Football NFLPA vs Owners drama continues

Mr. Laz · 02-13-2011, 09:16 PM

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.

**Dylan** · 02-13-2011, 10:22 PM

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

Hammock Parties · 02-13-2011, 11:40 PM

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.

**Bowser** · 02-14-2011, 12:00 AM

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.

WV · 02-14-2011, 12:24 AM

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.

soopamanluva · 02-14-2011, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

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.

WV · 02-14-2011, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopamanluva

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.

ShowtimeSBMVP · 02-14-2011, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

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/

**BigMeatballDave** · 02-14-2011, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

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.

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.

**BigMeatballDave** · 02-14-2011, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

Name me one other business where the employees feel entitled to a portion of the employers profits?

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?

spanky 52 · 02-14-2011, 04:38 AM

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.

Nightfyre · 02-14-2011, 05:04 AM

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.

**notorious** · 02-14-2011, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan

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

Um, we will get along just fine without football.

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

**Old Dog** · 02-14-2011, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nightfyre

If they are losing money, that bodes ill for the NFL and its fans.

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

WV · 02-14-2011, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

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?

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.

02-13-2011, 09:16 PM
Mr. Laz Don't Tease Me Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: KS Casino cash: $11047037	NFLPA vs Owners drama continues 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.
Posts: 95,626

02-13-2011, 10:22 PM	#2
Dylan The Lede Join Date: Aug 2007 Casino cash: $10016591	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 __________________
Posts: 33,643

02-13-2011, 11:40 PM	#3
Hammock Parties I'll be back. Join Date: Nov 2002 Casino cash: $720478	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. __________________ Chiefs game films
Posts: 297,620

02-14-2011, 12:00 AM	#4
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $-288384	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.
Posts: 106,923

02-14-2011, 12:24 AM	#5
WV Veteran Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: In the Holler Casino cash: $10004950	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.
Posts: 4,983

02-14-2011, 04:38 AM	#11
spanky 52 Veteran Join Date: Mar 2008 Casino cash: $-1034399	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.
Posts: 1,036

02-14-2011, 05:04 AM	#12
Nightfyre MVP Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Helena, MT Casino cash: $1298849	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.
Posts: 18,647