CBA discussions

[major]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/01/judge-doty-sides-with-players-in-lockout-insurance-cas/

 

I hope this helps the players in some fashion. I just can't side with owners in this situation.

[KD in CA]

Excellent. I look forward to many more years of rookies like Aaron Maybin holding out and getting $25MM contracts.

[Doc]

Not surprising. When I read the report a few days ago from PFT that the owners eschewed demanding more revenue in exchange for lockout insurance (which I thought they agreed-upon with the TV contracts that started in 2006), I was wondering how a judge didn't rule in favor of the players. I didn't realize that there hadn't been a ruling yet.

 

This is the key part: "Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues." Nice going with that 2006 CBA, fellas.

[BuffaloWings]

I side with the fans...

 

In a way, I don't care about what the players & owners decide. They're all making more than everyone on this board combined, so just figure out a way to share the sandbox so we can all be happy.

[MikeSpeed]

I side with the fans...

 

In a way, I don't care about what the players & owners decide. They're all making more than everyone on this board combined, so just figure out a way to share the sandbox so we can all be happy.

Maybe we should team up with some other cities and start our own league. A league full of Greenbay Packer type ownership. A league for the fans by the fans.

[tombstone56]

A BUNCH MILLIONAIRES COMPLAINING THAT THEY'RE NOT BILLIONAIRES,

SCREW EM ALL.

Edited March 2, 2011 by tombstone56

[1B4IDie]

Funny thing, this CBA has very little to actually do with the Players vs the Owner.

Its Owners vs Owners and the players are just caught up in the mess.

Some of the owners don't want to share revenue anymore. The little issues between the Players and the Owners aren't really that important to the Owners. There is nothing really anything that is make or break for the owners. There isn't any huge source of income that they would reclaim under a new CBA.

[K Gun Special]

Excellent. I look forward to many more years of rookies like Aaron Maybin holding out and getting $25MM contracts.

 

care to explain?

[brenty]

care to explain?

 

i believe he just read the title and assumed players won everything.

Edited March 2, 2011 by brenty

[KD in CA]

i believe he just read the title and assumed players won everything.

 

No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make.

 

As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall.

[K Gun Special]

No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make.

 

As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall.

 

FYI, the players and owners agree on the rookie wage issue. No one wants rookies to take maybin contracts anymore.

[thebandit27]

No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make.

 

As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall.

 

Without sounding like a hardass, I don't think you have to worry about who's going to come out ahead in this battle. 90% of the players aren't rich without football, 100% of the owners are rich beyond most people's imagination without football.

 

Who needs who here?

 

FYI, the players and owners agree on the rookie wage issue. No one wants rookies to take maybin contracts anymore.

 

Can you let De Smith know that? He's been staunch in his stance that there will be no rookie wage scale.

[Mr. WEO]

Not surprising. When I read the report a few days ago from PFT that the owners eschewed demanding more revenue in exchange for lockout insurance (which I thought they agreed-upon with the TV contracts that started in 2006), I was wondering how a judge didn't rule in favor of the players. I didn't realize that there hadn't been a ruling yet.

 

This is the key part: "Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues." Nice going with that 2006 CBA, fellas.

Those deals were on the renegotiated contracts--old news. They are part of every contract, apparently. It's not "free money"--it has to be repaid. It's a sound business practice that the NFLPA never had a problem with in past contracts.

 

The special master ruled for the League. A judge has ruled agaisnt the league. There will be an appeal, etc.

 

The league will obviously argue that they were intent on maximizing revenues in the face of an uncertain economic climate (that's what they argued in front of the master and the judge).

 

Said the master in his ruling:

 

"In Burbank's decision, released for the first time Thursday, he said he couldn't believe the NFL had a duty to the union to "throw budgets and business plans in the wastebasket" even as he acknowledged the sharp disagreement between the two sides over how much the NFL can pursue its own business interests while following requirements of the labor pact."

Edited March 2, 2011 by Mr. WEO

[K Gun Special]

Without sounding like a hardass, I don't think you have to worry about who's going to come out ahead in this battle. 90% of the players aren't rich without football, 100% of the owners are rich beyond most people's imagination without football.

 

Who needs who here?

 

 

 

Can you let De Smith know that? He's been staunch in his stance that there will be no rookie wage scale.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view.bg?articleid=1319424

 

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/03/01/sports/nh3708950.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nflpa-not-happy-with-nfls-rookie-wage-scale-proposal-2011-2

 

 

Here are some articles showing the NFLPA is negotiating the issue. In fact the last article explains Smith's counter [b]wage scale proposal.[/b]

 

Is that what you call staunch?

[aristocrat]

No, I just read the first post that had a 'hooray for the players union' message. I for one want to see the owners come out ahead in this issue so we don't have rookies holding out and getting contracts that are 5-10 times what quality vets make.

 

As for the ruling, I don't think it will have a material impact on the bigger issue, which I don't believe will be settled until the fall.

 

the money should go towards the vets instead of the rookies. i also want the owners to quit asking the public for money...they run billion dollar teams but they cant afford rent? doesn't make sense.

[sfladave]

FYI, the players and owners agree on the rookie wage issue. No one wants rookies to take maybin contracts anymore.

Not exactly true. The escalation in rookie contracts has also resulted in the escalation in the vets contracts. It has been the leading bargaining chip used by proven vets to leverage for their own contracts which in effect trickles down to the rest of the players. That being said the players will probably give in on rookie wage limits, but probably by freezing them where they are but not a reduction, which is what is really needed.

[JohnC]

Not surprising. When I read the report a few days ago from PFT that the owners eschewed demanding more revenue in exchange for lockout insurance (which I thought they agreed-upon with the TV contracts that started in 2006), I was wondering how a judge didn't rule in favor of the players. I didn't realize that there hadn't been a ruling yet.

 

This is the key part: "Once the league agreed to pay the players 59.6 cents of every dollar made (after $1 billion comes off the top), the league assumed a duty to maximize revenues." Nice going with that 2006 CBA, fellas.

 

What are you talking about? If the league extracted a 20% revenue deal from the players they would still try to maximize their profit margins. If the owners extracted a 5% revenue deal they would still with great zeal continue maximizing their profit level. They can't help being insatiably greedy. It is in their DNA.

 

Just think the owners are paying the players an effective rate of 52% of the total revenues that resulted in more profits than under the previous CBA. They find that objectionable. As you rightly observed the owners' TV money and insurance ploy was blatantly an unfair labor practice. So when the owners resolutely refuse to state their profit margins there is a reason why. They are doing better and simply want more.

 

If the owners want to make even more money without wrangling with the union there is a better way to do it. They could show more discipline and intellegence in the way they negotiate contract deals. Albert Haynesworth and Clinton Portis type contracts are due to their own irresponsibility. The owners have never made a case as to why there was such an imperative to re-open the CBA. It was more about more. Greed on top of greed.

Edited March 2, 2011 by JohnC

[K Gun Special]

Not exactly true. The escalation in rookie contracts has also resulted in the escalation in the vets contracts. It has been the leading bargaining chip used by proven vets to leverage for their own contracts which in effect trickles down to the rest of the players. That being said the players will probably give in on rookie wage limits, but probably by freezing them where they are but not a reduction, which is what is really needed.

 

Did you read the articles i posted? Your post doesnt necessarily make sense since under the old CBA there was a total cap, so everyone couldnt keep escalating out of control based on rookie contracts.

 

Both sides wants to cap rookies and reallocate that money to vets and retirees. THe issue is the type and amount of the cap for rookies and of course the overall piece of the pie that goes to the players.

[KD in CA]

the money should go towards the vets instead of the rookies. i also want the owners to quit asking the public for money...they run billion dollar teams but they cant afford rent? doesn't make sense.

No argument there, but I hold crooked politicians primarily responsible for that nonsense. Everyone wants a hand out, it's up to responsible leaders to tell them to f--- off.

 

 

Both sides wants to cap rookies and reallocate that money to vets and retirees.

That might be news to the players' union. From your article:

However, the NFLPA does not want a slotting system like the NBA employs.

 

 

Not exactly true. The escalation in rookie contracts has also resulted in the escalation in the vets contracts. It has been the leading bargaining chip used by proven vets to leverage for their own contracts which in effect trickles down to the rest of the players. That being said the players will probably give in on rookie wage limits, but probably by freezing them where they are but not a reduction, which is what is really needed.

Spot on.

[thebandit27]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/football/other_nfl/view.bg?articleid=1319424

 

http://news-herald.com/articles/2011/03/01/sports/nh3708950.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nflpa-not-happy-with-nfls-rookie-wage-scale-proposal-2011-2

 

 

Here are some articles showing the NFLPA is negotiating the issue. In fact the last article explains Smith's counter [b]wage scale proposal.[/b]

 

Is that what you call staunch?

 

That last article is interesting, I hadn't seen that...thanks.

 

However, I can't say that I view tinkering with contract length and limiting escalators the same way as agreeing to a rookie wage scale. This league needs something more significant. It's not right for JaMarcus Russell to make more than Tom Brady just in guarantees (an item that--based on the article--Smith's proposal would not affect).

[silvermike]

High rookie deals up *some* veterans' contracts - Peyton Manning can look at Sam Bradford's deal as a floor. Ryan Fitzpatrick can't. I don't think that high rookie deals increase the total amount paid to players by the owners - most of them spend to the cap, or to their own budget ceiling, regardless. But it moves money around a lot. Top-10 rookies get paid in busloads of money. Marquee players use that as leverage to zoom upward. Solid players, veterans, and other roleplayers get squeezed out in the middle - cut in favor of UDFAs and other marginal players.

 

As to the ruling - anything that makes a lockout less comfortable for either side is going to incentivize getting a deal done. At least in the short term, that's a good thing for fans. The extent to which the future success of the Bills requires a certain CBA result that favors the owners, well, that's a different question.

[Beerball]

This is a pretty good recap I think. Sorry if previously posted.

[Doc]

Those deals were on the renegotiated contracts--old news. They are part of every contract, apparently. It's not "free money"--it has to be repaid. It's a sound business practice that the NFLPA never had a problem with in past contracts.

 

The special master ruled for the League. A judge has ruled agaisnt the league. There will be an appeal, etc.

 

The league will obviously argue that they were intent on maximizing revenues in the face of an uncertain economic climate (that's what they argued in front of the master and the judge).

 

Said the master in his ruling:

 

"In Burbank's decision, released for the first time Thursday, he said he couldn't believe the NFL had a duty to the union to "throw budgets and business plans in the wastebasket" even as he acknowledged the sharp disagreement between the two sides over how much the NFL can pursue its own business interests while following requirements of the labor pact."

The NFL first had "lockout insurance" added to the 2009 TV contract extensions, in lieu of demanding more money as they'd done with every contract negotiation prior to that. It didn't exist prior to then, as was previously thought, so the NFLPA never had a reason to have a problem with it. As it appears, the NFL left significant money on the table in order to get "insurance" for themselves should there be no football played. And by the looks of it, they wanted to put the screws to the players by adding this, since demanding more money from the networks would still get more money in their pockets.

 

And I never said it was "free money" and have always said that if games were lost, the owners would have to repay the losses by the networks.

 

What is the upshot? Well it means the players won't decertify since by doing so, it removes the "injured party," and this is their best leverage in getting a deal done. Which means the owners would have to lockout the players, while not receiving any money from the networks (or at least, it being placed in escrow). Which means it will come down to who is better able to withstand no money coming in.

What are you talking about? If the league extracted a 20% revenue deal from the players they would still try to maximize their profit margins. If the owners extracted a 5% revenue deal they would still with great zeal continue maximizing their profit level. They can't help being insatiably greedy. It is in their DNA.

 

Just think the owners are paying the players an effective rate of 52% of the total revenues that resulted in more profits than under the previous CBA. They find that objectionable. As you rightly observed the owners' TV money and insurance ploy was blatantly an unfair labor practice. So when the owners resolutely refuse to state their profit margins there is a reason why. They are doing better and simply want more.

 

If the owners want to make even more money without wrangling with the union there is a better way to do it. They could show more discipline and intellegence in the way they negotiate contract deals. Albert Haynesworth and Clinton Portis type contracts are due to their own irresponsibility. The owners have never made a case as to why there was such an imperative to re-open the CBA. It was more about more. Greed on top of greed.

The second bold part answers the first bolded part, as does my response to WEO.

[Erik]

This is a pretty good recap I think. Sorry if previously posted.

 

Is it me or do the owners seem to simply want to punish the players union because they raked them over the coals with the last CBA, which is completely ridiculous because I don't recall them putting up much of a fight (well, most of them at least) when they agreed to that collective bargaining agreement? I don't know, I just can't get behind the owners at all on this, there is just something about their whole stance that is off.

[Hplarrm]

I saw a newsblurb this morning (forgive me if this has already been mentioned in another thread) that says a federal district court judge has overruled the special master who had found that the final TV deal crafted by the owners and the networks was contrary to the interests of the players. The deal apparently is the foundation for the NFL getting paid billions by the nets even if they lockout the players and do not deliver a product.

 

The judge cited several legal errors by the special master and order that any network money be put in escrow and thus is not going to be available to individual owners (many of whom need the cash flow to pay for large loans they took out to buy the team, pay for stadiums, etc.

 

This move on the cusp of final negotiations at least throws into question if not simply eliminates a major piece of the NFL negotiating strategy.

 

This is amusing to me as I had fully expected the NFLPA to come up with some out of the box proposal to alter the basic relationship between the players and the owners, but I never expected that this would happen due to a court decision.

 

In the past the owners have run kicking and screaming to sign the CBA rather than operate in a true free market. Once again the free market appears poised to wreak havoc on the owners strategy as outstanding loan payments may well make them roo the day they opened up to CBA to renegotiation by Thursday night.

 

The players clearly became partners with the team owners in the first CBA.

 

They arguably became the majority partner when Upshaw dictated that there would be no designated gross and the cap would be based on total revenues and further that the cap number needed to begin with a 6 (60.5% was the actual final number)

 

With this 4th quarter finding, perhaps this creates an opportunity for the players to basically kick the owners to the curb as quite frankly all the owners provide is money and even in our current troubled economy there are numerous sources of cash around.

 

It actually is amusing to me to see the team owners get hoisted on their own petard. I only hope that we end up with a better product which is more responsive to the fan base if the middle man of the team owners is kicked out. Green Bay has shown that public ownership is a working model for on the field excellence which in the end is pretty much my main concern with pro football.

[Chilly]

http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2011/03/02/nfl-players-legal-victory-should-help-avoid-a-lockout/

[Rockinon]

This means a quick resolution can be expected.

[Hplarrm]

This means a quick resolution can be expected.

+1 (at least I hope so. The silliness of a lot of these posts is that they fail to recognize that there are not simply two sides to this dispute and one has to favor the owners or the players.

 

There is a third side (at least 3) with interests of the fans being significantly different from those of either the owners or the players.

 

Just as it was set up in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, given a fight between two parties I prefer checks and balances. I do not absolutely trust anything (even myself) but I have more trust in larger bodies than in individuals.

 

I advocate the owners being kicked to the curb in favor of a Green Bay model because it puts a larger group in charge and makes for more honesty and accountability. Not perfect but clearly better IMHO.

[Mr. WEO]

The NFL first had "lockout insurance" added to the 2009 TV contract extensions, in lieu of demanding more money as they'd done with every contract negotiation prior to that. It didn't exist prior to then, as was previously thought, so the NFLPA never had a reason to have a problem with it. As it appears, the NFL left significant money on the table in order to get "insurance" for themselves should there be no football played. And by the looks of it, they wanted to put the screws to the players by adding this, since demanding more money from the networks would still get more money in their pockets.

 

And I never said it was "free money" and have always said that if games were lost, the owners would have to repay the losses by the networks.

 

What is the upshot? Well it means the players won't decertify since by doing so, it removes the "injured party," and this is their best leverage in getting a deal done. Which means the owners would have to lockout the players, while not receiving any money from the networks (or at least, it being placed in escrow). Which means it will come down to who is better able to withstand no money coming in.

 

The second bold part answers the first bolded part, as does my response to WEO.

Most sources I've seen say that such insurance is standard for NFL TV contracts.

 

In an interview with Sports Business Journal, published on March 29, longtime NBC executive Dick Ebersol said of the guaranteed provision in the TV deals: "I have been around longer than anybody else, and I don't remember a deal, certainly all the way back to the early 1980s, that this wasn't in. This is not a new development." League counsel Jeff Pash has said that in the event games were cancelled, the league would have to repay the networks.

 

Maybe he's lying---you know, maybe he's a fishing buddy of Goodell's (or Bellichick's).

 

Again, the NFLPA had no problem with the amount of money renegotiated by the League:

 

 

The NFL responded to the union's complaint with the following statement: "The television contracts that the union attacked today were agreed to during the worst economy in our lifetimes. Far from failing to maximize revenue, the contracts grew league revenue to fund higher player salaries and benefits. No wonder DeMaurice Smith said publicly this year, 'My hat's off to Roger Goodell. Television is locked up until 2014 to the tune of about $5 billion a year.'

[JohnC]

The second bold part answers the first bolded part, as does my response to WEO.

 

The bold part answers nothing. The owners want to rule by fiat. Even if you have an autocratic mentality it doesn't work that way in the real world. They may even be foolish enough to kill or wound the golden goose that they greedily want to get bigger.

[Mark Long Beach]

The bold part answers nothing. The owners want to rule by fiat. Even if you have an autocratic mentality it doesn't work that way in the real world. They may even be foolish enough to kill or wound the golden goose that they greedily want to get bigger.

 

What?? Of course the real world works that way. The Owners of a private company can do whatever the heck they want with the company, including running it into the ground.

 

Stay with the legal boundaries of discrimination or fraud and they can do anything else. Killing the golden goose is well within their rights. I might add that stupidity at the top of a corporation happens all the time.

 

As an owner of a private company I can do whatever I want to it. Including closing it down even if it's providing a valuable service to others.

[billsfan89]

IT still doesn't give the players that much leverage. People forget that the TV deals weren't gauranteed they would actually defer a year so they wouldn't get money for free anyway (If the whole season did get locked out the owners would get the money but they would owe the networks a free year of NFL games).

 

This doesn't have that much of an impact as people think but its definitely something that went in the players favor. The owners have to get revenue sharing issues between themselves set and the owners and players have to realize that they both don't want to kill the golden goose. Just hammer this thing out don't be stupid you both have something to lose.

[Erik]

What?? Of course the real world works that way. The Owners of a private company can do whatever the heck they want with the company, including running it into the ground.

 

Stay with the legal boundaries of discrimination or fraud and they can do anything else. Killing the golden goose is well within their rights. I might add that stupidity at the top of a corporation happens all the time.

 

As an owner of a private company I can do whatever I want to it. Including closing it down even if it's providing a valuable service to others.

 

Is this necessarily true though when your corporation is employing union workers? Particularly the NFLPA, since there would be such a drop off in talent/production from the current union members to the non union members...I'd say it would be a heck of a lot easier for the NFLPA to form a new league with new owners than the current owners to continue the new league with a new union.

[JohnC]

What?? Of course the real world works that way. The Owners of a private company can do whatever the heck they want with the company, including running it into the ground.

 

The court decision demonstrated to the owners that you have to act within the law whether you like it or not.

 

Stay with the legal boundaries of discrimination or fraud and they can do anything else. Killing the golden goose is well within their rights. I might add that stupidity at the top of a corporation happens all the time.

 

As an owner of a private company I can do whatever I want to it. Including closing it down even if it's providing a valuable service to others.

 

You are absolutely right. They have a right to not only be stupid but self-defeating. If that is what you are advocating then that is the type of advice that can lead a prosperous business into insolvency. For the most part acting out of spite in the business world is a money losing proposition.

Edited March 2, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

Is this necessarily true though when your corporation is employing union workers? Particularly the NFLPA, since there would be such a drop off in talent/production from the current union members to the non union members...I'd say it would be a heck of a lot easier for the NFLPA to form a new league with new owners than the current owners to continue the new league with a new union.

You're joking, right?

 

There are so many things wrong with that one supposition, but let's boil it down to this--if the "NFLPA" (after a name change, of course) formed a new league, every player would go running back to the NFL.

 

"New Leauges" have happened before. PLayers have come running back to the NFL before.

 

The court decision demonstrated to the owners that you have to act within the law whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

You are absolutely right. They have a right to not only be stupid but self-defeating. If that is what you are advocating then that is the type of advice that can lead a prosperous business into insolvency. For the most part acting out of spite in the business world is a money losing proposition.

One judge rules on a complaint. He did not rule on a matter of law, per se. No such decision ever stops at the oipinion of a single judge anyway.

 

Also, the owners have not killed any geese yet. They have brought players and owners unprecedented riches over the past 5 seasons. People pretend (or somehow don't realize) the current CBA was due to expire next year. Everything happening now would have bee happening a year from nowif the owners hadn't opted out early.

[mattsox]

A BUNCH MILLIONAIRES COMPLAINING THAT THEY'RE NOT BILLIONAIRES,

SCREW EM ALL.

 

Yep. I hear this crap and just wish the NFL falls into a pit and never comes back. So sick of owners and players complaining about money. Shut up and play already.

[JohnC]

One judge rules on a complaint. He did not rule on a matter of law, per se. No such decision ever stops at the oipinion of a single judge anyway.

 

Judge Doty certainly did act on the issue with respect to the law. What do you think that he acted out of? Whim?

 

Also, the owners have not killed any geese yet. They have brought players and owners unprecedented riches over the past 5 seasons. People pretend (or somehow don't realize) the current CBA was due to expire next year. Everything happening now would have bee happening a year from nowif the owners hadn't opted out early.

 

You are right that the issue was going to be revisted next year. But that is my point. Why re-open the CBA when it was going to expire a year later? Just maybe they thought they had better leverage with the illegal financial arrangement that allowed them to receive TV money during a lockout with the intention of not paying the players during that interlude.

 

They have brought players and owners unprecedented riches over the past 5 seasons.

 

Your above comment describes the absurdity of the owner instigated labor conflict. What was the need for an adjustment in the CBA when everyone was prospering more than they have ever prospered? Let's face it, you and I know the real reason. Raw greed on the part of the owners. They thought they had the leverage, which they do, and they are determined to exercise it to get a better deal from the one that is already working well for them.

Edited March 2, 2011 by JohnC

[Doc]

Most sources I've seen say that such insurance is standard for NFL TV contracts.

'The union’s brief includes a slide shown at the league meetings in March 2009 regarding the effort to extend the TV contracts. Said the slide: “Current structure of broadcast contracts prevent NFL from collecting payments if work stoppage in 2011.”'

Maybe he's lying---you know, maybe he's a fishing buddy of Goodell's (or Bellichick's).

Ebersol's words are worth as much as JJ's were. If the NFL had "lockout insurance" in previous TV contracts, they would have provided proof already. Like before Doty made his ruling.

Again, the NFLPA had no problem with the amount of money renegotiated by the League:

Had there not been the inclusion of the "lockout insurance," which makes it appear like the owners gave up money in exchange for their own protection, I doubt they'd have made a stink.

 

The bold part answers nothing. The owners want to rule by fiat. Even if you have an autocratic mentality it doesn't work that way in the real world. They may even be foolish enough to kill or wound the golden goose that they greedily want to get bigger.

What I'm saying is that when the time has come for the NFL to negotiate TV contracts in the past, they've always asked the networks for more money. This past time they merely extended the contracts ostensibly in exchange for getting "lockout insurance." The NFL has a duty to maximize revenue for both parties' gain, not keep the status quo in order to protect themselves.

 

You are right that the issue was going to be revisted next year. But that is my point. Why re-open the CBA when it was going to expire a year later? Just maybe they thought they had better leverage with the illegal financial arrangement that allowed them to receive TV money during a lockout with the intention of not paying the players during that interlude.

 

Your above comment describes the absurdity of the owner instigated labor conflict. What was the need for an adjustment in the CBA when everyone was prospering more than they have ever prospered? Let's face it, you and I know the real reason. Raw greed on the part of the owners. They thought they had the leverage, which they do, and they are determined to exercise it to get a better deal from the one that is already working well for them.

On the flip side, what harm are the players experiencing if they go back to the pre-2006 CBA parameters, where the salary cap is based on a percentage of shared revenue? There is no harm because they'd still be making tons of money themselves. So it's greed on their part as well. And in a battle between the two sides, I'll side with the owners, because increasing player salaries only leads to higher prices, and the players are making more than ever before, and are protected more than ever before. I'm just trying to point out what everyone should finally realize, i.e. that the 2006 CBA was a monumental !@#$ up by the owners.

[JohnC]

'What I'm saying is that when the time has come for the NFL to negotiate TV contracts in the past, they've always asked the networks for more money. This past time they merely extended the contracts ostensibly in exchange for getting "lockout insurance." The NFL has a duty to maximize revenue for both parties' gain, not keep the status quo in order to protect themselves.

 

What you are saying is that Judge Doty's ruling that the owners broke the law is not only correct, but obviously so. Even recalcitrant WEO should be able to accept that conclusion?????

[Doc]

What you are saying is that Judge Doty's ruling that the owners broke the law is not only correct, but obviously so. Even recalcitrant WEO should be able to accept that conclusion?????

He can't/won't. Unlike you, his disdain for Ralph (who voted against the 2006 CBA because he saw it was bad) has made him irrational. He's entrenched himself with the big market owners who crafted that last POS CBA and can't accept the fact (that everyone else has) that it was a gigantic mistake that they're going to be paying hundreds of millions more (in legal fees, lost games, etc.) for, on top of the almost $1B they gave up over the past 5 years. As you know, I told him back in 2006 how this was all going to go down and I've been 100% correct, yet he still can't bring himself to admit it.