NFLPA vs Owners drama continues

[Mr. Laz]

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

By Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter
ESPN.com

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.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

No football is better than shitty football.

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

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Dave Lane

They get 60% now.

Of all revenue?

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

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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

Well, the ratings say different.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Rausch

Of all revenue?...

Yes.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

Yes.

No.

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

Not currently.

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Rausch

No.

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

Not currently.

link

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

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...

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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.

[Dave Lane]

Originally Posted by Brock

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

[Bill Lundberg]

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

Sources: Panthers owner disses Manning, Brees

By Jason Cole, Yahoo! Sports 14 hours, 49 minutes ago



Printable View

Return to Original

• tweet0
• Email
• Print

Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson mocked quarterbacks Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) during a Feb. 5 negotiating session with the NFL Players Association, says three league sources, a sign of disrespect that the union hopes solidifies its members in the pending labor battle with the NFL.
Panthers owner Jerry Richardson.
(Chuck Burton/AP Photo)

“[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton,” a source said. “[Richardson] was the only person on either side who was contentious. Everybody else was respectful. They might have said, ‘I disagree with your point,’ but at least they were respectful. [Richardson] was not.”
More From Jason Cole

• Sources: Combine boycott talk on table Feb 13, 2011
• Solution to end owner, union stalemate Feb 10, 2011

Apparently, Richardson was particularly sarcastic when Manning started to talk about players’ safety. At one point, Richardson evidently said, “What do you know about player safety?”
Richardson was unavailable for comment. A league source denied that there was any contentious discussion between the team owner and anyone from the union’s side.
“Mr. Richardson is a former player and made clear his respect and affection for the players during the meeting,” the source said.
While negotiations between the NFL and the NFLPA have historically been marked by contentious moments, Richardson’s outburst may be especially telling for the players.
“If he’s willing to talk to [Manning] and [Brees] that way, what do you think it says about what he and the other owners think about the rest of the players?” the source said, rhetorically. “Now, it really only matters if [Richardson] is representing the opinion of 23 or even eight other owners, but it has to make you wonder.”
Richardson, who is the only former NFL player to own a team, has been considered one of the staunchest proponents of hard-line tactics in the current negotiations. Last March, Richardson addressed the rest of the NFL owners at the league’s annual spring meeting with a fiery speech. Richardson said the owners had to “take back our league” during the negotiations with players.
“We signed a [expletive] deal last time and we’re going to stick together and take back our league and [expletive] do something about it,” Richardson said, as reported by Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports.
That has been interpreted as a clear indication that Richardson and some other owners want to break the NFLPA and get players to give greater concessions. The owners are currently holding firm on a request to have an additional $1 billion in expenses be removed from the pool of shared revenue.
Currently, the NFL grosses approximately $9 billion annually. Of that, $1 billion is given to the owners off the top for expenses. After that, the remaining $8 billion is split with 60 percent ($4.8 billion) going to the players and 40 percent (another $3.2 billion for a total of $4.2 billion) going to owners.
Under the owners’ proposal, the first $2 billion would go to them. The owners have tried to sell that idea by saying the money would go toward reinvestment in the game to help grow the overall amount of money that is shared.
The players are currently unwilling to accept the owners’ proposal and are facing the likelihood of having the owners lock out the players after the March 3 deadline. In response, the union would likely decertify, leaving it vulnerable.
In that regard, Richardson’s comments to Manning could backfire on the owners. In 1987, for instance, the NFL was able to split the union in large part by creating what was known as the Quarterback Club, a marketing arm that led several top quarterbacks to stop supporting the union. In the case of Manning, who is not a player representative or member of the NFLPA’s executive board, his opinion carries great weight throughout the NFL. Last August, Manning said he would be completely supportive of the union’s cause at the proper time, but has largely stayed in the background.
Having him fully behind the union could be important to maintaining unity.
Jason Cole is a national NFL writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Jason a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.
Updated 14 hours, 49 minutes ago

[Bowser]

What a dick.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

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.

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

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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

How so?

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by Brock

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...?

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by Rausch

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

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?