CBS's Mike Freeman: "Deal will be reached within matter of days"

[townes]

Sort of, but not really. It would only take the votes of 9 owners to trigger the opt-out. Once it became apparent during the owners meeting that the opt-out had the numbers, it behooved the rest of the owners to make the official vote unanimous, so as to be able to present a united front in negotiations.

Exactly. The best thing both sides could do is fire their counsel and bring in new lawyers with no agenda to write the deal once agreed upon. Smith and Kessler suck but Pash is every bit as bad as either and for some reason he skates while people vilify player counsel constantly. The vast majority of owners want a deal and they need to tell those who want a free ride to sell their franchises if they aren't doing well enough to satisfy them, and the players need to make clear to Kessler and Smith that they won't go along with anything that takes apart the basic structure of the game and fire them if they don't agree to those terms.

Counsel on both sides want an outright win and that isn't good for the game and would result in a long long labor dispute neither can afford. real compromise by both sides is what is needed and counsel doesn't understand that concept.

 

[BlueThunder]

I don't expect a vote on any framework next week because while progress has been made there isn't actually framework to vote on yet. They are reportedly closing gaps and proposing compromise solutions to several issues, but until they agree on the % split and true up parameters and court oversight going forward and any settlement terms (not sure why those would be necessary at this juncture if in fact an agreement in principle on a new CBA is achieved beyond both sides joining together to motion the courts to drop the suit), the owners meeting will be about hashing out the remaining impediments on one side. And who knows what the other side is yet willing to do. I think it's optomistic at best to think a framework could be in place by the end of next week and more realistic to hope by the week after.

And you know this how? Just curious if you have an inside source.

 

[lamafist]

Per Schefter:

It is one of the primary reasons team officials are being prepped to stay an extra night in Chicago at Tuesday's owners' meetings. It's not to potentially vote on a new collective bargaining agreement, as many suspected; it actually is to try to fend off some of the resistance that is mounting, according to sources.

I'm curious whether "fend off some of the resistance" would go so far as to include agreeing to adjustments made in the owners' revenue sharing agreement.

With the revenue disparity among the NFL's franchises only continuing to grow at an accelerating rate, their disparate interests are likely to prove harder to reconcile than those between many of them and the players. Essentially, what the owners at the negotiating table can't win from the players, they might have to make up the difference for in increased shared revenues.

 

[lamafist]

Exactly. The best thing both sides could do is fire their counsel and bring in new lawyers with no agenda to write the deal once agreed upon. Smith and Kessler suck but Pash is every bit as bad as either and for some reason he skates while people vilify player counsel constantly. The vast majority of owners want a deal and they need to tell those who want a free ride to sell their franchises if they aren't doing well enough to satisfy them, and the players need to make clear to Kessler and Smith that they won't go along with anything that takes apart the basic structure of the game and fire them if they don't agree to those terms.

Counsel on both sides want an outright win and that isn't good for the game and would result in a long long labor dispute neither can afford. real compromise by both sides is what is needed and counsel doesn't understand that concept.

I really don't know about all the lawyer vilifying. I know that over on PFT, Florio likes to play up the lawyers earnings and potential interest in keeping the legal battles going, but that strikes me as overly dramatic. I mean, first off, that's the pretty much the case in every legal dispute, but their first priority will always be keeping their clients satisfied with their counsel. Say what you will about Goodell and De Smith, but they know their names will be defined by these negotiations, and I think they're both smart enough to recognize if their attorneys aren't operating on the level.

Mostly, I think the lawyers just make an easy target for everyone, but beating up on them doesn't really get at any of the real issues involved in the negotiations, so, to me at least, there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

Also, I don't think it would ever behoove any of the owners to tell their colleagues to sell their franchises. What's more, I suspect that the block of owners potentially against any deal that the players would sign on to might be somewhere close to the 9 needed to scuttle the deal. If that's the case, then their concerns do have to be taken seriously enough to swing at least a few of them.

 

[lamafist]

Incidentally, I do think that some of the NFL's current owners would do best to sell their teams in a year or two, after the new TV deal is announced.

The NFL owners are like the landlords in a neighborhood that's about 2/3s of the way through the gentrification process. When the students + hipsters start flooding in, the original landlords can cash in and raise rents without having to put any more money back into their property. Eventually, outside investors see an opportunity, and start buying out empty storefronts and apartment houses on the verge of being condemned, and start putting money into development, and making a killing in return. At first, this works out for the original landlords -- the availability of first rate accommodations just raises the profile of the neighborhood even more, and the rents they can charge continue to go up just from being in the same neighborhood.

At a certain point, a critical mass is reached. Enough of the newer owners have done major renovations or complete tear-downs, and now the original owners' buildings begin to stand out as eyesores in comparison. While the new developers can now charge true luxury rates, the original owners have topped out on what they can make without putting all their money back into their property. At a certain point, they can't keep up with the ever-rising property values, and they're facing pressure from surrounding developers for being a drag on their neighborhood.

If they had seen the writing on the wall early on, they could have started reinvesting in their property as soon as it got hot, gotten out front, and gentrified right along with the neighborhood. Now, they need to recognize that they can't afford play ball at the same level as the developers who own the rest of the neighborhood, and are best off selling their property while the neighborhood still has some heat left.

 

[Deus Irae]

So Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are against the CBA again. Big deal. Mike Brown isn't going to be happy until he gets a CBA where he gives the players' 0% of the revenues.

I am beginning not to trust Schefter on this. He has said as recently as last week that he doesn't expect a deal to be done until late August or early September at the earliest and I think he is looking for something to back that up. Yes, we all know two AFC teams (the Bills and Bengals) are not going to be happy with the deal no matter what it is. By shear dumb luck they were right the last time that the deal was not good for the owners.

The owners opposition to a new CBA will need 9 votes to squash any deal. I seriously doubt there are going to be 9 no votes when the CBA comes to a vote. Until I hear that more than eight owner are against it, I think it is a non-story.

If it's the same owners who voted against the last CBA, the rest of the league would be stupid not to think long and hard about whatever objections they are bringing forth this time.

 

[townes]

I really don't know about all the lawyer vilifying. I know that over on PFT, Florio likes to play up the lawyers earnings and potential interest in keeping the legal battles going, but that strikes me as overly dramatic. I mean, first off, that's the pretty much the case in every legal dispute, but their first priority will always be keeping their clients satisfied with their counsel. Say what you will about Goodell and De Smith, but they know their names will be defined by these negotiations, and I think they're both smart enough to recognize if their attorneys aren't operating on the level.

Mostly, I think the lawyers just make an easy target for everyone, but beating up on them doesn't really get at any of the real issues involved in the negotiations, so, to me at least, there doesn't seem to be much point in it.

Also, I don't think it would ever behoove any of the owners to tell their colleagues to sell their franchises. What's more, I suspect that the block of owners potentially against any deal that the players would sign on to might be somewhere close to the 9 needed to scuttle the deal. If that's the case, then their concerns do have to be taken seriously enough to swing at least a few of them.

There is no way to know until more information comes out but I doubt the number of owners opposed to real compromise is near 9 and would put the number of unhappy owners closer to 5, but that's just a guess based off of the near unanimous support for the last deal. We'll see pretty soon but I definitely see the issue as one between owners more than one where players should give back to offset the unhappiness of the Brown's and Wilson's. Both should sell their teams, both suck.

As far as the lawyers go i think there is more culpability than you apparently do. i believe NFL counsel, Pash et al..., thought they could crush the players and force a really bad deal on them and that strategy has essentially failed, and their actions in the deals they made were true scumbag moves that destroyed any exisiting trust between the owners and players. On the other side i think Kessler basically represents agent interests and not those of the players, and Smith is a guy who loves a fight and wants a win more than a deal, although i'm sure he will find a way to spin either to his favor. I think Smith is amenable to a deal that maintains the structure of the game if the players insist on that but Kessler wants to end any structure to sports and wants wide open free agency with no rules across the board for all sports so agents can make out big time.

Someday we may find out, right now it's just my sense of what has been going on and by whom.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

One thought I had was that the businesses leasing and paying rent at Patriots Place have to be puting major league pressure on Kraft to get a deal. They stand to lose access to thousands of on-site customers per game missed. Even on summer camp days families and guys hang around, shop, eat dinner, go for drinks or watch a movie. BIG revenue losses if even pre season games missed.

"You sold us on this deal Bob as a can't miss revenue opportunity leveraged off the NFL, now go do your job and get the customers here you promised!"

 

[Rob0729]

If it's the same owners who voted against the last CBA, the rest of the league would be stupid not to think long and hard about whatever objections they are bringing forth this time.

Why? Ralph Wilson didn't vote against it because he thought it was a bad deal. He voted against it because he didn't understand it. It wasn't like he had great insight that no other owner didn't had. Mike Brown voted against it because he always cries that he doesn't get enough money. If the NFLPA accepted the owners' opening offer, Brown would vote against it.

I would agree with you if either Wilson or Brown voted against the 2006 CBA because they had great foresight and knew this would turn out to be a bad deal for the owners, but they didn't. Wilson admitted he didn't know what was included in the CBA and voted against it because he wanted more time to read it. Brown voted against it because the CBA have the Bengals' ownership getting 90% of the league's revenues with the rest of the league (owners and players) sharing the other 10%.

Fact of the matter all of the smartest owners voted for the 2006 CBA and they just didn't realize the economic landscape moving forward.

 

[Deus Irae]

Why? Ralph Wilson didn't vote against it because he thought it was a bad deal. He voted against it because he didn't understand it. It wasn't like he had great insight that no other owner didn't had. Mike Brown voted against it because he always cries that he doesn't get enough money. If the NFLPA accepted the owners' opening offer, Brown would vote against it.

I would agree with you if either Wilson or Brown voted against the 2006 CBA because they had great foresight and knew this would turn out to be a bad deal for the owners, but they didn't. Wilson admitted he didn't know what was included in the CBA and voted against it because he wanted more time to read it. Brown voted against it because the CBA have the Bengals' ownership getting 90% of the league's revenues with the rest of the league (owners and players) sharing the other 10%.

Fact of the matter all of the smartest owners voted for the 2006 CBA and they just didn't realize the economic landscape moving forward.

What was said publicly is not necessarily what was thought/known privately. Rather than get into this, I'll just say that it would behoove people to realize that the two small market owners were right before and should be taken seriously this time, and I'll leave it at that.

And don't believe the myth about the "smartest owners" not knowing the economic landscape, because that's absolutely not true.

 

[Rob0729]

What was said publicly is not necessarily what was thought/known privately. Rather than get into this, I'll just say that it would behoove people to realize that the two small market owners were right before and should be taken seriously this time, and I'll leave it at that.

And don't believe the myth about the "smartest owners" not knowing the economic landscape, because that's absolutely not true.

So rather than say he thought it was a bad deal, Ralph Wilson would have rather decided to make himself to look like a senile old idiot who is too lost to understand the CBA? Wilson casted doubts that it was a bad deal anyway, but claimed he didn't understand it. The owners did rush the vote to avoid a long delay in free agency.

As for the economic landscape, of course they didn't understand it. In 2006, did Daniel Snyder think he was going to have to remove 10-20k seats from FedEx field and turn them into a lower paying SRO section? Did the NFL think they would have to change the blackout rules to universally allow owners to cover thousands of seats to avoid blackouts like they did a month ago. Yes, the TV revenues are growing, but they were to be expected. The problem is the economy and HDTV is making people not want to go to the games like they used to. That is where the economy is changing the financial landscape which wasn't be expected. Since 2006, teams like the Redskins and Patriots have gone from having a 50-100k person waiting list for season tickets to having to lie about having a 50-100k person waiting list for season tickets.

People always point to the TV numbers to disprove the owners didn't understand the financial landscape, but ignore the fact that the owners are having more and more problems filling the stadiums to avoid blackouts. I think last year there were more teams who needed to extend deadlines to have a sellout to avoid a blackout than any year in the last decade. Usually, the way these teams avoid blackouts is by buying tickets themselves which hurts their bottomline although doesn't affect their revenue.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Players need a deal done soon. Look at the exterme financial desperation here...

Raheem Brock | TMZ.com

 

[lamafist]

So rather than say he thought it was a bad deal, Ralph Wilson would have rather decided to make himself to look like a senile old idiot who is too lost to understand the CBA? Wilson casted doubts that it was a bad deal anyway, but claimed he didn't understand it. The owners did rush the vote to avoid a long delay in free agency.

As for the economic landscape, of course they didn't understand it. In 2006, did Daniel Snyder think he was going to have to remove 10-20k seats from FedEx field and turn them into a lower paying SRO section? Did the NFL think they would have to change the blackout rules to universally allow owners to cover thousands of seats to avoid blackouts like they did a month ago. Yes, the TV revenues are growing, but they were to be expected. The problem is the economy and HDTV is making people not want to go to the games like they used to. That is where the economy is changing the financial landscape which wasn't be expected. Since 2006, teams like the Redskins and Patriots have gone from having a 50-100k person waiting list for season tickets to having to lie about having a 50-100k person waiting list for season tickets.

People always point to the TV numbers to disprove the owners didn't understand the financial landscape, but ignore the fact that the owners are having more and more problems filling the stadiums to avoid blackouts. I think last year there were more teams who needed to extend deadlines to have a sellout to avoid a blackout than any year in the last decade. Usually, the way these teams avoid blackouts is by buying tickets themselves which hurts their bottomline although doesn't affect their revenue.

I don't recall there being any massive ticket buyouts to avoid blackouts last season. I remember there being stories about owners promising to do so to avoid blackouts, but I don't think it ever turned out to be necessary.

Now, ticket sales account for some 20% of the NFL's revenues, as compared to the TV deals, which account for 43%. And the dip in average attendance was from 68,702 -- which was a record high for the NFL -- to 67,313, from 99.99% of capacity to 95%. And during this time, average ticket prices still continued to rise.

So what we're talking about is a 5% dip in a source of 20% of the revenues. Meanwhile, none of this counts the real money coming out of game attendance, which is in PSLs and luxury suites, and those haven't been hurt at all. Meanwhile, whatever the cost in the dip in ticket sales, it was clearly more than made up for in other areas, as the NFL's revenues rose 43% from 2005-2009.

What's more, the percentage of revenue derived from ticket sales figures to get even smaller in a year or two, when the new TV contracts are up. The NFL is, after all, coming off the best stretch of ratings for any televised entertainment property ever. The 19 most watched broadcasts in 2010 were all NFL games, as were 28 of the top 30. NFL scores huge in the most sought-after demo, 18-49 year old men, at a time when every other tv property is losing viewers in that demo. NFL broadcasts are also the least time-shifted. And meanwhile, as the results from last month's upfronts start to trickle in, it's looking like a huge rebound year in TV advertising, as advertisers begin to understand how TV spots are the best drivers for web marketing.

So I wouldn't say that there's little evidence to suggest that the economic landscape has proven all that hostile to NFL franchises.

 

[Rob0729]

I don't recall there being any massive ticket buyouts to avoid blackouts last season. I remember there being stories about owners promising to do so to avoid blackouts, but I don't think it ever turned out to be necessary.

Now, ticket sales account for some 20% of the NFL's revenues, as compared to the TV deals, which account for 43%. And the dip in average attendance was from 68,702 -- which was a record high for the NFL -- to 67,313, from 99.99% of capacity to 95%. And during this time, average ticket prices still continued to rise.

So what we're talking about is a 5% dip in a source of 20% of the revenues. Meanwhile, none of this counts the real money coming out of game attendance, which is in PSLs and luxury suites, and those haven't been hurt at all. Meanwhile, whatever the cost in the dip in ticket sales, it was clearly more than made up for in other areas, as the NFL's revenues rose 43% from 2005-2009.

What's more, the percentage of revenue derived from ticket sales figures to get even smaller in a year or two, when the new TV contracts are up. The NFL is, after all, coming off the best stretch of ratings for any televised entertainment property ever. The 19 most watched broadcasts in 2010 were all NFL games, as were 28 of the top 30. NFL scores huge in the most sought-after demo, 18-49 year old men, at a time when every other tv property is losing viewers in that demo. NFL broadcasts are also the least time-shifted. And meanwhile, as the results from last month's upfronts start to trickle in, it's looking like a huge rebound year in TV advertising, as advertisers begin to understand how TV spots are the best drivers for web marketing.

So I wouldn't say that there's little evidence to suggest that the economic landscape has proven all that hostile to NFL franchises.

Every year there are owners who buy tickets to avoid blackouts. Last year was more than most. At least in the last decade. If you didn't pay attention, you weren't aware of it. It isn't like owners want to publicize that they had to buy back a few thousand tickets for certain games. The fact of the matter there were more teams asking for extensions for blackout deadlines this year than any other year in the last decade or so. Many of those teams bought hundreds if not thousands of tickets per game that they came down to the wire to avoid a blackout. That cost doesn't take into effect the costs of losing concessions, parking, etc. It also doesn't take into effect teams with new stadiums unable to sell PSLs that they expected to sell when they started the venture pre-2006. It also doesn't take into effect corporations who either stop buying club seats and luxury boxes or not renew them after

As for the average attendance for the entire NFL, it is irrelevant because it is the small market teams that are feeling the sting and the large market teams are making up for it to be over capacity. You need to look at each individual team's attendance. I think the Pats with SRO tickets were at something like 105% of capacity. You gotta look at stadiums like Jacksonville and San Deigo who consistently fight potential blackouts to get the picture.

As for TV revenues, that was an expected income. The owners took new contracts and how much they would probably increase into effect when they agreeed to the deal. Those have not been changed by the economy. It is the other revenues that have been effected by the economy and it is worse than you make it out to be. It might not be devestating YET, but it does add an additional burden especially to the small market teams.

The fact of the matter is the economy has affected the owners more than the people on the players side are willing to admit and less than the people on the owners' side make it out to be. Yes, the economy has negatively affected the owners in many ways. It doesn't mean that they are going to go out of business, but that they are not making as much as they thought they were when they agreed to the CBA.

 

[Deus Irae]

As for the average attendance for the entire NFL, it is irrelevant because it is the small market teams that are feeling the sting and the large market teams are making up for it to be over capacity. You need to look at each individual team's attendance. I think the Pats with SRO tickets were at something like 105% of capacity. You gotta look at stadiums like Jacksonville and San Deigo who consistently fight potential blackouts to get the picture.

Jacksonville, from 2000 (off the team's own site):

Attendance at Jaguars games is difficult to understand. With this Sunday's game, which is expected to be another disappointing no-show event, the Jaguars will have completed a home season that failed to produce one capacity crowd.

The largest crowd at Alltel Stadium this season was for the Washington game, 69,061, a full four thousand fans less than Alltel's 73,000 capacity. Next came Seattle at 68,063.

http://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=954

Notice the Chargers attendance timeline, and you'll see that the current attendance isn't anything surprising or anything that shouldn't have been anticipated:

san diego chargers attendance history - Google Search

Again, this wasn't a case of the owners not knowing.

 

[Rob0729]

Jacksonville, from 2000 (off the team's own site):



http://www.jaguars.com/news/article.aspx?id=954

Notice the Chargers attendance timeline, and you'll see that the current attendance isn't anything surprising or anything that shouldn't have been anticipated:

san diego chargers attendance history - Google Search

Again, this wasn't a case of the owners not knowing.

When did 2000 become 2006?

Also, thanks for proving that San Deigo's attendence was way down and the worst last year since the mid-80s.

 

[Rob0729]

BTW, the blackouts were so insignificant that Time Magazine labeled 2010 the Year of NFL blacouts:

2010: The Year of the NFL Television Blackout? - TIME NewsFeed

Here's an article talking about NFL attendence being down for the fourth straight year and the blackout rules not working:

Through nine weeks of the 2010 season, the NFL has already had 13 blackouts and is on pace to have 25 games not aired in the local market. That would surpass last season's total of 22 and is up 150 percent from 2007 when the NFL had only 10 blackouts and set an attendance record with over 17.5 million fans.

Read more: NFL Attendance Down For 4th Straight Year; Blackout Rule Not Working


December 24th last year marked the date when 2010 had more blackouts than any other year since 2004

Raiders fail to sell out vs. Colts, giving NFL most blackouts since 2004 - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

NFL Will Have More TV Blackouts Than Last Year - Mike Ozanian - SportsMoney - Forbes

So the NFL had 45 blackouts in 2009 (22) and 2010 (23). They had 19 in 2007 (9) and 2008 (10) which is less than either 2009 or 2010 . And this isn't becoming a problem? Ignore the facts right in front of your face. It is quite clear that the economy is hav9ing a significant negative effect on the NFL in many ways.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I don't recall there being any massive ticket buyouts to avoid blackouts last season. I remember there being stories about owners promising to do so to avoid blackouts, but I don't think it ever turned out to be necessary.

Now, ticket sales account for some 20% of the NFL's revenues, as compared to the TV deals, which account for 43%. And the dip in average attendance was from 68,702 -- which was a record high for the NFL -- to 67,313, from 99.99% of capacity to 95%. And during this time, average ticket prices still continued to rise.

So what we're talking about is a 5% dip in a source of 20% of the revenues. Meanwhile, none of this counts the real money coming out of game attendance, which is in PSLs and luxury suites, and those haven't been hurt at all. Meanwhile, whatever the cost in the dip in ticket sales, it was clearly more than made up for in other areas, as the NFL's revenues rose 43% from 2005-2009.

What's more, the percentage of revenue derived from ticket sales figures to get even smaller in a year or two, when the new TV contracts are up. The NFL is, after all, coming off the best stretch of ratings for any televised entertainment property ever. The 19 most watched broadcasts in 2010 were all NFL games, as were 28 of the top 30. NFL scores huge in the most sought-after demo, 18-49 year old men, at a time when every other tv property is losing viewers in that demo. NFL broadcasts are also the least time-shifted. And meanwhile, as the results from last month's upfronts start to trickle in, it's looking like a huge rebound year in TV advertising, as advertisers begin to understand how TV spots are the best drivers for web marketing.

So I wouldn't say that there's little evidence to suggest that the economic landscape has proven all that hostile to NFL franchises.

One specific example that contradicts your claim. I was in Tamper Florider in the wintah. Despite contending for a playoff berth, the Bucs were BLACKED OUT repeatedly in Decembah.

 

[lamafist]

One specific example that contradicts your claim. I was in Tamper Florider in the wintah. Despite contending for a playoff berth, the Bucs were BLACKED OUT repeatedly in Decembah.

Actually, it wouldn't contradict my claim at all.

If the owners bought up the unsold tickets, the game wouldn't have been blacked out.

A little googling brought up articles about the Bucs owners admitting they bought out tickets during 2009. So far, I haven't found any links regarding any other owners admitting to or claiming to have bought out tickets to prevent blackouts.

I have found numerous articles about local businessmen, local TV stations, and at one point, Chad Ochocinco, buying out tickets so the games will be on TV. I see absolutely no evidence of it being at all a common practice for owners to buy out tickets.

Could someone perhaps provide me with links indicating otherwise, as I would be interested in reading about it?

 

[lamafist]

BTW, the blackouts were so insignificant that Time Magazine labeled 2010 the Year of NFL blacouts:

2010: The Year of the NFL Television Blackout? - TIME NewsFeed

Here's an article talking about NFL attendence being down for the fourth straight year and the blackout rules not working:



Read more: NFL Attendance Down For 4th Straight Year; Blackout Rule Not Working


December 24th last year marked the date when 2010 had more blackouts than any other year since 2004

Raiders fail to sell out vs. Colts, giving NFL most blackouts since 2004 - The Huddle: Football News from the NFL - USATODAY.com

NFL Will Have More TV Blackouts Than Last Year - Mike Ozanian - SportsMoney - Forbes

So the NFL had 45 blackouts in 2009 (22) and 2010 (23). They had 19 in 2007 (9) and 2008 (10) which is less than either 2009 or 2010 . And this isn't becoming a problem? Ignore the facts right in front of your face. It is quite clear that the economy is hav9ing a significant negative effect on the NFL in many ways.

Wait, why are there blackouts if the owners are buying up the unsold tickets?