Matt Light comments on recent events

[upstater1]

The details of the CBA are incredibly complex and have many issues of concern for both sides.

It's not a simple as one step forward or back - there's a thousand smaller steps within the CBA - the NFL moved on some, not so much on others, and stood their ground on others still. One concession they might have made in one proposal does not necessarily carry over to another proposal depending on the other concessions made.

This happens in negotiations all the time.

The bottom line is that the ball is in the NFLPA's court to make their own counter offer which I'm sure will be more favorable to the NFLPA than the NFL's offer was.

They simply have no interest in hitting it back for right now.

The money is the big thing. It all comes down to the money. The NFL boycotted the negotiations all week, then showed up at the last minute witha decrease in money allocated for players.

Counter offer to what? They were talking to themselves for 4 days. Then they got a deal which was worse. And the deal was designed in such a way to frame it for PR.

I mean, when someone slaps you around, do you reason with them?

 

[JoeSixPat]

The only "court" here is Judge Nelson's. The league is free to put forth a more reasonable proposal at any time. They don't need to wait for something back from the union.

I'm sure the NFLPA's attorneys are telling them the exact same thing.

If the NFLPA refuses to negotiate the NFL is bound to keep coming back to the table with better and better offers.

At best that's beyond "hopeful thinking" - at worst its a sure fire way to run up some outstanding legal bills and stretch this out for as long as possible. Unfortunately its not a good way to bring the negotiations to a conclusion.

 

[JMarr]

I'm sure the NFLPA's attorneys are telling them the exact same thing.

If the NFLPA refuses to negotiate the NFL is bound to keep coming back to the table with better and better offers.

At best that's beyond "hopeful thinking" - at worst its a sure fire way to run up some outstanding legal bills and stretch this out for as long as possible. Unfortunately its not a good way to bring the negotiations to a conclusion.

Yea, I'm sure one of the NFLPA's desired goals is to drag this thing out as long as possible, running up their legal bills in the process.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm sure the NFLPA's attorneys are telling them the exact same thing.

If the NFLPA refuses to negotiate the NFL is bound to keep coming back to the table with better and better offers.

At best that's beyond "hopeful thinking" - at worst its a sure fire way to run up some outstanding legal bills and stretch this out for as long as possible. Unfortunately its not a good way to bring the negotiations to a conclusion.

When you are negotiating, and the other side is clearly not interested in making a deal, to the point where they are not showing up, showing up late, randomly leaving, offering worse deals as time goes by, etc..., why the hell would you bother sending them a "counter offer" when you've got a court date less than a month away?

 

[peterforpats]

why should the players give back money so the poorest run franchises earn more? the green bay packers play in the smallest market , won a superbowl and cleared 20 million dollars(the last reported year). why should players pay for the inefficiancies of a few teams. shouldn't the other teams or (heaven forbid) the commissioner lead/help them get more profitable?what kind of socialist place is the nfl that demands all teams make lots of money whether they're well run or not?

 

[Ring 6]

I don't see how you come to this conclusion about revenue sharing since long after the last CBA was made, Wilson and Brown continued fighting with co-owners about it. And, according to Howard Balzer, the entire opt-out was put in place (likely by the 6 small-market owners who swung over to majority side) because of revenue sharing.

I also don't see how this has to do with owner greed. It has to do with the salary cap and parity.

It is an issue among owners. How they divide the revenue they get to keep is a different matter than how much they get to keep.

 

[Ring 6]

If the owners weren't screaming poor and citing the few teams in financial trouble, your post might have some merit. It's not Light's posturing, rather his counter to the owners' posturing.

If the owners were doing that you may have a point but they are not.
The owners are saying they want a larger share than the last deal called for.
Just because people respond that they must prove they are poor doesnt mean that is the owners argument.

 

[Ring 6]

The only "court" here is Judge Nelson's. The league is free to put forth a more reasonable proposal at any time. They don't need to wait for something back from the union.

The league has no one to make a proposal to, the players are no longer a collective entity.

 

[Ring 6]

why should the players give back money so the poorest run franchises earn more? the green bay packers play in the smallest market , won a superbowl and cleared 20 million dollars(the last reported year). why should players pay for the inefficiancies of a few teams. shouldn't the other teams or (heaven forbid) the commissioner lead/help them get more profitable?what kind of socialist place is the nfl that demands all teams make lots of money whether they're well run or not?

That is not what is going on.
1) No one is 'giving back' anything, there is no deal in place, and wasn't last year either.
2) The Packers financials showed 5mill in profit out of 258 mill of revenues.
If you feel it is acceptable to generate 258 mill in revenues, pay 160 of it to players, spend another 93 on other expenses and retain 5, then you have never operated a business.
3) The idea that the negoatiation is about giving money to poorly run franchises is simply wrong.

 

[upstater1]

The league has no one to make a proposal to, the players are no longer a collective entity.

Oh? Roger Goodell disagrees with you. He urges the players to tell their reps to negotiate with the NFL.

 

[bucky]

I dont think its anything like that, some teams are cutting margins very thin, they need more money to operate, sure there are teams with plenty of money but not sure how you equate it with players spending frivolously.
The players are basically saying the richer teams should give more money to the poorer teams and leave us out of it.
The owners are saying everyone should get enough money to operate comfortably and think the money should come off the top.

What I'm saying is this - one side is unhappy with the current system and wants more money, so they try to get more. This is how it always is in a CBA negotiation. "Why" one side needs more money is irrelevant. They accuse each other of all kinds of garbage - a lot of which is true. But it's all irrelevant to the negotiation.

 

[JoeSixPat]

When you are negotiating, and the other side is clearly not interested in making a deal, to the point where they are not showing up, showing up late, randomly leaving, offering worse deals as time goes by, etc..., why the hell would you bother sending them a "counter offer" when you've got a court date less than a month away?

Oh - I agree... the NFLPA has absolutely no interest in negotiating.

They've made that perfectly clear.

It's really just a question as to whether they can keep their ranks in order as they're going down a road that could see us lose the season. I just don't have faith that lawyers who bill by the hour will get this resolved as quick as possible.

You can't throw negotiations out the window just because one side started with a hardline offer. That happens all the time.

 

[Deus Irae]

Oh - I agree... the NFLPA has absolutely no interest in negotiating.

They've made that perfectly clear.

It's really just a question as to whether they can keep their ranks in order as they're going down a road that could see us lose the season.

You can't throw negotiations out the window just because one side started with a hardline offer. That happens all the time.

This was not the owners starting with a hard line offer. Also, your comment about what the players have made perfectly clear makes no sense, given Vrabel's comments.

 

[vyrago]

The bottom line is that the NFLPA can make their counter offer at any time but has chosen not to do so.

That's going to catch up with them in the hearts and minds of the fans at some point.

And just what do you think that will do? Do you think either side really cares about the hearts and minds of the fans? They care about their wallets because both sides are part of a business.

 

[Ring 6]

Oh? Roger Goodell disagrees with you. He urges the players to tell their reps to negotiate with the NFL.

Wouldnt that mean they need to drop the lawsuit and recertify? Sure the NFL would be all for that.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Yea, I'm sure one of the NFLPA's desired goals is to drag this thing out as long as possible, running up their legal bills in the process.

It's not. That'd be the attorneys...

Sorry - I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the attorneys. Guess not.

Which is why you've got some breaks in the ranks among the players, who would likely prefer to negotiate, and the Players union, which wants to litigate.

 

[JoeSixPat]

This was not the owners starting with a hard line offer. Also, your comment about what the players have made perfectly clear makes no sense, given Vrabel's comments.

Vrabel appears to be on a slightly different page from DeMaurice Smith.

I'd feel better if Vrabel were the NFLPA President. Let's see how much influence he has from the Executive Committee.

 

[lamafist]

If the owners were doing that you may have a point but they are not.
The owners are saying they want a larger share than the last deal called for.
Just because people respond that they must prove they are poor doesnt mean that is the owners argument.

Untrue. The owners have stated that their proposed increase in the amount taken off the top of Total Revenues was because the the amount off the top under the previous CBR was insufficient to insure that all the NFL's teams had enough after expenses to reinvest in franchise and league growth.

That is has been, the owners' argument.

Furthermore, your suggestion that it's not the owners' argument is a very weak equivocation, for it leads to the question of what, then, is their argument. To argue that they don't need one is weaker yet - if they don't provide a rationale, than there's no reason for the NFLPA to take their demand seriously, and no reason for the mediator to believe that they're negotiating in good faith. And while the mediator cannot dictate binding terms, there are severe consequences to being found to be negotiating in bad faith.

So, no, in good faith negotiations within an organization, you can't make a demand "just 'cause."

That is not what is going on.
1) No one is 'giving back' anything, there is no deal in place, and wasn't last year either.

Meaningless sophistry. Clearly the "give back" refers to the terms of the most recent CBA, and clearly, the most recent agreement is the logical jumping off point for negotiating the next. The owners are 100% entitled to want to change the terms however they want, which logically would lead the NFLPA to ask why the previous terms weren't working for them, and again, you don't say "Because!" in good faith negotiations.

2) The Packers financials showed 5mill in profit out of 258 mill of revenues.
If you feel it is acceptable to generate 258 mill in revenues, pay 160 of it to players, spend another 93 on other expenses and retain 5, then you have never operated a business.

The Packers are hardly a representative franchise for the entire NFL. After all, they're toward of the very bottom of the league in terms of revenue, and are the league's only not-for-profit franchise.

3) The idea that the negoatiation is about giving money to poorly run franchises is simply wrong.

No. It's really not.

The league is arguing that not all of the teams are sufficiently profitable to be able to afford to reinvest in franchise growth. But on the whole, NFL team revenues have been increasing fairly rapidly. The franchises in question that need additional money to be able to afford reinvestment have been seeing shrinking margins during 5 years of huge rises in the popularity and marketability of NFL football.

If you can't even tread water in a bull market, I'd say "poorly run" doesn't even cover it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Vrabel appears to be on a slightly different page from DeMaurice Smith.

I'd feel better if Vrabel were the NFLPA President. Let's see how much influence he has from the Executive Committee.

We have lawyers and class counsel who are representing us. There’s no reason why those lawyers and class counsel and lawyers for the league can’t get together and talk and negotiate.”

DeMaurice Smith seems to support further negotiations | ProFootballTalk

 

[lamafist]

It's not. That'd be the attorneys...

Sorry - I thought it was pretty clear I was talking about the attorneys. Guess not.

Which is why you've got some breaks in the ranks among the players, who would likely prefer to negotiate, and the Players union, which wants to litigate.

The players union doesn't represent the players any more; they aren't a party in the litigation. They exist as an advisory organization only.

If the NFL wants to negotiate, it needs to go through the players named in the class action suit and their legal counsel. If the players like the offer, they can vote to re-invest the union with power to negotiate for them, and the re-certified NFLPA could accept the agreement.