The players respond to Goodell

[DaBruinz]

BTW - Some things that the NFLPA letter also doesn't acknowledge.

The 82 million into benefits for the pre-1993 players.

The increase in benefits for players by allowing the post career medical for them and their family for life.

The increase in benefits for players by guaranteeing up to 1 million for the 2nd year of an injury.

The salary cap floor being 90%.

I'd also like to point out that the NFLPA, in the initial report on the Friday that talks broke down, acknowledged a 2 year delay in talking about the 18 game schedule. Yet, in the most recent response, the NFLPA claims it's only 1 year.
They also don't acknowledge that, if the NFLPA says no, then the schedule stays the normal 16-4.

 

[lamafist]

BTW - Some things that the NFLPA letter also doesn't acknowledge.

The 82 million into benefits for the pre-1993 players.

The increase in benefits for players by allowing the post career medical for them and their family for life.

The increase in benefits for players by guaranteeing up to 1 million for the 2nd year of an injury.

The salary cap floor being 90%.

I'd also like to point out that the NFLPA, in the initial report on the Friday that talks broke down, acknowledged a 2 year delay in talking about the 18 game schedule. Yet, in the most recent response, the NFLPA claims it's only 1 year.
They also don't acknowledge that, if the NFLPA says no, then the schedule stays the normal 16-4.

From the letter:

* The proposal by the NFL was not an “a la carte” proposal. The changes in offseason workouts and other benefits to players were conditioned upon the players accepting an economic framework that was unjustified and unfair.

* All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of 50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980′s, which would have given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations more than 20 years ago.

They were acknowledged, just not re-enumerated.

It doesn't really matter what nice decorative bones the NFL throws to the players, retired and otherwise, if they're conditional on an economic proposal the league knew the NFLPA could never accept.

 

[Deus Irae]

First off, the owners did not need a reason to opt out of the previous CBA. And they have a reason. It wasn't financially supportable going further.

This is incorrect. The league could have played out the CBA. As the league itself noted, no teams were losing money. As a matter of fact, the deal would have ended this year, and a new deal could have been crafted at that time, with all the relevant information available from the duration of the intact 2006-2011 CBA, rather than the skewed information provided by shady broadcast bargaining and the uncapped year.

Secondly, no, you don't have to question owners when they say that profits are being cut into by expenses. One only needs to look at the Green Bay financials to see that is the case.

This is incorrect and/or misleading. The Packers financials showed several areas of "expenses" that were questionable, including a huge jump in marketing expenses that was significantly more than the alleged loss of profits. Furthermore, the CBA was structured in such a way that teams bringing in less revenue were destined to end up with an unbalanced financial hit, because local revenues were being pooled for cap purposes, but were not being pooled by the owners for revenue purposes.

Third, the players said they wanted pro-rated pay raises if the league went to an 18 game schedule. That sure as hell is asking for more money. No matter how you look at it.

This is incorrect/misleading. By pro-rating the salaries, players would be asking for the same amount of money per game. You're playing games here.

Compensation for the 200 players who were "adversely affected by a change in free agency rules". Hmm.. seems like they want more money.

This is incorrect/misleading This is reparations for projected lost wages. That's what would have been due under the old system. I would side with the owners on this one, because it was their right to opt out, and there's been no solid proof of collusion, but you're playing games with the "more money" claim.

A return of 320 M in benefits that they lost due to the uncapped 2010 season. Hmm.. seems like they want more money.

This is incorrect/misleading. This is reparations for lost benefits, as opposed to any money on top of a projection. That's what would have been due. I would side with the owners on this one, because it was their right to opt out, and there's been no solid proof of collusion, but you're still playing games with the "more money" claim.

All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of 50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980′s, which would have given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations more than 20 years ago. This has got to be the biggest line of BS that they've spewed. The proposal would take away the financial benefits of free agency?? WHAT.. Sorry.. no it wouldn't.

I'll let Miguel, or others, handle this. It's bound to be an explosive topic, and I'm tired of the nonsense that's been going along with those on this board of late.

I notice that they didn't bother to mention anything about what Moody's projections for costs were going to be. And they ignored numerous things that the players had been asking for and got.

They are asking the owners for audited financials from the past 10 years. That would, theoretically, give very accurate data on revenues and expenses. This gripe of yours is weak sauce. However, I haven't seen any Moody's expense projections for the NFL, so I'd love to get a link to them.

Last I looked, negotiations meant that both sides had to give.. So far, I only see the owners giving and the players saying "It's not enough."

The players offered hundreds of millions of dollars per year. The owners were saying "It's not enough.".

Also, it was clear that the league wanted to use the last offer as a new starting point, yet the players couldn't be bothered to see it like that. They just said, "To hell with it" and de-certified when they could have asked for another extension.

The owners didn't give the 'offer' until 1pm on the final day. They then showed up 20 minutes late for a 3:30pm meeting when they knew the clock was ticking. To top it off, the offer was worse than the one from the previous week.

There's no way that offer was meant to be a new starting point.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I wonder how Gene Upshaw would have handled this situation had he still been alive and head of the NFLPA.... I think him and Goodell would have had some serious issues - Upshaw was a tough guy ON and OFF the field.

Gene would have kept the players out of the room. He understood that it's called negotiation for a reason. Proposals lead to counter proposals, not hurt feelings.

I loved the part where they lambasted the owners for not outlining how they planned to make up to the players for the losses they incurred as a result of the terms their union agreed to in order to achieve the uncapped season they just couldn't wait for...:bricks:

The first salary cap 18 years ago was $34M. The CBA prior to 2006 exempted a lot of revenue from the calculation. Nobody was asking anybody to go back 20 year old levels. The hyperbole is off the charts. They got a sweet deal in 2006. The owners are asking them for giveback based on that deal. They are trying a variety of formula's designed to achieve some incremental % of their initial goal of $1B more off the top.

The owners basically took 18 games off the table and the union is refusing to acknowledge that. Those 2 more games represented upwards of $500M in additional revenue. The prior CBA allowed owners to implement 18 games without union approval. The owners offered to defer any increase to 18 games in the future to be the players decision. They offered to restrict off season workouts and in season padded practices even absent 18 games going forward. They offered them improved post career health benefits and they offered them dramatically improved retirement benefits for their predecessors, the guys who actually know what it was like to play and what players got paid 20 years ago...