A new CBA and no lock out soon to be announced?!?

[Skinzfan]

This from Rich Tandler's Real Redskins:

Forget about the Jets over the Colts in Super Bowl III and the Giants spoiling the Patriots’ perfect season in the Super Bowl a few years ago. We could be on the verge of seeing one of the biggest upsets in NFL history.

It appears that the NFL owners and players just might be headed to an agreement that would end a possible lockout before it ever really gets started.

According to Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports and some other sources, a dramatic turnaround has taken place that may, just may, lead to a new collective bargaining agreement sooner than anyone thought.

With both sides seemingly focused on winning rather than on coming to a reasonable compromise, thinks looked bleak going into yesterday’s 11th-hour mediation session. The over/under line for getting a deal done is sometime in August or early September. Even the most optimistic observers thought that it would be great if something could get done before the the April 28 draft. And you didn’t have to be too far on the doom and gloom side to see at least some of the season being lost to the labor strife.

But things turned around yesterday. Until Thursday, the owners line has been that the players had to take the billion-dollar per year pay cut, play 18 regular-season games, and take their proposal for a rookie salary cap or go pound sand.

But, for reasons unknown but that we will speculate on in a minute, the owners made some meaningful concessions. That sparked some hope, leading to the 24-hour extension.

It seems that the owners were spooked by the prospect of bringing the case to the courts, especially the court of Judge David Doty, whose rulings generally have not gone in favor of the owners. With the union set to decertify, the owners faced the prospect of the whole process being thrown to the courts, where they would lose control of the process. And if there is one thing that a business person hates it is not being in control.

So they will take a shot at actually negotiating instead of trying to pound the players into submission.

We will know by the end of the day today whether or not there will be labor peace or if all hell will break loose. Silver said, “if such an announcement [of another extension of 1-2 weeks] is made, both sides would view that as an almost ironclad statement that a deal is forthcoming – and a work stoppage will have been averted.”

That would be good news for all involved.

 

[Skinzfan]

Just found out the deadline has been extended to next Friday, March 11th.

The would not keep extending if they were not close to some kind of deal.

 

[Jimbo]

WOOHOO!!

My birthday is March 11. That would make a GREAT Birthday present for me.

 

[Boone]

There's always the possibility that both sides come to their senses and decide not to kill the golden goose - but I think that's a ridiculously optimistic take by Tandler. Everything I've read is that the sides are 3/4 of a billion - that's BILLION - dollars apart, and also haven't resolved some key issues.

Is the extension more promising than the lack of one? Of course. But if the above is anywhere near accurate, I can't see many scenarios where they find a way to meet in the middle anytime soon.

Hope I'm wrong.

 

[Jimbo]

Hope I'm wrong.

I think we ALL do.

The thought of a lockout and not having a free agency period BEFORE the draft could really slow down our rebuilding process. Being impatient to get back to a winning football team is one thing but being impatient to get back to football period is almost unthinkable.

 

[riggins44]

The court ruling earlier this week I believe changed the owners strategy. They now realize if the union decertifies they would likely lose again in court.

Had the court ruled they could use the $4 billion parachute, then the owners could have waited until the players agreed to their demands due to lack of income.

 

[the Omniscient]

I'll throw in a few more tidbits that I have heard.

1) The mediator was the one to really push for this extension.

2) The owners and players are not getting along at all and the cool heads in the room have been Demaurice Smith and Roger Goodell. From what I hear, they both want an agreement because this is their first time at the table.

3) The next deadline is going to be a 'harder' deadline to getting a deal done. There has to be massive movement to continue.

4) The owners really want Doty's jurisdiction removed. That cannot happen unless a deal expires, but if the deal expires then the players decertify.

 

[Boone]

Just to be even more specific, Goodell and Smith want an agreement because if there isn't one, one or both of them will be held accountable and suffer the full fury of fans. That being said, when many millions of dollars are in play, I think Goodell is going to find out that he doesn't hold the power/sway with the owners that maybe he's always liked to believe he holds.

Probably the best anyone can hope for is that they keep making *some* minor progress and keep extending it until the gulf between the two camps isn't so dauntingly wide.

 

[fansince62]

you know...in the end...neither the owners NOR the players give a damn about that fans. For the only time in my life I agree with Obama: this is a bunch of millionaires arguing with billionaires.

one thing I'd like to see: if the players capture a much bigger share of the pie...the league ends revenue sharing. fans in DC shouldn't be floating salaries in Green Bay.

 

[the Omniscient]

As an owner of the Skins, Boys...etc, I would hate revenue sharing. As a fan, I like it. IMO, the NFL is really competitive which is one of the reasons it is so great. The revenue sharing helps build competition.

As a fan, why do you hate revenue sharing?


Totally seperate question:

If there is a lockout this year, how will the draft order be determined next year? Have not heard anything about this. Wouldn't mind the Skins getting a chance for that #1 overall.

 

[Bulldog]

The owners cause most of their own problems.

They complain about salaries and revenue issues among the clubs but then we see an Albert Haynesworth signing or other BS move that is totally uncalled for.

There is no way ANY DT is worth $41M guaranteed and $100M overall.

 

[fansince62]

As an owner of the Skins, Boys...etc, I would hate revenue sharing. As a fan, I like it. IMO, the NFL is really competitive which is one of the reasons it is so great. The revenue sharing helps build competition.

As a fan, why do you hate revenue sharing?


Totally seperate question:

If there is a lockout this year, how will the draft order be determined next year? Have not heard anything about this. Wouldn't mind the Skins getting a chance for that #1 overall.

already stated: why should Skins fans float the Packers? if the local community can't support a team...too bad...so sad. there's no magic number for the right number of teams. I don't particularly care if there are 32 or 22 teams. I'm weary of income redistribution in any form...let the players realize what they are worth in negotiation...and let them share the risk in sustaining a franchise.

 

[the Omniscient]

I disagree that the owners are jacking up the salaries, unless of course you want to blame them for not signing a CBA that they were totally behind to begin with.

Now, there are a few outliers with Snyder and Al Davis spending too much on certain players over the last few years, but there is a salary cap. There is a minimum and maximum they can spend on the roster as a whole. How they choose to use that money is totally up to them. Some use it more wisely than others.

The terms of the salary cap was agreed to with the last CBA. That cap # has gone up because the league has done well, not because the owners are spending too much. Which in turn, allows certain owners to over spend on a position. When this happens it is detrimental to the rest of the team.

Name one team that has a given out huge, unworthy contracts that has been a contender. There is not one because there is not depth on those teams and those owners are impatient and look for the quick fix. Like Ralp Wilson a couple of years ago when he went nuts on the offensive line. I remember Dockery getting tons of bucks. Of course, the Bills failed.

Have the owners complained about the salaries? I thought they were trying to get the extra billion off the top in order to fix a lot of the stadiums. Most of the stadiums in the league are 20 plus years old.

 

[the Omniscient]

already stated: why should Skins fans float the Packers? if the local community can't support a team...too bad...so sad. there's no magic number for the right number of teams. I don't particularly care if there are 32 or 22 teams. I'm weary of income redistribution in any form...let the players realize what they are worth in negotiation...and let them share the risk in sustaining a franchise.

I view the NFL as one big corporation not several small competing businesses. I think for the betterment of the league you have revenue sharing so each team can compete. It will be a very sad day if they stop and let teams like the Packers fold. So much history with GB, Pittsburgh etc. You cannot allow those teams to go belly up. They are a huge part of why the NFL is successful and has turned into America's favorite past time.

Would you rather them move to Los Angelos and become the LA Packers. Trade the Frozen Tundra for the Smoggy Air. I wouldn't be happy about it. Now if the Jags move there, then fine.

I think they should help each other out. It is beneficial to everyone. Obviously they believe so as well, because they do it. Only a few owners object as far as I know.

As far as contraction, well, I believe you would have even less than 22 teams without revenue sharing. Let's say you did delete 10 teams, I don't know many people that would support something that dramatic.

 

[fansince62]

I view the NFL as one big corporation not several small competing businesses. I think for the betterment of the league you have revenue sharing so each team can compete. It will be a very sad day if they stop and let teams like the Packers fold. So much history with GB, Pittsburgh etc. You cannot allow those teams to go belly up. They are a huge part of why the NFL is successful and has turned into America's favorite past time.

Would you rather them move to Los Angelos and become the LA Packers. Trade the Frozen Tundra for the Smoggy Air. I wouldn't be happy about it. Now if the Jags move there, then fine.

I think they should help each other out. It is beneficial to everyone. Obviously they believe so as well, because they do it. Only a few owners object as far as I know.

As far as contraction, well, I believe you would have even less than 22 teams without revenue sharing. Let's say you did delete 10 teams, I don't know many people that would support something that dramatic.

here's the real point (i.e., my real agenda)....the players want what they perceive as ther fair share of the gross revenues....but they don't share in the financial risks. well.......let's adjust to what the market will bear.

your point-of-view is completely reasonable and rings true in many ways. I'm looking at this from a more abstract pov.

btw...so you're upset that the Colts moved to Indy and believe this ruined the product? and...from the clips I've seen...retired/ex raiduhs players believe the best years for that franchise were in LA. point being that franchises don't disappear - they move to better supported environments...and oftern prosper playing better football.

 

[Goaldeje]

FS, my only problem with your POV is that while the players may not share in the financial risks, they more than make up for it bc of the physical risks, both short term and long term. If they are going to sacrifice their long term mental health, AND the owners making them play more games, increasing the odds of serious injuries, the owners need to be prepared to pony up. My understanding so far is that the owners want to decrease the players pool, while asking them to accept more risk.

Not a tenable position.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

 

[servumtuum]

here's the real point (i.e., my real agenda)....the players want what they perceive as ther fair share of the gross revenues....but they don't share in the financial risks. well.......let's adjust to what the market will bear.

your point-of-view is completely reasonable and rings true in many ways. I'm looking at this from a more abstract pov.

btw...so you're upset that the Colts moved to Indy and believe this ruined the product? and...from the clips I've seen...retired/ex raiduhs players believe the best years for that franchise were in LA. point being that franchises don't disappear - they move to better supported environments...and oftern prosper playing better football.

Hmmm...I'm wondering then, would the conclusion be that "The Bottom Line", is indeed the bottom line? In other words, any other considerations would be classed as "expendable" if the bottom line were to be either threatened or, and more importantly, could be enhanced elswhere?

 

[fansince62]

FS, my only problem with your POV is that while the players may not share in the financial risks, they more than make up for it bc of the physical risks, both short term and long term. If they are going to sacrifice their long term mental health, AND the owners making them play more games, increasing the odds of serious injuries, the owners need to be prepared to pony up. My understanding so far is that the owners want to decrease the players pool, while asking them to accept more risk.

Not a tenable position.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device

1) The owners currently take the first billion of the 9 bil.
2) the players take 60% of the remaining 8 bil.
3) the players freely decide to be pro players.

What's the tenable position? You are trying to define what's fair. Fine. I'm saying financial risk plays into the equation and I'd drive this one home hard were I in charge. There's no bassis for your position either IN ACTUALLY SETTING THE TRADE-OFF POINT.

 

[the Omniscient]

btw...so you're upset that the Colts moved to Indy and believe this ruined the product? and...from the clips I've seen...retired/ex raiduhs players believe the best years for that franchise were in LA. point being that franchises don't disappear - they move to better supported environments...and oftern prosper playing better football.

I am not upset about the Colts moving, I was a youngin. If I really paid attention to the NFL then, like I do now, I would probably be upset. I would definitely be upset if I cheered and supported that team for 30 years.

However, i think it is hard to compare the Colts moving from Baltimore in 1984 to the Packers moving from GB in 2011. One team moved after 30 years, granted, that is rough. But it would be tougher to move after 90 years. Plus the NFL is more popular today than it was in 1984. Baseball was still considered the big sport back then, was it not? I could be wrong on that.

If historic teams are contracted or moved because of a lack of income, it will ruin the product. People feel connected to these teams. I am not a Packers fan, but I would sure feel a loss if they moved or folded. It would deminish the product. I like watching the Packers because I know they have been around since the beginning. There is history there, they are an original.

Teams like the Packers, Bears, Redskins, Giants, and etc., helped pave the way for the rest of league. They are pioneers, they did the dirty work and they should be able to continue.

I typed out a long hypothetical situation, but decided to delete it. So I will make this simple. If the Skins and Pack switched positions and there was no revenue sharing, would you support the Skins moving or folding? After the years you have supported them.

How would you feel? Would you not care? Would you think there is something wrong with the football structure when the newer teams can make huge amounts of cash and support themselves, but the foundation of the league is crumbling?

It is always fine until it happens to you.

It would be hard for me to support a league that allowed historic teams to move and or contract. Especially when there are teams that make enough to help support the entire structure.

What would the big market teams do with the extra cash flow? Spend more on players? Buy more yachts and mansions?

Bottomline is I think the league is fantastic just the way it is. I don't think any changes need to be made. Now if the Jags move, I am fine. But if the Skins, Bear, Pack, Steelers, or Giants have to move or contract, I am going to be very upset.

 

[Goaldeje]

1) The owners currently take the first billion of the 9 bil.
2) the players take 60% of the remaining 8 bil.
3) the players freely decide to be pro players.

What's the tenable position? You are trying to define what's fair. Fine. I'm saying financial risk plays into the equation and I'd drive this one home hard were I in charge. There's no bassis for your position either IN ACTUALLY SETTING THE TRADE-OFF POINT.

You're too hyperbolic. Again, i think we are thinking similarly. The players physical and mental health needs to be acknowledged and cared for, and the the owners are taking the financial risks. Both sides have something to lose, so both sides should be willing to enter into the give and take process. The owners position to this point seems to be they want players to take more risks (18 games), while also substantially reducing their income/benefits. Given the shameful way the league has treated ex players, the current players are right to fight for as much as they can get now.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device