Well-Thought-Out CBA Negotiation Article

[JohnC]

What happens if they issue an injunction against the lockout? Do games get played if there is still no CBA?

 

My understanding is that the games would be played under the current CBA system. There has to be rules for free agency and salary guidelines for drafted players. This year's draft was allowed in a re-opt CBA situation because it was so stipulated in the CBA. In addition, you can't have the commissioner act on disciplinary and drug issues unless it is covered within a CBA agreement. It is the CBA that allows both sides to have a working relationship. No one party has the authority to walk away from the CBA and then act outside of it in their own newly created and imposed system. If the owners got radical and tried to do that they would be blocked by anti-trust restrictions.

 

No matter how you dislike the arrangement both sides are linked. It is not a typical employer/worker paradigm. They sink together or they float together.

Edited March 26, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

What question? I must have missed it, sorry.

 

But are you really saying that the reason why the NBA declined post Jordan was because there were no good players? No icons? The NBA is in serious trouble and probably need to contract two teams to bounce back ... And you think the reason it finds itself in peril is because teams are filled with nobodies? You really, honestly believe that even plays a part in it?

Yes, I believe that is why the NBA has lost it's viewers. The average sports fan has lost interest. That league is dominated by kids who kids who played one or two good years of college ball and enter the draft. Now they play for the Clippers or Oklahoma City or New Orleans or Minny......

 

The question was why are the players demanding to see the books of the owners now, yet they signed a CBA in 2006 "giving them 59.5% of all revenues" and never asked asked to see these "books" for the past 5 years to verify they were getting what they deserved?

 

I was not "just being silly." I have not seen anyone from the players' union claim that the owners are being dishonest about the revenues they're taking in. I haven't even seen this raised as a possibility. The reason the players' union demanded the NFL's financial statements was to try to make the owners prove they "need" the extra money. But the "prove you need it concept" is a two way street. If the players are demanding that the owners prove they need the money, why shouldn't the owners demand the same of the players?

 

 

Each NFL team constantly competes with all the others in an auction-like event for the talents of the players. To prevent the prices (player salaries) from getting out of hand (as can easily happen in an auction setting), it was decided to implement a salary cap. The fact this cap is based on league revenues (as opposed to some arbitrary number) does not therefore make the players "partners" with the owners. Still less does it make them "investors" in the league! The players offer a service which the owners wish to purchase. That's a standard employer/employee relationship, not a business partnership.

Agreed. Well put.

 

My understanding is that the games would be played under the current CBA system. There has to be rules for free agency and salary guidelines for drafted players. This year's draft was allowed in a re-opt CBA situation because it was so stipulated in the CBA. In addition, you can't have the commissioner act on disciplinary and drug issues unless it is covered within a CBA agreement. It is the CBA that allows both sides to have a working relationship. No one party has the authority to walk away from the CBA and then act outside of it in their own newly created and imposed system. If the owners got radical and tried to do that they would be blocked by anti-trust restrictions.

 

No matter how you dislike the arrangement both sides are linked. It is not a typical employer/worker paradigm. They sink together or they float together.

 

There is no CBA and there is no union so I don't see how the players would be party to an agreement once made with the union when neither the union nor the contract exist.

[K Gun Special]

Yes, I believe that is why the NBA has lost it's viewers. The average sports fan has lost interest. That league is dominated by kids who kids who played one or two good years of college ball and enter the draft. Now they play for the Clippers or Oklahoma City or New Orleans or Minny......

 

The question was why are the players demanding to see the books of the owners now, yet they signed a CBA in 2006 "giving them 59.5% of all revenues" and never asked asked to see these "books" for the past 5 years to verify they were getting what they deserved?

 

 

Agreed. Well put.

 

 

 

There is no CBA and there is no union so I don't see how the players would be party to an agreement once made with the union when neither the union nor the contract exist.

 

 

No they didnt ask to see the books but they also didnt make any claims. The owners are claiming they are losing money, a preposterous claim when you stop and think about it. Despite the perception of the economy, the 4th quarter of the last fiscal year saw records profits in the US. Record profits.

 

Businesses are exploiting the situation to cut labor forces and increase profits and its working. Working people arent seeing any real increase in wages. The NFL is piggybacking this tactic.

[JohnC]

 

There is no CBA and there is no union so I don't see how the players would be party to an agreement once made with the union when neither the union nor the contract exist.

 

If the judge lifts the lockout the parties return back to business. They will be performing under the old CBA terms. There is no other way of doing it. Why will they be doing it that way? Because the judge will have ordered both sides to get back to business! Sometimes it is not about what you want to do it is what the judge tells you what to do.

 

If the judge doesn't lift the lockout then there is no business. Each side is stalemated until there is an agreement.

Edited March 26, 2011 by JohnC

[CosmicBills]

Basketball faded away because there are no icons left. The average American sports fan doesn't care about a league that has Kobe, LeBron....and that's really about it. Crappy teams filled with rosters of nobodies.

 

Really? Do you want to rethink that statement?

 

Yes, I believe that is why the NBA has lost it's viewers.

So then it's far to say that players, not owners, are what determines whether a sport is not only profitable but sustainable. In other words, you're arguing that the players are what people pay to watch. That without the players the owners do not have a viable or profitable business.

 

You're saying that fans don't care about watching "crappy teams filled with nobodies". That you yourself, as a fan, would rather watch teams with talented players than teams with amateurs. You're saying that while a standard business can present a "take it or leave it" stance with its employees because they are all more or less replaceable, professional athletes have a skill set that's so incredibly rare and valuable without them the business itself becomes less relevant and profitable. You're arguing that the owners can't just fill their rosters with scrub replacement players like the contractor who can replace his dry waller or his plumber without his business suffering. That rather, it's players with the exceptional talents of a Brady, Brees, Manning, Peterson or Lewis that determine how successful the league is and by extension how much money the owners themselves pocket. That in reality, the owners -- especially the majority of the owners who bought into the league after the NFL had become the giant it currently is and risked virtually nothing financially or personally -- owe the success of the league entirely to the players they employ.

 

After all, the reason the NBA is no longer the sports monster it was a decade ago was because it now has "crappy teams filled with nobodies."

 

Thank you for making my point.

 

It seems to me that a smart business man who was driven by something more than his own personal greed would realize this and instead of trying to take advantage of the people they rely on to make their league profitable; would try to actually negotiate honestly and openly. That they would realize their business does not exist without the players. You would think smart business men would see the big picture: that the league was making money hand over fist despite having a CBA that favored their players. Hell, a smart business man would not want to rock the boat -- at least to the point where it threatens to capsize unless the league was facing dire straights. But it clearly is not facing a grim future. Its future has never been brighter. That is until the owners decided to rock the boat.

 

Thank you for coming to your senses and understanding that the entertainment business, especially sports and the NFL, is NOT a business with a standard employee/employer relationship. No matter how you want to define it, the owners are more dependent upon their workforce than almost any other business in the world.

 

Thank you for understanding that the owners cannot simply replace their workforce with a new one and expect the same record breaking profits and viability.

 

Thank you for realizing that for us, the fans, it's the players who determine whether or not the league is exciting/fun/profitable. At the end of the day, all fans care about, as you said, is watching the best possible players on the field every Sunday.

 

Thank you for realizing and finally admitting that you have been wrong this entire time.

 

Cheers!

Edited March 26, 2011 by tgreg99

[CosmicBills]

I was not "just being silly." I have not seen anyone from the players' union claim that the owners are being dishonest about the revenues they're taking in. I haven't even seen this raised as a possibility. The reason the players' union demanded the NFL's financial statements was to try to make the owners prove they "need" the extra money. But the "prove you need it concept" is a two way street. If the players are demanding that the owners prove they need the money, why shouldn't the owners demand the same of the players?

 

Now I know you're being silly. No player wants the owners to prove that they, personally, need more money. There isn't a single owner amongst the 32 that needs to make money from their NFL teams to still be in the black personally. We are talking about 32 of the wealthiest men in the country.

 

The players want the owners to prove that the league needs more money to remain viable and sustainable. In other words, the players want the owners to prove that the most recent CBA, under which both the players and the league made more money than ever before in their history, is unsustainable and thus needs to be altered.

 

It has nothing to do with individual finances. Which is why your analogy is not only ridiculous, but insulting to anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex.

 

Come on, you're better than that.

Edited March 26, 2011 by tgreg99

[Mr. WEO]

If the judge lifts the lockout the parties return back to business. They will be performing under the old CBA terms. There is no other way of doing it. Why will they be doing it that way? Because the judge will have ordered both sides to get back to business! Sometimes it is not about what you want to do it is what the judge tells you what to do.

 

If the judge doesn't lift the lockout then there is no business. Each side is stalemated until there is an agreement.

Do you have a link for that? The owners opted out of the CBA legally and with the full consent of the union. So now they would be forced back into the expired CBA.

 

 

But are you really saying that the reason why the NBA declined post Jordan was because there were no good players? And you think the reason it finds itself in peril is because teams are filled with nobodies? You really, honestly believe that even plays a part in it?

 

Followed by....

 

So then it's far to say that players, not owners, are what determines whether a sport is not only profitable but sustainable. In other words, you're arguing that the players are what people pay to watch. That without the players the owners do not have a viable or profitable business.

 

You're saying that fans don't care about watching "crappy teams filled with nobodies". That you yourself, as a fan, would rather watch teams with talented players than teams with amateurs. You're saying that while a standard business can present a "take it or leave it" stance with its employees because they are all more or less replaceable, professional athletes have a skill set that's so incredibly rare and valuable without them the business itself becomes less relevant and profitable. You're arguing that the owners can't just fill their rosters with scrub replacement players like the contractor who can replace his dry waller or his plumber without his business suffering. That rather, it's players with the exceptional talents of a Brady, Brees, Manning, Peterson or Lewis that determine how successful the league is and by extension how much money the owners themselves pocket. That in reality, the owners -- especially the majority of the owners who bought into the league after the NFL had become the giant it currently is and risked virtually nothing financially or personally -- owe the success of the league entirely to the players they employ.

 

After all, the reason the NBA is no longer the sports monster it was a decade ago was because it now has "crappy teams filled with nobodies."

 

Thank you for making my point.

 

Thank you for realizing and finally admitting that you have been wrong this entire time.

 

Cheers!

 

So first you say I am wrong that the NBA has floundered because its lack of overall talent. Then you say not only that I am correct in pointing out that the low talent bring in low revenue--you say it proves your point!

 

 

It has nothing to do with individual finances. Which is why your analogy is not only ridiculous, but insulting to anyone with a functioning prefrontal cortex. Come on, you're better than that.

 

Now this is just plain funny--and it finally gets you to the sig.

 

 

I've come to the conclusion that..... you are just messing with me: this is all satire! There's is simply no way anyone following this topic would argue so poorly, not read any of the particulars of the issue and proudly make such silly statements. Brilliant---you got me! In fact, when I view it this way--you are a genius!

[Doc]

The players did not get "a raise" under the last CBA. Only if their contract was signed or renewed during this period did they possibly end up with more money.

Once again, wrong. I showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that players immediately got significantly more money after the 2006 CBA was signed and the salary cap, floor, and minimum salaries were raised. And unless you can show even a single player who signed a contract in 2005 that had a length of 6 years or more (which would have made him an UFA in 2011), the players, EVERY player, got more money since contracts signed prior to 2006 expired prior to the 2011 season.

 

BTW, here is the final word on our 2006 CBA discussion:

With "partners" like these who needs enemies......

 

League continues to bask in its bad deal from 2006

Posted by Mike Florio on March 23, 2011, 2:22 PM EDT

 

How badly does the NFL want the players to do what many of them think will be a bad deal?

 

Badly enough to brag about the bad deal the NFL did in 2006.

 

After embracing comments from men like Kevin Mawae and Kurt Warner regarding the value to the players of the contract negotiated in 2006, the NFL has now wrapped its arms around the heavily tatted torso of Dolphins lineman Richie Incognito.

 

At NFLLabor.com (apparently, ProFootballPropaganda.com was taken), the league trumpets comments from Incognito regarding the recently-expired labor contract.

 

“We kicked their butts in the last negotiation so we’re not going to settle,” Incognito said in quotes given to ESPN.com and copied at NFLLabor.com. “This is our livelihood and as players we’re united. We’re sticking together 100 percent.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/23/league-continues-to-bask-in-its-bad-deal-from-2006/

 

Oh and I agree with you about players being able to afford health insurance. There are 256 practice squad players who would have a harder time paying for it, but there are 1696 players who make at least $325K who can easily afford it.

[JohnC]

Do you have a link for that? The owners opted out of the CBA legally and with the full consent of the union. So now they would be forced back into the expired CBA.

 

The link is a little long. Note the fourth paragragh from the top and the third from the bottom. Each paragraph notes that the 2010 rules would apply to free agency if an injunction against the lockout is ordered.

 

As I noted in the prior posting if the judge orders the owners to reopen their doors for business there has to be a system/rules in place to conduct that business. So to answer your question, yes, the owners and the players would be forced back into the opted out CBA. That doesn't mean that the parties still wouldn't be involved in their legal and negotiating wrangling but it allows them to keep the operation going while the fuss continues.

 

Just one clarification. The CBA didn't expire as you so stated. It was opted out of by the owners. It was supposed to run for another two years. That is a distinction that you are not acknowledging. That distinction comes into play if the judge issues an injunction and the parties have to conduct business under the 2010 CBA rules.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14842077/amid-lockout-freeagent-freeze-draft-only-certainty

Edited March 27, 2011 by JohnC

[CosmicBills]

So first you say I am wrong that the NBA has floundered because its lack of overall talent. Then you say not only that I am correct in pointing out that the low talent bring in low revenue--you say it proves

Nope. I never said you were wrong. I was simply making sure I understood your claim. It's called giving you enough rope.

 

But it's cool. You admitted that you were wrong in your stance that the players are just employees and thus owners have every right to treat them as chattel. You admitted that the entire success of the league depends one hundred percent on the players' talents. Pretty much you admitted that the league cannot exist without the current players -- or at least be anywhere close go as profitable. That even though the most recent CBA favored the players, it made no sense for the owners to throw it out and cause a work stoppage to get more money despite the fact the league has never been more profitable.

 

And you're right. The players are more important to the success of the league than the owners. They endure more risk physically and should be rewarded and compensated for their efforts. After all, without them the NFL becomes the NBA.

 

Everything else you are bloviating about is moot. You dug yourself into a corner and now are stuck there. Can't go back on it without being a (gasp) hypocrite or just proving that all you really care to do here is argue for the sake of arguing.

 

But don't worry. At least you're finally on the logical and rational side of the debate.

 

 

Welcome!!!

Edited March 27, 2011 by tgreg99

[Mr. WEO]

Once again, wrong. I showed you beyond a shadow of a doubt that players immediately got significantly more money after the 2006 CBA was signed and the salary cap, floor, and minimum salaries were raised. And unless you can show even a single player who signed a contract in 2005 that had a length of 6 years or more (which would have made him an UFA in 2011), the players, EVERY player, got more money since contracts signed prior to 2006 expired prior to the 2011 season.

 

BTW, here is the final word on our 2006 CBA discussion:

 

 

Oh and I agree with you about players being able to afford health insurance. There are 256 practice squad players who would have a harder time paying for it, but there are 1696 players who make at least $325K who can easily afford it.

A player who signed in 05 didn't get a raise. Any player who signed after this got whatever his agent could get from the team owner based on what was available in the cap. The cap is a budget max, not a grocery list. You are now saying every player got an instant raise (you conceded the opposite in the past), yet almost all players who re-sign do so for more money--regardless of the cap. That was true before the 2006 CBA.

 

Quick--what's 59.5% of 9.2 billion? What's was the total spent on players' salaries? Not even close.

 

As for the owners now parroting Incognito, no surprise there as they have shaped their argument to show they want a deal that reduces their financial exposure in difficult times. It's a PR strategy--much like D Smith effusively praising (not suspiciously denouncing) the renegotiated TV contracts by the owners in 2009.

 

The link is a little long. Note the fourth paragragh from the top and the third from the bottom. Each paragraph notes that the 2010 rules would apply to free agency if an injunction against the lockout is ordered.

 

As I noted in the prior posting if the judge orders the owners to reopen their doors for business there has to be a system/rules in place to conduct that business. So to answer your question, yes, the owners and the players would be forced back into the opted out CBA. That doesn't mean that the parties still wouldn't be involved in their legal and negotiating wrangling but it allows them to keep the operation going while the fuss continues.

 

Just one clarification. The CBA didn't expire as you so stated. It was opted out of by the owners. It was supposed to run for another two years. That is a distinction that you are not acknowledging. That distinction comes into play if the judge issues an injunction and the parties have to conduct business under the 2010 CBA rules.

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/14842077/amid-lockout-freeagent-freeze-draft-only-certainty

 

The guy in the article certainly hopes that the last CBA rules are imposed by the judge, but there is nothing in that article than says it will definitely be so.

 

The 2006 CBA absolutely expired. Only you are challenging this fact. Both sides were free to opt out early. The owners did so. It expired--the NFLPA will confirm this for you.

[Doc]

A player who signed in 05 didn't get a raise. Any player who signed after this got whatever his agent could get from the team owner based on what was available in the cap. The cap is a budget max, not a grocery list. You are now saying every player got an instant raise (you conceded the opposite in the past), yet almost all players who re-sign do so for more money--regardless of the cap. That was true before the 2006 CBA.

 

Quick--what's 59.5% of 9.2 billion? What's was the total spent on players' salaries? Not even close.

 

As for the owners now parroting Incognito, no surprise there as they have shaped their argument to show they want a deal that reduces their financial exposure in difficult times. It's a PR strategy--much like D Smith effusively praising (not suspiciously denouncing) the renegotiated TV contracts by the owners in 2009.

Um, no, I didn't say that every player automatically got a raise in 2006. I said that every player received a new contract at some point between 2006-2010, and that those contracts were higher than they otherwise would have been thanks to the 2006 CBA. And I showed you the numbers, not used some pedantic "quick, what's..."

 

As for the part I quoted from PFT, it was to again show you that everyone else considers the 2006 CBA to have been a bad one (even the owners), that the players knew they got the better of the owners last time, and that they won't take less without a fight. Whereas taking a hard stance last time would have meant a smaller increase for the players, but still an increase.

[JohnC]

 

The guy in the article certainly hopes that the last CBA rules are imposed by the judge, but there is nothing in that article than says it will definitely be so.

 

The 2006 CBA absolutely expired. Only you are challenging this fact. Both sides were free to opt out early. The owners did so. It expired--the NFLPA will confirm this for you.

 

You can believe what you want to believe. There comes a point where it is pointless.

Edited March 27, 2011 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

Um, no, I didn't say that every player automatically got a raise in 2006. I said that every player received a new contract at some point between 2006-2010, and that those contracts were higher than they otherwise would have been thanks to the 2006 CBA. And I showed you the numbers, not used some pedantic "quick, what's..."

 

As for the part I quoted from PFT, it was to again show you that everyone else considers the 2006 CBA to have been a bad one (even the owners), that the players knew they got the better of the owners last time, and that they won't take less without a fight. Whereas taking a hard stance last time would have meant a smaller increase for the players, but still an increase.

You showed me totals that were far lower than the 59.5% of total revenues that the players were "given" as a result of the the bad CBA. The raise in the cap (if paid by the owner) was maybe 7% more than it was scheduled to be. The deal that the owners had on the table this month was better than that.

[Doc]

The guy in the article certainly hopes that the last CBA rules are imposed by the judge, but there is nothing in that article than says it will definitely be so.

 

The 2006 CBA absolutely expired. Only you are challenging this fact. Both sides were free to opt out early. The owners did so. It expired--the NFLPA will confirm this for you.

You can believe what you want to believe. There comes a point where it is pointless.

The 2006 CBA expired after being opted-out-of early. And I also read that the 2006 CBA would be used.

 

You showed me totals that were far lower than the 59.5% of total revenues that the players were "given" as a result of the the bad CBA. The raise in the cap (if paid by the owner) was maybe 7% more than it was scheduled to be. The deal that the owners had on the table this month was better than that.

Again, forget the percentage since players have never received the entire money available to them since the salary cap was instituted in 1993. I showed that player expenses rose by $571.5M between 2005 and 2006, and only $288M of that could be accounted for by the increase in TV money.

[Mr. WEO]

The 2006 CBA expired after being opted-out-of early. And I also read that the 2006 CBA would be used.

 

 

Again, forget the percentage since players have never received the entire money available to them since the salary cap was instituted in 1993. I showed that player expenses rose by $571.5M between 2005 and 2006, and only $288M of that could be accounted for by the increase in TV money.

Now it's "forget the percentage"? I bet it is!

 

But the percentage is what the owners now think poses the risk they no longer want to bear alone.

 

The "total player expenditures" were $140 million higher in 04 than 05. They spiked in 06 (although since very few players renegotiated/resigned in 06, it's not clear where these costs came from--the numbers you provided were far in excess of the cap for each year for many teams). If the costs went up by an "extra" $283 million from 05 to 06, the total expenditures dropped by $300 million in 07. By 09, they had returned to just over the 06 level again.

[Doc]

Now it's "forget the percentage"? I bet it is!

 

But the percentage is what the owners now think poses the risk they no longer want to bear alone.

 

The "total player expenditures" were $140 million higher in 04 than 05. They spiked in 06 (although since very few players renegotiated/resigned in 06, it's not clear where these costs came from--the numbers you provided were far in excess of the cap for each year for many teams). If the costs went up by an "extra" $283 million from 05 to 06, the total expenditures dropped by $300 million in 07. By 09, they had returned to just over the 06 level again.

Forget the "the players didn't get all 59.5% of total revenues." They never did and never will get all of the potential money under the cap. And yes, the percentage is what the owners think pose a threat, as I've been telling you. They gave the players too high an increase in 2006 and are now paying the price. IOW, it was a bad deal.

 

BTW, total player expenditures actually increased by $24M between 2006 and 2007, but accounted for 92.5% of the available cap room. However between 2007 and 2008, expenditures rose by $397M. 2009 (and I suspect 2010) showed a decrease, presumably as teams buckled-down after opting-out of the CBA and preparing themselves for a fight.

[Ramius]

According to Fat Peter and his MMQB, if an injunction is issued against the lockout, the 2010 rules would be in effect for 2011. This would be bad because it would mean that there'd be no incentives for the NFLPA to return to the negotiating table.

 

The best case scenario in all of this would be to let the players and owners and players talk face to face, without douchebags like demaurice smith and jeff pash in the room.

[Beerball]

NFL Alumni Association meeting w/ decertified NFLPA didn't go well

 

One sided recollection of the meeting:

What was supposed to be a 15-minute presentation turned into a two-hour cross-examination," Martin told the News. "And at the end of the day I still did not get the opportunity to speak (one-on-one) with the illustrious Mr. DeMaurice Smith, which speaks volumes about his credibility."

 

But while Smith was in the meeting with Martin, it was far from a one-on-one, as a large group from the players' group led by former Bills linebacker Cornelius Bennett, a member of the executive board representing retired players, were present. Smith took part, Martin said, and "had some rather candid accusations," as did many others.

Dueling retired player organizations...

[CosmicBills]

According to Fat Peter and his MMQB, if an injunction is issued against the lockout, the 2010 rules would be in effect for 2011. This would be bad because it would mean that there'd be no incentives for the NFLPA to return to the negotiating table.

 

The best case scenario in all of this would be to let the players and owners and players talk face to face, without douchebags like demaurice smith and jeff pash in the room.

This is absolutely correct. That's why the gamble on the part of the owners to force this work stoppage was so silly. Why would they risk letting a federal judge determine how their league is run? It was a silly risk to take given how profitable the league has been.

 

I know your issues are different and involve small market clubs being able to compete, but at the end of the day the owners have to be a ball of nerves. The owners are letting simple, old fashioned greed force them to play a very dangerous and foolish game. Still, no one, wants the fate of the league to be determined by a judge.