2011 NFL-NFLPA CBA Negotiations

[jmt57]

Patriots Mailbag: Larry Fitzgerald Worth a Pair of Picks, While Adding Veteran Linebacker Could Be Biggest Move of Offseason - New England Patriots - NESN.com - Jeff Howe

(Q.): How much will the CBA affect the Pats' plans? If there's still no salary cap or rookie wage scale, do you think that will affect how the Pats approach the draft? Are the Pats more likely to trade up, down or into the future depending on whether or not the CBA has been agreed upon before the draft?

(A.): Excellent question, and I think it's going to play a major role in the Patriots' draft strategy. First off, there will definitely be a rookie scale in place under the new CBA, and if that happens in time for the draft, I can definitely envision the Patriots getting more aggressive in regard to trading up.

If there's no rookie scale in place, though, expect the Patriots to keep the mentality that prioritizes value over anything else. If I had to guess, I could see them keeping the 17th pick because it's guaranteed to yield them a really good player, particularly along the defensive line if they go that route. But for pick No. 28, it wouldn't shock me if they traded out of that spot if they were looking at players with second-round grades.

Worst-case scenario, the rookie scale will be in place in time for the 2012 draft, and that will make the Patriots even more inclined to load up on early-round picks for that class.

 

[jmt57]

Time is running out on NFL, players - NFL - Sporting News - Clifton Brown - 2/10/2011

Time is running out for the league and its players to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before the current deal expires March 3. It could be a long and tumultuous offseason, featuring a lockout, no free agency, and no minicamps or training camps until a new deal is reached.

The two sides met Wednesday in Washington. Neither side was talking about why Thursday’s session was postponed. However, SportsBusiness Journal reported that no progress was made during Wednesday’s session. There are a myriad of issues to discuss, including revenue distribution, a potential rookie wage scale, a potential 18-game season, and benefits for retired players. Both sides say they want a deal to get done prior to March 4. However, during Super Bowl XLV week, both sides admitted that much remained unresolved.

"The disagreements that we have are fundamental," union head DeMaurice Smith said.

While the scheduled start of next season is still months away, the league’s executive vice president, Jeff Pash, held a press conference during Super Bowl week and described how chaotic the start of next season could be if negotiations extended into the spring and summer.

"I’ve heard people say, 'Well, you can make a deal in August, or you could make a deal on Labor Day,'" Pash said. "But just think about it. If you make a deal Sept. 1, or something like that, what happens then? There is going to be overwhelming pressure to get the games going as quickly as possible. But you can’t just start playing five days later. How will you put your rosters together? By August or September, you will have more than 1,000 unsigned players out there between draftees, unrestricted free agents, restricted free agents, guys coming back into the league. How will you go about having any orderly signing period? Then you have to have some kind of training camp, some sort of preparatory period. So I think it becomes really quite challenging if you let yourself get to that point. So we think March (3) is a pretty serious date."

Read more at: Time is running out on NFL, players

 

[jmt57]

Panthers owner Richardson allegedly criticizes intelligence of players - NFL - Sporting News - 2/13/2011

Before the NFL owners canceled a recent bargaining session, at least one owner was allegedly critical of Drew Brees and Peyton Manning's intelligence during a meeting, according to Cardinals kicker Jay Feely.

Feely, appearing on the Michael Kay Show, said the owner in question was Jerry Richardson of the Carolina Panthers.

"He’s going to criticize Peyton Manning and Drew Brees and their intelligence in our meeting Saturday?” Feely said. “And sit there and say dismissively to Manning ‘Do I need to help you read a revenue chart, son? Do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you know how to read that?’

"That doesn't go anywhere in trying to help us to get a deal done.”

The NFL's current labor deal expires on March 3. There is no word on the next scheduled meeting between the players and the owners.

Read more at: Panthers owner Richardson allegedly criticizes intelligence of players

 

[Patriot Missile]

Panthers owner Richardson allegedly criticizes intelligence of players - NFL - Sporting News - 2/13/2011





Read more at: Panthers owner Richardson allegedly criticizes intelligence of players

Wow, not to defend Manning or anything, but he should of picked up a football, thrown it as hard as he could in between Richardsons eyes and said. "Do you need me to show you how to throw a football?" "Gramps."

 

[jmt57]

NFL Labor pains, Part Seven | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 2/2/2011

How far are the sides really apart?

We know that (1) the NFL made an initial offer with an additional $1 billion in offsets to cover their operating costs, beyond the pre-existing $1 billion offset, and (2) the NFLPA is ready and willing to keep the status quo. Thus, the two sides are $1 billion apart.

Of course, this is a negotiation and the NFL has already moved off their opening number. My sense is that the two sides are about $500 million apart and that the gap can be closed significantly with acceptance by the union of the 18-game schedule.

Is March 4th a hard deadline for a new CBA?

Negotiations are fluid; there are no hard deadlines. If progress is truly being made, there could be a mutual agreement to push the deadline back a week or more.

This happened in 2006 when we repeatedly received memorandums from the league telling us to hold off on free agent calls and/or trading, as the start of the new League Year was pushed back a couple of times while final negotiations ensued.

What do you make of the decision by the ruling yesterday in favor of the NFL regarding their television contracts paying through a lockout?

The case– the union alleged that the NFL violated its duty to the players to seek maximum income in its television contracts in exchange for its “lockout language” insuring $4 billion in 2011 rights fees with or without football – preserves these contracts for the NFL and seals in some leverage with the payments. A win for the NFLPA would have put the game on more equal footing.

The NFLPA claimed some positive news out of the ruling, saying that there were violations of the CBA found specifically in the league’s contracts with ESPN and NBC, and that there were damages awarded. However, a damage award of $6.9 million – they were seeking damages of $60 million -- compared to revenue to the NFL of $4 billion in 2011 with or without football is striking.

Also, the fact that the union will appeal the ruling to the federal judge in charge of overseeing CBA issues, David Doty, is a sign that they took a blow here. Doty has been a friend to the players in the past and the union is hoping for similar empathy here. This loss is a psychological blow to the NFLPA, though may spur them to negotiate more purposefully.

To be clear, although these television contracts pay through a potential lockout, the money is credited back to the networks in future years for all of the deals except for the DirecTV deal.

What was the purpose of the press conference by NFL officials painting a gloomy financial picture last week?

Everything done by the NFL at this point is well choreographed and strategic.

The NFL has calculated that it would lose $120 million if there were no deal in place by March 4. If we assume the players will make 50% of revenue – after all the setoffs are calculated in – then that is a $60 million reduction from whatever the players would make in 2011.

The NFL further calculated that it would lose $1 billion if there were no CBA by September, meaning the players would lose approximately $500 million collectively heading into the 2011 season.

And from there the losses would be $400 million a week, thus $200 million a week lost in player payroll.

The message was not for the fans or the media; the message was for the players. It said, in so many words: get a deal done soon or paychecks are going to start getting lighter.

Read more at: NFL Labor pains, Part Seven | National Football Post

 

[jmt57]

NFL Labor pains, part 8: the game of Tag | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 2/9/2011

While the NFL has announced that the application of the Tag will commence, the NFLPA has challenged that assertion.

The issue may be one of interpretation of language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA allows for application of the Tag “in any season during the term of this Agreement.” Well, the Agreement is in place until March 3 so technically the Tag can be used now. However, once the Agreement expires, all bets are off with use of the Tag, subject to negotiation of a new CBA. As the union notes in its statement: “The 2011 season is not a ‘season during the term of this Agreement’ so the NFL has no valid basis for claiming the right to franchise players in 2011.”

The back and forth over the language of the CBA and the use of the Tag is interesting, although, in my opinion, extraneous to the reality of the situation. At some point, whether now or later, the NFL and NFLPA will have a new CBA. In that CBA, the issue of the Tag will be resolved.

My proposed resolution

The union agrees to continued use of the Tag, as there are usually only 10-12 players a year affected. As with everything regarding these issues, the union tries to use the allowance of the Tag as a bargaining chip.

There need to be adjustments for both sides in application to ensure more participation in training camp by tagged players, since many do not show up until the meaningful checks start coming in September. Since the money is guaranteed anyway at the time of signing, the player should receive a percentage of the Tag amount, perhaps 10%, at the start of training camp if his tender is signed by then. In return, the union should accept penalties that tagged players will not the 10% unless they report to training camp and all mandatory team activities.

Read more at: NFL Labor pains, part 8: the game of Tag | National Football Post

 

[jmt57]

The Rookie Sacrifice: NFL, NFLPA proposals unveiled | National Football Post

One of the major issues in the NFL-NFLPA collective bargaining negotiations has been compensation to rookie players. Unlike a lot of intricate issues of the bargaining process, this one resonates with fans and media.

The Players’ proposal

The NFLPA proposal, submitted to ownership in the fall, contained the following provisions:

- Maximum contract length of four years for players drafted in rounds 1-3; and three years for players drafted in rounds 4-7. This would allow players to hit their leverage points in free agency sooner. Current maximum lengths are up to six years for picks 1-16, up to five years for picks 17-32 and up to four years for all other rounds. Most teams, as I did with the Packers, negotiate five-year deals for first-round players and four-year deals for all others.

- A Cap on incentives and escalators. This gives ownership cost certainty and protects against the “exploding escalators” found in so many contracts of high draft picks. However, after the first round, most incentive and escalator packages are reasonable in the current system.

- A setting of the 2011 Rookie Pool to the level of the 2009 Rookie Pool. This re-sets the rookie compensation system to the last year of the Salary Cap, 2009.

- A savings in rookie compensation of $200 million, which would be funneled to three areas: veteran player compensation, rookie compensation for extraordinary performance, and increased pensions for pre-1993 retired players (the time where pension gains were made for players).

- Injury guarantees, protecting players in the rare case of career-ending injuries. There are no skill guarantees (protecting players if released for skill reasons) in their proposal. This is a meaningful give on behalf of the union.

The union, in an effort to procure gains elsewhere in the CBA, tried to answer owners' concerns about rookies who “bust”, leaving teams hamstrung with guaranteed cash out the door and Cap charges remaining.

The NFL proposal

The owners’ proposal is a true “wage scale”, similar to the no-negotiation format of the NBA. The NFL wants what the NBA has for rookies; the NBA wants what the NFL has for veterans.

The NBA, however, only has this scale for first-round players. The NFL is proposing to tie all draftees in contracts that are “pre-fabricated” according to scale. The proposal features the following:

- Mandatory length of five years for players drafted in the first round; mandatory length of four years for all other draftees. Unlike the present system, these lengths would be non-negotiable. The lengths would buy out a year of unrestricted free agency from first-round picks and a year of restricted free agency from other draftees. The NFLPA suggests these contract lengths will reduce the market value of 60% of all NFL players. However, as it currently stands in the NFL, the vast majority of drafted rookies are under contract for at least four years, so the change would not be drastic.

- Pre-defined bonus and salaries depending on draft position. This is a major request and would eliminate the need for player agents to negotiate for players and also the workload of team contract negotiators and Cap managers. Naturally, agents are imploring the union to not allow for a no-negotiation process for rookies.

- Incentive and escalators tied to All-Conference level of performance. This requires, depending on position, true elevated performance beyond the current level in most contracts.

- No renegotiations or extensions of the rookie contract until after three years of the contract. The present rule allows for renegotiations or extensions after two years of rookie contracts. This locks a player into his rookie deal no matter what performance in the first two seasons of his career.

- Signing bonuses payable in prorated amounts and subject to annual forfeiture (recovery) by the teams. This is part of the NFL’s ongoing quest to retrieve bonus money for bad behavior and insubordination, something lost in the last CBA and recent arbitrations (Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress).
Minimum salaries for each year of the contract at levels below the current levels in 2010.

- No guarantees of any kind – skill or injury -- in any rookie contract.

As one example, the last pick in the first round, under the NFL’s proposal, would make a non-negotiated $1.5 million bonus with minimum salaries on a five-year deal. His $300,000 in prorated bonus would be subject to forfeiture for violation of team policies or negative behavior. The last pick in the first round in 2009, Evander Hood of the Steelers, received guarantees of $6.1 million, a difference of $4.6 million from the owners' present proposal.

Financial comparisons

Here are three examples, with the 9th, 19th and 41st picks in the Draft, comparing to the actual picks in the 2009 Draft (the 9th pick was BJ Raji of the Packers; the 19th pick, which I negotiated, was Jeremy Maclin with the Eagles; the 41st pick was Darius Butler of the Patriots). Amounts are in millions (M):

Pick .......... 2009 contract ............ NFLPA proposal* .......... NFL Proposal**
9 ............... 22.5M/5 yrs ................. 18M/4 yrs ................ 8.6M/5 yrs
19 ............. 12.5M/5 yrs .................. 10M/4 yrs................. 6.7M/5 yrs
41 .............. 4.325M/4 yrs ................ 4.3M/4 yrs .............. 4M/4 yrs

*Assumes 35% playtime in one year
**Assumes 40% playtime in two years

There is almost $10 million of difference (and one year) between the two proposals at the 9th pick in the first round. However, there is only $300,000 difference between the two proposals at the 9th pick in the second round. Thus, some reason for optimism, as the proposals become much more in line once past the first round.

Resolution

My compromise would be the following:

- Mandatory length of five years for picks 1-16 in the first round; mandatory length of four years for picks 17-32 of the first round. This gives half the first round each side's desired length.

- Mandatory length of four years for rounds 2-4; maximum length of four years for rounds 5-7 (teams could negotiate lesser amounts of years for these picks if they desire a smaller bonus).

- Rookie pool and minimum salary levels re-set to last Capped year of 2009, with increases pegged to overall Salary Cap increases each year.

- Scale contracts for all players, yet with negotiations for identified -- as per position -- incentives and escalators to begin after year three of the deals. These levels would be pre-set an mutually agreed. This allows the league its wage scale, which is huge for them, but provides some upsides for players at reasonable thresholds in return.

- Teams may renegotiate or extend one player from each Draft class after two seasons of performance. The rest must wait at least three seasons. This would provide more incentive to young players to be the one of the group that earns an early extension, and give teams a bit of leverage in playing one player against another for that one deal.

- $100 million of cost savings on rookie system distributed to high-performing rookies in form of a benefit similar to pre-2010 Performance-based Pay benefit.

- $50 million of cost savings on rookie system, starting in 2013, distributed to players as an incentive/escalator system with for players starting in year three of their contract. Players should not be restricted to scale contracts for life of deal without some upside for proven performance.

- $50 million of cost savings on the rookie system distributed to pensions of pre-1993 retirees.

- Recovery and forfeiture of prorated bonus for year of transgression by the player, although subject to appeal to an independent arbitrator. This answers the conduct issue for the league, but provides an independent voice for disputes. The Personal Conduct Policy, however, will still have an appeals process through the Commissioner.

Read more at: The Rookie Sacrifice: NFL, NFLPA proposals unveiled | National Football Post

 

[jmt57]

NFL labor pains, part 10: an issue of trust | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 2/16/2011

The primary roadblock to a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between NFL owners and players reared its ugly head again this week. The overwhelming problem in these negotiations has not been an additional $1 billion cost credits; an 18 game season; a rookie wage scale, etc. The issue holding up labor peace in the NFL is simple: trust.

The NFL owners do not trust the NFLPA leadership and their actions have shown so; the NFLPA leaders are becoming increasingly wary of the tactics and tone of NFL owners. Without trust and comfort in a relationship, no deal is possible, and right now trust is lacking as much as it has for two years.

Troubled Trust

The following are ongoing issues of trust in this two-year bargaining process towards a new CBA:

- NFL officials have not appreciated the public comments by union leadership. Owners are wary of telling anything to top union leaders for fear it is in the news the next day or used as part of a campaign such as “Let us play.”

- NFLPA officials have felt “talked down to” and tones of condescension from NFL owners. A prime example to the union was the story of Panthers’ owner Jerry Richardson, the most hawkish owner in the membership, speaking in paternal tones to players such as Peyton Manning at a pre-Super Bowl bargaining session in Dallas.

- NFL officials have not trusted the NFLPA and their Decertification tour throughout the fall. The league was increasingly frustrated watching the union visit every team to take votes toward using this tactic in March.

- NFLPA officials have not trusted the hiring of attorney Bob Batterman, an attorney they refer to as the “lockout lawyer”. The union is convinced Batterman is charged with doing for the NFL what he did for the NHL: tilting the economic system strongly in favor of the owners, even if it takes a lockout.

- NFL officials have not trusted the NFLPA strategy on Capitol Hill. The league feels the union is posturing with Congressmen who just want to talk football to sway their constituents towards their side.

- NFLPA officials have not trusted the NFL’s actions in negotiating broadcast contracts that pay through a potential lockout. Despite a ruling for the NFL by the Special Master last week, an appeal to Judge David Doty – who has been very player-friendly – could shift the leverage a bit with a player-friendly ruling.

“Show us your books” source of frustration

NFLPA officials continue to respond to financial concerns from owners by asking for financial transparency with their financial statements. Having said no several times, NFL officials have long been frustrated with these incessant calls to “open the books” of each team, beyond the Packers. Not only will they not show the NFLPA financial statements for reasons that they have already shown them league wide financial data, but also that they do not trust what the union will do with those documents. They fear that sensitive information about what teams pay certain people, their private travel expenses, entertainment budgets, etc. would become public knowledge and cause for embarrassment.

No trust means no deal

NFL labor peace since 1987 has been fueled by a long and strong relationship between Upshaw and former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue. Their relationship was formed over a while, and strengthened through personal time and tragedy, including some poignant moments during the 9/11 crisis. Tagliabue retired in 2006; Upshaw passed away in August 2008.

The new captains of this partnership, DeMaurice Smith and Roger Goodell, have not formed a relationship beyond a surface one. I was most encouraged in this negotiation process when on the Monday before the Super Bowl, Smith and Goodell met privately in New York. Even if they didn’t talk about football, that relationship is key to making a deal. I would suggest a couple of private lunches, dinners or visits to each other’s homes in the next week or two. Only then can a deal be made.

Read more at: NFL labor pains, part 10: an issue of trust | National Football Post

 

[jmt57]

As a reminder, NFL Labor is a website that the NFL owners have put together to get their side of the story out to the public.

NFL Labor News | 50/50 split of “all” revenue is the status quo | 2/16/2011

There were reports last week that the negotiating session between the NFL and the players’ union ended after the union proposed a 50/50 split of all revenue. This was viewed by some as a new proposal by the union and a move toward the position of the clubs.

“Any interpretation that this was a new proposal and a move toward the clubs is not accurate,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. “This was an offer to keep things where they are, to simply extend the status quo. It is consistent with what the Union has been saying for two years – just keep the current deal in place. As Kevin Mawae has acknowledged, the players got a great deal in 2006.

“The CBA defines what ‘total revenue’ is in detail and gives the Union roughly 60 percent of that amount. The Union has created a new measure of revenue, which it calls ‘All Revenue,’ and says that the players get 50 percent of that,” Aiello continued. “Saying they want 50 percent of this new revenue base, is the same as saying they want 60 percent of the existing revenue base. It is a status quo deal. That is exactly where we are today, and we have been clear that is unacceptable. This reported offer by the Union last week is just one more offer to ‘just kick the can down the road,’ as Jeff Pash says, and keep things where they are. There was no change in the Union’s position or movement off of their earlier proposals.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =



Mike Florio reacts to the commentary above:

League finally provides its version of the union’s 50-50 proposal, sort of | ProFootballTalk | 2/16/2011

Last week, during the first day of a two-day bargaining session between the NFL and the players’ union, the league reportedly walked out after the NFLPA proposed a 50-50 split of all revenues.

Now, a full week later, the league has decided to engage in a point-counterpoint of the specifics.

Aiello’s statement omits one key fact — whether the proposal to take 50 cents of every dollar generated was an opening offer from the union or a bottom line/take-it-or-leave-it position.

The distinction is critical. If the union said, “We’ll take 50 cents on every dollar and not a penny less,” then it made sense for the NFL to abandon the process. If the union couched its proposal as an opener, then it was more than reasonable for the union to essentially say, “We’ll start the bidding by taking what we currently get.” As an opener, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar implied that the union will move toward a position entailing less money than the players currently get.

Aiello’s adroit failure to address that point makes us inclined to think that it was an opener, not a bottom-line position.

Read more at: League finally provides its version of the union’s 50-50 proposal, sort of | ProFootballTalk

 

[jmt57]

Twitter - Albert Breer

Meeting here officially over. About another 7 hours today. Jeff Pash declined to comment on spefics, but said, "Everyone is working hard."

Breer also noted that Goodell, Smith and others had no comments.

Reading the tea leaves, I see two very positive signs:

1. - The meeting lasted for seven hours.
Nobody walked out early like last time. To sit down for that long something had to have been accomplished, even if it was just making some headway and getting headed in the right direction by getting some of the preliminary crap out of the way.

2. - Nobody made any comments.
That means that rather than negotiating through the press, they're negotiating face to face. Speaking directly to one another is far superior method of communication than speaking indirectly through a third party.



Read more at: Today's CBA Negotiations: No News Is Good News

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

Its all a fraud... the whole thing was a media pr move to make it look like the greedy owners are barganinng in good faith... they are not meeting untill 1pm today... its going to be a long offseason...