Think the owners are being the stubborn ones? Think again

[skinnydog]

Those numbers just don't make much sense. If all the "cap" numbers King is quoting (based on information from a player rep) includes $25M in benefits, then the players offer for 2011 ($151M) is actually a salary cap of $126M. Couple of questions:

1) Does anyone believe the players offered a salary cap figure in 2011 that was lower than the cap in 2009 ($128M -> $126M)? After seeing unprecedented year-to-year salary growth for the last several years? I don't buy it. That would make player salary (not total compensation) at about 43% of total revenue.

2) Since when did any mention of the salary cap include benefits? Until the last week, I have never heard it used in that context. I've heard benefits mentioned when discussing the revenue split, but never when the term "cap" was used. It is a salary cap, not a compensation cap.

1). The figure for negotiating purposes has been 123M for 2009. There was an adjustment mechanism that raised it to 127 or 128M. There is a link to what is supposed to be the owners last proposal and it clearly shows the 2009 cap as 123M and the owners proposal for 2011 as 114M. And also below 123M for 2012.

2). There is a cap + benefits figure that I'm sure is important to the players because that is their total package. As fans we never see or really care about the benefits portion because that is not part of the salary negotiations. Its a fixed amount.

 

[Miguel]

Those numbers just don't make much sense. If all the "cap" numbers King is quoting (based on information from a player rep) includes $25M in benefits, then the players offer for 2011 ($151M) is actually a salary cap of $126M. Couple of questions:

1) Does anyone believe the players offered a salary cap figure in 2011 that was lower than the cap in 2009 ($128M -> $126M)?

The compensation (cap + benefits) for the players would have been $151 million in 2011 versus $149.1 million in 2009.

 

[Rob0729]

a) There's still no guarantee that the NFL has made its final offer. Negotiations can and will continue throughout the litigation process.

b) Yes, and the reason things changed in 1993 was because, having several crucial verdicts and decisions go against them, the owners saw the writing on the wall, and realized that they'd lose Reggie White v. the NFL, the ramifications of which would make them unable to continue to operate.

a.) Fron a legal standpoint, the league has made their final offer. Who can the league make another offer to? The NFLPA? Absolutely not! The players have voted to strip the NFLPA of their power to negotiate on their behalf. If there was ever a new CBA to be done, the NFLPA would have to re-form first. That means if the courts ruled in the league's favor on that they negotiated with good faith before an agreement was met (yes, I know the two sides can negotiate off the record and behind the scenes), the courts would likely enforce the offer the league gave the NFLPA on Friday because that is the last offer from the league possible unless the NFLPA re-bands.

b.) Two different situations. Most of the rules in 1993 stated that the league must implement a free agency system (there was no true free agency prior to 2003). The league finally gave in after years without a CBA because they feared a court impossed free agency system.

The issues this time around go to revenue sharing which was not an issue at the time of the last decertification. None of the prior court rulings will have much to do with any court cases this time around. You are potentially at looking at years again for it to get resolved in the courts if that is the route the sides take.

 

[Ring 6]

That may be, but you gotta know the two sides will be talking regardless. Don't think all the players are sitting back idly.

But they are. The sides are not allowed to negotiate, because the players are not represented by a collective bargaining agency.
Nothing can happen at all until the preliminary hearing on April 6th.
Thats not opinion, there just simply isnt an entity to negotiate on the players side, ad nothing to negotiate about. The players have chosen not to be represented collectively.

 

[Ring 6]

I agree it is no worse than accepting the offer, but it is worse that countering the offer and continue negotiating and getting that offer closer to what they want. There is no guarantee that the last offer from the NFL was their final offer. If the courts side with them, it will be though.

I think the league could survive without a CBA since it has before. The league went without a CBA for a number of years. In 1987, the player's union decertified and there was no union or CBA again until 1993. So the NFL survived for nearly six years without a CBA.

And the owners were very aware that their last offer was the one that would stand, so it was surely made in their favor.

 

[Ring 6]

Off the top!! Total revenues minus $1.137m

Lets not forget what the 1 billion represents.
It was part of a restructure of the agreement where the players agree to earn nothing on the first billion in order to earn a higher percentage on the rest of the revenue.

2+2 does equal 1+3, even if many of you posters are trying to imply the $1billion off the top is something other than a change in the method of calculation that both sides felt worked better for them.

This is one of the reasons its hard to have a reasonable discussion on this.

The players agree to earn nothing on the first billion in order to earn more on everything else, and it is being described on this board as akin to the owners just taking a billion dollars away.

 

[Ring 6]

I think the applicable part is (D). I could be wrong.


I do not see where it references growing the game, but I also expected to see a flat deduction of $1billion as has been reported.

Maybe we are talking about 2 different things.

My understanding was that the $1billion that is being mentioned was a set amount excluded from revenues, which was established when addition sources of revenue (PSLs etc) became included in the calculations.

The item I am referring to is called
The off the top expense credit that the NFL is trying to increase from 1 billion to 2 billion, in Florios article that was just posted.

Miguel,
Can you clarify this for me please?

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Drew Brees and Jeff Saturday fired back with some good points today.

They said the NFL never intended to make a deal, just wanted to be able to claim they did, and there is enough evidence that suggests the plan all along was to lockout the players. Why else would the NFL pre-emptively secure deals where they would continue to make money from TV if there was a lockout?

Their main point was if the NFL actually wanted to make a deal, then why bring a proposal with 20 new points on it Friday morning when they knew the NFL players association would have no time to read through anything before timing deadlines for decertification. This proposal was just so they could then go to media and tell everyone the deal the players turned down, when the manner was set up so it wouldn't have ever happened.

 

[Miguel]

Miguel,
Can you clarify this for me please?

It is not a flat deduction of a billion dollars. It is just that the total of the expense credits (5% TR cost deduction;1.8% g-3 deduction, and the other deductions) totaled around a billion dollars in 2009.

 

[Rob0729]

Drew Brees and Jeff Saturday fired back with some good points today.

They said the NFL never intended to make a deal, just wanted to be able to claim they did, and there is enough evidence that suggests the plan all along was to lockout the players. Why else would the NFL pre-emptively secure deals where they would continue to make money from TV if there was a lockout?

Their main point was if the NFL actually wanted to make a deal, then why bring a proposal with 20 new points on it Friday morning when they knew the NFL players association would have no time to read through anything before timing deadlines for decertification. This proposal was just so they could then go to media and tell everyone the deal the players turned down, when the manner was set up so it wouldn't have ever happened.

And Bob Kraft said the offer was negotiatable.

“Last week, the league and the owners presented the players’ union with a comprehensive proposal that we believe was fair and benefited both parties,” Patriots owner Robert Kraft and president Jonathan Kraft wrote. “We hoped it would serve as a basis to continue negotiating in good faith toward a final agreement. This proposal gave the players many benefits and off-season scheduling changes that they had been seeking. It also offered a 14% increase in compensation, representing a total of $19-20 billion over the next four seasons. Unfortunately, the players’ union walked away from mediation and the ongoing negotiations last Friday, without responding to this proposal. Rather than working collaboratively, they chose to initiate litigation against the clubs.”

Message from Krafts suggests that Friday’s offer was negotiable | ProFootballTalk

And both sides continue to spin and spin and spin.

I don't buy the argument of the players though. The deadline for decertifcation was already extended by a week (actually extended twice - once by 24 hours and the then by a week). If the players needed more time to review the proposal, they could have asked to extend the negotiating period again. They never asked. In fact, DeMaurice Smith said they wouldn't want to extend the period unless the owners gave them complete finacials.

 

[upstater1]

Lets not forget what the 1 billion represents.
It was part of a restructure of the agreement where the players agree to earn nothing on the first billion in order to earn a higher percentage on the rest of the revenue.

2+2 does equal 1+3, even if many of you posters are trying to imply the $1billion off the top is something other than a change in the method of calculation that both sides felt worked better for them.

This is one of the reasons its hard to have a reasonable discussion on this.

The players agree to earn nothing on the first billion in order to earn more on everything else, and it is being described on this board as akin to the owners just taking a billion dollars away.

I was only referring to the fact that players made an offer which, when you break it down, can account for the discrepancy the previous poster was seeing between different salary cap figures.

 

[upstater1]

Both sides are spinning. Both pushed it to the brink. Peter King apparently was there 10 hours a day reporting, and he said one of the NFL negotiators showed up during the week.

This is what Mawae reports:

Mawae said that if the NFL contends the union walked away from mediation, "that's a fabrication and a lie. We sat in that room ... Tuesday and Wednesday of last week for 16 hours. ... We met face-to-face a total of 30 minutes."

This is why Brees sounds incensed about the Friday offer. Peter King also implies the players were emotional.

Maybe they were too emotional. Sounds like they felt the NFL was jerking them around all week. Then they put forth the motions to decertify based on the deadline, the NFL came in with an offer, bad blood ensues, and talks break off, with both sides blaming the other for bad faith.

It's odd, this is what happens when players become involved. Players are not cool cats. I think Peter King was right when he wrote the NFL should realize that. If the NFL had a deal, they should have offered it.

Can you imagine negotiating with Kevin Mawae?
ROFL.

 

[DaBruinz]

I thought we were talking about the last 2 1/2 years? AND Yes, before the financial crisis, oil was higher. Look it up people. It was at $140 when the last CBA was signed. HELLLLLLOOOO!

I'm not sure what you mean about only I mentioned it. It's been mentioned repeatedly. That was the big crux of the whole controversy between owners during the last CBA negotiations.

The last CBA was signed 5 years ago. 2006. LOOK IT UP..

Oil was around $60 a barrel.

Oil closed yesterday at $101 a barrel.

In 2008, when the owners opted out of the CBA on May 20th, 2008. Oil was $130 a barrel. It topped out at $147.25 on July 11th, 2008, because of the Iran Nuke Crisis as well as the financial turmoil around the world. But it was down to $40 a barrel by the start of 2009. So, yes, oil prices being back up to over $100 a barrel now IS energy prices being up.

Price of petroleum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ring 6]

It is not a flat deduction of a billion dollars. It is just that the total of the expense credits (5% TR cost deduction;1.8% g-3 deduction, and the other deductions) totaled around a billion dollars in 2009.

Thank you. Very frustrating that it is being reported as a flat dollar amount.

 

[Ring 6]

I was only referring to the fact that players made an offer which, when you break it down, can account for the discrepancy the previous poster was seeing between different salary cap figures.

Yes, but this part of the CBA is being butchered all over the board.
If I hadnt looked it up myself (and asked Miguel to explain it to me)
I would have thought that at some point in the past the owners changed the deal by simply excluding $1billion with nothing in return.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Both sides are spinning. Both pushed it to the brink. Peter King apparently was there 10 hours a day reporting, and he said one of the NFL negotiators showed up during the week.

This is what Mawae reports:



This is why Brees sounds incensed about the Friday offer. Peter King also implies the players were emotional.

Maybe they were too emotional. Sounds like they felt the NFL was jerking them around all week. Then they put forth the motions to decertify based on the deadline, the NFL came in with an offer, bad blood ensues, and talks break off, with both sides blaming the other for bad faith.

It's odd, this is what happens when players become involved. Players are not cool cats. I think Peter King was right when he wrote the NFL should realize that. If the NFL had a deal, they should have offered it.

Can you imagine negotiating with Kevin Mawae?
ROFL.

The players shouldnt be in the room, thats why they have people representing them, let them do the negotiating and keep the emotion out of it.
Its why they have agents.

 

[JoeSixPat]

Utility costs are down, I should know, I've been tracking them in my portfolio over the last couple of years! Transportation? Huh? You cited per mile transport. I assume you're talking about gasoline then. Oil is down from 1.40 a barrel. But, transport costs typically refer to the transport of goods. Shipping and fast freight. Cost for shipping are down 90%.

We're talking about football.

Transport of goods? Shipping costs?

Perhaps the teams can fly UPS and save some money but I think you're grasping at straws of things that just aren't relevant to the NFL.

 

[Ring 6]

The players shouldnt be in the room, thats why they have people representing them, let them do the negotiating and keep the emotion out of it.
Its why they have agents.

Strangely though, they hae Mawae who is no longer an active player in the room and called Pete Kendall who retired 2 years ago and hasnt attended a union meeting in to contribute to the meetings.
I don't get that.

 

[upstater1]

We're talking about football.

Transport of goods? Shipping costs?

Perhaps the teams can fly UPS and save some money but I think you're grasping at straws of things that just aren't relevant to the NFL.

Man oh man, no, I was responding to someone talking about businesses in general. not football!

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Yes, but this part of the CBA is being butchered all over the board.
If I hadnt looked it up myself (and asked Miguel to explain it to me)
I would have thought that at some point in the past the owners changed the deal by simply excluding $1billion with nothing in return.

Thats how the media is reporting it also