Owners vote unanimously to opt out of CBA

[Patsfanin Philly]

As fans we might as well start making alternative plans for the fall of 2010, 'cuz there likely won't be a full football season, if any at all.

Well if they opt for the model of 1987 with replacement players ( small chance I think), it should be pretty interesting, at least for the Patriots. Pioli could use his talents to round up talent and Belichick could teach/coach enough to beat the other replacement teams. Even if they are just replacement players, it is in their interest to win using the model of the 49ers (Walsh implemented an option using the skills of his QB IIRC) versus the Eagles where Buddy Ryan wanted nothing to do with the 'scabs' and barely tolerated them resulting in an 0-3 record.
I think that as long as the current union leadership is in place, they are headed for a work stoppage. As one poster noted, there has to be a rokie wage scale and that will benefit the veterans ( an overwhelming majority of the union) that weren't first rounders.

 

[Rob0729]

Hey maybe the union will disband (they threatened that two years ago while negotiating the CBA) which will nullify the NFL's anti-trust exemption. With no anti-trust exemption, our good buddy Arlen Specter would have no power to butt into the league's business.

Sorry to bring Spygate into this, but I couldn't resist.

 

[signbabybrady]

First step in a long process.....

We will hear a few things about this issue now and then it will go behind the scenes for a while until the deadline is to close for comfort (weeks, months) than we will hear that the parties are discussing their options and when all is said and done the players will give a little back and the owners will give a little added security (in unknown form)

 

[TheGodInAGreyHoodie]

Godell may have public urged the owners to vote no, knowing full well they would vote yes.

This way when Godell negotiates with the union he can say, "look I didn't want us to be in this situation either" then position himself as the mediator between the owners and players to a much greater degree than if he was the one calling for a no vote.

It is standard negotiating tactic. The negotiator (who doesn't have the final say) is more even keeled and even "on your side" but needs to get the approval of someone else who is making the harsh demands.

If you want to see this in its finest form swing by your local auto dealership.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

This way when Godell negotiates with the union he can say, "look I didn't want us to be in this situation either" then position himself as the mediator between the owners and players to a much greater degree than if he was the one calling for a no vote.

.

The only problem is that he risks being marginalized by both sides and this is especially true for a 'new' commissioner who doesn't have the pull/power of a Rozelle or a Tagliabue after he'd been commissioner for a while. His job is not that of a mediator but of the representative of the owners who hired him.
Good analogy for the car delaership but everyone sees through that and look how effective that technique ("I have to check with my manager") is in the long run...

 

[Pats726]

Godell may have public urged the owners to vote no, knowing full well they would vote yes.

This way when Godell negotiates with the union he can say, "look I didn't want us to be in this situation either" then position himself as the mediator between the owners and players to a much greater degree than if he was the one calling for a no vote.

It is standard negotiating tactic. The negotiator (who doesn't have the final say) is more even keeled and even "on your side" but needs to get the approval of someone else who is making the harsh demands.

If you want to see this in its finest form swing by your local auto dealership.

Not sure that he's that smart....

 

[fierce]

Just as an FYI, one of the franchises with the least amount of revenue income made over $25 million in profit last year (Buffalo).

So, it's not like we're talking about a failing industry.

Unless you know what their costs were 25 million is irrelevant. It could cost 75 million to make 100 million (25 profit) in the NFL but in other areas that 75 could return 150 (50 profit). NFL owners are fans but they're also business men. To make player's salaries correspond directly to the profit margin is crazy. Imagine if we walked into starbucks and asked for a discount cause "they make enough already".

 

[Rob0729]

Unless you know what their costs were 25 million is irrelevant. It could cost 75 million to make 100 million (25 profit) in the NFL but in other areas that 75 could return 150 (50 profit). NFL owners are fans but they're also business men. To make player's salaries correspond directly to the profit margin is crazy. Imagine if we walked into starbucks and asked for a discount cause "they make enough already".

It goes farther than that. From an accounting standpoint, it is possible to spend $150 million to generate $100 million in revenue and still have a $25 million profit on the books. Certain expenses cannot be recognized fulling in the year it is paid for and must be depreciated. Stadiums and other building expenses definitely fall in that category. I am not sure if signing bonuses would count since they are spread out over the life of the contract for the cap.

 

[jmt57]

As I recall correctly there was a theory a while back - when the announcement on how much debt the NFL teams were carrying - where many small market teams wanted to see one year without a cap. The idea was that without a slary cap (or floor) they would choose to bottom out, spending only about $40 million on salary. By going cheap for one year they could pay down some of the debt, then rebuild the following year with a new CBA and no over inflated contracts on the books.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Keep in mind that while lots of talking heads are today pushing the not to worry button because 2008 and 2009 and 2010 will be fine, that's not exactly true. We are back to the standard poison pill clauses as well which will impact contract negotiation and extensions from today on out. Less time to amortize bonus money, Deion and 30% rules to deal with in contract structure, much more difficult to even do simple restructures for cap space.

And while the CBA read to me like it precludes either side taking any work action before the current deal expires after 2010, I recall hearing some opine a while back that the owners will not wait for a strike - they would lock players out before the 2010 season rather than let the uncapped season unfold. As a means of precluding Upshaw's threat/promise that once the cap is gone it will never be revisited. Absent a cap there will be no substantive revenue sharing in a league where 9 votes are all it takes to kill any concensus.

 

[Pats726]

As I recall correctly there was a theory a while back - when the announcement on how much debt the NFL teams were carrying - where many small market teams wanted to see one year without a cap. The idea was that without a slary cap (or floor) they would choose to bottom out, spending only about $40 million on salary. By going cheap for one year they could pay down some of the debt, then rebuild the following year with a new CBA and no over inflated contracts on the books.

Do you have a link to that?? GREAT article...but have not heard anything about a theory for that...for one, long term contracts might be a problem..with ANY uncapped year going forward..so REALLY as MO stated below, contracts (long term) from now on are going to be pretty hard....I think talk of doing a situation like that AND THINKING it would somehow go back together are foolish..once we get THAT far..there may be NO going back to a CBA...

 

[Evil Tom]

Hey maybe the union will disband (they threatened that two years ago while negotiating the CBA) which will nullify the NFL's anti-trust exemption. With no anti-trust exemption, our good buddy Arlen Specter would have no power to butt into the league's business.

Sorry to bring Spygate into this, but I couldn't resist.

The owners have an anti-trust exemption that allows them to pool TV revenue.

The owners do not have an anti-trust exemption for practices like the draft and salary cap. They are currently allowed to have these because they're part of a collective bargaining agreement. If the union dissolves they are illegal restraints of trade.

The fact is the players lose a strike/lockout and the owners lose an anti-trust suit. In fact they already lost this one (Freeman McNeil et al vs the NFL) If you were running the union would you go the strike/lockout route or file an anti-trust suit?

If the players decertify the union the owners are allowed to implement any system that they're willing to defend from an anti-trust suit. If the owners tried to implement the current system they'd lose the lawsuit and have to pay triple damages.

The NFLPA has always been weak and maybe the owners can bully them into taking a few % less but it seems like an incredibly stupid gamble. If it goes to court they'll end up with a system that eliminates the draft and salary cap and they'll get hit with enormous damages.

 

[Evil Tom]

And while the CBA read to me like it precludes either side taking any work action before the current deal expires after 2010, I recall hearing some opine a while back that the owners will not wait for a strike - they would lock players out before the 2010 season rather than let the uncapped season unfold.

It's illegal for the players to go on strike before the CBA runs out. It's also illegal for the owners to lockout the players in the last year of the CBA.

 

[Pats726]

So how does this mess get settled?? (Without the whole league falling off a cliff??)

 

[spacecrime]

players will not take that route, I guarantee it.

Don't be silly. You cannot guarantee something you have no control over.

 

[jmt57]

Do you have a link to that?? GREAT article...but have not heard anything about a theory for that...for one, long term contracts might be a problem..with ANY uncapped year going forward..so REALLY as MO stated below, contracts (long term) from now on are going to be pretty hard....I think talk of doing a situation like that AND THINKING it would somehow go back together are foolish..once we get THAT far..there may be NO going back to a CBA...

No, sorry, I couldn't find the link. Obviously nobody has gone on record of saying they would have their team do that, but the opinion was that some teams like the Bills and Bengals would use the uncapped year for that purpose. With three years to prepare for it, the amount of players with long term contracts on the roster may not be that large at that point. I personally don't think it will get to that point - I think the two sides will reach an agreement before then, but I still thought it was an interesting theory.

 

[Pats726]

No, sorry, I couldn't find the link. Obviously nobody has gone on record of saying they would have their team do that, but the opinion was that some teams like the Bills and Bengals would use the uncapped year for that purpose. With three years to prepare for it, the amount of players with long term contracts on the roster may not be that large at that point. I personally don't think it will get to that point - I think the two sides will reach an agreement before then, but I still thought it was an interesting theory.

It os an interesting theory...which is why I would love to read more..even as speculation..for I see many problems wit it as a strategy...