Thread: Goodell sends letter directly to players

And just what is the NFL expecting in return for this self-professed magnanimous offer? Strangely enough that isn't included in his letter or his outline of what the NFL is offering. Knowing full well that this would receive widespead coverage here he attempts to further his owners cause and at the same time try to make the players look unreasonable.

If I were negoatiating with the fat cats he represents I'd be upset with this "let's try them and fry them in the press" kind of bullshit. Not even once does he mention that the all of this is being paid for through a $1 billion give back from the existing players and even more from rookie draftees.

It's very puzzling to me why most people can't see through this mind game the NFL is playing. I'm not applauding the players for walking out but if this doesn't prove that the owners have got their fingers on the weighing scale nothing more than I can say will.

Originally Posted by soulman

And just what is the NFL expecting in return for this self-professed magnanimous offer? Strangely enough that isn't included in his letter or his outline of what the NFL is offering. Knowing full well that this would receive widespead coverage here he attempts to further his owners cause and at the same time try to make the players look unreasonable.

If I were negoatiating with the fat cats he represents I'd be upset with this "let's try them and fry them in the press" kind of bullshit. Not even once does he mention that the all of this is being paid for through a $1 billion give back from the existing players and even more from rookie draftees.

It's very puzzling to me why most people can't see through this mind game the NFL is playing. I'm not applauding the players for walking out but if this doesn't prove that the owners have got their fingers on the weighing scale nothing more than I can say will.

actually he does outline where is coming from under "$300 mill from the rookie cap".. not sure why you are so stuck up on the "cost side".. when it painfully obvious over the last 5 years health care and costs ahve increased dramatically( not just NFl but everywhere) and that of course the NFL like any business over the last 5-6 years needs to adjust for this common sense:

- A salary cap for 2011 that would avoid a negative financial impact on veteran players. We offered to meet the Union at the mid-point between our previous offer and the Union's demand. Under our offer, 2011 salary and benefits would have been set at $141 million per club, and projected cash spending would have been as high or higher than in either 2009 or 2010. By 2014, salary and benefits would have been set at $161 million per club. In other Words, player compensation would increase by as much as $20 million per club by 2014.

-Free agency for players with four or more accrued seasons and reduced draft choice compensation for restricted free agents.

-Extensive changes in off-season work requirements that would promote player health and safety, encourage players to continue their education, and promote second career opportunities. The off-season program would be reduced by five weeks, OTAs would be reduced from 14, to helmets would be prohibited for the first five weeks of workouts, and rules prohibiting "1ive" on-field contact would be strictly enforced.

-Changes in preseason and regular season practices and schedules that would reduce the number of padded practices, reduce the amount of contact, and increase the number of days off for you and other players.

-Commit to retain the current 16-game regular season format for at least the next two seasons, and further commit not to change to an 18- game regular season without the Union's agreement.

-Expand injury guarantees for players. The clubs offered to guarantee up to $1 million of a second_ ear of your contract if you are injured and cannot return to play.

-For the first time, players and families would be able to purchase continuing coverage in the player medical plan after retirement for life, and could use their health savings account benefit to do so.

-[bEnhanced retirement benefits for pre-1993 players. More than 2,000 former players would have received an immediate increase in their pensions averaging nearly 60 percent, funded entirely by the owners.[/b]

A new entry-level compensation system that would make more than $300 million per draft class available for veterans' pay and player benefits. The new system would preserve individual negotiations not a wage scale - and would allow players drafted in rounds 2 through 7 to earn as much or more than they earn today.

But you're missing my point. This only states what the NFL Teams are willing to offer but says zilch about the sums the owners are asking to to be returned to them. Not exactly a complete and truthful disclosure is it? Never pass muster with the SEC would it? LOL

Let's just consider the vets who are now playing. They neatly state that the teams will increase the cap to $141 mil in 2011 then to $161 mil by 2014. They don't define what 2012 and 2013 will be but I'll assume that it stays at $141 mil. The most recent cap was about $130 mil, right? So in other words the owners are kicking back into the vets compensation pool a total of roughly $54 million, over 4 years, of the $1 bil they started asking for, or the $625 mil they reduced it to, or the $325 mil they claimed (?) they were willing to settle for.

That's really generous of them since they're increasing players pay straight out of the additional amount they want given to them. They seem to playing their employees the same way that Harry Anderson played "Coach" on cheers when he asked him to make change for a twenty! It's chicanery, smoke and mirrors bargaining so why does that fact seem to get lost in the ground clutter?

They say they need the $$$ to continue to prosper but aren't willing to document it as they were asked to do. If they need more operating capital why don't they do what the rest of what coporate America does. Dilute their ownership by issuing stock or partnership interests. Surely those investors will want to look at the books before they invest. Or sell secured debt the repayment of which is not subject to any CBA with their employees.

You often talk about the owners declining ROR. If this is a partnership with them then the players aren't getting a very good return on their investment and if it's to be considered a loan then the interest rate is shitty and they're only proposing to pay a small fraction of it back. A another example would be of any employer who states he intends to reduce costs by trimming the pay of his employees by 20% but the offers to give back a small fraction of that by inceasing wages 2% a year for four years. What makes that even worse it that he thinks they're ungrateful when they don't immediately accept this. Gee, I wonder why?

The other issue is that of the $300 mil the owners claim they are saving per draft class, after the funding increased benefits for retirees ($82 mil), they claim the remaining $218 mil will be added to the compensation pool. That's not coming out of the owners pockets, only a fraction of that amount is getting back to the players ($54 mil over 4 years) it's going into the owners pockets to the tune of around $200 mil per year. They state that it becomes available for vets pay and player benefits as if it all did. But...sad to say it doesn't.

I'm not talking sides in this so much as I'm trying to get posters aware of just how much the owners are trying to slant this in the press with half truths and mistatement of facts. They can't do this in court and they may well lose there, this they know, so instead they're trying the case in the press and attempting to get the fans to convict the players of greed when it's really just the opposite.

Let's examine and debate these numbers. If I'm proven wrong I'll admit it, but unless I'm missing something this is exactly the way that old pony runs.

Maybe, just maybe they are not asking for anything in return, and this is simply being done and paid for by the owners to make the players look bad

Unfortunately, we are not where we wanted to be," Pash said. "We were hoping, frankly, that we would still be with the federal mediation service in dialogue with the union and continuing to make progress, but obviously that is not what happened, so we are in a bit of a holding pattern."
Pash also discussed the league's offer of a lifetime medical plan
"We offered so that any current player when he retired would get five years of post-career medical that is paid by the clubs," Pash said. "We offered after that to allow players to continue to participate in the medical plan by paying the premiums. If they bought the insurance, they could participate. One of the benefits that was created in the last agreement, which we would be continuing, was a health savings account where players, over the course of their career, can build up hundreds of thousands of dollars, in a benefit fund, sort of like a 401k, but for medical expenses which they could then use to pay the premium to stay in the medical plan so there would be no issue of preexisting conditions.

"There would be no issue of trying to buy insurance as an individual or having to pay the higher rates when you are outside the group. You'd have the same quality of care and the same network all over the country. We thought that the reaction of the players and the reaction of union officials to that proposal was really very positive. That is obviously the first time that the opportunity has been available from the NFL."

Pash also pointed out the NFL being willing to do a cash minimum as well as a cap minimum.

"For the first time, we were going to have a cash minimum as opposed to just a cap minimum," he said. "You understand what the difference means and of course so did the union, which is why they pushed for that. The 90 percent was an agreed upon figure and because of the way teams change over time we all thought that you couldn’t do it year-by-year so we were doing it on a three-year basis to allow for the fact that teams go through cycles. Everyone on both sides thought that was a sensible compromise and I think it would have done a lot.”

Pash said the decertification prevents any talks from happening.

"Well, because the union, in order to maintain its litigation posture and to maintain the fiction of not being a union, has to not talk to us," Pash said. "That’s the reality unfortunately. They have elected this decertification gambit and in order to try to demonstrate that they really are not a union, they can’t talk to us. It is too bad because, honestly, I think if we had negotiated hard from last Friday to April 6, I think we probably would have had an agreement probably before April 6.”

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...ast-offer.html

and another:

brady v. NFL: a primer
Readers' guide to lawsuit Andrew Brandt

What do the Players want?
The Players are requesting:

• An injunction to stop the NFL lockout and force teams to open their facilities to players and transact business;
• Restraints on their earning ability (lockout, draft, salary cap, franchise/transition tag) declared illegal;
• Players currently under contract to be immediately paid;
• Treble (triple) damages for all players due to these restraints, as well as costs and attorneys fees.
• A declaration that the NFL has waived its right to assert any “sham” defense – meaning that the NFL cannot contest the NFLPA’s decertification as illegitimate.

What do the Players really want?
A better CBA than they were offered in bargaining. Players think they can procure better terms through litigation than the NFL offered at the bargaining table, as was the case in 1993 in the Reggie White v. NFL class-action lawsuit.
Do the Players have a good claim? What is their likelihood of success?
If this case ever gets to court – which I think it will not -- the Players will have good arguments but may have trouble countering the NFL’s “competitive balance” justification. All the restraints – salary cap, player draft, franchise tags – serve to even the field, leading to a higher-quality product, increasing fan interest, and driving up the NFL’s profitability (of which the Players share a portion). Also, in American Needle v. NFL the U.S. Supreme Court hinted that competitive balance provides a proper justification in antitrust litigation.
Will Judge Nelson have responsibility over this case?
Yes. However, Judge Nelson is far from the end of the line. Regardless of the outcome, either party may appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where a randomly selected panel of three judges would then hear the case. The determination of the Eighth Circuit is then appealable to the U.S. Supreme Court.?
What is the NLRB and how are they involved?
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has both an investigatory department and an adjudicatory department made up of 40 Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) that hear and decide cases. On February 14th the NFL filed an unfair labor practice claim with the NLRB alleging that the NFLPA had engaged in “surface bargaining” and failed to deal in good faith.
The NFL is arguing that the NFLPA's decertification is not legitimate and that they had long planned to dissolve and file an antitrust suit, pointing to the NFLPA’s autumn decertification tour to all 32 teams as evidence. The Players argue that the NFL’s claim of a "sham" decertification is waived by language in the Settlement and Stipulation Agreement (SSA) from the prior CBA.
This is where it gets complicated. Both the CBA and SSA provisions state that the waiver of the "sham" defense is only “after the expiration” of the CBA. Since the NFL filed the claim three weeks prior to the expiration of the CBA, it seems as though the waiver may not apply. Nevertheless, reasonable minds may differ, and this language is subject to disputed interpretations by the NFL and the Players.
If the NLRB agrees with the NFL’s position, an NLRB ALJ will hear the matter. The losing party may appeal this decision to the NLRB’s Board – five members appointed by the President. The NLRB Board’s order is appealable to a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose judgment may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
What is the key to the April 6th Preliminary Injunction hearing?
The Players will have to show “immediate and irreparable harm” from the lockout, arguing that every opportunity to be at the team’s facility is necessary to their short careers in football.
If the Player’s successfully prove the harm, the lockout will be lifted while the antitrust litigation proceeds. The NFL would then most likely impose 2010 rules for its business (no salary cap, six years to unrestricted free agency, 30% rule, franchise and transition tags, etc).
And is the television “lockout insurance” case still ongoing?
Yes. Judge David Doty will determine the appropriate remedies to be issued to the NFLPA. With their ongoing themes of transparency, the NFLPA has asked to publicly release all of the documents involved in this case. In response, the NFL argues that these documents are confidential and should be kept sealed, although they have provided redacted (edited) versions.
Is there a timeline for this mess to get sorted out?
Litigation can be and often is a painfully prolonged process. This lawsuit’s precursor, White v. NFL, took years before a settlement was reached. A ruling on the Players’ motion for preliminary injunction will come soon after April 6. If the preliminary injunction is granted, it is likely that NFL operations will resume just in time for the NFL Draft.
Meanwhile, both sides will continue the rhetoric and spin that have characterized this relationship, save for a few days of mediator-imposed silence a couple of weeks ago.
Again, welcome to the brave new world of Courtroom football!

NFLPA cites owners' fixed-salary offer

Kendall said 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.

He 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.
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.

"If the union had a problem, the best course of action would have been to make a counterproposal, continue to discuss the issue, or explain the problem," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "They were in such a hurry to get out of the room last Friday and file their lawsuit that they never mentioned this ... issue."

Aiello wrote that the league "made it clear" there would be an opportunity for players to get a share of extra revenues starting in 2015, "to reflect revenue growth generated from new stadiums, new television contracts, a possible shift to an 18-game season, and other potential opportunities."
Aiello continued: "The union is now saying that instead of further negotiations the best thing to do was walk out of mediation, pretend to no longer be a union, and file a lawsuit. Those actions simply make no sense."
NFL lead labor negotiator Jeff 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."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6232940

Originally Posted by dabears54

not sure following that- players care only about their benefits and wages, which is the salary cap and medical/retirement... they ahve givn the cap Numbers and have increased the health care for players after playing and families



actually will be higher, depending on the % 's of renenue( i'll see if can find saw,I he other day) and also vet's get a $50 mill "kickback" from the rookie pool added

$100 million of cost savings on rookie system distributed to high-performing rookies in form of a benefit similar to pre-2010 Performance-based Pay benefit.
$50 million of cost savings on rookie system, starting in 2013, distributed to players as an incentive/escalator system with for players starting in year three of their contract. Players should not be restricted to scale contracts for life of deal without some upside for proven performance.



Uh they are "partners" for the CBA NOT partners in ownership 2 completely different things, they are parnters to promote the sport, which allows players to earn more ad owners to earn more logn term... same as any Union negotiating with a company the UAW and ford are partners in their agreement,but not ownership of company .different type of Partnerships

and they are saying teams MUST SPEND 90% of the cap is a big move also( think used to be 80 and then 85%)

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

The point that I was trying to make is that the owners are publicly trumpeting what they are offering in this negotation but fail to disclose what they are asking the players to give back in terms of dollars. We still don't know exactly what that number is because it's never been verified by either party. We also don't know if it's to be taken all in 2011 and every year thereafter or that it is a single amount that will be paid back to the owners in installments.

It seems to me that all of these offers on their part are being funded by sums given up by vets and draftees alike. The pool of dollars the players are drawing from shrinks, not enlarges. What I see and what I believe the players see is that none of this is coming from the owners pockets. It's all coming from what is being returned to the owners from the addtional amounts they want to scrape off the top of the revenue pool.

While the sums seem generous some of it doesn't kick in for another 3 years and the $161 mil cap isn't hit for another 4 years. I also haven't seen any figures of what the players share of the reduced revenue pool would be. If I'm not mistaken it would have dropped from 54% to 50% in 2011 had the owners not opted out.

There isn't enough complete and verifiable information for me to do a thorough analysis by the numbers so up to this point I've been dealing with the concept of what's happening and what the players perceive. I've gotta think there's some accuracy in it though because surely the NFLPA analyzed the numbers and have based their decision to suspend talks based on that.

As for my comment on partnership I was talking about the CBA figuratively speaking. My point there is that the players are being asked to give a specific sum and it would seem that only a small portion of that is being returned to them in additional salary and/or benefits. I may be wrong but until I can get verifiable numbers I really can't do more than interpret it from what's been printed and all of that has come from the NFL. I don't trust them completely and the players don't trust them at all.

All the players are really doing here is a variation on the old Reagan vs Gorbachev waltz of "Trust but Verify". The owners want the trust but they seem unwilling to verify.