Florio tries to break down the financial differences

[McCourty Island]

I have an issue with the owners opted out line of argument. Yes they did, but it was allowed in the previous CBA, and the reason it was in there was if the owners or the players decided that the current CBA wasn't working out the way they expected it to work they could reopen the negotiations.

The owners served notice that the CBA sucked, from their standpoint, a couple of years ago. This was no surprize to anybody. The owners had the right to tell the players that the agreement wasn't working and the players knew the agreement screwed the owners. So in effect, we have the union taking advantage of the situation, the owners being dumb enough to believe that the union would actually negotiate in good faith and the fans getting screwed.

I have little syymppathy for the owners and no sympathy for the union. I hope that D Smith has to go back a clerk because he gets beaten so badly. He is the real villian in this. He had to make a name for himself so he could get into politics, he had to show the world what a ahole he is. This was planned from the beginning.

So you think the owners who planned to lock the players out for two years and tried to stockpile $4B (against the rules of the CBA since it didn't maximize overall revenue) were negotiating in good faith?

 

[E Belichick Unum]

So you think the owners who planned to lock the players out for two years and tried to stockpile $4B (against the rules of the CBA since it didn't maximize overall revenue) were negotiating in good faith?

The owners told the players that the CBA wasn't working. They made no secrets of the fact that they were unhappy with it. Truth be told, I don't think that either side realy negotiated in good faith, but I do believe that the Players were headed down this path and nothing that the owners offered would have stopped it.

D Smith did a good job poisoning the atmosphere. He has the players convinced that the owners have been screwing the players and that the players should return the favor. For Smith, his future is in politics, he has no interest in remaining the NFLPA head. He had to prove to the world that he could be a hard ass to build his reputation. From his point of view, like most left leaners today, the owners are rich and the rich do not deserve their money, if they won't share we will go to court to steal it.

In the end it comes down to the fact that the owners signed a bad deal last time and they saw what happened to baseball when they allowed themselves to be screwed.

 

[BradyManny]

I have an issue with the owners opted out line of argument. Yes they did, but it was allowed in the previous CBA, and the reason it was in there was if the owners or the players decided that the current CBA wasn't working out the way they expected it to work they could reopen the negotiations.

That's fine, but it's also within the players' rights to not give in to the owners, particularly without the owners backing up any of their claims. If the players think they will have a favorable settlement in litigation, why would they give in at the negotiating table?

But the fact remains is that the reason we're here is b/c the owners opted out and b/c the owners will not support their financial claims. Those two actions, more than anything else, is the reason next season is in jeopardy.

 

[scout]

Anyone think that the 18 game schedule was just a ploy to gain a bargaining chip. Then, maybe once the owners saw the revenue from it, they gained interest. Think about it. Create a bargaining point which results in taking away one of the players asking points. It did sound irrational to add games during the season of concussions. Then again, owners are not always known to be rational.

 

[McCourty Island]

The owners told the players that the CBA wasn't working. They made no secrets of the fact that they were unhappy with it. Truth be told, I don't think that either side realy negotiated in good faith, but I do believe that the Players were headed down this path and nothing that the owners offered would have stopped it.

D Smith did a good job poisoning the atmosphere. He has the players convinced that the owners have been screwing the players and that the players should return the favor. For Smith, his future is in politics, he has no interest in remaining the NFLPA head. He had to prove to the world that he could be a hard ass to build his reputation. From his point of view, like most left leaners today, the owners are rich and the rich do not deserve their money, if they won't share we will go to court to steal it.

In the end it comes down to the fact that the owners signed a bad deal last time and they saw what happened to baseball when they allowed themselves to be screwed.

If the owners offered the same same deal as the old CBA or something close to it I'm sure the players would have taken it. The players were reportedly offering something like an additional ~$140M a year to the owners (which isn't a lot on a team by team basis I'll admit).

Speculating on Smith's reasonings and future ambitions is completely asinine. You have no idea what his future goals are. Considering everyone is blaming him for the work stopage do you think that is something that a future politician would want?

Everyone assumed that the players were going to bow down to the owner's financial demands because the players obviously can't outlast the owners. But the players weren't as willing to just give up what they had previously bargained for as most people assumed. Getting the TV contract money struck down really helped the players' side as well. Right now the players are just waiting for the court ruling on the NFL anti-trust lawsuit because it will put them in a better posiiton to negotiate.

FWIW the bolded statement kills any credibility of your statements when you make broad generalizations of an entire population which you know little about. Any large group of people have countless motivations and ideals so your comment is off base IMO.

 

[VJCPatriot]

Read more carefully. 141m - 27M benefits is an actual salary cap of 114m which is less than the 2009 cap.

The reason the deal fell apart is that the owners were unwilling to account for profits that exceeded the projected NFL revenue growth estimates.

"Under a mechanism known as a “true-up,” the two sides were negotiating any additional payments made based on financial performance of the league in comparison to a league projection of four-percent revenue growth in 2011, four-percent growth in 2012, 2.5-percent growth in 2013 (a seemingly low amount given that new TV deals will kick in that year), and 2.5-percent growth in 2013."

So for the sake of simplicity. Hypothetically let's just work with round numbers. Start out with a Revenue of 10 billion in 2010. Let's adjust for projected growth now of 4 percent in 2011, 4 percent in 2012, 2.5 in 2013, and 2.5 in 2014.

2010 10,000,000,000 baseline
2011 10,400,000,000 +4% (+400m)
2012 10,816,000,000 +4% (+400m)
2013 11,086,400,000 +2.5% (+270m)
2014 11,363,560,000 +2.5% (+277m)

Alright so these numbers look staggering.
The point is that if the NFL experiences more growth than expected, lets say 2013 is a 5% growth year rather than a 2.5% growth year that throws of the mathematics a lot! Therefore the owners' offer of a 'fixed increase' in cap per year doesn't address the issue of possible 'overgrowth' of NFL revenues.

Increasing the salary cap across the board based on a conservative projection of revenue growth is inadequate. Rather I think what would get it done would be a 'dynamic cap' that would account for revenue spikes, that would fairly adjust both UP and DOWN based on actual revenue accrued. So if the NFL makes less revenue than expected it will pay players less, but if it makes more, it pays players more. I think that's the only fair way to do it if players are to maintain the relative same amount of the revenue pie from year to year. Lastly, overall revenue disclosures from every team is essential to give an accurate picture of what revenues we are actually talking about.

The last owner offer of a $141M cap plus all the other goodies is an impressive offer. The alternative of $131M plus adders for growth is also an awesome offer.

The players will utilimately take a deal close to this. I think that they really wanted to avoid the 18 week season and wanted to see the books, at least for a couple of years. The owners have pulled off the extra games and have in fact reduced the time on the field. The requirement of open financials will come from the courts.
==============

BOTTOM LINE
Folks here said that Miguel was crazy to consider that the settlement cap might be as high as $135M. Posters thought that a cap of under $110M was more likely. Folks will learn to listen to Miguel!

$135M plus adders for growth based on percentage of revenue seems very reasonable indeed. Also $135M with a fixed schedule of increases seems reasonable. The owners are already offering these deals.

 

[upstater1]

Anyone think that the 18 game schedule was just a ploy to gain a bargaining chip. Then, maybe once the owners saw the revenue from it, they gained interest. Think about it. Create a bargaining point which results in taking away one of the players asking points. It did sound irrational to add games during the season of concussions. Then again, owners are not always known to be rational.

It would be funny if the bargaining chip started as a story and then became something real.

But, I tend to doubt it. They're looking to expand revenues. They will do practically anything to expand them.

The reasoning behind it, season ticket holders pay too much for preseason games, simply doesn't hold water.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Both sides are, and have been, posturing and trying to protect themselves financially ever since the owners announced they'd opt out of the CBA.

I don't think the owners trying to maintain their income via lockout insurance qualifies as having anything to do with "negotiating in good faith"

While I have no doubt there's plenty of "spin" in the NFL's offer, the fact is that the the NFLPA didn't even bother with a counter offer, and they seem intent on attempting to litigate this rather than negotiate.

I think the players believe they'll gain leverage by staying away from the negotiating table as the calendar moves forward. I also think that the players of TODAY aren't all that keen to give up substantial dollars for the NFL to reinvest to grow the game for the players (and owners) of TOMORROW

 

[McCourty Island]

I don't think the owners trying to maintain their income via lockout insurance qualifies as having anything to do with "negotiating in good faith"

I disagree on this point although I agree with most of your other points. The owners having the TV deal structured the way they did was done so that they could use it as leverage on the players in a lockout. Not only that but it violated the previous CBA because the NFL failed to maximize TV revenues (the assumption being that the NFL gave up something in order to have that provision be included in the contract).

I think both the owners and the players didn't fully negotiate in good faith because they both thought they had backup options that would work to their advantage (TV contract for the owners and decertification for the players.)