FEB 25 latest on CBA talks

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Because in today's tea party world, labor is always greedy and evil and capitalism is only ok if it enriches management of course.

[lennykravitz2004]

 

More comments on this week's importance for the CBA. Probably already stated elsewhere in other words.

 

It has now come down to this week in the two-year attempt to extend the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) before it expires Thursday night at midnight. Let’s answer some questions about the days ahead.

 

What is the first key time this week in the last attempt to negotiate and agreement?

 

On Tuesday the two sides will reconvene after a three-day break from seven consecutive days of bargaining under the watchful eye of mediator George Cohen, and they will see if they can advance the ball.

 

The first few moments of that meeting will foretell a lot. If the sides come back to say that they have caucused and are willing to be flexible on one or more of the core issues, then we have a chance for a CBA, even by Friday. However, if the parties come back still entrenched in their positions, hopes are dashed and the seven days of mediation may have been for naught.

 

We will know early in the day tomorrow if progress can be made or we are back to the morass of divergence.

 

Why can’t this deal get done?

 

Neither side is budging. Both sides are sufficiently frustrated with the tactics from their adversary that they simply will not move towards center.

 

The NFL asks why should it make a better offer when the union (1) threatens decertification; (2) parades through the halls of Congress and (3) challenges ownership on its negotiation of its broadcast contracts and accuses them of collusion.

 

The NFLPA asks itself why it should make a better offer when the owners (1)talk down to the players, (2) threaten to lock them out and cut off their benefits and (2) refuse to show them detailed accounting from each team to back up their claims of financial challenges.

 

With bargaining stunted by lack of trust and downright dislike in some cases, this negotiation appears to be on a bridge to nowhere. I thought mediation was potential answer, but perhaps not.

 

What happens if no decertification and no agreement by Thursday night?

 

All indications are that the NFL teams will cease to do business with its labor force, the players. There will be no contact with them, no benefits attaching to them, no bonuses or salaries paid to them, and the doors to the facilities will be locked to them.

 

Why would the NFL do that?

 

Owners -- some more than others -- are determined to forge a new economic system with the players, using the lockout as leverage to negotiate improved terms from the existing CBA.

 

What is the NFL’s big issue they want to address?

 

NFL owners are not claiming losses; they are claiming that they are on the path to a problematic future. They argue that player costs are outpacing incremental team revenues, with the potential for a downward spiral.

 

The owners have a chance to correct the problem now, having opted out of a deal that was supposed to end in 2013 two years early.

 

What does the union want?

 

We think they want status quo plus some other issues addressed, such as:

 

Better health benefits and post career coverage beyond the existing five years;

An independent appeals process for Commissioner discipline for conduct and drugs;

More revenue sharing among ownership with the allotment funneled to the players.

Does the union’s decertification strategy have legs?

 

It is part of a plan hatched in August with the NFLPA Decertification Tour 2010, when the union got authorization from each team to take this step. Now they have bared this ammunition again to try to shift the leverage.

 

The fact that NFL owners took a preemptive strike a week on this issue --filing an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB to have decertification ruled a “sham” – tells me that the decertification option scares them.

 

I do believe this: were the union to go down this path, any goodwill and relationship building with the NFL will be flushed down the drain. If litigation is the way they want to fight, the NFL has plenty of litigators on call. They will fight, delay and appeal the battle at least through the fall, counting on player solidarity in March to fade into the distance by September when the real money starts going in.

 

Decertification has some potential reward for the union but also high risk. With the late Gene Upshaw leading the charge twenty years ago, it was seen as innovative. Were DeMaurice Smith to repeat it, it would be seen as a legal strategy trying to duplicate the past.

 

Any hope for a negotiated settlement by Friday?

 

I have been that voice in the wilderness holding out optimism for that to happen, mainly because I feel that after Friday there will be little incentive to negotiate for a while.

 

My hope is that the deadline will cause each side to show more or all of their cards. Having done player contracts for twenty years, from both sides of the table, I know that neither side puts its best offer on the table until it absolutely has to. The question for which I do not know the answer is whether Friday is that true deadline or not.

 

Will Peyton Manning have a contract by the deadline?

 

This may be more likely than a CBA. Both Manning and the Colts know he will have the most lucrative contract in the history of the NFL; the question is only by how much. Manning has extraordinary leverage, with or without an expiring CBA.

 

What is the key time for whether we have a CBA?

 

Thursday night. At some point on Thursday in Washington, Commissioner Goodell will look his owners in the eye and ask whether they want to lock the players out. And at some point Thursday DeMaurice Smith – also in Washington -- will address his union leadership and get their vote on whether to decertify and cease to be a union.

 

These topics have been easy to talk about for two years. Actually putting a stake in the ground and doing it is a different animal.

 

Welcome to a week like no other in the NFL. The stakes are raised; let’s see how this plays out now that the time for talk is over.

[lennykravitz2004]

 

Newsworthy?

 

A federal judge Tuesday dealt a blow to the NFL in advance of a potential work stoppage this week.

 

 

 

U.S. District Court Judge David Doty overruled special master Stephen Burbank’s recent ruling that the owners could use the $4 billion in television money they had stashed away as a potential work-stoppage fund should the collective bargaining agreement expire midnight (ET) Thursday .

 

In essence, Doty ruled the NFL violated the CBA and called for a separate hearing to assess the damages that should be awarded to the players.

 

After Doty’s ruling, the NFL released this statement:

 

"As we have frequently said, our clubs are prepared for any contingency, this decision included. Today's ruling will have no effect on our efforts to negotiate a new, balanced labor agreement."

 

A league spokesman told the Associated Press that the NFL had not immediately determined whether it would appeal Doty's ruling.

 

The league appears to have lost leverage in CBA negotiations as a result of Doty's ruling, so we'll see if this helps spur an agreement.

 

At a hearing last week, NFL attorney Gregg Levy argued it would be "repugnant to federal labor law" for Doty to intervene in the broadcast rights fees issue. Players' union attorney Jeffrey Kessler countered that the billions in leverage is part of a long-devised lockout plan and that the NFL didn't act in good faith.

 

Doty said at the hearing that he didn't want to put his "thumb on the scale of the collective bargaining" process.

 

The union contends the NFL failed to secure "maximum" revenue, as it is required to do, in both 2009 and 2010 when it renegotiated broadcast contracts with FOX, NBC, ESPN, CBS and DirecTV that included revised "work stoppage" plans. The NFLPA said the work stoppage clauses in particular were struck to guarantee "war chest" income for the NFL, giving it an unfair advantage in the labor talks.

 

The Associated Press contributed

Edited March 2, 2011 by lennykravitz2004

[Wolverines Fan]

The Doty ruling obviously takes away the owners' advantage, but can they appeal?

[piratesownninjas]

Except there is a pending ruling on this. If the judge had enough balls to hand down a ruling and it wasn't in favor of the owners, this entire mess would be cleared up in a week. But the judge, who has ruled but is refusing to hand down the ruling on the grounds it would influence the current CBA negotiations, is a Shark Vac bag. I'm hoping there is enough heat levied upon his ass to reverse his decision to withhold the ruling...I doubt that happens though.

Disagree. I heard that the teams can financially survive two years of no football. If they have that extra 4 billion to dip into we'll just have to wait the players out.

 

Either way, both sides need to start moving to the middle, and quit acting like freaking children. Look at what the MLB, NHL, and NBA were before and after strikes/lockouts...

[tazinib1]

If they have that extra 4 billion to dip into we'll just have to wait the players out.

 

 

 

Thats what the ruling is over.

[CowboysDiehard]

Well, if these clowns (pick your side) continue down this road, I won't have to pay any league dues or fees for the Sunday ticket. I'll spend it on green fees in the fall. Also, I'll be spared the annual "Cowboy Meltdown".

[tazinib1]

A very large contingent of NFL owners are present at the meetings. Only hours left until the CBA expires, this is a good sign coupled with the pro players union ruling yesterday.

[tazinib1]

Interesting

 

 

By LAUREN A. E. SCHUKER

 

With a possible lockout of National Football League players looming, cable and broadcast companies are girding themselves for the loss of games at a time when the NFL has become one of the most important brands on television.

 

A lockout would starve the networks of a crucial way to attract large numbers of viewers as audiences have grown fragmented. Networks also count on football to draw viewers and advertisers to their broader programming slate.

 

"It's a fluid situation but it's clear that with any lockout the networks are going to lose a lot of eyeballs," said Michael Nathanson, a media analyst for Nomura Securities.

 

The standoff between NFL owners and the league's players is especially threatening to the league's TV partners because record numbers of viewers are tuning in to watch football—and tuning out other programming. For the second year in a row, the Super Bowl smashed records to become the most-watched telecast in U.S. history. About 111 million people watched the game on Fox Broadcasting, according to Nielsen Co. (News Corp., which operates Fox, also owns The Wall Street Journal).

 

"The ad dollars captured by the NFL are not going to disappear from the ecosystem, but the eyeballs won't be replaced," Mr. Nathanson says. "No network can say, 'Sorry there's no football tonight but watch this show instead.' "

 

A lockout would jeopardize the more than $3 billion a year that advertisers spend for commercials during NFL games, according to analysts. Advertisers could move their dollars to other "marquee" programming such as college football, golf or prime-time dramas and situation-comedies, but there likely wouldn't be enough ad inventory to absorb that money, one media executive said. Some advertisers might also choose simply not to spend.

 

Most marketers won't commit to NFL advertising until April or May, when the networks usually sell commercial spots for the coming season. If the NFL still hasn't reached a deal with its players by later this spring, advertisers could delay buying for the season until later in the summer. But media executives and analysts say marketers are still likely to commit to buying spots on the NFL games. And in the case of a lockout, marketers could always try to shuffle those ad dollars elsewhere.

 

Companies including CBS Corp. say any lockout would have little immediate impact on the profitability of the NFL's broadcast and cable partners, who are estimated to pay the league about $4.2 billion in license fees this year—almost half of the total dollars spent on national sports rights. The networks haven't yet paid those fees for the coming season, although they are contractually obligated to pay the NFL around the time the games are aired. Still, because the fees are so high, most networks don't earn substantial money on showing NFL games, and some even take a loss.

 

"Ironically, sports doesn't make nearly as much as prime time, not even close," CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves told investors at a recent investor presentation. "We do make money," Mr. Moonves added, but he said that any lockout "will not have severe financial consequences for us."

 

The NFL says the contracts protect the league in case of any work stoppages, natural disasters or similar events. "Any sums paid by the broadcasters to the NFL during a work stoppage have to be paid back in full with interest according to long-term language in the contracts," said NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy.

 

In the case that a lockout cancels an entire season, the networks would continue to make the payments required by the contract but would receive credits against licensing fees in future years and, in some cases, would receive an extra season added to the contract at a discounted rate, people close to the networks said.

 

Most networks remain hopeful a work stoppage won't disrupt the coming season. "We're optimistic that everything will get resolved, said Amy Phillips, a spokeswoman for sports cable network ESPN, a Walt Disney Co. unit. ESPN currently pays the highest annual rights fee, an estimated $1.15 billion, followed by Fox and then CBS and Comcast Corp.'s NBC.

 

For certain partners, a lockout could pose more disruptive effects. DirecTV Group Inc.—which has lured subscribers since 1994 by offering exclusive television access to the NFL Sunday Ticket package, which offers access to out-of-market games—might face a loss of subscribers if the season is canceled. Any cancellation is unlikely to have a material effect on DirecTV in the short term, but analysts forecast that DirecTV could lose as much as 10% to 20% of its 2.2 million subscribers to its Sunday Ticket service in the long term. Still, that is a small fraction of DirecTV's total subscriber base of more than 19 million subscribers across the U.S.

 

While ESPN has the cushion of college football, which also draws a significant number of the male viewers that NFL advertisers covet, few networks have a fallback. "There are no contingency plans," CBS's Mr. Moonves said at a UBS investor conference in December. The NFL, he added, "is not like a prime-time show and you can say, 'OK, I'm canceling the 10 o'clock on Wednesday and I'm going to put in this.' "

 

"Obviously, we are guardedly optimistic that they will be able to make a deal," he said. "Will the bottom line be greatly affected? No, it won't be, but we really hope it doesn't happen."

[detlef]

Interesting

Which is exactly why both parties need to get something done. They need to understand their obligation to their "partner", the networks and how reluctant that "partner" may be to lay out a bunch of money if they have to then scramble to find advertisers.

 

Which means the owners need to be prepared to offer up a reasonable offer and the players need to accept it. My guess is, the players version of "reasonable" is nothing changes and the owners version is a staggering reduction in the player's cut with an additional two games to make more money. Neither of which seems to be a reasonable stance.

 

You know, it would be really cool if we knew what, exactly, was on the table. Not that we're entitled to know, but it would just be nice.

 

We know that the owners want to give the players a smaller chunk. How much smaller? I heard on the radio yesterday that they wanted to go from 59% to 42%, which seems insane. That's about a 30% reduction in pay! And if they want that, I think they'd need to show that they're on the verge of collapse. Not that a handful of franchises aren't making money, but that nobody is. Because the "handful" problem could be easily fixed, players agree to a slightly smaller cut and the owners do a better job of sharing the loot among themselves. Problem solved. Players continue to make a great living playing football and all the owners continue to make a ton of money financing the league. If either side can't be happy with that, shame on that side.

 

Also, what, exactly, are they splitting up? I've heard that the only thing that goes into the CBA is the gate, merchandise, and TV. Is that correct? Because I'd like to think that the owners have to be eking out a decent living selling $8 hot dogs, $10 beers, and $20 parking spots. Especially when you add that to the $30 million they each get off the top plus their cut of the shared revenues. You've got to think the $30 million plus whatever they make on concessions and such goes a long way to making that shared bit very close to 100% take home. Which, of course, is fine. I hope they all make a ton of money. When you offer the most popular product of it's kind (and the NFL most certainly is top dog in US pro sports), you should be making a killing.

 

Now, on one hand, it's really nobody's business how much these guys make. At least, nobody should begrudge them anything for making what they can. If you think going to an NFL game is a rip-off (and I do), you simply can choose not to go. And they're smart enough to realize they can still make money off a guy like me who feels that way, because apparently I don't mind the "cost" of putting up with all the ads the networks need to sell in order to bring it to my home.

 

On the other hand, as long as the players are being compensated as a % and, particularly as long as the owners are seeking to drastically reduce that cut, I do think the players are owed some insight into the whole financial picture. That is, if the owners do want to continue doing business with a group of men who have been recognized as the best in the world at what they do. Especially since it is public knowledge what the players make. So, in the court of public opinion, the players get the short end of this stick. We all know that Tom Brady gets paid a ton "to play a game" and that obviously effects how many see this conflict. Because nobody knows what Bob Kraft makes. So, Bob Kraft gets a free pass and is entitled to get what he can without anyone knowing what that is and Tom Brady is vilified for doing the same.

 

If, however, the owners want to say, "Screw you, I don't need to tell you what I make. For all you know, I'm making money hand over fist and I'll still pay you what I want." That's cool as well, but they'd better be willing to bottom feed for talent and hope that the public wants to buy that product.

 

So, I would guess a reasonable solution is that the players agree to take a smaller cut (but not as much smaller as the owners want to give them), and in exchange, they get more transparency and a seat at the table when the owners negotiate the next TV deal. That way, if the owners cry "poor" when this deal expires, the players can call BS. Especially in light of revelations that the owners are guilty of negotiating in bad faith and against the spirit of the deal when the cut their last deal with the Networks. Fool me once...

 

The rookie thing should be a non-issue because, provided that has no effect on the agreed % in CBA, it's a net zero sum to the players. Rookies make less, veterans make more, so it's all a wash. If that kills the deal, shame on the players.

 

The extra games thing is another story and I hope, strictly from a fan's perspective, that the owners drop it, because I don't want it. Attrition through injury is already bad enough. However, the players need to realize that, as long as they're talking about a % of the take, they're not just adding extra work for no more money (which is how it is being portrayed by many). Whatever marginal revenues are generated from it (at least from gate, merchandise, and TV), they'll get their cut. So, I don't see why they should have as much problem with it as they do. If that ultimately kills the deal, again, shame on the players.

 

That leaves the benefits package, which is certainly more tied to the total split. If the owners offer a reasonable split, then I don't see why the players can't take it upon themselves to take care of this themselves.