Good News! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

[Rob0729]

Just for the record, four stadiums (serving 5 teams) have been built since '06, for the Colts, Cards, Cowboys and Giants/Jets. I know that the NFL's stadium fund contributed around 1/2 a billion dollars to the most recent two alone, and that at least at one point there was money being allocated to build a stadium in LA even before figuring out who was going to be playing there.

The strength of the players' claim to stadium revenue from non-NFL events is entirely conditional on the degree to which they continue to contribute to the stadium fund under the new CBA. If the new CBA essentially ends the expense credit for stadium construction, they ought to be prepared to accept a very limited amount of compensation, or be willing to forgo it entirely as one of the many gestures of good faith that will be necessary from both sides to get a deal done. If the new CBA continues their contribution, their expectation of compensation needs to be taken seriously.

In my original post on the subject, I never intended to express more than this kind of conditional support for this claim. I just was pointing out that something Florio was presenting as absurd on its face actually makes all the sense in the world, depending on how the negotiations go. If Kessler is trying to hold up negotiations over compensation for non-NFL events absent any plans for continuing player-side contributions, than Florio's characterization is right on... we just don't know the whole story yet.

As for your case for the owners' being entitled to a share of the players' endorsements... well, firstly, the players never asked to be treated like partners. The onus for that is entirely on the owners, and their desire for a salary cap to curb the growth in expenditure caused by the natural right to free agency that the players were going to win in court. If the players' salaries were determined entirely by their individual negotiations with their teams, they would be normal wage-paid employees. With their compensation made a function of the annual success of their collective venture with the league, they are more accurately described as entered into a limited partnership.

All of this is neither here nor there. Whether and to what degree the players are "partners" or "employees" is a byproduct determined by the negotiations, not a determining factor within the negotiations. They aren't being given a cut of all NFL revenue because they're partners, they're being given it because that's the price to get them to agree to setting an artificial cap on the market for their talents, and that ultimately makes them more like partners.

The question of whether the owners are entitled to a share of player endorsements is simply something else that could be negotiated. Sometimes partners do or don't share in proceeds from other ventures. The Beatles made Lennon famous, but he didn't owe any proceeds from his solo albums to Apple Corps unless he used material that McCartney had a hand in developing. There's nothing stopping the owners from requesting a share of the players' endorsements during negotiations, but they have no preceding entitlement to it, and they're running the risk of negotiating for something unenforceable. There are some rights that can't be waived by contract, and the right to profit off your own name and identity is one of them. (The old school Hollywood studios tried and failed to enforce contracts that entitled them to any money an actor made off the fame they achieved making movies under their exclusive studio contracts.)

That said, it's not like the majority of owners would ever think of trying to wrangle this from the players. First off, there are only a handful of players at any time who can make any serious money from endorsements, and these players are by definition the ones who wield the most clout in negotiating contracts. Competitive owners like Kraft don't want to diminish the value of their stars' endorsements because they know that they'll end up paying the difference in salary demands, and the only real change would be taking up more cap space, which is an appealing thought only to owners like the Browns and Bidwells, not the Krafts and Jones's.

A few things:
First, the players have absolutely asked to be partners. That is the whole argument for revenue splitting andsuing the NFL for the lockout fund from TV is because the players are partners, not employees. If it was up to the owners, the players would be employees and not share in the revenues. A partnership agreement only really benefits the players, not the owners. If the owners had their way, it would go back to pre-1993 where the players were really employees and not partners where the owners paid the players what they wanted and the players would only get a fraction of the overall revenue because they had no choice but to take the contracts their team gave them. Of course the players want this relationship to be a partnership and they consider it being a partnership.

Second, I have never advocated the owners getting a piece of the players' endorsements. I don't think they deserve a piece of it. Just like I don't think the players deserve a piece of non-football related revenues from the stadiums. My point is if the players are starting to ask for things I don't think they deserve, the owners might as well ask for similiar things back.

Third, the players are still only taking a fraction of the monetary risk of building new stadiums and they are already getting half of the revenue generated by it for football activities. The owners use the stadiums for other events to offset their share of the costs.

Fourth, the half billion dollars you are talking about being paid for new stadiums were loans to the teams. The league didn't just give out money to teams to build these stadiums, they gave them interest free loans that have to be paid back. So when that money is paid back, the players probably get half of it because it is probably considered revenue.

The National Football League will lend $300 million to the Jets and the Giants to underwrite the construction of their new stadium in the Meadowlands that is expected to open for the 2010 season.

PRO FOOTBALL - N.F.L. Loans $300 Million For Stadium - NYTimes.com

As for Kessler, the good news is that yesterday the NFLPA and Kessler and Quinn negotiated a flat fee for their services. That means two things: First, that they were probably working on a contingency and getting 33.3% of the outcome of the court cases. This supports the suspicion that Kessler wanted to drive this case to the very end because he potentially stood to make potentially billions, not millions. Second, this means that the NFLPA has made it clear they want to settle, not litigate. It could be Smith's final act to keep Kessler at bay. Now that Kessler is making a preset fee and not a third of what the players win, he might be willing to settle this quickly (in fact, since his pay is the same if this is settled tomorrow or three months from now, it incentizes him to finish quickly).

 

[BlueThunder]

Now that Kessler is making a preset fee and not a third of what the players win, he might be willing to settle this quickly (in fact, since his pay is the same if this is settled tomorrow or three months from now, it incentizes him to finish quickly).

BEST news I've heard in quite a while....


Wrap this sucker up and let's play football !! :rocker:

 

[townes]

Part of doing their job is haggling/squabbling/arguing over the minutae. Despite the comments of some reporters, nobody outside of the negotiations (and probably few inside) knows if the lawyers are doing what they're supposed to be doing, or doing something else.

The one thing we do know is that both sides brought in attorneys who've spoken of and/or demonstrated their willingness to be hard cases in negotiations, and you can be sure that was done for specific reasons.

I agree that it is a part of their job just not their job period, and in this instance it is clear both sides want this deal done and imo that means the lawyers need to move on settling the outstanding details and not try to upend a deal for their own agenda, and in Kessler's case at least there is a sense that his position on the outcome is at odds with the players desire.


I agree they hired lawyers who would play hardball and for specific reasons, however now those same lawyers and their demeanors could get in the way of a deal their clients want done, and that's the question and the issue.

 

[BlueThunder]

I have a feeling something will get done before July 15th......

Money talks....

 

[NEPats1]

Latest update by Freeman:

It is close. That's true.

A deal could be done by next week. That's true.

The owners and players are making progress. That's true, too.

But we've been here before. It's been close for weeks, contrary to other reports.

Weeks.

And it continues to be close. NFL owners and players are indeed working towards putting the language of a new CBA into place by the weekend, multiple sources confirmed to me. Said one source: "This is the closest it has been in a while."

So the two sides are closing in on a new deal and unless some arrogant jerkwad lawyer screws it up this thing could actually get done. A handshake deal by late next week is possible (not likely by Friday as one news outlet reported).

But excuse me while I use the phrase "cautiously optimistic." Maybe you've heard that phrase used with the labor talks before. I've maintained a deal would get done by the middle of the month and we're still on target for that. But the zigs and zags and zigs make this hard to predict and did I mention the jerkwad lawyers?

Also keep this in mind. There is no true, hard deadline to save the preseason. Not yet. That deadline floats like hope.

All we can do now is hope both sides continue to be smart.

And really think of the fans.

'Closest it has been...' - CBSSports.com

 

[BlueThunder]

One has to wonder how many millions both sides will lose if they don't get a deal done very soon.......that is revenue that can never be made up, and loss of some of the fanbase could result as well....


Let the lawyers draw it up after all parties agree on who gets what and how.

Play Ball !!!!!!! (oops, watching too much Red Sox):bricks:

 

[Shelterdog]

One has to wonder how many millions both sides will lose if they don't get a deal done very soon.......that is revenue that can never be made up, and loss of some of the fanbase could result as well....

Short term you're talking $200 million league wide for every preseason game lost and about $550 million leaguewide for every regular season game. The players are going to get roughly half of that and each team gets roughly 1.5% of that, so its 3 million bucks per team and $90-100 million to NFL players for every preseason game lost and 3 times that per regular season game lost.

 

[BlueThunder]

$90 mil here, $100 mil there...pretty soon your talking serious money

 

[patsinthesnow]

The lockout is so close to being over.....115 days later.........

 

[BlueThunder]

If they get it resolved and it doesn't affect the season at all...No one will Remember ..


If it shortens the season...Nobody will Forget ...............:rocker:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Schefter has tweeted and Breer confirmed that the plaintiffs have been asked to participate in a conference call tonight... Could be an update or could be seeking concensus/approval of settlement terms...

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Schefter has tweeted and Breer confirmed that the plaintiffs have been asked to participate in a conference call tonight... Could be an update or could be seeking concensus/approval of settlement terms...

I'm hopeful!
Just pray that in an excited moment of indiscretion Roger Goodell does not accidently tweet a shot of his privates to the NFLPA* team

 

[BlueThunder]

Just WAKE ME when it's OVER

 

[lamafist]

A few things:
First, the players have absolutely asked to be partners. That is the whole argument for revenue splitting andsuing the NFL for the lockout fund from TV is because the players are partners, not employees. If it was up to the owners, the players would be employees and not share in the revenues. A partnership agreement only really benefits the players, not the owners. If the owners had their way, it would go back to pre-1993 where the players were really employees and not partners where the owners paid the players what they wanted and the players would only get a fraction of the overall revenue because they had no choice but to take the contracts their team gave them. Of course the players want this relationship to be a partnership and they consider it being a partnership.

Sorry, but it is entirely at the owners' behest that the players receive a share in revenues as opposed to wages determined by the market for their services. You appear to be operating under a complete fundamental misconception of the 1993 CBA and the labor unrest that led to it. At no point did the players assert a right to any particular share in revenue.

The aim of their antitrust suits was to secure the right of football players whose contracts expire to sell their services to the highest bidder as "free agents." In earlier years, teams could retain exclusive rights to players whose contracts expired by extending a minimal one-year tender offer, which the player could either accept, try to negotiate a long-term deal with their original team, or hold out for the year, and hope to be traded... and if they weren't, they could be similarly tendered again. After the strikes of the 80s, the NFL tried out a limited form of free agency in which the player was "free" to negotiate with other teams, but any team signing said player would have to surrender draft picks -- multiple 1sts for any player of note.

After the players secured several crucial victories in antitrust suits, McNeil vs. the NFL the most prominent, which made it clear that the NFL's restrictions on free agency were not going to be allowed, the owners chose to settle the pending White vs. the NFL case, and devised the idea of the salary cap -- established as a function of revenue -- as a compromise alternative to the unfettered free agency system that would result from the lawsuits' verdicts.

In other words, the owners felt that it would be less expensive to offer the players a limited type of partnership, rather than face the prospect of paying them a market-driven wage with their tools to restrict their free agency declared illegal. Hence the salary cap.

The owners are not now, nor ever were, 'forced' to be in partnership with the players. At any moment in the past 18 years, the players would be perfectly happy to go back to being "just" employees as the primary function of their "partnership" is the artificial capping of the market for their services.

 

[Rob0729]

Sorry, but it is entirely at the owners' behest that the players receive a share in revenues as opposed to wages determined by the market for their services. You appear to be operating under a complete fundamental misconception of the 1993 CBA and the labor unrest that led to it. At no point did the players assert a right to any particular share in revenue.

The aim of their antitrust suits was to secure the right of football players whose contracts expire to sell their services to the highest bidder as "free agents." In earlier years, teams could retain exclusive rights to players whose contracts expired by extending a minimal one-year tender offer, which the player could either accept, try to negotiate a long-term deal with their original team, or hold out for the year, and hope to be traded... and if they weren't, they could be similarly tendered again. After the strikes of the 80s, the NFL tried out a limited form of free agency in which the player was "free" to negotiate with other teams, but any team signing said player would have to surrender draft picks -- multiple 1sts for any player of note.

After the players secured several crucial victories in antitrust suits, McNeil vs. the NFL the most prominent, which made it clear that the NFL's restrictions on free agency were not going to be allowed, the owners chose to settle the pending White vs. the NFL case, and devised the idea of the salary cap -- established as a function of revenue -- as a compromise alternative to the unfettered free agency system that would result from the lawsuits' verdicts.

In other words, the owners felt that it would be less expensive to offer the players a limited type of partnership, rather than face the prospect of paying them a market-driven wage with their tools to restrict their free agency declared illegal. Hence the salary cap.

The owners are not now, nor ever were, 'forced' to be in partnership with the players. At any moment in the past 18 years, the players would be perfectly happy to go back to being "just" employees as the primary function of their "partnership" is the artificial capping of the market for their services.

Your recollection of history is incorrect. In 1993, both sides agreed to a partnership because Judge Doty warned both sides that he was going to impose his own version of free agency and this version would not be what either side wanted and neither side would be happy. So both sides agreed to enter into a partnership.

It wasn't the players filed an antitrust lawsuit because the owners were offering a partnership and a share of the revenues, but the players wanted a free market system. The partnership was a compromise between two parties. This compromise was heavily in the players' favor because they won an antitrust decision that stated the way the owners did business was illegal. If the owners had their way, there would still be Plan B free agency and the players would be making a fraction of what they are today. They didn't have that option. They had to give into the players.

Besides, if this wasn't the case, why would the players agree to enter into a partnership back in 1993 if they didn't want it? The NFL was operating all along except for a short strike in 1987, and Judge Doty declared Plabn B free agency violated antitrust laws. If the players didn't want to enter into a partnership with the owners and Judge Doty was going to give them a free agency system that they wanted better, why give into the owners? They had the owners over a barrell in 1993, why would they let the owners impose a partnership on them that owners wanted and the players didn't. You have all the leverage and you cave to the other sides demands? That doesn't pass the stink test.

The fact of the matter is both sides entered into a partnership because that is what both sides were pushed into making that agreement by Judge Doty and the compromise they made in 1993 would have been better for both sides than what the courts would have been put into place. In a perfect world (at least from each sides perspective), neither side would have agreed to the system that has been in place since 1993. The owners were very happy with Plan B free agency and would have continued it until this day. The Players wanted to be assured a significant piece of the revenue but with more freedom to make more money and go to whatever team they wanted.

As for the players wanting a partnership, of course they want a partnership. Being just employees or hired guns would not have benefitted them as a whole. Yes, they were trying to get the right to sign with whatever team they wanted, but they also wanted a bigger piece of the pie and getting a significant share of the revenue. Don't make it like the owners forced a partnership on them because owners were backed into a corner.

Seriously, are you telling me that in 1993 after the players won a major ruling from Judge Doty, the players rolled over and gave the owners everything they wanted? They had all the leverage going into the CBA settlement and gave into the owners and created a system that they didn't want, but the owners did?

 

[Rob0729]

The owners are not now, nor ever were, 'forced' to be in partnership with the players. At any moment in the past 18 years, the players would be perfectly happy to go back to being "just" employees as the primary function of their "partnership" is the artificial capping of the market for their services.

Really? Go back to Plan B free agents where they couldn't leave a team unless the team didn't want them? Go back to when players as a whole were lucky to get 30-40% of the revenues? That is what they were getting away from, not this utopian free market system where every player in the NFL would be making more than they are now under the current system.

Would guys like Matthew Slater be happy to play for $40k a year with no retirement benefits? Would practice squad players be happy to be on the team for $10 an hour?

The fact of the matter is that the partnership benefits the players as much or more than the owners. The partnership guaratees low and mid tier players six and seven figure salaries. The partnership guarantees pensions and retirement benefits (even if they aren't enough, it is more than they are now).

The fact of the matter is that Collective Bargaining Agreements always benefit the workers more than the owners. That is why they are part of the antitrust law. It gives a group of employees collective bargaining power which is exponentially stronger than individual bargaining power. If the players didn't want a partnership, they would be living under a court imposed free agency right now.

Both sides want and don't want a partnership for various reasons. The partnership benefits the players more than the owners at least compared to what it was. But both sides benefit from this partnership (the players as I described above and the owners for competitive balance and non-skyrocketing star salaries). Both sides are hindered by a partnership too (the star players' salaries are capped and some older players whose contracts are bigger than their worth lose out and big market owners are forced to give up their revenue to smaller market teams and cannot maximize their revenues to put the best product on the field).

I don't think the owners ever wanted a partnership. They were forced into accepting it. The players were more willing to accept a partnership because it gave them far more than they ever had prior to 1993. They might have wanted more than a partnership, but getting a partnership was a HHHHUUUUGGGGEEEE victory for them. In hindsight, they probably should have demanded more, but they did get a lot of what they wanted. They just didn't see all the angles.

The owners lost in 1993. I don't know how you can imply that they forced a partnership system on the players. In those CBAs, the players held all the cards and got a system they wanted at least more than the owners wanted. In that case, the players should have won because the system prior was totally unfair.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Really? Go back to Plan B free agents where they couldn't leave a team unless the team didn't want them? Go back to when players as a whole were lucky to get 30-40% of the revenues? That is what they were getting away from, not this utopian free market system where every player in the NFL would be making more than they are now under the current system.

Would guys like Matthew Slater be happy to play for $40k a year with no retirement benefits? Would practice squad players be happy to be on the team for $10 an hour?

The fact of the matter is that the partnership benefits the players as much or more than the owners. The partnership guaratees low and mid tier players six and seven figure salaries. The partnership guarantees pensions and retirement benefits (even if they aren't enough, it is more than they are now).

The fact of the matter is that Collective Bargaining Agreements always benefit the workers more than the owners. That is why they are part of the antitrust law. It gives a group of employees collective bargaining power which is exponentially stronger than individual bargaining power. If the players didn't want a partnership, they would be living under a court imposed free agency right now.

Both sides want and don't want a partnership for various reasons. The partnership benefits the players more than the owners at least compared to what it was. But both sides benefit from this partnership (the players as I described above and the owners for competitive balance and non-skyrocketing star salaries). Both sides are hindered by a partnership too (the star players' salaries are capped and some older players whose contracts are bigger than their worth lose out and big market owners are forced to give up their revenue to smaller market teams and cannot maximize their revenues to put the best product on the field).

I don't think the owners ever wanted a partnership. They were forced into accepting it. The players were more willing to accept a partnership because it gave them far more than they ever had prior to 1993. They might have wanted more than a partnership, but getting a partnership was a HHHHUUUUGGGGEEEE victory for them. In hindsight, they probably should have demanded more, but they did get a lot of what they wanted. They just didn't see all the angles.

The owners lost in 1993. I don't know how you can imply that they forced a partnership system on the players. In those CBAs, the players held all the cards and got a system they wanted at least more than the owners wanted. In that case, the players should have won because the system prior was totally unfair.

the NFL is a multibillion dollar business, and even Matthew Slater is one of the ~1,500 best in the world at it. If you think he would be playing for $40K in a free market, then I dunno what to tell you except that are extremely wrong.

 

[BlueThunder]

Sources: Handshake deal on NFL contract might be a few days away | PennLive.com

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Sources: Handshake deal on NFL contract might be a few days away | PennLive.com

Who will join me in wishing that this hand job brings a happy ending?

 

[Rob0729]

the NFL is a multibillion dollar business, and even Matthew Slater is one of the ~1,500 best in the world at it. If you think he would be playing for $40K in a free market, then I dunno what to tell you except that are extremely wrong.

If you don't think there wouldn't be players on the roster making $40-50k a year, you are kidding yourself. There are hundreds of people who are just as good as many of the players at the bottom of the rosters in the NFL who don't make it in the NFL for whatever reason. The teams are not going to pay players who don't dress on Sundays or only play on special teams $300-400k to be on the roster if they can pay them anything they want and there is no minimum salary.

Look at the UFL, there are some NFL quality players (Eric Moore for example) who played for the UFL last year for $35k (which is the most any UFL player made). You don't think there are plenty of those players willing to play for even less to get on NFL roster to prove themselves to get a bigger contract in a year? In a free market system, those and CFL players would happily take less to get a shot at becoming something in the NFL. Many of those players are as good or better than many players in the NFL (Cameron Wake anyone).

So in a free market system, players like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would get A Rod money or more (possibly much more). If they are getting $30-40 million a year, where do you think that money is going to come from? Do you think the owners are really going to spend 70-80% of their revenues on players in free market system. Daniel Snyder and Jerry Jones might be willing to have $250-300 million payrolls, but many teams will have $30-40 million and most will have the same type of payrolls they have now. What will happen is the superstars will get paid more at the expense of mid and low tiered players. Just like you see in baseball (although baseball is not perfect example because they still have minimum salaries).

In any free market system, the top tier talent get rewarded and the bottom of the food chain gets screwed. Maybe Matthew Slater wouldn't get $40k a year, but there certainly would be players on the 53 man rosters who would. The practice squad players could be hourly employees because many of them are not much more than bodies in practice. The only reason every player on the 53 man roster gets paid over $300k a season is because teams have no choice but to pay that.

There aren't a lot of Bradys or Mannings out there not in the NFL or even Ron Braces or Mike Wrights, but there are certainly a lot of Ryan Wendells, Thomas Claytons (a guy who bounces from roster to roster), etc. in the UFL, CFL, or on the street.