Football NFLPA vs Owners drama continues - Page 6

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.

Brock · 02-14-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

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.

They've thought that before.

vailpass · 02-14-2011, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

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

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

**Rausch** · 02-14-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

They've thought that before.

A gentlemen's disagreement it is then...

**Bowser** · 02-14-2011, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

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

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).

**Rausch** · 02-14-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

I just don't see how rookie salary cap can't be part of the new CBA.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by vailpass

Redistribute those funds into some sort of veteran pay plan where performance is awarded instead of potential. IMHO

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

FAX · 02-14-2011, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

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

I must be missing something. It seems to me that the veterans outnumber the rooks. If a fixed salary amount were going to be distributed among teammates, I would think that the veterans would prefer to cut back on these enormous rookie salaries in favor of higher veteran pay.

Free agency pretty much took care of the "performance" issue, didn't it? I mean, if you perform at a high level, FA allows you opportunities for higher compensation, no?

What am I missing?

FAX

WV · 02-14-2011, 12:59 PM

I've basically come to the point where I hope the Owners tell the players to take what they're offering or go play in Canada.

I'm pissed because they are complaining about their piece of the revenues when I just can't rationalize why they are entitled to any at all. They make a shit ton of money to play a game and they are still bitching. Lastly the players exorbitant salaries are a major contributor to sky high ticket prices.

Yes the owners are greedy bastards and I don't' think they should be able to screw over the players, but from a business sense I support them more than the athletes. Yes the players are the "product", but without the owners they wouldn't have a game to play.

Brock · 02-14-2011, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

I must be missing something. It seems to me that the veterans outnumber the rooks. If a fixed salary amount were going to be distributed among teammates, I would think that the veterans would prefer to cut back on these enormous rookie salaries in favor of higher veteran pay.

Free agency pretty much took care of the "performance" issue, didn't it? I mean, if you perform at a high level, FA allows you opportunities for higher compensation, no?

What am I missing?

FAX

It could be that the NFLPA views rising rookie salaries as a driver for higher veteran salaries.

**Rausch** · 02-14-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FAX

What am I missing?

FAX

The stupidity on the part of the owners to pay huge $$$ for unproven commodities.

That reeruned signing bonus still pays in to union dues...

Brock · 02-14-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WVChiefFan

I'm pissed because they are complaining about their piece of the revenues when I just can't rationalize why they are entitled to any at all. They make a shit ton of money to play a game and they are still bitching. Lastly the players exorbitant salaries are a major contributor to sky high ticket prices.

The average NFL salary is 900,000 dollars. It isn't an exorbitant salary unless you're talking about top tier QBs. Secondly, this viewpoint that "they play a game" keeps getting brought up. Yes, they "play a game", a dangerous game, a game that takes a significant number of years off their lives, and significantly affects the quality of those years they have left. They trade those years for money, and I don't understand why people think they should just take whatever line of bullshit the owners throw at them.

vailpass · 02-14-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rausch

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

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

As opposed to a rookie cap with no redistribution of the funds? I'm not saying whether it is a qualified option, I'm just throwing out my opinion.
I also feel that the NFLPA isn't coming from as strong a place as some think. More owners than players are prepared to say "**** you, let's see how long you want to do this" IMHO

vailpass · 02-14-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

The average NFL salary is 900,000 dollars. It isn't an exorbitant salary unless you're talking about top tier QBs. Secondly, this viewpoint that "they play a game" keeps getting brought up. Yes, they "play a game", a dangerous game, a game that takes a significant number of years off their lives, and significantly affects the quality of those years they have left. They trade those years for money, and I don't understand why people think they should just take whatever line of bullshit the owners throw at them.

Agreed. They don't play a game. They perform a service which generates high revenue. Same as actors or top salesmen or anyone else who has a skill for which people are willing to pay.
OTOH the owners provide the venue without which their skills would be marketless. And those owners can replace players quicker than players can replace owners.
Which is why both sides need to get their stuff together and hammer out an agreement that keeps the golden goose laying.

**Rain Man** · 02-14-2011, 01:09 PM

http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...nnbin&hpt=Sbin

I thought this was funny. I'm guessing that the next words out of Jerry Richardson's mouth were, "They call roughing the passer if anyone gets within ten yards of you."

On another note, I'm surprised that Brees and Manning are at the negotiating table. I figured they'd have lawyers and agents there and no one else.

Panthers owner mocks Manning, Brees

Views39035Comments873
EMAIL PRINT BUZZ FACEBOOK DIGG TWITTER RSS SHARE
08:05 AM ET 02.14 | Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson may not be invited to dinner any time soon with two of the NFL's top quarterbacks. Richardson mocked quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Drew Brees 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. "[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton," a source said. ... 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?"

philfree · 02-14-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

It could be that the NFLPA views rising rookie salaries as a driver for higher veteran salaries.

That rookie pay scale for 1st round picks is a tool to drive up player salaries. When the 1st round picks become the highest paid players at a position that drives up the amount of pay a franchise tagged player gets. Basically it increases the average of the the top five paid players at what ever position the specific player plays. And it happens every year. I don't see the players wanting to give that up.

The Owners are probably trying to distract the players with the percent totals so when they do budge they'll be able to slip the rookie pay scale through. Slight of hand!

PhilFree

**BigMeatballDave** · 02-14-2011, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

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.

this would be the silver lining to a work stoppage. College football on sundays.

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

02-14-2011, 12:59 PM	#82
WV Veteran Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: In the Holler Casino cash: $10004950	I've basically come to the point where I hope the Owners tell the players to take what they're offering or go play in Canada. I'm pissed because they are complaining about their piece of the revenues when I just can't rationalize why they are entitled to any at all. They make a shit ton of money to play a game and they are still bitching. Lastly the players exorbitant salaries are a major contributor to sky high ticket prices. Yes the owners are greedy bastards and I don't' think they should be able to screw over the players, but from a business sense I support them more than the athletes. Yes the players are the "product", but without the owners they wouldn't have a game to play.
Posts: 4,983

02-14-2011, 01:09 PM	#88
Rain Man Seize life. Be an ermine. Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: My house Casino cash: $-762449 VARSITY	http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_r...nnbin&hpt=Sbin I thought this was funny. I'm guessing that the next words out of Jerry Richardson's mouth were, "They call roughing the passer if anyone gets within ten yards of you." On another note, I'm surprised that Brees and Manning are at the negotiating table. I figured they'd have lawyers and agents there and no one else. Panthers owner mocks Manning, Brees Views39035Comments873 EMAIL PRINT BUZZ FACEBOOK DIGG TWITTER RSS SHARE 08:05 AM ET 02.14 \| Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson may not be invited to dinner any time soon with two of the NFL's top quarterbacks. Richardson mocked quarterbacks Peyton Manning and Drew Brees 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. "[Richardson] was extremely condescending to them, especially toward Peyton," a source said. ... 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?" __________________ Active fan of the greatest team in NFL history.
Posts: 145,588