King: CBA negotiations "couldn't be going any worse"

[old 55]

I'm a die hard Pats fan, but I live in Northern Virginia. In order to see most games, I have to have the NFL Sunday Ticket at a cost of @ $370 between the Sunday Ticket & SuperFan. This has gotten more expensive every year and of course there are some games each season that I would have gotten via regular channels, ESPN or NFL Network, so I'm paying for games I would have received anyway.
If there is a work stoppage, they will lose fans like me and will not be able to get my revenue back without me seriously thinking about the cost of this service.
Greed can kill the golden goose.

 

[mgteich]

You are talking about the effect on Direct TV, not the nfl. I expect the internet to improve its coverage of games.

I recently moved outside of Savannah. $370 is indeed steep. Since at best you are getting 10 extra games, that's $37 a game. Even now, I suspect that some fans will be finding Direct TV too expensive. However, the next TV deal will probably provide games in 3D as well as being able to follow individual players on a small section of our big screens.

I can see not buying Sunday Ticket, but I cannot imagine not watching the nfl.

I'm a die hard Pats fan, but I live in Northern Virginia. In order to see most games, I have to have the NFL Sunday Ticket at a cost of @ $370 between the Sunday Ticket & SuperFan. This has gotten more expensive every year and of course there are some games each season that I would have gotten via regular channels, ESPN or NFL Network, so I'm paying for games I would have received anyway.
If there is a work stoppage, they will lose fans like me and will not be able to get my revenue back without me seriously thinking about the cost of this service.
Greed can kill the golden goose.

 

[Deus Irae]

There are millions of fickle fans. And then there are some that have watched the nfl for their whole lives and will coime back immediately. Of course, lots of folks would "punish" the owners by not buying tickets or not watching the nfl and go watch NASCAR or hockey.

I understand this. Major sports leagues rely upon the financial stupidity of their fans, who are foolish enough to drop hundreds of dollars between tickets, parking, food and drink, to go watch something when they could watch the same game at home for free and use those hundreds of dollars for other entertainments or for necessities.

 

[SteveBsFan]

I still don't think MLB has fully recovered. I know attendance may say otherwise but I attribute that more to the numerous shiny new stadiums that pump up attendance for a couple years until the novelty wears off. There are still some fans like myself that harbor a grudge against MLB. We may still enjoy the product but it's just not quite the same.

It doesn't help that baseball did little to fix their problems. The financial side is still an absolute joke. Rich teams get hit with a small penalty, less rich, but still rich teams claim to be poor so they trim payroll every year and just wipe their butts with the revenue sharing money they get from the really rich teams.

So every year it's always the same teams soaking up all the talent, pounding on the weaker teams and making the season a guessing game of 'will the Red Sox win the division with Yankees Wild Card, or the other way around?'. Then when brought to the attention of how dumb the system is, fans of those big market teams will point to the fluke low money teams like the Devil Rays, who built their team wisely for a 2-3 year run before the Sox/Yankees soak up all their good talent.

To top it off, in order to combat low attendance numbers early on, baseball turned their head to steroids and allowed many cherished records to be shattered, then like any corrupt organization, they turned on those very players they used to dig themselves out with as soon as fans got wind of the steroid usage.

 

[eagle eye]

There is a huge element of greed on both sides of this. It won't end well either if it goes as far as a lockout/strike.
While most of us here will all return the tv audience will suffer, the NBA and the NHL get a shot at prime time on weekends with the possibility of taking those NFL fans to their games.

Its a lose lose situation for the owners and players if it goes that far, revenue goes down and both suffer.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

Yawn! Who really cares? The NFL players have been on strike since 2007 anyway when CBA negotiations were at a point of no resolution in January 2006 and talks broke off. We have been living without football for three years now, what is another few years.

Oh, wait! For all the talk in 2006 in January and February of 2006 that there was no chance of getting a CBA done and a players strike was inevitable, there was an agreement done in early March. In fact, the owners agreed on the new CBA within days of the start of free agency (three days before) and the hard cutoff point of negotiations. Before that, all the talk was that the two sides were so far apart that a strike was inevitable.

Sorry, all the talk now is positioning and grandstanding. I still think there is a very good chance that there will be a new CBA before the start of the offseason. As the deadline looms closer, both sides will give. This is how negotiations go. Neither side wants to stop football in 2011.

I agree with your last sentence, but I don't think the two sides are going to budge far enough to avoid an uncapped 2010.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

11 whole sessions and no agreement. They should all give up!

Writers need to have some perspective on negotiations. As it get closer to a decision point, 11 negotiation sessions are take place over a couple of weeks.

It is ridiculous to think that there will be lockout because 11 negotiations sessions haven't produced anything. There are 13 MONTHS of negoatiations before the 2011 season starts and over 20 months until the first game of the 2011 would be cancelled.

My 2 cents is that the owners want to try to put a line in the sand with regard to increases in the percentage of revenues allocated to compensation and to stop cold any increases in the types of revenue covered. In any case, these are just initial negotiating positions.

If we talking about the 2010 season, I would think that contingencies for lockouts might be relevant. 2011 is long time off.

I agree that the owners are drawing a line in the sand. The problem with selling it is they allowed themselves to cross the line for short term gain in 2006 (getting past Upshaws rhetoric about striking that season) and that now enables his successor to play the dreaded rollback card. Unfortunately the owners inability to agree on how the haves and have nots should share each others collective forrtunes opened that door. Players suddenly wanted 60% or more of all revenue, although they didn't want to share in the investment risk inherent in both brand management and infrastructure improvement and anscillary development.

There is a middle ground and rhetoric aside they will ultimately find it, although it may take a little longer than fans would appreciate. It may have to in order for both sides to acknowledge that. I think in the end the owners will largely prevail. The economic downturn couldn't have come at a better time from that perspective. Because the boom years were winding down as it was due to market saturation and limitation. But there is still too much money at stake for either side to allow for more than a brief stoppage before everyone just wants their portion of the cash cow to start delivering high end sustenance again...

Players who are far more transient than owners never want to admit that. It's kind of like what happened to the investment expectations of a generation who witnessed the real estate boom bust. Ecomomies are cyclical and some generations benefit more than others...timing is everything. Individuals don't always appreciate or want to hear that. You have to have lived through multiple cycles to develop perspective, and to realize it's never guaranteed your timing will coincide with favorable cycles only...

This franchise is worth a billion plus today, but that wasn't guaranteed just because some guys with talent strapped 'em on 12 or 14 or 16 weeks a year for decades. Owners and commissioners and entrepreneurs worked tirelessly and risked their personal financial security as well to first establish then maintain and eventually grow the league to the point it's at today. They deserve to continue to be rewarded to.

 

[Rob0729]

I agree with your last sentence, but I don't think the two sides are going to budge far enough to avoid an uncapped 2010.

But that was the sentiment four years ago. People said that there is no way the owners would give up luxury box revenue and more revenue sharing since the NFLPA always bends over for the owners. Yet, three days before the start of free agency, the owners gave the players almost everything they want.

I expect the players to cave this time around. You got guys like Logan Mankins looking at a contract that is worth $40 million over 5 years with $20 million plus guaranteed. With no cap, he is looking at an one year deal for under $3 million with no guarantee there is football the following year or taking a hometown discount from the Patriots which is far less than he could get as an UFA even if he stayed with the Pats. There are a lot of free agents who are in that situation. Those players are going to push for a resolution and one before this free agency.

Both sides are talking a tough game, but I think come March 2nd there will be a deal in place.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

But that was the sentiment four years ago. People said that there is no way the owners would give up luxury box revenue and more revenue sharing since the NFLPA always bends over for the owners. Yet, three days before the start of free agency, the owners gave the players almost everything they want.

I expect the players to cave this time around. You got guys like Logan Mankins looking at a contract that is worth $40 million over 5 years with $20 million plus guaranteed. With no cap, he is looking at an one year deal for under $3 million with no guarantee there is football the following year or taking a hometown discount from the Patriots which is far less than he could get as an UFA even if he stayed with the Pats. There are a lot of free agents who are in that situation. Those players are going to push for a resolution and one before this free agency.

Both sides are talking a tough game, but I think come March 2nd there will be a deal in place.

If those rumors about earlier negotiations are true, though, then how will players like Mankins feel about the fact that the NFLPA is perfectly willing to sell them down the river to get a new CBA in place? I'm about 99% confident there will be a new deal in place to make sure there's a 2011 season, but I give maybe a 20% chance of a new deal before this season.

 

[BPF]

Then I read this in King's piece:




What the hell does that mean?

That Goodell is openly rooting for his former employer?

When the Patriots lost to the Jets last year, the NFL's Ray Anderson was standing outside the Jets locker room telling Jets management, "I told you so, I told you you were going to beat them!"

I can't believe that. That is a really big deal. A commissioner can not have a favorite team. They all make it a big deal to let that be known, here's a Q & A I read on Stern from 2006.

ESPN.com: Page 2 : Curious Guy: David Stern

BS: You were a big Knicks fan growing up.

DS: I was a big Knicks fan.

This leads to too many issues and questions.

 

[Rob0729]

If those rumors about earlier negotiations are true, though, then how will players like Mankins feel about the fact that the NFLPA is perfectly willing to sell them down the river to get a new CBA in place? I'm about 99% confident there will be a new deal in place to make sure there's a 2011 season, but I give maybe a 20% chance of a new deal before this season.

Both sides will give on their demands. The players will give more. Again, this is negotiations 101. If you want the X, you don't come in with X. You come in X,Y, and Z and say they are non-negotiable. The other side says that they won't give anything. They sit there until one side budges. You hope that you ultimately get X, but you might luck out and get X and Y with Y being a bonus. If you get nervous, you might only get a portion of X which is less than you ultimately wanted. As the deadline looms, one or both sides usually blink.

Until we hit free agency without a new deal in place, I am convinced that a new CBA has a better than 50% chance of getting done this year. In a lot of ways the players have more incentive to get a deal done than the owners did in 2006.

Ultimately, I expect the growth of the cap to slow and there to be a hard cap on rookie salaries. The owners will give up length of rookie contracts and higher contracts for lower round draft picks in return.

 

[Zeus]

I can't believe that. That is a really big deal. A commissioner can not have a favorite team. They all make it a big deal to let that be known, here's a Q & A I read on Stern from 2006.

ESPN.com: Page 2 : Curious Guy: David Stern



This leads to too many issues and questions.

I agree (even though I think Goodell is a dunce). He just wanted to see the end of the game. What football fan wouldn't want to do that?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Owners are being ridiculous by asking the players to take an 18% smaller piece of the pie. That said, if the NBA lockout taught us anything it's that the owners have all of the leverage, and that's even truer in football, where careers are shorter and post-career costs (medical) are higher. The owners will win this battle, but the fact that they felt the need to fight it in the first place is pretty low. Admittedly, this stems from the fact that I flat-out don't believe that any NFL teams are losing money (except, maybe, for Jacksonville).

Hopefully the 18% is just a negotiating ploy to get the players to agree to a rookie cap, and NFL veteran benefits get wrapped into the next CBA somehow.

 

[upstater1]

It doesn't say players should take an 18% pay cut.

It says that players should take 18% less of total revenues.

There's a big difference simply because both players and owners have always argued about what constitutes total revenues. Players insist that stadium naming rights and luxury suite revenue should count while owners insist that debt interest and certain expenses should be deducted. The owners also argue that the luxury suites are rented out for the entire year for events that have nothing to do with football but the players make counter arguments.

I seriously doubt that the owners are saying the players should take a huge reduction in their take from current revenue streams.

 

[Rob0729]

It doesn't say players should take an 18% pay cut.

It says that players should take 18% less of total revenues.

There's a big difference simply because both players and owners have always argued about what constitutes total revenues. Players insist that stadium naming rights and luxury suite revenue should count while owners insist that debt interest and certain expenses should be deducted. The owners also argue that the luxury suites are rented out for the entire year for events that have nothing to do with football but the players make counter arguments.

I seriously doubt that the owners are saying the players should take a huge reduction in their take from current revenue streams.

Yeah, I saw that too. What the league is asking for is basically a slow down in growth of the cap. That will cover the 18% share. It basically goes back to the same revenue share that they had before this CBA.

 

[Miguel]

If the owners lock out the players in 2011, each 2011 draft pick (including the Patriots two #1 picks) will be devalued as the player chosen will lose a year of being in his athletic prime.

 

[Joker]

I understand this. Major sports leagues rely upon the financial stupidity of their fans, who are foolish enough to drop hundreds of dollars between tickets, parking, food and drink, to go watch something when they could watch the same game at home for free and use those hundreds of dollars for other entertainments or for necessities.

so...fans who spend their discretionary income to attend their team's games in person are "financially stupid","foolish" and should stay at home.

Good point...then YOU can log on and go off on Patriots fans for being terrible at making noise for the home team when nobody shows up for the games.

 

[Deus Irae]

so...fans who spend their discretionary income to attend their team's games in person are "financially stupid","foolish" and should stay at home.

Good point...then YOU can log on and go off on Patriots fans for being terrible at making noise for the home team when nobody shows up for the games.

Your post makes no sense.

 

[Joker]

right...calling a team's fans "stupid" and "foolish" for attending games live really makes sense though...got it

 

[fgssand]

If the owners lock out the players in 2011, each 2011 draft pick (including the Patriots two #1 picks) will be devalued as the player chosen will lose a year of being in his athletic prime.

But then we would have two years of players to choose from - the older 2011 class and the younger 2012 class in that draft.

However for the 2011's - should then lots of juniors come out this year??