PDA

View Full Version : Ooops...Bump in the Road in Labor Talks



Oviedo
06-17-2011, 08:31 AM
Guess some don't want another bad deal


Sources: Resistance for owners

An internal battle is percolating at some of the highest NFL circles in which some owners are resisting the labor deal they've been trying to negotiate with the players, according to multiple sources.

A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources.

It is one of the primary reasons team officials are being prepped to stay an extra night in Chicago at Tuesday's owners meetings. It's not to potentially vote on a new collective bargaining agreement, as many suspected; it actually is to try to fend off some of the resistance that is mounting from a handful of NFL owners, according to sources.


A pushback from the owners' side has been apparent since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.


Some of this resistance has caused the NFL to adjust its schedule next week, moving up the time of Tuesday's meeting and prepping teams to potentially have to stay into Wednesday. The league is bracing for internal negotiations and lobbying that will impact how soon football could return.

The surprise is that many thought this kind of pushback to a deal would occur within the player ranks, not among NFL owners.

In reality, the resistance has been there since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote of the owners to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.

After the players decertified, owners were briefed on Goodell's offer and some felt it was too one sided for the players and not strong enough for the teams. Those teams never changed their feelings, and recently they have made this directly known to Goodell, according to a source.

Now that the two sides have begun to make some significant progress within the past week, some owners are pushing back against the deal again, according to sources.

This subplot comes at a time when the NFL and NFLPA have made considerable progress, much of it on broad-picture items. The two sides, according to a source, have agreed to an unofficial timeline as to how events such as training camp and free agency would play out if the two sides could come to an agreement on the more significant elements of the deal.

One NFL executive has been urging the league for weeks that, in order for the full preseason schedule to be played, an agreement between the NFL and NFLPA would have to occur no later than July 14.

This would give the courts time to approve the agreement, the NFLPA time to recertify, 32 teams and approximately 2,000 agents the time they would need to be debriefed on the new NFL rules, and players the time they need to get into camp and get in shape for the preseason.

There is a lot for both sides to get through. However, none of it can happen without an agreement that is closer than it has been in months but still a ways away on the most significant points -- division of revenues and jurisdiction over the next collective bargaining agreement.

Some owners clearly want football and are willing to meet the players' price. But others, remembering 2006, when a CBA that seemingly favored the players was thought to have been rushed through, want to make sure that they don't make the same mistake.

Adam Schefter is ESPN's NFL Insider.

RuthlessBurgher
06-17-2011, 09:09 AM
The biggest problem, going back to the last CBA negotiations, has always been Jerry Jones/Dan Snyder/Robert Kraft not wanting to subsidize Ralph Wilson/Mike Brown/Wayne Weaver. Looks like the rival factions among the owners are making things difficult once again. The moderate owners in the middle who are more interested in what is best for the league than their own bottom line (Art Rooney/John Mara) have to step in and work out a deal that everyone can live with.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
06-17-2011, 09:37 AM
The moderate owners in the middle who are more interested in what is best for the league than their own bottom line (Art Rooney/John Mara) have to step in and work out a deal that everyone can live with.

Maybe this is what was meant when an article came out stating that Dan Rooney could solve this lockout. Perhaps it would not just being able to craft a deal that the players would agree to, but also to allow the different classes of owners to see that the bigger picture is what they all need to put ahead of their own needs.

Oviedo
06-17-2011, 10:29 AM
The moderate owners in the middle who are more interested in what is best for the league than their own bottom line (Art Rooney/John Mara) have to step in and work out a deal that everyone can live with.

Maybe this is what was meant when an article came out stating that Dan Rooney could solve this lockout. Perhaps it would not just being able to craft a deal that the players would agree to, but also to allow the different classes of owners to see that the bigger picture is what they all need to put ahead of their own needs.

Dan isn't stepping in to this. He is going to let ART II cut his teeth on this one and solidify the Rooney influence in the league. Dan knows he isn't a long term solution and Art II has to carry this franchise into the future.

hawaiiansteel
06-24-2011, 01:07 PM
Class warfare between owners could hurt chance of ending lockout

By McClatchy Newspapers
Friday, June 24, 2011

http://files.pittsburghlive.com/photos/2011-06-24/FBNsnyder-a.jpg

ST. LOUIS As the longest work stoppage in NFL history reached the 100-day marker Thursday, there were significant signals coming out of suburban Boston that the lockout could be reaching its final days.

The reports that have leaked out of the ongoing contract talks between the owners and players are sounding as favorable as we've heard in the past few months. Instead of the angry saber rattling that characterized the early days of this lockout, the gloom and doom has been replaced with upbeat phrases like "heading in the right direction" and "very fruitful" and the all-important "close."

Sometimes, it's dangerous to characterize the progress (or lack thereof) of ongoing negotiations. But from all the most knowledgeable conversations we've heard, a real breakthrough has happened and a season that once looked like it could be at risk is showing signs of life.

The only way a deal doesn't get done now is if somebody out there simply wants to pick a fight and send this lockout into a death spiral that will surely eat up games, profits and a ton of public goodwill.

And if it does happen, if we see this lockout extended into August or September, it won't be that there's some nasty issue on the table that will create another hostile owner-vs.-player hissy fit.

If these negotiations fall apart now, it will be because of a contentious class warfare among the owners. It could be a struggle of wills and business priorities between high-revenue owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder and lower-revenue owners such as Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown.

"This owner-vs.-owner issue reared its ugly head earlier this week," Webster University associate professor Patrick Rishe said. "It's the small-market guys who are at the bottom of the league in franchise value, who could cause this thing to fall apart, and the squawking has been there for a while."

What they're probably squawking about is a particular proposal on the table that mandates that every franchise must spend nearly 100 percent of whatever the maximum annual salary cap figures might be. In the past there has been a maximum amount that a franchise could spend but never a mechanism in place to force them to spend up to that limit. Many of the lower-revenue owners historically have been less enthusiastic about spending their revenue-shared profits up to the limit of the salary cap. And much like the dispute in baseball where big-market owners were outraged when they learned the frugal ways of small-market owners, the NFL is facing the same sort of trouble among its owners.

"It's just like in baseball where ownerships like the (big-spending) Yankees and Red Sox complain that lower-revenue teams collect on revenue sharing they get from the pockets of the big-money teams but don't re-invest it on the product," said Rishe, who teaches economics at the George Herbert Walker School of Business at Webster University and writes about sports business for Forbes.com. "Remember the stories of teams like Florida and Pittsburgh in baseball were pocketing all the money that they were getting from the revenue sharing from big-market teams? Well now in the NFL you have guys like (Washington's) Daniel Snyder and (Dallas') Jerry Jones who are fed up with some of the smaller market teams not spending what they should."

So the cold hard facts are this: If this deal is going to get done over the next two weeks, it will be because commissioner Roger Goodell has played the good politician and ended the infighting between the 32 owners. Goodell's job will be making sure that he has the necessary 24 owners needed to approve a deal. But there is a legitimate concern that there might be enough disgruntled cliques of lower-revenue owners or high-revenue owners arguing with each other that whatever deal is approved at the bargaining table could be scuttled in an ownership board room.

It's Goodell's job to get his 32 owners to remember the bedrock socialism practices that old-school owners such as the late Wellington Mara once championed. The problem is there are far more contemporary owners who think more like Jones than Mara. The age of sharing the wealth in the NFL is no longer as popular anymore. Thinking of what's best for the entire league has been lost on owners who are worried about having to foot the bill on the construction of their new football palaces or shrinking attendance figures or steep debt service or figuring out how to break their leases and being the first franchise in line to escape to the limitless wealth of relocation to Los Angeles.

There are far more owners who might be eager to reject the spread-the-wealth philosophies that have been a part of the NFL's legendary successful business plan for nearly 40 years.

If we're going to have an uninterrupted NFL season, it will be because Goodell proves to be the great salesman who reminds his guys that their successful past is the key to their bountiful future.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsbu ... z1QCs7PNl8 (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_743743.html#ixzz1QCs7PNl8)

feltdizz
06-24-2011, 03:36 PM
I always knew the owners were the reason for this lockout. The revenue sharing is a big deal to Snyder and Jones...

Hopefully Ovie can answer this question. Is it bad for Jones and Snyder to break up the socialist revenue sharing since it may hurt the league in the long run? Does that go against the whole "they make the money so they make the rules" ideology?

I don't like Jones and Snyder but don't they have a point? There are some owners who aren't investing in their teams... shouldn't these guys have to turn a profit or sell their teams?

flippy
06-24-2011, 05:35 PM
What room do Snyder and Jones have to complain. You could argue they don't invest to make the NFL product better either. Look at their teams.

Granted, they may be trying, but they're not doing that great of a job.

I bet some of the teams not spending are putting out just as good a product on the field as Snyder.

BradshawsHairdresser
06-24-2011, 07:53 PM
I always knew the owners were the reason for this lockout. The revenue sharing is a big deal to Snyder and Jones...

Hopefully Ovie can answer this question. Is it bad for Jones and Snyder to break up the socialist revenue sharing since it may hurt the league in the long run? Does that go against the whole "they make the money so they make the rules" ideology?

Make no mistake, the NFL is a capitalistic enterprise. It's hard for some folks to understand--though the NFL teams are competitors on the field, from a business perspective, they are actually PARTNERS. From a business perspective, the NFL's competition is other forms of entertainment that vie for people's dollars and attention. So it is in the league's best interest to put the best product forward for the consumers. In their judgment (at least in the past), that has meant revenue-sharing and a salary cap, to insure that small-market partners have a decent chance to field a team that can compete on the playing field.


[/quote]I don't like Jones and Snyder but don't they have a point? There are some owners who aren't investing in their teams... shouldn't these guys have to turn a profit or sell their teams?[/quote]

Is it always necessarily the best investment to spend right up to the limit? Perhaps a team decides to build with younger players, and to shoot their whole wad of $$$ right now, in their judgment, would be detrimental to them in future years. I don't think they should be mandated to have to spend it all. But that's just my opinion.

There are bad owners and good owners, but overall, teams have been pretty competitive on the field. For the past 40 years the teams have been pretty competitive on the field. Would you really like to see the NFL become like MLB, where only a handful of teams ever really have a chance? I fear that that's where owners like Jones and Snyder want to take the league.

feltdizz
06-24-2011, 09:03 PM
Hmmm... I think Snyder amd Jones are frustrated with NFL owners not other forms of entertainment. Snyder and Jones haven't put the best product on the field but they put out a product that generates fan interest and money.

Can you really call Jerry Jones and Snyder failures because they aren't winning SB's? Their franchises are making insane amounts of money. I know fans like SB's but the bottom line is the most important thing to an owner.

Teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville can't fill their stadiums. That's more of an issue than SB's... these owners aren't mad at other forms of entertainment, this is about splitting up the 9 billion dollar pie.

The MLB angle is played out... I don't even see how a Steeler fan can use the argument of a few teams every year given our recent run the last 6 years. Other teams are paying big bucks for FA's and getting horrible returns. We didn't have a cap past year and look who went to the SB?

Snyder, Kraft and Jones don't want to buy SB's... that isn't possible anymore with FA. These owners just want to keep there revenue. I you look at the Pats they don't pay big bucks for players. They pay Brady and surround him with JV players.

flippy
06-24-2011, 10:36 PM
Without the other teams, they aren't making any money. They'd be the Harlem Globetrotters. Just a side show without the rest of the teams.

Even though these owners have figured out how to exploit the system better than others, doesn't mean that they'd be anything without the other 32 teams.

It's really greed here, with over inflated self worth.

Jones and Snyder and Kraft make nothing if there is no NFL. They should consider themselves fortunate. And if other owners were better businessmen, maybe these guys wouldn't make as much money if others did a better job.

BradshawsHairdresser
06-25-2011, 12:27 AM
Without the other teams, they aren't making any money. They'd be the Harlem Globetrotters. Just a side show without the rest of the teams.

Even though these owners have figured out how to exploit the system better than others, doesn't mean that they'd be anything without the other 32 teams.

It's really greed here, with over inflated self worth.

Jones and Snyder and Kraft make nothing if there is no NFL. They should consider themselves fortunate. And if other owners were better businessmen, maybe these guys wouldn't make as much money if others did a better job.

$$$
If those three owners are so unhappy, let them leave the NFL and go start another league. That option is open to them.


Hmmm... I think Snyder amd Jones are frustrated with NFL owners not other forms of entertainment. Snyder and Jones haven't put the best product on the field but they put out a product that generates fan interest and money.

Can you really call Jerry Jones and Snyder failures because they aren't winning SB's? Their franchises are making insane amounts of money. I know fans like SB's but the bottom line is the most important thing to an owner.

Teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville can't fill their stadiums. That's more of an issue than SB's... these owners aren't mad at other forms of entertainment, this is about splitting up the 9 billion dollar pie.

You don't get it. There's no 9 billion dollar pie to split unless the NFL can field a competitive product.

If Jones and Snyder suddenly found themselves owners of a team like Buffalo or Jacksonville, you can be sure they would be singing a different tune.


Snyder, Kraft and Jones don't want to buy SB's... that isn't possible anymore with FA. The only reason it isn't possible is because of the NFL's revenue sharing and salary cap rules.

feltdizz
06-25-2011, 10:52 AM
Snyder and Jones bought the teams they bought. The NFL will survive if Jacksonville and Buffalo have to move or sell to new owners.

How long should the league subsidize failing organizations?

I'm 100% sure Jones and Snyder won't be able to buy championship in this day in age. Too much talent across the board to hoard talent wth money. The draft is how you build championship teams and you have to coach up the talent once you get it.

I'm not against revenue sharing but I understand the frustration these guys have with it. As a pirate fan I've watched them pocket money while fielding horrible teams and farming out their best talent. If the Pirates didn't get the revenue sharing I'm sure they would've invest in a better product because it's the only way to fill seats and generate revenue.

RuthlessBurgher
06-25-2011, 12:47 PM
Snyder and Jones bought the teams they bought. The NFL will survive if Jacksonville and Buffalo have to move or sell to new owners.

How long should the league subsidize failing organizations?

I'm 100% sure Jones and Snyder won't be able to buy championship in this day in age. Too much talent across the board to hoard talent wth money. The draft is how you build championship teams and you have to coach up the talent once you get it.

I'm not against revenue sharing but I understand the frustration these guys have with it. As a pirate fan I've watched them pocket money while fielding horrible teams and farming out their best talent. If the Pirates didn't get the revenue sharing I'm sure they would've invest in a better product because it's the only way to fill seats and generate revenue.

Rumors have it that the new CBA will require teams to be paying out at least 93% (I believe that's what the number was...it was over 90) of the salary cap, so there will be a legit salary floor, so teams will have to spend...it's impossible for teams to pocket revenue sharing money without investing it in the on-field product.

NKySteeler
06-25-2011, 01:21 PM
Rumors have it that the new CBA will require teams to be paying out at least 93% (I believe that's what the number was...it was over 90) of the salary cap, so there will be a legit salary floor, so teams will have to spend...it's impossible for teams to pocket revenue sharing money without investing it in the on-field product.

I spent all day in the car traveling on Tuesday (when the meetings in Chicago concluded)... Sirius Satellite Radio had a fairly comprehensive covering on their NFL station of what the "rumored changes" would be...

* Apparently, the players will get 48% of the revenue, which is down from the previous CBA...

* But the "floor" of the cap that needs to be spent each season is somewhere around 91-93%, so the players will effectively have more money funneled into payroll...

* Unrestricted free agents are at 4-yrs of service instead of 6 years...

* There will be a rookie salary cap, but it hasn't been determined yet...

* Owners can reduce the amount of cap they have to pay by using stadium improvement "incentives"...

* Player contract incentives, if not met and paid, will increase the team cap in the following year, effectively putting the money back to the players instead of the owners keeping it...

* Starting in 2012, there will be a 16-game Thursday night schedule up to grabs to any network (instead of the current 8-game sched on NFLN) with the profits going to the players...

* An immediate increase to the fund started for the retired players...

* The 18-game regular season will remain on the table as a separate "negotiated" item and will not effect the new CBA, but can be implemented during the agreement if both sides agree...

* The retired players are supposedly represented by some dude that filed a lawsuit, and that guy wants to be a "3rd group" involved in the negotiations. But that will never happen.

.... There were other issues and numbers, but I don't recall them at this present moment.

RuthlessBurgher
06-25-2011, 01:30 PM
"Some dude" is Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller.

NKySteeler
06-25-2011, 01:40 PM
"Some dude" is Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller.

Yea... I just couldn't remember his name.... Sue me...

fordfixer
06-25-2011, 02:33 PM
"Some dude" is Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller.

Yea... I just couldn't remember his name.... Sue me...
They say that the memory is the second thing to go..... (I can't remember what the first thing was) :lol: :lol: :lol:

BradshawsHairdresser
06-25-2011, 02:35 PM
Snyder and Jones bought the teams they bought. The NFL will survive if Jacksonville and Buffalo have to move or sell to new owners.
Agreed. And the NFL would survive if Snyder and Jones had to sell to new owners or moved to a different league. It's bigger than just one or two teams. And Snyder and Jones should have known that going in.


How long should the league subsidize failing organizations?
None of the teams, including Washington and Dallas, would even be in existence, let alone be the "successful" organizations they are today, had they not benefited from the NFL's revenue sharing system in the past.


I'm 100% sure Jones and Snyder won't be able to buy championship in this day in age. Too much talent across the board to hoard talent wth money. The draft is how you build championship teams and you have to coach up the talent once you get it.
100% sure? Wow. That's a pretty bold statement.

Outspending everyone else may not guarantee you a championship, but it sure could help put you in contention. In contrast, teams that can't spend as much would be at a serious disadvantage. As far as building through the draft and "coaching up the talent once you get it," under the plan you favor, as soon as you start to get the talent coached up, the Snyders and the Joneses of the league would pick them off through FA. Then you would have a situation like that in MLB, where several of the teams serve as nothing more than a developmental farm system for the big spenders.

RuthlessBurgher
06-25-2011, 03:45 PM
"Some dude" is Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller.

Yea... I just couldn't remember his name.... Sue me...

I won't sue you...but perhaps Carl Eller will. He could use another lawsuit. :wink:

hawaiiansteel
06-25-2011, 07:48 PM
"Some dude" is Minnesota Vikings Hall of Fame defensive end Carl Eller.

Yea... I just couldn't remember his name.... Sue me...
They say that the memory is the second thing to go..... (I can't remember what the first thing was) :lol: :lol: :lol:

I was going to respond to your post but forgot what it was we were discussing...:D

feltdizz
06-25-2011, 08:37 PM
Hairdresser I don't favor the MLB model just entertaining the thought process of Snyder and Jones. Smaller market teams would be at a disadvantage but I think it would force them to put a netter product on the field.

Snyder and Jones can't buy up all the talent. You can't even compare the NFL to the MLB because the offense in baseball is a one man show. one swimg can change the outcome of the game.

When you look at the Pats and the Redskins you have 2 revenue big wigs... The pats dump big contracts and pick up cheap FA's and win... the Redskins overpay for FA's and lose. Every FA that goes to the Redskins leaves 2 years later becuse it's a nightmare. The Cowboys have it all and can't win... spending more money wouldn't change that IMO.

I think the revenue sharing needs to be tweeked so teams who generate the most get to keep more of their money. The NFL will survive without Jones or Snyder but these guys are subsidizing a lot of teams so it's in the best interest to find a balance.

hawaiiansteel
07-01-2011, 01:16 AM
Sources: Talks trending 'backwards'

By Chris Mortensen - ESPN
Updated: June 30, 2011


Optimism is waning after four consecutive days of negotiations between NFL owners and players and was described as trending "backwards," player sources told ESPN.

Player sources said owners have reneged on a simplified formula that would have given players 48 percent of all revenue.

Player sources reaffirmed a setback in talks occurred when owners last week went "retro" on the formula that will divide the estimated $9.3 billion in annual revenue. The players believed the two sides had reached an understanding on a simplified formula in which they would receive 48 percent of revenue, sources say owners reintroduced their previous formula by asking for $400 million to $500 million in expenses as credit off the top.

Players calculate that under the owners' proposal, it would leave them with approximately with a 45 percent take on revenue, an "unacceptable" amount that one player source said "sets us back to March 11 ... before the lockout."

A management source said the owners have not reneged on any revenue split, claiming "it's a negotiation, which is always subject to change"

A league source said the owners were more flexible Thursday afternoon on the revenue-split formula and maintained the theme "negotiations are negotiations."

Player sources contend the owners' terms changed when the two sides convened a day after owners met June 21 in Chicago. A source said the players went into Thursday's negotiating session with owners at the table, hoping to "get them back on track. They wouldn't move. It's disappointing."

Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday spearheaded a conference call Thursday afternoon with player leadership. The call was recessed so players could get back into negotiations.

The two sides ordered in a late dinner and continued to meet Thursday night for more than 13 hours.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Players Association head DeMaurice Smith were joined by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan and a handful of owners -- John Mara of the New York Giants, Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs, Jerry Jones of the Dallas Cowboys and Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots -- and players including Saturday, Brian Waters of the Chiefs and Domonique Foxworth of the Baltimore Ravens at a Minneapolis law firm for Thursday's talks.

The latest round of negotiations between the two sides -- the fifth since they began hopping from city to city for meetings -- kicked off Tuesday with Goodell, Smith, their attorneys and staffs.

This location is significant because Minneapolis is where the players have filed a still-pending federal antitrust suit against the owners. The two sides met here for six days of court-ordered mediation under Boylan in April and May.

The July 4 holiday weekend has been floated by some of the members of their respective parties as a rough target for a deal, and that time has nearly arrived.

Owners and players are seeking a deal that would divide revenues for the $9 billion business -- the biggest hurdle to clear -- and guide league activities for years to come.

Goodell and Smith took questions from rookies at an orientation in Sarasota, Fla., Wednesday, but they didn't offer specifics.

Smith invited Goodell to the orientation symposium for NFL rookies -- put on by the players' association after the NFL canceled the event -- and the pair flew to Florida on Tuesday night. After a joint breakfast Wednesday, they talked for an hour with 155 rookies before returning to Minnesota.

Smith and Goodell certainly seem closer than when the lockout began March 12 and the hope is that it leads to a new deal soon. Training camps are scheduled to open in three weeks with the Hall of Fame exhibition game on Aug. 7.

Since players don't get their regular paychecks until the regular season and revenue for the league revolves heavily around Sunday games, the financial urgency arguably hasn't arrived.

Rookies need to start learning their playbooks, though, and teams need free agency to arrange their rosters. Plus, a 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel is weighing a decision on the legality of the lockout.

Chris Mortensen is ESPN's senior NFL analyst. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6721798