Great read on the NFL labor situation

[Doc]

There will be blood.

 

Some interesting excerpts:

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.

Like I've been saying...

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.

If this happens, it's a HUGE blow for the owners.

What was the significance of the Supreme Court’s decision in the “American Needle” case?

 

It was a big victory for the players – or, more accurately, it spared the players from the prospect of what would have been a brutal defeat.

Another in a string of poor decisions by the NFL. What we're witnessing is a group unwittingly sabotaging themselves, likely because they think they're smarter and richer than their employees.

 

Just to clarify, I side with the owners, since the players getting what they want means higher and higher prices for the fans for sure. However I don't agree that the players, or even other owners, should have to share the risk undertaken by a handful of owners who spent stupid money on huge and gaudy new stadiums, figuring the cash cow would continue to grow, ao that's something that will be a sticking point among the owners themselves. And as I said, if the TV money is put in escrow, it puts the owners in a tough spot and makes it a mutual war of attrition.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Doc

[Mr. WEO]

There will be blood.

 

Some interesting excerpts:

 

Like I've been saying...

 

If this happens, it's a HUGE blow for the owners.

 

Another in a string of poor decisions by the NFL. What we're witnessing is a group unwittingly sabotaging themselves, likely because they think they're smarter and richer than their employees.

 

Just to clarify, I side with the owners, since the players getting what they want means higher and higher prices for the fans for sure. However I don't agree that the players, or even other owners, should have to share the risk undertaken by a handful of owners who spent stupid money on huge and gaudy new stadiums, figuring the cash cow would continue to grow, ao that's something that will be a sticking point among the owners themselves. And as I said, if the TV money is put in escrow, it puts the owners in a tough spot and makes it a mutual war of attrition.

So avoiding "brutal defeat" is now synonymous with "big victory"? Maybe in the NFLPA, or Vichy France.

 

How was American Needle a "poor decision" by the NFL? They were sued. They were supporting the case going all the way hoping for a free windfall of a favorable ruling that would have changed everything overwhelmingly in their favor. Only a moron wouldn't role those dice---they lost nothing. It was house money.

 

As for the escrow--it was a smart move by the owners to make such deals. Why would anyone think otherwise. The onus is now on the players to prove they deserve money in escrow. Even if they prevail, it won't make much difference. The players cannot win a war of attrition. If there is a lockout, the players don't get paid.

[Kelly the Dog]

That was one damn good article. Really well written and researched. Thanks, Doc.

[Doc]

So avoiding "brutal defeat" is now synonymous with "big victory"? Maybe in the NFLPA, or Vichy France.

 

How was American Needle a "poor decision" by the NFL? They were sued. They were supporting the case going all the way hoping for a free windfall of a favorable ruling that would have changed everything overwhelmingly in their favor. Only a moron wouldn't role those dice---they lost nothing. It was house money.

 

As for the escrow--it was a smart move by the owners to make such deals. Why would anyone think otherwise. The onus is now on the players to prove they deserve money in escrow. Even if they prevail, it won't make much difference. The players cannot win a war of attrition. If there is a lockout, the players don't get paid.

The owners were banking on that "war chest" of 2011 TV money. If they don't get it, they have a harder time paying their unremitting debts.

 

As for the ANI case, the NFL easily won the initial ruling and when ANI asked for the SCOTUS to hear the case, it was deemed a desperation move. The NFL shocked everyone by saying they also wanted it heard, because they felt they had a slam-dunk win and the ability to forever claim anti-trust status, with its obvious advantages. They lost and that ruling could be used by the NFLPA to pose a serious threat to the NFL's (unofficial) anti-trust exemption.

 

That was one damn good article. Really well written and researched. Thanks, Doc.

My pleasure.

[Malazan]

There's no good side to be on here. Fans are getting screwed either way. However, the players are reaching with unmitigated greed and while I have no sympathy for either side, the players seem to have lost all touch with reality.

[Another Point of View]

Nobody loves football more then me, but the situation has reached the crossroads, run away rookie player salaries, owners demanding new Stadiums and state money to pad the profits.

 

We hardly ever hear about the fans.

 

SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!! and WE DON"T HAVE THE MONEY?

 

Personally, I hope there is a 5 year lockout! Perhaps some people will wise up...

[Mickey]

There's no good side to be on here. Fans are getting screwed either way. However, the players are reaching with unmitigated greed and while I have no sympathy for either side, the players seem to have lost all touch with reality.

 

 

The owners are going to charge what the market will bear. How much the players get isn't what drives up ticket prices. What drives them up is the increasing popularity of the product so that people are willing to pay the prices charged.

 

I root for players because accountants don't take the field. If I am going to be robbed to buy a ticket and robbed again at the concession stand then I would rather see my booty going to the guys who play the game rather than the guys who are

selling the game.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

In the absence of a new CBA, will some NFL players get in touch with their inner Cheech and Chong? Damn straight. If there’s no CBA, the NFL won’t be able to test or monitor players, even prior offenders who’ve run afoul of the league’s policies against substance abuse and/or performance-enhancing drugs. “It’s gonna be an old-fashioned Smoke In for some guys,” predicts a league source. “They’ll be in pot heaven.”

 

 

[PromoTheRobot]

Ralph that old coot was right, wasn't he?

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

Ralph that old coot was right, wasn't he?

 

PTR

 

If you count "I don't understand it" being right. That's all he said, he really didn't understand it. He didn't know how bad it was himself, he just didn't (rightfully) want to vote on something he didn't understand. He had little idea why it was bad. And it retrospect he was one of two who did the right thing. But he didnt know anything the other guys didn't know about why this was a bad deal.

[Doc]

If you count "I don't understand it" being right. That's all he said, he really didn't understand it. He didn't know how bad it was himself, he just didn't (rightfully) want to vote on something he didn't understand. He had little idea why it was bad. And it retrospect he was one of two who did the right thing. But he didnt know anything the other guys didn't know about why this was a bad deal.

He knew why it was a bad deal. What many missed after that now-infamous snippet by ESPN, showing Ralph half-jokingly saying "I didn't understand it," was him saying "I think [the players] got too much." And as you said, voting "no" after having just 45 minutes to read the CBA was the right thing to do, but all one needed to do was look at the 4.5% increase in the salary cap. The owners pushed it through for the (wrong) reasons mentioned in the article.

[Malazan]

The owners are going to charge what the market will bear. How much the players get isn't what drives up ticket prices.

 

I didn't say that. You may have quoted the wrong post.

[PromoTheRobot]

He knew why it was a bad deal. What many missed after that now-infamous snippet by ESPN, showing Ralph half-jokingly saying "I didn't understand it," was him saying "I think [the players] got too much." And as you said, voting "no" after having just 45 minutes to read the CBA was the right thing to do, but all one needed to do was look at the 4.5% increase in the salary cap. The owners pushed it through for the (wrong) reasons mentioned in the article.

You missed this part, Kelly. Maybe Ralph is a senile old coot but how many people can dissect a complicated contract in 45 minutes? I bet none of the other 30 owners (Mike Brown in CIN voted no.) had any idea what they were signing. They went along with what Bob Kraft and Jerruh Jones told them. At least Ralph understood right away the players were getting too much, which is EXACTLY why there will be a lockout.

 

Seems Ralph understood far more than you give him credit for.

 

PTR

[Kelly the Dog]

He knew why it was a bad deal. What many missed after that now-infamous snippet by ESPN, showing Ralph half-jokingly saying "I didn't understand it," was him saying "I think [the players] got too much." And as you said, voting "no" after having just 45 minutes to read the CBA was the right thing to do, but all one needed to do was look at the 4.5% increase in the salary cap. The owners pushed it through for the (wrong) reasons mentioned in the article.

"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

 

I love Ralph. Always have. He's just nuts.

 

I tried to look for an additional quote from him about the players. I don't remember that at all (not saying it didn't happen). I remember him saying things like that later on when he was trying to work those deals and got Shumer involved. That time he did the right thing too by complaining.

[Mr. WEO]

The owners were banking on that "war chest" of 2011 TV money. If they don't get it, they have a harder time paying their unremitting debts.

 

As for the ANI case, the NFL easily won the initial ruling and when ANI asked for the SCOTUS to hear the case, it was deemed a desperation move. The NFL shocked everyone by saying they also wanted it heard, because they felt they had a slam-dunk win and the ability to forever claim anti-trust status, with its obvious advantages. They lost and that ruling could be used by the NFLPA to pose a serious threat to the NFL's (unofficial) anti-trust exemption.

 

 

My pleasure.

Yes the owners were counting on the war chest (you get that), but even if they don't have that money, they are individually and as a group in a far better financial position than each individual player. None of the owners will struggle to pay their mortgage, car, diamond earring or child support payments if there is a lockout.

 

The League was wise to support the SCOTUS review of the ANI case--they had won the case and every appeal to that point. If they prevailed in the SCOTUS, there would never be another CBA again--they would own the players outright---a blank check to run the league any way they liked. How could they not support that? They lost nothing---this is no threat to their antitrust exemption and there will never be one. It would require an act of congress and no congressman will be voting to kill the NFL, which is what would happen inf the exemption goes away. Anyone who feels this exemption is at all in jeopardy is not thinking straight. It's a dumb argument.

 

He knew why it was a bad deal. What many missed after that now-infamous snippet by ESPN, showing Ralph half-jokingly saying "I didn't understand it," was him saying "I think [the players] got too much." And as you said, voting "no" after having just 45 minutes to read the CBA was the right thing to do, but all one needed to do was look at the 4.5% increase in the salary cap. The owners pushed it through for the (wrong) reasons mentioned in the article.

He didn't know what kind of deal it was. The new CBA did not require him (or any owner) to pay his players any more money than he already was--it just raised the cap higher than it was already going to be---and he had no intention of spending to any cap. As you know, the new CBA changed the salaries of very few players. Also, Ralph voted against the biggest free money gift to low revenue teams in the history of the league.

 

So, for these two reasons (meaningless cap increase, more free money for the Bills) there is simply no way Ralph knew what he was voting for that day.

 

 

 

You missed this part, Kelly. Maybe Ralph is a senile old coot but how many people can dissect a complicated contract in 45 minutes? I bet none of the other 30 owners (Mike Brown in CIN voted no.) had any idea what they were signing. They went along with what Bob Kraft and Jerruh Jones told them. At least Ralph understood right away the players were getting too much, which is EXACTLY why there will be a lockout.

 

Seems Ralph understood far more than you give him credit for.

 

PTR

You're wrong, Promo. Go back and read about the 2006 CBA. Jones was the LAST holdout to vote yes on this deal. He was against the massive increase in revenue sharing. He knew that low cost, low revenue teams were never going to spend much over the minimum and he would still have to pay them out of his (and other's) pocket ("revenue sharing") money which would go right into their bank accounts. In fact, in the article that doc posted, one of the reason's for the impetus to dump the CBA is that high earning/high debt teams realized that this (not the mythical "5% increase in revenue to the players") was intolerable.

[Thoner7]

"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. "

 

I think the root of the problem is that players get a % of GROSS revenue. They should receive a % of NET revenue, so that owners are not stuck with huge overhead.

 

I think the owners are right. Long term the NFL will survive with profitable owners and stadiums, not multi millionaire players. The NFL needs to fix the profit sharing too it sounds. I think they do need to start an "investment account" that each team pays into every season. This fund would be used to build new stadiums when they are needed, because I just dont see cities and governement paying for them anymore - the times have changed. Besides, a multi billion dollar league should build their own stadiums.

[Doc]

Yes the owners were counting on the war chest (you get that), but even if they don't have that money, they are individually and as a group in a far better financial position than each individual player. None of the owners will struggle to pay their mortgage, car, diamond earring or child support payments if there is a lockout.

 

The League was wise to support the SCOTUS review of the ANI case--they had won the case and every appeal to that point. If they prevailed in the SCOTUS, there would never be another CBA again--they would own the players outright---a blank check to run the league any way they liked. How could they not support that? They lost nothing---this is no threat to their antitrust exemption and there will never be one. It would require an act of congress and no congressman will be voting to kill the NFL, which is what would happen inf the exemption goes away. Anyone who feels this exemption is at all in jeopardy is not thinking straight. It's a dumb argument.

The point was the NFL won in a landslide in the lower courts but decided to take it to the SCOTUS and got their asses handed to them in embarrassing fashion with a 0-9 ruling against them. As I said, it's another in a string of poor decisions that has them on the precipice of a lockout and killing the golden goose. But rest assured, the NFLPA will use the ANI ruling to further their anti-trust lawsuit threats, and to dismiss it is what it truly dumb.

 

And obviously even if the TV money is put in escrow the owners are better equipped to deal with a protracted work stoppage. But they'll be far more willing to deal, and possibly get taken (again).

He didn't know what kind of deal it was. The new CBA did not require him (or any owner) to pay his players any more money than he already was--it just raised the cap higher than it was already going to be---and he had no intention of spending to any cap. As you know, the new CBA changed the salaries of very few players. Also, Ralph voted against the biggest free money gift to low revenue teams in the history of the league.

 

So, for these two reasons (meaningless cap increase, more free money for the Bills) there is simply no way Ralph knew what he was voting for that day.

It's obvious that none of them knew what they were voting for that day, hence the reason they killed it barely 2 years later, and almost unanimously admit it was a "lousy" deal. So voting "no" was the smart thing to do beyond the additional money the players got the owners to fork over. Do you understand these points yet?