Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[DaBruinz]

The NFL CBA isn't copy protected.

Go and read the rules.

Nope, you're still wrong. Article XXIV, Section 1 (a) (ii) is a "is a nonexclusive list of examples of revenues received by the NFL and/or NFL Teams which are not derived from, and do not relate to or arise out of the performance of players in NFL football games (and are therefore not “TR”)"

The non-NFL revenue streams it delineates are not "TR" and therefore neither "shared" or "non-shared" NFL revenue. "Shared" and "non-shared" pertain to designations of the NFL's revenue sharing plan. Shared revenue includes all TV rights contracts, non-luxury ticket sales, and NFL franchised goods, and are shared equally among the teams. "Non-shared," or "local" revenues include parking, concessions, luxury seating, etc., are retained by the individual franchises, minus the players' cut.

*sigh* I see the issue. While the rest of the world is talking about the Shared Revenue being the money shared between the players and owners, you are talking about the money shared amongst the teams. The words "Shared" or "Unshared" only appears 8 times in the CBA and 6 of the 8 refer to the Premium Seats Revenues from new stadiums. One refers to the luxury boxes, and one refers to the shared cost of a 3rd opinion for injuries.

Section 1 (a) (1) (ii) is revenue that is NOT shared and NOT included in the TR.. So it doesn't affect the salary cap.

Section 1 (a) (1) (i) (3) specifies that all those items ARE in the TR. And hence, SHARED with the players and affect the salary cap.

That is what I have been saying from the get go.

So, no, the CBA did not prove you right, even a little bit, about any of this. You were wrong about which revenue sources the players get a cut from, and you remain wrong about the definitions of "shared" and "non-shared" or "local" revenues.

Yes, it did prove me right on certain aspects and wrong on others(ones I've already admitted to) and you to be wrong on certain aspects. Ones you continue to hold onto for dear life, even though you've been proven wrong.

Again, you are still wrong about this. The NFL has numbers for the shared revenues, but not the local revenues (stadium naming, local tv rights, concessions, parking, etc.) and the latter comprises an ever-growing percentage of the Total Revenue.

Again. You are the one that is wrong. Not me. And I provided you with what they needed to provide to the Accountants. You just can't accept it.

The single number that I'm referring to is one that delineates each franchises' profitability, and was the sole bit of information the owners were willing to share about the local, non-shared revenues of each NFL team.

So, you think that opening the books will give you this magical number and all things will be better? Wrong. It won't do that.

The NFLPA already gets, from the league, the breakdowns of those items that are in the TR. It's none of the player's business how the team spends the money it gets as part of the Revenue Sharing agreement with the players.

I'm actually not wrong in my interpretation of the article. I just don't entirely agree with the author's position.

Yes, you were wrong in your interpretation of what he said. In fact, he flat out contradicted you saying that opening the books would not solve the NFLPA's issue. And it won't. No matter how many times you claim otherwise.

It's a proposition for a way in which the NFL and NFLPA could come to an agreement in which the need for the owners to disclose past financial documents could be avoided by making the monetary concessions they're asking from the players in the new CBA conditional on the league demonstrating that certain league-growing expenditures are being undertaken.

This is a good proposal for how the NFLPA's concessions should be structured, but it doesn't help determine how much of a monetary concession they should be asked to make. For that, the owners needed to be willing to disclose more information to support their argument.

You're proposal is horrible and just cowtows to the players, again, making them think that they can get whatever they want if they whine hard enough.

The proposal forwarded by the author is very sound and he does address how to determine how much of a monetary concession there should be. He says it's something that should be agreed upon ahead of time. In all honesty, those "legitimate expenses" he refers to (such as non-public funded stadiums) should come off the top up at up to 50% of the cost. In other words, the league, as a WHOLE (team/union), ponies up 50% of the cost of the stadium. But that's just me.

The author's proposal, btw, is basically saying that the owners and players should agree to take it on a case by case basis for "legitimate" expenditures. Or "league-growing expenditures". And yes, I have no issue with the league turning over the project plan for something like that.

But a wholesale showing of the books is not an entitlement to the players and there is nothing in the CBA that says otherwise. Nor is there anything that says that the owners have to justify their expenses to the players.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

No, Im not mixed up, you just said exactly what I have been saying. Some are saying the request for financials is because the players claim the owners are not legitimately reporting revenues. Silly because they collectively bargained the means of doing so.

Sorry Andy, I meant to quote the other guy not you. We agree on that topic.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

It's a big leap from seeing the owners' books to "dictating" their profits. That's a political argument, not a logical one.

Not at all, it is common sense.
They split revenues. Revenues are transparent.
The only reason to request the books is to analyze exopenses and profit and make them a point of negotition.
If you dont like dictate, then change it to "the players want the right to collectively bargin what profit margins are acceptable to the owners". Just as inappopriate.


Of course it is. They have all the revenue numbers. They want the other side of the books to be the topic.



Why do the players need to understand the owners expenses when they are splitting REVENUE? What you are suggesting is the players should be able to decide if the owners deserve more revenue based on whether they feel the profits are good or not. In other words can the owners 'afford' to pay them more.
That is akin to the owners asking the players for their financials to determine if the players can 'afford' to be paid less.



They dont have that right, I am showing you the impact of the request when you turn the tables.


Dont know, this is all speculation, and guess.[/QUOTE]

Well, we pretty clearly disagree on several points. I've read a lot of your posts and you're coming down fairly dogmatically on areas that are actually quite nuanced and open to discussion.

Revenues are transparent to an extent, but teams take a very different approach to the revenues generated by their own marketing. That aside and even granting that all revenues are transparent, when one side asks for a larger cut of the revenues it's because for some reason they don't feel they are getting enough. Whether that is driven by the P&L or their own sense of equity is, as you quite correctly observe, up for debate.

I completely disagree that it is a logical conclusion of my arguments that the players are trying to define acceptable profit margins. What they are trying to determine is the materiality of the change in the owners' circumstances that would warrant a material change in the revenue division. I think that Brady et al and their advisors are sophisticated enough to know that the profit margin itself is subject to perfectly legal manipulation by the owners for tax purposes, at least that's what they taught me in B school.

The arguments pro and con the reasonableness of the owners opening their books have been hashed and rehashed here and elsewhere. As to who has what rights in this matter, well that's for neither you nor I to decide but is now in the hands of the courts.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I read somewhere where Jerry Jones told Ralph Wilson to give me 20 minutes and Ill get 20 million a year for your stadiums naming rights. Not sure if it was bluster or if he could really do it.

Must have been bluster since he can't sell the naming rights to his own monument at the moment. Nor can several teams including the Giants and JETS who were wildly guesstimated to be a slam dunk to land record setting naming rights in the $20-30M per range. When Lambeau was renovated 8 years ago they used bonds and a tax hike to cover most of the cost. The team contributed $22M from it's non-profits. Later the voters narrowly approved a plan to sell naming rights to the stadium to retire the bonds and lower the tax burden. Only Lambeau in and of itself is a marketable name so the team and the city who runs the stadium agreed to sell naming rights only if a $100M deal (likely spanning 20 or more years) could be brokered. None has transpired. And if it did, in that instance, it would largely benefit the taxpayers of Green Bay and not the "team", although I believe it might mitigate some of their future obligations regarding leasing arrangements. Naming rights deals are market driven. Lucas Oil is only paying the Colts $6M per on it's naming rights deal. Most of the football naming rights deals brokered over the last several years have been in the low to mid single digit range. Reliant is paying the Texans $10M per. But even those deals were predicated on teams landing mega events broadcase worldwide like the Superbowl. Not gonna see Buffalo land one of those in our lifetime...

 

[patfanken]

Revenues are transparent to an extent, but teams take a very different approach to the revenues generated by their own marketing. That aside and even granting that all revenues are transparent, when one side asks for a larger cut of the revenues it's because for some reason they don't feel they are getting enough.

I really think you got to the crux of the matter with this statement. In their best light the players are basically asking the owners to prove WHY the last deal was onerous before they make consessions on it.

On the owner's side common sense would plainly show (without seeing the books) that revenue is flattening, expenses are rising, and the need for infrustructure improvements (stadiums) dictated a revision on the last deal.

All the name calling and misimformation on both sides comes down to these simple facts. Here are some others:

The owners can clearly outlast the players, so it would seem to be in the players best interest to get a negotiated deal now than have one pretty much dictated to them when they are running out of cash.

That is why the players went to court, They knew that that was their situation and the only way for them to "win" is for the courts to dictate a settlement for both sides. Its a strategy that makes sense only to their narrow interests. However anyone who has had experience in court dictated settlements in either business or in their personal lives will tell you that when the courts get involved USUALLY neither side leaves the table happy,

negotiated deals on the other hand usually end up with both sides happier.

 

[lamafist]

*sigh* I see the issue. While the rest of the world is talking about the Shared Revenue being the money shared between the players and owners, you are talking about the money shared amongst the teams. The words "Shared" or "Unshared" only appears 8 times in the CBA and 6 of the 8 refer to the Premium Seats Revenues from new stadiums. One refers to the luxury boxes, and one refers to the shared cost of a 3rd opinion for injuries.

Section 1 (a) (1) (ii) is revenue that is NOT shared and NOT included in the TR.. So it doesn't affect the salary cap.

Section 1 (a) (1) (i) (3) specifies that all those items ARE in the TR. And hence, SHARED with the players and affect the salary cap.

That is what I have been saying from the get go.

No, it's not at all what you've been saying. It's not even close.

You've been arguing that the NFLPA had no business requesting the individual owners' financials because they don't have a stake in those revenue streams, when, in fact, they do, and those local revenues are now around half the league's total revenues. In the CBA, the NFL owners accept the obligation of exerting good faith "best efforts" to maximize those revenues, and it is documentation of their fulfilling this obligation that the NFLPA is asking for.

And I'm sorry, I don't know what comprises the "rest of the world" for you, but if you narrow it down to "the parties involved in the negotiations, their press and legal representatives, and the sporting and financial presses," than no, as a matter of fact, they do not use "shared" and "non-shared" revenues the way you do. They use the terms the way they are defined in the CBA and, more expansively, in the owners' revenue-sharing agreement, in which they are designations for which revenues are divided equally amongst owners, and which revenues are retained proportionally by the individual owners after the players get their share. This is what "shared" and "non-shared" revenues in the NFL has meant since 2006.

Your mistake is understandable, though, as it's only in the most recent CBA that these local revenues were included in the Total Revenues that dictate the salary cap and floor. Prior to 2006, the "shared revenues" and the revenues that dictated the cap and floor were the same. The revenue streams you refer to from Section 1 (a) (1) (ii) are not "non-shared" revenues, they are non-football revenues, entailing such things as proceeds from non-NFL events at the stadiums (like MLS games or concerts), or the proceeds from the sale of an NFL franchise.

Yes, it did prove me right on certain aspects and wrong on others(ones I've already admitted to) and you to be wrong on certain aspects. Ones you continue to hold onto for dear life, even though you've been proven wrong.

Again. You are the one that is wrong. Not me. And I provided you with what they needed to provide to the Accountants. You just can't accept it.

I really can't figure out what 'certain aspects' you could be referring to here. I think you might be projecting about the holding on for dear life even though proven wrong bit.

The NFL Total Revenues include the individual owners' revenues from non-shared sources such as concessions, naming rights, endorsements and sponsorships, parking, local TV, and many more, which you believed were not part of the Total Revenues from which the players draw their share. The owners have never provided the NFLPA with itemized details of these these revenues, only one profitability score from each franchise.

Please, by all means, show me where I've been proven wrong by the CBA about any of this. Don't just make vague claims to have already done it, show me specifically what you're talking about.

So, you think that opening the books will give you this magical number and all things will be better? Wrong. It won't do that.

The NFLPA already gets, from the league, the breakdowns of those items that are in the TR. It's none of the player's business how the team spends the money it gets as part of the Revenue Sharing agreement with the players.

Again, flat out wrong, on many accounts. The NFL has not provided breakdowns of the franchises' local revenues. The NFLPA has been offered one number for each franchise, a profitability score.

And there is no "Revenue Sharing agreement with the players." The Revenue Sharing agreement refers, and has always referred, to the sharing of revenues negotiated by the league on behalf of all 32 franchises (such as the TV contracts) amongst the owners. The players have a "Collective Bargaining Agreement" with the NFL, which is a separate document from the owners' revenue sharing agreement.

I really don't understand how you can act so confident in your assertion when you clearly haven't even developed any sort of understanding of the fundamental elements of these negotiations.

Yes, you were wrong in your interpretation of what he said. In fact, he flat out contradicted you saying that opening the books would not solve the NFLPA's issue. And it won't. No matter how many times you claim otherwise.

I believe you may have misinterpreted my intention in referencing the Forbes article. This is probably my fault, as I failed to make it clear what specific part of my general opinion I felt this article expanded upon.

I take no responsibility for your mistaken assertion that I've ever claimed that "opening the books" would solve the NFLPA's issues. Opening the books would be a new starting point for negotiations, not an ending point.

You're proposal is horrible and just cowtows to the players, again, making them think that they can get whatever they want if they whine hard enough.

The proposal forwarded by the author is very sound and he does address how to determine how much of a monetary concession there should be. He says it's something that should be agreed upon ahead of time. In all honesty, those "legitimate expenses" he refers to (such as non-public funded stadiums) should come off the top up at up to 50% of the cost. In other words, the league, as a WHOLE (team/union), ponies up 50% of the cost of the stadium. But that's just me.

The author's proposal, btw, is basically saying that the owners and players should agree to take it on a case by case basis for "legitimate" expenditures. Or "league-growing expenditures". And yes, I have no issue with the league turning over the project plan for something like that.

But a wholesale showing of the books is not an entitlement to the players and there is nothing in the CBA that says otherwise. Nor is there anything that says that the owners have to justify their expenses to the players.

My proposal?

I don't have a proposal, and I've never made a proposal. I agree with the Forbes writers' premise that an arrangement can be made in which the players' need to see the owners' financials is obviated by making future concessions conditional on proven expenditures.

The problem is that the amount that needs to be "agreed upon ahead of time" is what's presently under debate. The owners want $1 billion off the top. The players want to see the financial documents that would support this projection. That takes us back to square one vis a vis the document disclosure. I believe there could be a way to structure the calculation of this amount without the owners turning over their financial documents, but I can't come up with it at present. Hopefully someone involved in the negotiations can.

 

[lamafist]

Do you have a source? I have never, ever, ever seen any complaint by the players or unions that they dispute the method of calculating shared revenues. If by local you mean revenues that are outside of the agreement, what right do they have to see those anyway?

Local revenues, such as concessions, parking, team endorsements, etc. are part of the Total Revenues that dictate the players' compensation. They are not part of the "shared revenues" per the owners' revenue sharing agreement. This is established by Article XXIV of the CBA.

To my knowledge, the only documentation of these local revenues the players have been offered is one number for each franchise, representing profitability.

Per the CBA, and the obligation of each individual owner to in good faith make "best efforts" to maximize these revenues, the NFLPA has plenty of cause to evaluate every sale of rights to parking lot operators, concession providers, every negotiation for team product endorsement, so as to ensure that these deals were made in good faith to maximize their value.

Now, the teams' expenses are another matter. In many cases, the owners might choose to include these along with disclosure of revenues, to show that 'best efforts' are being made to expand into presently untapped revenue streams.

You applied the burden, and are now saying they have to furnish proof that they are not cheating? Why would they be required to do that?
And, in any event, they already offered to and were told no thanks.

I did not intend to imply any burden of proof. I should have chosen a better word than "demonstrate," as I see how that would imply it.

What I'm saying is that if the players sue the league, they can request in discovery the documents necessary for them to prove that the owners did fulfill the good faith best efforts mandated by the CBA, and the owners will be compelled to comply.

So it's not that they have to furnish proof that they're not cheating, they have to furnish the documentation necessary for the players to show that they are.

 

[Miguel]

No offense to Ian Rappaport, but I wouldn't accept that as authentic in any way, shape or form. You can't see the headers or footers. That document smacks of the NFLPA trying to make themselves look good by putting out false information.

Someone owes Ian Rapoport and the NFLPA an apology.

Goodell sends letter to players regarding NFL’s most recent offer | ProFootballTalk

"Goodell then summarizes the key elements of the proposal: maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014;"

 

[Ring 6]

Local revenues, such as concessions, parking, team endorsements, etc. are part of the Total Revenues that dictate the players' compensation. They are not part of the "shared revenues" per the owners' revenue sharing agreement. This is established by Article XXIV of the CBA.

To my knowledge, the only documentation of these local revenues the players have been offered is one number for each franchise, representing profitability.

OK, now we can discuss the same thing.
Why do the players have a need for transparency of what the owners do for revenue sharing? They can do what they want with their portion.
What I was saying is that many people are claiming the request for financials was because the players don't trust the counting of the Total Revenues that they get a share of.
Thats ludicrous because they collectively bargained the means of verifying it and have never stated they dispute it.

Per the CBA, and the obligation of each individual owner to in good faith make "best efforts" to maximize these revenues, the NFLPA has plenty of cause to evaluate every sale of rights to parking lot operators, concession providers, every negotiation for team product endorsement, so as to ensure that these deals were made in good faith to maximize their value.

I strongly disagree here. If there were reason to bring cause that the owners were not making best efforts then they could sue, as they did with the TV contract. They don't have a right to show up and discuss whether Bob Kraft is charging appopriate parking fees.
Absent a conflict of interest, such as the lockout insurance in the TV contract, its kind of silly to think that teams would shoot themselves in the foot and take less than the best revenue they can get just because they share it with the union. There would be no motivation to do that. Any lack of best RESULT is not cause for action, and that would be the case, a good try, but a bad job.

Now, the teams' expenses are another matter. In many cases, the owners might choose to include these along with disclosure of revenues, to show that 'best efforts' are being made to expand into presently untapped revenue streams.

Outside the scope

I did not intend to imply any burden of proof. I should have chosen a better word than "demonstrate," as I see how that would imply it.

What I'm saying is that if the players sue the league, they can request in discovery the documents necessary for them to prove that the owners did fulfill the good faith best efforts mandated by the CBA, and the owners will be compelled to comply.

So it's not that they have to furnish proof that they're not cheating, they have to furnish the documentation necessary for the players to show that they are.

That is up to the judge, and I think its very debatable whether forcing them to turnover the financials are in the purview of this action.
The players argument is that they want the owners to justify their negotiation stance. They don't have that right.

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Owners gooooooood. Players BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD.

 

[skinnydog]

That is up to the judge, and I think its very debatable whether forcing them to turnover the financials are in the purview of this action.
The players argument is that they want the owners to justify their negotiation stance. They don't have that right.

I really wonder what your hang up is on the players lack of a "right" to additional financial info or here the player desire to have the owners justify their negotiation stance. You've gone on about this ad nauseum. What does that matter? The owners don't have a "right" to have the players give back any money either. It's called negotiation. Get it? If there was a "right" to any of these things there wouldn't need to be a negotiation. Negotiation is about getting things you want but don't have a "right" to.

 

[Ring 6]

I really wonder what your hang up is on the players lack of a "right" to additional financial info or here the player desire to have the owners justify their negotiation stance. You've gone on about this ad nauseum. What does that matter?

It only matters because it is the issue being discussed.
What do any of the issue matter?

The owners don't have a "right" to have the players give back any money either. /quote]
Terrible analogy because you are saying the owners should have to give up the financials but the players should not have to accept the reduced percentage.
By the way, it is not a 'give back' because they have no deal in place to give back from.

It's called negotiation. Get it? /quote]
Ummm, I am the one who has been saying this all along.

If there was a "right" to any of these things there wouldn't need to be a negotiation. Negotiation is about getting things you want but don't have a "right" to.

All well and good, but many of the posters in this and other threads are saying the owners are obligated to turn over financials. Clearly they are not.

Also, I will ask, if you feel they should, what do you expect would happen if they did, and how would it make anything better.
I don't really care who has the 'right' to do anything. I care that the issue gets resolved. Handing over 10 years of financials would set them back 6 months ****ering over the true meaning of the financials. And even then, it would split them further again, because the owners would be negotiating revenues, and the players would be complaining that any offer is unfair because, as Smith said the owners are 'making money off our backs, arms, legs...'.
If you serioulsy think handing that guy 320 financial statements to proe over and find out of context oppression in will help, why bother having a discussion.

 

[Ring 6]

I really wonder what your hang up is on the players lack of a "right" to additional financial info or here the player desire to have the owners justify their negotiation stance. You've gone on about this ad nauseum. What does that matter? The owners don't have a "right" to have the players give back any money either. It's called negotiation. Get it? If there was a "right" to any of these things there wouldn't need to be a negotiation. Negotiation is about getting things you want but don't have a "right" to.

By the way my statement above saying they do not have the right, was meant to say their is no cause of justification for the court to demand the owners show expense and profit numbers in a lawsuit regarding a negotiation over sharing revenue, as was suggested.

 

[upstater1]

Matt Light is pretty astute. I've been saying this all along:

“Their problem economically is more about revenue sharing on their end,” Light said. “Some smaller market teams are spending a far larger share of their income on salaries and expenses than larger market teams. They should be working that out among themselves, but they know it’s easier to try and take it away from the players than to take it from each other.”

This is from this morning's Borges article.

Now, I don't agree with Light's conclusion since I believe the players stand to gain a lot from shared revenue sharing, but only if the league incorporates a salary cap floor.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Matt Light is pretty astute. I've been saying this all along:



This is from this morning's Borges article.

Now, I don't agree with Light's conclusion since I believe the players stand to gain a lot from shared revenue sharing, but only if the league incorporates a salary cap floor.

What hes basically saying is some teams dont make much money even with sharing revenue. It can be debated (and it is) where that money should come from.

Players say rich teams should share with poorer teams, teams say the money should come from total revenue.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Over 500 posts now and a lot of us (myself included!) are repeating things we've said several times. Lots of good and thought-provoking comments and arguments on both sides.

My own view is that it's a close call, but that the Players at this time have a legitimate reason to see the Owners' records. The Owners exercised their right to terminate an existing Agreement and simultaneously asked for a greater portion of shared revenue. Before the players agree to that, it is reasonable for them to get a verifiable explanation of the circumstances that led to that request. I know I'm not going to convince those who disagree with me on that.

In any event, the Players clearly believe that there are Owners who will be embarrassed if their financials see the light of day, so litigating is primarily a negotiating ploy for them. If the Owners blink on any major issue before the case is heard, then it was probably a good ploy.

 

[Rob0729]

No matter who you believe is right or wrong, one thing is for sure is that the NFLPA needs to get their members to shut the hell up. There are quite a few players who are saying stuff that is hurting their cause including:

- Adrian Peterson calling NFL players slaves (and Rashard Mendenhall tweeting that Peterson is absolutely right that the owners are treating the players like slaves and even expanded to saying there are a lot of parrellels between what happened to slaves in the country and what is happening to the NFL players)
- Kevin Mawae crying that some players won't be able to afford health insurance during the lockout (the lowest paid player got $320k last year while people across this country who it would take ten years to earn as much money as the lowest paid NFL player struggle to pay their own health insurance every month, not just the short period of a lockout).
- Chester Pitts calling Goodell a liar and his calls for negotiations are empty with his letter to the players because they are impossible to negotiate further with the NFLPA. The thing is Pitts is absolutely wrong with his assessment and Goodell's letter to the players was factually correct in the points Pitts disputes.
- Cromartie going against the NFLPA to tell the draftees to attend the draft and Cromartie himself will attend. This is after he called the NFLPA a-holes earlier this year.

The general public are siding with the owners already. These players are only helping the owners win the court of public opinion. If I was DeMaurice Smith, I would tell these guys to shut up and stick to the NFLPA's talking points only.

 

[upstater1]

What hes basically saying is some teams dont make much money even with sharing revenue. It can be debated (and it is) where that money should come from.

Players say rich teams should share with poorer teams, teams say the money should come from total revenue.

Two teams complain about the revenue sharing plan. All the other small market teams are perfectly fine with it. Remember, they were peeled off from agreeing with Wilson and Brown when the owners decided to up the revenue sharing plan. Now, if the owners of the Bills and Bengals were new owners who had just bought into the league, I assume there'd be more sympathy for owners who "don't make much money." After all, Wilson has parlayed $20,000 into a billion in 50 years. That's a long time, obviously, and all credit too him, but I'm sure that he has made a hefty, hefty profit.

I don't understand the underlying sentiment among players that the lack of a salary cap may be a good thing. It wouldn't be. I do think the revenue sharing plan should be a chunk taking out from total revenues--as long as players are given assurances that the money will be spent on player salaries.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Two teams complain about the revenue sharing plan. All the other small market teams are perfectly fine with it. Remember, they were peeled off from agreeing with Wilson and Brown when the owners decided to up the revenue sharing plan. Now, if the owners of the Bills and Bengals were new owners who had just bought into the league, I assume there'd be more sympathy for owners who "don't make much money." After all, Wilson has parlayed $20,000 into a billion in 50 years. That's a long time, obviously, and all credit too him, but I'm sure that he has made a hefty, hefty profit.

I don't understand the underlying sentiment among players that the lack of a salary cap may be a good thing. It wouldn't be. I do think the revenue sharing plan should be a chunk taking out from total revenues--as long as players are given assurances that the money will be spent on player salaries.

I think the players are concerned when revenue expand greatly in the next few years, and they will, that they wont benefit as much as they would like. Thats what i get from reading all the related articles this past week. Of course a floor is necessary too but they're afraid if revenues explode the owners will rake in all the cash.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Someone owes Ian Rapoport and the NFLPA an apology.

Goodell sends letter to players regarding NFL’s most recent offer | ProFootballTalk

"Goodell then summarizes the key elements of the proposal: maximum salary and benefits per team of $141 million per club in 2011, with maximum salary and benefits per team of $161 million in 2014;"

The union was apparently proposing $151M in 2011 and the owners were countering that off of their earlier offer of $131M.

Greg Gaiello tweeted earlier that part of the disconnect arises because people are looking at the 2009 cap # of $128M. Gaiello says that cap number ultimately reflected an overestimate of revenue when set and that total player cap (cap + benefits) for the year was $140M. And if that is the case $141M represents a $1M cap and benefits increase over 2009. And the owners offer also stipulated a cap floor increase from roughly 87% to 90%. 87% of $128M = $111M (cap floor in 2009). Add in $22M in benefits and the total cap floor + benefits was $133M. Teams spent in aggregate $7M more than that or roughly 93% of pre set cap. There is no rule that says that 100% of cap # is spent in any given year in part because it is a guesstimate.

And it likely represents an increase over what was spent last season in the uncapped year since whatever was spent on salaries and bonuses was offset by the collectively bargained benefits drop due to an uncapped year to just over $10M (because owners didn't have to contribute to many of the players previously funded benefits programs like the educational fund and second career savings plan). Owners had been spending in excess of $22M on benefits in a capped year and were proposing an increase of roughly $5M to $27M in 2011 and beyond.

If what Gaiello tweeted is correct it constitutes the basis for the owners claim that veteran players would not be losing money in 2011 and would be guaranteed $20M or 14% in cap increases over the next 4 years.