Ongoing CBA discussions

[CRedskinsRule]

With just over a month to go before the CBA expires, I am sure February will be filled with lots of CBA rumors, discussions, posturing, threats, and every now and then some actual facts. One source that I think highly of, mainly for his insight and clarity, is Andrew Brandt. He is on every Wednesday morning at 630 with Ross Tucker on Sirius NFL radio, and presents good information. Here is a link to part 6 of his Labor series. Sets a pretty realistic, but positive tone for what we all hope will be an extension of NFL labor peace.

NFL Labor pains, part six | National Football Post

[sandtrapjack]

Good thread, thanks for the article link. Good info there.

[freddyg12]

Thanks for posting this, good read. Only a month & change away, I can't see it getting done by then but what matters is if it's done by the draft, if not, is it done by training camp and so on.

Very disappointed that he thinks the players will go for the 18 games in return for other concessions. I really think the 18 game season will be produce noticeable change to the nfl in the long run, none of it positive either.

[CRedskinsRule]

NFLPA has ad rejected from CBS:
The Early Lead - NFLPA says its 'Let us play' ad was rejected by CBS College Sports Network

Here is the ad:
(nevermind couldn't get the YT link to work)
The ad itself seemed fairly useless to me, not sure it would sway many people's views, but I can't see them not being allowed to air it.

[freddyg12]

Nice try nflpa, but CBS wasn't about to piss off it's clients!

In other news, Peter King said yesterday that he thinks the 18 game season is a done deal, as others have. He also said he thinks the 2011 season will be shortened by the negotiations as the nfl is a "deadline league" in that deals have always been struck at the last minute. He thinks one won't get done till the time preseason would be underway.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

Nice try nflpa, but CBS wasn't about to piss off it's clients!

In other news, Peter King said yesterday that he thinks the 18 game season is a done deal, as others have. He also said he thinks the 2011 season will be shortened by the negotiations as the nfl is a "deadline league" in that deals have always been struck at the last minute. He thinks one won't get done till the time preseason would be underway.

Ugh, this is what pisses me off. The league is so set in having their 18 games, yet they haven't secured in actually having a season next year.

[Mc2guy]

The league to trying to implement an integrative bargaining tactic. The only way to give the players more money, is to increase the size of the pie, which 18 games does. If you stick with a 16 game schedule, there won't be any more revenue to split with the players, and the owners know that the players won't accept a deal for less money than they receive now.

From what I have seen, the players have elected a distributive bargainer in DeMaurice Smith... he views everything in win or lose, yours or mine, for every gain there is an equal loss... basically he sees the pie as fixed, and that his job is to secure as much as possible of it from the owners. Bad move. The owners, with no contract starting on 3/3, can, following a lock out, declare an "impasse" and force players to either work under 2010 negotiated labor rules, or strike. If players strike, the League has already won since public perception is ALWAYS against a strike and fans would quickly turn on the players.

18 games is almost a required outcome if a new deal is to be struck this year.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

The league to trying to implement an integrative bargaining tactic. The only way to give the players more money, is to increase the size of the pie, which 18 games does. If you stick with a 16 game schedule, there won't be any more revenue to split with the players, and the owners know that the players won't accept a deal for less money than they receive now.

From what I have seen, the players have elected a distributive bargainer in DeMaurice Smith... he views everything in win or lose, yours or mine, for every gain there is an equal loss... basically he sees the pie as fixed, and that his job is to secure as much as possible of it from the owners. Bad move. The owners, with no contract starting on 3/3, can, following a lock out, declare an "impasse" and force players to either work under 2010 negotiated labor rules, or strike. If players strike, the League has already won since public perception is ALWAYS against a strike and fans would quickly turn on the players.

18 games is almost a required outcome if a new deal is to be struck this year.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A bargaining impasse occurs when the two sides negotiating an agreement are unable to reach an agreement and become deadlocked. An Impasse is almost invariably mutually harmful, either as a result of direct action which may be taken such as a strike in employment negotiation or sanctions/military action in international relations, or simply due to the resulting delay in negotiating a mutually beneficial agreement.

Since negotiations have not yet reached the point of no return, a very small window of time remains to consummate an agreement, unlikely though it may be.

There remains several issues proving stumbling blocks that will most surely result in an impasse if both sides remain as steadfast in their convictions as they've shown thus far, none more revealing than the issue of revenue sharing. The owners are emphatic about a change in that area, the players are less sympathetic and "that" I'm afraid is where the line will ultimately be drawn. A final take it or leave it offer will be made to the players, and fans fear the players will choose accept the latter.

Here is a simplistic view from Joe Gibbs, coupled with a boost to the ego of Dan Snyder from Ross Tucker.

D.C. Sports Bog - Joe Gibbs on the Redskins and labor strife

[sportscurmudgeon]

No offense to Tucker or to Dan Steinberg here, but this was the point where I got off the wagon:

"Tucker then chimed in, thanking Gibbs for his comments on Snyder and saying that other owners around the league let the bottom line cloud their football decisions, unlike Snyder."

Dan Snyder is not focused on the bottom line? He has not let the bottom line cloud his decisions in the last decade?


Please...


Danny Boy - - as an NFL onwer - - is driven by his ego and his desire to make money hand over fist. Denying that makes everything else one might say of questionable validity...

[sportscurmudgeon]

On the very good chance that there will not be a new CBA by early March 2011, there are 3 possibilities:


1. The owners and players can agree to extend the current CBA and continue negotiating. That is unlikely since the owners acted to shorten the agreement in the first place bringing on this round of CBA negotiations. It is possible but not likely...

2. The owners can make a "last, best and final offer" to the players which the players would refuse and the owners can then implement them going forward pending a variety of legal hearings/trials/arbitrations down the line. The problem with that course is that it puts the players in the driver's seat. They can play until Thanksgiving under the new "owners' rules" and then go on strike killing off the end of the season and the playoffs and the Super Bowl. The owners are unlikely to put that kind of power in the hands of the NFLPA.

3. The owners can lockout the players. That leaves the NFLPA with the route of decertifying and suing the NFL on anti-trust grounds. They might win that suit but winning the suit does NOT force the owners to restart a pro football schedule. It might be a Pyrrhic victory for lots of players...


Absent a new CBA, there really aren't a whole lot of other scenarios here that do not require the intervention of the Tooth Fairy. If there is no CBA, the owners are almost forced into a "lockout" strategy because Option 1 weakens their argument that the current deal is economically burdensome for them and Option 2 hands the NFLPA a loaded gun to put to the heads of the owners.

When it happens, it might help a bit if we all understood that it was inevitable once the owners chose to shorten the current CBA...

[Dirtbag59]

Goodell LIED TO ME!!!!@@*&#(@&#*(@&( MotHeR F&#*(*R!!!!! HE ASSured M3 DaT FUns weRe eXXXXXcited bout 18 game Season. Yet smart pe0ple R tell me dat 27% eQUAlz N0T Guud!
AP poll: Lukewarm support for 18-game season - ESPN

An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll released Thursday shows only lukewarm backing at best for a switch from 16 to 18 regular-season games, one of the NFL's key -- and easiest-to-understand -- proposals in its labor negotiations with the players' union.

Of everyone surveyed, 27 percent strongly favor or somewhat favor adding two regular-season games and dropping two preseason games. When the group is narrowed to those identifying themselves as NFL fans, support for the change rises to a total of 45 percent -- yet only 18 percent who strongly favor it.

[mlmpetert]

One thing that has been great about the Steelers being in the Superbowl is their against the gain style gets a lot of air time. I think James Harrison is now my favorite non-Redskin and I agree with him and the whole Steelers organization on a lot of stuff. I am against a 18 game season, like Dan Rooney and almost all the players and im also against the crackdown on hard hits James Harrison and a lot of the players. Hopefully having very well respected players and ownership/management that are also very vocal will help solve some of these problems in the new CBA.

James Harrison fires away on 18-game season, fines, penalties | ProFootballTalk

Also I wouldn’t say im anti-Steelers guy but im definitely not a pro stealers guy, im just pretty neutral towards them as a team to roote for or against.

[freddyg12]

An 18 game season is the NFL equivalent of a tax hike. When governments can't come to consensus on programs or budgets to cut, the easiest way to balance the books is to increase taxes. I see the 18 game schedule in the same way, it is the easiest 'out' for both sides, while the fans will be paying for it.

I know part of the logic is reducing the preseason, but that is such a bogus argument. Starters usually don't play anymore than 6 quarters in preseason as it is. Preseason games are largely about evaluating new players. You take those games away, coaches will still have to evaluate those guys, whether that's in full contact scrimmages w/other teams or practice. Preseason games don't cause injuries, playing football does.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

An 18 game season is the NFL equivalent of a tax hike. When governments can't come to consensus on programs or budgets to cut, the easiest way to balance the books is to increase taxes. I see the 18 game schedule in the same way, it is the easiest 'out' for both sides, while the fans will be paying for it.

I know part of the logic is reducing the preseason, but that is such a bogus argument. Starters usually don't play anymore than 6 quarters in preseason as it is. Preseason games are largely about evaluating new players. You take those games away, coaches will still have to evaluate those guys, whether that's in full contact scrimmages w/other teams or practice. Preseason games don't cause injuries, playing football does.

Plus in those 6 Quarters of football the starters are playing at a level that I would describe as self-preservation. The difference in intensity between the pre-season and regular season is laughable. If I had to quantify it I would say that 1 quarter of regular season football equals 4 quarters of preseason football.

Speaking of which, remember when Haynesworth played every snap against the Cards in the final preseason game? Good times.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by freddyg12

An 18 game season is the NFL equivalent of a tax hike. When governments can't come to consensus on programs or budgets to cut, the easiest way to balance the books is to increase taxes. I see the 18 game schedule in the same way, it is the easiest 'out' for both sides, while the fans will be paying for it.

I know part of the logic is reducing the preseason, but that is such a bogus argument. Starters usually don't play anymore than 6 quarters in preseason as it is. Preseason games are largely about evaluating new players. You take those games away, coaches will still have to evaluate those guys, whether that's in full contact scrimmages w/other teams or practice. Preseason games don't cause injuries, playing football does.

Yes. There is no law that the league must play 20 games. If they wanted to reduce the preseason, they could cut preseason games to 2 and still keep the 16 games schedule.