287 replies to this topic

[dcmissle]

Reported agreement between the sides on rookie wage scale; concessions made on both sides, including length of contracts and path to FA.

Details included here -- http://profootballta...kie-wage-scale/

[lexrageorge]

Well, at least it shows the 2 sides are willing to come to agreement on at least some issues. Sometimes picking off the easy ones first is a good way to build up some goodwill between the 2 sides.

I like the compromise, at least as reported. Fixes the anomaly of players who haven't played a single down getting $50M of guaranteed money, and teams refusing to trade into the top draft slots for fear of being stuck with a lead anchor; I still can't understand why some folks didn't see that as a problem.

[RedOctober3829]

Union will not consider an 18-game schedule. Looks like a lockout is coming if you ask me.

Link

[dcmissle]

Union will not consider an 18-game schedule. Looks like a lockout is coming if you ask me.

Link

The most disturbing aspect of this is Smith going public with it, even if it's just a negotiating position, which it almost certainly is. They really need to STFU outsde of the negotiating rooms.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

The most disturbing aspect of this is Smith going public with it, even if it's just a negotiating position, which it almost certainly is. They really need to STFU outsde of the negotiating rooms.

Or maybe the union feels like it has the leverage at this juncture.

Union files motion to unseal records relating to TV contracts.

If the owners don't get the TV revenue as "lockout insurance," can they really withstand a work stoppage? Maybe they can cut down their salary costs but they still have debt service and various bills to pay.

[wutang112878]

The most disturbing aspect of this is Smith going public with it, even if it's just a negotiating position, which it almost certainly is. They really need to STFU outsde of the negotiating rooms.

It sucks, but I have a feeling the owners just arent bending at all, and Smith is simply trying to get them to a bit. Considering how much they are asking for the players, and the fact he didnt make any personal attacks I dont have much of a problem with this.

[Dehere]

Or maybe the union feels like it has the leverage at this juncture.

That's my read as well. The Doty ruling has changed everything. I feel like the players have really got the owners on the ropes.

Whether you agree with it as a PR strategy or not (I don't) the fact that De Smith is willing to say on the record that they won't consider an 18 game schedule tells you a lot about how confident he's feeling.

If the TV money goes into escrow, it's over. That's 40-50% of each team's revenue, plus possible damages. Add to that the possibility of being hauled into court and forced to reveal all your financials and the owners are playing a horrible hand.

My opinion is that a deal will get done without any games being missed and that deal is going to be a massacre in favor of the NFLPA. If it does play out that way ownership will be getting exactly what they deserve. The lockout insurance strategy was plainly unethical and in the view of at least one federal judge illegal as well. They deserve to get their heads handed to them in this negotiation.

[dcmissle]

Or maybe the union feels like it has the leverage at this juncture.

Union files motion to unseal records relating to TV contracts.

If the owners don't get the TV revenue as "lockout insurance," can they really withstand a work stoppage? Maybe they can cut down their salary costs but they still have debt service and various bills to pay.

If the union does, it's particularly misguided. Do your talking inside the room. Use your big stick, but don't rub the other side's nose in it. Don't piss the owners off, back them into a corner and, in the process, empower guys like Richardson.

[loshjott]

This is why: 27 percent favor expanded season Even among self-described NFL fans, support for the extended season is only 45%, according to the poll cited in the linked article.

Smith is going public with a hard stance on an issue that fans either don't care about or actively oppose.

[BigJimEd]

This is why: 27 percent favor expanded season Even among self-described NFL fans, support for the extended season is only 45%, according to the poll cited in the linked article.

Smith is going public with a hard stance on an issue that fans either don't care about or actively oppose.

Plus the fact that the owners never even formally proposed it. Sounds to me like the owners weren't completely in support of it. At least not to the point that they felt the need to push it.

I've seen a couple reports that the owners could still financially withstand losing a season even without the TV money.

The fact that both sides are speaking publicity doesn't seem like a good sign.

[JimD]

What's going to push the league into a lockout is the owners continued unwillingness to open their books to the union and their financial consultants. The fact that they are still playing games with this says to me that they've got lots to hide. If there was nothing to be embarrassed about, then it shouldn't be a big issue to redact any references to individual teams (Team A, Team B, etc.), then get the PA and their consultants to agree to a strict nondisclosure agreement with significant financial penalties if they violate it.

Edited by JimD, 10 March 2011 - 12:36 PM.

[E5 Yaz]

This is why: 27 percent favor expanded season Even among self-described NFL fans, support for the extended season is only 45%, according to the poll cited in the linked article.

Smith is going public with a hard stance on an issue that fans either don't care about or actively oppose.

Fan opinion doesn't mean a thing to the NFL owners on this issue. They reason, quite rightly, that after the initial reluctance, fans will come to acceot an 18-game season as the norm.

[xjack]

There's an easy solution (I think) to the battle over the 18-game schedule. Instead of adding two games, add one game plus an additional bye week. That way, NFL would still be able to add two weeks to the regular season TV schedule (it's not as if the NFL has any trouble convincing folks to watch out-of-market games). Plus, you'd give the players extra time to recover from injuries particularly late in the season.

[EL Jeffe]

There's an easy solution (I think) to the battle over the 18-game schedule. Instead of adding two games, add one game plus an additional bye week. That way, NFL would still be able to add two weeks to the regular season TV schedule (it's not as if the NFL has any trouble convincing folks to watch out-of-market games). Plus, you'd give the players extra time to recover from injuries particularly late in the season.

Then you'd have an odd number of games. Some teams would have 8 home games and others with 9. I don't think that's what the league or owners are looking for.

[simplyeric]

Then you'd have an odd number of games. Some teams would have 8 home games and others with 9. I don't think that's what the league or owners are looking for.

Each team could play one game in a "neutral" foreign city:

London
Mexico City
Los Angeles
Guam
Tokyo
Cairo

no games in Rio de Janiero though... it's too dangerous.

[xjack]

Then you'd have an odd number of games. Some teams would have 8 home games and others with 9. I don't think that's what the league or owners are looking for.

Would it really make that much of a difference? You'd just alternate which year you have 8 home games and which year you have 9. Over time it would all balance out financially for the owners in terms of the box office. More importantly it would still add two weeks to the TV schedule without actually adding two games, thereby pushing the NFL into the all-important TV sweeps week.

[TheGazelle]

What's going to push the league into a lockout is the owners continued unwillingness to open their books to the union and their financial consultants. The fact that they are still playing games with this says to me that they've got lots to hide. If there was nothing to be embarrassed about, then it shouldn't be a big issue to redact any references to individual teams (Team A, Team B, etc.), then get the PA and their consultants to agree to a strict nondisclosure agreement with significant financial penalties if they violate it.

I agree with this. It strikes me as absurdist that the NFL can claim poverty while simultaneously refuse to present evidence of financial distress. Even if the NFL is being truthful about their financial state (and I can't think they are, given the astronomoical amount of money that is generated), no one is going to believe the owners unless they present some hard evidence to NFLPA.

[axx]

I agree with this. It strikes me as absurdist that the NFL can claim poverty while simultaneously refuse to present evidence of financial distress. Even if the NFL is being truthful about their financial state (and I can't think they are, given the astronomoical amount of money that is generated), no one is going to believe the owners unless they present some hard evidence to NFLPA.

Since this is headed to a lawsuit, you don't want to give them anything more than necessary, no? Plus leaking is all the rage these days, it would get leaked one way or another.

The teams get a lot of money, but they spend a lot too. Remember this is a league that has the highest payrolls in all of sports save the Yankees yet plays a fraction of the games that the other sports play. If you sell out every game there's not much room for revenue improvement, esp in a bad economy. If the attendance drops, you are screwed.

Take Green Bay. We know about their financial results. Their profits have dropped the last three fiscal years while player costs increased. And you can't say the profit drop is because they aren't winning either (heh).

Bad Economy, Bad Economy, Bad Economy!

[xjack]

I suspect there are a lot of owners hurting but that it has nothing to do with any lack of operating earnings. A lot of these owners bought their teams with borrowed money, and they're now struggling with the debt service. But it's not the players fault if owners overpaid.

[wibi]

Since this is headed to a lawsuit, you don't want to give them anything more than necessary, no? Plus leaking is all the rage these days, it would get leaked one way or another.

The teams get a lot of money, but they spend a lot too. Remember this is a league that has the highest payrolls in all of sports save the Yankees yet plays a fraction of the games that the other sports play. If you sell out every game there's not much room for revenue improvement, esp in a bad economy. If the attendance drops, you are screwed.

Take Green Bay. We know about their financial results. Their profits have dropped the last three fiscal years while player costs increased. And you can't say the profit drop is because they aren't winning either (heh).

Bad Economy, Bad Economy, Bad Economy!

So your argument is that the owners shouldnt open the books which would prove their financial concerns because they are going to be sued where the basis of the suit is the profitability of the NFL? This doesnt pass the common sense test as far as I can tell, unless ...

I suspect there are a lot of owners hurting but that it has nothing to do with any lack of operating earnings. A lot of these owners bought their teams with borrowed money, and they're now struggling with the debt service. But it's not the players fault if owners overpaid.

And we have a bingo ... The owners are hurting but not because they arent being profitable but because their ability to finance large purchases have dried up.

The owners dont want to open the books to an audit because if they do it will come out that they made some bad business deals to build the new stadiums and now they need help getting out of it. But as has been posted up thread the only one who really makes more on a new stadium is the owners; everyone else gains almost no benefit from a new stadium.

This one is going to the courts and it will not be pretty for the owners when the books get opened up. The only difference is if the books get opened in a court setting its possible that no one outside of the legal teams would ever see it...

[Rough Carrigan]

So your argument is that the owners shouldnt open the books which would prove their financial concerns because they are going to be sued where the basis of the suit is the profitability of the NFL? This doesnt pass the common sense test as far as I can tell, unless ...



And we have a bingo ... The owners are hurting but not because they arent being profitable but because their ability to finance large purchases have dried up.

The owners dont want to open the books to an audit because if they do it will come out that they made some bad business deals to build the new stadiums and now they need help getting out of it. But as has been posted up thread the only one who really makes more on a new stadium is the owners; everyone else gains almost no benefit from a new stadium.

This one is going to the courts and it will not be pretty for the owners when the books get opened up. The only difference is if the books get opened in a court setting its possible that no one outside of the legal teams would ever see it...

You might also find that one or more of an owner's other businesses have gone to shit and he's using his NFL team to keep that afloat. If he can just get several million dollars more a year, taken from those stupid players, he can keep that other business going till this damn recession fades and he can get everything back above water.

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

not looking good for the home team.

I always thought the question was how many games the NFL is going to lose, not whether it was going to happen.

[86spike]

Open your books you crooked old men!

[jose melendez]

According to that piece they are willing to have independent auditors open their books. If that is true, which would stun me, then the owners might not be completely full of shit.

[CrouchingTonyHiddenPena]

According to that piece they are willing to have independent auditors open their books. If that is true, which would stun me, then the owners might not be completely full of shit.

This surprises me as well. It's at least going half way on the biggest sticking point feeding the bad will between the two sides; and the NFLPA won't agree to it? Or at least work with it and compromise a bit on their stance somehow?

[JimD]

This surprises me as well. It's at least going half way on the biggest sticking point feeding the bad will between the two sides; and the NFLPA won't agree to it? Or at least work with it and compromise a bit on their stance somehow?

The problem is, the owners have dragged this out for two years and stonewalled the PA at every turn. De Smith and the players have zero reason to trust Goodell and the owners right now. I also suspect that Smith and company know they have leverage here and are likely willing to push this issue knowing that some owners might get desperate if this information is about to become public.

[Spacemans Bong]

You might also find that one or more of an owner's other businesses have gone to shit and he's using his NFL team to keep that afloat. If he can just get several million dollars more a year, taken from those stupid players, he can keep that other business going till this damn recession fades and he can get everything back above water.

The Glazers are certainly doing that with Man U and probably the Bucs too. Their shopping mall business is dead in the water.

[dcmissle]

The problem is, the owners have dragged this out for two years and stonewalled the PA at every turn. De Smith and the players have zero reason to trust Goodell and the owners right now. I also suspect that Smith and company know they have leverage here and are likely willing to push this issue knowing that some owners might get desperate if this information is about to become public.

This is correct. The owners are slow walking this to limit the hits they will take in Judge Doty's courtroom. They would desperately like to be in September when the players begin losing game checks. Even with Doty's ruling on the TV contracts, Standard & Poors estimates the owners can survive a year. The owners figure that's about 9 months longer than the players.

I doubt there will be any further extensions. The last week has been useful to De Smith because it has given the players a front row seat to observe who they are up against.

[86spike]

So with 99% of all news coverage today focused on Japan... do you think the League/NFLPA decide to hold off on announcing a decertification/lockout so as not to seem blatantly callous to what's happening in the world or do they take the opportunity to slip the story under the radar and bury it beneath footage of the devastation?

[dcmissle]

So with 99% of all news coverage today focused on Japan... do you think the League/NFLPA decide to hold off on announcing a decertification/lockout so as not to seem blatantly callous to what's happening in the world or do they take the opportunity to slip the story under the radar and bury it beneath footage of the devastation?

Perhaps. One day at most. And they may dial back on the woofing a bit.

On the light side -- watch this Broncos scout wannabee get knocked on his ass by a player during a workout, and especially watch everyone else enjoy it. I guess they have not cleared all of the asshats out of the building in Denver.

http://profootballta...ro-day-workout/

Edited by dcmissle, 11 March 2011 - 11:21 AM.

[TheGazelle]

Since this is headed to a lawsuit, you don't want to give them anything more than necessary, no? Plus leaking is all the rage these days, it would get leaked one way or another.

The teams get a lot of money, but they spend a lot too. Remember this is a league that has the highest payrolls in all of sports save the Yankees yet plays a fraction of the games that the other sports play. If you sell out every game there's not much room for revenue improvement, esp in a bad economy. If the attendance drops, you are screwed.

Take Green Bay. We know about their financial results. Their profits have dropped the last three fiscal years while player costs increased. And you can't say the profit drop is because they aren't winning either (heh).

Bad Economy, Bad Economy, Bad Economy!

If there's a lawsuit, the PA would get fight tooth and nail to get it during discovery, and they would probably win. The second part of your argument (re: leaking and Green Bay) doesn't strike me as persuasive. First, I don't agree with a blanket assertion that this stuff will get leaked. Second, if Green Bay's records are actually representative of the NFL as a whole, wouldn't the owners want that sort of info out there (or at least in front of the NFLAPA)? The fact that we only know about GB indicates, to me, that the owners are either (a) awash in cash or (b) as others have pointed out, screwed simply because they're over-leveraged.

[Alternate34]

If the owners are overleveraged, wouldn't that be an argument in their favor? Here they are using the immense capital of the league to obtain financing for improving their stadiums and ultimately trying to increase revenue from all areas and they got stuck because of a financial collapse. Asking for concessions from the players because of that would make sense.

[Shelterdog]

If the owners are overleveraged, wouldn't that be an argument in their favor? Here they are using the immense capital of the league to obtain financing for improving their stadiums and ultimately trying to increase revenue from all areas and they got stuck because of a financial collapse. Asking for concessions from the players because of that would make sense.

Agreed.

I think it's more likey that some owners (a) like having their finances private, (b) are at risk of being embarrassed by all kinds of funky expenses (some owner's mistress getting paid $500k a year for "floral aggrangements", owners' kids having huge entertainment budgets, stuff like that) and © some owners might face real tax issues if the audited financials are very different from what the filed tax returns say.

[xjack]

If the owners are overleveraged, wouldn't that be an argument in their favor? Here they are using the immense capital of the league to obtain financing for improving their stadiums and ultimately trying to increase revenue from all areas and they got stuck because of a financial collapse. Asking for concessions from the players because of that would make sense.

Based on your logic, it would make just as much sense for the players to ask owners to sell their teams and/or stadiums at a substantial loss, thereby reducing the debt service for the new owners.

[dcmissle]

FWIW --

As the NFLPA and the NFL continue to meet in Washington during what could be the last day of mediation before Litigeddon, Peter King of Sports Illustrated reports that, during a Thursday conference call with owners, Commissioner Roger Goodell received “the freedom to move drastically, if need be,” to get a deal done with the players.

[Rough Carrigan]

Watch, they'll reach a deal and the overriding narrative will be that the players won but the owners will have gotten more money.

[Shelterdog]

FWIW --

It's worth very little. I mean it could be that the owners are having second thoughts and are changing their positions at the last second, but it's far more likely that they're playing Peter King to show how flexible they are and how much the owners want to make a deal.

[Shelterdog]

Watch, they'll reach a deal and the overriding narrative will be that the players won but the owners will have gotten more money.

They'll disguise it better than that. I predict that the salary cap will jump way up for 2011 and 2012 and then essentially lock into some set rate for years, but the formula will be more obscure than QB ratings.

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

Agreed.

I think it's more likey that some owners (a) like having their finances private, (b) are at risk of being embarrassed by all kinds of funky expenses (some owner's mistress getting paid $500k a year for "floral aggrangements", owners' kids having huge entertainment budgets, stuff like that) and © some owners might face real tax issues if the audited financials are very different from what the filed tax returns say.

All of these seem plausible. I imagine the other problem is that opening up the books might reveal this kind of scenario: 10-12 teams making money hand over fist, another 15 teams making a decent profit and certainly in no danger of losing money, and 4-5 teams struggling to break even. If that's the reality, then the NFLPA is likely to respond that the problem is clearly due to inadequate revenue sharing between owners, not the overall slice of the pie going to players. And they'd be right to take that position.

[Alternate34]

Based on your logic, it would make just as much sense for the players to ask owners to sell their teams and/or stadiums at a substantial loss, thereby reducing the debt service for the new owners.

Why?

[dcmissle]

Watch, they'll reach a deal and the overriding narrative will be that the players won but the owners will have gotten more money.

Winning while appearing to lose.

If a deal emerges today or, more likely, and agreed upon term sheet that results in a deal next week, my guess is that it would have the following elements --

1. Another $300 MM to the owners;

2. A rookie wage scale;

3. Continued study of, but no implementation, of the 18-game schedule.

The narrative would be that the owners substantially caved. But the facts are that the League has more than held its own in very troubled financial times and this would still represent almost another $10 MM per team every year.

Edited by dcmissle, 11 March 2011 - 02:02 PM.

[mascho]

This does not sound good.

AdamSchefter

We'll see if anything changes, it always could, but De Smith told players during his conference call the plan is to decertify.

[E5 Yaz]

Darren Rovell

No reporter has any clue about what is happening in the labor negotiations now. That's a good sign.

[mascho]

I'm just a few blocks away from the FMCS offices. I should just skip out of the office and do some live SoSH reporting from the scene.

[xjack]

Why?

There are two ways to fix the problem you described. 1) Players could be forced to take a loss, which would reduce the financial pressure on owners. 2) Owners could be forced to sell their teams or stadiums at a loss, which would reduce the debt service and thus the financial pressure on the new owners.

Imagine that the NFL were an over-leveraged apartment building. A new owner who bought the building on the cheap out of bankruptcy can operate the building at a much higher profit level than the old owner who overpaid for the building and couldn't afford his mortgage.

I'm sure that the financial data the players want and aren't getting from owners involves breaking out owners' debt service from teams' operating revenues and operating costs. I know much was made of the fact that the Green Bay Packers' profits declined last year, according to SEC filings. However, the mere fact that the Packers show any profits given their home market makes it hard for me to believe that any of the other teams have negative operating earnings.

Edited by xjack, 11 March 2011 - 03:49 PM.

[Rusty13]

RochieWBZ: NFL Network reporting NFLPA has decided to dissolve.... #nfl #wbztv #wbz #patriots (7 minutes ago from web)

Then....

RochieWBZ: Now NFL Network reporting NFLPA has paused...and not going to decetify just yet. Wow! #wbztv #wbz (4 minutes ago from web)

[dcmissle]

Silver -- Teams offered to "split the difference"; union didn't counter and is heading to court.

http://profootballta...eaded-to-court/


The last difference I heard was $700 million. I will assume, but obviously don't know, that they split the difference down to $700 million. Which means the League wants to grab back a half billion dollars without opening its books.

Only a fool would accept such an offer.

[JBill]

Schefter:

Owners and NFLPA meeting now -- the last gasp to try to make something happen.

[Mystic Merlin]

Get ready for the cold war.

[Shelterdog]

A bunch of commentators are saying that under the NFLPA's strategy (decertify and file an anti-trust suit) football gets played next year. How would that work? They win an injunction ending the lockout and the court determines how free agency, the draft, off-season practices are managed until there's a final resolution of the case.