PDA

View Full Version : Seven teams have had cuts



feltdizz
06-13-2011, 02:56 PM
NEW YORK -- The NFL lockout hasn't just affected players.

Seven of the NFL's 32 teams have instituted pay cuts or furloughs for other employees since the lockout began March 12, The Associated Press found in interviews conducted with each club.

The seven teams are the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, New York Jets, Kansas City Chiefs, Detroit Lions, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Arizona Cardinals. The Oakland Raiders did not slash salaries, but implemented a plan that allows employees to keep their full pay if they sell a certain number of season tickets.

In all, the number of affected employees who work for either the clubs or the league is likely more than 100.

The Green Bay Packers have a plan to hold back salaries for employees at the management level and higher, but those cutbacks would only go into effect if a game or games are missed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6656926

hawaiiansteel
06-13-2011, 03:09 PM
Owners bullying coaches, staffers with pay cuts

By Michael Silver, Yahoo! Sports
Jun 3, 2011


If you’re unclear on what provoked the NFL labor war that, on Friday, sees owners and players waging their latest battle at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, the answer is surprisingly simple: This is a money grab by the owners. The bottom line is that the folks who sign the checks are looking to improve their bottom line.

Whatever your views on whether this money grab is justified, a product of greed or somewhere in between, its existence is unassailable. The owners unanimously opted out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008, began preparing for a lockout this spring and, when the NFL Players Association balked at a late offer that would have significantly reduced their share of total revenues and decertified, followed through on the threat. Their lawyers will now try to convince the appellate court to overturn a ruling by U.S. District Court judge Susan Nelson ending the lockout.

As Bill Belichick would say, It is what it is.

Yet even those of you who sympathize with the owners in this dispute should be repulsed by a far more gratuitous money grab that’s taking place in conjunction with the lockout – the pay reductions of coaches and other team employees introduced by various franchises throughout the league.

Three adjectives come to mind to describe this practice: Senseless, shameless and gutless.

It would be one thing if this was September or October and games were actually being missed. Once significant revenues are lost, the owners will have a legitimate case for cutting costs – even at the expense of employees caught in the crossfire. Doing it over the offseason, when they’re arguably making money on the lockout – at least in the short term – is preposterous.

The first and most obvious point is that there’s no evidence such a move is necessary. Earlier this week, Sports Business Journal reported that, against all odds, NFL teams are ahead of last year’s pace for season-ticket sales. While the article noted that teams might be suffering in other areas – including sponsorships, merchandising and licensing – there’s no evidence that this has happened either.

Meanwhile, it seems reasonable to surmise that, given the absence of offseason activities for players – not to mention the indefinitely delayed start of the league year, which instigates free agency and triggers lucrative roster bonuses for numerous players – owners are benefiting from some sizable cost-cutting.

“The owners’ overhead is reduced significantly with the lockout,” said Steve Caric, a Las Vegas-based player agent. “Expenses such as player salaries, 401(k) contributions, insurance and operations costs are gone. Yet a number of teams are cutting the jobs and/or pay of their staffs and coaches prior to any games being missed. I don’t see how they can justify punishing hard-working people for a situation which they created.”

Further damning is the fact that, with the disappearance of the salary cap in the final year of the recently expired CBA, owners had every opportunity to plan for this eventuality. Some teams blatantly seemed to do just that – the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, Kansas City Chiefs and Jacksonville Jaguars reportedly spent less than $90 million in player compensation last season, for an estimated savings of more than $30 million apiece (relative to what would have been the spending minimum in a capped year). Yet Chiefs owner Clark Hunt is among those who instituted staffwide pay reductions once the lockout began in March – a move that, in his case, is particularly unconscionable.

Other owners who’ve reportedly reduced salaries and/or mandated unpaid furloughs include the Arizona Cardinals’ Bill Bidwill, the Atlanta Falcons’ Arthur Blank, the Buffalo Bills’ Ralph Wilson, the Detroit Lions’ William Clay Ford, the Miami Dolphins’ Stephen Ross and the New York Jets’ Woody Johnson.

Conversely, the group of owners who’ve done right by their employees includes the Cleveland Browns’ Randy Lerner, the Dallas Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the Oakland Raiders’ Al Davis (who has also mandated that staffers sell season-ticket plans to avoid a pay cut). Several teams (the Indianapolis Colts, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, Pittsburgh Steelers and Seattle Seahawks) have promised not to cut coaching staff pay, even if the lockout extends into the season, and the Carolina Panthers’ Jerry Richardson has commendably told employees they won’t suffer any negative financial ramifications – regardless of whether it lasts several months past September.

Last week, Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti, who’d previously cut employee pay by 25 percent during the lockout, changed his mind and refunded the money.

Unless and until those other owners get religion the way Bisciotti did, I’m going to regard them as sinners, at least in the “Thou shalt not steal” sense.

You might regard that rhetoric as over the top, but unlike the fight over cash playing out between the players and owners, I truly see this as a matter of right and wrong. Some of the pay cuts may be relatively painless, but I know of several NFL coaches who are getting dinged severely. None will discuss it publicly, for obvious reasons – casting the boss in a negative light isn’t a very smart career move. But several agents who represent coaches have confirmed that precipitous pay cuts have been in play.

“Most coaches are affected one way or the other, and a few are affected quite substantially,” said Octagon president Phil de Picciotto, whose client list includes three current NFL head coaches. “Most are seeing reductions in the 25-to-50 percent range, with some outliers on each end. In some cases, the money is recoupable if no games are missed, and in some cases the givebacks are voluntary. There are many complexities involved – including the timing of when the contract was signed – and every situation is different.”

As de Picciotto notes, most head coaches feel privileged to have one of the 32 NFL jobs and understand that this is a uniquely trying situation. As leaders and well-compensated, loyal employees, some feel a sense of obligation to make financial sacrifices – at least within reason. However, it’s not like coaches are having their workloads significantly reduced during the lockout, as a settlement or court order could hasten a sudden start to a league year for which they must be prepared.

They may be easy marks, but the fact remains that their bosses are preying upon their coaches’ vulnerabilities and using their standoff with the players as an excuse.

“The owners are doing to coaches what they would do to the players if they could,” one prominent agent said. “But these employees have no one to stick up for their collective interests, so they have no choice but to let it happen.”

What the coaches have is a faux union representing their interests, the NFL Coaches Association. Last week, the NFLCA filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of the players’ attempt to end the lockout, arguing that the lack of preparation time caused by the work stoppage was putting some coaches’ jobs in jeopardy. It did not make a stink about the lost wages the lockout has triggered thus far.

Shortly thereafter, the Washington Redskins issued a statement signed by all 17 of the team’s assistant coaches which stated: “We stand united with ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter.”

Since that time, nine other teams have issued statements claiming their coaches were unaware of the brief before it was filed.

While gauging the sincerity of such proclamations is difficult – a cynic would view those statements as the equivalent of those made by a hostage hailing the righteousness of his captors – it’s clear that the NFLCA lacks the clout to speak for its alleged membership.

The truth is probably somewhere in between the NFLCA’s version of events and that of teams like the Redskins – and the fact remains that coaches are caught in the middle of this mess. They don’t merely want the lockout to end for financial reasons; they’re also looking to begin the offseason programs they view as crucial to team-bonding and eventual success. Yet they also fear the rebuke of their bosses, who reportedly threatened to fire coaches for cause if they make any unauthorized contact with players during the lockout.

That seemed like a heavy-handed way to approach a situation not of the coaches’ making, and those heavy hands are now busy trying to snatch cash from the bank accounts of employees caught in the middle of this labor war.

I can hear Belichick sizing it up as I type: It is what it is.

Yes – and what it is, is wrong.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=m ... uts_060311 (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_nfl_owners_bully_coaches_with_pay_cuts_0603 11)

feltdizz
06-13-2011, 04:15 PM
I heard a few teams were forcing employees to recycle the toilet paper :stirpot

Oviedo
06-13-2011, 04:36 PM
NEW YORK -- The NFL lockout hasn't just affected players.

Seven of the NFL's 32 teams have instituted pay cuts or furloughs for other employees since the lockout began March 12, The Associated Press found in interviews conducted with each club.

The seven teams are the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, New York Jets, Kansas City Chiefs, Detroit Lions, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Arizona Cardinals. The Oakland Raiders did not slash salaries, but implemented a plan that allows employees to keep their full pay if they sell a certain number of season tickets.

In all, the number of affected employees who work for either the clubs or the league is likely more than 100.

The Green Bay Packers have a plan to hold back salaries for employees at the management level and higher, but those cutbacks would only go into effect if a game or games are missed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6656926

Look at the teams mentioned. Chronically poor organizations. Not unexpected.

feltdizz
06-14-2011, 09:49 AM
NEW YORK -- The NFL lockout hasn't just affected players.

Seven of the NFL's 32 teams have instituted pay cuts or furloughs for other employees since the lockout began March 12, The Associated Press found in interviews conducted with each club.

The seven teams are the Miami Dolphins, Buffalo Bills, New York Jets, Kansas City Chiefs, Detroit Lions, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Arizona Cardinals. The Oakland Raiders did not slash salaries, but implemented a plan that allows employees to keep their full pay if they sell a certain number of season tickets.

In all, the number of affected employees who work for either the clubs or the league is likely more than 100.

The Green Bay Packers have a plan to hold back salaries for employees at the management level and higher, but those cutbacks would only go into effect if a game or games are missed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6656926

Look at the teams mentioned. Chronically poor organizations. Not unexpected.

Jerry Jones, Snyder and Kraft are tired of sharing revenue with teams that can't fill the stands. These teams need to sell, move or get better management.

hawaiiansteel
06-23-2011, 01:36 PM
Mounting bills give NFL owners incentive to deal

Published June 22, 2011
Associated Press


ROSEMONT, Ill. – There are about a billion reasons to be optimistic the NFL will be open for business as usual this season.

That's how much Jerry Jones shelled out for his palace in Dallas. The Cowboys owner is hardly pinching pennies or scrounging through his jewelry box for a Super Bowl ring to pawn as the lockout stretches into a fourth month and threatens the start of training camp. But NFL owners are facing debts like they never have before, and even the hard-liners in the bunch can't ignore it's a costly battle.

If there's no football, there's no cash.

"It's a process, and you have to let the process work and keep working through it," Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay said as he and other owners left a five-hour meeting where they were briefed on a number of bargaining issues. "But I know it's better when you have labor peace on both sides."

Better when you can come to a deal on your own terms, too, rather than having it imposed on you by a judge.

The owners had always banked on winning the court battle that would allow them to extend the lockout until the players gave in. Whether that took a month or a year didn't really matter so long as the owners got the deal they wanted. A deal that would allow them to pay the bills for those sparkling new stadiums in Dallas, New York and Houston, and build even better ones in Minneapolis, San Francisco and maybe even Los Angeles. A deal that would ensure the values of their franchises, already worth an average of $1 billion, continue to skyrocket.

Then federal appeals Judge Kermit Bye uttered the words that gave the owners their biggest scare since players won the right to free agency almost 20 years ago.

"We will keep with our business," Bye told owners and players alike earlier this month, "and if that ends up with a decision, it's probably something both sides aren't going to like."

What a coincidence. After all those months of bluster and posturing, of insisting it was impossible to find agreement on an equitable split of $9 billion — something most fans could have managed over a pizza and a case of beer — there's been so much progress these last three weeks it seems the question is not if a deal gets done, but when.

Not only would owners relent on their demand for an increase in "expense credits," the money they've taken off the top of the pot to pay for conducting league business, they'd drop the credits altogether. (Explain why such credits were needed in the first place, though, when teams have been wheedling gifts out of taxpayers all these years.)

The owners also would agree to a salary "floor," preventing less-successful franchises from protecting their bottom lines by trotting out rosters of low-rent players. Not every owner has to spend like Jones or Dan Snyder, but you couldn't be the NFL's equivalent of the Pittsburgh Pirates, either.

Willingly giving up cash can't be easy for the owners. In past negotiations, the heads of the richest clubs would have fought such concessions as if it were fourth-and-goal. And they still might. Asked if there was a consensus for the proposals among the owners, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell didn't say yes.
He didn't say no, though, either.

The outlook doesn't officially get bleak until games are canceled, yet owners are getting an idea of the hit they'll take if the lockout goes on much longer. NFL employees have had their salaries trimmed by 12 percent since April, and seven teams have instituted pay cuts or furloughs. Jones and the owners of the other deep-pocket teams may be able to hold on, but for how long?

It's telling that Jones and Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, another traditional hard-liner, have been active participants in the negotiations in recent weeks. It's equally telling that Goodell and the labor committee left the meeting with the owners and headed straight to another with players association chief DeMaurice Smith on Wednesday.

"The membership has a strong view of the priorities and what we need to do, and a determination to get there," Goodell said. "Time is moving quickly for everyone to get this done."

Because time is money, and right now both are being wasted.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/06/2 ... z1Q78LAJQM (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/06/22/mounting-bills-give-nfl-owners-incentive-to-deal/#ixzz1Q78LAJQM)

feltdizz
06-23-2011, 03:01 PM
I've always thought both sides had too much to lose.. I know the owners have more money but who wants to spend their saving when there is 9 Billion out there.

hawaiiansteel
06-27-2011, 05:38 PM
Originally Published: June 24, 2011

Salary plan will help, hurt these teams

Proposed changes to cap and floor would liberate some to spend but squeeze others

By John Clayton
ESPN.com


One of the issues that helped bring the players closer to the owners in labor discussions was changing the amount of money teams must spend during a season.

In the now-expired collective bargaining agreement, teams were required to invest about 86 percent of their salary cap in cap dollars. That was called the payroll floor in the old CBA. A few teams created phony incentives that they never planned to pay just to get over the payroll floor and then pocketed the unspent money.

Hoping to get a deal, owners in the past few weeks upgraded a proposal that changed the formula. On March 11, owners were willing to set the floor at 90 percent of the salary cap in cash. Now, they are willing to make the floor close to 100 percent of the salary cap.

Thus, if the salary cap is around $120 million this year, teams would have to put close to that amount of money in cash to meet the minimum payroll requirements. Using numbers from my 2011 salary database, let's look at the teams affected the most if this system went into effect.

Overall there is more than $500 million of cap room available, and the average payroll of a team is $92 million.

Teams affected positively:

1. Washington Redskins: Owner Dan Snyder gave defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth and cornerback DeAngelo Hall around $36 million in bonus money in 2010 to free up room to be a big spender in free agency in 2011. Snyder and Mike Shanahan will have to be creative in how they structure contracts, because the $120 million cap would give them only around $10 million of cap room. On the positive side, the Redskins' current payroll is $75.7 million, meaning Snyder would have to spend close to $45 million in cash to meet the potential minimum floor requirements. Imagine a system that forces Snyder to spend.

2. Arizona Cardinals: The Cardinals are in great position to be players in free agency and the trade market. They have $37.38 million of cap room along with a current payroll of $85.76 million. They have the fourth most cap room of any team in football, giving them plenty of incentive to trade for quarterback Kevin Kolb and give him a huge long-term contract.

3. Seattle Seahawks: General manager John Schneider and coach Pete Carroll could go on a spending spree. They have $39 million of cap room and a payroll of $83 million. To meet the NFL payroll floor, the Seahawks would have to spend $37 million. They need a veteran left guard, so that leaves plenty of room to go for Raiders left guard Robert Gallery. They offered Matt Hasselbeck $7 million in a one-year deal. They could easily afford to bring him back and then make deals at other positions to upgrade their roster.

http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2011/0624/nfl_u_deAngelo_200.jpg

DeAngelo Williams is one of several Panthers the team would like to re-sign. The latest salary-cap number and proposal for a cap floor would give them plenty of room to operate.

4. Carolina Panthers: The Panthers want to re-sign defensive end Charles Johnson, linebacker Thomas Davis, running back DeAngelo Williams and cornerback Richard Marshall. They have plenty of cap room and incentive to do that. Their payroll is currently at $70.5 million, meaning that owner Jerry Richardson would have to put close to $50 million into play. But they also have $30.65 million in cap room, so they shouldn't have much trouble getting those big deals to work. The Panthers aren't expected to be big players in free agency but they will be one of the top teams in trying to re-sign their players.

5. Philadelphia Eagles: Among last year's playoff teams, the Eagles may have one of the best chances to upgrade their roster and bring in stars. They have $13 million of cap room, and their payroll is a modest $95 million. They could try to bring in defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth, wide receiver Plaxico Burress and maybe running back Reggie Bush if the price were right. They would have enough cap flexibility to even go for Nnamdi Asomugha or a top cornerback, if they like.

Teams affected negatively:

1. Cincinnati Bengals: Frugal owner Mike Brown loves having a low payroll. He has to like having a payroll of $77.2 million along with $35.9 million of cap room. Quarterback Carson Palmer is expected to sit out the season, taking $11.5 million off the books. If the Bengals cut or trade wide receiver Chad Ochocinco, they would save an additional $6.35 million. In order to get to the proposed floor, the Bengals would have to spend close to $60.65 million in free agency, re-signings and the draft. That's too big a budget for the Bengals.

2. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Management has done a great job of handling its cap and building a good, young team that won 10 games last season. With youth comes low salaries, though, and ownership would have to dole out some huge amounts of cash to comply with the possible change in the floor. The Bucs' payroll is a league-low $63.8 million. They have $52.9 million of cap room. Many of their good, young players are too young to lock into long-term contract extensions. The Bucs would be forced to dabble in the free-agent market more than they probably would like.

3. Oakland Raiders: Owner Al Davis was aggressive in re-signing eight players for contracts totaling $85.48 million. But if the cap is at $120 million, the Raiders may have issues. If new cap rules exclude some $26 million in "dead" money for players whose contracts were voided to make them free agents this year, that would help. If accounting rules include the "dead" money, the Raiders would be $14.78 million over the cap and would have to cut some players. Their payroll of $103.2 million isn't out of line, but the "dead" money issue could cause them problems if it isn't cleared up.

4. Dallas Cowboys: Owner Jerry Jones made sure his team wouldn't be ripped apart during tough labor times. He's always aggressive in re-signing his top players. But the Cowboys are currently a minimum of $18.9 million over the salary cap, which could spell doom for right tackle Marc Colombo, wide receiver Roy Williams and others. Jones also has to come up with some room to re-sign left tackle Doug Free and others.

5. New York Jets: Rex Ryan and the Jets have a lot of work to do. They want to bring back cornerback Antonio Cromartie, wide receivers Santonio Holmes, Brad Smith and Braylon Edwards and some key role players. To do that, they will have to clear out some cap room. The Jets are $1.3 million over the salary cap and have the league's highest payroll at $123.85 million. General manager Mike Tannenbaum has always worked the cap like a puzzle. He would be especially challenged by a $120 million cap.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/s ... id=6699864 (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6699864)