Matt Light comments on recent events

[Deus Irae]

Patriots player rep Matt Light [stats] is here and said yesterday, “They’re treating us like we’re children and they’re parents.

“Their problem economically is more about revenue sharing on their end,” Light said. “Some smaller market teams are spending a far larger share of their income on salaries and expenses than larger market teams. They should be working that out among themselves, but they know it’s easier to try and take it away from the players than to take it from each other.”

Wrong number dialed - BostonHerald.com

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Light, no fool, cuts to the crux of the owners' dilemma, the small market + poorly managed teams cause problems that the owners are asking the players to fix via taking less of the gross.

The other part of the owners' problem is that they probably really DO need more $ going forward for facilities refurbishment and new facilities. Since each of the 32 situations is radically different, it's difficult to quantify.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Wrong number dialed - BostonHerald.com

I don't think there's ever been any question that's a general truth and part of what drove the owners to opt out of the CBA... but ultimately how the collective group of the NFL owners decides to split the revenue among themselves is up to them.

Light's correct but that's largely irrelevant now. A new CBA needs to be worked out and both sides need to find some compromise.

The NFL owners currently have an offer on the table. The NFLPA does not seem interested in providing a counter offer.

To borrow an analogy from a different sport, the ball is in the NFLPA's court. They just don't seem interested in hitting it back for now.

 

[BlueThunder]

The NFLPA is bringing in a pinch hitter with the bases loaded and 2 out.....(Doty)

 

[scout]

The NFLPA is bringing in a pinch hitter with the bases loaded and 2 out.....(Doty)

What inning is it?

 

[AzPatsFan]

Light, no fool, cuts to the crux of the owners' dilemma, the small market + poorly managed teams cause problems that the owners are asking the players to fix via taking less of the gross.

The other part of the owners' problem is that they probably really DO need more $ going forward for facilities refurbishment and new facilities. Since each of the 32 situations is radically different, it's difficult to quantify.

With all the expansion many leagues have some very weak sisters, including the NFL. Would Light support a contraction of 4 to 6 clubs, and the loss of say 618 football player's jobs?

I think baseball needs to shed 5-10 Teams; and the NHL could lose an entire conference. How many teams do you think the NBA should contract?

 

[jmt57]

I don't think there's ever been any question that's a general truth and part of what drove the owners to opt out of the CBA... but ultimately how the collective group of the NFL owners decides to split the revenue among themselves is up to them.

Light's correct but that's largely irrelevant now. A new CBA needs to be worked out and both sides need to find some compromise.

The NFL owners currently have an offer on the table. The NFLPA does not seem interested in providing a counter offer.

To borrow an analogy from a different sport, the ball is in the NFLPA's court. They just don't seem interested in hitting it back for now.

The thing is the last offer the NFL made was actually worse for the players than the previous one they (the owners) made. On top of that the NFL went into full PR spin mode, letting the world know they're compromising and the players are not.

How should the NFLPA react, by doing something similar - taking away one thing, and adding another - in an offer that would put the two sides even further apart? And then go on a PR campaign about how they're trying to work out a deal but the owners aren't?

Right now neither side seems to be interested in negotiating. The last offer the NFL made was like throwing a hand grenade into negotiations; the intent was to blow things up.

 

[jczxohn1]

I don't think there's ever been any question that's a general truth and part of what drove the owners to opt out of the CBA... but ultimately how the collective group of the NFL owners decides to split the revenue among themselves is up to them.

Light's correct but that's largely irrelevant now. A new CBA needs to be worked out and both sides need to find some compromise.

The NFL owners currently have an offer on the table. The NFLPA does not seem interested in providing a counter offer.

To borrow an analogy from a different sport, the ball is in the NFLPA's court. They just don't seem interested in hitting it back for now.

I was in favor of the 11th hr offer until it was explained that there was a poison pill at the end .

 

[IcyPatriot]

What inning is it?

Better just hope it's not like that sham all-star game that ended in a tie.

 

[JoeSixPat]

The thing is the last offer the NFL made was actually worse for the players than the previous one they (the owners) made. On top of that the NFL went into full PR spin mode, letting the world know they're compromising and the players are not.

How should the NFLPA react, by doing something similar - taking away one thing, and adding another - in an offer that would put the two sides even further apart? And then go on a PR campaign about how they're trying to work out a deal but the owners aren't?

Right now neither side seems to be interested in negotiating. The last offer the NFL made was like throwing a hand grenade into negotiations; the intent was to blow things up.

The bottom line is that the NFLPA can make their counter offer at any time but has chosen not to do so.

That's going to catch up with them in the hearts and minds of the fans at some point.

 

[upstater1]

The bottom line is that the NFLPA can make their counter offer at any time but has chosen not to do so.

That's going to catch up with them in the hearts and minds of the fans at some point.

When the person you're doing a deal with ignores you all week, then shows up on the last day with a deal that's easily worse than the previous offer, that's essentially telling you to pound sand. The NFL was preparing their PR team before they even made the offer because they knew the union was going to decertify. Both sides basically said FU to one anther. The NFL probably figured that the players were not be prepare to close a good deal for the owners until they took their case to court.

 

[JoeSixPat]

When the person you're doing a deal with ignores you all week, then shows up on the last day with a deal that's easily worse than the previous offer, that's essentially telling you to pound sand. The NFL was preparing their PR team before they even made the offer because they knew the union was going to decertify. Both sides basically said FU to one anther. The NFL probably figured that the players were not be prepare to close a good deal for the owners until they took their case to court.

No question - the NFLPA's actions demonstrate that they have no interest in negotiating.

They want to litigate.

They'd rather criticize the offer made than offer an alternative.

This can get done if the NFLPA comes back to the bargaining table.

I have little reason to hope that $500 per hour lawyers are going to try to keep their billable hours to a minimum.

 

[Ring 6]

Lights argument is simply posturing.
The owners share revenue between high earning teams and low earning teams, of which the players have no involvement, interest or knowldege, nor should they.
The owners are negotiating with the players for a CBA, and naturally asking for a higher cut of revenues.
Therefore, in order to fight the PR fight and make the owners look greedy, it must be because they have in fighting about revenue sharing.
Of course, this negotiation would do nothing to change that, it would just increase the revenue to every team, which is blatantly obvious, but lets not get caught up in facts.
It is simply a position invented by the union to try to shift public sentiment toward owner greed. Clearly from reading this board, its a smart effort.

 

[bucky]

This is kind of like the owners accusing the players of spending their money frivolously and not saving it, then going bankrupt, and then coming back to the owners and saying they don't get paid enough. The only difference is that the shoe is on the other foot.

While all of it is true, it doesn't change a thing about this negotiation. Bottom line is it's a business negotiation between 2 very high-powered groups. And the only thing that matters is how much they can squeeze out of the opposing group, what leverage they can apply to do it, and how long they can stay contentious until the business end dictates they get a deal done.

 

[upstater1]

No question - the NFLPA's actions demonstrate that they have no interest in negotiating.

They want to litigate.

They'd rather criticize the offer made than offer an alternative.

This can get done if the NFLPA comes back to the bargaining table.

I have little reason to hope that $500 per hour lawyers are going to try to keep their billable hours to a minimum.

And you believe that the NFL WAS prepared to negotiate? If you want to negotiate, you negotiate. You don't do it by ignoring the other negotiating partner, and then you enter a room at the last minute with a deal that's worse than the previous one.

Having never been a part of negotiations over this much money, I don't know if it's the standard thing to act like a weasel, but the NFL is certainly not negotiating face-to-face, and coming into the room at the last minute with a crud deal tells me they weaseled out.

 

[upstater1]

Lights argument is simply posturing.
The owners share revenue between high earning teams and low earning teams, of which the players have no involvement, interest or knowldege, nor should they.
The owners are negotiating with the players for a CBA, and naturally asking for a higher cut of revenues.
Therefore, in order to fight the PR fight and make the owners look greedy, it must be because they have in fighting about revenue sharing.
Of course, this negotiation would do nothing to change that, it would just increase the revenue to every team, which is blatantly obvious, but lets not get caught up in facts.
It is simply a position invented by the union to try to shift public sentiment toward owner greed. Clearly from reading this board, its a smart effort.

I don't see how you come to this conclusion about revenue sharing since long after the last CBA was made, Wilson and Brown continued fighting with co-owners about it. And, according to Howard Balzer, the entire opt-out was put in place (likely by the 6 small-market owners who swung over to majority side) because of revenue sharing.

I also don't see how this has to do with owner greed. It has to do with the salary cap and parity.

 

[NEGoldenAge]

Lights argument is simply posturing.
The owners share revenue between high earning teams and low earning teams, of which the players have no involvement, interest or knowldege, nor should they.
The owners are negotiating with the players for a CBA, and naturally asking for a higher cut of revenues.
Therefore, in order to fight the PR fight and make the owners look greedy, it must be because they have in fighting about revenue sharing.
Of course, this negotiation would do nothing to change that, it would just increase the revenue to every team, which is blatantly obvious, but lets not get caught up in facts.
It is simply a position invented by the union to try to shift public sentiment toward owner greed. Clearly from reading this board, its a smart effort.

If the owners weren't screaming poor and citing the few teams in financial trouble, your post might have some merit. It's not Light's posturing, rather his counter to the owners' posturing.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

This is kind of like the owners accusing the players of spending their money frivolously and not saving it, then going bankrupt, and then coming back to the owners and saying they don't get paid enough. The only difference is that the shoe is on the other foot.

While all of it is true, it doesn't change a thing about this negotiation. Bottom line is it's a business negotiation between 2 very high-powered groups. And the only thing that matters is how much they can squeeze out of the opposing group, what leverage they can apply to do it, and how long they can stay contentious until the business end dictates they get a deal done.

I dont think its anything like that, some teams are cutting margins very thin, they need more money to operate, sure there are teams with plenty of money but not sure how you equate it with players spending frivolously.
The players are basically saying the richer teams should give more money to the poorer teams and leave us out of it.
The owners are saying everyone should get enough money to operate comfortably and think the money should come off the top.

 

[JoeSixPat]

And you believe that the NFL WAS prepared to negotiate? If you want to negotiate, you negotiate. You don't do it by ignoring the other negotiating partner, and then you enter a room at the last minute with a deal that's worse than the previous one.

Having never been a part of negotiations over this much money, I don't know if it's the standard thing to act like a weasel, but the NFL is certainly not negotiating face-to-face, and coming into the room at the last minute with a crud deal tells me they weaseled out.

The details of the CBA are incredibly complex and have many issues of concern for both sides.

It's not a simple as one step forward or back - there's a thousand smaller steps within the CBA - the NFL moved on some, not so much on others, and stood their ground on others still. One concession they might have made in one proposal does not necessarily carry over to another proposal depending on the other concessions made.

This happens in negotiations all the time.

The bottom line is that the ball is in the NFLPA's court to make their own counter offer which I'm sure will be more favorable to the NFLPA than the NFL's offer was.

They simply have no interest in hitting it back for right now.

 

[Deus Irae]

The details of the CBA are incredibly complex and have many issues of concern for both sides.

It's not a simple as one step forward or back - there's a thousand smaller steps within the CBA - the NFL moved on some, not so much on others, and stood their ground on others still. One concession they might have made in one proposal does not necessarily carry over to another proposal depending on the other concessions made.

This happens in negotiations all the time.

The bottom line is that the ball is in the NFLPA's court to make their own counter offer which I'm sure will be more favorable to the NFLPA than the NFL's offer was.

They simply have no interest in hitting it back for right now.

The only "court" here is Judge Nelson's. The league is free to put forth a more reasonable proposal at any time. They don't need to wait for something back from the union.