Ongoing CBA discussions

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

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.

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).

[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.

[CRedskinsRule]

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

Prelude to April 6: primer on NFL's brief | National Football Post

[skinsfaninok]

Sports Radio Interviews » Blog Archive » Chris Cooley Doesn’t Care About the NFL Lockout

[Alvin Walton]

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

[44ever]

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

[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.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 44ever

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

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.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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

[Lotus]

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

[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 44ever

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

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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.