Frustration continues on NFL labor front

[dabears54]

Frustration continues on NFL labor front

As uncapped year approaches, both sides refuse to budge. Andrew Brandt

Before getting back to your regularly scheduled programming of Super Bowl talk for the next 120 hours, here’s an opening primer on the NFL-NFLPA negotiations for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which you’ll be hearing a lot about – some accurate, much inaccurate -- over the coming weeks/months/year(s).

Why is the NFL frustrated with the negotiations?
Owners want the players to share the risk. They point to their numbers showing that NFL players have received a $500 million increase in compensation since the terms of the player-bloated 2006 CBA was ratified, while their side has been cutting costs. In their view, the downturn in the economy, the ebbing of sponsorship and suite sales and the massive debt undertaken to finance new stadiums are all being felt by ownership without being similarly felt by players.

In bargaining meetings, the theme from the NFL is “collective sacrifice.” The NFL wants players to roll back some of their gains made through the 2006 CBA to more accurately reflect the cost of doing business and financing these massive facilities.

Why is the NFL Players Association frustrated with the negotiations?
The NFLPA wants full disclosure in this age of transparency in corporate America. It listens to the problems ownership presents and says repeatedly, “Show us your books.” With the publicly owned Green Bay Packers the only team mandated to report their financial statement, the union looks at the smallest market in the league making money and says there must not be any issues.
As I know so well, the Packers not only have a unique fan base in the vast Packer Nation, they also have strong revenues and no debt. So they paint a nice picture for the union as the only public showing out there.
The league’s response to these repeated requests is to point out the audit rights the union already has through the CBA. The NFL also argues that “opening the books” in the NBA and NHL did little to avert work stoppages. The league simply feels the union has enough information without opening the inner workings of teams’ finances, which frustrates the union to no end.

Why is there a report that the NFL wants an 18-percent reduction?

There’s internal data showing the need for that type of rollback to offset the gains the players have made compared to the league’s incremental revenue since 2006.
At the end of the day, this is a negotiation. That’s the opening offer.

Why is the rookie salary issue a non-starter?
Pay no attention to this; nothing to see here. Both the league and the union understand that something has to be done, especially at the top of the draft. Both sides have agreed that incoming rookies in future years have no voice in this negotiation and will be the sacrificial lambs.

Why does the Supplemental Revenue Sharing (SRS) decision cut both ways?
The union declared victory this week in a decision by the Special Master to continue the SRS program into 2011. However, it may be a pyrrhic victory for the players since the SRS is based on revenue rankings only, and some of the top revenue producers also have enormous debt, largely due to private stadium construction. The fact they are paying down debt with some of their revenue and now sharing it more with other teams, who may have low revenue but no debt, may have a chilling effect on player spending in the long run.
The union’s focus should be on ensuring that owners do not pocket any revenue-sharing money, no matter how much or how little, but spend it on players. That’s the real issue.

Why is the Final Eight plan being misreported?
I’ve heard many reports that top unrestricted free agent (UFA) players such as Julius Peppers are closed off from signing with a quarter of NFL teams as a result of the Final Eight rule. Well, uh, no. Peppers and others are fair game for teams that lost in the divisional round – Cardinals, Cowboys, Ravens and Chargers -- and are allowed to sign one player with a first-year salary of $5.7 million (projected).

True, the Final Four teams are prevented from signing top UFAs unless they lose their own in similar value, but a quarter of the league is a lot different than an eighth of the league.

Why are coaches’ contracts now being affected by the labor dispute?
Teams are at least preparing as if there will be no football in 2011, with adjustments to assistant coaches’ contracts in 2011 that call for pay reductions of anywhere from 25 to 50 percent and even rights to terminate in the event of a lockout with 30-60 days notice.

What’s ahead?
More meetings – starting Saturday -- and probably more frustration from each side; the NFL frustrated that the union will not share the risk and the union aggravated that the NFL will not share its financial information to prove its point. Meanwhile, teams and players are – or should be – preparing for an uncapped year and a different way of operating in the NFL, coming soon to a team near you. As for 2011, a potential lockout year, all bets are off.
To get you ready for the uncapped year ahead and the new way of doing business in the NFL, we’ll be offering our first NFP Webinar on Feb. 17, “The End of the NFL as we know it.” I’ll go through all you need to know (and some you don’t) about the new NFL landscape in 2010. It will be “must-have” information for every football fan.
Follow me on Twitter: adbrandt

[dabears54]

great point of article..

The union’s focus should be on ensuring that owners do not pocket any revenue-sharing money, no matter how much or how little, but spend it on players. That’s the real issue.

this is the key-because IMO the large revenue teams ARE sick of writing checks to their own divsion rivals( ie bears write checks to minny and lions each year) to help them, or just have them not spend more and pocket it.. So now are building overblown stadiums to 'keep the money in house", and instead pay down this debt and not be a "high revenue team", which is economically backward and really down the line can hurt the sport and quaility of game. its like in baseball, where the yankees/boston/mets etc go over the "limit" and write chekcs to the bottom teams, BUt those teams jsut pocket the money and the pitts/kc etc don't use it to better the product and buy better players.. need a system, where it goes to "better the product( players), not better the owners pocket only'

[motownbear]

Ravens' Steve Bisciotti: Many NFL teams struggling financially - Super Bowl XLIV - SI.com

ravens owner chimes in on this

DB some of these teams that make no money is because their teams have been consistently shit. There is no reason why a team like the Lions cant sell out. When they were good in the 90s they didnt have a problem selling out in the overbloated silverdome which held 20000 more seats.

now when you talk about jaguars that is a different animal. Just dont understand why put a team there. Maybe a move to Oklahoma City would be good. IDK how their new basketball franchise is doing there but Im sure football would be welcome.

[dabears54]

Originally Posted by motownbear

Ravens' Steve Bisciotti: Many NFL teams struggling financially - Super Bowl XLIV - SI.com

ravens owner chimes in on this

DB some of these teams that make no money is because their teams have been consistently shit. There is no reason why a team like the Lions cant sell out. When they were good in the 90s they didnt have a problem selling out in the overbloated silverdome which held 20000 more seats.

now when you talk about jaguars that is a different animal. Just dont understand why put a team there. Maybe a move to Oklahoma City would be good. IDK how their new basketball franchise is doing there but Im sure football would be welcome.

no argument from me,, have ZERO sympathy for owners crying about their OWN INCOMPETENCY( lions,rams.raiders) causing loses, or NFL itself sticking in a city it shouldn't( jacksonville).. instead of moving to as you said oklahoma or vegas.

That to me isn't an a good argument for the players to change anything..

things like an unproven rookie like Russell( or any top 5 pick at their position) making more money than 80% of the Qb's in the league IS PROOF for a change.

Solid drug policy so don't have another "star caps" is proof for a change all agree to.

And think this Large revenue Vs Small revenue is going to be a bigger issue than either side is admitting to right now, and will affect the final revenue split nd cap number detirminations in the end.. not going to be pretty, not happening quick, and will be MONTHS of rhetoric and name calling from BOTH sides that mean nothing

[motownbear]

I think the owners are winning the pr battle at this point. Kind of hard for fans to side with ego maniac pampered athletes.

I dont see how the union doesnt want to impose a rookie cap. Especially when the union is made up of veterans who might have gone through the getting cut process to make way for the new expensive unproven rookie.

Another thing owners should look for is something to put in contracts that make them voidable if players are out of line. Why should teams like Falcons suffer for Vick?

I think owners put up with way too much when it comes to players. These holdouts are beginning to be tiresome. The only excuse the players have is they can get cut at anytime

[dabears54]

Originally Posted by motownbear

I think the owners are winning the pr battle at this point. Kind of hard for fans to side with ego maniac pampered athletes.

I dont see how the union doesnt want to impose a rookie cap. Especially when the union is made up of veterans who might have gone through the getting cut process to make way for the new expensive unproven rookie.

Another thing owners should look for is something to put in contracts that make them voidable if players are out of line. Why should teams like Falcons suffer for Vick?

I think owners put up with way too much when it comes to players. These holdouts are beginning to be tiresome. The only excuse the players have is they can get cut at anytime

even the union wants the rookie cap now, upshaw was opposed,but demaurice seems to want it also- but will use as a bargainign chip and not jsut give it to owners 'for free"

And agree about "voidable" deals for bad behaivor, that just need to be tougher, already have a good citzen clause in all contracts, but doesn't apply to money received in big bonuses,, i know atlanta sued vick to get part of the $40 mill back, but they lost IIRC

And the '2 sides" of a contract are unlike other sports, players paid not in a straight line, but a 30-50% Signing bonus( and roster bonuses), and much smaller salaries after, to get alot upfront and set for life,, to "compensate" for owners able to cut at anytime. so works for boh sides..

And with football being so violent and 53 players vs 23 or 12 players, its impossible to have 100% no cut contracts, because yuo would quickly swamp the system with tons of dead money and athelte's that sit on butts( like basketball), because all their money coming even if never play.. and would HATE THAT,, in addition because only 16 games vs 82 or 162, to recoup all the revenue needed to "offset' the dead weight ticket prices would immediately sky rockey to $500+ a seat to make up the guaranteed money_ because owners will just "pass it on" to the fans..

So any 'fan" should never want guaranteed contracts, because all it does it raise ticket prices, and none of us want that

[The Benjamin]

I think they should both STFU and sign a deal.

In a battle between Billionaires and Millionaires, its the fans that lose out.

Both sides want to say they are the winners, but ther is only one sure fire way to have a fair deal.

Both have to give in to the point where neither side is happy.

Owners give more than you want
Players take less than you want

[dabears54]

With no salary floor and fewer free agents, some players will look to change teams. Jack Bechta

This offseason, I guarantee you we’ll see more players initiate public trade demands than ever before. I may even a have client or two on the list.

These demands will come from players in three categories. The first is those on smaller market teams whose owners will take advantage of the limitless salary floor (story here: owners will embrace uncapped year) and determined to pocket some monies normally earmarked for player salaries. Agents and players are getting a good sense of who these teams are, and players will begin their trade campaigns relatively soon. We’ve already heard from the Dolphins’ Joey Porter and the Ravens’ Troy Smith. Although not necessarily victims of frugal owners, they’re the first of many more to come.

The second group that will clamor for a change of address will be marquee players who are part of the 212 restricted free agents who would have been unrestricted had we not rolled into an uncapped year, as we most likely will. Although these players are victims of the current labor agreement, they will look to their teams to “do the right thing” and sign them to long-term contracts. However, many teams will give them a high tender and say, “We’re just working within the system that the players agreed to.” Once those tenders are assigned and players feel their teams are not making efforts to secure them to long-term deals, more trade demands will come.

The Chargers probably have more marquee players in this group than any team in the league. They are LB Shawne Merriman, RB Darren Sproles, WR Malcom Floyd, WR Vincent Jackson, and LT Marcus McNeill. Also, Pro Bowl special teams star Kassim Osgood has asked for a trade in the pass, and starting center Nick Hardwick is grossly underpaid and could be knocking on the door soon. So don’t be surprised if we see some demands coming out of San Diego sooner than later. I suspect the Chargers will assign all these players with first-round high tenders to show them some love. However, I doubt the Chargers will complete five or more long-term deals for restricted free agents. After all, precedent is a big part of this business. The Chargers are one team that may benefit greatly from an uncapped year, but the challenge is making sure the players in the locker room are happy.

The third group is simply those who are unhappy with their roles and feel they’re underpaid, or both. Regardless, many agents and players believe there will still be several teams who will pay handsomely for premium players and take advantage of an uncapped year. Those players will seek trades, sometimes publicly and sometimes quietly. But it’s coming, and it’s coming fast.




More trade demands are coming | National Football Post

[dabears54]

NFL Says Players Add $2.6 Billion as Clubs Seek Cash (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A


By Aaron Kuriloff



Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) -- National Football League players received about $2.6 billion in salary and benefits from incremental revenue growth under the current labor contract, while owners’ cash flow declined by about $220 million, according to management figures.
A document prepared by the league for union officials during negotiating sessions aimed at reaching a new labor agreement before the current one expires in 2011 shows that owners’ share of new revenue since 2005 totaled about $1 billion, while their costs rose to $1.2 billion. The figures were made available to Bloomberg News.

Anthony Noto, the NFL’s chief financial officer, said that while the league’s total revenue rose 8 percent from 2006 to 2008 to about $8 billion a year, player costs, which consume about 60 percent of revenue, are up 9 percent and cash flow is down 8 percent. That’s reducing owners’ incentive to invest in the business, he said in an interview from his New York office.

“The clubs are being squeezed,” Noto, 41, said. “I think they will be forced to continue to reduce their investment to try to get to a cash-flow number and a return that they need. As we have seen in so many industries, that reduction will in the long run hurt revenue growth, and it will hurt player salaries and it will eventually hurt the growth of the game.”

Owners voted in May 2008 to end the current labor deal two years early after 2010, paving the way for a strike or lockout following the 2011 season.
The owners say the current agreement didn’t recognize the costs of growth, such as building stadiums.

Take Less
The NFL Players Association has said it can’t convince players to take less so that owners can make more. DeMaurice Smith, the union’s executive director, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that the NFL’s figures are insufficient. He said the league is having a great year, with record television ratings and attendance down one percent despite the recession.

“How long does it take for you to slide a piece of paper across the table saying we are expecting or experiencing X teams are making no money or X teams are losing money?” he said. “None of that information has been forthcoming.”
Brian Billick, who coached the Baltimore Ravens to a Super Bowl title in 2001, said he doesn’t think play will stop in 2011. He said change is coming to the NFL, which became the U.S.’s most-watched television sport in part by making sure teams were evenly matched both on the field and financially.

Game’s ‘Core’
“Over the next 12 to 18 months, the absolute core of how this game is going to be conducted both on and off the field is going to take shape,” the 55-year-old Billick, who co-wrote the book “More Than a Game: The Glorious Present and Uncertain Future of the NFL,” said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “The costs of doing business have changed. What those margins are, what they need to be, what’s a fair share for players -- that’s what’s going to be negotiated.”

Without a deal, next season will lack the league’s limits on payroll, or salary cap, which expires in the final year of the deal. Commissioner Roger Goodell said on the NFL Network on Jan. 31 that an uncapped year was “virtually certain.”

The cap this season was about $128 million for each of the league’s 32 teams. Andrew Brandt, who negotiated contracts for the Green Bay Packers from 1999 to 2008, said without limits some teams may spend unchecked, while others may slash payroll.

“We face an uncertain future,” Brandt, who lectures at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and is president of the Web site nationalfootballpost.com, said in an interview. “We face an NFL that may look very different than it has.”

League Parity
The cap, instituted in 1994, helped build a league where any team can win any given game, says Chad Lewis, who rates about $2 billion in NFL debt for Fitch Ratings. A permanent loss of the cap could lead to the wealthiest teams dominating competition, and a loss of support with fans, sponsors and television partners.
“In one year, things aren’t going to dramatically change,” Lewis said in an interview. “Our concern would be a long-term change allowing teams to spend freely.

The league says there are barriers to a team running up payroll or buying up All-Pro players. The top eight teams in the standings, for example, face restrictions on the number of free agents they can sign and how much they can pay those players, according to a league fact-sheet. The top four teams can’t sign free agents unless some of their players are lured away by other teams. Players would need at least six years in the league before becoming unrestricted free agents, up from four.
Player Restrictions

Clubs may also prevent two players instead of one from becoming free agents by paying them at least the average salary of the top 10 players in the league at their positions.

Noto, a former partner at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said that the league seeks a contract that allows owners more money for revenue-building investments. Since 2005, incremental revenue has come from areas including broadcast rights fees, advertising, sponsorship and the league-owned NFL Network.

Financial information from the Packers, the league’s only publicly traded team, shows operating profit declined about 40 percent, to $20 million from about $34 million, between 2006 and 2008. Noto said that supports the clubs’ argument.

“It could result in the typical doom loop I’ve seen in other industries,” Noto said. “Management cuts investment to improve cash flow, which ends up negatively impacting revenue, which then requires additional cuts in expenses, which further impairs the long-term health of the economic foundation -- eventually, in our case, the game.”

Brandt, 49, who consulted with the Philadelphia Eagles in the 2009 season, said competitive balance probably won’t be upset.
“It’s a natural fear that people have, but my sense is it won’t happen,” he said. “Free agents don’t come in and make the impact they do in other sports. Football’s all about systems.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Aaron Kuriloff in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, at akuriloff@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 4, 2010 12:06 EST

[dabears54]

No movement on NFL labor talks
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. -- NFL owners have met for several hours to discuss the labor situation, although it appears they are no closer to reaching an agreement with the players' union for a new collective bargaining agreement.
League spokesman Greg Aiello said that "everything is status quo. Nothing new to report."
Some of the owners listened to a presentation by NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith on Saturday as the two sides try to avoid a lockout in 2011, when the current labor pact expires.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said during his state-of-the-league address Friday that fans "expect solutions ... and we should deliver."
Goodell said he and the league's owners want an agreement and it's "absolutely false" that owners would want to see a work stoppage.
Goodell bristled about a statement union chief DeMaurice Smith made Thursday. Smith estimated the chance of a lockout next year was "14" on a scale of 1 to 10.
"I couldn't make that prediction, and I sure hope he's wrong, and I sure hope it doesn't become a self-fulfilling prophecy," Goodell said Friday.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4893013