-
Here's an entire article which lends some truth to the players side of the story. I've highlighted some of the more important parts from my perspective but anyone who's interested should read it in it's entirety and draw there own conclusions.
The players also address their reasoning behind why they suggested rookies boycott draft day.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940
Updated: March 19, 2011, 12:57 PM ET
Mike Vrabel: Nix NFL brass from talks
ESPN.com news services
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940Players Respond To Goodell
NFL players talk to George Smith about the labor negotiationsTags: SportsCenter, Roger Goodell, George Smith, NFLPA, CBA
Players Respond To Goodell
MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- Chiefs veteran linebacker Mike Vrabel has an idea for progressing talks between the NFL Players Association and the owners who have locked them out: Cut out the middle men.
Vrabel, speaking to ESPN's George Smith in a roundtable interview during a break at the former union's annual meeting Friday, suggested meetings that don't include commissioner Roger Goodell and the NFL's lead labor attorneys would be to everyone's advantage.
Clayton: Owners' cap math doesn't work
Before the NFLPA decertified last Friday, owners increased their offer from $131 million in player costs in 2011 to $141 million. But a pre-2008 salary cap simply doesn't work with 2011 salaries, writes John Clayton. Story
"We are willing to negotiate. But we don't want to negotiate with Bob Batterman, Jeff Pash or Roger Goodell," Vrabel said, referring to the NFL's outside labor counsel in Batterman and its executive vice president and lead counsel in Pash. "Our executive committee needs to negotiate with Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, Jerry Richardson -- their executive committee. People that are willing and can agree to a deal. Jeff Pash can't agree to a deal."
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league accepts Vrabel's invitation to negotiate but didn't rule out the top executives' participation.
"The NFL's negotiating team -- accompanied by the three owners Mike mentioned, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson and Robert Kraft -- is prepared to meet immediately. Just tell us when and where," Aiello said of the Cowboys owner, the Panthers owner and the Patriots owner.
A week after the union decertified and a lockout began shortly thereafter, Vrabel was among several players who continued to ratchet up the rhetoric publicly, targeting the owners group's motives and means in the NFL's labor stalemate.
Pete Kendall, the NFLPA's permanent player representative, told reporters 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 Kendall, a former 13-year offensive lineman who retired after the 2008 season.
Colts center and player representative Jeff Saturday, speaking to ESPN's Smith along with Vrabel, Saints quarterback Drew Brees, Broncos safety and player rep Brian Dawkins and Ravens player representative Domonique Foxworth, bashed a letter Goodell sent to all NFL players Thursday in which he detailed the owners' version of events that led to last Friday's lockout.
“ The NFL's negotiating team -- accompanied by the three owners Mike mentioned, Jerry Jones, Jerry Richardson and Robert Kraft -- is prepared to meet immediately. Just tell us when and where.
” -- NFL spokesman Greg Aiello
"It's his attempt to, you know, to divide us as a group of men," Saturday said. "You know, anytime you send something out like that after we've been in negotiations for two-years plus, you know, 15-day extension -- all the things we've been through -- you know it's just one of those tactics different people use during the negotiations."
Mediation cut off last Friday, and the union dissolved itself, allowing players to file suit in federal court. Hours later, when the old collective bargaining agreement expired, owners locked out the players.
"The reality is we've been communicating to our men throughout this whole process about what the offers really are, what the numbers really are, things that we have tried to agree upon that have not been agreed upon and as a group of men we knew it wasn't a deal that our membership would accept," Saturday said.
In a speech Friday to players at the NFLPA's annual meeting, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said he won't be paid during the work stoppage -- the league's first since 1987. Goodell and Pash, the league's lead labor negotiator, already said they would reduce their salaries to a dollar each.
"Our players are locked out," Smith said during a brief session with reporters. "The league made a unilaterial decision to punish the people who made this game great."
Smith said he does not consider Goodell's letter an attempt to engage in good-faith negotiations. The league, he said, could attempt to restart talks by writing, instead, to lawyers representing the players now that the union has dissolved.
"Let's not kid ourselves. Jeff Pash ... knows that class counsel can always engage in discussions with counsel for the National Football League to have discussions relating to a settlement," Smith said. "He knows what letter should have been sent."
Kendall described the league's 11th-hour offer as "kind of the old switcheroo," saying that throughout negotiations the players' chance to share in increased revenues had been a key component of how to divide the NFL's yearly take of more than $9 billion.
Kendall said the discussions until talks stopped last Friday -- the 16th day of federal mediation -- always revolved around the premise that if the rise in league revenues exceeded a certain percentage each year, players would get a cut.
"The most important thing is getting back to playing football again," Brees said. "And that's why we're enjoining a lockout. Like all these guys have said, we, our intention was never to get locked out, we wanted to get a fair deal done. We always had guys there to do that."
Brees addressed the perceived Catch-22 surrounding rookie prospects' decision over whether to attend next month's draft, set for April 28-30.
Goodell letter
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell sent a letter to 1,900 NFL players on Thursday. Read it here. Letter
"Each rookie has -- if they've been invited to New York -- they absolutely have the option of going to New York," Brees said in the interview with ESPN. "I think to our point it was -- how do you feel about walking across the stage and shaking the hand of the commissioner who just locked you out? And as great an experience as it is to get drafted, which it absolutely is, I think the even greater experience is to play your first game, and to have to opportunity to win a championship and right now that's being threatened with this lockout."
While the addition of an immediate 18-game schedule was tabled in the negotiations early last week, the possibility for instituting it in future seasons -- with the players' approval -- was retained.
"Eighteen games does nothing for our health and safety," said Foxworth, the Ravens defensive back. "We're not looking to make any financial gains, we're looking to protect former players and make protections and safety improvements for current players."
But the players told ESPN's Smith it wasn't a deal-breaker.
"No. We'll negotiate on the economics of football," Vrabel said. "We're not negotiating on health and safety. And as far as we're concerned 18 games lies right in the way of our players health and safety."
Pash told the AP this week that the owners' final proposal was for a 10-year CBA. Kendall confirmed that.
"A 10-year, fair deal might be something worth considering," Kendall said. "A 10-year deal where the players don't participate in any of the upside is not a deal that I think is ... something that the players should have taken."
An April 6 hearing date is set for U.S. District Court in Minnesota for a ruling on the players' request for an injunction that would end the lockout.
But a settlement between the owners and players before the hearing is unlikely, an NFLPA source told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter earlier this week. The source said a ruling on the players' injunction request was expected within a week of the hearing.
"We're confident that this injunction is gonna be granted," Foxworth said. "And I think the message to the fans is -- all the fans should just unite and root for this at this point. You don't have a team to root for at this point, you wanna root for your team when the season comes, you need to be outside the courthouse with your face painted cheering for the judge to grant this injunction. Because I think simply put if we are granted this injunction there will be football."
Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.
Last edited by soulman; 03-19-2011 at 07:43 PM.
-
-
There are some seriously long messages on here.
-
Another great article that get's to the bottom line of why the last offer by the NFL won't work either for the players or the teams. There's some really good points to discuss here.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...ohn&id=6232635
Originally Published: March 18, 2011
Owners' math simply doesn't add up
Salary cap can't roll back that far when contract numbers are on the rise
By John Clayton
ESPN.com
Archive
US Presswire, AP PhotoEven as owners were pushing for a lower cap, they were re-signing starters at higher numbers. Richard Seymour of the Raiders got $15 million a year. Champ Bailey of the Broncos got $10.75 million. A.J. Hawk of the Packers got $6.75 million.
Something has bothered me about the stalled NFL labor talks for months.
The problem became crystal clear when full details of the NFL owners' last offer were revealed last Friday. Before the NFL Players Association decertified last Friday afternoon, owners increased their offer from $131 million in player costs in 2011 to $141 million, with hopes of getting a negotiating extension.
Although that was a move in the right direction and was a solid counter to the trade association's $151 million position, the number doesn't work. Because benefits count for $27 million of the $141 million offer, the salary cap number came to $114 million.
In that case, the salary cap would be a salary choke.
A pre-2008 salary cap simply doesn't work with 2011 salaries.
Low-revenue teams have complained about the $7 million yearly growth of the cap since 2006, which is one of the reasons low-revenue owners joined others in opting out of the collective bargaining agreement in 2008. The cap went from $109 million in 2007 to $116 million in 2008 to $123 million in 2009. The 2009 number was so high that NFL teams as a whole were $163 million below it -- roughly $5 million of cap room per team.
Owners can try to roll back the cap, but rolling back the increasing price of signing starters is impossible. It's especially impossible this year, as there are 450 unsigned free agents. At the same time owners were pushing for a lower cap, they were trying to re-sign starters at the higher numbers. Richard Seymour of the Raiders got $15 million a year. Champ Bailey of the Broncos got $10.75 million. A.J. Hawk of the Packers received $6.75 million.
What used to be $5 million deals are going for $10 million. To make it work in 2011 dollars, teams can't take the cap too far backward.
Just to keep franchise players, a dozen teams tendered players at more than $10 million salaries for 2011. In 2007, when the cap was $109 million, there were only 10 $10 million-plus players league-wide. There were 16 in 2008.
That number has already doubled heading into the 2011 season. I know the average value of the contract doesn't reflect the yearly cap number because the first-year cap numbers are usually the lowest, but you simply can't squeeze too many $10 million-a-year contracts into lower caps.
The cap reality of these talks does offer hope of a settlement soon. No owner wants to get into a long-term bargaining agreement that is troubled from the start. Redskins owner Dan Snyder wrote $36 million worth of checks to Albert Haynesworth and DeAngelo Hall last season to "free up'' cap room for the future. He didn't take $36 million out of potential profit to agree to a salary cap that would prohibit him from signing top free agents.
Salary caps need space to breathe. Starting the cap too low would force established veteran teams to release players and only be able to sign replacements for close to the minimum salary. It would force teams to guarantee high-priced contracts, turning base salaries into pro-rated signing bonuses to lower the cap numbers. Teams haven't had to do that for years because the cap has been so high that teams have had plenty of room to operate.
One of the reasons I was optimistic about a deal between the owners and the association has been the focus on the cap number itself. In "All The President's Men," the theme was "follow the money.'' Follow the cap and follow the payrolls of teams in these talks and you'll learn a lot.
Owners didn't have a cap last year, but payrolls still rose about 6 percent to around $125.5 million per team. The plan was to save money by not having a minimum requirement for team payrolls. Plenty of teams saved, but the price of starters keeps rising because of the competitive nature of this sport.
Starting quarterbacks now go for $14 million-plus. Top defensive ends go for $10 million to $14 million. Top guards are $8 million a year and tackles go for $10 million or more. The franchise numbers alone tell you where salaries are headed.
The numbers haven't been totally crunched for 2010, but starters in general are making more than $3.4 million a year. Because of injuries, teams have to plan for not just a 53-man roster but have to figure to have 65 players or more on their cap by the end of the season as attrition alters their rosters.
I look at winning teams, such as the Indianapolis Colts, New York Giants, New York Jets and others that have 10 to 12 starters making $5 million a year or more, and realize they can't start deals with a salary cap too low.
Under those realities, the owners' last offer of a $114 million salary cap can only be viewed as a counter offer, not a final offer. For further proof, go back to the league's comments for the past week that owners agreed to the players' request for a $161 million player cost number in 2014. With the $27 million of benefits included in that concept, the 2014 cap would be around $134 million, only $4 million more than what was supposed to be the cap number in 2010.
The 2011 cap can't be too much lower than $120 million for teams to be able to function competitively. Teams that budget their money well would be required to spend only 90 percent of that cap.
That's why I think both sides will reach out to each other before the April 6 hearing date on the Tom Brady case to try to work out the final numbers. Players are asking for a cap in the $124 range. That's not unfair, but if the owners come to the middle and go for $119 million, it might promote a deal.
What won't work is going back to $114 million, but that is easy enough for everyone to see.
John Clayton, a recipient of the Pro Football Hall of Fame's McCann Award for distinguished reporting, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
-
The player's response to "Goodell's Letter".
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6236160
: March 19, 2011, 8:35 PM ET
NFLPA responds with official letter
Associated Press
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6236160Players Respond To Goodell
NFL players talk to George Smith about the labor negotiationsTags: SportsCenter, Roger Goodell, George Smith, NFLPA, CBA
Players Respond To Goodell's Letter VIDEO PLAYLIST 
- Players Respond To Goodell's Letter Players Respond To Goodell's Letter
Andrew Brandt discusses where the NFL labor situation currently stands after the players response to Roger Goodell's letterTags: NFLPA, Andrew Brandt, Roger Goodell - Players Respond To Goodell Players Respond To Goodell
NFL players talk to George Smith about the labor negotiationsTags: SportsCenter, Roger Goodell, George Smith, NFLPA, CBA - Bruschi and Woodson: Should prospects go to draft? Bruschi and Woodson: Should prospects go to draft?
With the lockout, should you go to the draft as a draftee? Tedy Bruschi says no, while Darren Woodson says yes.Tags: NFL draft, lockout, NFLPA, tedy bruschi - NFL News And Notes NFL News And Notes
Adam Schefter talks about Roger Goodell's letter to players and Blaine Gabbert's pro dayTags: SportsCenter, Adam Schefter, Roger Goodell, Blaine Gabbert
MARCO ISLAND, Fla. -- So this is what the NFL and players are reduced to: Both sides are writing letters and issuing statements to and about each other, disputing "facts" and seeking to frame the back-and-forth about the sport's first work stoppage since 1987.
The locked-out players wrote a letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell on Saturday, responding to an email he sent them Thursday and telling him: "Your statements are false."
NFLPA's letter
The players sent a message Saturday to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, in response to a letter he sent them Thursday. Read it here. Letter
• Goodell's letter to players (PDF)
In a four-page letter, the 11 members of the NFL Players Association executive committee told Goodell that, during labor negotiations, the league's owners did not justify "their demands for a massive giveback which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major pro sports."
When Goodell wrote all active NFL players on Thursday, he outlined the league's description of its last proposal, which was made March 11. That turned out to be the 16th and final day of mediated talks, and the old labor deal expired. Goodell ended his letter by saying: "I hope you will encourage your union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement."
Players were upset by that line, particularly the reference to "your union." When the NFLPA dissolved March 11, it renounced its status as a union that can bargain on behalf of its members and said it is now a trade association, which allowed players to sue the league under antitrust laws. The league calls that move a "sham."
A hearing on the players' request for a preliminary injunction to stop the lockout is scheduled for April 6 in Minnesota, and there appears little chance of a return to bargaining before then.
In a statement emailed to reporters by the league Saturday, hours after the NFLPA released its letter to Goodell, NFL executive vice president Jeff Pash began: "We are pleased now to have received a reply to the comprehensive proposal that we made eight days ago."
Pash, the league's lead labor negotiator, also said: "Debating the merits of the offer in this fashion is what collective bargaining is all about. ... This letter again proves that the most sensible step for everyone is to get back to bargaining."
As if anticipating that the league would seek to portray the players' letter as a formal reply to the owners' proposal, the NFLPA executive committee noted in its final paragraph: "We no longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of the NFL players. ..."
Their letter began, "Dear Roger," and closed with "Sincerely," followed by the names of Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch, Saints quarterback Drew Brees, Broncos safety Brian Dawkins, Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, Jets fullback Tony Richardson, Colts center Jeff Saturday, Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, Chiefs guard Brian Waters and former players Sean Morey and Kevin Mawae, the NFLPA president.
Clayton: Owners' cap math doesn't work
Before the NFLPA decertified last Friday, owners increased their offer from $131 million in player costs in 2011 to $141 million. But a pre-2008 salary cap simply doesn't work with 2011 salaries, writes John Clayton. Story
"We were due to respond," Fujita said Saturday at Marco Island, where the NFLPA is holding its annual convention for players. "The letter gives a true testament to what went on, what the offer was, and what it meant to the players."
The owners begin two days of meetings Monday in New Orleans.
In Saturday's letter, the players went through various parts of the last NFL offer, including saying that the league's salary-cap proposals "were based on unrealistically low revenue projections."
"You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal," the players wrote to Goodell. "That proposal did not come until 12:30 [p.m.] on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation."
They concluded their letter by telling Goodell that if he has "any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues" in the antitrust suit filed by 10 players -- including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Brees -- he should contact their lawyers.
Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press
-
Once again I posted these articles to provide some degree of input concerning the players perceptions of what's happening and what supports those perceptions. I'm not taking anyone's side as much as I'm trying to provide fair input from their side.
I think the original article by Doug Farrar describes what's going on to a tee. This is like a politcal campaign now with both canidates (NFL & NFLPA) trying to win a symbolic election The usual politcal propaganda will now fly from both parties as they curry favor for your vote.
Keep in mind though, the NFL owners are more like the pro business canidate and have many $$$ to spend on media splashes and to hire professional mouthpieces to run their campaign. The players are the pro labor guys for the most part lacking in the organization and the wealth of the owners and typically speak for themselves. They only want all of the facts stated clearly and fairly.
Whose side you choose, if any, is up to you the fan. It's really your money that's funding this little battle when you get right down to it.
We've all read the leagues position on their last offer and now we have some analysis and response to it. FYI guys to base continued discussions on. 
Last edited by soulman; 03-19-2011 at 08:51 PM.
-
I don't know, man. Both sides suck royally. It's like picking the lesser of two evils. Both of them are bound to bite you in the ass, but you have to pick which side will leave lesser of a bite radius.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 High Fives, 0 Dislikes
-
Dag, that's the first smart thing you said on this topic. Both sides suck major ass
-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin 
Dag, that's the first smart thing you said on this topic. Both sides suck major ass
That being said, I'm picking the players' side :)
-
Originally Posted by
Dagan81 That being said, I'm picking the players' side :)
Being a businessman a former owner of my own company and a VP of another I'd be the last person you'd think would support the players perspectives but I do. I certainly agree that any business is entitled to make a profit and that it's owner be able to structure it so that he can assure continued profitability.
That said, I think the owners methods are what I most object to. They've approached this thing with anything but transparency about their businesses as they were asked to over two years ago yet still ask for the players to give back substantial amounts of money without substantiating the need. That alone has caused a complete breakdown in any trust the player may have formerly had for them.
They have treated the NFLPA as if they were third graders without the education or enough understanding to put a pencil to their offers to determine their true value. In short the players feel as if they have been disrespected and lied to. The owners want to try this case in the court of public opinion where their propaganda machine is most effective and facts need not be stated accurately. The players have chosen to go to court where the accuracy of those facts will be required by a Federal Judge.
Neither side is 100% in the right or the wrong but most people who closely follow this situation believe that the matter can only be settled through negotiation and mediation, and I agree. The public needs to put aside this "greedy owners" or "greedy players" way of thinking and realize that the sums of money involved is simply on the scale of many professional sports. There are millionaire players and billionaire owners in virtually any major professional you see.
Forget for a moment how much a player makes and look at it from this perspective. It's as much about the issues of trust and fair play as it is about $$$. If this were a pool of $1 mil rather than $9 bil and the players were bargaining for their reasonable share of it the principals would still be the same. The real core issue here is the lack of trust the players have of the owners and the perceived disrespect the owners have shown them. That's what this war is all about. The money is nothing more than the battleground.
-
Originally Posted by
Dagan81 There are some seriously long messages on here.
Yeah, and some seriously complex issues too. The would probably be less so if both sides simply got down to brass tacks and laid their respective "bottom lines" on the table and cut out the lawyers and the mouthpieces. That's kind of what Vrabel is talikng about.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
