Sean Pa Patriot
Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 8,318
- Reaction score
- 171
Read Kings column today and this little blurb is what we need to know about the future of this team and the league...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb/1.html
This could affect us either way this year.. We may not sign long term deals,but its not good news...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/01/17/mmqb/1.html
The negotiations for a new labor agreement couldn't be going any worse.
If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season. Many of us in the media have speculated about the chances for a lockout and predicted one is coming, but the total lack of progress over the nut issue in 11 bargaining sessions tells me unless there's a sea-change by one side or the other, you'd better savor the 2010 season because it could be the last football we see for a while.
At the core of the problem is ownership's demand for players to bear an equal part of the cost for stadium construction, debt service and upkeep -- and the players saying it's not their problem. In NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith's recent e-mail to player representatives, he startled player leaders by saying ownership wanted to cut player compensation by 18 percent per year in the new CBA.
I thought the 18 percent number might be an exaggeration, a scare tactic to get players' attention. It's not. The owners, one management source said, have asked that the players' pool of revenue against which the salary cap is calculated be reduced by 18 percent.
The players' response, a union source told me, is that they're not prepared to take a penny, or a percentage point, less. While Smith, in his letter to players, didn't dismiss the possibility of negotiating on the issue, he wrote that there has been no compelling information presented to players to justify such a major reduction in what players make.
You wonder what 18 percent means. So did I. The management source said the owners want $1 billion a year credited to ownership and not subject to being part of the pie that the players divide. "There's obviously been an enormous shift from public financing of stadiums to private funding,'' the management source said. "Those costs are not recognized in the current CBA, and we feel that has to change.''
The league has beat this drum for several years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some give-and-take in the owners' demands, because this is collective bargaining, but I would be surprised if the owners drop this as a demand altogether. They're just too dug-in on it.
But from the players' perspective, it's got to be a tough sell to union leaders. Imagine Smith going into a union meeting at a team and telling the players that the average compensation to the men in this room is about $1.8 million this year in salary and bonus payments, and explaining to them in a time of bountiful success for the NFL, each of the players is going to have to take, on average, a $324,000 pay cut. The players will never go for that, absent the owners being able to prove they're losing money in a time of unparalleled wealth in the league.
At some point, serious talks will start, with each side compromising. But I can't see the two sides bridging this chasm anytime soon.
...
This could affect us either way this year.. We may not sign long term deals,but its not good news...
Last edited by a moderator: