Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=over the mountain;789439]im pretty sure the NFLPA wants to see the audited fin docs. Audited meaning that an accounting firm has reviewed their statements and accounting practices and certifies that it is GAAP compliant, generally accepted accounting principles.

If teams were to provide their own docs w/out a 3rd party oversight, they could claim future losses in this fiscal year to make their expenses seem higher, accelerate interest incurring, defer recognition of rev to next year, etc.[/quote]

Yeah, they could also "randomize" the data somehow, so as to hide the identity of any team. Of course, some teams would probably be obvious (i.e.: Cowboys).

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx]Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789635][url=http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx]Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal[/url][/quote]

Unlike much of the ink being spilled about the standoff, that is a helpful article.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789635][url=http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx]Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal[/url][/quote]

Not sure I grasp the owners position on this. If the cap stays tied to revenue then it can go up, or DOWN based on growth or contraction of said revenues. How were the players offering no "downside" protection? Did their proposal include provisions for the cap to increase in spite of any theoretical revenue contraction? If not then I call BS on the owners for that.

I hadn't known this was part of the propoal until now. I would have said "hell to the no" on that too if I were the players.

What makes me perplex3e is that the players should be able to easily win this battle from a PR standpoint but they frittered away a lot of good will by appearing to only be interested in litigating this. They need to reverse course on that and get back into the negotiating room where they easily get the cap retied to revenue and settle the now managebale cost credit issue.

If the owners aren't willing to settle for just an increase to the cost credit, rookie wage scale, shared purvue over scheduling, and minor concessions on free agency and organizational things then go to court. But I bet they'd be willing to take all of that.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Andrew Brandt's latest column breaks down the owners legal paper for the April 6th hearing:

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Prelude-to-April-6-primer-on-NFLs-brief.html]Prelude to April 6: primer on NFL's brief | National Football Post[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://sportsradiointerviews.com/2011/03/24/nfl-labor-dispute-chris-cooley/]Sports Radio Interviews » Blog Archive » Chris Cooley Doesn’t Care About the NFL Lockout[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Chris Cooley - Happy fun loving American guy, gotta love him!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I think they should do away with preseason completely. Im all for 18 Game regular season.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SmootSmack;789635][URL="http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Special-Content/Revenue-Share.aspx"]Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal[/URL][/quote]

No wonder I'm not an accountant... I must be an idiot cause when I read this...
[QUOTE]“They were trying to make salary a fixed cost and, in the past, it had been a percentage of revenues,” said Pete Kendall, a former NFL player who is advising the NFL Players Association and was present at the majority of bargaining sessions held over the past two years.[B] “In the past, if revenues went up, the salaries went up.”[/[/B]QUOTE]

I then wonder who's salaries went up? The current players on the field negotiate their contracts for what they will make each year. Their salaries only go up and down based off of their agreement of what the player is to make each year. It's not like a player would have made $400,000 and because the owners took in an extra 4 mill for the year all the players get a % increase.

So.... I'm assuming the only people who would be concerned about revenue would be retired players? because their retirement is based off of what the yearly take is? yes or no?

Again, I maybe the idiot in wondering how the revenue actually effects each individual player since their contracts are already set with the amount they will receive for each year over the life of the contract.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=44ever;790529]I think they should do away with preseason completely. Im all for 18 Game regular season.[/quote]


2 preseason games and 16 regular season games. I'm 100% against a 18 game schedule. The sport doesn't need to be that much harder on players longevity.

There is enough football on as is. Between college and pro, 16 pro games is fine.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;790532]2 preseason games and 16 regular season games. I'm 100% against a 18 game schedule. The sport doesn't need to be that much harder on players longevity.

There is enough football on as is. Between college and pro, 16 pro games is fine.[/quote]

I'm just as big of an NFL fan as any and I agree with you on this.. NO need for 18 games

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

46 games a season. Then 4 weeks of playoffs. Then two weeks vacation. Now there's a football year!

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=FRPLG;789637]Not sure I grasp the owners position on this. If the cap stays tied to revenue then it can go up, or DOWN based on growth or contraction of said revenues. How were the players offering no "downside" protection? Did their proposal include provisions for the cap to increase in spite of any theoretical revenue contraction? If not then I call BS on the owners for that.

I hadn't known this was part of the propoal until now. I would have said "hell to the no" on that too if I were the players.

What makes me perplex3e is that the players should be able to easily win this battle from a PR standpoint but they frittered away a lot of good will by appearing to only be interested in litigating this. They need to reverse course on that and get back into the negotiating room where they easily get the cap retied to revenue and settle the now managebale cost credit issue.

[B]If the owners aren't willing to settle for just an increase to the cost credit, rookie wage scale, shared purvue over scheduling, and minor concessions on free agency and organizational things then go to court.[/B] But I bet they'd be willing to take all of that.[/quote]

The last I heard the owners want it to go to court. I think they think they have a decent arguement in regards to the NFLPA decertifying 8 hrs prior to the deadline because the Players are using the system to their advantage which might not be legal...

[URL="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/21/league-makes-three-main-arguments-against-lifting-the-lockout/"]League makes three main arguments against lifting the lockout | ProFootballTalk[/URL]

[quote]
Second, the league claims that the decertification of the union is not valid, and that the court in Minnesota should defer to the National Labor Relations Board, which is considering whether the union shut down in an effort to simply gain a tactical bargaining advantage.
As to whether the union legitimately shut down, the league’s brief cites comments from men like Kevin Mawae, DeMeco Ryans, Derrick Mason, Vonnie Holliday, Jeff Saturday, and Mike Vrabel. For example, the league points to the following September 2010 quote from Mawae as proof that the decertification is merely a tactic for gaining leverage: “[T]he idea of decertification, the tactic and the strategy worked back in 1989. . . . [T]he whole purpose [of disclaimer] is to have that ace in our sleeve. . . . And at the end of the day, guys understand the strategy, it’s been a part of the union strategy since I’ve been in the league. . . .” The league also notes that Vonnie Holliday, the Washington Football Club’s player rep, said [I]after[/I] decertification of the union, “We want a fair CBA.” Likewise, the league points out that Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel said a week after decertification that “[o]ur Executive Commitee needs to negotiate with . . . their Executive Committee.”[/quote]

[B]EDIT: [/B]Here is another piece of the puzzle.
[quote]
The NFL also claims that the players aren’t likely to win the case because they failed to wait for the CBA to expire before shutting down the union. As the league explains it, the players opted to decertify before the CBA expired in order to file the antitrust lawsuit before the CBA expired. If the players had waited to decertify until after the CBA expired, the players would have had to wait six months to file the antitrust lawsuit, given a separate portion of the CBA.
The league calls the six-month waiting period an “obvious quid pro quo” for the league’s agreement not to argue that decertification was a sham. In other words, the league claims that it agreed to allow decertification of the union plus an antitrust lawsuit, only if the antitrust lawsuit is filed at least six months after the CBA has expired.[/quote]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=44ever;790529]I think they should do away with preseason completely. Im all for 18 Game regular season.[/quote]

I totally agree with you. But... the evaluation of players would have to come from some sort of actual play so do they have scrimmages? Perhaps non hitting scrimmages.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=NC_Skins;790532]2 preseason games and 16 regular season games. I'm 100% against a 18 game schedule. The sport doesn't need to be that much harder on players longevity.

There is enough football on as is. Between college and pro, 16 pro games is fine.[/quote]

and my arguement would be then allow the teams to have 10 or 20 more players on each team. That way they can carry more players in order to give more breaks during game play.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Lotus;790535]46 games a season. Then 4 weeks of playoffs. Then two weeks vacation. Now there's a football year![/quote]

:food-smil

Give the players what they want.... let them see the books, under the condition they agree to play a full year with 2 weeks of vacation time. lol.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;790538]and my arguement would be then allow the teams to have 10 or 20 more players on each team. That way they can carry more players in order to give more breaks during game play.[/quote]

Which will drive player costs up even more so that the owners can complain yet again they are making 100 million a year as opposed to 150 million.

Good luck with that one.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

10-20 extra players ain't happening

5-7 extra at the most

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Ok, so I kinda had an "Aha" moment when I woke up.

On one side you have the owners who are claiming there is a loss in revenue partly due to the bad economy. I'm sure the owners are probably somewhat correct because fans don't have the money to purchase the expensive jerseys or purchase the expensive season passes. In some cases fans are turning in their season passes because they can't afford them anymore. I know the Redskins are somewhat in a different catagory due to the fact there has always been a waiting list and as soon as one fan turns in his passes another steps up to take his place, but there are other cities that I'm sure are not as well off as Washington. We fans have a tendency to look at what is around us or what we know. The Skins are close to us and they are one of the most profitable teams in the league so if we use them as an example we are blind to the worst markets out there.

So the owners want to take 1 bill off the top of the 9 bill the league makes to use towards revenue sharing, to help out the worst markets as well as using the money towards their stadiums.

The players know that getting a % of 8 bill is far less then getting a % of 9 bill. So they are requesting the owners show their books and if the owners can prove that there are teams struggling they will consider the 1 bill being taken off the top. Problem is they know the NFL is a money making machine between T.V. deals, commercials, advertising, seat cost for fans, and paraphernalia the NFL is getting more money every year. Honestly I'm still not quite sure how a % of 4 bill or a % of 4.5 bill effects the players who have signed contracts with set amounts of salary for each year but perhaps I'm just not the brightest crayon in the box. My understanding is the 4 bill or 4.5 bill goes towards a retirement fund for the retired players. I honestly don't know what else it goes towards. I thought at one point the players health insurance but I keep hearing about the owners have to pay for that up to a year after they are not playing.

Both sides I guess are making good arguements. Even we fans can't agree on which side is right or wrong and some of us are having a hard time deciding which side to lean towards. But in the grand scheme of things what about the fans? We've watched player salaries go up and up, we've watched ticket prices go up and up to off set the player salaries, new stadium costs, costs to upgrade the old stadiums and so forth. So I guess my question to the owners is "IF" you were to be given the 1 bill for revenue sharing would you agree to lower ticket prices by 5% and keep the price the same for the next 10 yrs? They already would have their money for the bad market teams and money to fix up their stadiums. Thats what they want the 1 bill for. Then it's all a matter of player salaries, coach's salaries, and extra personel such as secretaries and the like. So if the owners are not throwing $100 mill dollar contracts at players and doing their best to keep player salaries down then ticket prices should reflect that as well since the ticket prices went up to reflect players salaries.

To me if the owners are taking 1 bill off the top for their revenue sharing/stadiums and they are putting a Rookie salary in place, then amount saved from the Rookie salaries can off set the Vet salaries which enables ticket prices to either be lowered or stay the same for the next several years. If at all possible (which I know would not happen) lowering the ticket sales might enable the fans to keep their season passes and might enable more fans to purchase tickets to games who don't have season passes. What with people facing hard time and possible foreclosures on their homes I'm sure less fans are paying for or keeping their season passes which makes it harder for the owner to know in advance how many people will be at a game and how much money he has on average to spend.

Sorry for the long ramble. Just thought it would be interesting if the fans some how could get involved, hired an attorney to represent them and put pressure on both sides in regards to ticket prices.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

SBXVII: you seem hung up on how a new CBA would impact current contracts, it wouldn't. But there are a ton of potential free agents sitting out there right now, and guys who will be impacted by a new CBA in the very near future.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

I don't know that it will happen, but I think that if this goes in a protracted lockout (meaning games lost) an enterprising lawyers group may try to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of fans and/or municipalities. The owners have created an expectation of service based on the public funding of stadiums that has never really been tested or denied, but if games are lost then perhaps the fans could constitute a class in the legal sense. If that happened, it would alter the very foundation of the way that sports is viewed. With NBA also facing a possible CBA issue, it could cause unintended consequences that neither leagues nor players saw.

Or we could just forget about it and drive on...

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[url=http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/25/fan-sues-browns-league-over-lockout/]Fan sues Browns, league over lockout | ProFootballTalk[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;790632]SBXVII: [B]you seem hung up on how a new CBA would impact current contracts[/B], it wouldn't. But there are a ton of potential free agents sitting out there right now, and guys who will be impacted by a new CBA in the very near future.[/quote]

Definitly I am. Which I think you have provided the best example as to why I'm boggled about this whole thing.

But even if it effects future contracts I'm slightly boggled. Because I just don't see the owners looking at FA's and saying "Gee, I really would only like to pay the player 1 mill a year but because I have to meet my % of money going to the players I'll go ahead and pay him 2 mill. I'm sure it's probably similar to that though. Owners don't meet their 50% of their revenue going to the players then they could be fined or a law suit filed. I'm sure looking at the books would keep the owners in check. Maybe an independent 3rd party needs to have their salary paid by both the NFL and the NFLPA to look at the books, look at what each team is paying it's players to make sure the % is being met and to look at each teams claim of loss revenue and how much revenue. Then if an owner is claiming he needs to move to a more lucrative market the league can go to the 3rd party and ask if he's telling the truth with out giving out specific numbers.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;790636]I don't know that it will happen, but I think that if this goes in a protracted lockout (meaning games lost) an enterprising lawyers group may try to start a class action lawsuit on behalf of fans and/or municipalities. The owners have created an expectation of service based on the public funding of stadiums that has never really been tested or denied, but if games are lost then perhaps the fans could constitute a class in the legal sense. If that happened, it would alter the very foundation of the way that sports is viewed. With NBA also facing a possible CBA issue, it could cause unintended consequences that neither leagues nor players saw.

Or we could just forget about it and drive on...[/quote]

I might have read what your saying wrong but the lost games is not an issue. The owners and head honcho agreed that all games will be played. So I presume it means if they are playing into March next year they will. All 16 games for each team will be played. So the idea that fans who were sold season passes for 16 games being cheated and only getting 14 or 12 will not happen. Now it will be interesting if after the league and players agree on a new CBA and they decide that they need to drop a few games later how fans will react.

With owners trying to get blood out of a turnip in regards to fans and the season passes saying there was a contract it will be interesting to see the fans claiming the contract is a specific amount for 16 games not 12 and forcing the owners to either give money back or play a full 16 games.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;790637][URL="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/25/fan-sues-browns-league-over-lockout/"]Fan sues Browns, league over lockout | ProFootballTalk[/URL][/quote]

LOL. Taa Daaaaa.

I doubt he will win his case. He's claiming the NFL and NFLPA is keeping him from sitting in his seat and watching football. In reality they are not all they would be doing is changing the dates of a few games at the beginning of the season very much like a rain date or postponed game. If anyone has this arguement it should be the Vikings after their roof fell in or the Saints fans after Katrina and the team played elsewhere for the first few games.

I like this idea....
[quote]“The owners and players can’t decide what to do with an extra billion dollars between them,” Lanci said. “I have the perfect solution. That one billion should go to all cities that gave them money to build football stadiums they couldn’t afford to build. This would give these cities badly needed tax relief.”[/quote]

but the problem is there are 3 types of stadiums:
1- Owners who own their stadium paid for or is still paying through loans.
2- City owned stadiums paid through public taxes.
3- A combination of the two.

So if the league throws the 1 bill at the city owned stadiums to lower the taxes then the teams who are currently collecting money under the revenue sharing to help pay their part of the loans and can't with out the sharing will get screwed.

The sharing covers two items... teams that don't make as much as the lucrative teams in order to compete for FA's, and money used to help owners who can't pay their loans or rent.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;790641]Definitly I am. Which I think you have provided the best example as to why I'm boggled about this whole thing.

But even if it effects future contracts I'm slightly boggled. Because I just don't see the owners looking at FA's and saying "Gee, I really would only like to pay the player 1 mill a year but because I have to meet my % of money going to the players I'll go ahead and pay him 2 mill. I'm sure it's probably similar to that though. Owners don't meet their 50% of their revenue going to the players then they could be fined or a law suit filed. I'm sure looking at the books would keep the owners in check. Maybe an independent 3rd party needs to have their salary paid by both the NFL and the NFLPA to look at the books, look at what each team is paying it's players to make sure the % is being met and to look at each teams claim of loss revenue and how much revenue. Then if an owner is claiming he needs to move to a more lucrative market the league can go to the 3rd party and ask if he's telling the truth with out giving out specific numbers.[/quote]

You're thinking way too hard about this.

You have to think about the % within the parameters of a salary floor and cap.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;790657]You're thinking way too hard about this.

You have to think about the % within the parameters of a salary floor and cap.[/quote]

Gotcha. But why should the players be concerned about a floor cap when the owners and players individually negotiate salary. Having a floor cap simply means the owners have to atleast spend that amount before they can use the rest for whatever they want. In other words no owner can have is % of monies to players below 50% or the rumored 59%. So my next question is what teams are sitting on the bubble of the 50% because if I'm not mistaken most teams are either close to the roof cap or just below it. which tells me there really is not an issue with teams not paying players. and if there was then I would presume the player can either take the offer extended to him by the team or go to another team or sit out because he doesn't think he's getting enough for his skills. Kinda like if your selling your house. You can be given 10 different offers but it it's not what you want you can take your house off the market.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Sorry to bug you about it or seem like I'm an idiot, most unions when striking are arguing for the hourly wage earner. Trying to either get him better wages or get him a % raise each year. Sometimes it's about health coverage. Sometimes it's about safety. Rarely is it ever about the salary wage earner who negotiates his salary/contract prior to being hired. What I mean by Salary wage earner is the employee who agrees to a yearly amount. Instead of an hourly wage earner being told he will make $25 an hour the salary negotiates say a $80,000 a year contract. His contract does not go up nor down because it was negotiated prior to his hiring. Usually the hourly wage eaner does not get to negotiate their wage which is why unions are formed and step in to negotiate for them.

and again I know I'm thinking too much but how does a floor cap and a ceiling cap effect negotiations to a salary wage earner? Unless the negotiations are about yearly cost of living increases which I didn't think the NFL had.

I'm only asking because I'm actually siding with the owners right now sort of, and there is a few here that probably would think I'm a moron for doing so. Yet everthing I read about what all this means is so watered down and not explained very well.

For me I see players concerned over a % of the money that they probably won't see anyway because they sit and negotiate their salaries with the owners. If they dont' like the offer they can go to another team who might pay them better. I guess I'm having problems seeing how 50% of the revenue is going to effect not only current players under contract by their teams but FA's since each individual player negotiates their own contract. If it's about the players saying every team has to spend atleast 75 mill a year on players salaries and the owner saying ok but we don't want this to get out of hand so we are going to say no team can spend over 130 mill a year fine. It can be worded like that in the contract and even throw in the fact that it can increase by 4% each year. But thats not what this is about or atleast it doesn't seem like it.

On the swing side the owners are claiming a loss in revenue. How much? If the whole NFL league makes 9 bill and there is a loss then in all actuality there is no 9 bill. It's probably 8 bill or 8.5 or something. Was it at 10 bill in a previous year and last year it fell to 9 bill? If thats the case then the players and owners would know. So is the 9 bill what is in question because it seems like the issue is more about not wanting to give up 1 bill to the owners for revenue sharing leaving 8 bill to split two ways. which goes back to my original question how does the 4 bill effect the players either current or FA's looking for new contracts? We know it won't effect Rookies because there will be a Rookie wage scale.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Here is a comment by Drew Brees:
[QUOTE]"Not once have the players asked for more money during this negotiation. That is a fact," New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees said in a statement released on Twitter.

"Past players sacrificed a great deal to give us what we have now in the NFL, and we will not lay down for a second to give that up.
[/QUOTE]

I totally agree with him. But my issue is how does giving up another 1 bill to the owners effect him? If his contract is up and he decides to come to the Redskins I'm sure he will get a nice negotiated contract. I guess I just don't see how the 4 bill is going to effect his negotiations?

According to the same site:
[url=http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/11/nfl-lockout-looms-as-union-talks-break-down/]NFL lockout looms as union talks break down | The Raw Story[/url]

[QUOTE]Under the current agreement, owners received a guaranteed $1 billion of annual revenue, which totaled around $9 billion. The remaining money was split, with the players getting around 60 percent and the owners 40 percent.

The league and owners want to increase their automatic cut by another $1 billion, arguing that operational costs had risen since the last deal was struck five years ago.

But the players wanted to maintain the status quo, claiming the owners had failed to provide them with enough financial evidence to prove they needed a bigger slice of the profits.
[/QUOTE]

I can understand the owners wanting more because the market is bad, less fans going to games, teams in bad areas not being able to get fans to come to the games and the owners needing to suppliment the money from somewhere. I'm just having a hard time understanding where the 4 bill goes for the players and what it is used for? especially if it doesn't effect player contracts or if it does I'm not seeing it. If the players are being asked to give up another 1 bill to the owners how is it going to effect each individual player? which I don't think has been explained very well.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;790531]No wonder I'm not an accountant... I must be an idiot cause when I read this...
[QUOTE]“They were trying to make salary a fixed cost and, in the past, it had been a percentage of revenues,” said Pete Kendall, a former NFL player who is advising the NFL Players Association and was present at the majority of bargaining sessions held over the past two years.[B] “In the past, if revenues went up, the salaries went up.”[/[/B]QUOTE]

I then wonder who's salaries went up? The current players on the field negotiate their contracts for what they will make each year. Their salaries only go up and down based off of their agreement of what the player is to make each year. It's not like a player would have made $400,000 and because the owners took in an extra 4 mill for the year all the players get a % increase.

So.... I'm assuming the only people who would be concerned about revenue would be retired players? because their retirement is based off of what the yearly take is? yes or no?

[B]Again, I maybe the idiot in wondering how the revenue actually effects each individual player since their contracts are already set with the amount they will receive for each year over the life of the contract.[/B][/quote]
[/quote]

Year to year increase in pay is based on projected increase in revenue and since revenue has been increasing it seems to me it works out pretty well for everyone. If you are owner just don't give out massive contracts and if you do, it's your bloody problem.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;790675]Here is a comment by Drew Brees:


I totally agree with him. But my issue is how does giving up another 1 bill to the owners effect him? If his contract is up and he decides to come to the Redskins I'm sure he will get a nice negotiated contract. I guess I just don't see how the 4 bill is going to effect his negotiations?

According to the same site:
[URL="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/11/nfl-lockout-looms-as-union-talks-break-down/"]NFL lockout looms as union talks break down | The Raw Story[/URL]



[B]I can understand the owners wanting more because the market is bad, less fans going to games, teams in bad areas not being able to get fans to come to the games and the owners needing to suppliment the money from somewhere.[/B] I'm just having a hard time understanding where the 4 bill goes for the players and what it is used for? especially if it doesn't effect player contracts or if it does I'm not seeing it. If the players are being asked to give up another 1 bill to the owners how is it going to effect each individual player? which I don't think has been explained very well.[/quote]

Is the market really bad though? Outside of maybe a couple of teams attendance is stronger than ever, TV ratings through the roof, new stadiums all over, etc.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;790677][B]Year to year increase in pay is based on projected increase in revenue[/B] and since revenue has been increasing it seems to me it works out pretty well for everyone. If you are owner just don't give out massive contracts and if you do, it's your bloody problem.[/quote]

and this is exactly what most unions fight for, but I didn't think there was a yearly increase in salary to the players other then what is already agreed upon in the contract. If a player signs a contract for 30 mill over a 6 year period then the money can be divided many ways but he will still get the 30mill over 6 yrs "if" it's guarenteed. So, basically thats 5 mill each year. The team could work it out that the player gets 2 mill his first year, 4 mill the next then increased for each year remaining. Some get the majority up front in a 10 mill their first year then it gets lower each year until the last year.
Those are agreed upon contracts. I just don't see how the 4 bill across the board or 50% effects the negotiations. Look at AH he lobbied for 100 mill. 30 or 40 guarenteed split up over a specific number of years. Are you saying depending on the total revenue and depending on what the players revenue is AH would see an increase in pay? According to Matty the 4 bill would not effect current contractual players. Which then I thought he was refering to Free Agents. My point was that if the floor cap is 75 mill lets say and the owner has only spent 70 mill on players, and along you come asking for 3 mill a year I don't see the owner saying "oh, lookie, I have to pay you 5 mill instead because I need to meet my floor cap. Maybe they would but I just don't see it. I could see him re-negotiating several players contracts to get into compliance. and if thats the case then I was wondering which teams are on the bubble or below the floor cap needing to spend more to be in compliance because last I heard most teams were either close to the ceiling cap or just below it. Heck the Skins would be over if it wasn't for spreding contracts so far into the future or renegotiating players contracts.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=SBXVII;790684]and this is exactly what most unions fight for, but I didn't think there was a yearly increase in salary to the players other then what is already agreed upon in the contract. If a player signs a contract for 30 mill over a 6 year period then the money can be divided many ways but he will still get the 30mill over 6 yrs "if" it's guarenteed. So, basically thats 5 mill each year. The team could work it out that the player gets 2 mill his first year, 4 mill the next then increased for each year remaining. Some get the majority up front in a 10 mill their first year then it gets lower each year until the last year.
Those are agreed upon contracts. I just don't see how the 4 bill across the board or 50% effects the negotiations. Look at AH he lobbied for 100 mill. 30 or 40 guarenteed split up over a specific number of years. Are you saying depending on the total revenue and depending on what the players revenue is AH would see an increase in pay? According to Matty the 4 bill would not effect current contractual players. Which then I thought he was refering to Free Agents. My point was that if the floor cap is 75 mill lets say and the owner has only spent 70 mill on players, and along you come asking for 3 mill a year I don't see the owner saying "oh, lookie, I have to pay you 5 mill instead because I need to meet my floor cap. Maybe they would but I just don't see it. I could see him re-negotiating several players contracts to get into compliance. and if thats the case then I was wondering which teams are on the bubble or below the floor cap needing to spend more to be in compliance because last I heard most teams were either close to the ceiling cap or just below it. Heck the Skins would be over if it wasn't for spreding contracts so far into the future or renegotiating players contracts.[/quote]

Individual player contracts are between the player and the owner. That is to say the owner has the option of not paying any bonus whatsoever to any player and instead just offer base salary. The Salary Cap contract is between the NFL and NFLPA through the CBA. All the Union wants is for the owners to spend a minimum amount of money on players so you don't have a situation where the players get next to nothing while the owners hoard all them money. Smart owners don't give out massive signing bonuses (see Kraft and the Pats, Rooneys and the Steelers).

I liken the salary cap floor requirement to your mortgage company wanting you to put down 20% on your loan. It is that simple.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=Mattyk;790681]Is the market really bad though? Outside of maybe a couple of teams attendance is stronger than ever, TV ratings through the roof, new stadiums all over, etc.[/quote]

Don't get me wrong. The NFL is a money making machine. They have so much money coming in different directions. But, I'm sure all the owners have seen a drop off in fans purchasing season passes. Maybe not the Skins so much because they have had a waiting list that lasts 10 yrs, but other markets ie; Carolina I think took a hit this last year as opposed to previous years, the Jaguars never seem to sell their place out either, I thought Chicago had trouble this year and there was talk of possible games not being shown on T.V. due to lack of # of seats sold.

I'm trying to relate it to any other business I guess. Think of your county you live in. Say the county knows it needs 10 mill a year to operate. Yet you vote in elected officials who promise to lower your county taxes. How will the county function? If it's taxes only brought in 8 mill after they lowered your taxes as promised how will they make up the other 2 mill? Most counties looked to the state in the past, but again every one voted in representatives who would lower our taxes. So because the state brings in less money less money gets filtered to the different counties. So where your county might have been expecting the state to step up and send 2 mill to them the state only sent 1 mill. Now your county is 1 mill in the hole. Who makes up for that?

In football jargen lets say all the owners came together and said on average each team makes about 500 mill a year. Some make more ie; Redskins, Dallas, Giants, and some make less ie; Carlina, Jaguars, and so on. The owners have decided that 6 mill will be what every team should have to work with so the more lucrative team owners send money to go teams that don't make the 600 mill in order to put them on equal footing with the more lucrative teams. but if fan attendance is declining due to the bad economy then the more lucrative teams can't send as much as they used to because they are not making as much.

and your right there probably isn't that much of a drop off and the owners are probably over embelishing things. Instead of the owners already taking 1 bill off the top and now asking for another 1 bill maybe they could have asked for 500 mill or 200 mill.

But you can't say times are not hard right now. I know people left and right losing their homes. clearly they wouldn't be purchasing season tickets nor going to games if they have bills to pay. I see people on here talking about turning their season passes back in simply because they can save a few bucks. I can also tell you I can't afford a top flight jersey and I'm sure with the economy others have started penny pinching as well. So in all actuality I can see the owners point. Maybe they can put a clause in the CBA that if the economy gets better and there is more fan attendance then the 1 bill goes back to the players, I don't know.

But I have yet to hear exactly how the 4 bill effects the players, how the 50% effects their wages, and why its so important to them. I know it is because they want to go to court over it but I'm just trying to figure out how. To me the owners have explained, the players I just can't see. Why I don't know. I'm all for the little man and in this case the fan is the little man. lol. JK. No the player would be the little man but each player negotiates what he is willing to play for, each year is spelled out what he will make, both sides sign the contract which is binding. So other then how the players contract is structured what additional monies would the players get that is effected by this 4 bill or 50%. I guessing nothing. The 50% is to force the really cheap owners (not Snyder) to start putting more money into players contracts and all I'm asking is ... is there really any teams out there not wanting to put the 50% in or rather I should say do those teams even have players? because anyone worth their weight in gold will want a really good contract. For an owner to be sitting at rock bottom not spending on the players they have to be really bad. Are we talking about the Bills?

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the salary cap go up/down based on the revenue from the previous year? It's not like there is no protection mechanism for the owners if the revenue goes down.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=saden1;790694]Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the salary cap go up/down based on the revenue from the previous year? It's not like there is no protection mechanism for the owners if the revenue goes down.[/quote]

Well I guess that's one of the things that the owners supposedly want to change, to make the salary cap fixed, and not a percentage of revenue

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

The salary cap is attached to the revenue of the NFL, so as it goes up or down the salary cap and floor adjust. However, for any individual team if the NFL revenue goes up, but their revenue tightens (note I didn't say go down) they may see a larger percent of their team's budget taken up by players salaries.

Most of this dispute is between how much the owners want to revenue share. In the extreme, it is possible that one team's player expense might only be 45% of their total revenue, while another team may have a figure closer to 65%. No one knows these exact numbers, and I think the owners don't want to show their books simply because the players would then be able to pit team against team and take the emphasis off the specific percentage the players are getting.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;790698]The salary cap is attached to the revenue of the NFL, so as it goes up or down the salary cap and floor adjust. However, for any individual team if the NFL revenue goes up, but their revenue tightens (note I didn't say go down) they may see a larger percent of their team's budget taken up by players salaries.

Most of this dispute is between how much the owners want to revenue share. In the extreme, it is possible that one team's player expense might only be 45% of their total revenue, while another team may have a figure closer to 65%. No one knows these exact numbers, and I think the owners don't want to show their books simply because the players would then be able to pit team against team and take the emphasis off the specific percentage the players are getting.[/quote]

Well said. Good analysis IMO.

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

Andrew Brandt continues to give excellent information on the facts behind the numbers.

[url=http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Key-to-a-CBA-tip-of-the-Cap.html]Key to a CBA: tip of the Cap | National Football Post[/url]

Re: Ongoing CBA discussions
 

And an article by the NFLPA on Von Miller's decision to join the lawsuit. I know I am pro-owners, but read this and see if you see any justification from Von Miller, other than his agent and the great players Brady, Brees, and Manning asked him to put his name on the lawsuit. He doesn't make any attempt at explaining how it affects him, other than he's part of the "team" and wants to support his "team".

[url=http://proplayerinsiders.com/?p=7]Von Miller On Suing the NFL | Pro Player Insiders[/url]

Finally, the players legal response to the NFL's legal response to Brady v NFL is due in today. I am looking forward to seeing that.