Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[Taro T]

The absurdity lies in claiming that the owners and the players are business "partners". They are not. The CBA is gone, and so is any previous type of profit sharing arrangement or agreement that may have existed. The players obviously want another such agreement but it's not being offered. No other major sport has such and arrangement either. The players are instead being offered massive increases in salary (caps and minimums).

 

Private companies cannot be compelled to divulge info to employees.

NHL players get (at current leaguewide revenue levels) 57% of all designated receipts. That # is so firmly set in stone that portions of the players salaries are held in escrow until the accountants look at the books in the off-season and the actual salaries are adjusted up or down to the agreed upon 57%.

[Beerball]

There are several articles out about players coming to grips with the fact that they now have no health insurance.

 

Was it shortsighted for the NFLPA to not arrange coverage for the players before the decertification/lockout? Seems to me that they could have easily set this up for their members.

[boyst]

There are several articles out about players coming to grips with the fact that they now have no health insurance.

 

Was it shortsighted for the NFLPA to not arrange coverage for the players before the decertification/lockout? Seems to me that they could have easily set this up for their members.

Not to mention individual health care is not that expensive. Within a matter of less then two weeks leaving my last two jobs I was able to secure health insurance for less then $200/month. I think I pay around $130/month from BCBS with a dang good plan. They're out there talking about how Cobra would be $35,000 a year and how scary it is to realize they don't have health insurance - they're morons.

 

You're exactly right, the NFLPA should have focused more on protecting their players then playing the media card. Maybe Brees, Manning, Brady, Von Miller, and the rest who are in the class action suit can pay everyones health care. They definately have the money. I'd bet in endorsement deals alone those players can cover the cost for the NFL.

 

Although, rady needs the the health insurance to cover the post-op therapy for this tranny wife.

[CosmicBills]

Not to mention individual health care is not that expensive. ...

That's a very naive statement. Individual healthcare costs is dependent upon one's needs. Just because it's cheap for you doesn't mean that holds true for everyone. It escalates when you have kids as well.

 

I'm single, no kids and carry my own insurance. I pay over double what your rates are. So let's not just throw around blanket statements.

[boyst]

That's a very naive statement. Individual healthcare costs is dependent upon one's needs. Just because it's cheap for you doesn't mean that holds true for everyone. It escalates when you have kids as well.

 

I'm single, no kids and carry my own insurance. I pay over double what your rates are. So let's not just throw around blanket statements.

Hardly a blanket statement. I take care of my health - don't smoke, don't drink often, stay in relatively good shape, and make sure I am living a lifestyle condusive to affordable health care costs. I have been to the Dr. 3 times in 5 years. Two of those physicals.

 

If you make the choice to have kids you should realize the responsibilities of doing this. Roddy White has at least 2 children I am sure of and I think 2 more, as well. Idiot should learn condoms are cheaper then health insurance and children.

 

When you design your lifestyle by planning it out well the chances of you having lower health care costs are goign to be much higher then just letting things go...that is my point. Relative to what NFL players make to the every day folks healthcare is cheap.

[CosmicBills]

Hardly a blanket statement. I take care of my health - don't smoke, don't drink often, stay in relatively good shape, and make sure I am living a lifestyle condusive to affordable health care costs. I have been to the Dr. 3 times in 5 years. Two of those physicals.

 

If you make the choice to have kids you should realize the responsibilities of doing this. Roddy White has at least 2 children I am sure of and I think 2 more, as well. Idiot should learn condoms are cheaper then health insurance and children.

 

When you design your lifestyle by planning it out well the chances of you having lower health care costs are goign to be much higher then just letting things go...that is my point. Relative to what NFL players make to the every day folks healthcare is cheap.

Again, that's just naive and spiteful. You can't control some things -- especially when it comes to your health or your family's. Look at Derek Fisher on the Lakers. He planned for a family, winds up that his child has a horrible illness that required multiple surgeries and chemo. Without insurance, that would have costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. But you're right. He's an NBA player, he should have planned his life better.

 

Good grief.

Edited March 22, 2011 by tgreg99

[Beerball]

Again, that's just naive and spiteful. You can't control some things -- especially when it comes to your health or your family's. Look at Derek Fisher on the Lakers. He planned for a family, winds up that his child has a horrible illness that required multiple surgeries and chemo. Without insurance, that would have costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. But you're right. He's an NBA player, he should have planned his life better.

 

Good grief.

So, to answer the question that was posed...shouldn't the NFLPA have set up coverage for its members prior to this?

[justnzane]

Hardly a blanket statement. I take care of my health - don't smoke, don't drink often, stay in relatively good shape, and make sure I am living a lifestyle condusive to affordable health care costs. I have been to the Dr. 3 times in 5 years. Two of those physicals.

 

If you make the choice to have kids you should realize the responsibilities of doing this. Roddy White has at least 2 children I am sure of and I think 2 more, as well. Idiot should learn condoms are cheaper then health insurance and children.

 

When you design your lifestyle by planning it out well the chances of you having lower health care costs are goign to be much higher then just letting things go...that is my point. Relative to what NFL players make to the every day folks healthcare is cheap.

 

 

boyst you are posting some very uninformed stuff up here. Cost is relative to what one makes. I know Tgreg is a starving writer in Hollywood where he is still feeling the effects of the strike a few years ago. Hell I am a grad student too old to be on a parents plan, not employed full-time recent enough to be covered via work or Cobra, and too broke to afford it myself without taking out more loans. You are fortunate to be able to be on a lower cost health plan, but it is not the same around the country. I had to pay more when I was full-time in Atlanta with high deductibles.

 

That said, it is also uninformed to be talking about Roddy White's kids.

For that reason, he vows to always be there for his children -- 4-year-old Roddy White Jr. and daughters Amyia (5) and Milan (1).

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jan/15/thanks-mom/

[CosmicBills]

No, it wasn't. The players are demanding that the owners make a case that they need more money. Why shouldn't the owners demand the same in return from the players?

 

The players aren't asking the owners to open their personal books because they think the owners are being frivolous with their money. They want the franchise's books opened because they agreed to REVENUE sharing in the CBA. Your example is not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not in the same league.

 

But you knew that. You're better than that. You're just being silly.

 

Not really. The players are employees. If they don't like making a smaller raise (notice, they are still getting a yearly raise, just smaller than before), they are free to seek employment elsewhere.

They're not just employees. That's the essence of the entire debate.

 

So, to answer the question that was posed...shouldn't the NFLPA have set up coverage for its members prior to this?

No question ... the players had time to prepare for this. Everyone knew a lockout was looming.

 

I wonder, and if someone with a legal background knows the answer to this please chime in, COULD the NFLPA have set up a group insurance plan knowing that they were going to dissolve to force litigation? Even if they had set up a plan, I'm not sure it would still be allowed to exist once they dissolved.

 

I know that many say (and they're right) that the NFLPA hasn't really dissolved at all and it's a ploy -- but it'd be hard for the players to argue otherwise if they had an active health plan in place through the PA. But maybe I'm wrong.

[FLFan]

That's a very naive statement. Individual healthcare costs is dependent upon one's needs. Just because it's cheap for you doesn't mean that holds true for everyone. It escalates when you have kids as well.

 

I'm single, no kids and carry my own insurance. I pay over double what your rates are. So let's not just throw around blanket statements.

Very true. Cobra is based on the level of healthcare plan previously provided by the employer. Basically, you have the right to buy your previous coverage without restriction to previous conditions, at prevailing full market rate. NFL players woiuld not have cheap coverage. They are obviously prone to all sorts of major unjuries and surgeries, etc so it would not surpirse me at all if continuing coverage for this high risk group would be $35k per year. When I was between jobs a few years ago I was offered Cobra ta $2k per month, $24k per year for family coverage. People have no idea what this stuff really costs.

[Ramius]

The players aren't asking the owners to open their personal books because they think the owners are being frivolous with their money. They want the franchise's books opened because they agreed to REVENUE sharing in the CBA. Your example is not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not in the same league.

 

But you knew that. You're better than that. You're just being silly.

 

 

They're not just employees. That's the essence of the entire debate.

 

 

No question ... the players had time to prepare for this. Everyone knew a lockout was looming.

 

I wonder, and if someone with a legal background knows the answer to this please chime in, COULD the NFLPA have set up a group insurance plan knowing that they were going to dissolve to force litigation? Even if they had set up a plan, I'm not sure it would still be allowed to exist once they dissolved.

 

I know that many say (and they're right) that the NFLPA hasn't really dissolved at all and it's a ploy -- but it'd be hard for the players to argue otherwise if they had an active health plan in place through the PA. But maybe I'm wrong.

 

The players sure as hell aren't partners. They work for the owners.

 

Perhaps the players should have thought of the health insurance and other issues that come with decertification before electing an ignorant raging asshat like De Smith who wanted nothing more than to decertify and take this to courts.

 

Had the players elected a leader who had their (as a group) best interests in mind instead of his own agenda to push, they perhaps would have a CBA done or would still be at the table working on one.

[Beerball]

The players sure as hell aren't partners. They work for the owners.

 

Perhaps the players should have thought of the health insurance and other issues that come with decertification before electing an ignorant raging asshat like De Smith who wanted nothing more than to decertify and take this to courts.

 

Had the players elected a leader who had their (as a group) best interests in mind instead of his own agenda to push, they perhaps would have a CBA done or would still be at the table working on one.

There is no question in my mind but that Smith had no intentions of working out a deal. MMQB lays out what the league's final offer was before the players walked away. The league had made concessions and IMO was willing to make more to get a deal done. Smith wanted none of that because it would remove him from the media limelight.

 

He probably would not like an NFL that resulted from court action, and his players would like it even less.

[K Gun Special]

Hardly a blanket statement. I take care of my health - don't smoke, don't drink often, stay in relatively good shape, and make sure I am living a lifestyle condusive to affordable health care costs. I have been to the Dr. 3 times in 5 years. Two of those physicals.

 

If you make the choice to have kids you should realize the responsibilities of doing this. Roddy White has at least 2 children I am sure of and I think 2 more, as well. Idiot should learn condoms are cheaper then health insurance and children.

 

When you design your lifestyle by planning it out well the chances of you having lower health care costs are goign to be much higher then just letting things go...that is my point. Relative to what NFL players make to the every day folks healthcare is cheap.

 

 

Bc you have all those NFL related injuries too right?

 

The NFLPA did advise players to save their last three checks to cover expenses such as health care.

 

I think too many people are laser focused on bashing the union instead of just looking at the facts.

[CosmicBills]

The players sure as hell aren't partners. They work for the owners.

 

Perhaps the players should have thought of the health insurance and other issues that come with decertification before electing an ignorant raging asshat like De Smith who wanted nothing more than to decertify and take this to courts.

 

Had the players elected a leader who had their (as a group) best interests in mind instead of his own agenda to push, they perhaps would have a CBA done or would still be at the table working on one.

I get you don't like Smith. That's cool. No arguments here. But don't make a mistake, the players are partners (or were under the CBA). The owners made them partners when they agreed to revenue sharing. No one forced the owners to structure the league in that manner. They opened the door themselves. To think otherwise is just ignoring the facts.

 

Whatever the new deal is, it will include revenue sharing. (Well, I'd assume)

Edited March 22, 2011 by tgreg99

[Ramius]

I get you don't like Smith. That's cool. No arguments here. But don't make a mistake, the players are partners (or were under the CBA). The owners made them partners when they agreed to revenue sharing. No one forced the owners to structure the league in that manner. They opened the door themselves. To think otherwise is just ignoring the facts.

 

Whatever the new deal is, it will include revenue sharing. (Well, I'd assume)

 

So its ok for the owners to agree to revenue sharing, and its ok for the owners to increase the amount they share, but its not ok for the owners to decrease the amount they share?

[CosmicBills]

So its ok for the owners to agree to revenue sharing, and its ok for the owners to increase the amount they share, but its not ok for the owners to decrease the amount they share?

It's fine for the owners to decrease the amount they share if there's a reason to do so. Look at the NBA -- their current model is unsustainable. But there isn't an NFL owner out there that can show the need to cut costs. If they can, they would.

 

But more importantly, as has been stated by numerous people, the reason the players are asking to see the books isn't just to see where the owners are spending their money. But to determine how much revenue is ACTUALLY being generated. That's the ONLY way for the players to know if they're being paid what they're truly owed or if they're being cheated.

 

The owners HAVE to show their books to prove they are paying the actual amount owed. When the player's salaries are determined by a percentage of revenue sharing (in this case 60%) how can you say X dollars is what they're owed without knowing the total revenue generated? This isn't a model being forced upon the owners by the players, it's the model THEY agreed to in the CBA when they agreed to revenue sharing. That makes any comparison to any other typical owner/employee relationship null and void. It's NOT as simple as "they are the owners and they are the employees".

 

It's a simple point. I'm baffled as to why a poster who I know is as smart as you are (and I'm a fan of yours, Ramius not that that matters but I'm not trying to be a dick at all here) can't see that. I get that you feel the owner/employee relationship is set in stone, but in this case it's NOT a typical owner/employee relationship. It's more akin to what happens in Hollywood in the entertainment business than it is to any other business.

Edited March 22, 2011 by tgreg99

[Ramius]

It's fine for the owners to decrease the amount they share if there's a reason to do so. Look at the NBA -- their current model is unsustainable. But there isn't an NFL owner out there that can show the need to cut costs. If they can, they would.

 

But more importantly, as has been stated by numerous people, the reason the players are asking to see the books isn't just to see where the owners are spending their money. But to determine how much revenue is ACTUALLY being generated. That's the ONLY way for the players to know if they're being paid what they're truly owed or if they're being cheated.

 

The owners HAVE to show their books to prove they are paying the actual amount owed. When the player's salaries are determined by a percentage of revenue sharing (in this case 60%) how can you say X dollars is what they're owed without knowing the total revenue generated? This isn't a model being forced upon the owners by the players, it's the model THEY agreed to in the CBA when they agreed to revenue sharing. That makes any comparison to any other typical owner/employee relationship null and void. It's NOT as simple as "they are the owners and they are the employees".

 

It's a simple point. I'm baffled as to why a poster who I know is as smart as you are (and I'm a fan of yours, Ramius not that that matters but I'm not trying to be a dick at all here) can't see that. I get that you feel the owner/employee relationship is set in stone, but in this case it's NOT a typical owner/employee relationship. It's more akin to what happens in Hollywood in the entertainment business than it is to any other business.

 

No, i know you're not being a dick. We're simply on opposing sides.

 

This begs the question as to why the players didn't need to see any financial records any time in the past, specifically in 2006 when they got an inordinate increase.

[CosmicBills]

No, i know you're not being a dick. We're simply on opposing sides.

 

This begs the question as to why the players didn't need to see any financial records any time in the past, specifically in 2006 when they got an inordinate increase.

It's a good point -- though it seems to be human nature. They were getting a great deal. Why look a gift horse in the mouth, you know? Now the owners want to take an extra billion off the top before sharing revenues (which is a pay cut any way you slice it) which is their right to request of course. But isn't it also the player's right to ask them to show a reason for this outside of the owners just saying "we want more money"?

 

End of the day it's a sh*&^y situation for the fans. Both sides have blood on their hands. In the end, a deal will be made, the players will get their money the owners will get theirs. It's the fans who lose out. And that sucks.

[Ramius]

It's a good point -- though it seems to be human nature. They were getting a great deal. Why look a gift horse in the mouth, you know? Now the owners want to take an extra billion off the top before sharing revenues (which is a pay cut any way you slice it) which is their right to request of course. But isn't it also the player's right to ask them to show a reason for this outside of the owners just saying "we want more money"?

 

End of the day it's a sh*&^y situation for the fans. Both sides have blood on their hands. In the end, a deal will be made, the players will get their money the owners will get theirs. It's the fans who lose out. And that sucks.

 

Very true. I know it sounds as if i am in full support of the owners, but i'm really not. Both sides are jackasses that need to get to the table and hammer this thing out. I do abhor De Smith however. I feel he's the bad cog jamming this entire process up for his own personal gain.

 

My biggest fear with the players getting mroe money is that it will drive the cap up higher and faster. Lets face it, the cap was effectively meaningless after the 2006 CBA was signed, because few teams spent up to it. This hurts the Bills. The Bills need to operate in a controlled cost environment, and limiting what the players get is the best way to do this. The last thing i want is an MLB economic situation.

 

In the end, you're right, its us fans who are getting hurt. Something needs to be done to get this worked out.

 

What really should be done is that the owners fund for stadiums (whatever amount is agreed upon), and a (large) fund for retired players should be removed prior to calculating all additional player costs.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Ramius

[Mr. WEO]

Very true. Cobra is based on the level of healthcare plan previously provided by the employer. Basically, you have the right to buy your previous coverage without restriction to previous conditions, at prevailing full market rate. NFL players woiuld not have cheap coverage. They are obviously prone to all sorts of major unjuries and surgeries, etc so it would not surpirse me at all if continuing coverage for this high risk group would be $35k per year. When I was between jobs a few years ago I was offered Cobra ta $2k per month, $24k per year for family coverage. People have no idea what this stuff really costs.

The coverage is affordable for all NFL players, when viewed as a percntage of their gross pay. This is not a real issue, it's just smoke being blown by the players.

 

There is no question in my mind but that Smith had no intentions of working out a deal. MMQB lays out what the league's final offer was before the players walked away. The league had made concessions and IMO was willing to make more to get a deal done. Smith wanted none of that because it would remove him from the media limelight.

 

He probably would not like an NFL that resulted from court action, and his players would like it even less.

Iv'e stated this also. You are 100% correct.

 

But don't make a mistake, the players are partners (or were under the CBA). The owners made them partners when they agreed to revenue sharing. No one forced the owners to structure the league in that manner. They opened the door themselves. To think otherwise is just ignoring the facts.

 

 

 

The owners HAVE to show their books to prove they are paying the actual amount owed. When the player's salaries are determined by a percentage of revenue sharing (in this case 60%) how can you say X dollars is ? This isn't a model being forced upon the owners by the players, it's the model THEY agreed to in the CBA when they agreed to revenue sharing. That makes any comparison to any other typical owner/employee relationship null and void. It's NOT as simple as "they are the owners and they are the employees".

You are ignoring the fact that the "60%" deal you keep referring to is gone. That "agreement" expired--it is "null and void". They are no longer partners--why do you keep pretending the 2006 CBA is in effect?

 

And why didn't the players ever ask to see the books for the past 4 seasons? How did they know "what they're owed without knowing the total revenue generated"? Why wasn't it important all these years?