AP Source: NFL’s profitability data offer rejected

[Scott Dierking]

Is this what they are really quibbling over-this is from peter King-

Now, I'll make one last point about the transparency. Several on the league side believe the players' side really doesn't want to see the numbers, because if they got the numbers and they proved the owners' point about declining revenue, then their case about immense team profits would be out the window. Is it worth an extra $10 million per team to keep the statements hidden? If so, this deal gets done tomorrow. Think of it. The league offered a cap number in year one of the new deal of $141 million on Friday, rising to $161 million in year four; that's salary plus player benefits, per year. The players' number is $151 million in year one, rising to $161 million in year four.

The difference isn't even an average of $10 million per year, given the fact that each side is at $161 million in year four. Even with the vagaries of how much, if any, revenue would be shared if the league exceeds its projected revenue in a given year, there's a deal to be made even if the league continues to say it won't open the books as wide as the players want them opened.

[bitonti]

there's a deal to be made even if the league continues to say it won't open the books as wide as the players want them opened.

this assumes that the owners are negotiating in good faith, i.e. that they are united in what they want.

Les Bowen has a pretty good article (Eagles beat writer) that theorizes that there was no real deal to be had... and the differences were not between Owners and Players, but between Owners and Owners... and that last weeks negotiation was a charade.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/117908119.html

[Scott Dierking]

this assumes that the owners are negotiating in good faith, i.e. that they are united in what they want.

Les Bowen has a pretty good article (Eagles beat writer) that theorizes that there was no real deal to be had... and the differences were not between Owners and Players, but between Owners and Owners... and that last weeks negotiation was a charade.

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/117908119.html

This is a difficult situation, partly because you have a first time negotiator in Smith, who is pressured not to cave to the first deal he gets.

[Bugg]

This is a difficult situation, partly because you have a first time negotiator in Smith, who is pressured not to cave to the first deal he gets.

Someone more seasoned would've kept talking.Who knows how much more pressure the big market owners would've put on Goodell to make a deal ASAP. The owners did give away half the store in one day. The closer you get to a deal the more the issue really being owners vs. oweners would become clear, and that is where things get interesting. Smith, in his blind ego-driven stupidity, apparently was hellbent on looking like a tough guy. He might feel very satisfied but it wasn't in the interests of the players. There is a difference between "feel" and "think". Stupid egotists like SMith don't get it.

Also, might help things if he stopped wearing a fedora like he's a cross between Sam Cooke and Don Draper. WTF? It's not a fashion show, you egocentric schmuck.

[bitonti]

This is a difficult situation, partly because you have a first time negotiator in Smith, who is pressured not to cave to the first deal he gets.

it should also be noted the extension to negotiate was a week or so, the players didn't get a proposal til thursday of that week... it wasn't really enough time to flush it out or even look at it real closely. I don't blame Demaurice Smith for walking away, the owners were just stalling. Both sides knew it would eventually come to this. The owners have no leverage while the players are getting paid.

[Scott Dierking]

Someone more seasoned would've kept talking.Who knows how much more pressure the big market owners would've put on Goodell to make a deal ASAP. The owners did give away half the store in one day. The closer you get to a deal the more the issue really being owners vs. oweners would become clear, and that is where things get interesting. Smith, in his blind ego-driven stupidity, apparently was hellbent on looking like a tough guy. He might feel very satisfied but it wasn't in the interests of the players. There is a difference between "feel" and "think". Stupid egotists like SMith don't get it.

Also, might help things if he stopped wearing a fedora like he's a cross between Sam Cooke and Don Draper. WTF? It's not a fashion show, you egocentric schmuck.

Everyone wants to be the next Marvin Miller.

There is no room for Marvin Miller's in this negotiation.

[PatriotReign37]

You really believe that the teams share equally?

The largest part of this is that they DON'T. That is where the divide comes.

How do teams not share gross defined revenue equally?

The Jaguars wouldnt be on the map if not for shared revenue. They have the same amount to spend every season as the Patriots.

[Scott Dierking]

How do teams not share gross defined revenue equally?

The Jaguars wouldnt be on the map if not for shared revenue. They have the same amount to spend every season as the Patriots.

Stadium Revenues (Luxury suites, etc.), naming rights, own licensing $$$$. own marketing expiditions, etc.

Where have you been?

FYI-The non -shared revenue accounts for approximately 20% of overall revenue-so that is a fairly substantial piece.

There in lies the rub for a lot of these negotiations. Both owner vs owner and NFL vs NFLPA

[#27TheDominator]

How do teams not share gross defined revenue equally?

The Jaguars wouldnt be on the map if not for shared revenue. They have the same amount to spend every season as the Patriots.

Of course they share gross defined revenue, but they don't share EVERYTHING.

Stadium Revenues (Luxury suites, etc.), naming rights, own licensing $$$$. own marketing expiditions, etc.

Where have you been?

FYI-The non -shared revenue accounts for approximately 20% of overall revenue-so that is a fairly substantial piece.

There in lies the rub for a lot of these negotiations. Both owner vs owner and NFL vs NFLPA

You think that the have-nots are upset at the haves for not sharing it all? I'm pretty sure that it's the opposite. The haves are pissed off that they have to carry those losers.

[Scott Dierking]

Of course they share gross defined revenue, but they don't share EVERYTHING.

You think that the have-nots are upset at the haves for not sharing it all? I'm pretty sure that it's the opposite. The haves are pissed off that they have to carry those losers.

Exactly-There are differnt classes.

i saw a report that the Rooney's are "only" worth 150 mill. Compare that to some multi-billionaires. And teh Steelers are not th eproblem (in one sense).

[PatriotReign37]

Stadium Revenues (Luxury suites, etc.), naming rights, own licensing $$$$. own marketing expiditions, etc.

Where have you been?

I know that revenue is not shared.

FYI-The non -shared revenue accounts for approximately 20% of overall revenue-so that is a fairly substantial piece.

There in lies the rub for a lot of these negotiations. Both owner vs owner and NFL vs NFLPA

Big deal, no team can spend above the cap. Jerry Jones could make a billion dollars a year but he cannot spend any more on his players than the Jaguars can.

[PatriotReign37]

Of course they share gross defined revenue, but they don't share EVERYTHING.

Defined was the key word I used.

You think that the have-nots are upset at the haves for not sharing it all? I'm pretty sure that it's the opposite. The haves are pissed off that they have to carry those losers.

Thats why the Jaguars are moving. Likely to LA. Im surprised the Bills are still in Buffalo when they could cut a fat hog in Toronto.

[Scott Dierking]

Help me from a player's perspective understand what is not in this deal that does not at least create a basis for continued discussion:

In an attempt to get jumpstart negotiations, commissioner Roger Goodell has sent a letter to all players explaining the owners' most recent proposal.

Goodell conceded that the last offer was intended as a "strong and fair basis" for another extension as opposed to an agreement. Key points of the offer include a $141M salary cap in 2011 ($161M in 2014), free agency after four years, reduced draft-pick compensation for RFAs, fewer offseason workouts, a 16-game season through 2012, a new rookie wage scale, and medical coverage for life. "I hope you will encourage your Union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement," Goodell wrote in closing. We're not holding out hope that the letter will appeal to NFLPA* boss De Smith.

[#27TheDominator]

Help me from a player's perspective understand what is not in this deal that does not at least create a basis for continued discussion:

I think it was this part:

Goodell conceded that the last offer was intended as a "strong and fair basis" for another extension as opposed to an agreement.

They have been dicking around too long to be making offers to get an extension and not a deal. I'm sure the players realize that part of the owners fight about decertification is that the players don't really want it and are only doing it to sue. AFAIK the owners are still fighting the decertification and by constantly putting it off the players make it seem more and more obviously the sham the owners are claiming. The owners can also hope to split the players and get them to vote against the decert.

What strikes me as odd is that I'm not sure he can go around sending letters to each player if the union is certified, so this should have come after. There are also some things not listed: 18 games after 2012? Less offseason workouts probably has no meaning because all the voluntary workouts are basically mandatory anyway. The fact that the cap was rising seems good, but it may go higher if the owners have to open the books.

[Scott Dierking]

I think it was this part:

They have been dicking around too long to be making offers to get an extension and not a deal. I'm sure the players realize that part of the owners fight about decertification is that the players don't really want it and are only doing it to sue. AFAIK the owners are still fighting the decertification and by constantly putting it off the players make it seem more and more obviously the sham the owners are claiming. The owners can also hope to split the players and get them to vote against the decert.

What strikes me as odd is that I'm not sure he can go around sending letters to each player if the union is certified, so this should have come after. There are also some things not listed: 18 games after 2012? Less offseason workouts probably has no meaning because all the voluntary workouts are basically mandatory anyway. The fact that the cap was rising seems good, but it may go higher if the owners have to open the books.

Several points here:

-It looks like the league would be delaying the 18 game schedule, but even after 2012 it would still need to be jointly approved. The owners would just not get to enact that (in my mind, this was always a negotiating ploy, and we would never see an 18 game season).

-An "extension" would have to viewed as a "win" for the NFLPA. What the owners were looking to do was get the current deal out of the way-they feel they were wronged by the extension several years ago (warning to anyone-once you negotiate something in, it almost impossible to get it taken out later).

-Does this represent any good faith in at least getting both sides to the tables? Or, are the players just dug in now?

[#27TheDominator]

Several points here:

-It looks like the league would be delaying the 18 game schedule, but even after 2012 it would still need to be jointly approved. The owners would just not get to enact that (in my mind, this was always a negotiating ploy, and we would never see an 18 game season).

-An "extension" would have to viewed as a "win" for the NFLPA. What the owners were looking to do was get the current deal out of the way-they feel they were wronged by the extension several years ago (warning to anyone-once you negotiate something in, it almost impossible to get it taken out later).

-Does this represent any good faith in at least getting both sides to the tables? Or, are the players just dug in now?

Eh.

Most of this stuff is "who knows?" We have no idea what they are saying about the 18 game schedule, but considering that there is currently a lock out it's obvious there won't be one in 2011, so what exactly are the owners conceding?

As for an extension being a win for the players I say NO. There was a drop dead date. Everybody knew it. The owners to try to keep them negotiating again now means they were taking their time before. Continuing past your drop dead date makes you seem weak. You can only do it so long before you lose all credibility.

The law suits will take time to provide any benefits. The longer the owners get them to wait the more likely the players break ranks. That's what the owners have counted on in the past.

[Scott Dierking]

Eh.

Most of this stuff is "who knows?" We have no idea what they are saying about the 18 game schedule, but considering that there is currently a lock out it's obvious there won't be one in 2011, so what exactly are the owners conceding?

As for an extension being a win for the players I say NO. There was a drop dead date. Everybody knew it. The owners to try to keep them negotiating again now means they were taking their time before. Continuing past your drop dead date makes you seem weak. You can only do it so long before you lose all credibility.

The law suits will take time to provide any benefits. The longer the owners get them to wait the more likely the players break ranks. That's what the owners have counted on in the past.

Eh

[#27TheDominator]

Eh

Agreed.

My question is this: If the owners are agreeing to a salary cap of $141M and then $161M doesn't that indicate that they admit defeat? It seems to me that the firm amount and lack of precentage of revenue indicates that not only don't the owners want to open the books, but they are looking to end the reason they would have to be opened. Raising the cap indicates the players were right. $141M for 2011 seems like a good deal for the players, but only another $20M in 3 years seems like it might lean the other way.

[Scott Dierking]

Agreed.

My question is this: If the owners are agreeing to a salary cap of $141M and then $161M doesn't that indicate that they admit defeat? It seems to me that the firm amount and lack of precentage of revenue indicates that not only don't the owners want to open the books, but they are looking to end the reason they would have to be opened. Raising the cap indicates the players were right. $141M for 2011 seems like a good deal for the players, but only another $20M in 3 years seems like it might lean the other way.

I had heard that the 141m represents "salary + benefits". I don't believe the old deal was worded as such??????

This begins to be a real game of semantics and who do you believe?

Would that figure actually be a reduction in salary, if benefits were not included before?

[#27TheDominator]

I had heard that the 141m represents "salary + benefits". I don't believe the old deal was worded as such??????

This begins to be a real game of semantics and who do you believe?

Would that figure actually be a reduction in salary, if benefits were not included before?

Quite possibly. It might mean that the players weren't so unreasonable in walking away from the table.

[Garb]

I have a question regarding the lockout. I admit I do not know much about it and I really don't want to understand every detail. I just want a deal done. However, I was reading somewhere where John Q. Public is supposed to feel bad for the players because they would have to pay for their own health benefits via COBRA during the lockout. Oh, boo-hoo, NFL Players. I've been part of a work reduction and had to continue my health benefits through COBRA. No offense to the Matt Slauson's and Kyle Arrignton's of the world but these players make more than me, so cry me a river NFL Players. (yes, they sacrifice limb....and boy do we know it.... but so do firemen, you know?)

Anyway, my question: the work stoppage qualifies an employee (former employee) to retain their health benefits through COBRA at the negotiated full company rate. Okay. But, and I know it's peanuts but it will pay for COBRA - since there is no work, are they eligible to collect unemployment? If there is no work, if they have been locked out, is that the same as being fired or is that the same as being suspended? And what of the "regular" employees that have been let go or furloughed? If you are furloughed for a week or two, do you maintain your benefits with no pay or is it no pay no benefits? And what of employees that have been let go because of the work stopage? Are Tom Brady, Drew Brees and Peyton Manning putting their names on a piece of paper for legal action on their behalf or will it be Kraft, Johnson and Jones?

[PFSIKH]

Quite possibly. It might mean that the players weren't so unreasonable in walking away from the table.

Really?

As much as I would like to side with the players, I find it a little disingenuous when they bring up safety and short careers and then walk away from the table and risk the lowest salaried player earning 320K/year missing possible pay checks.

[Blackout]

You are correct, they have no right.

BUT, if the owners are saying they should get an extra $1 billion off the top because of profitability issues, then the owners should back it up.

The NFLPA isn't asking for this financial info in a vacuum. It's directly related to the owner's claim that they are not as profitable as they should be.

you just served that cat

[Matt39]

Really?

As much as I would like to side with the players, I find it a little disingenuous when they bring up safety and short careers and then walk away from the table and risk the lowest salaried player earning 320K/year missing possible pay checks.

Unfortunately you have to sacrifice somewhere for the longterm benefit of the players.

[PFSIKH]

Unfortunately you have to sacrifice somewhere for the long term benefit of the players.

No doubt, but who are they sacrificing for? The older players that have numerous health problems? Or making sure the 320K first year player is taken care of?

I doubt it is the former.

[#27TheDominator]

Really?

As much as I would like to side with the players, I find it a little disingenuous when they bring up safety and short careers and then walk away from the table and risk the lowest salaried player earning 320K/year missing possible pay checks.

No doubt, but who are they sacrificing for? The older players that have numerous health problems? Or making sure the 320K first year player is taken care of?

I doubt it is the former.

To be honest, I don't give a flaming **** who they are "sacrificing" for. The fact is, if the roll over and beg so that the low salaried players can get their checks and their workout bonuses the players will always be under the thumb of the owners. That's the philosophy that the owners have counted on to ream them for decades. It doesn't matter if it is for retired vets, for young fringe players or fat cats, the NFL needs them all and if they stick together they will get a MAJOR improvement on the last deal as opposed to the reduction the owners were seeking.

[PFSIKH]

To be honest, I don't give a flaming **** who they are "sacrificing" for. The fact is, if the roll over and beg so that the low salaried players can get their checks and their workout bonuses the players will always be under the thumb of the owners. That's the philosophy that the owners have counted on to ream them for decades. It doesn't matter if it is for retired vets, for young fringe players or fat cats, the NFL needs them all and if they stick together they will get a MAJOR improvement on the last deal as opposed to the reduction the owners were seeking.

Mr. Irrelevant will make a minimum 320K, plus a small bonus (relatively speaking). Even practice squad players bank $5200/week whil eon a roster.

What major improvement are you looking for?

The players always win. It is only a matter on how much they win. IMHO they do not deserve to win any monetary gains, but long term health related goals.

[madmikeisback]

Mr. Irrelevant will make a minimum 320K, plus a small bonus (relatively speaking). Even practice squad players bank $5200/week whil eon a roster.

What major improvement are you looking for?

The players always win. It is only a matter on how much they win. IMHO they do not deserve to win any monetary gains, but long term health related goals.

1 That 320k isn't guaranteed and the average player only makes it for 2-3 years even if they make the team.

2 They players are asking for no monetary gains. They would be happy to play under the current system.

[#27TheDominator]

Mr. Irrelevant will make a minimum 320K, plus a small bonus (relatively speaking). Even practice squad players bank $5200/week whil eon a roster.

What major improvement are you looking for?

The players always win. It is only a matter on how much they win. IMHO they do not deserve to win any monetary gains, but long term health related goals.

I'm not arguing that the players should be pitied. I'm saying that the owners deserve to lose. They are the ones that wanted change when they were milking the system and getting away with murder by having a set up that doesn't exactly coincide with American labor and anti-trust laws.

As for the practice squad player, those guys work out 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year and are cut and brought back at the team's slightest whim and they can never count on that money. Google Keith Fitzhugh if you think the life of a practice squad or even fringe NFL roster player is cake.

[Garb]

I'm not arguing that the players should be pitied. I'm saying that the owners deserve to lose. They are the ones that wanted change when they were milking the system and getting away with murder by having a set up that doesn't exactly coincide with American labor and anti-trust laws.

As for the practice squad player, those guys work out 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year and are cut and brought back at the team's slightest whim and they can never count on that money. Google Keith Fitzhugh if you think the life of a practice squad or even fringe NFL roster player is cake.

Keith Fitzhugh made his run. He decided not to pursue it anymore and got a "steady" job. Hey good for him. Welcome to the real world....you know, that world where most people do not get free rides to college. The vast majority of these players went to school for free. Yah, many just used it as pro football practice. That's not my issue, it's their issue for not taking advantage of a gift.

Keith chose to pursue a football career when his chances where marginal. Sorry it did not work out but at least he had the fortutude to figure it out and take the path less glorious.

Anyway, find me a 20 year old college drop out (not named Gates) who makes the short term money that a practice quad player makes.

I am sorry, but I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone in this situation. The rich are in a pissing match with the richer. Meanwhile, gas prices are insane, people are still getting laid off and economy still blows chunks.

[donboyO]

Keith Fitzhugh made his run. He decided not to pursue it anymore and got a "steady" job. Hey good for him. Welcome to the real world....you know, that world where most people do not get free rides to college. The vast majority of these players went to school for free. Yah, many just used it as pro football practice. That's not my issue, it's their issue for not taking advantage of a gift.

Keith chose to pursue a football career when his chances where marginal. Sorry it did not work out but at least he had the fortutude to figure it out and take the path less glorious.

Anyway, find me a 20 year old college drop out (not named Gates) who makes the short term money that a practice quad player makes.

I am sorry, but I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone in this situation. The rich are in a pissing match with the richer. Meanwhile, gas prices are insane, people are still getting laid off and economy still blows chunks.

Sorry after 3 years of HS and then 3-4 years of college games and practice and then 2-3 yrs in NFL practice/games and these so called fortunate ones may make close to $1 million after 3 years and are walking with a cane by 50. These so called fortunate ones who happen to be among the 1500 best in the world at what they do, deserve every bit and more. Now go make me 100 copies i am running late to my meeting

[Garb]

Sorry after 3 years of HS and then 3-4 years of college games and practice and then 2-3 yrs in NFL practice/games and these so called fortunate ones may make close to $1 million after 3 years and are walking with a cane by 50. These so called fortunate ones who happen to be among the 1500 best in the world at what they do, deserve every bit and more. Now go make me 100 copies i am running late to my meeting

This cane thing is a bit exxagerated. I know a couple of former players. Both in the league for over five years, but less than ten. No one needs a cane. My dad worked construction for a very long time. He needs one.

I understand the need for health coverage. The entire nation is grappling with this same issue.

[Scott Dierking]

Keith Fitzhugh made his run. He decided not to pursue it anymore and got a "steady" job. Hey good for him. Welcome to the real world....you know, that world where most people do not get free rides to college. The vast majority of these players went to school for free. Yah, many just used it as pro football practice. That's not my issue, it's their issue for not taking advantage of a gift.

Keith chose to pursue a football career when his chances where marginal. Sorry it did not work out but at least he had the fortutude to figure it out and take the path less glorious.

Anyway, find me a 20 year old college drop out (not named Gates) who makes the short term money that a practice quad player makes.

I am sorry, but I have a hard time sympathizing with anyone in this situation. The rich are in a pissing match with the richer. Meanwhile, gas prices are insane, people are still getting laid off and economy still blows chunks.

There really is not a side to take here-one is just as bad as the other.

The owners will be developing new revenue streams with interactive marketing and capabilities, and the players are led by a first time negotiator in Smith who is looking to make a name for himself foremost and not looking soft in that process, rather than trying to hammer home an agreement that can woirk for both sides.

Neither side has the urgency to get a deal done, so we are stuck in this slow dance of PR ploy and posturing.

Ol' Dom 27, he is just a player sympathizer

[Scott Dierking]

Sorry after 3 years of HS and then 3-4 years of college games and practice and then 2-3 yrs in NFL practice/games and these so called fortunate ones may make close to $1 million after 3 years and are walking with a cane by 50. These so called fortunate ones who happen to be among the 1500 best in the world at what they do, deserve every bit and more. Now go make me 100 copies i am running late to my meeting

And even at League minimum salary, these players get to make more than 95% of the population.

Talk to a soldier, talk to a cop or fireman about not getting paid and poor job security

[donboyO]

This cane thing is a bit exxagerated. I know a couple of former players. Both in the league for over five years, but less than ten. No one needs a cane. My dad worked construction for a very long time. He needs one.

I understand the need for health coverage. The entire nation is grappling with this same issue.

No one is paying to watch your dad bang nails, these are entertainers generating huge sums of coin! If not a cane, they are getting their knees redone, hips replaced, shoulders and back surgeries. Small pension as well