NFP: So what are we fighting about again?

[MoLewisrocks]

Informative piece from Andrew Brandt on where he sees the CBA ultimately landing and why and clearly indicative that the last offer was not nearly as the NFLPA characterized it the worst offer in the history of sports...

Key to a CBA: tip of the Cap | National Football Post

 

[BradyManny]

Eh, everybody has an opinion on this thing. I wish I could find it, but Felger was quoting from a piece from the New Yorker that rather viciously broke down the issues with the owner's side of the arguments.

Update: Found it:

Owners vs. Players in Football : The New Yorker

The highlight:

With the possible exception of the members of OPEC, N.F.L. owners have pretty much the coziest business arrangement imaginable: they’re effectively members of a cartel—able to limit competition, enhance bargaining power, and hold down costs. Instead of competing against each other for TV money, the owners share it, reducing risk and guaranteeing steady revenue regardless of how well they run their teams. The result of all this was nicely summed up by Richard Walden, head of sports finance at JPMorgan Chase, who said, “I’ve never seen an N.F.L. team lose money.”

Read more Owners vs. Players in Football : The New Yorker

 

[Aßßynormal]

Eh, everybody has an opinion on this thing. I wish I could find it, but Felger was quoting from a piece from the New Yorker that rather viciously broke down the issues with the owner's side of the arguments.

Update: Found it:

Owners vs. Players in Football : The New Yorker

The highlight:

Felger's continued political liberal bias has caused me to cease listening to him.

I might as well listen to MSNBC and stick my head in a oven. I want a "politics free" enviroment for sports reporting ...... well, as much as reasonably possible. He makes no attempt at balancing out the argument. As such, I've stopped listening to him.

 

[BPF]

Informative piece from Andrew Brandt on where he sees the CBA ultimately landing and why and clearly indicative that the last offer was not nearly as the NFLPA characterized it the worst offer in the history of sports...

Key to a CBA: tip of the Cap | National Football Post

Nice read.

 

[lamafist]

Informative piece from Andrew Brandt on where he sees the CBA ultimately landing and why and clearly indicative that the last offer was not nearly as the NFLPA characterized it the worst offer in the history of sports...

Key to a CBA: tip of the Cap | National Football Post

It wasn't the worst offer in the history of sports.

What it did amount to, however, was being six-of-one vs. half-a-dozen-of-the-other with their initial offer of an additional million dollars in deductions off the top of the TR.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Unlike the folks at the New Yorker, Brandt has some football lifer experience on both sides of the issue as an agent and as a member of a FO. Kind of like the Packers President Mark Murphy. It gives them and us some perspective that the New Yorker can't. Not ever losing money shouldn't be a knock on those who own and manage this league. Take away the cartel and all that's left is baseball where the tail wags the dog playing with a different shaped ball... You are never going to see guaranteed contracts in football unless it's to a handful of stars on a couple of teams because of the violent nature of the sport and the limited number of games played. Rank and file players and those who think they are championing them best be careful what they wish for, because most of them won't see the benefit of it and will in fact see their contracts and their market and their benefits shrink to pander to the annual fleeting or entrenched transcendent stars who annually make up about 25% of any teams roster.

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Unlike the folks at the New Yorker, Brandt has some football lifer experience on both sides of the issue as an agent and as a member of a FO. Kind of like the Packers President Mark Murphy. It gives them and us some perspective that the New Yorker can't. Not ever losing money shouldn't be a knock on those who own and manage this league. Take away the cartel and all that's left is baseball where the tail wags the dog playing with a different shaped ball... You are never going to see guaranteed contracts in football unless it's to a handful of stars on a couple of teams because of the violent nature of the sport and the limited number of games played. Rank and file players and those who think they are championing them best be careful what they wish for, because most of them won't see the benefit of it and will in fact see their contracts and their market and their benefits shrink to pander to the annual fleeting or entrenched transcendent stars who annually make up about 25% of any teams roster.

This. Although to be honest I wish the owners would just say F'it and go
the MLB route. I believe that most players would be playing for a fraction
of what they make now. As you say, the top tier of players would get
richer, but the bottom rung would get hammered big time, and the overall
salary $ would probably remain the same. If that is what they want, who
am I to argue? A lot of teams would take a big hit on their net worth which
would make them unhappy and unwilling to fork out anything close to cap
numbers and, like MLB and the major franchises, the rich would get richer.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

This. Although to be honest I wish the owners would just say F'it and go
the MLB route. I believe that most players would be playing for a fraction
of what they make now. As you say, the top tier of players would get
richer, but the bottom rung would get hammered big time, and the overall
salary $ would probably remain the same. If that is what they want, who
am I to argue? A lot of teams would take a big hit on their net worth which
would make them unhappy and unwilling to fork out anything close to cap
numbers and, like MLB and the major franchises, the rich would get richer.

and guys like Snyder, Woody Johnson, jerry Jones and Paul Allen would host most of the Lombardis. Kraft is already on record saying "Homie don't play dat game!"

No thank you. I despise purchased championships (sic)

 

[JoeSixPat]

Informative piece from Andrew Brandt on where he sees the CBA ultimately landing and why and clearly indicative that the last offer was not nearly as the NFLPA characterized it the worst offer in the history of sports...

Key to a CBA: tip of the Cap | National Football Post

Florio's take was similar

That’s why NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith repeatedly has called the offer “the worst deal in the history of sports.” He and the players needed to justify the decision to short-circuit the bargaining process and to initiate the litigation option. The best way to do so was to call the offer a horribly, and historically, bad one.

It wasn’t.

Ten things to know, right now, about the labor situation | ProFootballTalk

I'm beginning to think they've lost themselves in the posturing...with the players caught up in demanding that the owners "open their books" - as if they have some say over how they spend their money.

Actually I think the owners should turn the tables and demand that the players open their "books"

How much in NFL salaries - paid for by you and I - is blown on broads and bling rather than contributing to their own or their fellow retired players retirement?

I'm only half joking. Neither side should really "want to go there"

 

[peterforpats]

Felger's continued political liberal bias has caused me to cease listening to him.

I might as well listen to MSNBC and stick my head in a oven. I want a "politics free" enviroment for sports reporting ...... well, as much as reasonably possible. He makes no attempt at balancing out the argument. As such, I've stopped listening to him.

as opposed to the always fair and impartial fox? everyone brings their biases to the table, but refusing to listen to all sides of an arguement is short-sighted and a recipe for what we have in sports and politics now- two uncivil sides that ignore each other except to stick it to them whenever they can. what a great country!!

 

[Rob0729]

Eh, everybody has an opinion on this thing. I wish I could find it, but Felger was quoting from a piece from the New Yorker that rather viciously broke down the issues with the owner's side of the arguments.

Update: Found it:

Owners vs. Players in Football : The New Yorker

The highlight:

In fairness, Felger isn't the best advocate to be pointing to for this issue. He consistently shows his lack of knowledge of the cap and the CBA and then calls anyone who can see the owners' side of the arguments clueless morons.

Whether agree with Brandt's assessment or not, he actually back up his article with cold hard numbers and facts. The New Yorker piece is mostly opinion.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

In fairness, Felger isn't the best advocate to be pointing to for this issue. He consistently shows his lack of knowledge of the cap and the CBA and then calls anyone who can see the owners' side of the arguments clueless morons.

Felgie typifies those who consider themselves elite above the crowd but in truth don't base their arguments on facts (CBA and CAP facts are things too complicated for Felgie & Maz) but instead use loud flamboyant rhetoric to advance their case relentlessly, based primarily on 'emotion' and unspoken internal philosophy. Oh so typical these days.

 

[Rob0729]

It wasn't the worst offer in the history of sports.

What it did amount to, however, was being six-of-one vs. half-a-dozen-of-the-other with their initial offer of an additional million dollars in deductions off the top of the TR.

The owners' offer was a significant move from their initial offer. Was it remotely as far as the owners characterized it? No. But to say they mostly just rearranged the deck chairs is a mischaracterization of the offer. In fact, before they even made that offer, both sides agreed that during mediation that they closed the billion dollar gap between each sides' original offers by 20-30%.

 

[lamafist]

In fairness, Felger isn't the best advocate to be pointing to for this issue. He consistently shows his lack of knowledge of the cap and the CBA and then calls anyone who can see the owners' side of the arguments clueless morons.

Whether agree with Brandt's assessment or not, he actually back up his article with cold hard numbers and facts. The New Yorker piece is mostly opinion.

The New Yorker piece is, in fact, an opinion piece. You don't need to agree, but I don't think you can just write off the opinion of a financial journalist of Surowiecki's pedigree because he's not a "football guy."

Brandt's piece is more straight reporting, laying out some basic facts of the prior CBA and the areas of contention in the present negotiations, concluding with a suggestion of an avenue through which compromise could be reached.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that anything he says contradicts the players' argument, or in any way indicates support of for the owners. I think his article is instructive in how it sidesteps the rhetoric of both sides, and shows that there are areas for compromise that neither side is publicly acknowledging.

 

[lamafist]

The owners' offer was a significant move from their initial offer. Was it remotely as far as the owners characterized it? No. But to say they mostly just rearranged the deck chairs is a mischaracterization of the offer. In fact, before they even made that offer, both sides agreed that during mediation that they closed the billion dollar gap between each sides' original offers by 20-30%.

The owners compromised in terms of the amount of additional money they want to be able to deduct off the top of the TR for expenses, and instead, asked for a salary cap pegged to the projected revenues, which would be calculated with the same formula that has consistently fell short of the years actual revenues by a significant margin.

Considering the coming renewal of the TV contracts, which are sure to rectify DirecTV's woeful mismanagement of the online broadcasting rights, the NFLPA had plenty of reason to suspect that the margins between projected and actual revenues is only going to continue to grow.

Essentially, the players will end up dissatisfied with that proposed CBA for the same reasons the owners are unhappy with the present one.

 

[Rob0729]

The New Yorker piece is, in fact, an opinion piece. You don't need to agree, but I don't think you can just write off the opinion of a financial journalist of Surowiecki's pedigree because he's not a "football guy."

Brandt's piece is more straight reporting, laying out some basic facts of the prior CBA and the areas of contention in the present negotiations, concluding with a suggestion of an avenue through which compromise could be reached.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea that anything he says contradicts the players' argument, or in any way indicates support of for the owners. I think his article is instructive in how it sidesteps the rhetoric of both sides, and shows that there are areas for compromise that neither side is publicly acknowledging.

First, I didn't give my opinion on either article.

Second, I was responding to a post comparing both articles as if they are the same type of article with opposing views. I was stating Brandt's article used facts and the New Yorker article gives opinion.

Third, I do actually disagree with the New Yorker piece that a free market system benefits the players. It will benefit the top half or third of the league, but will screw the bottom half or two thirds of the league. Here are some examples how it would hurt the players:

- In a free market system, there would be no salary minimum. That means guys at the bottom of the roster could play for a fraction of their current salaries. The lowest paid player on the roster gets over $300k because of the CBA. In a free market system it is conceivable, they could play for $30k a year.
- There would likely be no pension or long term benefits. Part of the CBA has the league paying into a group pension and long term benefits for retire players. Most private companies have done away with those benefits long ago in favor of 401Ks (which wouldn't help players retiring in their late 20s or early 30s) and no health benefits after retirement.
- Players would likely be at will employees and many players who currently stay on rosters eventhough their value no longer meets their contract because the cap hit to cut them, would be fired in a free market system. Look at Vernon Gholston and other first round busts. He was employed at a high salary by the Jets for two years longer than they wanted to employ him because they couldn't take the cap hit to cut him.

This article clearly is short sighted to not realize that many players benefit from the CBA as the owners do.

 

[Rob0729]

The owners compromised in terms of the amount of additional money they want to be able to deduct off the top of the TR for expenses, and instead, asked for a salary cap pegged to the projected revenues, which would be calculated with the same formula that has consistently fell short of the years actual revenues by a significant margin.

Considering the coming renewal of the TV contracts, which are sure to rectify DirecTV's woeful mismanagement of the online broadcasting rights, the NFLPA had plenty of reason to suspect that the margins between projected and actual revenues is only going to continue to grow.

Essentially, the players will end up dissatisfied with that proposed CBA for the same reasons the owners are unhappy with the present one.

Again, there was significant movement on their numbers and it wasn't a final offer. You claimed they just moved around numbers to make the same financial offer look different.

 

[Frezo]

Would collusion amongst the owners be illegal if there was no CBA?

 

[Rob0729]

Would collusion amongst the owners be illegal if there was no CBA?

Yes. The league and players get an antitrust exemption by collectively bargaining in good faith. Without a CBA of some sort, they would not get that exemption. They have other antitrust exemptions for other things like negotiating TV deals, but in terms of labor it would be illegal without a CBA.

EDIT: I did forget they did operate without one from 1987 through 1993. I think there are provisions in the CBA to maintain the last year of the last CBA. Or I could be wrong.

 

[BPF]

Would collusion amongst the owners be illegal if there was no CBA?

Collusion is not specific to the CBA. I'm not sure what you're referring to but having an agreement amongst the teams to limit wages in free agency would be misrepresenting the independence of each team thus collusion.