Resistance for owners mounts

[F.Chowds]

An internal battle is percolating at some of the highest NFL circles in which some owners are resisting the labor deal they've been trying to negotiate with the players, according to multiple sources.

A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources.

It is one of the primary reasons team officials are being prepped to stay an extra night in Chicago at Tuesday's owners meetings. It's not to potentially vote on a new collective bargaining agreement, as many suspected; it actually is to try to fend off some of the resistance that is mounting from a handful of NFL owners, according to sources.

A pushback from the owners' side has been apparent since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.

Some of this resistance has caused the NFL to adjust its schedule next week, moving up the time of Tuesday's meeting and prepping teams to potentially have to stay into Wednesday. The league is bracing for internal negotiations and lobbying that will impact how soon football could return.

The surprise is that many thought this kind of pushback to a deal would occur within the player ranks, not among NFL owners.

In reality, the resistance has been there since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote of the owners to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.

After the players decertified, owners were briefed on Goodell's offer and some felt it was too one sided for the players and not strong enough for the teams. Those teams never changed their feelings, and recently they have made this directly known to Goodell, according to a source.

Now that the two sides have begun to make some significant progress within the past week, some owners are pushing back against the deal again, according to sources.

This subplot comes at a time when the NFL and NFLPA have made considerable progress, much of it on broad-picture items. The two sides, according to a source, have agreed to an unofficial timeline as to how events such as training camp and free agency would play out if the two sides could come to an agreement on the more significant elements of the deal.

One NFL executive has been urging the league for weeks that, in order for the full preseason schedule to be played, an agreement between the NFL and NFLPA would have to occur no later than July 14.

This would give the courts time to approve the agreement, the NFLPA time to recertify, 32 teams and approximately 2,000 agents the time they would need to be debriefed on the new NFL rules, and players the time they need to get into camp and get in shape for the preseason.

There is a lot for both sides to get through. However, none of it can happen without an agreement that is closer than it has been in months but still a ways away on the most significant points -- division of revenues and jurisdiction over the next collective bargaining agreement.

Some owners clearly want football and are willing to meet the players' price. But others, remembering 2006, when a CBA that seemingly favored the players was thought to have been rushed through, want to make sure that they don't make the same mistake.

Adam Schefter is ESPN's NFL Insider.

[Klecko73isGod]

Small market owners like Mike Brown and Jerry Richardson need to STFU and realize that their existence in the league depends on the Jets and Giants and Cowboys and Patriots and teams that people actually give a sh*t about.

You contribute nothing and take an equal share asshead. Just shut up and deposit your TV money in the bank and let the rest of us enjoy football.

[F.Chowds]

These billionaires are hell bent on ruining Sunday's this fall. I don't think they realize in this economy nobody care about their financial woes, we just need a escape from all the stress and pressure of our own financial issues. a$$ holes.

[bitonti]

people say it is owners vs players but it has always been owners vs owners... they have only recently started to negotiate "for real" and lo and behold the owners aren't on the same page.

[T0mShane]

Small market owners like Mike Brown and Jerry Richardson need to STFU and realize that their existence in the league depends on the Jets and Giants and Cowboys and Patriots and teams that people actually give a sh*t about.

No.

[flgreen]

people say it is owners vs players but it has always been owners vs owners... they have only recently started to negotiate "for real" and lo and behold the owners aren't on the same page.

The real conflict between the owners is the small market teams getting an equal share with the bigger teams. This is what makes the NFL so interesting. The problem is that some of the small market owners won't put the money back in their teams. Serious problem.

I don't understand why this should be a part of the CBA, and the negotiations with the players. How the owners split their part of the profit up should be a separate issue decided outside of the agreement with the players.

What's really holding this all up is how much of the pie are the players going to get, and in what form. Otherwise, if the owners decide in 2 years that they aren't making enough money to make their $Billion + investments worth while, we'll be here again

[Klecko73isGod]

No.

When was the last time anyone outside of Cincinnati said to themselves, "man, I can't wait to see the Bengals play this Sunday!"

I'll tell you exectly when - never. It literally has never happened.

No one is buying the NFL package on Direct TV to see the Panthers play every week.

[T0mShane]

When was the last time anyone outside of Cincinnati said to themselves, "man, I can't wait to see the Bengals play this Sunday!"

I'll tell you exectly when - never. It literally has never happened.

No one is buying the NFL package on Direct TV to see the Panthers play every week.

I'll venture a guess that when the Bengals and Carolina were playing in Super Bowls, plenty of people watched them. If Jerry Jones and Danny get their way, you can basically put tombstones on those franchises, along with Green Bay, San Diego, Tampa, etc.

[BaumerJet]

It's Mike Brown (Bengals) and Ralph Wilson Jr. (Bills).

What do you expect from two men who were so totally against the last CBA and had stated as early as May 12, 2011 that they would not support the new one.

[Klecko73isGod]

I'll venture a guess that when the Bengals and Carolina were playing in Super Bowls, plenty of people watched them. If Jerry Jones and Danny get their way, you can basically put tombstones on those franchises, along with Green Bay, San Diego, Tampa, etc.

The Bengals played in two SBs, the most recent being 23 years ago. No one cares about them other than Bengals fans in the greater Cincinnati area. They do nothing to add value to the league in general.

The Panthers have played in one Super Bowl 7 years ago and they have been terrible since then. No one cares about them. They add no value to the league.

If the Bengals and Panthers folded tomorrow, it would not impact the TV contracts at all. Get it?

[flgreen]

The Bengals played in two SBs, the most recent being 23 years ago. No one cares about them other than Bengals fans in the greater Cincinnati area. They do nothing to add value to the league in general.

The Panthers have played in one Super Bowl 7 years ago and they have been terrible since then. No one cares about them. They add no value to the league.

If the Bengals and Panthers folded tomorrow, it would not impact the TV contracts at all. Get it?

The Jets had the first pick in the draft 2 years in a row. Nobody really card about them except late night comics, and crazy Jets fans like us.

[Klecko73isGod]

The Jets had the first pick in the draft 2 years in a row. Nobody really card about them except late night comics, and crazy Jets fans like us.

Even at their worst, the Jets generated more revenue for the league than the Bills.

What needs to happen at the owners meeting next week is a Jerry Jones or a Bob Kraft have to sit Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson down and explain reality to them - "you add no value whatsoever to this league yet we give you an equal share of the revenue. Owners like myself and the Maras have made you multi-gazillionaires when we could have cut your worthless asses loose years ago. Shut the **** up, let the people who know what they are doing take care of business and continue to deposit your TV check like a good little boy."

[T0mShane]

The Bengals played in two SBs, the most recent being 23 years ago. No one cares about them other than Bengals fans in the greater Cincinnati area. They do nothing to add value to the league in general.

The Panthers have played in one Super Bowl 7 years ago and they have been terrible since then. No one cares about them. They add no value to the league.

If the Bengals and Panthers folded tomorrow, it would not impact the TV contracts at all. Get it?

By this logic, the Jets should have been contracted 40 years ago.

[Bugg]

I'll venture a guess that when the Bengals and Carolina were playing in Super Bowls, plenty of people watched them. If Jerry Jones and Danny get their way, you can basically put tombstones on those franchises, along with Green Bay, San Diego, Tampa, etc.

As long as there is hard cap, they will always be competitive. But it's not realistic to think Jones, Kraft, Lurie, the McCaskeys, Snyder, Mara/Tisch/Woody are going to sink billions into new revenue-rich stadiums, much of it financed with debt in a shrinking economy, to share it with a bunch of skinflints in small markets.The dominance long-term of big market teams is inevitable. Take the TV check, brag about owning an NFL franchise and be quiet.

And as to Buffalo, spare us the violins. Move to goddamn Toronto already and be done with it; the Bills become a big market team. The one guy I know who lives in Buffalo commutes to his job in...Toronto.

[Klecko73isGod]

By this logic, the Jets should have been contracted 40 years ago.

I know many woe-is-me, SOJ sadsack schmucks like yourself think that. But venture outside of NY once in a while. The Jets have long been significantly more popular nationally than you think.

Winning has little to do with it. A large number of fans give a sh*t about the Jets. It's a big part of the reason why they sold for significantly more money in the late 90s than teams that got sold as much as five years later did. That's called reality my friend.

The Packers are a small market club but they add to the overall value of the league, same goes for the Steelers and Colts.

The Bengals and Bills are a joke.

[JetsFanInDenver]

There goes the early July deadline set by the media!!!!

If either side goes with the i have to win this negotiation mentality this season is not happening!!!

[Damaged89]

I have never seen a picture of Jerry Richardson, but I have an unshakable mental image of him. Something like Mr. Burns crossed with Gollum shouting "get off my lawn".

[T0mShane]

As long as there is hard cap, they will always be competitive. But it's not realistic to think Jones, Kraft, Lurie, the McCaskeys, Snyder, Mara/Tisch/Woody are going to sink billions into new revenue-rich stadiums, much of it financed with debt in a shrinking economy, to share it with a bunch of skinflints in small markets.The dominance long-term of big market teams is inevitable. Take the TV check, brag about owning an NFL franchise and be quiet.

And as to Buffalo, spare us the violins. Move to goddamn Toronto already and be done with it; the Bills become a big market team. The one guy I know who lives in Buffalo commutes to his job in...Toronto.

The NFL would have been dead in the water without profit-sharing and it would rapidly turn into a ****fest if profit-sharing is compromised, IMO. The NFL is a premium product because of its parity, period. The fact that New England can get blown out by the Bills on any given Sunday is what keeps people watching and keeps degenerates gambling. They want to jeopardize that because Woody and Mara built a giant sh*tbox that they can't fill, or because Jerry Jones built a 100k seat arena that he has to actually pay for? **** 'em. They wanted the players to pay for it and now (because it sounds like they're going to settle for a redux of their previous CBA) they're going to take it out on the small markets, in the process cutting their noses off to spite their face. They should look at the attendance numbers for the next Yankees-Royals series to see what they can look forward to.

[T0mShane]

I know many woe-is-me, SOJ sadsack schmucks like yourself think that. But venture outside of NY once in a while. The Jets have long been significantly more popular nationally than you think.

Winning has little to do with it. A large number of fans give a sh*t about the Jets. It's a big part of the reason why they sold for significantly more money in the late 90s than teams that got sold as much as five years later did. That's called reality my friend.

The Packers are a small market club but they add to the overall value of the league, same goes for the Steelers and Colts.

The Bengals and Bills are a joke.

So, you're saying that the Jets were the most popular 1-15 team in the history of Jacksonville's sports-viewing public?

[BaumerJet]

Even at their worst, the Jets generated more revenue for the league than the Bills.

What needs to happen at the owners meeting next week is a Jerry Jones or a Bob Kraft have to sit Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson down and explain reality to them - "you add no value whatsoever to this league yet we give you an equal share of the revenue. Owners like myself and the Maras have made you multi-gazillionaires when we could have cut your worthless asses loose years ago. Shut the **** up, let the people who know what they are doing take care of business and continue to deposit your TV check like a good little boy."

I agree & if I was Goodell I would also advise the two of them that they are on the short list for the team that moves to LA & Toronto. If they are so desperate for revenue, there are two city sites that can give them the same revenue as the major locations and if they don't like it, the NFL can always get someone to buy their franchises.

Plain & Simply put!

[NYJ37/12]

I agree & if I was Goodell I would also advise the two of them that they are on the short list for the team that moves to LA & Toronto. If they are so desperate for revenue, there are two city sites that can give them the same revenue as the major locations and if they don't like it, the NFL can always get someone to buy their franchises.

Plain & Simply put!

The good news is they only need 25 votes to approve a new deal.

[Klecko73isGod]

So, you're saying that the Jets were the most popular 1-15 team in the history of Jacksonville's sports-viewing public?

The Jets were 1-15 and then two years later were in the AFC Championship game - the Bengals had 14 straight losing seasons and the Bills last made the playoffs during which millenium?

Not to mention that playing in the largest media market in the world automatically gives them a larger fanbase than teams that play in media markets outside the top 25.

So yeah, the Jets probably were the most popular 1-15 team in history.

[PFSIKH]

The NFL would have been dead in the water without profit-sharing and it would rapidly turn into a ****fest if profit-sharing is compromised, IMO. The NFL is a premium product because of its parity, period. The fact that New England can get blown out by the Bills on any given Sunday is what keeps people watching and keeps degenerates gambling. They want to jeopardize that because Woody and Mara built a giant sh*tbox that they can't fill, or because Jerry Jones built a 100k seat arena that he has to actually pay for? **** 'em. They wanted the players to pay for it and now (because it sounds like they're going to settle for a redux of their previous CBA) they're going to take it out on the small markets, in the process cutting their noses off to spite their face. They should look at the attendance numbers for the next Yankees-Royals series to see what they can look forward to.

There is no doubt the NFL is what it is today because the Maras agreed to revenue sharing back in the late 50s/60s.

However, the amount of money to stay relevant (i.e. bonuses) is becoming a greater divide between the haves and have nots.

It is not like MLB all of sudden adopted an economic system in the 90s that heavily favored the rich teams. As salaries increased, the difference between the top and bottom spending teams grew. It no longer became feasible for an owner like Ewing Kaufman to subsidize the Royals and remain a billionaire.

While different circumstances, the NFL has slid down this path. The salary cap has only slowed it down. What New England would need to entice a star free agent (save your jokes only an example) to Foxboro is probably less than what Buffalo would need to get someone to want to be in Buffalo for most of the winter.

As long as a salary cap and the adoption of a floor remains, parity will remain. For as much as you want to tout parity, Lions, Buffalo and the Raiders have sucked for a long time. Pittsburgh, Indy and New England have had a long period of success that should have ended by now.

It is a billion dollar league, but cities like Cincinnati and Buffalo are not. It is what it is.

[jason423]

There is no doubt the NFL is what it is today because the Maras agreed to revenue sharing back in the late 50s/60s.

However, the amount of money to stay relevant (i.e. bonuses) is becoming a greater divide between the haves and have nots.

It is not like MLB all of sudden adopted an economic system in the 90s that heavily favored the rich teams. As salaries increased, the difference between the top and bottom spending teams grew. It no longer became feasible for an owner like Ewing Kaufman to subsidize the Royals and remain a billionaire.

While different circumstances, the NFL has slid down this path. The salary cap has only slowed it down. What New England would need to entice a star free agent (save your jokes only an example) to Foxboro is probably less than what Buffalo would need to get someone to want to be in Buffalo for most of the winter.

As long as a salary cap and the adoption of a floor remains, parity will remain. For as much as you want to tout parity, Lions, Buffalo and the Raiders have sucked for a long time. Pittsburgh, Indy and New England have had a long period of success that should have ended by now.

It is a billion dollar league, but cities like Cincinnati and Buffalo are not. It is what it is.

It has nothing to do with bonuses. It has everything to do with how much of a profit those small market teams are willing to play at. Their big issue is the fact that teams like the Giants and Jets build these corporate stadiums that bring in huge sums of money to the Giants and Jets owners and at the same time drive up revenue for the players all the while the big market gets money from the league to help finance the stadium. Buts its not like the Bills are losing money nor have they ever claimed to be losing money. Their problem is that they see a team like the Jets potentially making 20 million a year and seeing the value of the franchise go up while they will only make 5 or 6 million a year if they do the same cap spending those teams do.

With the exception of the Florida and maybe California teams the location makes almost no difference to a player. Did the Jets have to overpay for every free agent they signed when Mangini was here and the team stunk? Totally. Did anyone really want to play here pre Parcells unless they were desperate for a chance to still play? Money and winning are what draws players. People want to play in Green Bay. Is that much better than Buffalo? Is Pittsburgh? No. Did TO sign in Buffalo and Cincy? Yes he did, because they were the people to make him an offer he liked. If you luck into the right QB you are going to be a successful franchise for a long time regardless of your market that you are in.

[jason423]

For some reason this story to me just seems like the owners throwing something out there to try to enhance their bargaining position just a bit more. There are two owners that will be against any deal and if that a primary source its a worthless story. If its some other owners its probably posturing. Get the two sides to agree that this need to be hammered out by July 4th, come to an agreement on the framework of the deal (which you know the players will agree to as a union when they "bring it back"), and then start to leak out that the owner side just isnt happy with Goodell. Goodell goes back to the players, after they think they already have a deal done and are itching to get paid, and says I cant get my guys to agree. Ive got these 5 owners that just wont say yes. We need the game back and if you just give me an inch I can get 2 of those guys on board and force the other owners into the agreement and nobody misses a paycheck. Tell the players not to worry since I know our big market guys are going to spend up to the cap to keep 75% of your players happy.

[Maxman]

Jason's posts are worth the read every single time. Good stuff...

[Larz]

"according to sources"

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[T0mShane]

Jason's posts are worth the read every single time. Good stuff...

Word.

[Lupz27]

Im hearing the main problem these owners are having with this new deal is that the big market owners are willing to raise the cap floor to satisfy the players so the owners get something they want back in return, and also force the bengals, and bills spend more of the free money they recieve. The small market owners don't want that and that is the problem internally right now with the owners.

[Bleedin Green]

Im hearing the main problem these owners are having with this new deal is that the big market owners are willing to raise the cap floor to satisfy the players so the owners get something they want back in return, and also force the bengals, and bills spend more of the free money they recieve. The small market owners don't want that and that is the problem internally right now with the owners.

If that's really the issue then I only have one thing to say to that: **** the small market owners. Give credit to the big market owners that they're looking to make that concession, as that's what negotiation is all about and becomes something the players are legitimately getting back in return for what I imagine are concessions they will be giving on their side. If the small market owners want to get more money (much of it which isn't even earned by their own team) AND not have to spend a single cent more, well you know what? Too f'n bad.

[Lupz27]

If that's really the issue then I only have one thing to say to that: **** the small market owners. Give credit to the big market owners that they're looking to make that concession, as that's what negotiation is all about and becomes something the players are legitimately getting back in return for what I imagine are concessions they will be giving on their side. If the small market owners want to get more money (much of it which isn't even earned by their own team) AND not have to spend a single cent more, well you know what? Too f'n bad.

Exactly. These small market owners have some balls they want a bigger piece and just pocket it. The players are conceding that bigger piece as long as they know there gonna get it back in contract money by raising the floor. And the big owners see that as a HUGE win win for them cause they never go near the floor so **** it.

[PFSIKH]

It has nothing to do with bonuses. It has everything to do with how much of a profit those small market teams are willing to play at. Their big issue is the fact that teams like the Giants and Jets build these corporate stadiums that bring in huge sums of money to the Giants and Jets owners and at the same time drive up revenue for the players all the while the big market gets money from the league to help finance the stadium. Buts its not like the Bills are losing money nor have they ever claimed to be losing money. Their problem is that they see a team like the Jets potentially making 20 million a year and seeing the value of the franchise go up while they will only make 5 or 6 million a year if they do the same cap spending those teams do.

With the exception of the Florida and maybe California teams the location makes almost no difference to a player. Did the Jets have to overpay for every free agent they signed when Mangini was here and the team stunk? Totally. Did anyone really want to play here pre Parcells unless they were desperate for a chance to still play? Money and winning are what draws players. People want to play in Green Bay. Is that much better than Buffalo? Is Pittsburgh? No. Did TO sign in Buffalo and Cincy? Yes he did, because they were the people to make him an offer he liked. If you luck into the right QB you are going to be a successful franchise for a long time regardless of your market that you are in.

What is the only real money a player earns? Bonuses.

If you want to gain the attention of a free agent player, what do you probably need the most of? A Bonus.

If you want to keep that QB sensation after his first contract, especially if a rookie wage scale is adopted, what are they going to want in a large amount? A bonus.

Why is New England and Indianapolis still relevant? They kept their respective great QBs with a few big bonuses.

I totally agree, most of the success an NFL team can have is finding that above average QB and developing a winning culture. No arguments there. Green Bay was a wasteland between Superbowl II and Farve and Rodgers. Brady. Manning. Matty Ice. Terry Bradshaw and Big Ben.

While I am sure the Mike Brown's of the league are happy to see a profit and could care less about putting a good product on the field. There are small(er) market owners that probably want to win. By virtue of their markets they will never be on equal footing. As I said previously, with escalating salaries the amount of bonuses paid out is growing every year.

The bottom line is, it is about bonuses. Unless the economic structure changes with a new CBA, players will want large ones and they will come out of the team's bank accounts.

[jason423]

What is the only real money a player earns? Bonuses.

If you want to gain the attention of a free agent player, what do you probably need the most of? A Bonus.

If you want to keep that QB sensation after his first contract, especially if a rookie wage scale is adopted, what are they going to want in a large amount? A bonus.

Why is New England and Indianapolis still relevant? They kept their respective great QBs with a few big bonuses.

I totally agree, most of the success an NFL team can have is finding that above average QB and developing a winning culture. No arguments there. Green Bay was a wasteland between Superbowl II and Farve and Rodgers. Brady. Manning. Matty Ice. Terry Bradshaw and Big Ben.

While I am sure the Mike Brown's of the league are happy to see a profit and could care less about putting a good product on the field. There are small(er) market owners that probably want to win. By virtue of their markets they will never be on equal footing. As I said previously, with escalating salaries the amount of bonuses paid out is growing every year.

The bottom line is, it is about bonuses. Unless the economic structure changes with a new CBA, players will want large ones and they will come out of the team's bank accounts.

It has zero to do with bonuses. All a bonus essentially is is an advance on future salaries. Its not like the Bills cant pay somebody a bonus. Its not like they cant match bonus for bonus with the Jets. Most bonuses are not lump sum payouts. Some are, but most are paid over a period of one-two years no different than a salary which is paid out in weekly installments. These teams all have the money for it and the cap ceiling gives them the opportunity to keep up with the Woody's and Jones' of the world. Its a question about how much money the small market owner feels they should pocket in relation to the big market team. As the cap floor rises their profit is reduced and they dont feel that its fair for the cap rules to hurt them more than it does the guys at the top who dont care about the floor. But its not like if the league rolls back the cap from 130 million to 115 million that the Bills will be more competitive or have more money to spend. They will just keep operating the same as they always have and simply pocket an extra few million every year.

[Jetsfan80]

I have never seen a picture of Jerry Richardson, but I have an unshakable mental image of him. Something like Mr. Burns crossed with Gollum shouting "get off my lawn".

You're really not that far off.

[T0mShane]

It has zero to do with bonuses. All a bonus essentially is is an advance on future salaries. Its not like the Bills cant pay somebody a bonus. Its not like they cant match bonus for bonus with the Jets. Most bonuses are not lump sum payouts. Some are, but most are paid over a period of one-two years no different than a salary which is paid out in weekly installments. These teams all have the money for it and the cap ceiling gives them the opportunity to keep up with the Woody's and Jones' of the world. Its a question about how much money the small market owner feels they should pocket in relation to the big market team. As the cap floor rises their profit is reduced and they dont feel that its fair for the cap rules to hurt them more than it does the guys at the top who dont care about the floor. But its not like if the league rolls back the cap from 130 million to 115 million that the Bills will be more competitive or have more money to spend. They will just keep operating the same as they always have and simply pocket an extra few million every year.

Great post. I think the anxiety that Ralph Wilson, etc, is feeling stems from the fear that Jones and Snyder will raise the floor to placate the players, then turn around and slash the nut that gets passed on to the small markets in profit-sharing. They set out to get the extra billion off the top of revenues to offset that likely reality (essentially having the players pay off the small markets instead of the high-revenue clubs). If, through negotiations, the owners don't get the extra billion and they still (likely) compromise revenue sharing, the small markets are up sh*t's creek, incapable of affording a paddle.