CBA Approval Status

[patsinthesnow]

Damn the player reps.....why does Kevin Mawae refer to "we" when he says the players want to play...your retired you hack.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maybe they should tie the NFL guys into the NFLPA conference call so someone could explain to these guys what they are voting on...

Everything in the offer has been agreed to. The players issue is what isn't in the offer, some of which can't be finalized until they recertify and some of which was a perception on their part that they were going to get some 11th hour concessions on peripheral issues. They were never getting those and won't get them if they ballaxe this deal and land back in court.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

there is still no trust.. again what the H/// were they doing the last 5 weeks... this is ridicoulous.. d maurice smith is a fraud owner... and this is why no foot ball till oct ... sad to say....

 

[everlong]

NFL Network reports that Heath Evans tweeted that the owners tried to insert things into the CBA that were never discussed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Here is a quote from De's email:

"As you may have heard they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions...."

Guess what De...those are none of your business.

 

[Deus Irae]

Here is a quote from De's email:



Guess what De...those are none of your business.

Actually, they are. Revenue issues among the owners is part of why the CBA "needed" addressing in the first place. For the owners to pull a stunt like this is to put it kindly, bad form.

 

[BlueThunder]

What the OWNERS do with their share of the pie is their business.....

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Actually, they are. Revenue issues among the owners is part of why the CBA "needed" addressing in the first place. For the owners to pull a stunt like this is to put it kindly, bad form.

How they share their share of the revenue amongst themselves is not the NFLPA's business. Allowing that process to bleed into the CBA negotiations last time was what led to the deal they opted out of. The CBA is an agreement between employees and employers relative to compensation and work rules.

The player reps asked for conditions at the 11th hour. The CBA was done before they made those demands. Some of those demands can't be settled UNTIL the union recertifies (although the framework for those issues has been crafted during negotiations). How the union recertifies seems to be a lingering issue. They can do that electronically, but apparently they don't want to. So the league said OK, you figure it out. We will conditionally approve a settlement based on you figuring out how to recertify. If you can't do that by the middle of next week, then I guess we will have a problem...

Eisen says the problem as he sees it is the league had a drop dead date for the financials on this deal to work and the NFLPA doesn't have one. They better figure one out because it's going to start impacting the financials in a way that will scuttle the deal if they don't.

 

[Joker]

be sure to stay tuned,sports fans, as your intrepid investigative reporter, Joe Kerr, bunkers down later on tonight at the NFL Cafe Bizarre...I'll be reporting on the latest NFL contract issues not yet shown to the players like "The Bigfoot Integration Plan" and the Cromartie "No Baby Left Behind" ex-wives tour....

 

[Deus Irae]

How they share their share of the revenue amongst themselves is not the NFLPA's business. Allowing that process to bleed into the CBA negotiations last time was what led to the deal they opted out of. The CBA is an agreement between employees and employers relative to compensation and work rules.

That's obviously incorrect, as it directly impacts the owner arguments about profitability.

 

[BlueThunder]

Not sure how the owner's splitting their share would effect league profitability.

Please explain

 

[Rob0729]

That's obviously incorrect, as it directly impacts the owner arguments about profitability.

It does! It shows the owners had legitimate concerns about the financial stability of the smaller market teams and were probably right to opt out of the previous CBA.

As for the NFPLA being involved in the discussions, they were never concerned about revenue sharing before this was announced and are making a big deal about it now to deflect the bad press they are getting for not voting on the CBA and looking to be stalling the process. Plain and simple.

There is no reason for the players to be involved in revenue sharing. Just like the owners don't need to be involved on how the NFLPA allocates membership dues. That is not an issue that impacts the players one iota.

 

[Deus Irae]

It does! It shows the owners had legitimate concerns about the financial stability of the smaller market teams and were probably right to opt out of the previous CBA.

As for the NFPLA being involved in the discussions, they were never concerned about revenue sharing before this was announced and are making a big deal about it now to deflect the bad press they are getting for not voting on the CBA and looking to be stalling the process. Plain and simple.

There is no reason for the players to be involved in revenue sharing. Just like the owners don't need to be involved on how the NFLPA allocates membership dues. That is not an issue that impacts the players one iota.

The sides are in a REVENUE SHARING system. Therefore, how that revenue is being shared by the owners, and why, when the owners are claiming a loss of profitability under that system, is obviously the business of the players.

 

[BlueThunder]

Does it really matter which team loses money and which teams make a ton?

The players are still getting a fixed % of the TOTAL revenue..how the owners split their % of the revenue should be their business....

 

[Deus Irae]

Not sure how the owner's splitting their share would effect league profitability.

Please explain

"All" revenues are counted for revenue sharing purposes. So, to go to example:


Total revenue is $10 billion. Players get $5 billion. Owners get $5 billion. Everyone's happy.


BUT,


Cowboys brought in $500 million, while the Chiefs only brought in $250 million. That means that the Chiefs are paying for the same salary number as the Cowboys, but only bringing in half the revenue. The Chiefs may end up with a profit of, say, $10 million, while the Cowboys profited over $200 million. This mean the Chiefs are much more significantly affected by cap increases and other cost increases over time, w.

 

[Rob0729]

The sides are in a REVENUE SHARING system. Therefore, how that revenue is being shared by the owners, and why, when the owners are claiming a loss of profitability under that system, is obviously the business of the players.

So are the players supposed to have access to every individual team's budget meeting? That has to do with profitability of the league.

Sorry, as Florio pointed out, the revenue sharing was something the NFLPA didn't care about. Agreeing to give more revenue to smaller market teams only supports the owners' claim so the NFLPA should be happy that the owners concerns were legitimate.

This is 100% deflection on Smith's part. Make it sound like the owners snuck something into the CBA that hurts the players allows him to deflect attention that the players are holding up a vote to add 11th hour additions to the CBA like trying to recoup "lost" benefits from 2010. The players look bad right now for delaying the vote two days and asking for special compensation for the plantiffs.


The owners are winning this battle in the PR war by voting to ratify the CBA and end the lockout. The players now are in a pickle because they want some more concessions and have been backed into a PR corner. This is a move to throw some of the negative press at the players.

 

[BlueThunder]

"Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of "all revenue," a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue."


Again..the language mentions Revenue...not Profits....

 

[Deus Irae]

"Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of "all revenue," a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue."


Again..the language mentions Revenue...not Profits....

The owners were the ones *****ing about profits, not the players.

The owners signed a CBA that put a lot of pressure on lower revenue teams. That CBA was opted out of, with the owners were arguing that they were losing profitablity despite increasingly high revenues. From what's been made public to date, the new CBA apparently didn't address that, meaning the owners took all the pressure off by taking the money from the players. Now, post 'agreement, the owners reportedly are making their own internal deal.

Naturally the players can be expected to have questions and issues about such a move. Despite the comments by Mo and Rob, the players would be fools not to see this as something to be questioned.

 

[Rob0729]

"All" revenues are counted for revenue sharing purposes. So, to go to example:


Total revenue is $10 billion. Players get $5 billion. Owners get $5 billion. Everyone's happy.


BUT,


Cowboys brought in $500 million, while the Chiefs only brought in $250 million. That means that the Chiefs are paying for the same salary number as the Cowboys, but only bringing in half the revenue. The Chiefs may end up with a profit of, say, $10 million, while the Cowboys profited over $200 million. This mean the Chiefs are much more significantly affected by cap increases and other cost increases over time, w.

And how is that something the players need to be part of. Just so they can go, "hey, you guys were right to opt out of the CBA"?

The new revenue splitting obviously addressed most of the concerns of the owners which means Jerry Jones is giving up more of his share of that $200 million profit. Which means the Chiefs will be less affected by the cap increase and other cost increases. Everyone wins.

You still haven't said why the players needed to be part of the discussions. The small market teams obviously were taken care of because even Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson voted for the CBA this time around.

 

[Urgent]

That's obviously incorrect, as it directly impacts the owner arguments about profitability.

As you may have heard, they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions.

Inconceivable!
You keep using the word 'obviously.' I do not think it means what you think it means.


The collective bargaining agreement dictates how much the employees are paid.
Obviously, it does not dictate how the players spend their paychecks.
Nor does it dictate how the owners spend their earnings.

The herring is red.