MattM

I noticed that as well--what was up with that? Interestingly (to me at least) the comments were running about 3 to 1 against Goodell and the owners--in the WSJ no less--that's saying something and it ain't pretty for the League...

Could be wrong, but I believe that the prior floor was in the 85% range, so a move to 90% would help teams like the Bills. I care about how the final deal is structured in terms of its impact on league balance and parity for the sake of small market teams teams like the Bills and absolutely do not trust the big market "brain trust" of Snyder, Jones, Kraft, et al. to do right by teams like ours; those same owners were the ones who negotiated the last CBA and are the ones leading the charge to pull out of the last deal as I understand it. The owners picked this path when they pulled out of the last CBA and, like other posters here, I think it was a foolish move of theirs to let it get this far. That, plus things like the "lockout fund" they negotiated in their last TV contracts despite having a duty to players to maximize shared revenue (as found by a Reagan-appointed judge) and the fact that they're crying poverty as the reason to scuttle the last deal, but won't open their books to prove said poverty, leads me to cast an even more jaundiced eye their way, but that may just be me.....

The best hope for the Bills out of all of this is that the players demand a salary floor. I thought I'd read that the last CBA terms they owners and players were discussing contained a 90% salary floor. Can anyone confirm this? It would make sense from a union perspective to protect the guys lower down on the totem pole (who are the vast majority of the League, numbers-wise, and those are the folks who need to vote on a deal to get it approved, not just Manning, Brees, Brady, etc.).

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084 Link

...with respect to the lockout. Surely to be appealed by the League..... http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6424084 Link

Is it really deep at OL? I thought that there were very few tackles who projected as top picks, unlike prior years when you normally have 2-3 OT going in the top 10. Do you guys mean Rd 2-3 type prospects?

??? Not sure where you're getting the highlighted information--she's the judge assigned to the case on the lockout, after two others recused themselves due to conflicts. She will have a huge impact on how all of this plays out since she's the trial judge hearing the case as to whether the NFL has the power to lock the players out. BTW, doesn't look good for the owners, as she's an Obama appointee and thus probably more likely to be pro-union/employee, but apparently also has a reputation for general fairness (probably also not good for the owners). Remember, though, that Judge Doty, a Reagan appointee, found for the players on most matters, including that the "lockout fund" they'd negotiated for themselves in the latest TV deals was a breach of duty the owners had to the players. You toss around "bad faith" about the players move to decertify, but seem to forget that a judge (a conservative one at that) actually found the owners to be guilty of bad faith and breach of duty--based on the facts I've read, probably one of the easiest decisions he ever had to make. Remember that the next time you toss "bad faith" allegations around about the players union. Personally, I hope that whatever she does gets the sides closer together to reach an acceptable agreement, one that includes both a salary cap and a salary floor fairly close to that cap. The last thing fans of teams like the Bills need is a cap set high enough that it creates a de facto competitive disadvantage to us, a la the NHL, for ex......

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Apb9iqSr9FIM8Xw7XAa81OVDubYF?slug=nfp-20110325_will_the_players_agree_to_hgh_testing Found this interesting article on a Pats' fans message board no less--of all the teams in the League, those guys should be the ones fearing this the most, having a history of guys like Rodney "I'm so dumb I used my own name and address and that's the only way you can get caught for this now" Harrison and where aging vets go and "miraculously" play 5 years younger and all.....

Looks like the players are now saying the owners "pulled a switcheroo" (aaahhh, the ole' switcheroo!)on them and that the owners last offer last week removed the "revenue share" element of player pay (i.e., player comp. would be a fixed cost and not rise with the growth in League revenue) which had been a fixture of prior negotiations up to that point. "The NFL Players Association says labor negotiations broke down last week because the owners' last proposal would have made salaries a fixed cost and eliminated the players' chance to share in higher-than-projected revenue growth. "That's a fundamental change as to the way the business has been done with the players - player percentage always has been tied to revenues," said Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative. Speaking to reporters Friday at the former union's annual meeting, Kendall described the league's offer as "kind of the old switcheroo." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/18/nflpa-response.ap/index.html Might this not show the owners' true game is trying to keep all the upside of a growing League to themselves, rather than to stem allegedly declining profits?

http://www.profootballweekly.com/2011/03/13/nfl-owners-to-blame-for-the-lockout Interesting perspective from someone close both to the game and running his own business (which figures into his article)....

I agree with your first statement. Folks need to get it through their heads that since the deal they had was a revenue share deal with certain expenses of the team's coming out ahead of the players' cut, this arrangement is very much more like a players' equity stake than a traditional employer-employee relationship. As such, it's incredibly reasonable for the players to ask to see all of the books of the owners. As for your last statement, never said it did. What I pointed to was a factual situation in which the owners very clearly showed their bad faith, as found by a Reagan appointee to the bench, Judge Doty. Combine that with the large amount of greed as previously evidenced by the owners, including the three I named (the guy who built "Jerrah World", the guy who started charging to attend practices and the guy who seems to want the large market teams to be allowed to become the NFL's version of the Yankees) and voila. Draw your own conclusions from those facts. I have....

Not quite, but how about "the owners pulled a scummy move by negotiating a war chest for themselves (at the expense of getting more shared player revenue since in negotiations one always gives up one thing for another) in the TV deals in breach of their duty to negotiate in good faith to expand the pie the players share so the owners have already shown that they may not be trustworthy"? That's what I've got my money on. If I were the players darn right I'd want to see their books, especially if they're crying poverty and my arrangement with them is a kind of revenue share with certain expenses netted out before I get my slice. Seeing this as a pure "employer-employee" relationship is wrong, as some have noted above. Through the revenue share deals it's more like the players have an odd kind of equity or other actual stake in the business. Any equity owner or debt holder is going to want to see the books, particularly if there are things above them in any payment waterfall that comes out before they're paid. Perfectly reasonable request by the players. Personally, I suspect that the owners are scared sh*tless that the players will see all kinds of shenanigans in those books and may end up hopping mad. Do the Jones's, Snyder's and Kraft's of the world strike you as honest, upstanding businessmen? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.... My personal fear in all of this is that what results is bad for small market teams. You've got the players who want to increase the ability of wealthy owners to spend over a cap and you've got those same owners who'd love to be able to do the same thing. Our only hope for small market teams is the fear that removing a cap will remove a floor as well, which will scare the players (or at least it should).....

For those claiming that this was no big deal, go find the NYT article that quotes several unnamed members of the NFL Competition Committee who said that there was really only one team that they got complaints about shady dealings on over and over again--any guess as to which team it was? Folks have suspected them of a lot more than Spygate, and Spygate itself proves that they were certainly willing to push that ethical envelope. Personally, for reasons discussed on this board ad nauseum over the years, I suspect that they were guilty of far more than just Spygate, but perhaps that's just me....

Plus one. Funny thing is, it was the "supergeniuses" Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones who brought us the last CBA that the owners just blew up. Part of me wouldn't mind seeing a lock out/work stoppage and missed games just to see how guys like that cover the debt service on their new stadia without that TV contract cash flow Doty just took away from them in what was probably the easiest judicial decision the guy ever had to make. Come on, if you have a good faith duty to maximize revenue for the players and you write in a clause giving you a refund-free war chest for yourself in the event of a work stoppage (and presumably had to give up some up front player-shared cash to do so, since nothing is for free in negotiations), how in the heck can you argue that was good faith with a straight face?? People wonder why the owners seem to lose every major joust in the courts, but look no further than moves like that to show who is or is not acting in good faith and bear that in mind in choosing your sides here....

Oh, plenty of examples since then, a fair number of which, surprise, surprise (not), include the Cheats* (the AFC CG against the Colts comes to mind, as does the opener we played against them about 4-5 years ago that was so bad that TMQ wrote it up in his column)......

What some of you are forgetting (as does the article and Walt) on the out of bounds play is that the replay clearly also showed that even if the guy caught the ball in bounds he was also still a good yard short of the 1st down, so it was a doubly bad call, and the one that Andre Reed infamously heard one ref tell the other "just give it to them" at the chains on the sideline. It was fourth down to, so if either of those goes against the Cheats* it's game over. I agree with the other poster above that this game was one of the first times I recall questioning whether there was really some kind of corruption going on in NFL officiating. The absolute first having been about 20 years earlier when the Cowboys came back to beat the Falcons in a playoff game, aided on the winning drive by garbage hanky after garbage hanky each time the Grits Blitz D stopped them.....

Ahhh, the members of Warren Buffet's so-called "lucky sperm club"--most of the other 99 plus% of us I'd bet would be happy to have the the chance to run something into the ground and piss away everything, I suspect. Depending on the size of the business, that might even take more than one generation (seen that up close). Simply playing the odds, I'll also bet, but obviously can't know for sure, that Walt's the type who sits in judgment on those in society who aren't "economic winners" and finds them wanting through their own personal faults, but who knows, maybe he just realizes how incredibly lucky he was to be born into a family business of any substance.....

I noticed that article allows comments (moderated/reviewed by the paper)--Bills fans should write in and politely explain why we think that he's one of the worst officials in the history of the sport, bordering on corrupt.....

Did he really work the "Tuck Rule" game? If so, anyone else see a pattern there (or at least two d*mning data points or things in common)? If so, how does this man still have a job in the NFL, never mind being considered (by who?) "one of the best"? "We had a few minor problems", give me a friggin' break. Works for the "family business"--nice to see he's a self-made man, too.....

I'll be the second to welcome you. I went to the game at Lambeau this year and your fans treated us very well, so thank you for that, and here's hoping that ours extend the same courtesy to you in 2014(even if, as we here hope, the scores are reversed!).....

Plus one, Doc, and weren't Kraft and Jones the super-geniuses behind the NFL Network, which most of America still doesn't have about ten years or so in due to their greed and refusal to strike a reasonable deal with most cable companies? With respect to the last CBA those two negotiated, they were either (a) stupid for not realizing what a horrible deal it allegedly is or (b) negotiating in bad faith, knowing they planned to blow the thing up in two years, to enrich themselves and other large market owners by forcing a showdown with the NFLPA that would at the same time force a less even revenue sharing deal on the small market owners. Personally I'd say it's more likely B by a whisker. If it is B, once they succeed my prediction is "MLB here we come", following you straight into the toilet. Using myself as an example, I used to love baseball as a kid until it turned into the haves and have nots. I haven't followed it closely (or paid to attend games) in years. Looks like I'm not alone, since baseball's TV ratings have sunk like a stone over that period. Parity helps make the NFL entertaining and of interest to many of its fans. If it becomes the Cheats* and the 'Pukes, while those teams may do well financially the League as a whole is going to see decreased revenue. Smaller pie gorged on by the greedy pigs....

If I recall correctly it was largely Kraft and Jones who were the big proponents of the last deal. If it was indeed the case and those two got hoodwinked or were not smart enough to get a good deal last time (as opposed to intentionally taking a bad deal and using that to torpedo the CBA two or three years in for some longer-term endgame), then if I were the owners I'd have those two as far away from the negotiating table as possible. Just basic sense, no? Instead, those two seem to be front and center again here. You draw your own conclusions from that.....

Plus one--I went to the game at GB this year as well and had a generally similar experience, except for the drunk Packers fan sitting next to me who gave me grief for the first half of the game, but was my buddy by the end of the game (after they'd kicked our behinds), even sharing his gin soaked cherries with me and giving me some Packers gear he had before he left. I must admit, however, that the Steeler fans in Pittsburgh a few years ago were great to my dad and I as well, despite what some others above have written.....

That really worked last week, no? Closet Pats* fan?