DMD Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 The National Football League on Monday filed an unfair labor practice charge against its players' union, claiming the union wants to let the current collective bargaining agreement expire without reaching a new deal, according to NFL.com. The charge, filed with the National Labor Relations Board, claims that the NFL Players Association isn't bargaining in good faith, and that the union wants to be without a new deal when the current one expires March 3 so that the union can decertify and sue the league under antitrust laws, NFL.com reported. NFL team owners could choose to lock out their players starting March 4 if a new deal isn’t reached. Owners and the players' union still would have the spring and summer to get a deal done, but the 2011 season would be threatened if the lockout extends beyond that. The union said Monday that the NFL's claim "has absolutely no merit." "The players want a fair, new and long-term deal," the union said in an online statement. "We have offered proposals and solutions on every issue the owners have raised." At this point, cannot imagine they will come to their senses by March 4th but I still think they will by the draft. That gives them 6 or 7 weeks of posturing, name-calling, hand-wringing, 1 or 2 "walk away from the tables", a dozen apocalyptic articles written and then sheepishly agreeing to some midpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Wasn't it the Owners who walked out on the last meeting after teh Union proposed a 50/50 split? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuke'em ttg Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Who really has the most power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Who really has the most power? Owners have the most money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 At this point, cannot imagine they will come to their senses by March 4th but I still think they will by the draft. That gives them 6 or 7 weeks of posturing, name-calling, hand-wringing, 1 or 2 "walk away from the tables", a dozen apocalyptic articles written and then sheepishly agreeing to some midpoint. that's very optimistic. and maybe i'm too pessimistic - and i really hope you're right but it seems like a long shot to have this resolved by the draft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I think we lose part of the season this time around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby's Hubby Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) that's very optimistic. and maybe i'm too pessimistic - and i really hope you're right but it seems like a long shot to have this resolved by the draft the fact that the owners are asking for double off the top ($2 billion, now) compared to last agreement ($1 billion), which may or may not be fair, makes me beleive there will be a lock out. I do not see the owners backing down on this one. The owners have a shot at creating dissention among the players and also could destroy the current union. That would be their goal if a lock-out occurs. Edited February 15, 2011 by Scooby's Hubby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 The owners have too much in their favor to negotiate anything but a deal that is way favorable to them. 1) I think they have the public's back. If, for no other reason than everyone seems to be outraged at how much guys get paid "to play a game". It's as if the players are blamed for why tickets cost what they do. As I've said before, the owners charge what they can get away with for everything and agents, knowing this, try to get as much of this money as they can for their clients. Neither is innocent but the players seem to be the fall guys in the eyes of the public. You hear it all the time. 2) And this one is huge, they can wait this thing out. It is well-documented how bad players are with their money, so I wonder how much many of them have in reserves. It seems silly to most of us that guys who've been making as much as they have can't afford to go a few months without pay, but I'd bet there's a ton of these guys who really, really need this thing to get settled before the paychecks stop coming. The owners? They've got plenty of money and know how to deal with it. 3) The fans have proven that they've got a very, very high threshold of BS they'll put up with. Every a-holish thing the league has done to them, they've brushed off and kept showing up with their wallets open, ready to pay. Why should they think this time would be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 This article explains the posturing and money issue I was talking about. I hope DMD is right, but I just don't see anything happening until June/July at the earliest. http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17343236 According to the NFLPA, players received 50.6 percent of "all" revenues in 2009 and 51 percent in 2008. It's not until the owners take a credit of approximately $1 billion off the top, for items such as stadium construction and enhancements and the NFL Network, Blog: All Things Broncos The Denver Post's NFL reporters post analysis, notes and minutiae on this blog devoted to the Denver Broncos. that players receive the more widely reported "total" revenue figures of 57 to 60 percent. To help bridge the revenue reduction to players, owners say increasing the regular season from 16 to 18 games will expand the revenue pie. The players are against the expanded schedule, at least without greater health and salary benefit Read more: Broncos preparing employees for NFL lockout - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_17343236#ixzz1E2VIses2 Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Ok, I've got a question for you guys... if there is a lock out, are the GM's, Coaches and Scouts, etc. locked out as well (or just the players)? I ask because everyone seems to be assuming that even if there is a lock out, that the rookie draft will take place as usual. But if GM's, Coaches and Scouts are locked out, then presumably they will not be working for free out of their basements to prepare for the draft, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Ok, I've got a question for you guys... if there is a lock out, are the GM's, Coaches and Scouts, etc. locked out as well (or just the players)? I ask because everyone seems to be assuming that even if there is a lock out, that the rookie draft will take place as usual. But if GM's, Coaches and Scouts are locked out, then presumably they will not be working for free out of their basements to prepare for the draft, correct? I don't think coaches, players and scouts are part of the players union. Not 100% sure, but they will probably not be locked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chester Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) The Packers have made business plans in case there’s a lockout. If it extends deep into the offseason, there probably will be layoffs or reduced hours in the administrative branches of all NFL teams, though Murphy at least suggested that for the Packers they wouldn’t be extensive. “We have a plan for what it would look like,” Murphy said, “but for a lot of us really it will be business as usual. If you think about, for things like marketing, we’ll be doing the things we normally do to get ready for the season. For the coaches obviously it’s quite a bit different.” If there’s no offseason workout and practice programs, the coaches’ only work will be preparing for the NFL draft, revising their schemes and studying opponents for the upcoming season. Most teams wrote pay cuts into assistant coaches’ contracts in case of a lockout, in some cases extensive cuts, depending on how long the lockout lasts. Murphy would not divulge the specifics of the Packers’ cuts but suggested they were more to help with the team’s cash flow during a lockout than to cut wages permanently for the year. He said that if the lockout is long enough to trigger lost wages for the coaches, they would be able to make up most or all of the lost income once games resume. “We wanted to be fair and treat our coaches well,” Murphy said. “We didn’t want to be outliers one way or the other within the league, and we kind of found a middle point.” edit: from greenbaypressgazette.com Edited February 15, 2011 by chester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugs3511 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 O.k., then here is a question, would the NFL Network still exist after a lockout? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moss6 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Vikings just entered into negotiations with Keanu Reeves agent as a back up plan to an owner’s lockout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks21 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Can somebody please try to defend the owners? Everything I have read so far just makes them look so darn greedy. The owners are demanding that they make millions on a season-by-season basis. This has never been a worry for professional sports owners before. They're all going to make hundreds of millions on the back-end. The revenue is HUGE, bigger than ever, the owners are raking in cash, and it still isn't good enough for them. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The money that some of them are losing to revenue sharing, they want to make back by cutting down the players piece of the pie. The players came to the table knowing if they wanted to make a deal, it would involve a pay-cut. Still, they wanted to start with the percentage they are currently at, and go down from there. This was not sufficient for the owners, and they walked. The point of my rant is...when is enough, enough? The players will take a 15% smaller piece of the pie this time. What is next? They'll be down 15 more percent, leaving them with about 15% of the profit. And the way it is currently set-up, they have no choice but to take it in the backside. Ultimately, they have to take pretty much whatever the owners offer if they want to play professional football. I can't handle it. When I go to games, when I buy spamshirts and hats, I want to support the players themselves, not the obscenely rich greedy old man that has never entertained me for a second of his life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrumjuice Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Yeah, those players make hardly any money, those poor guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Vikings just entered into negotiations with Keanu Reeves agent as a back up plan to an owner’s lockout Can somebody please try to defend the owners? Everything I have read so far just makes them look so darn greedy. The owners are demanding that they make millions on a season-by-season basis. This has never been a worry for professional sports owners before. They're all going to make hundreds of millions on the back-end. The revenue is HUGE, bigger than ever, the owners are raking in cash, and it still isn't good enough for them. They want to have their cake and eat it too. The money that some of them are losing to revenue sharing, they want to make back by cutting down the players piece of the pie. The players came to the table knowing if they wanted to make a deal, it would involve a pay-cut. Still, they wanted to start with the percentage they are currently at, and go down from there. This was not sufficient for the owners, and they walked. The point of my rant is...when is enough, enough? The players will take a 15% smaller piece of the pie this time. What is next? They'll be down 15 more percent, leaving them with about 15% of the profit. And the way it is currently set-up, they have no choice but to take it in the backside. Ultimately, they have to take pretty much whatever the owners offer if they want to play professional football. I can't handle it. When I go to games, when I buy spamshirts and hats, I want to support the players themselves, not the obscenely rich greedy old man that has never entertained me for a second of his life. I'm really trying my hardest to not turn this into a class-warfare issue but I am having a hell of a time finding any moral justification for the owners and I'm particularly annoyed with what seems to be the stance of guys like Richardson of the Panthers, belittling the opposition with condescending remarks to guys like Manning and Brees, "Do I need to show you a profit pie, son?". That all is according to what Jay Feely said went down at the latest talks. I have one question and one question only for the owners. I assume you guys are super wealthy businessmen because you make good investments. You seem to be playing the "we simply can't make money under the current scheme" card. Yet, buying an NFL franchise just gets more and more expensive. Why are the values of your teams getting so high if it's a losing gig? Who would pay 100s of millions for a team that loses money (or makes very little) every year? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 In these things, I always tend to support the owners. You can always find players to play a game, might not be the highest quality at first, but they always come back. However, you can't find a bunch of guys with 600 million to 1 billion in spare change to invest in the idea. High Schools just don't churn out those in mass quantities. It definitely sucks for the "others" affected: the stadium workers and support staff. Not much of a fall back plan for them. Do they get to keep their jobs or do they become part of the unemployment line? A deal will get done and the owners will "win." Players don't want to go get a regular job and they'll figure it out when the paychecks stop rolling in. They will fold, err concede to some of the owners' demands and still get a very fair deal completed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Understand that the owners are assumedly still making money but their profits are in decline and they want to take actions before they lose money. I honestly do not think this is a case of some nefarious uber-greedy owner wanting to squeeze more pennies out of the working class for the sheer joy of making money and screwing the "underclasss". The owners want to take steps to assure that the NFL remains a healthy and popular sport and not get into situations where revenues and expenses get out of whack as was seen in the NHL before. The owners caved in too far in the last and want to dial that back. How is that different than if the owners had gotten too much last time and the players were the ones wanting more this time? The fact that the players are not wanting more is a sign they know the deal that they had was better than it should be. The entire situation is beyond the comprehension of pretty much anyone on this message board since we are talking about a $9 billion industry with huge payrolls and billion dollar stadiums and major expenses. Why is the assumption that all 32 owners are just fatcats who are making tons of money and want to screw over the way they make their money? If you are going to listen to what went down in meetings from just one side, then it will sound like some one-sided affair. Jay Feely is due to be paid $2 million this year for kicking field goals and extra points. I am sure he is processing the meetings with a somewhat jaundiced ear and repeating what appeals to his agenda. He's a guy who makes $2 million and he doesn't even sweat or need a shower when he is done. I have one question and one question only for the owners. I assume you guys are super wealthy businessmen because you make good investments. You seem to be playing the "we simply can't make money under the current scheme" card. Yet, buying an NFL franchise just gets more and more expensive. Why are the values of your teams getting so high if it's a losing gig? Who would pay 100s of millions for a team that loses money (or makes very little) every year? It is not yet a losing gig - that is what they are trying to avoid. The costs associated with a team are rising faster than revenues and considering how much stadiums cost it will be an ongoing problem as other teams need to refurbish or move to something new. It is a different set of economic realities now than it was back when they signed the last CBA. Should teams not make moves to improve a business model until it is completely broken and the teams are losing money? Buying an NFL franchise is attractive because it is the most popular sport by many measures and there are only 32 of them and they do not often come up for sale. What I am hoping comes out of these meetings and the new CBA is a healthy league that can provide the best product possible for many years to come. I think for the most part the players are being paid mind-boggling amounts and are hardly being screwed over in any sense for their pay. What disappoints me is that the NFL and the NFLPA need to come together and do more for the players in keeping them as healthy as possible and helping them out financially and with health coverage after they leave the NFL. You can say the owners are greedy, but the NFLPA has been all about getting as much money up front for the players and yet no one really cares when they leave and are not making money. And there are far too many ex-players that can hardly walk or have major health issues stemming from when they played. The league and the NFLPA both need to come together to serve players better more than throwing a ton of money at them for the one to three years that most players are in the league. It is also disingenuous of players to cry about how the NFL does not care about their safety (which is very untrue) when they themselves knowingly play injured all the time and hide injuries from trainers or downplay their pain, etc. because they do not want to let anyone else play and risk losing their paycheck. Most NFL players are tough-guy warriors and play in pain but that is in part because they want the paycheck and they do not want to risk losing their job because they know how easily that can happen. The entire equation is very complicated and no one side is evil or "the good guys". Bottom line, the owners want to rightfully protect their businesses and ensure they are healthy now and in the future. The players want to be paid every penny they can get because they know that most of them have one to three seasons to make more cash than they will maybe in the rest of their lives combined and they are an obviously big part of the draw to the games that makes it successful. In the middle of this are us fans who watch the games and buy the merchandise. What I want as a fan is for both sides to come together and get something done that doesn't negatively impact our enjoyment of the sport. The CBA should not shake down to merely being about determining which side gets to be more greedy with the current revenues. It should set up the league to remain something we can all enjoy for many years to come and something that both takes care of the owners - now and in the future and the players - now and in the future. They will get there, the only question is how quickly and how nasty they want to be getting there. The owners will always be responsible for fairly compensating the players within the constructs of what is feasible and reasonable. The players need to take a longer view in my opinion and argue more for benefits that last beyond their playing time and consider more what life after football will be like rather than only worry about the biggest possible paycheck this season. What is going to impact this is that so many players did not save any money and are not prepared to not be paid and they are going to be pretty pissed at both the NFL and the NFLPA if it goes on long. There are really four entities at play in this – the fans, the players, the owners and the NFLPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 (edited) It is not yet a losing gig - that is what they are trying to avoid. The costs associated with a team are rising faster than revenues and considering how much stadiums cost it will be an ongoing problem as other teams need to refurbish or move to something new. Aren't the stadiums just getting bigger and bigger due to the fact that the owners do not have to split the $8 hot dogs and $12 beer revenue with the players? I mean the real money for owners is in the skyboxes now days isn't it? Edited February 15, 2011 by Square Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I can't see why I should have any more than zero sympathy for the players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I agree with all that you're saying; however, the counter-point is, if the owners' profits are in decline and are heading to an upside-down situation, then they need to open their books and prove it. The players were dumb for agreeing to a contract where they get a percentage of the total revenues, but didn't require the owners to show what the actual revenues were. But that's a past issue. DMD, that is where I break from the owners. If the owners want to protect their investment (and rightly so) and insist that their business modeal is failing, then shouldnt it be relatively easy to point to in an audit? Both the players and owners have vested interests here. The owners are saying that the model is failing, the players say "holy crap! we might be out of a job! lets us take a look at the books with you so we can both benefit and the league doesnt go under!" The owners say "why dont you just trust us on that one . . ." Can you blame the players for getting peeved? The owners hold all the cards on this one. They can bully their way to a settlement after a lockout and the players cant really do diddly squat. The players are asking for the owners to prove that their allegations of a failing business are correct, and the owners are saying they dont want to have to prove it? Bullcrap. Unless the owners really CANT prove they are losing money, and it is all a negotiation play to get more money out of the players. Hence the reluctance to share the financial information? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennykravitz2004 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Buying an NFL franchise is attractive because it is the most popular sport by many measures and there are only 32 of them and they do not often come up for sale. and The league and the NFLPA both need to come together to serve players better more than throwing a ton of money at them for the one to three years that most players are in the league. First quote - ask Shahid Kahn. Just when he thought he had a "clear run at the QB" and was the only one interested in the Rams... BAM! Kroenke throws a huge de-cleater square in Khan's numbers. Second quote is something I, too, have believed in for awhile now, as I see what the current/outgoing CBA has in that respect. And it really does appear to be "nothing" for players after they leave the game. I turn 38 this year, had an ACL reconstruct almost 15 years ago, and my knee still hurts. I can only imagine what these guys deal with on a regular, if not daily, basis. Very insightful comments, and good read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NAUgrad Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 So DMD, since the owners won't open their books, how do you know that their profits are declining? If it was such a certainty that soon enough, franchises will be losing money, then how come values continue to increase? There are billionaire's because they don't buy into "losing" organizations without knowing why they are losing money and a way to get them profitable. I agree with you about the stadium issue and more owners having to put out more of their own money to get these stadiums done. That has been mentioned numerous times as a reason why this is happening. Overall, I just don't believe that the owners are losing money and I would be surprised if there is a regular financial trend moving down that shows within 3-5 years or so that they begin to lose money. I truly don't believe that this is about "saving" the NFL. It is about greed on both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 DMD, that is where I break from the owners. If the owners want to protect their investment (and rightly so) and insist that their business modeal is failing, then shouldnt it be relatively easy to point to in an audit? Both the players and owners have vested interests here. The owners are saying that the model is failing, the players say "holy crap! we might be out of a job! lets us take a look at the books with you so we can both benefit and the league doesnt go under!" The owners say "why dont you just trust us on that one . . ." Can you blame the players for getting peeved? The owners hold all the cards on this one. They can bully their way to a settlement after a lockout and the players cant really do diddly squat. The players are asking for the owners to prove that their allegations of a failing business are correct, and the owners are saying they dont want to have to prove it? Bullcrap. Unless the owners really CANT prove they are losing money, and it is all a negotiation play to get more money out of the players. Hence the reluctance to share the financial information? No private business owner in the history of union negotiations has ever opened their books. It just doesn't happen. I just spoke with an expert in labor relations and he said as much. It is just a standard union ploy that they know will never happen. And the union would only consider the numbers that favor them and not the entire picture let alone the long-term considerations of a business that the NFLPA does not care about. The Union calls for opening the books for this exact reason - to make people think the evil business is hiding something. It is just bluster and a ploy. Another reality - how long would it take to completely audit and comprehend 32 entirely different businesses when each pushes around hundred of millions if not a billion dollars around each year in revenue and expenses? It would take so long that it would no longer be accurate by the time it was done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.