The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-22-2011, 06:45 AM   #1
driver
Pro Bowler
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 522

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default cba negotiations?

Has anyone heard anything about how the negotiations are going?

It seems to me it would be in everyones best interest to get this done before the draft. The owners can't make any personnel moves until it's done, they won't know what area's of need will be for the draft. The players can't make any moves to other teams etc. Remember lost revenue and salaries can never be recovered, it's just gone.
driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 01-22-2011, 07:00 AM   #2
gtown
Perennial Pro-bowler
 
Hoya Saxa!!

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: DC
Posts: 925

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Juggernaut #46
Default

I am not sure on the status of negotiations, but I did hear a few days back that there is a quorum of owners that are OK with missing next season. If they skip next year, they will be losing revenue, but if games aren't being played, the players aren't getting paid. Sucks, but the owners are motivated by profit, and missing a season may be justified if they can put in place a CBA that guarantees more profit down the line. Doesn't really matter, fans get screwed either way.
gtown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 07:18 AM   #3
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,399

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gtown View Post
I am not sure on the status of negotiations, but I did hear a few days back that there is a quorum of owners that are OK with missing next season. If they skip next year, they will be losing revenue, but if games aren't being played, the players aren't getting paid. Sucks, but the owners are motivated by profit, and missing a season may be justified if they can put in place a CBA that guarantees more profit down the line. Doesn't really matter, fans get screwed either way.
This all means nothing without links unless you are setting in on the owners mettings..
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 07:19 AM   #4
RhymesayersDU
Go Broncos, Nuggets, Rox
 
RhymesayersDU's Avatar
 
GANGNAM STYLE

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Back In The 303!
Posts: 14,962

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ty Lawson
Default

See that's thing; the revenue isn't being lost. Sure there's ticket sales and concessions. But as I understand it, the owners will get paid by the all-important TV contracts either way. Those TV contracts are what makes the league go. We're talking billions of dollars that the owners still get next year. That's where they have the advantage on the players, and have the upper hand to lock out if needed.
RhymesayersDU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 07:28 AM   #5
primetime714
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RhymesayersDU View Post
See that's thing; the revenue isn't being lost. Sure there's ticket sales and concessions. But as I understand it, the owners will get paid by the all-important TV contracts either way. Those TV contracts are what makes the league go. We're talking billions of dollars that the owners still get next year. That's where they have the advantage on the players, and have the upper hand to lock out if needed.
Really? I'd have to imagine that the NFL would be in violation of their TV contracts if they offered nothing to show on TV. I don't know for sure, but I can't see how the owners are still getting paid by the TV companies next year if there are no games to put on TV.

As far as the negotiations go the perception is that the owners are in no rush and will use this leverage to force the players to conceed. Most expect this thing to drag out up until around when the season is supposed to start or at least late into the summer. This could mean a shortened season and a really quick offseason (FA, trades, training camp) period. A lot will depend though on how far the players are willing to go. The owners seem ready to take this pretty far. I think a rookie cap is almost a given and the real sticking point though will be the number of games.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 07:33 AM   #6
RhymesayersDU
Go Broncos, Nuggets, Rox
 
RhymesayersDU's Avatar
 
GANGNAM STYLE

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Back In The 303!
Posts: 14,962

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ty Lawson
Default

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/...t-unwarranted/

Quote:
How does television play into any lockout?

The largest factor in a possible lockout stems from how the NFL’s agreements with their network partners are worded. The NFL would get still get paid for the TV rights, regardless if games are played.

Annually, the NFL pulls in more than $4 billion in television network rights fees (see table below). For all of the network partners, they have agreements in place with the league in which the NFL would be paid these fees, even if games are not played. Roger Goodell has said that the league will have to rebate the networks, with interest, when play resumes, but that’s only half true. The DirecTV fees for NFL Sunday Ticket, which are now almost $1 billion, would not have to be returned.

Network

Annual Rights Fee
ESPN

$1,100,000,000
FOX

$720,000,000
CBS

$620,000,000
NBC

$603,000,000
* DirecTV

$1,000,000,000
TOTAL

$4,043,000,000
RhymesayersDU is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 07:37 AM   #7
Chris
Millenium Scrooge McDuck
 
Chris's Avatar
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,585

Adopt-a-Bronco:
OrlandoFranklin
Default

Highway to the danger zone.
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:11 AM   #8
Vegas_Bronco
Ring of Famer
 
Vegas_Bronco's Avatar
 
Fear is a lack of preparation.

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Now 64 Yards Out
Posts: 5,074

Adopt-a-Bronco:
1 Elam 1
Default

Everyone seems to believe that these owners are showering in gold. There are 15-30% that are not going to make it regardless of what happens (new cba or not)...these will most likely sell their teams. Now lets say you are one of the few owners actually giving the nfl your profit, why should this continue or what motivation would there be to continue to support this ideal when there are negotiations on the table.and what options do the 'poor' teams have - no city or state budget currently can justify building a new complex to house an nfl team.

When our own govt has to discount bonds, the writing is on the wall. If you haven't noticed EVERYTHING has taken a 36-72% price hit...meanwhile costs and commodities have increased...this is inflation...by deflation. I truly believe that the us citizen will be 'nfl toyless' (including parts of the 32 team nfl as we know it) inside of 6 years...its literally a game of inches including the net return. Those that survive will recognize their earning potential while cutting costs (including player salaries and freeloading teams) just like america has been forced to do since 2003 and 2007.

Last edited by Vegas_Bronco; 01-22-2011 at 08:14 AM..
Vegas_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:19 AM   #9
spdirty
Ring of Famer
 
spdirty's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bailey
Posts: 14,474

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Quentin Jammer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_Bronco View Post
Everyone seems to believe that these owners are showering in gold. There are 15-30% that are not going to make it regardless of what happens (new cba or not)...these will most likely sell their teams. Now lets say you are one of the few owners actually giving the nfl your profit, why should this continue or what motivation would there be to continue to support this ideal when there are negotiations on the table.and what options do the 'poor' teams have - no city or state budget currently can justify building a new complex to house an nfl team.

When our own govt has to discount bonds, the writing is on the wall. If you haven't noticed EVERYTHING has taken a 36-72% price hit...meanwhile costs and commodities have increased...this is inflation...by deflation. I truly believe that the us citizen will be 'nfl toyless' (including parts of the 32 team nfl as we know it) inside of 6 years...its literally a game of inches including the net return. Those that survive will recognize their earning potential while cutting costs (including player salaries and freeloading teams) just like america has been forced to do since 2003 and 2007.
The NFL isn't anything like the NBA, NHL, or MLB. An NFL owner would have to really make an effort to lose money. Pat Bowlen can pay off his entire overhead. Thats players, staff, operational costs at Dove Valley, charter planes, and 3 coaches salaries all with just the annual TV money he receives.
spdirty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:25 AM   #10
Vegas_Bronco
Ring of Famer
 
Vegas_Bronco's Avatar
 
Fear is a lack of preparation.

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Now 64 Yards Out
Posts: 5,074

Adopt-a-Bronco:
1 Elam 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spdirty View Post
The NFL isn't anything like the NBA, NHL, or MLB. An NFL owner would have to really make an effort to lose money. Pat Bowlen can pay off his entire overhead. Thats players, staff, operational costs at Dove Valley, charter planes, and 3 coaches salaries all with just the annual TV money he receives.
Sorry but this is a no. He receives enuff from tv contracts to pay his players with little left over. His earnings are mainly determined by how often and how much we attend and spend at invesco each sunday.

Trust me, he wouldn't be writing letters to me and u apologizing for 'deserving more'.

The Packers earnings vary each year from $5-20 million in profits per year.

Last edited by Vegas_Bronco; 01-22-2011 at 08:31 AM..
Vegas_Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:29 AM   #11
jossjeff
Pro Bowler
 
jossjeff's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: RaiderNation
Posts: 721
Default

If I'm an owner I drop the hammer on the players in this CBA. Seriously WTF are these guys gonna do? So many seem to live paycheck to paycheck despite getting paid huge dollars I'm guessing the players will blink first, and it's not even close.

On a related note despite the fact that Al is a crazy old bat I believe the reason he let 20 plus guys become free agents this offseason is that he strongly suspects this and thinks he will be in a prime position dollar wise after the dust settles. Just my opinion...
jossjeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:29 AM   #12
Royalfan19
Just Drafted
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 37

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegas_Bronco View Post
Sorry but this is a no. He receives enuff from tv contracts to pay his players with little left over. His earnings are mainly determined by how often and how much we attend and spend at invesco each sunday.

The Packers earnings vary each year from $5-20 million in profits per year.
You have made some bold statements that frankly make no sense, care to provide some links?
Royalfan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:32 AM   #13
lostknight
In The Arena
 
lostknight's Avatar
 
ohwaitwtf

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,364

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

The single largest determinant to how well a NFL franchise does fiscally is the luxury boxes. That's followed closely by the amount of revenue brought in by other events at franchise owned stadiums. The TV revenue basically covers the cost of doing business for the franchises. The most profitable teams in the league also own their own stadiums.

As others have noted, the TV contract deals are flush royalties sent in every year, if there is programming or no. But if there is not programming, it basically has to be repaid over the lifetime of the contract. Right now the players union is desperately trying to get that provision in the contracts struck down, as it basically allows the owners to not go bankrupt, and make their stadium payments.

The most interesting option is if the owners ask for, and a special master declares a impasse. If that occurs, the owners can basically apply their last best offer as the terms for playing. The onus would then be on the players to either walk-away, strike, or submit.
lostknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:33 AM   #14
Royalfan19
Just Drafted
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 37

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

At some point one side will get either internal or external stat guys to run an analysis on the amount of money it would cost them to continue to push it and compare it to how much they would save by conceding X-amount, and where the two values meet, extend an offer at that point with the analysis report to show the other side that its in their best interests to play along.

Up until that point, it will be all hardball in the media to try and obtain leverage.
Royalfan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:34 AM   #15
lostknight
In The Arena
 
lostknight's Avatar
 
ohwaitwtf

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,364

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Royalfan19 View Post
You have made some bold statements that frankly make no sense, care to provide some links?
The Packer's numbers are the one teams that are on the record. Since they are owned by the city/state, they are a public institution, and players salaries and coaches must be reported.

In this case, his statement is correct. It's also worth nothing that a big determinant of profit is stadium revenue (which the Packers don't get any of), and a variety of other non-revenue-shared monies that don't get split between the teams.
lostknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:36 AM   #16
lostknight
In The Arena
 
lostknight's Avatar
 
ohwaitwtf

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,364

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

My guess is that you will see the season expand by two weeks, but that will be one additional week, and one additional bye for each team. Two pre-season games will be cut. I think the players will be held against 58% barrier. The NFLAPA will assume the retirement and health care plans.

My guess. I don't think it's too far from where they are now, to where they need to go.
lostknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 08:38 AM   #17
Royalfan19
Just Drafted
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 37

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostknight View Post
The Packer's numbers are the one teams that are on the record. Since they are owned by the city/state, they are a public institution, and players salaries and coaches must be reported.

In this case, his statement is correct. It's also worth nothing that a big determinant of profit is stadium revenue (which the Packers don't get any of), and a variety of other non-revenue-shared monies that don't get split between the teams.
More focused on his first post, where he made a lot of bold remarks. Thanks though.
Royalfan19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 10:13 AM   #18
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 19,951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
Highway to the danger zone.
More like Highway to Hell **** em let them rich bastards squirm in their mess
oubronco is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 10:57 AM   #19
Taco John
24/7 Broncos
 
Taco John's Avatar
 
Peddling the Orange Addiction

Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 50,278

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Peyton Manning
Default

The players are going to blink. They're the ones who get hurt the worst from a lockout, and many of them will never see the field of football again if there's a lockout. In the end, we're going to get an 18 game season, a 55 man roster and a rookie cap.
Taco John is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 11:09 AM   #20
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,405
Default

My thoughts exactly. But if there is a lockout, do you have any plans for the site? I'm sure traffic will slow down by September or so...there's only so many "Hillis is going to be so great in 2012 when he has time to learn the offense" and "How many redzone interceptions would Jay Cutler have thrown this week" threads we can make.

I hope.
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 11:21 AM   #21
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,639

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

I don't feel sorry 1 bit for the NFL owners. The NFL generates over 6 billion dollars a yr, at a minimum that's $187,000,000 per team avg.
Let's not forget it's the owners choosing to do the lock out, not the players. The owners want money back. They could've simply extended the current CBA & we wouldn't be here talking about a lost season or 2.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 11:24 AM   #22
baja
It is what it Is.
 
baja's Avatar
 
Pay attention.

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in a bunker
Posts: 56,977

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Julius Thomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RhymesayersDU View Post
See that's thing; the revenue isn't being lost. Sure there's ticket sales and concessions. But as I understand it, the owners will get paid by the all-important TV contracts either way. Those TV contracts are what makes the league go. We're talking billions of dollars that the owners still get next year. That's where they have the advantage on the players, and have the upper hand to lock out if needed.
As long as the TV contracts are being paid (which is insane and they should hang the lawyers that agreed to paying for no product) the bottom line may actually be higher without paying the salaries.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 02:32 PM   #23
driver
Pro Bowler
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 522

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
As long as the TV contracts are being paid (which is insane and they should hang the lawyers that agreed to paying for no product) the bottom line may actually be higher without paying the salaries.
Are you sure about this? If that"s true it's the stupidest business deal ever.
Paying for no product!
driver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 04:03 PM   #24
lostknight
In The Arena
 
lostknight's Avatar
 
ohwaitwtf

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,364

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tim Tebow
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by driver View Post
Are you sure about this? If that"s true it's the stupidest business deal ever.
Paying for no product!
The games are paid on a rights basis, not on a game by game basis. Over the life of the contract, the NFL has to refund money for games not played. In other words, the network contracts basically act as a bank for the franchises.

I have no sympathy for any of these a-holes.
lostknight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-22-2011, 06:36 PM   #25
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,711
Default

Fans’ guide to NFL labor battle

Roger Goodell was in the midst of a leisurely training camp tour last month when the NFL commissioner began experiencing severe labor pains.

Goodell, as part of his weeklong bus trip to seven NFL camps with Hall of Fame coach and broadcasting icon John Madden, initiated locker-room meetings with players at each stop, and the level of interrogation he faced became increasingly charged as players expressed anxiety and anger over a potential lockout next spring.

At one point in the commissioner’s visit with the Cleveland Browns, linebacker Scott Fujita(notes), a member of the NFL Players Association’s executive committee, asked: “What do the owners want? What’s it going to take to get a deal done?”

“I can’t answer that,” Goodell replied.

“You’re the NFL commissioner,” Fujita shot back. “You’re here as the mouthpiece for the owners, and you can’t even tell us what they want? The CBA [collective bargaining agreement] is up in March. Don’t you think you need to start giving us some answers?”

By the end of his visit with the Browns, players were referring to the league’s chief executive as “Roger the Dodger.” It got worse for Goodell during the final visit of his tour, this stop coming at the Indianapolis Colts’ training camp. According to two sources familiar with the meeting, some Colts players admonished Goodell with swear words, to the point where star quarterback Peyton Manning(notes) was embarrassed by their behavior. Veteran center Jeff Saturday(notes), another executive committee member, cut the meeting short to keep the situation from escalating further.

Welcome to the strange world of the 21st-century NFL, a wildly profitable business in uncertain economic times whose proprietors and employees can’t just get along. With the two sides seemingly headed for a rancorous and incongruous labor showdown next spring, America’s most prosperous and popular sporting enterprise could be walking a fine line between hard-fought progress and shameful self-immolation.

Two years ago, when the owners voted unanimously to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement following the 2010 season, it set the stage for a confrontation that could well result in the league’s first work stoppage since 1987. As the deadline for striking a new deal nears – things will likely come to a head on or around March 1 of next year – each camp is preparing for battle on numerous fronts. There has been legal wrangling, political maneuvering, spin-doctoring and economic leveraging by both sides … and much of it has been lost on a blissfully oblivious fan base.

Internal NFLPA studies have shown that only 33 to 40 percent of hardcore NFL fans have the impending labor drama on their radar screens. For everyone else, the prospect of football interrupted – and the potential havoc it could wreak upon everything from video games to fantasy drafts – may come as an unwelcome shock.

As we head into a season that could end with an abrupt dose of harsh reality, here’s a fan’s guide to the labor landscape based on exhaustive research and conversations with owners, NFLPA officials, players, agents and other league insiders.

Which side is forcing the issue?

The owners, particularly a faction of aggressive, entrepreneurial Goodell confidants (Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Pat Bowlen, Jerry Richardson) who want a CBA that accounts for the high-risk investments they’ve made on new stadiums and other capital expenditures. For the most part, the owners are unified in their belief that they agreed to a lousy deal when the current CBA was extended in 2006, and that the players currently receive too great a share of their adjusted gross revenues. At last March’s NFL owners meeting in Orlando, Fla., the Carolina Panthers’ Richardson gave a fiery speech in which he exhorted his peers to “take back our league” by forcing a more favorable deal down the throats of the players. This is likely to be accomplished in the form of a lockout, though it’s possible that the owners could opt for a milder approach: negotiating to impasse and imposing terms of their choosing, which might compel the players to strike. DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA’s executive director, is convinced that a lockout is coming, and a majority of his constituents – many of whom are more engaged and informed than is commonly perceived – share this belief.

Are the two sides making any progress toward a new deal?

Not really. Though there have been recent reports of an improved atmosphere between the NFL’s management council and the players’ union, there has been no substantial movement toward a new CBA. This may be partly due to the desire of some owners to play hardball and lock out the players until they capitulate; it also may simply be a function of timing. Think of it as akin to negotiations between a team and its first-round draft pick. Though the NFL draft is in late April, talks usually don’t begin to heat up until the approach of training camp, and often the contract isn’t signed until deeper into the offseason. In this case, though the CBA expires after the 2010 season, the real deadline isn’t until a year from now, when there’s a risk that games will be lost.

Why are the owners so upset about the deal they cut in 2006?


Many owners believe that the late Gene Upshaw, who served as the NFLPA’s executive director for a quarter-century, caught then-NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue in a weak moment and muscled through an extension to the CBA that was, in essence, a resounding victory for the players. Upshaw, they believe, knew that Tagliabue – who was preparing to step away after a 17-year stint as commissioner which included unprecedented labor peace – was loath to tarnish his legacy by ending his tenure with a messy fight between the players and owners. He also understood that several of the league’s most powerful owners, such as the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones, were unwilling to entertain thoughts of a work stoppage because of expensive stadium plans. So Upshaw successfully got Tagliabue to sell a deal that gave the players 59.6 percent of total revenue and implemented a revenue-sharing plan in which the league’s 15 highest-earning franchises subsidized the 17 teams that earned the least. A little more than two years after agreeing to the extension by a 30-2 vote, the owners unanimously voted to opt out of the deal two years early. Upshaw’s sudden death from pancreatic cancer three months later may have given some owners an increased sense that the union is in a vulnerable position this time around.

Why do some owners think the system is broken?

Revenue sharing fails to address the reality that some teams (such as the Cincinnati Bengals and Arizona Cardinals) have favorable stadium deals that call for little or no expenditures from the organization while other owners, such as Jones, Denver’s Pat Bowlen or the Green Bay Packers, took out massive loans for new or renovated stadiums. Thus, someone such as the Panthers’ Richardson might be forced to write an eight-figure check that subsidizes a peer such as the Bengals’ Mike Brown(notes), who is actually making a far greater profit because of his relatively low overhead. Further, there are owners who intentionally keep revenues low to maintain their spot in the NFL’s lower 17 and ensure that they’ll receive money under the current system. All of this is mystifying to the players, who believe the owners who are most averse to revenue sharing greet a potential work stoppage as an opportunity for prevailing in an internal struggle.

Do the owners really want the players to take an 18 percent pay cut?

Yes and no. What the owners have actually proposed is that the players take the same cut (roughly 60 percent) of a smaller pie. Under the current deal, owners receive a credit of slightly more than $1 billion for operating and investment expenses off the top of an annual revenue pool that’s approximately $9 billion before the remainder of the money is divided. The owners are seeking an increase to about $2.4 billion in credits, a number they say reflects the changing economic realities of the era. Whereas stadiums which were partly or wholly subsidized by taxpayers were once the norm, owners are now pouring much more capital into state-of-the-art facilities – essentially saddling them with enormous mortgage payments. The owners believe that the players should account for their risk and the bounty (in the form of increased future revenues) it provides. Players, conversely, argue that they are not in a true partnership absent an ownership stake in franchises whose values have increased exponentially over the past decade and a half.

Jerry Jones and the Cowboys spent about $1.2 billion on the team's new stadium.
(Cody Duty/AP Photo)

Are the players sympathetic to the owners’ concerns?

Yes, but they’re also skeptical. For one thing, when the players hear the owners talk about “risk,” some of them cringe. As one put it recently: “They’re taking risks? We’re the ones risking our health on a regular basis – we all know there’s a 100 percent injury rate in the NFL. Give me a break.” Players also are dubious of the insinuation by some owners that their profit margins have been vastly reduced under the current deal. Smith, who became the NFLPA’s executive director in March 2009, has repeatedly called for owners to open their books as a means of substantiating their claims of financial distress … and the owners have steadfastly refused. There is also rampant distrust of the league’s proposal calling for the dramatic increase in credits off the top. According to one NFLPA source, among the categories included by owners in their proposal were “professional fees,” practice-facility costs and travel. Says the source: “What company asks its own employees to pay for their overhead?”

Which side is better positioned to withstand a work stoppage?

The owners, based on simple economics. In theory, they could reduce their operating expenses by 50 percent (an estimated $4.4 billion) via the elimination of player salaries and benefits and the temporary layoffs or salary reductions of various other employees. Meanwhile, thanks to the terms of the extensions to the lucrative TV deals the league has with DirecTV and several broadcast networks, the owners would continue to receive payments during a lockout – though the money would eventually have to be repaid via credits for future games. Still, that’s a serious cash-flow advantage that would, again in theory, allow the owners to realize more than 50 percent of their revenues (nearly $4 billion) and, therefore, to cover their operating expenses for an entire season if necessary. Players, meanwhile, would theoretically be much more financially stressed in the short term, and the relatively short career span of NFL players would make the prospect of missing games even more unpalatable.

What legal proceeding could give the players the upper hand?

In June, the NFLPA surprised owners by filing a legal complaint with the Special Master appointed to resolve CBA disputes, challenging the structuring of the television deals. The NFLPA charged that, in negotiating extensions with DirecTV and at least three networks (Fox, CBS and NBC), the league extended valuable benefits in 2009 and 2010 in exchange for the provisions which would allow the cash flow to continue in the event of a lockout – effectively depriving the players of potential revenues in the short term while setting the stage for a work stoppage. Owners, citing the fact that similar provisions have been included in past TV deals, seem to think the players have little chance of prevailing. However, NFLPA executives have been encouraged by early findings during the discovery process that may have documented the league’s intentions, and appear to think that there’s a chance the union’s request to have the TV money placed in an escrow account during a work stoppage may be granted. Also encouraging to the NFLPA: Any appeal would likely be heard by federal judge David Doty of Minneapolis – the architect of the historic 1993 settlement, which brought unrestricted free agency and a salary cap to the NFL. In 2008, the league accused Doty of being biased in favor of the union and asked him to remove himself from further handling of CBA-related disputes. When Doty refused to step aside, the league took its case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, which rejected the request last November. Thus, Doty’s involvement, at least on paper, could not be construed as anything but a positive development for the NFLPA. And remember that, before being voted Upshaw’s successor, Smith was a trial lawyer and litigation partner in an influential Washington firm. Legal disputes are clearly in his comfort zone.

Page two next

Last edited by El Minion; 01-22-2011 at 06:38 PM..
El Minion is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CBA thread gyldenlove Orange Mane Central Discussion 3 06-15-2010 12:11 PM
2010 Free Agency Preview: Offense oubronco Orange Mane Central Discussion 1 02-17-2010 02:48 PM
NFL free-agent watch: Sporting News' Super 99 Bronco Rob Orange Mane Central Discussion 14 01-29-2010 05:58 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.


Denver Broncos