doesn't jive.

The owners have had much better PR savvy from the getgo and have somehow swayed public opinion in their favor. The players are right to stand their ground.

It was the owners who opted out. It was the owners who provided themselves with lockout insurance so that they could handle a break in football. I know people are pre-disposed to hating unions these days, but come on, if you were asked to take a paycut without seeing reason why to, would you willingly accept?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

The Balzer story implies what I have been saying on this board all along. That the real problem isn't increased NFL expenses, but rather the Supplemental Revenue Plan.

101 ESPN/Post: For Now, Only the Lawyers Benefit



He seems to imply that the opt-out was put in place BECAUSE of the Supplemental Revenue Plan. If true, then for some reason the owners feel "higher expenses" is a better PR story and argument to use in bargaining than simply referring back to the Supplemental.

I'm sure I've totally simplified the dynamic but that's only because putting the onus of a Supplemental on the players instead of the owners makes sense to me. I have a hard time fathoming why the players would be against it but I will speculate at the end of this post as to why I think they may be against the Supplemental.

For now, the Supplemental HELPS the players since all redistributed money eventually reverts back to them. So they should take ownership of the Sup. Plan. But there's a catch: the money only reverts back to the players if the owners establish a soft salary cap floor and thereby prevent Mike Brown from stashing the money in his pocket, as happens in baseball.

The reason the NFL might not be able to argue that the players should take on the Sup. Plan is because the Sup. automatically implies a salary cap, and the players may be against the cap in the first place. It is totally poor thinking by the players, if that is the case.

Great post.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Reading the Florio article, it sounds like NFL owners were intentionally confusing. While creative, offering different packages with several offers seems to just make it more difficult to understand what they were offering.

The $141mm salary-plus-benefits for 2011 compared to $128mm salary only for 2009 was another confusing example.

2010 cannot be used because it wasn't a capped year. I do not know whether the salaries in the laegue were at, above or below what the cap would have been last season, but the numbers probably wouldn't work for the players.

Both sides suck

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Yfrog Photo : yfrog.com/gzx76ljj - Shared by RapSheet

Sorry, but this offer from the NFL was a joke. The cap is not going down to $114 million.

Pete Kendall was on WEEI this morning and said the owners final offer was worse than the one the week before. The notion that the owners were making huge compromises doesn't jive.

The owners have had much better PR savvy from the getgo and have somehow swayed public opinion in their favor. The players are right to stand their ground.

It was the owners who opted out. It was the owners who provided themselves with lockout insurance so that they could handle a break in football. I know people are pre-disposed to hating unions these days, but come on, if you were asked to take a paycut without seeing reason why to, would you willingly accept?

I have an issue with the owners opted out line of argument. Yes they did, but it was allowed in the previous CBA, and the reason it was in there was if the owners or the players decided that the current CBA wasn't working out the way they expected it to work they could reopen the negotiations.

The owners served notice that the CBA sucked, from their standpoint, a couple of years ago. This was no surprize to anybody. The owners had the right to tell the players that the agreement wasn't working and the players knew the agreement screwed the owners. So in effect, we have the union taking advantage of the situation, the owners being dumb enough to believe that the union would actually negotiate in good faith and the fans getting screwed.

I have little syymppathy for the owners and no sympathy for the union. I hope that D Smith has to go back a clerk because he gets beaten so badly. He is the real villian in this. He had to make a name for himself so he could get into politics, he had to show the world what a ahole he is. This was planned from the beginning.

 

[upstater1]

I have an issue with the owners opted out line of argument. Yes they did, but it was allowed in the previous CBA, and the reason it was in there was if the owners or the players decided that the current CBA wasn't working out the way they expected it to work they could reopen the negotiations.

The owners served notice that the CBA sucked, from their standpoint, a couple of years ago. This was no surprize to anybody. The owners had the right to tell the players that the agreement wasn't working and the players knew the agreement screwed the owners. So in effect, we have the union taking advantage of the situation, the owners being dumb enough to believe that the union would actually negotiate in good faith and the fans getting screwed.

I have little syymppathy for the owners and no sympathy for the union. I hope that D Smith has to go back a clerk because he gets beaten so badly. He is the real villian in this. He had to make a name for himself so he could get into politics, he had to show the world what a ahole he is. This was planned from the beginning.

Read the Balzer article. He says the opt out was put in place because of the Supplemental revenue Plan. I just watch Adam Schefter praise the Bills and Bengals for getting it right, that this CBA will not work.

Yeah, only Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown were visionaries. As my Brit friends say, BOLLOCKS. Wilson and Brown were displeased because they would not receive enough from the Supplemental Revenue Plan. Let's be real. They had 6 other owners on their side who decided the CBA was a good deal only AFTER the big market owners decided to send $100 million more their way.

THEN the opt out clause went into the CBA, once the Supplemental went into effect. This is also the reason the owners are not showing their books, because they don't want to end up in a situation like major league baseball where salary caps are eliminated and the richer clubs share the wealth with the smaller market clubs.