Monday, February 14 2011
Although the NFL's labor agreement is set to expire in about three weeks, the real pressure to strike a deal might not exist until September — when the games are supposed to begin again. This article was written by Jarrett Bell and appeared in USA Today.
That's why Gary Roberts, dean of the Indiana University School of Law, isn't surprised that a second day of negotiating sessions between the NFL and the NFL Players Association was cancelled Thursday and meetings planned for next week were also put on ice.
"These types of labor negotiations in any industry, nine times out of 10, they don't get done until the last minute," said Roberts, editor-in-chief of The Sports Lawyer. "I figure the deal won't get done until early September. That's when the season is at risk.
"Neither side wants to blink first."
Both sides have expressed urgency. While sponsorships and marketing deals could be jeopardized by a work stoppage — the union expects a lockout if the current CBA expires after March 3 — NFL lead counsel Jeff Pash warned last week that hundreds of millions of dollars typically paid to free agents in March won't change hands.
Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, a member of the NFLPA's 11-member executive committee who was in Wednesday's bargaining session, tweeted that he is "sorely disappointed" that talks broke off.
Many issues are unresolved, such as the NFL's demand for $1 billion a year in givebacks while the union presses to see more of the owners' financial records.
According to the Associated Press, the union sent a memo to agents on Thursday that outlined differences regarding a proposed rookie wage scale. The union wants contracts for players selected in the first three rounds to be limited to four years; three years for players chosen after the third round. The AP reported the league proposes five-year contracts.
E-mailed NFL spokesman Greg Aiello: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process."
The NFL generated an estimated $9 billion in revenues in 2010. In the last year of a salary cap in 2009, players were due 59.5% of revenues after $1 billion in cost credits went to owners.
Roberts believes that the changes at the top for both sides since the CBA was last extended in 2006 are a factor in sluggish talks. NFL commissioner Roger Goodell succeeded the retired Paul Tagliabue in 2007, while DeMaurice Smith replaced the late Gene Upshaw as players union chief in 2008.
"If either one of them makes major concessions this early in the game, they'll take a lot of heat," said Roberts. "Neither can look like a softie."
martes, 15 de febrero de 2011
Labour talks cancelled could mean sides are far apart
Saturday, February 12 2011
Efforts to jump-start NFL labor talks seem to have stalled just days after the owners and the players promised to work harder to reach a deal before the collective-bargaining agreement expires March 3. This article was written by the Staff of The Seattle Times.
All-day meetings scheduled for Thursday were abruptly canceled, raising doubts the two sides were any closer to reaching a compromise in their standoff of more than two years. With the threat of a lockout looming, neither side appears to have made headway in the dispute over how to divide the league's $9 billion in revenue.
If anything, the two sides may be farther apart. Wednesday's meeting in Washington broke down well before its scheduled close. The owners came close to walking out after the players rejected their proposal for an additional $1 billion in spending credits. They were also frustrated by a proposal by the players to eliminate spending credits and simply split all revenue down the middle.
Under the current system, the players get almost 60 percent of all revenue after $1 billion is subtracted for expenses the owners incur. Factoring in that deduction, the players receive about half of the league's remaining revenue.
The union and the league held conference calls with their constituencies Thursday. No other meetings are scheduled.
"We certainly don't want to have another meeting like yesterday," said a person involved in the talks who was not authorized to speak for his side.
Domonique Foxworth, a cornerback for the Baltimore Ravens and a member of the union's executive committee, said on Twitter that he was "sorely disappointed" that Thursday's meeting was canceled. "I can PROMISE you that (AT)NFLPA is trying every avenue to bring you football next year."
Additionally, the NFL canceled an owners meeting planned for next week.
"The commissioner did not see a need for it right now," said Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the league.
Both sides could continue to talk in smaller groups or by phone. Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, have met privately, even when full meetings were not scheduled.
Efforts to jump-start NFL labor talks seem to have stalled just days after the owners and the players promised to work harder to reach a deal before the collective-bargaining agreement expires March 3. This article was written by the Staff of The Seattle Times.
All-day meetings scheduled for Thursday were abruptly canceled, raising doubts the two sides were any closer to reaching a compromise in their standoff of more than two years. With the threat of a lockout looming, neither side appears to have made headway in the dispute over how to divide the league's $9 billion in revenue.
If anything, the two sides may be farther apart. Wednesday's meeting in Washington broke down well before its scheduled close. The owners came close to walking out after the players rejected their proposal for an additional $1 billion in spending credits. They were also frustrated by a proposal by the players to eliminate spending credits and simply split all revenue down the middle.
Under the current system, the players get almost 60 percent of all revenue after $1 billion is subtracted for expenses the owners incur. Factoring in that deduction, the players receive about half of the league's remaining revenue.
The union and the league held conference calls with their constituencies Thursday. No other meetings are scheduled.
"We certainly don't want to have another meeting like yesterday," said a person involved in the talks who was not authorized to speak for his side.
Domonique Foxworth, a cornerback for the Baltimore Ravens and a member of the union's executive committee, said on Twitter that he was "sorely disappointed" that Thursday's meeting was canceled. "I can PROMISE you that (AT)NFLPA is trying every avenue to bring you football next year."
Additionally, the NFL canceled an owners meeting planned for next week.
"The commissioner did not see a need for it right now," said Greg Aiello, a spokesman for the league.
Both sides could continue to talk in smaller groups or by phone. Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, have met privately, even when full meetings were not scheduled.
Union and League far apart
Saturday, February 12 2011
So, who are you rooting for in this fight of millionaires vs. billionaires? This article was written by Gary Myers and appeared in The New York Daily News.
Do you go with the 1,900 players? Back in 1982, their motto was "We Are The Game," but they came crawling back and ended their 57-day strike. They are still the game - nobody comes to see Jerry Jones pacing the sidelines - and they take the physical risk.
How about the 32 owners? They take the financial risk or whatever risk there is when the business is generating $8.9 billion a year in revenue.
There are plenty of legitimate issues here: player safety and health, retired player benefits, a rookie salary cap that will control the ridiculous amount of money going to unproven players, Roger Goodell's controversial plan for an 18-game season.
But it all comes down to one thing: finding a way to split the $8.9 billion. The owners already are allowed to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their nearly 60% share. Now the owners want to take another $1 billion off the top.
The lockout clock is ticking pretty fast. The new league year is supposed to start three weeks from Friday. But at 12:01 a.m. March 4, the collective bargaining agreement expires. Unless there is a deal (unlikely) or enough progress to stop the clock (not so likely), there will be a lockout (very likely).
There is nothing that turns off fans more quickly and more completely than a labor dispute.
The problem is the extra $1 billion per year - the money the owners want to keep to grow the game, which they say will ultimately benefit the players when new cash-cow stadiums and other revenue-producing ideas suddenly appear. Making up ground on that $1 billion difference in the next three weeks will be tougher than the Eagles wiping out that 21-point deficit against the Giants.
It's not a good sign so little progress was made at this week's negotiations in Washington. It was supposed to be two days, but Wednesday's meeting was cut short and Thursday's session was canceled. Goodell also canceled Tuesday's owners meeting in Philadelphia, and no new meetings are planned with the union.
Uh-oh.
The meetings this week broke up over how to split the money. Clearly, there is a compromise in here somewhere, but first there is a game of chicken that must be played. The union wants financial transparency from the league to back up the necessity for the players to take a paycut. The league says the union has all the financial information it needs.
The sense of urgency to avoid a lockout begins March 1. The next sense of urgency isn't until Aug. 1, when training camps need to open in order for the season to start on time.
Would there be anything dumber than the most popular sport in the world having a regular-season work stoppage?
A lockout in the offseason will cause enough problems. In effect, the owners are going on strike. If this wipes out any regular-season games, then it will be maybe the lowest point in NFL history.
This has always been a deadline league. So let's see how this plays out over the next few weeks.
But if the lockout hits, there will be plenty of ramifications:
The record 495 players (25% of the league) scheduled to be unrestricted free agents on March 4 - for many the one time in their career to cash in - will be in limbo, men without teams. During a lockout, no business between players and clubs can be conducted. "I'm sure there is some angst for those guys," one source close to the negotiations said Thursday.
The offseason programs, which usually start in late March, will be canceled. Same with minicamps and OTAs. The eight new coaches, who need to implement their new programs, won't have any players around to coach.
The NFL will stop paying the premiums on the players' health insurance policies. This does not mean they will be without insurance. They can continue their coverage through COBRA and pay the premiums themselves, estimated anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month.
Here's what the NFL said it will lose in revenue if there is a lockout: $120 million in March, the cumulative figure grows to $350 million in August and $1 billion if the lockout ends right before the season. Then it's another $400 million per week in lost revenue once the regular season starts.
When the owners and players met Saturday in Dallas, there was some optimism that they were making progress on concepts. On Monday, Goodell said, "The most important thing is you're talking and you're communicating."
Not any more. Not right now.
The NFL didn't like the doomsday reports coming out of this week's get-together. "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of (Wednesday's) meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process," the league said in a statement. "Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal."
Millionaires vs. billionaires. What a fight.
So, who are you rooting for in this fight of millionaires vs. billionaires? This article was written by Gary Myers and appeared in The New York Daily News.
Do you go with the 1,900 players? Back in 1982, their motto was "We Are The Game," but they came crawling back and ended their 57-day strike. They are still the game - nobody comes to see Jerry Jones pacing the sidelines - and they take the physical risk.
How about the 32 owners? They take the financial risk or whatever risk there is when the business is generating $8.9 billion a year in revenue.
There are plenty of legitimate issues here: player safety and health, retired player benefits, a rookie salary cap that will control the ridiculous amount of money going to unproven players, Roger Goodell's controversial plan for an 18-game season.
But it all comes down to one thing: finding a way to split the $8.9 billion. The owners already are allowed to take $1 billion off the top before the players get their nearly 60% share. Now the owners want to take another $1 billion off the top.
The lockout clock is ticking pretty fast. The new league year is supposed to start three weeks from Friday. But at 12:01 a.m. March 4, the collective bargaining agreement expires. Unless there is a deal (unlikely) or enough progress to stop the clock (not so likely), there will be a lockout (very likely).
There is nothing that turns off fans more quickly and more completely than a labor dispute.
The problem is the extra $1 billion per year - the money the owners want to keep to grow the game, which they say will ultimately benefit the players when new cash-cow stadiums and other revenue-producing ideas suddenly appear. Making up ground on that $1 billion difference in the next three weeks will be tougher than the Eagles wiping out that 21-point deficit against the Giants.
It's not a good sign so little progress was made at this week's negotiations in Washington. It was supposed to be two days, but Wednesday's meeting was cut short and Thursday's session was canceled. Goodell also canceled Tuesday's owners meeting in Philadelphia, and no new meetings are planned with the union.
Uh-oh.
The meetings this week broke up over how to split the money. Clearly, there is a compromise in here somewhere, but first there is a game of chicken that must be played. The union wants financial transparency from the league to back up the necessity for the players to take a paycut. The league says the union has all the financial information it needs.
The sense of urgency to avoid a lockout begins March 1. The next sense of urgency isn't until Aug. 1, when training camps need to open in order for the season to start on time.
Would there be anything dumber than the most popular sport in the world having a regular-season work stoppage?
A lockout in the offseason will cause enough problems. In effect, the owners are going on strike. If this wipes out any regular-season games, then it will be maybe the lowest point in NFL history.
This has always been a deadline league. So let's see how this plays out over the next few weeks.
But if the lockout hits, there will be plenty of ramifications:
The record 495 players (25% of the league) scheduled to be unrestricted free agents on March 4 - for many the one time in their career to cash in - will be in limbo, men without teams. During a lockout, no business between players and clubs can be conducted. "I'm sure there is some angst for those guys," one source close to the negotiations said Thursday.
The offseason programs, which usually start in late March, will be canceled. Same with minicamps and OTAs. The eight new coaches, who need to implement their new programs, won't have any players around to coach.
The NFL will stop paying the premiums on the players' health insurance policies. This does not mean they will be without insurance. They can continue their coverage through COBRA and pay the premiums themselves, estimated anywhere from $1,500 to $3,000 per month.
Here's what the NFL said it will lose in revenue if there is a lockout: $120 million in March, the cumulative figure grows to $350 million in August and $1 billion if the lockout ends right before the season. Then it's another $400 million per week in lost revenue once the regular season starts.
When the owners and players met Saturday in Dallas, there was some optimism that they were making progress on concepts. On Monday, Goodell said, "The most important thing is you're talking and you're communicating."
Not any more. Not right now.
The NFL didn't like the doomsday reports coming out of this week's get-together. "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of (Wednesday's) meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process," the league said in a statement. "Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal."
Millionaires vs. billionaires. What a fight.
And the walls came tumbling down III
Friday, February 11 2011
NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources.
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith briefed club player representatives in a conference call Wednesday night, detailing his version of the abbreviated session that ended far earlier than the seven hours that were scheduled between the two sides in an effort to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before it expires at midnight March 3.
Consequently, a five-hour second negotiating session scheduled for Thursday was canceled, and no further meetings have been proposed. Also, the NFL notified teams and owners Thursday that a scheduled owners meeting in Philadelphia next Tuesday has been canceled, sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton.
Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."
At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.
Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.
Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits.
To simplify talks, a player source said the union told the owners' negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league's financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of "all revenue," which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of "total revenue."
A union source said that if the NFLPA accepted the owners' current proposal, it would receive a little more than 40 percent of all revenue.
Smith said in an interview with ESPN last week that a 40 percent to 42 percent share of all revenue would represent the smallest percentage of a players' share by any professional sports union.
In addition to the flat 50 percent share of all revenue, players are willing to grant additional credits to any franchise that reinvests in stadium improvement, a mechanism to motivate clubs to grow revenues, a player source said.
The union believes by taking a flat 50 percent share, it would eliminate the need to audit every expense clubs invest in order to offset credits built into the current CBA and the model proposed by owners going forward.
NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah would not elaborate Thursday, except to say, "This didn't just start yesterday."
Smith also sent an e-mail, obtained by ESPN, to NFL agents on Thursday outlining the owners' latest rookie wage-scale proposal in January. He detailed how far apart the two sides are, and in an attached memo dated Jan. 26, said the NFL's latest proposal "is a veteran scale, not a rookie scale."
The NFL's owners continued to propose a five-year wage scale for first-rounders, four years for other drafted players, and no individually negotiated contracts. But, according to Smith, the owners added "league-wide base salary escalators."
Smith wrote that the owners' latest offer "makes the proposal worse not only for rookies, but for veteran players with three to five years in the league -- the core of our membership."
Also, players would not be able to renegotiate their contracts or agree to extensions until three years after they were drafted. Signing bonuses would be fixed, paid over the length of a contract and subject to forfeiture "if the player does not toe the Club's line in every way," Smith wrote.
In late September, the NFLPA proposed maximum four-year contracts for players drafted in the first three rounds, and three-year contracts for other drafted players.
The NFLPA's proposal also provided for individually negotiated contracts instead of the owners' proposed set salaries. In addition, a cap would be placed on rookie contract incentives and escalators. The money saved then would be used for a bonus pool for veteran players and rookies who outperformed their contract.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process. Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal." (source Chris Mortensen, ESPN)
NFL owners walked away from the negotiating table Wednesday when the NFL Players Association proposed to take an average of 50 percent of all revenue generated by the league, according to player sources.
NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith briefed club player representatives in a conference call Wednesday night, detailing his version of the abbreviated session that ended far earlier than the seven hours that were scheduled between the two sides in an effort to reach a new collective bargaining agreement before it expires at midnight March 3.
Consequently, a five-hour second negotiating session scheduled for Thursday was canceled, and no further meetings have been proposed. Also, the NFL notified teams and owners Thursday that a scheduled owners meeting in Philadelphia next Tuesday has been canceled, sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton.
Wednesday's meeting in Washington started badly, one source said, when the owners' negotiating team interpreted the union's proposal of a 49 percent to 51 percent take as "total revenue," instead of the union's intended percentage take of "all revenue."
At the current revenue levels, "total revenue" has been defined as an estimated $9 billion gross, minus a $1 billion credit in the owners' favor. In the current CBA deal about to expire, the union's share has been estimated at about 60 percent of $8 billion, once the $1 billion credit was subtracted.
Owners have asked for an additional $1 billion credit -- or $2 billion in total -- before it splits "total revenue" with players.
Smith has stated that the union would need to examine all of the owners' financial books before it would accept a substantial reduction in allowing the additional $1 billion in credits.
To simplify talks, a player source said the union told the owners' negotiating team that it will forgo its request to examine the league's financial books by simply taking the flat 50 percent cut of "all revenue," which would eliminate $1 billion to $2 billion credits off the top and erase the definition of "total revenue."
A union source said that if the NFLPA accepted the owners' current proposal, it would receive a little more than 40 percent of all revenue.
Smith said in an interview with ESPN last week that a 40 percent to 42 percent share of all revenue would represent the smallest percentage of a players' share by any professional sports union.
In addition to the flat 50 percent share of all revenue, players are willing to grant additional credits to any franchise that reinvests in stadium improvement, a mechanism to motivate clubs to grow revenues, a player source said.
The union believes by taking a flat 50 percent share, it would eliminate the need to audit every expense clubs invest in order to offset credits built into the current CBA and the model proposed by owners going forward.
NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah would not elaborate Thursday, except to say, "This didn't just start yesterday."
Smith also sent an e-mail, obtained by ESPN, to NFL agents on Thursday outlining the owners' latest rookie wage-scale proposal in January. He detailed how far apart the two sides are, and in an attached memo dated Jan. 26, said the NFL's latest proposal "is a veteran scale, not a rookie scale."
The NFL's owners continued to propose a five-year wage scale for first-rounders, four years for other drafted players, and no individually negotiated contracts. But, according to Smith, the owners added "league-wide base salary escalators."
Smith wrote that the owners' latest offer "makes the proposal worse not only for rookies, but for veteran players with three to five years in the league -- the core of our membership."
Also, players would not be able to renegotiate their contracts or agree to extensions until three years after they were drafted. Signing bonuses would be fixed, paid over the length of a contract and subject to forfeiture "if the player does not toe the Club's line in every way," Smith wrote.
In late September, the NFLPA proposed maximum four-year contracts for players drafted in the first three rounds, and three-year contracts for other drafted players.
The NFLPA's proposal also provided for individually negotiated contracts instead of the owners' proposed set salaries. In addition, a cap would be placed on rookie contract incentives and escalators. The money saved then would be used for a bonus pool for veteran players and rookies who outperformed their contract.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said: "Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday's meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side's proposals or the meeting process. Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal." (source Chris Mortensen, ESPN)
NFL is too self absorbed to avoid labour strife
Friday, February 11 2011
The good thing is the NFL has never been more popular. The bad news comes if the NFL suspects its popularity makes it bulletproof. This article was written by Bud Shaw and appeared in the Cleavland Plain Dealer.
The NFL is the richest, most popular boy in school. Now we find out if he's unmatched in street smarts, too, or if all the fawning and eyelash batting has gone to his head and convinced him he can do no wrong.
Super Bowl XLV was the most watched TV show in history. Some of that interest had to do with the commercials and -- at least for a fleeting few minutes -- the desire to see if Black Eyed Peas were there to entertain or if they were angling to get beamed to the Starship Enterprise. A real-time poll of viewers favored matter transportation.
But by most measures, the game has never been more popular, and that's a little scary as the owners and players threaten to huff and puff and blow each other's houses down. Owners might just think fans will be waiting for them as eager as ever when the lockout ends and a new collective bargaining agreement is reached.
Other than here in Cleveland -- where people got their hearts ripped out in 1995 and held candlelight vigils to win back the right to pay for PSLs and a new stadium -- where does the NFL come off thinking we're hopelessly addicted to what it's selling?
Already emboldened by billions in TV money to help them ride out the storm, owners don't seem particularly worried about the PR hit. They know, of course, the players always take the brunt of that, even if the owners are locking out their employees.
Major League Baseball wasn't nearly as popular as the NFL when it killed the 1994 World Series. It needed the Steroid Era to sell it after.
You'd like to think the owners recognize the wave of goodwill and popularity they're riding and would adopt the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to a loyal (and growing) fan base instead of adopting the Oath of Hypocrisy by crying poor, taking their ball and getting a limo ride home.
You'd like to think behind closed doors they've agreed to protect the 2011 season at all costs. Because the game isn't in financial ruins.
You'd like to think the people negotiating this agreement wouldn't mess up such a good thing. After all, it's all about the customers, right?
OK, except the ones told their $800 Super Bowl tickets in Dallas didn't come with a place to sit down.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The good thing is the NFL has never been more popular. The bad news comes if the NFL suspects its popularity makes it bulletproof. This article was written by Bud Shaw and appeared in the Cleavland Plain Dealer.
The NFL is the richest, most popular boy in school. Now we find out if he's unmatched in street smarts, too, or if all the fawning and eyelash batting has gone to his head and convinced him he can do no wrong.
Super Bowl XLV was the most watched TV show in history. Some of that interest had to do with the commercials and -- at least for a fleeting few minutes -- the desire to see if Black Eyed Peas were there to entertain or if they were angling to get beamed to the Starship Enterprise. A real-time poll of viewers favored matter transportation.
But by most measures, the game has never been more popular, and that's a little scary as the owners and players threaten to huff and puff and blow each other's houses down. Owners might just think fans will be waiting for them as eager as ever when the lockout ends and a new collective bargaining agreement is reached.
Other than here in Cleveland -- where people got their hearts ripped out in 1995 and held candlelight vigils to win back the right to pay for PSLs and a new stadium -- where does the NFL come off thinking we're hopelessly addicted to what it's selling?
Already emboldened by billions in TV money to help them ride out the storm, owners don't seem particularly worried about the PR hit. They know, of course, the players always take the brunt of that, even if the owners are locking out their employees.
Major League Baseball wasn't nearly as popular as the NFL when it killed the 1994 World Series. It needed the Steroid Era to sell it after.
You'd like to think the owners recognize the wave of goodwill and popularity they're riding and would adopt the Hippocratic oath to do no harm to a loyal (and growing) fan base instead of adopting the Oath of Hypocrisy by crying poor, taking their ball and getting a limo ride home.
You'd like to think behind closed doors they've agreed to protect the 2011 season at all costs. Because the game isn't in financial ruins.
You'd like to think the people negotiating this agreement wouldn't mess up such a good thing. After all, it's all about the customers, right?
OK, except the ones told their $800 Super Bowl tickets in Dallas didn't come with a place to sit down.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
And the walls came tumbling down II
Friday, February 11 2011
The NFL released a statement Thursday afternoon on the state of labor negotiations that tried to have the best of both worlds.
It tried to take the high road. Essentially the purpose for the statement was to say the NFL won’t negotiate in public. But the league couldn’t resist calling the reports coming out of Wednesday’s session with the NFLPA “inaccurate.” That’s basically negotiating in public.
Here’s the full statement:
“Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday’s meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side’s proposals or the meeting process.
“Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal.”
The statement recognizes that the guts of the negotiation should be kept private. In the age of Twitter, 24-hour sports coverage, and PFT (sorry), that’s going to be more difficult than ever before . (source Pro Football Talk)
The NFL released a statement Thursday afternoon on the state of labor negotiations that tried to have the best of both worlds.
It tried to take the high road. Essentially the purpose for the statement was to say the NFL won’t negotiate in public. But the league couldn’t resist calling the reports coming out of Wednesday’s session with the NFLPA “inaccurate.” That’s basically negotiating in public.
Here’s the full statement:
“Despite the inaccurate characterizations of yesterday’s meeting, out of respect to the collective bargaining process and our negotiating partner, we are going to continue to conduct negotiations with the union in private and not engage in a point-counterpoint on the specifics of either side’s proposals or the meeting process.
“Instead, we will work as hard as possible to reach a fair agreement by March 4. We are fully focused on that goal.”
The statement recognizes that the guts of the negotiation should be kept private. In the age of Twitter, 24-hour sports coverage, and PFT (sorry), that’s going to be more difficult than ever before . (source Pro Football Talk)
And the walls came tumbling down
Friday, February 11 2011
The discrepancy between the league’s and the union’s view of the size of the slice of the pie that the players collectively receive isn’t the only issue on which the NFL and the NFLPA disagree. The two sides also disagree on the rookie wage scale.
Or, as the union now calls it, the “veteran wage scale.”
Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reported earlier today that NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith explained in a memo to certain players that the rookie wage scale proposed by management would affect players with three to five years of experience, or as Smith put it “the core of our membership.”
The league proposed a system including five-year deals for first-round picks and four-year contracts for players drafted in all other rounds; the union wants maximum deals of four years in rounds one through three and three years in rounds four through seven.
“This wage scale would have a very dramatic effect on league salaries when you consider the number of players that would be subject to its terms,” Smith explained in a memo to the members of the Executive Committee and the various player representatives, claiming that 60 percent of the league would fall under the terms of the league’s proposal.
But here’s the reality. Roughly 60 percent of the league already falls under an unofficial rookie wage scale, which after round one pays players reasonable amounts about which the NFL rarely complains — especially when a mid-round pick becomes a star. The issue here is the amount of money paid at the top of the draft, and that’s where the focus should be.
It’s not just about eliminating the windfall for unproven rookies, but also about redirecting that money to rookies who outperform their salaries and finding ways to funnel money that is wasted on busts like JaMarcus Russell to the retired players who made the game what it is.
There can be no doubt that it’s in the best interests of the league, the teams, and the current members of the union to ensure that unproven players don’t continue to get inflated contracts, the growth of which continues to outpace the increase in pay for veteran players. The union, in our view, is resisting much-needed change simply in the hopes of scoring a concessions from the league, and possibly because powerful agencies that pocket three percent of the first-round rookie contracts don’t want to lose their cut of the windfall.
Employed at one of those firms as an agent is the son of NFLPA chief outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler. (Just sayin’.)
This should be the easiest problem for the two sides to fix. In a cap-driven system, a rookie wage scale does not undermine in any way the total money available to players. Indeed, every dollar taken away from unproven rookies is one more dollar available to proven players. By ensuring that tens of millions won’t go to players who never contribute to the betterment of the game and by also ensuring that rookies who achieve greatness immediately get compensated for their efforts now, the pie can be carved up fairly for everyone.
But first the union has to ignore any and all self-interests clouding the process and commit to taking actions aimed for the good of the game, and for the good of the current members of the union. (source Pro Football Talk)
The discrepancy between the league’s and the union’s view of the size of the slice of the pie that the players collectively receive isn’t the only issue on which the NFL and the NFLPA disagree. The two sides also disagree on the rookie wage scale.
Or, as the union now calls it, the “veteran wage scale.”
Liz Mullen of SportsBusiness Journal reported earlier today that NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith explained in a memo to certain players that the rookie wage scale proposed by management would affect players with three to five years of experience, or as Smith put it “the core of our membership.”
The league proposed a system including five-year deals for first-round picks and four-year contracts for players drafted in all other rounds; the union wants maximum deals of four years in rounds one through three and three years in rounds four through seven.
“This wage scale would have a very dramatic effect on league salaries when you consider the number of players that would be subject to its terms,” Smith explained in a memo to the members of the Executive Committee and the various player representatives, claiming that 60 percent of the league would fall under the terms of the league’s proposal.
But here’s the reality. Roughly 60 percent of the league already falls under an unofficial rookie wage scale, which after round one pays players reasonable amounts about which the NFL rarely complains — especially when a mid-round pick becomes a star. The issue here is the amount of money paid at the top of the draft, and that’s where the focus should be.
It’s not just about eliminating the windfall for unproven rookies, but also about redirecting that money to rookies who outperform their salaries and finding ways to funnel money that is wasted on busts like JaMarcus Russell to the retired players who made the game what it is.
There can be no doubt that it’s in the best interests of the league, the teams, and the current members of the union to ensure that unproven players don’t continue to get inflated contracts, the growth of which continues to outpace the increase in pay for veteran players. The union, in our view, is resisting much-needed change simply in the hopes of scoring a concessions from the league, and possibly because powerful agencies that pocket three percent of the first-round rookie contracts don’t want to lose their cut of the windfall.
Employed at one of those firms as an agent is the son of NFLPA chief outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler. (Just sayin’.)
This should be the easiest problem for the two sides to fix. In a cap-driven system, a rookie wage scale does not undermine in any way the total money available to players. Indeed, every dollar taken away from unproven rookies is one more dollar available to proven players. By ensuring that tens of millions won’t go to players who never contribute to the betterment of the game and by also ensuring that rookies who achieve greatness immediately get compensated for their efforts now, the pie can be carved up fairly for everyone.
But first the union has to ignore any and all self-interests clouding the process and commit to taking actions aimed for the good of the game, and for the good of the current members of the union. (source Pro Football Talk)
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)