Enjoy next season boys and girls

[major]

Here is what Peter King wrote this morning regarding the labor talks (we better enjoy next season):

 

If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season. Many of us in the media have speculated about the chances for a lockout and predicted one is coming, but the total lack of progress over the nut issue in 11 bargaining sessions tells me unless there's a sea-change by one side or the other, you'd better savor the 2010 season because it could be the last football we see for a while.

 

At the core of the problem is ownership's demand for players to bear an equal part of the cost for stadium construction, debt service and upkeep -- and the players saying it's not their problem. In NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith's recent e-mail to player representatives, he startled player leaders by saying ownership wanted to cut player compensation by 18 percent per year in the new CBA.

 

I thought the 18 percent number might be an exaggeration, a scare tactic to get players' attention. It's not. The owners, one management source said, have asked that the players' pool of revenue against which the salary cap is calculated be reduced by 18 percent.

 

The players' response, a union source told me, is that they're not prepared to take a penny, or a percentage point, less. While Smith, in his letter to players, didn't dismiss the possibility of negotiating on the issue, he wrote that there has been no compelling information presented to players to justify such a major reduction in what players make.

 

You wonder what 18 percent means. So did I. The management source said the owners want $1 billion a year credited to ownership and not subject to being part of the pie that the players divide. "There's obviously been an enormous shift from public financing of stadiums to private funding,'' the management source said. "Those costs are not recognized in the current CBA, and we feel that has to change.''

 

The league has beat this drum for several years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some give-and-take in the owners' demands, because this is collective bargaining, but I would be surprised if the owners drop this as a demand altogether. They're just too dug-in on it.

 

But from the players' perspective, it's got to be a tough sell to union leaders. Imagine Smith going into a union meeting at a team and telling the players that the average compensation to the men in this room is about $1.8 million this year in salary and bonus payments, and explaining to them in a time of bountiful success for the NFL, each of the players is going to have to take, on average, a $324,000 pay cut. The players will never go for that, absent the owners being able to prove they're losing money in a time of unparalleled wealth in the league.

 

At some point, serious talks will start, with each side compromising. But I can't see the two sides bridging this chasm anytime soon.

[PromoTheRobot]

They could shut it all down right now and I wouldn't give a crap.

 

PTR

[loyal2dagame]

nfl owners and nflpa union are going to have BIG problems if there is a lockout.

 

on the other hand, this could not come at a better time for the nhl as now there are more young superstars all in the same age group(early to mid 20's) than at any other time in the league's history. (crosby,malkin,ovechkin,miller,kolovachuk, ect,ect,ect)

 

nfl's problems could be the nhl's gain.

[DarthICE]

The NFL Owners will still be billionares and the players will run out of money. No way the players can win this. In the mean time the Owners will play scrubs and the fans will come to the stadium.

[Beerball]

Unless they have some sweet financing deal owners like Jerrah Jones who have to make beaucoup payments on facilities won't want that to happen. Are any other owners in a similar situation?

[San-O]

Unless they have some sweet financing deal owners like Jerrah Jones who have to make beaucoup payments on facilities won't want that to happen. Are any other owners in a similar situation?

 

 

I would imagine they have some form of insurance for that.

[loyal2dagame]

I would imagine they have some form of insurance for that.

 

if there is a lockout, do the networks still pay for the annual rights?

[Boatdrinks]

nfl owners and nflpa union are going to have BIG problems if there is a lockout.

 

on the other hand, this could not come at a better time for the nhl as now there are more young superstars all in the same age group(early to mid 20's) than at any other time in the league's history. (crosby,malkin,ovechkin,miller,kolovachuk, ect,ect,ect)

 

nfl's problems could be the nhl's gain.

 

 

I doubt it. It just isn't the SAME SPORT. Perhaps a big upswing in College football ratings will ensue, but any impact on the NHL will likely be negligible. If say, your favorite brand of beer goes off the market,you'll switch to another brand. Not to drinking scotch. Football to hockey is the proverbial apples to oranges. I'll watch about any NFL action, even preseason. Then a big time college game, before I'd bother to watch any regular season NHL. I'll watch a little playoff NHL, but maybe that's due to so little being on the sports calendar at that time of year.

[Mike in Horseheads]

Here is what Peter King wrote this morning regarding the labor talks (we better enjoy next season):

 

If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season. Many of us in the media have speculated about the chances for a lockout and predicted one is coming, but the total lack of progress over the nut issue in 11 bargaining sessions tells me unless there's a sea-change by one side or the other, you'd better savor the 2010 season because it could be the last football we see for a while.

 

At the core of the problem is ownership's demand for players to bear an equal part of the cost for stadium construction, debt service and upkeep -- and the players saying it's not their problem. In NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith's recent e-mail to player representatives, he startled player leaders by saying ownership wanted to cut player compensation by 18 percent per year in the new CBA.

 

I thought the 18 percent number might be an exaggeration, a scare tactic to get players' attention. It's not. The owners, one management source said, have asked that the players' pool of revenue against which the salary cap is calculated be reduced by 18 percent.

 

The players' response, a union source told me, is that they're not prepared to take a penny, or a percentage point, less. While Smith, in his letter to players, didn't dismiss the possibility of negotiating on the issue, he wrote that there has been no compelling information presented to players to justify such a major reduction in what players make.

 

You wonder what 18 percent means. So did I. The management source said the owners want $1 billion a year credited to ownership and not subject to being part of the pie that the players divide. "There's obviously been an enormous shift from public financing of stadiums to private funding,'' the management source said. "Those costs are not recognized in the current CBA, and we feel that has to change.''

 

The league has beat this drum for several years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some give-and-take in the owners' demands, because this is collective bargaining, but I would be surprised if the owners drop this as a demand altogether. They're just too dug-in on it.

 

But from the players' perspective, it's got to be a tough sell to union leaders. Imagine Smith going into a union meeting at a team and telling the players that the average compensation to the men in this room is about $1.8 million this year in salary and bonus payments, and explaining to them in a time of bountiful success for the NFL, each of the players is going to have to take, on average, a $324,000 pay cut. The players will never go for that, absent the owners being able to prove they're losing money in a time of unparalleled wealth in the league.

 

At some point, serious talks will start, with each side compromising. But I can't see the two sides bridging this chasm anytime soon.

 

See Ralphies not dumb, he just doesn't want to pay a coach during the lockout. Russ will handle it for 2010.

[Boatdrinks]

if there is a lockout, do the networks still pay for the annual rights?

 

 

Good question. We all know about the "scab" games during past NFL strikes. But a strike is very different from a lockout, as there will be NO games. You'd have to know all the minutia of the TV broadcast contracts to answer this.

[loyal2dagame]

Football to hockey is the proverbial apples to oranges. I'll watch about any NFL action, even preseason. Then a big time college game, before I'd bother to watch any regular season NHL. I'll watch a little playoff NHL, but maybe that's due to so little being on the sports calendar at that time of year.

 

thank for proving my point about the nhl gaining viewers.

 

there will be no monday night, sunday night, thursday night football, so what are people gonna do? watch the nba?

[Steely Dan]

Aye Yi Yi the owners are being dickheads. They get $1 billion a year from ESPN for Monday Night Football, alone. These guys aren't starving and right now I'm siding with the players, that could change though. Expecting an 18% pay cut every year over the length of the contract is ridiculous, IMO. Ownership's crocodile tears would be very funny if it wasn't for the seriousness of the issue. I find it difficult to feel sorry for the billionaires who are crying poverty. JMO

[Beerball]

if there is a lockout, do the networks still pay for the annual rights?

link

According to this DTV is believed to be tied to their $1B deal, the NFL may have provisions where it receives some money from the other networks, even if games are not played.

[nucci]

Aye Yi Yi the owners are being dickheads. They get $1 billion a year from ESPN for Monday Night Football, alone. These guys aren't starving and right now I'm siding with the players, that could change though. Expecting an 18% pay cut every year over the length of the contract is ridiculous, IMO. Ownership's crocodile tears would be very funny if it wasn't for the seriousness of the issue. I find it difficult to feel sorry for the billionaires who are crying poverty. JMO

I don't think they are crying poverty. Like most business owners, they are looking to pay less money to their employees.

[Mr. WEO]

Here is what Peter King wrote this morning regarding the labor talks (we better enjoy next season):

 

If the past few days, I've spoken to sources on both sides of the labor talks, and I've come to the conclusion that it'll be an upset if there isn't a work stoppage that either delays or cancels the 2011 season. Many of us in the media have speculated about the chances for a lockout and predicted one is coming, but the total lack of progress over the nut issue in 11 bargaining sessions tells me unless there's a sea-change by one side or the other, you'd better savor the 2010 season because it could be the last football we see for a while.

 

At the core of the problem is ownership's demand for players to bear an equal part of the cost for stadium construction, debt service and upkeep -- and the players saying it's not their problem. In NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith's recent e-mail to player representatives, he startled player leaders by saying ownership wanted to cut player compensation by 18 percent per year in the new CBA.

 

I thought the 18 percent number might be an exaggeration, a scare tactic to get players' attention. It's not. The owners, one management source said, have asked that the players' pool of revenue against which the salary cap is calculated be reduced by 18 percent.

 

The players' response, a union source told me, is that they're not prepared to take a penny, or a percentage point, less. While Smith, in his letter to players, didn't dismiss the possibility of negotiating on the issue, he wrote that there has been no compelling information presented to players to justify such a major reduction in what players make.

 

You wonder what 18 percent means. So did I. The management source said the owners want $1 billion a year credited to ownership and not subject to being part of the pie that the players divide. "There's obviously been an enormous shift from public financing of stadiums to private funding,'' the management source said. "Those costs are not recognized in the current CBA, and we feel that has to change.''

 

The league has beat this drum for several years. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some give-and-take in the owners' demands, because this is collective bargaining, but I would be surprised if the owners drop this as a demand altogether. They're just too dug-in on it.

 

But from the players' perspective, it's got to be a tough sell to union leaders. Imagine Smith going into a union meeting at a team and telling the players that the average compensation to the men in this room is about $1.8 million this year in salary and bonus payments, and explaining to them in a time of bountiful success for the NFL, each of the players is going to have to take, on average, a $324,000 pay cut. The players will never go for that, absent the owners being able to prove they're losing money in a time of unparalleled wealth in the league.

 

At some point, serious talks will start, with each side compromising. But I can't see the two sides bridging this chasm anytime soon.

The NFL and owners may be waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the case before it.

 

If the league wins, there will be no compelling reason for them to pursue a CBA with the players union.

[Corp000085]

Short term losses, long term gains. Look at 82 and 87... without those lockouts, the $ucce$$ of the 1990s and 2000s NFL does not happen. I'm all for shutting it all down next year.

[loyal2dagame]

link

According to this DTV is believed to be tied to their $1B deal, the NFL may have provisions where it receives some money from the other networks, even if games are not played.

 

good work, thanks for the answer

[Boatdrinks]

thank for proving my point about the nhl gaining viewers.

 

there will be no monday night, sunday night, thursday night football, so what are people gonna do? watch the nba?

 

 

You didn't notice I said PLAYOFF NHL. Last I checked, there is NO FOOTBALL in April, May, or June. I fail to see how any increase in viewership would hit the NHL during this time period.

[loyal2dagame]

You didn't notice I said PLAYOFF NHL. Last I checked, there is NO FOOTBALL in April, May, or June. I fail to see how any increase in viewership would hit the NHL during this time period.

 

i was mainly using your remarks about there not being much on the sports calander during that time.

myself, i dont really watch much college sports, if any, besides national championship games...

 

and i wouldnt watch the nba if someone paid me.

[bkc]

at least we will have a coach by then , well maybe