Ongoing CBA discussions

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

The Packers are far from being indicative of the average team in the league...I mean, Packers are the only non-profit, community-owned franchise in American professional sports! Unlike Danny Boy, you won't see them gauge their fans for every penny even though they could.

I have heard the average player costs across the league have gone up 4%, but I don't have any real confirmation that. But if true, it's much less than nearly 12% the Packers are stating

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by hooskins

SBXVII, just because players accept their contracts doesn't mean the owners aren't screwing them. The NFL provides the best option/salary but that may not be "fair". The players just have to accept the salary, after a bit of negotiating because it is not like they can go to another company and make a comparable salary(UFL, etc.). I realize fair is subjective, but that is why the NFLPA wants to see the books in full.

Understood. I guess my problem with this is most unions are lobbying for pay raises, ie; 5% or 10% pay raises because the employees are payed close to the same hourly rate or close and have not had a raise or decent raise in a while. Sometimes it's insurance and how much coverage the employee gets. Then there is the issue of retirement benifits. I'm having difficulty with the employee demanding to see the company books because he wants to make sure all the employees are getting their 50 or 60%. especially when in reality it doesn't matter. Why? Because each player has an agent and each agent lobbies for the best contract his client can get. Where not talking about a union argueing for the $10 to $20 dollar an hour employee were talking about a $400,000+ a year salary job to millions that their agent brokered for. If they don't like the dollar amount they have 31 other teams to try and get what they want ..... unless their skills have dwindled. But my point is they are not set at the same hourly rate for 10 to 20 years and need a union to make sure owners are giving them raises when in fact if they don't get a decent contract their first time they usually do in their second unless they suck. But in any event a team is not going to say hey I know you only want 3 mill a year but because I have to meet the 60% rule according to your union I'll have to pay you 6mill a year. < That ain't going to happen. No different then the players saying "oh I know I'm asking for 6 mill a year but because that will put you spending 61% of your revenue towards salaries I'll take the 3 mill a year so you don't go over." < That ain't happening either. So in reality the 50 or 60% rule is only for the teams who chose to be cheap and not put the majority of their money towards player salaries. But that wouldn't really matter because those teams would be trying to get said free agents at a cheap price and basically get out bid all the time... ie; Like the Bills or dare I say Pateiots who prefer draft picks over high priced free agents.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Ok, so your telling me that the steel industry has to show their books to the unions, the oil companies have to show their books to the unions, the coal companies have to show their books to the unions? Every cent is accounted for?

Seriously? Why are you still comparing normal employees to NFL players? It's not the same. They are the product that the NFL is offering. Do you not understand that?

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I provided bad analogies perhaps but it wasn't I who started saying that Rock stars are shown what the stadium makes that they played in in order to pay the Rock star. Basically what was stated was People that provide entertainment are entitled to see the books because they get paid a percentage of the total take for their performance

The problem with your analogy is that the Rock star sets the demand on the venues of how much they'll be taking. (and more than the venue gets I imagine) That amount depends on how big the act is. U2 could demand more money from Fed-Ex field than would a Hootie and the Blowfish. However, when you are talking about "demanding to see the books", I assure you there isn't 1 billion dollars at stake at these concerts or performances either. That said, I guarantee you that if any venue went to the Rock Star and said, you need to take less because I'm losing money, chances are he would ask to see the books or he'd flat out walk out and play somewhere else. Why? Because the people are there to see/listen to him. He's the star, not the venue.

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The whole point of a union is to protect the employee. Whether it be through health insurance, payment, safety rules and so forth. I don't have a problem with the union trying to get what they can for the employee. .

Since you like comparing the NFL players to normal employees. How come ALL of the nfl employees aren't in the same union?

[saden1]

NFL players are skin to partially owned subsidiaries not employees.

[CRedskinsRule]

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees under contract law and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

[RobH4413]

Thought I'd throw this up here.

I called into the Mike Wise show last week, and the topic was the CBA discussions. Relevant topic, so here ya go.

I jump in around the 8 minute mark.

CBS Podcast Player

[CRedskinsRule]

Does anyone else remember when the players were threatening the owners with "If the salary cap expires, it's not coming back"? Now the players don't want to go without it.

[freddyg12]

I know she's been beat up w/words here on the warpath, but Sally Jenkins always brings a well backed argument & challenges her readers. She is obviously on the side of the players and previous articles state that. In this one, she comes from the taxpayer side of it. I think it would tell alot if it could somehow be compared to subsidies & incentives that other businesses get from state & local gov't.

NFL housing plan: Owners get the keys, fans get the bills - The Washington Post

[mlmdub130]

got this letter from bruce allen this morning, so far he has been nothing but a great gm and dealt with the fans/season ticket holders as best he could given the circustances. that said it's just a basic letter from the nfl/owners point of view, just thought some people here might be interested... https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Campai...bf9272290a5155

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

got this letter from bruce allen this morning, so far he has been nothing but a great gm and dealt with the fans/season ticket holders as best he could given the circustances. that said it's just a basic letter from the nfl/owners point of view, just thought some people here might be interested... https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Campai...bf9272290a5155

I get it, the NFL cares more about retired players than the NFLPA...riiight.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

This seems like one of those debates where neither side is going to win the hearts of the other side, regardless of reason or proofs. Much like the JC threads that raged on and on, both sides find their arguments to be fully justified while the other side's argument is just not as compelling. Much like the JC arguments these get very personal for something that none of us will have much say over.

With that said,
In the courts the players are employees, not rock stars, not skin partially owned subsidiaries, and not partners. If they want to be treated like any of those things it will be in terms of negotiations and a CBA. They have chosen to take it to the courts and their they are employees under contract law and their claims are viewed in that light. I think they could win every legal battle and yet still lose when the final cba is written. Why, because no court is going to order an industry to pay over half their revenue to its employees, no court will mandate long term healthcare or benefits, and the players may find that open bidding and right to work arguments may benefit the mannings and bradys of the leagues, but don't think that that 53rd man on the roster will get vet min after three years of service, he will be replaced by an undrafted guy that will happily take 100grand for a year to prove his value.

I think the owners have weighed the impact of adverse lawsuits and even the threat of treble damages have not been enough to sway their mindset.

The players should have acknowledged that they got an excellent deal in the negotiations last time because the owners were fighting among themselves and given back a little to cement all the gains they have gotten over the last 20 years

They are not under contract law because there is no contract. They under anti-trust law and it's everyman for himself against the NFL. Throughout history the players have won the court battles so what in the hell makes you think they won't this time around? The NFL will play ball because the players pay their bills.

[CRedskinsRule]

Saden,

I said that I think the players could win every lawsuit they file, but still lose when the next CBA is written. The players are on very firm legal ground, in terms of antitrust law. The courts could rule the draft illegal. They could rule restricted free agency illegal. They could find the franchise tag illegal. They could find the salary cap/salary floor illegal.

After all those rulings for the players, the owners still could end up writing individual contracts that total less than the percentage of revenue that they are committed too via the CBA

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Saden,

I said that I think the players could win every lawsuit they file, but still lose when the next CBA is written. The players are on very firm legal ground, in terms of antitrust law. The courts could rule the draft illegal. They could rule restricted free agency illegal. They could find the franchise tag illegal. They could find the salary cap/salary floor illegal.

After all those rulings for the players, the owners still could end up writing individual contracts that total less than the percentage of revenue that they are committed too via the CBA

What you don't realize is owners compete with each other for talent which implies costs control is lost!!!!!!! Not to mention the fact that unionization and CBA greatly benefits owners in small markets. A free-for-all system would be disastrous for most owners as is evident by their past desire to maintain a leash on free agency and rookie salaries.

It only takes a few owners to start dishing out big contracts and buy themselves championship before the rest of the owners revolt or take matters into their own hands by starting to shelling out big money too.


Bottom line, cost control is maintained in a fixed price system not in a free price system. Collectively players will never lose in a free-for-all free price system.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

What you don't realize is owners compete with each other for talent which implies costs control is lost!!!!!!! Not to mention the fact that unionization and CBA greatly benefits owners in small markets. A free-for-all system would be disastrous for most owners as is evident by their past desire to maintain a leash on free agency and rookie salaries.

It only takes a few owners to start dishing out big contracts and buy themselves championship before the rest of the owners revolt or take matters into their own hands by starting to shelling out big money too.


Bottom line, cost control is maintained in a fixed price system not in a free price system. Collectively players will never lose in a free-for-all free price system.

I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I do realize that. Heck that was the whole fear factor of the "Capless" year. But what I think they found out is that for every one megacontract they HAVE to write they can write multiple lowball contracts to make up their roster. Further an owner who doesn't want to pay megacontracts doesn't have to, so a Jerry Richardson or Bill Bidwell can pay well below what a salary floor would provide for the players.

I am not saying that this is the model I want to see, but I do think there are owners who are willing to bet that a free for all price war would still yield a % of revenue close to or below the current % they are forced to pay players under the now expired CBA. That in essence is why they opted out of the last CBA.

Agreed. I also think that owners can collude to engage in price-fixing better than some people seem to think.