NFLPA vs Owners drama continues
 

Updated: February 13, 2011, 10:01 PM ET
Sources: Sides could talk this week

<cite class="source"> By Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter
ESPN.com
</cite>
When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.

According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized their documents as an "illustration" that NFL officials believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.

When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.
"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."
The day after negotiations broke down, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.
Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.
But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counter-proposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words were a source of irritation.
Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.
One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.
Now, there are knowledgeable sources that previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next year that are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now, there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.
Chris Mortensen is ESPN's senior NFL analyst. Adam Schefter is ESPN.com's NFL Insider.

Serby's NFL labor Q&A with ... Kevin Mawae

By STEVE SERBY
February 13, 2011

The Post's Steve Serby breaks down the NFL's labor issues with the former Jets center who is the president of the NFL Players Association.

Q: Do you fear Doomsday is coming March 4?

A: I am convinced the owners are willing to take this to a lockout.

Q: Why are you convinced of that?

A: I just think the tone of negotiations is one that is not promising that a deal is in sight any time soon.

Q: Why was last Thursday's negotiating session canceled?

A: You'd have to ask the owners that. I'm not at liberty to go into detail why it was canceled. . . . It wasn't canceled by the players.

Q: Why would the owners risk killing the golden goose?

A: It's greed. The Gordon Gekkos. There's a difference between losing money and your business falling apart versus greed.

Q: The owners refuse to show you their books.

A: The NBA just turned over everything to the Players Association. It's about money. It's about padding pockets and making money.

Q: Have you told the owners that the union is willing to participate in a 24-7 lock-in to hammer out a deal?

A: Yes.

Q: Their response?

A: No response.

Q: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell called for intensive, 'round-the-clock talks if necessary two days before the Super Bowl.

A: We said that same thing back in August.

Q: What would you tell the fans between now and March 4?

A: Keep your fingers crossed and hope we get a deal done. The fans are the ones that are gonna suffer. We understand that. We've been preparing our players for two years to get ready for this. If a player is not ready for this, it's the player's fault. The fight we gotta fight is educating the fans. If you want to be mad at anybody, be mad at the owners for putting us in this position. The players want to play. The players did not ask for this.

Q: As of now, you're scheduled to be meeting each Tuesday and Wednesday with the owners from next week until March 4. But there doesn't appear to be much trust between the sides.

A: You're telling me you're losing money but you won't show me how much you're losing. You're telling me it costs too much but you're not willing to show me the cost. . . . I was at the Super Bowl -- I saw Daniel Snyder's plane on the runway. He wasn't flying first class on American Airlines. It's a business deduction and you're writing it off and you're saying it's a cost the players should incur because you choose to fly that way. I'm being facetious . . .

Q: Any concern about players caving in?

A: It doesn't matter. You're still locked out. It would be an injustice to our players to take a deal that's worse now when the game is better than it's ever been before. We've asked for absolutely nothing. We've only been asked to give back.

Q: How united are the players?

A: I think our players understand the issues. If you have guys like (Antonio) Cromartie who want to pop off because they don't know what's going on, they haven't taken the initiative to understand the issues. I truly believe we're more united than ever before.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/jets/...#ixzz1Du3RhzEp

According to Cardinals kicker Jay Feely, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson was dismissive and condescending when speaking to Drew Brees and Peyton Manning in a CBA negotiating session last Saturday.

Speaking on Michael Kay's radio show in New York, Feelys says Richardson said "do I need to help you read a revenue chart son?" when talking to Manning, before adding "do I need to help break that down for you because I don’t know if you know how to read that?" If the owners are treating the even league's most visible and respected players this poorly, there's no telling how bad things might get this offseason.

The owners are banking on the fact the fans will turn on the players if a lockout occurs. That can be the only reason for their brazen attitude towards the players.

I'm firmly pulling for the players with this one.

I'm torn....Unless the salaries are decreased I don't like the fact that the players want a larger portion of the revenue. In this instance I'm leaning towards the owners. The players need to realize that they get paid very well and IMO don't have any rights at all to the owners revenues other than wht goes towards their salaries.

Name me one other business where the employees feel entitled to a portion of the employers profits? They are paid employees....enough said.

Revenue sharing is stupid, but I like the Rookie Wage Scale idea.

Players don't want a larger cut. The players will play under the current deal. The owners want to cut the players salaries. The owners are the ones initiating this.

Not true...the Players Union wants a 50/50 split of all revenues, that is more than they currently receive. So this is partially the players fault to.

The NFL owners opted out of a deal that saw the players gettign a 60-40 split of the pie.

Yesterday, the players' union suggested a 50-50 split. The owners laughed in their face. They also counterproposed the players actually take only a 40-42% share of the pie. That is not only a nearly unheard of 20% reduction, it would be the smallest percentage of all the major sports.

This is not good. http://1045theteam.com/owners-vs-nfl-players/

Same here. The Owners opted out of the CBA. That said, there is one thing that must change. The rookie pay scale. These huge contracts for draftees is ridiculous.

Most everyone. Its called Profit sharing. Fans are there to see the players. I'm in manufacturing. I make the very things that generate revenue for my employer. See how that works?

I will keep hoping they pull their head out of their asses and get something done before March 4th. To me it looks like the owner's are just getting greedier.

The owners also take all the risk, financially speaking. I'm sure they would hope to see a nominal return on that investment. If they are losing money, that bodes ill for the NFL and its fans.

Um, we will get along just fine without football.

The PLAYERS will certainly suffer. They obviously have a high opinion of themselves.

If you believe they are losing money, I have a couple of bridges you may be interested in.

How exactly do you receive a portion of their profits? Even still I'm fairly certain you don't get 40 or 50% of said profits. Both sides are being greedy, but the owners have more of a right in this case. It would be different if the players were making minimum wage or a manufacturers wage.

They aren't asking for 50% of profits. They are asking for 40-50% of revenue. It's not unheard of for payroll percentage to be that high in a company. Especially a company where the employee is the product.

I'd like to see them ask for a portion of net profit of each team, in lieu of a a hug chunk of revenue. Revenue less profit equals cost. Profit is return on risk. No risk, no profit.

Like, no players understand that./sarcasm

I'm for the fans, and neither party is for them, at this point.

I certainly believe that it is possible for an nfl team to be losing money. I certainly don't have an adequate expertise of their revenue and cost structure to discount the possibility. However, even looking at green bay you can see the return on a good team is nominal.

It is, indeed, the end of the weekend, and football and idiocy are still one and the same...

The problem is, it's pretty easy to hide "profit" and make the books look like you are barely clearing anything. That's why almost any such contracts are now based on gross revenue instead of profit. It's a more honest number to use.

For a retail operation you'd shoot for 25% of gross sales to be your payroll. Big chains have smaller numbers and small mom and pop shops are more likely to be in the 30-35% range. Over 50% is usually considered a danger zone for a business, but once again you have to take into account the type of business. If you're running a consulting company or a professional services firm you can bet your sweet ass that payroll is going to be a bigger piece of the pie.

i'm gonna start following the Royals pretty closely, cuz that may be all we have to talk about all through the summer and possibly later than that. C'mon Royals. WHEEEWWW!!!

The owners would cook the books until they were unrecognizable to avoid paying the players one penny of profit under that deal.

This isn't exactly accurate. The 60/40 split was AFTER a cut had been taken off the top by the owners to go toward various operations costs. The 50/50 split proposed by the players would have REMOVED that cap and been a pure 50 percent of revenues. It was a slight reduction overall, but it's not near the 10% reduction that it seemed like.

i don't know why

in what other business do the employees get 60% of the profits?

the fans gain nothing by the players making more money but have a chance to gain something by the owners having more free cash. Especially in smaller markets like Kansas City.

I'm not doubting you, but I'm looking for an example of this and specifically one that relates to the fact that a large portion of these "products" make millions already.

I'm just having a hard time supporting the players in this instance. Like I said, maybe I'd feel a little more for them if the majority didn't make millions anyway. Heck the minimum salary is somewhere in the neighborhood of $350K and that's nothing to shake a stick at.

I know the teams in MLB receive revenue sharing, but does the MLBPA or the players?

The owners have plenty of cash. Yes, even in KC.

I just don't see how the players can sit out a year. They stand to lose to much income that they'll never get back. If a player makes $500thou a year how can he just let that much go? That time will be gone and he will never have a chance to make that money again. That's a half a million dollar opportunity gone. With such a short career they have to make hay while the sun is shining. No matter how good of deal they get from the Owners it won't make up for a years lost income so I suspect they'll show up to work before summers over.

The owners know this.


PhilFree:arrow:

Just what I was thinking. The Royals are gonna be huge this year without any football. GO ROYALS LOL!!!!

Its only more if you don't know how to do math. Actually its a break for the owners of about $300 million.

exactly

The players are the product. They deserve half.

The Players have legit gripes but no leverage.

They are ****ed.

The faster a deal is inked the less they'll get ****ed.

Their best bet is to ink a short 3-5 year deal where they get about 25% of what they want, give up the inevitable ground in the short term (while they look for better representation,) and add some type of poison pill in the long term if a CBA isn't extended...

NEVER happen...

I gotta agree with you here...

There will be college football on Saturdays and hell they might even play some on Sundays if there is a lock out...

We wont suffer... Actually NFL fans might enjoy having the money they have to spend to attend these games.

Is there anything to prevent the scab players from filling in?...

Yes. It isn't a strike.

There's no law stopping entertainment in an empty stadium.

?

Ok, the Hunts hire a team called the KC Champs to go play.

The game, rules, and everything else is the same. Scab players and refs, but that $3it will still be on TV before the networks just give up all that money for nothing.

Most would watch just to see the bloody mess (see also: XFL) that would follow...

I think the players are only part of the product. What about the huge high tech stadiums the players get to play in? They're a major part of the product too. The NFL is more than just the players. Heck at this point the fans are even part of the show. From Super Fans to who has got the loudest stadium and the most rabid fans. It's all part of the show.


PhilFree:arrow:

Nobody watched the XFL. Nobody is watching the UFL.

The first two weeks people did.

Then they soured on the fact the commentary was by WWF/WWE morons instead of capable sportscasters and it all fell apart before the level of talent even came into play.

Idea = good.

Presentation = VERY bad.

So for a week or two, out of morbid curiosity, some people watched it. Then they didn't.

No football is better than shitty football.

I don't care, but the players have almost zero leverage. If you want to move something or someone...you need leverage.

They get 60% now.

I'd say people believe quite the opposite...

Of all revenue?

Caps, T-Shirts, merchandise, TV, ETC?...

Well, the ratings say different.

Yes.

No.

They don't get the TV money guaranteed to the owners.

Not currently.

link

The owner's money from the networks is guaranteed.

They players don't get $#it from that.

You don't need me to find a link pointing that out, you can google...

The players association currently gets 60 percent of gross NFL revenues. If you have information to the contrary, please, feel free to post a link to it.

This

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...021311&print=1

What a dick.

The owners money is guaranteed, the players isn't...

How so?

The Networks MUST pay the NFL and the NFL MUST pay the Owners.

The owners can now d!ck around however they like on how any player gets paid.

Unless I'm wrong and KC players no longer get paid through the KC Chiefs organization...?

A) the owners money is not al guaranteed.
B) the owners capital is on the line, not the players.

The business should pocket income. That is the function of a business. The players get paid outrageous sums of money to play a game. Why should they get so much of the pie?

ROFL

The irony here is that Manning probably does need assistance in understanding and comprehending an income statement, a balance sheet, or a "revenue chart".

Of course, on the other hand, NFL owners pay out a lot of money to professionals whose expertise is book cooking and who can make enormous profits magically disappear. Just ask the IRS. Or the ex-wives.

FAX

The math still has to add up to 60 percent to the players.

That actually brings up a point - if there is a lockout, do the networks get out of handing over the billions the TV contracts promise to the NFL (I'll answer my own question and say no, or else the owners wouldn't be trying a stunt like this).

If there is a lock out.....it saves me money. From Fantasy Football fees to NFL Sunday Ticket.

The networks have agreed to pay the NFL regardless of the labor situation.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...ssible-lockout

My understanding is that the owners will still get paid by the TV networks this year no matter what. However, they're not necessarily getting something for nothing, as the owners eventually have to provide the services they said they would. In other words, the networks are just paying early and will eventually have a "free" season. Or something like that.

Yeah, figured as much. No way the owners would attempt this if they didn't have that to fall back on.

The players don't appear to be negotiating from a position of strength, even if their wants aren't excessive.

For that kind of price tag, you'd think that would be the way it should shake out. Let's see if the owners take the kind of hard line stance with the networks that they are with the players if it unfolds that way (unless it's already worded as such in the contract, then I'm just wasting air. Didn't see that clause in Brock's link).

Under what contract?

The one that expired?...

It hasn't expired yet, but this is a different subject than what you started with.

Yeah, I don't really know the specifics, but I think we'd hear about the networks getting nervous if they were really facing the possibility of having to pay for a season that doesn't happen without eventually getting something back.

I'd like to see some kind of rookie pay "slotting". I'd like to see a reduction in ticket prices. I'd like to see an improved veteran retirement and medical assistance program. I'd like to see a better on-field official training program. I'd like to see the Super Bowl played out-of-doors. I'd like to see an enhanced rule incentive allowing the free-kick to be used more often. And, I'd like to see Salma Hayek's tittahs close-up.

Not necessarily in that order.

FAX

It's all litigation now.

It becomes so unbelievably ugly that neither side really wants to have to be the one to not sign.

At the end of the day the NFL/Owners have all the leverage.

Right or wrong.

That's how it ends.

If this alone was done I'd be happy...

Wake me up when you reach an agreement. Until then I don't care about your machinations and posturing.
Although Jerry Richardson's comments are funny as hell.

They've thought that before.

I just don't see how rookie salary cap can't be part of the new CBA. Redistribute those funds into some sort of veteran pay plan where performance is awarded instead of potential. IMHO

A gentlemen's disagreement it is then...

Yep. Sam Bradford is going to be a great pro, but 50 million guaranteed to a guy that has never played a down can be debated as to being "excessive". Let him work a rookie three year deal so he can earn the lottery contract (although I'm sure Alex Smith would be against that line of thinking).

It (in a way) was part of the old one.

No way in hell the NFLPA goes for that...