NFLPA vs NFL in a nutshell

[MoLewisrocks]

Only stupid people believe a story like this without knowing all the details. Were they wailing to, for example, waive all antitrust claims against the owners for the 2011 season? Were they guaranteeing they would not decertify in 2011? A sports writers's summary of events in an editorial doesn't tell you all the facts you need to know.

Precisely. De had begun spouting the status quo option since the day he was elected. That was always his first option, lose nothing. Under the existing CBA the split of newly defined "total" revenue which is the crux of the problem remained in tact. The union was willing to forego any changes to that deal and simply extend it for another 6 years. Duh...no reason for them not to since it favored them. That offer was pure PR rhetoric for the benefit of the easily swayed sheep in the media and among fanbases. He knew owners could not accept that status quo offer.

Smith said players have always been willing to keep playing under an extension of the existing CBA, and reiterated complaints that owners refuse to open their financial records.

Smith allowed the PR spin myth that this was an actual optional solution to continue into and after 2010 because he knew it was DOA on the owners part - had known that for over a year before the 2010 season commenced. Players approaching FA were quite upset at the prospect until that understanding was explained to them. Prior to the end of the 2010 season the union did what it began talking about doing at the beginning of that uncapped (and un floored) final season they had agreed to in an abbreviated CBA...filed collusion charges against the league. Those charges are still pending and could yet find their way to Judge Doty's docket - and certainly would have if the league continued to operate under a CBA his court supervised as part of the 1993 settlement agreement...

I recently read where Drew Brees is claiming that the owners opted out and hatched a plan to break the union via lockout not because of growing financial concerns but because they saw Gene's death as an opportunity to take advantage of that situation and take back what they foolishly ceded to the players in 2006 in order to avoid a player work stoppage. Only trouble with that scenario is they opted out months before Gene's demise...

Prior to his demise an odd power struggle errupted within the ranks of the NFLPA. Troy Vincent who had been until then his hand picked eventual successor was suddenly seen as a threat to Gene's $6M position. Paranoia runs deep I guess... After his death Vincent remained the frontrunner to replace him until an 11th hour smear campaign by Gene's former (and still running the show in the interim) inner circle derailed his candidacy. Agent David Cornwell fought his way onto the ballot as a compromise candidate between the guy who was now being portrayed by union insiders (read Kessler) as too owner friendly and some politically connected white collar trial lawyer from DC who had no NFL or labor relations or negotiating experience beyond being a Redskins season ticket holder... But it was too late for compromise already as the geniuses on the players executive committee had already made up the player reps minds. They were going with the litigator with the connections on Capital Hill who promised them one way or another there would be no turning back.

That is the perspective that some here are unwilling to acknowledge when they parrott the players claims that the league had been planning to lock players out all along. They had little choice but to plan accordingly because the players on the NFLPA Executive Committee and union insiders had committed to fight any givebacks or negotiated compromises from the day they signed off on the last CBA extension in 2006...

Fans and media have quickly forgotten just how ugly things got as that negotiation came down to the wire. Talk about someone taking advantage of a situation, Gene morphed into a little Napoleon as the owners wrangled with their own revenue sharing issues and started issuing ultimatums from airplanes as he and Kessler winged their way across country to rally the troops for a work stoppage. Fans (as usual) wailed for owners to do whatever it took to avoid one...

Show us the books (an independent auditor already sees those and reports back in order to set caps) and let's just maintain the status quo was all pure spin rhetoric for the benefit of rank and file and fans and football mediots who just want their NFL on Sunday. If I were an NFL owner I'd have been planning for a lockout over the last couple of years too. You'd have to be a moron not to. Because the fact that this union had no intention of negotiating a compromise CBA settlement absent a gun held to their heads this time out was a given.

 

[townes]

It is the rules that the players played under in 2010 that caused this mess. I am sure that the players would love to continue to play under those rules, but the reason why the owners decided to use their op out ability was because of the rules. The circular logic of the owners opting out and then allowing the players to continue to play under them is almost mind numbing.

.

Nope, it is the 2006 CBA the owners wanted out of, the 2010 rules contained poison pills for both sides, and, as always you make the claim that the owners needed to opt out without backing it up. While the economy as a whole tanked the NFL economy by every account flourished, setting records in every way, and not one person supporting the owners or the owners themselves have shown anything otherwise.


The nonsensical "logic" that the players are to blame if they strike and the players are to blame if the owners lock them out is what is mind numbing, and absent any factual evidence that the owners needed some relief I'll never buy into it. The owners were the ones making scumbag deals to protect their finances while locking out the players, including making deals that paid them more for no football than to play, and it simply doesn't get any slimier than that.

 

[E Belichick Unum]

Nope, it is the 2006 CBA the owners wanted out of, the 2010 rules contained poison pills for both sides, and, as always you make the claim that the owners needed to opt out without backing it up. While the economy as a whole tanked the NFL economy by every account flourished, setting records in every way, and not one person supporting the owners or the owners themselves have shown anything otherwise.


The nonsensical "logic" that the players are to blame if they strike and the players are to blame if the owners lock them out is what is mind numbing, and absent any factual evidence that the owners needed some relief I'll never buy into it. The owners were the ones making scumbag deals to protect their finances while locking out the players, including making deals that paid them more for no football than to play, and it simply doesn't get any slimier than that.

You are correct, I had the wrong year. I never assigned blame to anybody except Smith. The player's union, had they been committed to getting an agreement, could have continued negotiating. Instead they decided to test the courts. The 2010 rules were put in place to force both sides to negotiate, but in reality they would have lead to more litigation. Free agency would have eventually gone to court, the draft probably also. The rookie salary structure would have remained and it still doesn't address the increased team costs.

The players are being lead down the path toward a lost year, all because they hired a guy who wanted to bring this to court. The players, most of them anyway, only want to play. They are all making more money than they ever thought they would. The union has done a bad job of protecting their interests, even ifthe union somehow wins. Once again, a union is out to maximize its power at the expense of the business. Brady, Brees, Manning have nothing to worry about, their future's are secure. Mike Vrable is at the end of his career and is trying to find a bad guy. Guys who play on special teams and guys who are subs and guys who are JAGs, they are being abused and thrown away. This does not help them, and probably will not help future versions of them.

This is a power struggle between a lawyer who is self important and a league that considers itself all powerful. The strange part is that the owners are the least offending of the offenders.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Nope, it is the 2006 CBA the owners wanted out of, the 2010 rules contained poison pills for both sides, and, as always you make the claim that the owners needed to opt out without backing it up. While the economy as a whole tanked the NFL economy by every account flourished, setting records in every way, and not one person supporting the owners or the owners themselves have shown anything otherwise. The nonsensical "logic" that the players are to blame if they strike and the players are to blame if the owners lock them out is what is mind numbing, and absent any factual evidence that the owners needed some relief I'll never buy into it. The owners were the ones making scumbag deals to protect their finances while locking out the players, including making deals that paid them more for no football than to play, and it simply doesn't get any slimier than that.

Towne, you do understand that revenue and profits aren't one in the same, don't you? Even you and I can make more yet take home or net less disposible income after paying for the increased costs of everything else we require in order to just meet our normal recurring monthly obligations....you know for like food and housing and utilities and clothing and gas and whatnot...

And you do realize that the special master whose job it is to arbitrate interpretation of the CBA language ruled the owners were within their rights as sound business practice to negotiate lockout protection into those TV deals, although he also ruled that the players were entitled to $6.9M in additional revenue based on one of the deals? Doty predictibly saw it differently, but he's just one judge. The appeals court could just as easily agree with Professor Burbank. Then do the owners morph back from slimeballs into smart businessmen?

And you do understand that the money still had strings attached - most of it being either a loan or repayable in future broadcast consideration? And you do understand that while it flows through the 32 owners via the league it ultimately all lands in the players pockets since the TV revenue basically funds the cap?? While it represented leverage the league had no immediate plans to even access those funds. They have a rainy day fund set up (their off the top investment in the game money) of $900M that the league would have tapped as needed to assist owners in meeting their debt service obligations during a work stoppage...

And you do understand that in order to save your season in 2006 the best and brightest owners in the league temporarily took one in the shorts for the have nots in an effort to buy time to achieve a better long range plan for all concerned?

Or maybe you don't...

 

[townes]

Towne, you do understand that revenue and profits aren't one in the same, don't you? Even you and I can make more yet take home or net less disposible income after paying for the increased costs of everything else we require in order to just meet our normal recurring monthly obligations....you know for like food and housing and utilities and clothing and gas and whatnot...

.

Yep, and I also understand that the owners got 1 billion off the top and a consistent share of revenues that were obviously going up or the cap would not have. Absent proof the owners weren't doing well i'm not buying the argument they needed any relief and see this as a grab for the future TV money and not one of necessity.

 

[townes]

And you do realize that the special master whose job it is to arbitrate interpretation of the CBA language ruled the owners were within their rights as sound business practice to negotiate lockout protection into those TV deals, although he also ruled that the players were entitled to $6.9M in additional revenue based on one of the deals? Doty predictibly saw it differently, but he's just one judge. The appeals court could just as easily agree with Professor Burbank. Then do the owners morph back from slimeballs into smart businessmen?

.

So the arbiter that sided with the owners decided they ha only ripped the players off for 7 million? I guess he showed those damn players.

I see ripping the players off for 7 million as "slimeball," apparently you see that as good business.

 

[townes]

And you do understand that the money still had strings attached - most of it being either a loan or repayable in future broadcast consideration? And you do understand that while it flows through the 32 owners via the league it ultimately all lands in the players pockets since the TV revenue basically funds the cap?? While it represented leverage the league had no immediate plans to even access those funds. They have a rainy day fund set up (their off the top investment in the game money) of $900M that the league would have tapped as needed to assist owners in meeting their debt service obligations during a work stoppage...

...

I understand the insurance deal they made with the networks was repayable, however the deal with Direct TV was for more money if there was no football, and that was when they were supposed to maximize shared profits, which they opted not to do, and for which they should get hammered by Doty.

 

[Shelterdog]

So the arbiter that sided with the owners decided they ha only ripped the players off for 7 million? I guess he showed those damn players.

I see ripping the players off for 7 million as "slimeball," apparently you see that as good business.

7 million on a multi billion dollar contract is a very, very small amount.

 

[townes]

And you do understand that in order to save your season in 2006 the best and brightest owners in the league temporarily took one in the shorts for the have nots in an effort to buy time to achieve a better long range plan for all concerned?

Or maybe you don't...

The "best and brightest" don't make a bad deal for billions of dollars. The issue is and always has been how the owners split the pie, and what they decided was to take it out of the players instead of fixing their own arrangement. Your argument is basically that Jon Kraft is a moron and the owners bought his bad deal for billions out of altruism, which is total crap.

 

[townes]

7 million on a multi billion dollar contract is a very, very small amount.

lmao, so they only ripped them off a little?


This little nugget alone shows just how bankrupt the owners argument is.



Those on the owners side believe:

The players should make a deal maintaining the structure of the game.------I agree.

The players should be willing to make concessions for the financial good of the game--I agree.

There should be a rookie salary cap.---I agree

The players are to blame for the lockout.-----I disagree completely and the facts support it.

Basically any support for the players is anathema to those who support ownership. The owners can do no wrong and the players are always at fault, with the most extreme among them hoping we lose the season and that the players get screwed.

 

[Shelterdog]

lmao, so they only ripped them off a little?

I wouldn't use the term ripped off, but yes, that's my point.

When a special master gives you 7 million on a $4 billion suit he's telling you that you suck and have no case. Doty obviously disagreed; we'll see what the appeals court says.

 

[Rob0729]

The "best and brightest" don't make a bad deal for billions of dollars. The issue is and always has been how the owners split the pie, and what they decided was to take it out of the players instead of fixing their own arrangement. Your argument is basically that Jon Kraft is a moron and the owners bought his bad deal for billions out of altruism, which is total crap.

Even the best business people make costly mistakes. Sony spent 100s of millions on failed projects like Betamax and the minidisc. JVC spend a ton too on High Definition DVD. Donald Trump went bankrupt 4 times on bad business deals. Bill Gates has the Zune which was going to be an iPod killer and just got killed. Not to mention he and the rest of Microsoft overlooked the search engine market until it was too late and Google dominated. Steve Jobs had the Newton which was supposed to revolutionize handheld devises and was a bust. Warren Buffett bought a huge stake at Concoa Phillips and ended up losing Billions because he misjudge the energy market and paid an overvalued price for it to begin with. Look at the health care bill last year most of the Congresspeople who voted in favor of it didn't even read the full bill they were voting on.

The fact of the matter is most business men make bad and costly decisions in their lifetime in business. If the owners made a bad decision with the CBA, it doesn't make them stupid. In fact, the problems with that CBA is not so much the short term problems, but the longer term problems of the deal.

Since the owners wanted an out clause which was in a lot of other previous CBAs shows that they were not sure of the full ramifications of the document they were signing.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

So you want all the same things those who support the owners want. Only you blame them for the inability to secure them because they weren't willing to forego them AGAIN just to maintain your Sunday viewing pleasure? That's the irrational anathma. It's not the lockout that is precluding or impeding negotiation of a new CBA. It's the decertification and lawsuit...

The owners can do wrong. So to can the union. And let's not even get into the players... At the moment ownership is willing to sit down and negotiate a CBA with a unionized workforce because that is the only way the pie can continue to grow, while the other is intent on litigating the future of the NFL because they'd rather get 59% of a smaller pie than 49% of larger pie - even if it means less total cash and benefit flows to their members past, present and future over time...

And btw the billion off the top was never that. It was a fixed % of total revenue designed to offset the change from designated revenue to total revenue. And that % won't work in an environment where taxpayers are increasingly reluctant to foot the bill for new or improved stadiums or training facilities and expansion and investment into untapped markets is a prerequisite to keeping that pie growing. Under the present circumstances there is zero incentive for the haves to keep dragging the havenots and the NFLPA's transient membership along for the ride when they don't stand to make a reasonable profit for their either their investment or their initiative at the end of the day.

The owners have done a pretty good job running this league since it's inception because they are by and large some pretty astute and savvy businessmen. And that's who you need running a league if you require it to prosper. I know you think it's now time it became some sort of football fans birthright that should be handed over to us to run into the ground for the benefit of the players we have been conditioned to love to watch on Sundays... Which is exactly what we'd do with it in our zeal to just play ball in the short window our non football fan fellow taxpayers would tolerate that level of shortsighted, tail wagging the dog BS management.

 

[townes]

What I want is a fair deal for both sides and believe there was already one in place but the greed of ownership ended it. I think the players should be reasonable and should continue to support the structure of the game but see no reason for them to agree to owner demands that they only share revenues to a certain point and then everything else goes to the owners, and i think there was ZERO reason for the owners to pass up the players offer to continue under the 2010 rules, and once again the decision to pass that up and force a lawsuit was one of greed by ownership.


Your argument that the owners signed a bad deal out of altruism is weak at best and nonsensical at worst, they signed a bad deal so they could save the game but are now killing the game because they signed a bad deal, total fiction and until one of you can show they were not making good money i'm not buying it.


Like the players i'm being reasonable about this and want a fair deal for all, and i'm happy to compromise on most points, like ownership you have done nothing to show they were in a bad deal and believe whatever you say should be accepted as fact even though it flies in the face of all the facts. The players strike it's the players fault, owners lock them out it's the players fault. The owners saved the game so they could now kill it. And the best and brightest businessmen signed a multibillion dollar deal that screwed them, complete nonsense.

 

[lamafist]

I admit I am no labor or antitrust lawyer, but I believe you are wrong.

First, the players are suing to get rid of things like franchise tags and restricted free agency. They can apply for and get an injunction to force the league from applying them until the case is finalized if they can prove that all or a portion of their group will suffer irrepairable harm and they can prove they are likely to win the court case. Obviously restricted free agents will suffer irrepairable harm if they play this year under the a restricted free agent tender if they suffer a significant injury that will affect future contracts. Even without an injury they can argue that waiting another year to get to free agency means they will lose a year of maximizing their value.

Second, getting an injunction does not stop the playing of football this year so it won't hurt the players in any way. It just means every player not under contract would be a free agent. They wouldn't file a reject for an injunction to stop play. They would file a request for an injunction barring the teams from applying the franchise tag or enforcing restricted free agent tenders only.

Third, from everything I have ever read, the players have never agreed to anything if the lockout ends. The certainly did not agree to play under the 2010 rules. No way would the players agree to that because it hurts a lot of players by making them restricted free agents rather than unrestricted ones. It is doubtful they would agree to not file suits in exchange to going to the 2010 rules since the 2010. Please provide proof of your claim. If DeMaurice Smith offered to play under the 2010 rules and not to bring more suits, the players would revolt because it would cut them off at the knees.

Andrew Brandt recently references the players' having offered to work under the 2010 rules prior to their decertification and the expiration of the CBA. This would have entailed the NFLPA remaining certified, and thus headed off the possibility of the antitrust suit.

And of course the players would agree to this. Last season, there were approximately 200 RFAs who would have been UFAs under 2009's rules. There are 1,696 players on active rosters at the end of the year. Add in players on IR, practice squads, and the incoming class of rookie hopefuls, and the RFA's represent around 9% of the NFLPA's active constituency.

So what you're suggesting is that the 81% of the players who are not RFAs would not only gladly forfeit their OTA bonuses and risk missing games in the 2011 season so that the 9% who are could sue, but would be so adamant about it as to revolt if DeMaurice Smith agreed to this? That's lolworthy. They wouldn't, and, in fact, they didn't. Heck, it's not even all that likely that that the 9% whose FA status is affected would be willing to risk their 2011 salary for that.

Far from being "cut off at the knees" by this, the players would be sitting pretty. As I said in the previous post, the league's only source of leverage to get the players to make the concessions they want is that the players can't last as long without the income from the 2011 season as the owners can. Any agreement that guarantees that the players are getting paid while negotiating would be a huge, huge coup for De Smith.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Andrew Brandt recently references the players' having offered to work under the 2010 rules prior to their decertification and the expiration of the CBA. This would have entailed the NFLPA remaining certified, and thus headed off the possibility of the antitrust suit.

And of course the players would agree to this. Last season, there were approximately 200 RFAs who would have been UFAs under 2009's rules. There are 1,696 players on active rosters at the end of the year. Add in players on IR, practice squads, and the incoming class of rookie hopefuls, and the RFA's represent around 9% of the NFLPA's active constituency.

So what you're suggesting is that the 81% of the players who are not RFAs would not only gladly forfeit their OTA bonuses and risk missing games in the 2011 season so that the 9% who are could sue, but would be so adamant about it as to revolt if DeMaurice Smith agreed to this? That's lolworthy. They wouldn't, and, in fact, they didn't. Heck, it's not even all that likely that that the 9% whose FA status is affected would be willing to risk their 2011 salary for that.

Far from being "cut off at the knees" by this, the players would be sitting pretty. As I said in the previous post, the league's only source of leverage to get the players to make the concessions they want is that the players can't last as long without the income from the 2011 season as the owners can. Any agreement that guarantees that the players are getting paid while negotiating would be a huge, huge coup for De Smith.

The union kept making that offer because the owners told them it was a non starter back in 2009. Players approaching FA had to be reassured it was a hollow, PR spin driven offer.

This year estimates were close to 500 players entering their 5th and 6th seasons would have lost their shot at FA including many who lost it the previous year and aren't getting any younger... if the league were to operate under 2010 rules. So that's closer to a third of the players. Remember, this union reminds us the majority of it's members have less than 4 years service. And I imagine the union would have persued collusion changes again on behalf of any players who anticipated big contracts that never transpired in an uncertain labor environment (there is a claim pending for 2010).

 

[Shelterdog]

Andrew Brandt recently references the players' having offered to work under the 2010 rules prior to their decertification and the expiration of the CBA. This would have entailed the NFLPA remaining certified, and thus headed off the possibility of the antitrust suit.

blah blah blah blah
blah blah
blah

Your whole post is irrelevant. Even if the players were willing to play 2011 under 2010 rules without a CBA, the owners weren't.

Also playing 2011 under 2010 rules doesn't mean there's no lawsuit the NFLPA remains decertified. It might, it might not, it depends on the deal these parties strike.

 

[lamafist]

The union kept making that offer because the owners told them it was a non starter back in 2009. Players approaching FA had to be reassured it was a hollow, PR spin driven offer.

This year estimates were close to 500 players entering their 5th and 6th seasons would have lost their shot at FA including many who lost it the previous year and aren't getting any younger... if the league were to operate under 2010 rules. So that's closer to a third of the players. Remember, this union reminds us the majority of it's members have less than 4 years service. And I imagine the union would have persued collusion changes again on behalf of any players who anticipated big contracts that never transpired in an uncertain labor environment (there is a claim pending for 2010).

Really? 500 RFAs? That doesn't make sense -- that would mean that pretty much no rookies from 2005 and 2006 signed 5 or 6 year contracts, none of them signed contract extensions at any point, and none of them washed out of the league already. Where did you read that figure?

Also -- do you have any justification for your assertion that the NFLPA's offer to play under 2010 rules wasn't in earnest? At the time the offer was floated, the NFL and NFLPA were right at the brink of the lockout -- you're proposing that they wouldn't have made a deal that would have ensured they could continue to hold firm in CBA negotiations while the players still got paid. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

 

[Rob0729]

Andrew Brandt recently references the players' having offered to work under the 2010 rules prior to their decertification and the expiration of the CBA. This would have entailed the NFLPA remaining certified, and thus headed off the possibility of the antitrust suit.

And of course the players would agree to this. Last season, there were approximately 200 RFAs who would have been UFAs under 2009's rules. There are 1,696 players on active rosters at the end of the year. Add in players on IR, practice squads, and the incoming class of rookie hopefuls, and the RFA's represent around 9% of the NFLPA's active constituency.

So what you're suggesting is that the 81% of the players who are not RFAs would not only gladly forfeit their OTA bonuses and risk missing games in the 2011 season so that the 9% who are could sue, but would be so adamant about it as to revolt if DeMaurice Smith agreed to this? That's lolworthy. They wouldn't, and, in fact, they didn't. Heck, it's not even all that likely that that the 9% whose FA status is affected would be willing to risk their 2011 salary for that.

Far from being "cut off at the knees" by this, the players would be sitting pretty. As I said in the previous post, the league's only source of leverage to get the players to make the concessions they want is that the players can't last as long without the income from the 2011 season as the owners can. Any agreement that guarantees that the players are getting paid while negotiating would be a huge, huge coup for De Smith.

I admit I was wrong about the 2010 rules although they said nothing about suing. Even so, it could be an empty promise for PR reasons. If they knew that they were going to decertify and the league were going to lock them out, why not offer this knowing the league would never take them up on it? Both sides have thrown out a lot of PR related offers that they knew the other side wouldn't accept only to make them look good for offering.

Again, to get an injuction to stop the league from applying the franchise tag or restricted free agent offers will not prevent the rest of the players to get bonus money for offseason workouts and OTAs. If the owners lose the lockout battle, they have to conduct business as usual including offseason workouts and OTAs. The franchise tag and RFA tenders are separate issues which will likely have these players not signing their tenders until the injuction process is complete. The only players a suit like this will be the players who are affected by the restrictions and the rest of the league will go along business as usual. The only potential snag that could happen league wide is that a week before the season starts or even a couple weeks after, there could be a whole bunch of UFA to hit the market if the players win.

You act like if the players file suit to get an injunction to bar the league from applying the franchise tag and restricted free agent tenders will halt all football activities. It won't. The players can't ask for that. The league cannot do that if they lose their appeal to injoin the lockout. Business will go as usual except for the the players the suit affect who will most likely just continue to sit out until it is resolved.

 

[Shelterdog]

Also -- do you have any justification for your assertion that the NFLPA's offer to play under 2010 rules wasn't in earnest? At the time the offer was floated, the NFL and NFLPA were right at the brink of the lockout -- you're proposing that they wouldn't have made a deal that would have ensured they could continue to hold firm in CBA negotiations while the players still got paid. I mean, that's just ridiculous.

It's not in earnest if you know the other side is going to say no.