Ongoing CBA discussions

[SmootSmack]

Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

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

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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.

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...

League makes three main arguments against lifting the lockout | ProFootballTalk

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 after 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.”

EDIT: Here is another piece of the puzzle.

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Revenue share, not long-argued cost credit, served to sink talks - SportsBusiness Daily | SportsBusiness Journal

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. “In the past, if revenues went up, the salaries went up.”[/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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

No wonder I'm not an accountant... I must be an idiot cause when I read this...

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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.

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.