Ongoing CBA discussions

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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:
NFL lockout looms as union talks break down | The Raw Story



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.

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.

[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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

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.

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?

[saden1]

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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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

[CRedskinsRule]

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Well said. Good analysis IMO.

[CRedskinsRule]

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

Key to a CBA: tip of the Cap | National Football Post

[CRedskinsRule]

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".

Von Miller On Suing the NFL | Pro Player Insiders

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.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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".

Von Miller On Suing the NFL*|*Pro Player Insiders

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.

Good article. I highly doubt Von Miller's going to slip in the draft though. If so, I'm sure we would take him in a second at #10.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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".

Von Miller On Suing the NFL*|*Pro Player Insiders

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.

Von Miller joining the lawsuit is perfectly rational even if you don't think he articulated his reasons in the article. Clearly Von Miller has a vested interest in securing his future earnings given "the league’s desire to implement a rookie wage scale that would apply to this year’s draft class."

There are no problems except the ones we create.

[saden1]

Looks like retired players are no fans of the NFL either. Apparently everyone wants to sue the NFL...I imagine NFL cities along with street vendors and parking garage owners will be next to sue.

Priest Holmes among four retirees to sue NFL, seek to join antitrust suit - ESPN

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Looks like retired players are no fans of the NFL either. Apparently everyone wants to sue the NFL...I imagine NFL cities along with street vendors and parking garage owners will be next to sue.

Priest Holmes among four retirees to sue NFL, seek to join antitrust suit - ESPN

I know you are smart enough to understand a few things:
1) there are several retired player groups, some led by George Martin, have been more in the owners camp, some more in the players camp and a third independent group that has spoken up mainly for pre-1993 retirees

And

2) joining that lawsuit is more about preserving the retirees rights than it is siding with the union. As it states in the article, the once the union and owners let the cba expire the retirees have to act or else (at a certain point) they would lose certain benefits

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I know you are smart enough to understand a few things:
1) there are several retired player groups, some led by George Martin, have been more in the owners camp, some more in the players camp and a third independent group that has spoken up mainly for pre-1993 retirees

And

2) joining that lawsuit is more about preserving the retirees rights than it is siding with the union. As it states in the article, the once the union and owners let the cba expire the retirees have to act or else (at a certain point) they would lose certain benefits

Who said anything about siding with the union? Everyone is looking out for their own interest but some of us here think the owners care about the players when in fact "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is at play.

My previous posts on the subject are a treasure trove.