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.

[KC Jones]

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

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.

[Extra Point]

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.

[Nightfyre]

Originally Posted by truebigdog

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

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.

[LaDairis]

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

[KC Jones]

Originally Posted by Extra Point

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.

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.

[tooge]

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!!!

[Swanman]

Originally Posted by KC Jones

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.

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

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by haydenchiefs101

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/

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.

[Mr. Laz]

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.

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.

[WV]

Originally Posted by KC Jones

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'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?

[Brock]

Originally Posted by Laz

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.

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

[philfree]

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

[Three7s]

Originally Posted by tooge

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!!!

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

[Dave Lane]

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.

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

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by philfree

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

exactly