Schefter reveals the framework of the new deal

[Shelterdog]

No one has even suggested a 'fresh start'. That would be kind of impossible anyway. If you don't count dead money then you cant count the amortization of signing bonusses either. The expenditures of the past and their cap ramifications have to continue into the future. If anything else were even whispered it would be the lead point in any discussion about the negotiations.

I'm not sure it would be the lead point in discussions, but I get your drift. I also hope you're right-Jets fans in particular are counting on getting about $10 million in 2011 dead money for Gholston/Jenkins/Taylor/Woody off their books and are in a dire cap situation if they don't get that relief.

EDIT: Also, it's not that dead money wouldn't exist-I guess the idea would be anyone that was cut in the 2010 uncapped league year gets to accelerate the dead money into the 2010 season.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

Here are some of the highlights:

- Players will receive 48% of all revenues
- No off the top credit (the owners were looking for $1 billion)
- The players are guaranteed that their percentage would not fall below 46.5%
- Owners will get some expense credits for new stadium construction
- Rookie wage scale will be included, but still needs to be tweaked
- A 16 game Thursday night schedule will be introduced in 2012 and the package will be sold to a network
- Significant increases in pensions and health benefits for retired players if revenues continue as expected through 2016
- All players with 4 or more years of experience and contracts expired after the 2010 season are UFAs.


No vote today, but it looks like the owners are on board with the direction. Looks like by the sounds of it, a new CBA is imminent and could be done before the July 4th holiday.


Lockout: Sources reveal details of proposed NFL CBA - ESPN

Some random thoughts on a few of these items...


1. "Players will receive 48% of all revenues"

So, I am an owner, I take all the risk, I purchase the franchise and improve the stadium or build a new one, I pay for the infrastructure, vendors, production, etc., and then my employees take 48% of my revenues? Is that gross revenue or net revenue? And if the player going to take 48% of the profits, then they should also be made to dish out 48% of the money it takes to run these teams?

I want football back badly, but the owners basically are giving the keys to the asylum to the inmates here, are they not?


2. "No off the top credit (the owners were looking for $1 billion)"

This surprises me the most. The only thing that would make #1 above even close to worthwhile to me, as an owner, is if I knew I was getting a guaranteed slush off the top of my business, and then share 48% of what's left with my employees.

Again, MAJOR concession. Too much, IMO.


3. "A 16 game Thursday night schedule will be introduced in 2012 and the package will be sold to a network."

How friggin' excellent is that?!?!?! Weekly Thursday Night Football. It's about time!


4. "Significant increases in pensions and health benefits for retired players if revenues continue as expected through 2016"

This I agree with and it is the responsible move. Bravo to both sides on this one!


5. "All players with 4 or more years of experience and contracts expired after the 2010 season are UFAs."

Wow! So all of the activity we lost during the lockout is going to be insanely refunded once all these players hit the UFA market and teams are jockeying for their services as we approach the training camps! I love this!

 

[Ring 6]

Some random thoughts on a few of these items...


1. "Players will receive 48% of all revenues"

So, I am an owner, I take all the risk, I purchase the franchise and improve the stadium or build a new one, I pay for the infrastructure, vendors, production, etc., and then my employees take 48% of my revenues? Is that gross revenue or net revenue? And if the player going to take 48% of the profits, then they should also be made to dish out 48% of the money it takes to run these teams?

This is a lower percentage than they have been paying up until now.
I get your p.o.v. but this is a move in the opposite direction than what you are saying.

2. "No off the top credit (the owners were looking for $1 billion)"

This surprises me the most. The only thing that would make #1 above even close to worthwhile to me, as an owner, is if I knew I was getting a guaranteed slush off the top of my business, and then share 48% of what's left with my employees.

Again, MAJOR concession. Too much, IMO.

Not really. They are going from (roughly) 60% after the 1bill which worked out to about 53% before the 1 bill, to 48% before the 1 bill.

5. "All players with 4 or more years of experience and contracts expired after the 2010 season are UFAs."

Wow! So all of the activity we lost during the lockout is going to be insanely refunded once all these players hit the UFA market and teams are jockeying for their services as we approach the training camps! I love this!

Looks like there will be a lot of free agents out there.

 

[Ring 6]

I'm not sure it would be the lead point in discussions, but I get your drift. I also hope you're right-Jets fans in particular are counting on getting about $10 million in 2011 dead money for Gholston/Jenkins/Taylor/Woody off their books and are in a dire cap situation if they don't get that relief.

EDIT: Also, it's not that dead money wouldn't exist-I guess the idea would be anyone that was cut in the 2010 uncapped league year gets to accelerate the dead money into the 2010 season.

Re : EDIT
I do not believe that is possible as the handling of that was collectively bargained in the last CBA.
I think it is impossible for them to go back in time and change what occured under the last CBA.
I also do not see any reason why that would be done.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

Not really. They are going from (roughly) 60% after the 1bill which worked out to about 53% before the 1 bill, to 48% before the 1 bill.

Over the years of reading your posts, Andy, I have come to trust your info, so if that is true, then I guess it is a win for them. I guess it is just the unabashed Captialist in me coming out that I think business owners should reap the majority of profits from thier own businesses! LOL!

 

[Ring 6]

Over the years of reading your posts, Andy, I have come to trust your info, so if that is true, then I guess it is a win for them. I guess it is just the unabashed Captialist in me coming out that I think business owners should reap the majority of profits from thier own businesses! LOL!

I hear you, maybe the hardest to believe is that the owners got a better deal by 'only' giving half the revenue to the players. (I was going to say employees but they spend another big chunk on other employees too)
And most fans are calling the owners greedy.......

 

[letekro]

Over the years of reading your posts, Andy, I have come to trust your info, so if that is true, then I guess it is a win for them. I guess it is just the unabashed Captialist in me coming out that I think business owners should reap the majority of profits from thier own businesses! LOL!

Actually, the players have no interest in profits. They get their salary, bonus if applicable, and benefits. 100% of the profit goes to Bob Kraft and any minority partners. I have not been following this closely but what's being discussed is "revenue sharing", i.e., what percentage of revenues will go towards player compensation. I don't see anything unfair to ownership about 100 employees making, say, $150 million in compensation in the aggregate and an owner making perhaps $50 million in profit. (These figures are not far off from recent history---2010 player expenses were $133 million and EBITDA was $66 million).

 

[Ring 6]

Actually, the players have no interest in profits. They get their salary, bonus if applicable, and benefits. 100% of the profit goes to Bob Kraft and any minority partners. I have not been following this closely but what's being discussed is "revenue sharing", i.e., what percentage of revenues will go towards player compensation. I don't see anything unfair to ownership about 100 employees making, say, $150 million in compensation in the aggregate and an owner making perhaps $50 million in profit. (These figures are not far off from recent history---2010 player expenses were $133 million and EBITDA was $66 million).

Where are you getting those numbers from?

 

[letekro]

Where are you getting those numbers from?

#3 New England Patriots - Forbes.com

 

[Ring 6]

#3 New England Patriots - Forbes.com

The league wide numbers are very different. I was speaking about the NFL owners, not just Kraft. These are not actual verified figures either.

 

[Deus Irae]

According to Schefter

Labor talks did not go real well today. But bad from today could be good later. Because the sides are now dealing with the critical issues.

Twitter

 

[letekro]

The league wide numbers are very different. I was speaking about the NFL owners, not just Kraft. These are not actual verified figures either.

I wasn't responding to you.

 

[Rob0729]

According to Schefter



Twitter

Couldn't be that bad considering about an hour ago De Smith and Goodell did their first photo op together ever and even shook hands.

From Albert Breer:

Kraft defers to Goodell, Smith, who will make a statement. Kraft: "Everything's good in Beantown."

In five months covering this, first time I've seen those two stand together for a statement like that. De, Roger shook hands as they left.

Twitter

I swear Schefter seems to be rooting against the inevitable that this deal will be done by early to mid July at the latest.

Also, it was reported earlier today that yesterday's meetings were really "fruitful" and a lot of progress was made and both sides committed to continue to meet until the deal is done.

 

[Deus Irae]

Couldn't be that bad considering about an hour ago De Smith and Goodell did their first photo op together ever and even shook hands.

From Albert Breer:





Twitter

I swear Schefter seems to be rooting against the inevitable that this deal will be done by early to mid July at the latest.

Also, it was reported earlier today that yesterday's meetings were really "fruitful" and a lot of progress was made and both sides committed to continue to meet until the deal is done.

It's not just Schefter throwing cold water:

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith told the players, “Don’t believe the hype.” Smith also said that a deal isn’t close.

Source: NFLPA* tells players that a deal isn’t close | ProFootballTalk

How much is posturing, how much is that darkness just before the dawn, and how much is real problems... that's all something we don't know, but it's out there and it's news, so I passed it on.

 

[patriot lifer]

OT, (and I say this half-kidding) but I feel like they could make a "Too Big to Fail"-type docudrama of the negotiating like that HBO special based on the book.

Just a brainfart (and some much needed levity).

 

[lamafist]

Poor wording for sake of brevity. I meant to say that some are suggesting this will cost low revenue teams more money.
How can they establish and raise at once?

Poor wording on my part.

I do not know of ANY franchises that habitually had cap figures well under 90% of the cap. Can you show me where you get that from?

2006 NFL CBA, Article XXIV, Section 5:

Minimum Team Salary:
(a) For the 2006 League Year, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 84% of the Salary Cap. For each subsequent Capped Year, the percentage set forth in the prior sentence shall increase 1.2%, but in no event shall the percentage be greater than 90%. For example, in the 2008 League Year, there shall be a guaranteed Minimum Team Salary of 86.4% of the Salary Cap. Each Team shall be required to have a Team Salary of at least the Minimum Team Salary at the end of each Capped Year. There shall be no Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year.

In the most recent CBA, the salary floor started at 84% of the cap in 2006, and was 87.6 in 2009. I believe that in years prior to that, it was 56% of the cap. And, as Miguel's prior post showed, these floors weren't even being met.

The same with teams habitually spending 60-70 of cash to cap. Can you show me that? Since cash to cap varies so widely based upon signing bonusses please do not give single year examples but those that were continual.
They are specifically dropping the salary cap. They are reducing the percentage of revenues that must be paid to players. There is a difference.

Using 'total payroll' figures from the USA Today database, which is a cash, not cap, figure, we see that in 10 season, from 2000-2009, the Kansas City Chiefs paid $789.399 million. The collected cap value of that ten year span is $891.767 million, meaning the Chiefs paid an average of 88% of the salary cap. If the cap were ~3% lower each year, but with a cash floor approaching 100% of the cap, the Chiefs would have paid a minimum of $865.01399 million, which is ~$75 million more than they were able to pay prior.

 

[Deus Irae]

What I'm interested in is the players who weren't slapped with the tag because of their RFA status. With the RFA status gone, will teams get a second bite at the franchise tag apple?

As a follow up:

hris Mortensen of ESPN told 101 ESPN in St. Louis that, once the free-agency frenzy commences, the owners want to have a right of first refusal as to three or four players per team. This would operate essentially as the transition tag, which provides a right to match but no compensationhris Mortensen of ESPN told 101 ESPN in St. Louis that, once the free-agency frenzy commences, the owners want to have a right of first refusal as to three or four players per team. This would operate essentially as the transition tag, which provides a right to match but no compensation...

...Also, Howard Balzer of 101 ESPN tells us that teams that didn’t apply the franchise tag to players with four or five years of service want to have the chance to do so.

Reduction of free agency to four years may be harder than it looks | ProFootballTalk


Things could get very interesting, and there could be a lot of players yelling about this.

 

[Ring 6]

Poor wording on my part.



2006 NFL CBA, Article XXIV, Section 5:



In the most recent CBA, the salary floor started at 84% of the cap in 2006, and was 87.6 in 2009. I believe that in years prior to that, it was 56% of the cap. And, as Miguel's prior post showed, these floors weren't even being met.

That establishes the floor. It does not indicate that teams were at the floor, or how many were.
This is like saying the minimum salary in the CBA is 300,000 so many teams are only paying their players 300,000.

Using 'total payroll' figures from the USA Today database, which is a cash, not cap, figure, we see that in 10 season, from 2000-2009, the Kansas City Chiefs paid $789.399 million. The collected cap value of that ten year span is $891.767 million, meaning the Chiefs paid an average of 88% of the salary cap. If the cap were ~3% lower each year, but with a cash floor approaching 100% of the cap, the Chiefs would have paid a minimum of $865.01399 million, which is ~$75 million more than they were able to pay prior.

Please link where you got what their payroll was and what the cap numbers for each year was.
If your previous comment that the floor was 56% of the cap, then that has a large impact on these figures, and that is not the scenario we are comparing to. Also, these are surface numbers, with some pieces of the puzzle missing. What unamortized signing bonus and dead money did they carry forward into 2000, and out of 2009? Were they actually under the cap in these seasons by a significant amount, or are there dead money issues occuring?
All that aside, one teams history is not evidence that a cash floor, even at 100% would guarantee teams spending more.
By the way, I severely doubt that the floor will be 100% of the cap. It seems that it would be impossible to navigate.
If you have a 120,000,000 cap, and 40,000,000 is yet unamortized signing bonus, then you would have 80,000,000 left under the cap for salaries and new players 1st year cap hit. However, you MUST spend 120,000,000 in current year payroll. If you do not match the unamortized and future amortized bonusses exactly, you end up either over the cap or under the 100% cash floor. In other words, it is almost impossible to hit the cash floor without exceeding the cap except in certain circumstances where you would be doomed to not be able to accomplish it the next year.

As I said this is just a rumor, and expanding the rumor to 100% of cash to cap makes it virtually impossible.
I do not think it is feasible.

 

[Rob0729]

It's not just Schefter throwing cold water:



Source: NFLPA* tells players that a deal isn’t close | ProFootballTalk

How much is posturing, how much is that darkness just before the dawn, and how much is real problems... that's all something we don't know, but it's out there and it's news, so I passed it on.

And I just heard Andrew Brandt on ESPN radio saying both sides are close and he expects a deal as soon as next week. Albert Breer quotes an NFC team representative in the meetings who says a new CBA is in striking distance.

Then there's this: League sources said Thursday that NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith has earned the owners' trust and respect in a very big way over the last month. In fact, that part of the equation, coinciding with the legal aspects of the dispute slowing and the lawyers taking much smaller roles, has been integral in getting the owners to move off hard-line stances and listen to players' demands.

One NFC team executive said after this week's owners meetings that the league and players are "within striking distance" of a deal. The parties have spent the last month negotiating the revenue split -- by far the biggest issue on the table. On Thursday, the meetings will reach another critical juncture, as the sides go in depth into the rookie system for the first time since starting the "secret" meetings May 31 in Chicago.

"There are enough legitimate issues to where it could all fall down still," one AFC team executive said. "They're dealing with that stuff."

NFL.com news: NFL owners, players regaining trust with 'all revenue' model

Personally, I really don't care what DeMaurice Smith says publically. The guy has said so many ridiculous things that nothing that he says is worth listening to.

 

[Rob0729]

Well if Schefter is right that today was a rough day, we now know why. Today marked the return of Jeffrey "I won't be happy until I destroy the NFL" Kessler returned to the meetings.

Kessler returns to the labor talks on Thursday | ProFootballTalk

I really wish the players would keep this guy away and use another attorney.