Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[macaroni]

It isn't "I want more money". It's "I don't want to take a pay CUT".

 

The players are NOT asking for more money. The Owners are trying to cut their pay by 1 billion dollars.

 

That's the difference.

 

That's like saying this ... I hire you and agree to pay you 50% of all the apples I sell. I come to you at the end of the year and hand you 100 dollars and say I only sold 200 dollars worth of apples. You're telling me you think you don't have a right to ask to see my books to prove that I only sold 200 dollars worth?

 

let me get this straight .....

 

The league is going to cut the wages of the players the teams have contracted to pay? Drew Brees isn't going to make whatever his contract says the Saints were going to pay him this year??? (I don't think so, but I could be wrong).

 

On your second point .... are you saying that Drew Brees' contract says the Saints will pay him a percentage of their profits? (I always thought it said the Saints will pay him X number of dollars per year). I think your example should be that you hire me to sell your apples, and tell me that you estimate that you sell about $200 dollars per year and therefore can afford to hire me for $100 dollars per year ... if I take the job, I take it on the basis of the $100 figure NOT your estimated profits, and therefore I have no right to see your books.

Edited March 12, 2011 by macaroni

[boyst]

let me get this straight .....

 

The league is going to cut the wages of the players the teams have contracted to pay? Drew Brees isn't going to make whatever his contract says the Saints were going to pay him this year??? (I don't think so, but I could be wrong).

 

On your second point .... are you saying that Drew Brees' contract says the Saints will pay him a percentage of their profits? (I always thought it said the Saints will pay him X number of dollars per year).

The NFL could move to throw out all of the contracts with the NFLPA decertifying. It is an interesting note, too. It would cause chaos, but is unlikely. The NFLPA knows this and is banking the NFL not doing it.

[Fixxxer]

PR spin control. The main issue is money. Always has been. Always will be. And the owners decided to create a system where they pay their employees a percentage of the total revenue. When they did that they created a partnership. But they expect the players to take their word on what that total number actually is. On trust alone. Now, there isn't a business in the world that would agree to sign a new deal based on this principle without seeing the books. The fact that the NFL is insisting that they met the players' finical demands is a bold faced lie since the desired number is a percentage of a number the owners refuse to acknlowdge.

 

If the owners didn't have anything to hide they would show the books. If the leave was really not making record profits and generating record revenues, they'd show their books because it would take whatever leverage the players have away.

 

The 18 game schedule and rookie cap are side shows. It's about the money.

 

So you're saying the players were posturing all along about safety, retired players funds and less off-season group work? Gotcha.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Found this on PFT...well-written, lucid, intelligent, balanced, and interesting:

 

http://profootballta...ensation-model/

 

 

I sort of thought the article obfuscated and talked in circles. There is a lot of text but I don't have any clearer understanding of the problem.

 

Also, every employee impacts their respective business' long term success and render incalculable "sweat equity" labor which may or may not coincide with an ownership stake via options, stock or other such things. How is that the root of the problem? It's certainly no more the case today than it was at any other time in league history.

 

Every player in the NFL signs a contract which entitles them to compensation in the top 1% in the nation or higher, for merely possessing a rare athletic skill set which outside of one professional institution has little or no value.

 

Perhaps this is not so complicated or philosophically confounding and it's really just about money. Players want a bigger cut, owners are saying they can't afford it(or don't want to), NFLPA asks to see the balance sheets and lots of posturing and rhetoric come along for the ride. NFLPA assumes they will be able to squeeze more dollars using lock out revenue loss fears as leverage, so owners toss around 18 game seasons...

 

$ and opportunity, nothing more. Maybe I missed something?

Edited March 12, 2011 by over 20 years of fanhood

[CosmicBills]

So you're saying the players were posturing all along about safety, retired players funds and less off-season group work? Gotcha.

It's not that simple -- but if it came to safety and benefits of retired players it's secondary to total money. That's always been the case. The players are going to take care of themselves first (the active players).

 

let me get this straight .....

 

The league is going to cut the wages of the players the teams have contracted to pay? Drew Brees isn't going to make whatever his contract says the Saints were going to pay him this year??? (I don't think so, but I could be wrong).

 

On your second point .... are you saying that Drew Brees' contract says the Saints will pay him a percentage of their profits? (I always thought it said the Saints will pay him X number of dollars per year). I think your example should be that you hire me to sell your apples, and tell me that you estimate that you sell about $200 dollars per year and therefore can afford to hire me for $100 dollars per year ... if I take the job, I take it on the basis of the $100 figure NOT your estimated profits, and therefore I have no right to see your books.

No ... let me clarify. You're talking about two different points (I think).

 

The owners agreed to pay the players a percentage of total revenue. That's reflected in the salary cap per team. Teams are not required to spend to the max of their cap (and some don't). But it limits the total amount that the players can earn as a group, not individually. The money they're talking about cutting wouldn't be reflected in current contracts, but in the amount of money owners are forced to allocate to their players. It would have a trickle down effect (for lack of a better term since it's Friday and I'm a few beers in) over the course of the league's existence.

 

Right now the owners skim 1B from the total revenue stream and then split the rest roughly 60/40. The Owners want to take another 1B off the top (somewhere in the neighborhood of 22% cut from the players pool -- but that final number is impossible to know because no one knows how much total revenue the owners are making). So that 1B could represent a 22% cut -- or it could represent a 12% cut. What it does is allow the owners to take 2 billion off the top, then set the salary cap for that coming year.

 

As for the finer points of anti-trust law, I have no clue. I have a background (limited) in contract law but am by no means an expert. I think there are others on here that are and I'd love them to chime in because I'd like to know the answer to your Drew Brees scenario too.

[LancasterSteve]

How pathetically greedy and selfish of all of them.

 

This

[macaroni]

The owners agreed to pay the players a percentage of total revenue. That's reflected in the salary cap per team. Teams are not required to spend to the max of their cap (and some don't). But it limits the total amount that the players can earn as a group, not individually. The money they're talking about cutting wouldn't be reflected in current contracts, but in the amount of money owners are forced to allocate to their players. It would have a trickle down effect (for lack of a better term since it's Friday and I'm a few beers in) over the course of the league's existence.

 

 

I guess my point is ....

 

The league limits each team as to a salary cap to promote a fair playing field ... each team may or may not spend up to that level. Now it would seem to me that it doesn't matter what that spending level is based on, the level only exists so one team can not gain an unfair advantage because of financial circumstances. (and I think everybody agrees the cap is a butt ton of money)

 

Now each team lets individual contracts to individual players based on real dollars, not on a percentage of profits.

 

(Now if this was a true anti-trust situation ..... the league could levy a salary cap of 99% of the gross income of the league, but the teams would secretly agree to keep their expendatures to 50% of the net. Yeah ... yeah ... I know that would never happen because some owners would cheat on the secret limit .... but I'm just trying to figure out this anti-trust thing)

[1B4IDie]

 

 

5- Yup, the NFL makes more then most other businesses and it also spends more then most businesses. It advertises, and has to pay operating costs etc. The NFL is not a physical entity, though. It is a group of teams that fall under the umbrella. Many of those teams are pretty highly leveraged in debt, have high operating costs, and must employ a community of support staff.

 

Total bull ****

1.) No they don't spend more (the networks do)

2.) if an NFL team is in the red show it. Highly unlikely.

3.) No one asked anyone to build a Billion dollar stadium. The Ralph was built over 30 years ago and is still a beaut ;-)

[boyst]

Total bull ****

1.) No they don't spend more (the networks do)

2.) if an NFL team is in the red show it. Highly unlikely.

3.) No one asked anyone to build a Billion dollar stadium. The Ralph was built over 30 years ago and is still a beaut ;-)

How many of us here actually want a new stadium? Yes, we like the Ralph, but it's time is about up! The room for your legs is nonexisting, the stupid cupholders are even worse, the views are not as great as the could be, and it would be nice to actually have a new stadium. Besides, the stadium is not for the die-hard football fan or team fan. It is for the fan who wants a game at another stadium, the people who go to games for fun and those who just have the money to blow. If you had a Bills game in the infield to Watkins-Glenn while we sit in the bleachers in the middle of January how many of us would go? Yes, almost all of us. We're real Bills fans...for the most part.

 

The Networks make far more then the NFL off of the games. They also spend just as much as they make to broadcast them. The days of NFL broadcasting being a direct revenue source are gone and now it is just a means for the network to promote itself and give lead ins to other shows. It can draw a market audience, get carry-over (see Glee after the Super Bowl and them using teen girls half dressed with fire), and drum up awareness. Now, as far as how much the Networks pay the NFL - well, as much as we think all of that goes in to the supporting the teams it also goes in to things we do not pay attention to...CHARITY. Name one other professional sport that gives as much to charity as the NFL? How often do you see even the Yankees going to fundraisers and such as a team function? Supporting the United Way (a fraud organization) is big to the NFL and it's teams. Ralph Wilson has done more for Buffalo and the metro area through his team then anyone will ever realize. ...So, if you ask me, when it comes down to it, and you are bickering over the alleged a billion dollars that will be split up 32 ways (31,500,000 per team) I ask you wouldn't you rather have that money go to an organization that gives a crap about the community and actually supports it? I cannot tell you with any true information that Ralph has ponnied up $32 million in charity to the community, but I can bet you he is damn near close to it. Now, on the other hand...how many NFL players give back to their community? Take away your stars who have the 501C's that are just a name plate, take away your self promoting crap that isn't really charity (see youth football camps)...and you're left with something like Hunters Hope. There are very few good charities out there run by football players.

 

I cannot imagine an NFL team is in the red, you're right. However, look at the Mets. They are one of the biggest teams in MLB in the biggest city, too. The owner is pretty much in the red. Didn't the Vikings owner a while ago have some issues with this? Isn't part of the reason that Miami is owned by such a large group due to trouble financing? The NFL is better run then other sports but it is not the goliath that people think it is and it has to turn a profit. Does a team need to net 100,000,000 a year? No. Does an american household of 4 need to net an income over $250,000? No. But, we're in a free country, based on a free market and that is just the way it is so like it or not you don't have a choice. Heck, you can live in North Carolina and have a job. Tomorrow you go in to work and for no reason what so ever be fired. It is a right to work state because working is a right not a requirement. Regardless of making $7.75 or $7,750,000...its a right not a requirement.

[reddogblitz]

The thing I don't understand is, if there is no union, why do they need a lockout? Whoever wants to come to practice can. Those that don't wish to participate don't have to. Mini camp, training camp, preseason, reg season, playoffs, SB continue on schedule. Is there a reason why this can't be done?

 

I guarantee that after a few game without 5 or 6 digit paychecks and several months of 5 digit house payments, they'll come back hat in hand like they did in '87.

[Zulu Cthulhu]

The lockout is just a procedural step at this point. The decertification is a "sham" in a sense because it is only a way to force the labor dispute into litigation. Once there, with both sides fighting in court and trying to gain bargaining chips through discovery, the impetus the settle and hammer out a new CBA becomes much stronger.

[Uncle Monkeyhead]

Both sides are in a win-win situation. And it actually gets better for them in the long run the more they prolong this.

The players know that the owners will always make their money. The owners know the players will always make theirs.

Another thing on their side? Time. It's the offseason. More fans are logging on to team sites and NFL related sites more during this offseason than last, i can guarantee you that. More exposure to the fans = more $. Players still have their contracts and endorsement deals. Owners will continue to make the same amout they made last year in March.

So in the meantime, it doesn't hurt that the fan has the illusion that football is in jeopardy. The draft goes on, the following is still there....the players are still getting their share too.

 

For those old enough to remember the strike year......remember the gloom and doom then? Look back on it and tell me that either side was hurt by it.....on the contrary, both league and player made out better after. They are not afraid of losing "some fans". There is always and will always be more......and when this "mess" gets worked out between them, guess what? Both sides will still be smiling to the bank......but you, Joe Loyal Fan? You'll be paying more for cable, DTV, jerseys, tix, etc.

 

There will be football this September. You (or actually They) can take that to the bank.

[Hplarrm]

 

6- This is a free country and like I have pointed out...If Brees does not think playing in the NFL is fair for him against what he has to go through, sit down, shut up and find another job.

 

I think you are right that the key to this is that it is a free country and that Brees and a talented tenth of the other players are going to go and find a new job.

 

The new employer is going to be the NFLPA (which by the way has decertified itself as the bargaining agent for the players with the NFL (which is their right to do under US Labor law amd acknowledged in the now inoperative CBA.

 

The NFLPA still remains in business and will do so as long as a critical mass of players remain as members and pay their dues.

 

Pro football players will not remain members unless there is something in for them.

 

My sense is that the NFLPA will offer up to the players in order to get them to remain in the NFLPA something like:

 

1. A sense of solidarity and control over their own lives which will be embodied in the leadership the talented tenth shows in holding together their family of players and fighting the enemy which is the team owners, The NFLPA is off to a very good start in this dispute by:

 

A. Producing the goods for the the players in the current CBA which saw the NFLPA get its butt handed to it in the last lockout led by the old-style AFL-CIO model but after decertifying in the late 80a they have essentially dictated a course which saw Gene Upshaw dictate to the owners that the player share would be determined by total rather than designated gross receipts and that the player share of that total needed to start with a 6. The players finished this negotiation with 60.5% of the take and has Tagliaboo-boo and the NFLs own lawyers cajole/beat the owners into accepting it.

B. Really choreographed well these negotiations such that they were ready to go when negotiations failed to decertify and have the highest visibility (pay and recent accolades in the case of Brees) players file the anti-trust suit.

 

2. Leadership is key to winning any fight of groups, but money talks and simply talking just walks when it cones down to it. The NFLPA is going to need to show players the money when it gets down to it. To do this they have among other things"

 

a. By lining up the high profile players who naturally are the team leaders, they have established a system which has demanded of individual players that they get their own financial houses in order so they can hold out as long as they can.

b. Put away money into a strike fund which allow them to keep regular though smaller checks coming to NFL players.

c. Set-up a system where when players get into financial trouble they can apply to the strike fund for loans to help pay for immediate heavy duty problems like loan payments being done or legit legal problems.

c. Has actually worked with NFL itself over the past few years to identify and discipline idiots like Pac-Man Jones. The NFLPA has done what it can to help players hold out as long as they individually can, AND have a system in place to help NFL players who get in trouble through no direct fault of their own, AND set-up a habit of iding and disciplining idiots.

 

NFL players who get in trouble are actually going to be less likely to admit this by stepping out of line and admitting they need the money the owners would give them, further, if a player has a legit problem (a business deal goes south for example) the NFLPA will actually give him a bunch of cash or leverage up front in the form of business loan, AND in the cases of a Travis or Chris Henry the NFLPA has changed from the days when it defended all players no matter what they did but to be willing to brand some players as idiots and throw them under the bus to save the whole deal for the players.

 

The players may not be able to hold out a long time, but my guess is that they too learned the lessons of the late 80s and their talented tenth are going to try to do the job to keep them together. The success they showed in getting Brady, Manning an Brees to be high among the name plaintiffs in the anti-trust suit is an indicator to me these boys are gonna wage a good fight against the owners,

 

3. They will have to reveal a credible plan that puts money into the pockets of high, mid and then low level players.

 

My guess is that the NFLPA will announce the founding of a new Football league which will employ players and actually fill the void left at the TV networks by the lockout.

 

The NEWFL will form teams and the NFLPA will act as its bargaining agent just as they did reaching a CBA with the NFL. The NEWFL will develop personal service contracts with players the same as the NFL now must do with the CBA thrown out. Yes, to answer a question above players do have the right to jump ship on the NFLPA and sign personal services contracts with individual owners. However, this type of free market is exactly what the team owners were running away from when it signed the CBAs. Te NFL team owners do not want to and cannot operate in a free market. Someone above asked for an example of anti-trust or collusion by the owners that the NFLPA is suing against. Am answer to that will be the NFL draft being held without the agreement of the NFLPA.

 

What greater collusion can there be than the NFL teams holding a draft without the agreement of a bargaining agent for the players where all the teams agree not to negotiate with any players they have not chosen in a draft.

 

This game lasts until the draft at which point the owners cave or alternately hold their own draft and collude against individuals and lose in court.

 

My GUESS is that the NFLPA takes advantage of the fact that the only things the team owners provide is history and capital.

 

They have just separated themselves from the history which has produced the current CBA and quite frankly there is tons of capital around in forms like Pagula just showed with the Sabres, private businesses are sitting on googobs of capital after the last recession, and also models like the one employed by the Packers show municipal ownership and management can work,

 

The main question I see looking at the current situation is whether the owners will still exist in a pint sized competitor for he NEWFL, or will they simply go bankrupt and cease to exist.

 

The folks who judge the owners have all the leverage here are simply mistaken.

 

How much money would you pay for season tickets to watch Al Davis and Ralph Wilson play football against each other?

 

Zero, nada, zip, and none are the correct answer (I would buy a ticket once to watch the two of them have a knife fight but once is all I would pay and not much at that actually).

 

The players are the league. If there was a NEWFL with teams called the Mannings, the Bradys, the Brees, etc, and they sold the rights to games featuring them and 80 of their buddies playing for 16 teams, I would pay money or turn of the TV so the networks can sell my eyeballs to beer, car, and soap companies, Manning and 80 if his friends per 16 teams can then split even as little as 5 billion bucks between themselves and scrape off some of it to pay coaches, GNs, etc.

 

The NFL team owners made the same big mistake when the NFLPA kicked their butts to form a CBA in the 90s which made them a partner with the owners and brought them the current CBA which arguably makes them majority partners since by agreement they get 60%+ of the total receipts.

 

If Mr. Ralph wants to leave a near billion $ asset to his heirs he better dies soon as after the NFL draft in April he likely will see the value of the Bills asset go spinning down the toilet,

[JPS]

I don't need the NFL. All I can do is cancel the 6 season tix I have and not renew the Sunday ticket. That's what they forced me to do and that's my bargaining position.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's not that simple -- but if it came to safety and benefits of retired players it's secondary to total money. That's always been the case. The players are going to take care of themselves first (the active players).

 

 

No ... let me clarify. You're talking about two different points (I think).

 

The owners agreed to pay the players a percentage of total revenue. That's reflected in the salary cap per team. Teams are not required to spend to the max of their cap (and some don't). But it limits the total amount that the players can earn as a group, not individually. The money they're talking about cutting wouldn't be reflected in current contracts, but in the amount of money owners are forced to allocate to their players. It would have a trickle down effect (for lack of a better term since it's Friday and I'm a few beers in) over the course of the league's existence.

 

Right now the owners skim 1B from the total revenue stream and then split the rest roughly 60/40. The Owners want to take another 1B off the top (somewhere in the neighborhood of 22% cut from the players pool -- but that final number is impossible to know because no one knows how much total revenue the owners are making). So that 1B could represent a 22% cut -- or it could represent a 12% cut. What it does is allow the owners to take 2 billion off the top, then set the salary cap for that coming year.

 

As for the finer points of anti-trust law, I have no clue. I have a background (limited) in contract law but am by no means an expert. I think there are others on here that are and I'd love them to chime in because I'd like to know the answer to your Drew Brees scenario too.

 

Is there anything more ridiculous than unions for pro athletes and hollywood actors?

 

I think not. Get to work, you leeches. The players will soon find out that the owners will put something else on the field, much like the studios did creating the reality TV business when the writers decided they weren't rich enough.

[finknottle]

You're telling me that if your employer paid you a percentage of the revenue the company earns, you'd agree to take a pay cut (which is what they are asking) without asking to see how much revenue is actually being generated? No sane person would do that.

 

Once again, you confuse revenue with profit. If you were paid a cut of the revenue, then it would be simple and non-controversial to show you the revenue. This is done in the business world.

 

Getting paid a cut of the profit is almost never done. (If nothing else, takes away your incentive to cut costs and increase the profit margin.)

[1billsfan]

Is there anything more ridiculous than unions for pro athletes and hollywood actors?

 

I think not. Get to work, you leeches. The players will soon find out that the owners will put something else on the field, much like the studios did creating the reality TV business when the writers decided they weren't rich enough.

 

 

Teams like Buffalo and Cleveland are only making money (subjectively) from their share of the TV deal while the Cowboys, Giants, Redskins are basically printing money above and beyond that. This is the reason that they won't show their books, Jones and the richie riches told them you can't have our money but we'll go to the mat for you and this big squeeze of the players share.

 

The NFL owners need to start sharing with each other again. Maybe not everything but a percentage that would get them close to what they are looking for from the players. I don't want the NFL to become MLB and it's quickly on it's way.

Edited March 12, 2011 by 1billsfan

[1B4IDie]

 

 

The Networks make far more then the NFL off of the games. They also spend just as much as they make to broadcast them. The days of NFL broadcasting being a direct revenue source are gone and now it is just a means for the network to promote itself and give lead ins to other shows. It can draw a market audience, get carry-over (see Glee after the Super Bowl and them using teen girls half dressed with fire), and drum up awareness.

 

before we hit the amazing rant below, the networks are in the red when you look at the actual Billions paid fir the NFL rights and the money made from broadcasting but you're correct in that they see it as a vehicle to attract viewers for their other (crappy) shows.

But your original point was the owners spend Just as much as they make. When in fact the do very little spending especially spending to promote the game, they have 4 networks that do a great

Job of that and essentially are being paid to have their sport promoted for them.

The maxim of "you have to spend money to make money" which seemed to be what you were promoting need not apply here.

If it were to apply the money was spent 40-50 years ago and now it's just the make money part of the maxim.

Now, as far as how much the Networks pay the NFL - well, as much as we think all of that goes in to the supporting the teams it also goes in to things we do not pay attention to...CHARITY. Name one other professional sport that gives as much to charity as the NFL? How often do you see even the Yankees going to fundraisers and such as a team function? Supporting the United Way (a fraud organization) is big to the NFL and it's teams. Ralph Wilson has done more for Buffalo and the metro area through his team then anyone will ever realize. ...So, if you ask me, when it comes down to it, and you are bickering over the alleged a billion dollars that will be split up 32 ways (31,500,000 per team) I ask you wouldn't you rather have that money go to an organization that gives a crap about the community and actually supports it? I cannot tell you with any true information that Ralph has ponnied up $32 million in charity to the community, but I can bet you he is damn near close to it. Now, on the other hand...how many NFL players give back to their community? Take away your stars who have the 501C's that are just a name plate, take away your self promoting crap that isn't really charity (see youth football camps)...and you're left with something like Hunters Hope. There are very few good charities out there run by football players.

 

I cannot imagine an NFL team is in the red, you're right. However, look at the Mets. They are one of the biggest teams in MLB in the biggest city, too. The owner is pretty much in the red. Didn't the Vikings owner a while ago have some issues with this? Isn't part of the reason that Miami is owned by such a large group due to trouble financing? The NFL is better run then other sports but it is not the goliath that people think it is and it has to turn a profit. Does a team need to net 100,000,000 a year? No. Does an american household of 4 need to net an income over $250,000? No. But, we're in a free country, based on a free market and that is just the way it is so like it or not you don't have a choice. Heck, you can live in North Carolina and have a job. Tomorrow you go in to work and for no reason what so ever be fired. It is a right to work state because working is a right not a requirement. Regardless of making $7.75 or $7,750,000...its a right not a requirement.

What?

So the players need to take a pay cut so the NFL can give money to charity? That's a stretch.

 

Yes it is a free market but it's not not 1800s Robber Barren style. The NFL owners that have done very little to improve the game in the last 20 years can share the revenue with the people that generate the revenue. The market can not bare what the owners are asking it to bare.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Why So Serious?

[Mr. WEO]

The owners, in the end, were not asking for "an extra billion dollars"--they had brought down that number to $325 million. Also, as predicted, they took the 16 game schedule off the table.

 

The union had planned all along to decertify if they weren't able to satisfy their only goal of their "negotiations" with the league--to see the books. The decertification, as in the past, is a sham move to allow "antitrust" suits to move forward. No matter how friendly Judge Doty is to the players, any decision he makes will only be the first on these actions by Brady, et al. Endless litigation will follow.

 

No player would have taken a "pay cut" if the last league deal had been accepted by the players. Only the future caps would have (minimally) decreased. Brady, brees and Manning would have gotten every penny they did-tying up huge chunks of team salary/cap on a single player. The rest would have been split amongst the lesser stars, just as always.

 

Jerry Jones has never seen Ralphs books-and I can guarantee you that Wilson doesn't want to share that info.

[Mickey]

It seems to me that if they decertify, then they shouldn't be able to recertify.

 

 

It's a free country.

 

The owners, in the end, were not asking for "an extra billion dollars"--they had brought down that number to $325 million. Also, as predicted, they took the 16 game schedule off the table.

 

The union had planned all along to decertify if they weren't able to satisfy their only goal of their "negotiations" with the league--to see the books. The decertification, as in the past, is a sham move to allow "antitrust" suits to move forward. No matter how friendly Judge Doty is to the players, any decision he makes will only be the first on these actions by Brady, et al. Endless litigation will follow.

 

No player would have taken a "pay cut" if the last league deal had been accepted by the players. Only the future caps would have (minimally) decreased. Brady, brees and Manning would have gotten every penny they did-tying up huge chunks of team salary/cap on a single player. The rest would have been split amongst the lesser stars, just as always.

 

Jerry Jones has never seen Ralphs books-and I can guarantee you that Wilson doesn't want to share that info.

 

That is not what the NFLPA reports happened. I don't beleive either side.