PDA

View Full Version : Labor negotiations 80-85 percent complete?


Splat
06-14-2011, 08:06 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/15231374/nfl-source-labor-negotiations-8085-percent-complete/rss

One source with intimate knowledge of the discussions tells me negotiations are 80-85 percent complete. They've made such fast progress, I'm told, it's catching many of the principals by surprise. Some are now canceling vacations, believing an agreement will be reached within a matter of days.At this point I don't really believe anything I hear or read but one can hope.

jack1077
06-14-2011, 08:12 PM
I believe it when i see it, till then i'll enjoy watching players antagonise cops and smoke pot.

niel89
06-15-2011, 12:51 AM
Its nice to hear something positive for a change. I think that both sides are coming closer to realizing that they just need something.

SolidGold
06-15-2011, 11:55 AM
Looks like bringing the lawyers back info the fold almost screwed things up again:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6663832

vidae
06-15-2011, 12:01 PM
I don't believe it.

scottyboy
06-15-2011, 12:26 PM
I believe it when i see it, till then i'll enjoy watching players antagonise cops and smoke pot.

watch your mouth, if you take another shot at Kenny Britt I will end your existance

jack1077
06-15-2011, 01:34 PM
watch your mouth, if you take another shot at Kenny Britt I will end your existance

hahahaha poor Britt. At least he didn't shoot himself in the leg.

Jimmy
06-15-2011, 03:45 PM
There's really no way at all to tell anymore. Don't believe anything you hear or say until it is lifted.

Sloopy
06-18-2011, 11:17 AM
When they say 80-85 percent complete, in my head I just see a loading screen with an hour glass curser labeled LaborNegotiations.exe

Either its over and a deal has been reached or it hasn't. Putting a percentage on it is asinine; how does one judge how complete they are? Just another way of saying there is no news yet but we are going to talk it to death like it's news anyway.

General Zod
06-18-2011, 06:38 PM
Sounds like some of the owners are still dragging there feet.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6671873

2 AFC teams? It doesnt say, but Id guess its Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson.

Rabscuttle
06-19-2011, 09:51 AM
At least two AFC teams. Bengals and Bills for sure. Part of the negotiations are moving the salary floor to 90% of the cap. Ross is a douche that thinks people outside of his class are all overpaid so I would expect him to be one of the problem children.

If your team's owner is near the floor on a regular basis, expect him to be part of the holdup.

cmarq83
06-19-2011, 05:36 PM
At least two AFC teams. Bengals and Bills for sure. Part of the negotiations are moving the salary floor to 90% of the cap. Ross is a douche that thinks people outside of his class are all overpaid so I would expect him to be one of the problem children.

If your team's owner is near the floor on a regular basis, expect him to be part of the holdup.

When I saw that story break at first I immediately knew who the two owners were. I would love to see the salary floor happen it would greatly improve the parity of the league although it would be difficult for certain teams to survive in this new climate.

I think the owners can get what they want if they loosen the restrictions on player movement, and put in a rookie cap with short initial contracts. Get rid of franchise tags and RFA, and replace it with a system that gives teams the right to match any offer, but does not award compensation. That way each side can feel like they've won something which I think is half of what this about anyways.

Dam8610
06-19-2011, 08:53 PM
When I saw that story break at first I immediately knew who the two owners were. I would love to see the salary floor happen it would greatly improve the parity of the league although it would be difficult for certain teams to survive in this new climate.

I think the owners can get what they want if they loosen the restrictions on player movement, and put in a rookie cap with short initial contracts. Get rid of franchise tags and RFA, and replace it with a system that gives teams the right to match any offer, but does not award compensation. That way each side can feel like they've won something which I think is half of what this about anyways.

I HIGHLY doubt the franchise tag and RFA go anywhere. That would be a complete concession by the owners and would make the most cash rich teams loaded. The players haven't even made an indication that they want the franchise tag or RFA to go away, so I don't see either of those things happening.

LonghornsLegend
06-19-2011, 09:40 PM
I only want to see the franchise tag lifted because it's interesting to see guys changing teams in their prime. Makes FA more interesting, the season more interesting, and would probably increase trades if you don't think he'll re-sign in which you can always get compensation that way.


Then again those reasons are purely selfish by me and have nothing to do with how it affects the teams, but it'd sure as hell be more interesting. That said, it's not going anywhere I agree.

cmarq83
06-19-2011, 10:22 PM
I HIGHLY doubt the franchise tag and RFA go anywhere. That would be a complete concession by the owners and would make the most cash rich teams loaded. The players haven't even made an indication that they want the franchise tag or RFA to go away, so I don't see either of those things happening.

I certainly don't think it's going to happen, but if it was me that's the way I'd go about trying to make a deal. Raise the cap floor and reduce the restrictions in player movement in exchange for a little giveback in overall revenue sharing. The franchise tag is pretty hated amongst players, and I'm sure they're not too crazy about RFA either. The current 60-40 split probably should be shifted a bit more towards the owners, but I don't think the players are going to take a lesser deal so I'd try to go about it in a different way. If they have more freedom to secure their financial futures when they actually deserve it I think they'd take a little less in an overall deal. I haven't heard any indication that this has been discussed, but it's at least an idea.

Also if the cap floor is closer to the salary cap then the difference in this system for cash strapped teams provides a lesser advantage to the financial juggernauts. Perhaps they could take some of this giveback from the players in the form of revenue sharing and put it towards small market owners meeting this cap floor. This would make the small market owners more likely to vote for the deal, and allow the big market teams to not miss any games which they can't afford to miss.

nepg
06-20-2011, 02:50 AM
I don't even care anymore. Which is contradicted by me even posting in this thread. Just cancel the season so the NFL can see how fickle the fans really are... They don't think what happened to baseball can happen to them? They're ******* wrong...it's already started.

LonghornsLegend
06-20-2011, 03:59 PM
Is anyone else worried that this lockout is gonna cause alot more injuries in Training Camp(if we have one) and during the season? Some guys really do need someone telling them, or forcing them to workout. If all of a sudden we jump right into a shortened training camp and then pre-season, I wouldn't be shocked to see injuries pile up.

TitanHope
06-20-2011, 04:08 PM
Is anyone else worried that this lockout is gonna cause alot more injuries in Training Camp(if we have one) and during the season? Some guys really do need someone telling them, or forcing them to workout. If all of a sudden we jump right into a shortened training camp and then pre-season, I wouldn't be shocked to see injuries pile up.

I'm not sure, but there could be an issue with the rookies and FA's. The vets are hosting these player organized workouts, but if they're still under contract, then they don't have as much to lose if they injur themselves. The rookies haven't been signed yet and the FA's aren't under contract, so they're probably scaling back and not going as hard with their workouts, which could possibly put them behind the other players come time for the season to start. Whether that'll lend to being more succeptible to injury, I'm not sure.

wogitalia
06-20-2011, 11:16 PM
Also if the cap floor is closer to the salary cap then the difference in this system for cash strapped teams provides a lesser advantage to the financial juggernauts.

Not entirely true unfortunately. Whilst it will force them to spend more on player payments it will just create a greater disparity in all the other forms of spending and investment as a proportionately greater amount of their funds is poured into the players.

It would be interesting to see where there is a greater disparity, I would have thought that it would have been in relation to the other forms of expenditure that the cash strapped teams would be more restricted rather than player payments.

I can certainly see the franchise tag going but I'd be shocked if RFA went as well, at least entirely.

I really only expect that the owners will get a rookie scale system, outside that I don't think they will get much, but given that is probably the most important thing from a parity/performance side that has been discussed, that would be a huge win.

SativaDominant
06-21-2011, 12:18 PM
Sounds like some of the owners are still dragging there feet.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6671873

2 AFC teams? It doesnt say, but Id guess its Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson.

Yup. They're the only two who voted against the last CBA agreement.

asdf1223
06-21-2011, 01:25 PM
So its going to be 48% for the players down from 60% but without the 1billion thats taken now. Also a 16 game Thursday schedule rookie wage scale are also on the cards. They also plan to raise the salary cap floor to around 90-93% of total cap which is being opposed by small market teams(why am I not surprised).
Also Howard Balzer is saying things are going to be done by the end of the week at most and this meeting might last only till today.

ATLDirtyBirds
06-21-2011, 01:31 PM
More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents.

-Schefter

Diehard
06-21-2011, 01:48 PM
More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents.

Well, that's going to be quite the FA party... seems like a good way to make things interesting for the fans after all this labor garbage.

killxswitch
06-21-2011, 02:36 PM
So its going to be 48% for the players down from 60% but without the 1billion thats taken now. Also a 16 game Thursday schedule rookie wage scale are also on the cards. They also plan to raise the salary cap floor to around 90-93% of total cap which is being opposed by small market teams(why am I not surprised).
Also Howard Balzer is saying things are going to be done by the end of the week at most and this meeting might last only till today.

Is this all from Balzer? Where are you getting your info? PFT is usually on top of this stuff but I don't see any of this news there other than the 16 games on Thursday night thing.

LonghornsLegend
06-21-2011, 02:46 PM
What I really want to know is how long is this new deal going to be in place for? I have no clue how long is the norm for new CBA agreements. I really don't want to have to deal with this **** again for at least another 10 years.

descendency
06-21-2011, 03:13 PM
So its going to be 48% for the players down from 60% but without the 1billion thats taken now. Also a 16 game Thursday schedule rookie wage scale are also on the cards. They also plan to raise the salary cap floor to around 90-93% of total cap which is being opposed by small market teams(why am I not surprised).
Also Howard Balzer is saying things are going to be done by the end of the week at most and this meeting might last only till today.

If you take the original numbers...

9 billion - 1 billion and then take 59.6%, which is around 4.8 billion.

4.8 billion of 9 billion is 53.333%

So they are going from 53 to 48 and that 48 can't go any lower than 46.5 percent (which basically means if the NFL blows up and starts printing money, the players can't lose out... but the old deal would have basically made the owners a lot richer).

descendency
06-21-2011, 03:14 PM
What I really want to know is how long is this new deal going to be in place for? I have no clue how long is the norm for new CBA agreements. I really don't want to have to deal with this **** again for at least another 10 years.

Any negotiations can have a deal last "forever" but most will have some kind of opt-out clause after a few years allowing one party who feels screwed to try to get a better deal (as was the case this time). My guess on that period will be 4 years.

asdf1223
06-21-2011, 04:03 PM
Most of the info was from Mort. Needs to be taken with a grain of salt of course. :) The meetings ending part was from Balzer which was what happened.

asdf1223
06-21-2011, 04:11 PM
If you take the original numbers...

9 billion - 1 billion and then take 59.6%, which is around 4.8 billion.

4.8 billion of 9 billion is 53.333%

So they are going from 53 to 48 and that 48 can't go any lower than 46.5 percent (which basically means if the NFL blows up and starts printing money, the players can't lose out... but the old deal would have basically made the owners a lot richer).

I think that the players themselves knew they had a sweetheart deal last time and they were willing to have a reduction in percentage just not in public. By getting a higher cap floor is a decent tradeoff I would say.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
06-21-2011, 04:27 PM
What I really want to know is how long is this new deal going to be in place for? I have no clue how long is the norm for new CBA agreements. I really don't want to have to deal with this **** again for at least another 10 years.

the players have said they want a 10 year agreement, but descendency is right. both sides will have a opt out clause after the 1st few years to make sure everything is "fair" for both sides. the last CBA was originally ratified in 1993. they extended it until the owners opted out in May 2008. the deal that was extended in 2006 would have gone through 2012. by opting out, the owners gave themselves a 2 year reprieve on a deal they felt was going wrong. most agreements like this aren't short term deals. when a new CBA is ratified, it should be the norm and extended for quite some time.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
06-21-2011, 04:36 PM
So its going to be 48% for the players down from 60% but without the 1billion thats taken now. Also a 16 game Thursday schedule rookie wage scale are also on the cards. They also plan to raise the salary cap floor to around 90-93% of total cap which is being opposed by small market teams(why am I not surprised).
Also Howard Balzer is saying things are going to be done by the end of the week at most and this meeting might last only till today.

i do believe the salary floor was already 90% of the total cap. it's my understanding that that percentage will be considerably higher in the new CBA. the salary floor will be much closer to the salary cap than in previous years.

SativaDominant
06-21-2011, 04:50 PM
So its going to be 48% for the players down from 60% but without the 1billion thats taken now. Also a 16 game Thursday schedule rookie wage scale are also on the cards. They also plan to raise the salary cap floor to around 90-93% of total cap which is being opposed by small market teams(why am I not surprised).
Also Howard Balzer is saying things are going to be done by the end of the week at most and this meeting might last only till today.

Well, they have a point. People don't remember that we're in THIS EXACT SITUATION because of the clusterfuck of the last negotiations. During the 2006 CBA negotiations, the owners were at war amongst each other more than with the players. Upshaw (with Tagliabue's apparent blessing) absolutely raked them over the coals.

The Redskins had circumvented the salary cap for so long that they created the perfect storm for the salary cap: they were some $30 million over the cap had so much amortized (bonus) money on the books that they could not release any player without incurring a cap penalty in excess of the salary they would be shedding.

Make no mistake, this played a huge deal in the previous labor negotiations, and it's part of the reason the NFL switched to the Total Football Revenue model - they were, in effect, artificially pushing the cap number higher (and, in effect, the cap floor) by including all forms of revenue. Essentially, a few large market teams were circumventing the cap by making the number so high that it's obsolete (and really, when was the last time you heard about a team being in cap trouble? It's been years).

Remember, the salary cap was never instituted to promote parity. It's was solely implemented to curb player salaries after the free agency era had begun. When you have a select few teams pushing revenue through the roof plus wanting to adopt a revenue system that pushed the cap number to levels where it was rendered obsolete/irrelevant then all that's left is hugely increased operating costs for small market teams. Keep pushing the cap to astronomical levels and you raise the floor to astronomical levels - which will result in small market teams being forced to hand out stupid contracts just to stay above the floor.

Ness
06-21-2011, 05:22 PM
So what is the deal with the scheduling? Going to remain 16 games during the regular season?

niel89
06-21-2011, 06:11 PM
I'm pretty sure the 16 games stays for now with 18 games being negotiable in the future.

descendency
06-21-2011, 06:32 PM
I HIGHLY doubt the franchise tag and RFA go anywhere.

Especially when a player of the caliber of a Peyton Manning is tagged. I'm not saying Reggie White wasn't great, but I seriously doubt Jim Irsay would be quietly riding off into the night knowing that Dan Snyder would throw Washington at Manning's feet if he became an FA.

Ness
06-21-2011, 06:48 PM
I'm pretty sure the 16 games stays for now with 18 games being negotiable in the future.

Whew. That is the one thing I really wanted out of this ordeal. Keeping the 16 game schedule the way it is for now.

falloutboy14
06-21-2011, 07:27 PM
Whenever the TV deal expires (2014?), an expanded season is going to be a big topic of conversation.

Rabscuttle
06-21-2011, 07:41 PM
I love the increased salary floor as an attempt to rid the league of owners like Brown and Wilson. It seems pretty clear that there is a strong group of owners that is tired of supporting guys that do nothing to build the league and want to force the hands of owners like those two. To me it looks like an attempt to force the weak partners to change their business model or sell.

OzTitan
06-21-2011, 08:59 PM
Well, they have a point. People don't remember that we're in THIS EXACT SITUATION because of the clusterfuck of the last negotiations. During the 2006 CBA negotiations, the owners were at war amongst each other more than with the players. Upshaw (with Tagliabue's apparent blessing) absolutely raked them over the coals.

The Redskins had circumvented the salary cap for so long that they created the perfect storm for the salary cap: they were some $30 million over the cap had so much amortized (bonus) money on the books that they could not release any player without incurring a cap penalty in excess of the salary they would be shedding.

Make no mistake, this played a huge deal in the previous labor negotiations, and it's part of the reason the NFL switched to the Total Football Revenue model - they were, in effect, artificially pushing the cap number higher (and, in effect, the cap floor) by including all forms of revenue. Essentially, a few large market teams were circumventing the cap by making the number so high that it's obsolete (and really, when was the last time you heard about a team being in cap trouble? It's been years).

Remember, the salary cap was never instituted to promote parity. It's was solely implemented to curb player salaries after the free agency era had begun. When you have a select few teams pushing revenue through the roof plus wanting to adopt a revenue system that pushed the cap number to levels where it was rendered obsolete/irrelevant then all that's left is hugely increased operating costs for small market teams. Keep pushing the cap to astronomical levels and you raise the floor to astronomical levels - which will result in small market teams being forced to hand out stupid contracts just to stay above the floor.

Excellent post. And a lot of people gloss over the fact the 06 spike in salary cap really benefited a few teams and their tenure at the top. It has been a joke of a system since then for sure.

Now they just need to look into ways to prevent too much base-salary-to-signing-bonus activities which creates the cash-over-cap levels, or maybe a new way of counting cap totals each year, but this probably isn't on the cards I imagine.

asdf1223
06-21-2011, 11:06 PM
If they really wanted to stop teams from circumventing cap they should have never gone to a uncapped year this year. Too many teams simply cut payroll and teams like the Redskins payed off huge bonuses to their players in a uncapped year so that they could pretty much cut them without penalty next year.

I agree with you and Sativa though, during the 2008 offseason the Raiders had Jamarcus and Run DMC with 60million contracts, signed Tommy Kelly to a 50 million dollar contract, Javon Walker to a 55million dollar contract, DeAngelo Hall to 70 million dollar deal and Gibril Wilson, Kwame Harris to big dollar deals. The next year they payed Nnamdi top 3 QB money and signed DHB to a 50 million dollar deal. The salary cap has become kind of a joke.

wogitalia
06-22-2011, 12:11 AM
I love the increased salary floor as an attempt to rid the league of owners like Brown and Wilson. It seems pretty clear that there is a strong group of owners that is tired of supporting guys that do nothing to build the league and want to force the hands of owners like those two. To me it looks like an attempt to force the weak partners to change their business model or sell.

That would kill a lot of the teams though. The Packers for example made 5.2 million, I imagine the other small market teams are going to be in the same range, especially given that Green Bay's setup makes them the most accountable and in theory efficiently run team. Those teams in small markets are going to really struggle with an increase in the floor.

I don't entirely have a problem with it but I also don't have a regional allegiance to any team so I don't stand to lose if my or any other team has to relocate, but those fans in the smaller markets are the ones who are going to get the most screwed, the owners have more options(LA and Toronto amongst other options) as well as putting up prices.

Ness
06-22-2011, 12:42 AM
If they really wanted to stop teams from circumventing cap they should have never gone to a uncapped year this year. Too many teams simply cut payroll and teams like the Redskins payed off huge bonuses to their players in a uncapped year so that they could pretty much cut them without penalty next year.

I agree with you and Sativa though, during the 2008 offseason the Raiders had Jamarcus and Run DMC with 60million contracts, signed Tommy Kelly to a 50 million dollar contract, Javon Walker to a 55million dollar contract, DeAngelo Hall to 70 million dollar deal and Gibril Wilson, Kwame Harris to big dollar deals. The next year they payed Nnamdi top 3 QB money and signed DHB to a 50 million dollar deal. The salary cap has become kind of a joke.
Well I myself have always wondered if money is really an issue with the majority of these teams. Everyone always talks about cap space and when new rookies come out and with analysts saying that teams can't afford so and so, and then they are able to come up with the money from out of nowhere or like the Raiders did that season a few years ago, pay big time and then not suffer the consequences.

bucfan12
06-22-2011, 09:33 AM
So, basically, from what I read, Roger Goodell expects a deal either today or Thursday? I also read that it will take 9 votes to 'kill' this proposal, but Adam Shefter said that will most certainly not happen and an agreement is coming.

Since 4 year vets are going to be unrestricted, FA is going to be NUTS, especially since it'll begin at the end of June/Early July, followed by Training camp in a month. I think it's possible we can see a lot of players resigning with their current teams.

M.O.T.H.
06-22-2011, 10:19 AM
That'd be fantastic...but all the "experts" that visited on Mike and Mike today were saying that an agreement probably wont be met until around the second week of July yet. It'd be nice if we could get a "preliminary" agreement, just to start things up now, but it's really not in the question.

descendency
06-22-2011, 11:49 AM
Bad news (after all of this good news): the League isn't considering lifting the lockout with just an agreement in principle (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/22/league-wont-lift-lockout-based-only-on-an-agreement-in-principle/).

They will want everything resolved (which has to happen before a deal is signed) and the deal signed before they lift. This will take quite a while to complete and may miss the June 15th deadline.

killxswitch
06-22-2011, 12:04 PM
Bad news (after all of this good news): the League isn't considering lifting the lockout with just an agreement in principle (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/06/22/league-wont-lift-lockout-based-only-on-an-agreement-in-principle/).

They will want everything resolved (which has to happen before a deal is signed) and the deal signed before they lift. This will take quite a while to complete and may miss the June 15th deadline.

This is such ********. These assholes had TWO YEARS to negotiate and did nothing other than try to use TV money to fund a year of no football. Years later they FINALLY get serious about negotiating but they only work on it 2 days here, another day there, maybe 3 in a row. These rich old bastards need to learn to skype or something instead of taking forever to fly here and there and take forever to get anything done.

M.O.T.H.
06-22-2011, 12:06 PM
Well that's a given, anyway. That's what I was saying in my last post. It'd be nice, but not something you could realistically expect. I bet it gets done before or on July 15th, though. It really is crunch time, and they appear much closer now. But still more than likely, a few weeks off.

killxswitch
06-22-2011, 12:17 PM
Well that's a given, anyway. That's what I was saying in my last post. It'd be nice, but not something you could realistically expect. I bet it gets done before or on July 15th, though. It really is crunch time, and they appear much closer now. But still more than likely, a few weeks off.

If it requires multiple court dates they are not going to get this done by July 15th.

descendency
06-22-2011, 01:04 PM
This could be a number of things. Plus, Pash isn't the final decision maker. If their is an agreement in principle, it could be legally binding which would allow owners to open the doors even without the legal stuff finished.

bucfan12
06-22-2011, 01:41 PM
This is such ********. These assholes had TWO YEARS to negotiate and did nothing other than try to use TV money to fund a year of no football. Years later they FINALLY get serious about negotiating but they only work on it 2 days here, another day there, maybe 3 in a row. These rich old bastards need to learn to skype or something instead of taking forever to fly here and there and take forever to get anything done.

Agreed, however the players were being extremely greedy and it seems like they are more willing to agree to a deal now because courts have been siding with the Owners.

I had a feeling they wouldn't come to a new agreement until the last possible date that could affect training camp/preseason, so it will be interesting how players adjust to new teams 10 days or so prior to TC (if the league year starts at July 15.

I do agree that it is BS the fact that these reps on both sides are meeting on an occasional 2-3 days a week and then waiting a few weeks to meet again. If they were really serious about getting this deal done, would have been meeting 10-12 hrs a day, 5 days a week or through skype or ovoo, whatever those internet video phone calls communication apps are.

EricCartmann
06-22-2011, 03:39 PM
Agreed, however the players were being extremely greedy and it seems like they are more willing to agree to a deal now because courts have been siding with the Owners.

I had a feeling they wouldn't come to a new agreement until the last possible date that could affect training camp/preseason, so it will be interesting how players adjust to new teams 10 days or so prior to TC (if the league year starts at July 15.

I do agree that it is BS the fact that these reps on both sides are meeting on an occasional 2-3 days a week and then waiting a few weeks to meet again. If they were really serious about getting this deal done, would have been meeting 10-12 hrs a day, 5 days a week or through skype or ovoo, whatever those internet video phone calls communication apps are.


From the news I have been reading (ESPN, CBS, Huffington, etc, etc), the consensus believes it is pretty much a done deal, but both sides will wait for the very last second.. for I don't know what, but I guess both sides want to look everything over 500 last times just in case...

dannyz
06-22-2011, 03:50 PM
So the News is that they pretty much have the Deal made but they still have to get it all done in paperwork and in Court's?

SativaDominant
06-22-2011, 04:30 PM
Agreed, however the players were being extremely greedy and it seems like they are more willing to agree to a deal now because courts have been siding with the Owners.

I had a feeling they wouldn't come to a new agreement until the last possible date that could affect training camp/preseason, so it will be interesting how players adjust to new teams 10 days or so prior to TC (if the league year starts at July 15.

I do agree that it is BS the fact that these reps on both sides are meeting on an occasional 2-3 days a week and then waiting a few weeks to meet again. If they were really serious about getting this deal done, would have been meeting 10-12 hrs a day, 5 days a week or through skype or ovoo, whatever those internet video phone calls communication apps are.

Eh, I disagree. The owners were being greedy by asking for another billion dollar credit AND dropping the players to under 50% of the revenues.

Everyone makes a big deal about "how the courts are siding with the owners." That's just not accurate. ONE court MIGHT side with the owners (the appellate court in St. Louis) on the issue of whether or not the lockout is legal. That's just one tiny piece to this puzzle. Far, far more pertinent is the TV deal case that's in which Judge Doty already ruled against them. There is no way in hell any judge is going to overturn that ruling, and the damages owed to the players will be in the hundreds of millions - far more devastating for them than the Appellate Court allowing the lockout to stay in place.

Both sides have a lot to lose in this, and that's why you're seeing earnest efforts now. The players, media, and fans weren't as stupid as the owners thought they'd be.

EricCartmann
06-22-2011, 04:35 PM
So the News is that they pretty much have the Deal made but they still have to get it all done in paperwork and in Court's?

What courts? If they come to an agreement then it's mutual and there should be no outside approval needed.

Right now both sides are going to drag it out and use up all the time that is allowed. When the bell rings, an agreement will be reached and the players suit up.

bucfan12
06-22-2011, 05:06 PM
What courts? If they come to an agreement then it's mutual and there should be no outside approval needed.

Right now both sides are going to drag it out and use up all the time that is allowed. When the bell rings, an agreement will be reached and the players suit up.

Honestly, isnt that the worst they could do is drag this thing out? That could potentially ruin the deal and then there could be more of a chance there is no season.

Not saying it will happen, but to agree to a deal but not make it official and drag it out til the 15th is dumb.

King Carls 5 Year Plan
06-22-2011, 05:34 PM
What courts? If they come to an agreement then it's mutual and there should be no outside approval needed.

Right now both sides are going to drag it out and use up all the time that is allowed. When the bell rings, an agreement will be reached and the players suit up.

it's just my opinion, but i don't think this is the case at all. they have huge contracts with thousands of pages to write up and both sides have to completely sign off on every word used. this isn't a fast process at all. i have been a part of negotiating and making CBAs for a union in KC. our deals are never nearly as intensive as the NFLs and don't need near the back and forth for agreements. the best thing we have is once we vote to ratify a CBA as a union worker, we are allowed to return to work while the lawyers write the contracts up. it appears the NFL owners don't want to let that happen. i can only imagine the time it would take to get a CBA completely written up after it has been generally ratiutifed by the players.

i just don't see any benefit for either party to drag out the process any longer. they both have way to much to lose. i believe that's why it "leaked out" that the owners have a proposal to vote on. they needed the good news out there to help promote the upcoming season ASAP

wogitalia
06-22-2011, 09:23 PM
Well I myself have always wondered if money is really an issue with the majority of these teams. Everyone always talks about cap space and when new rookies come out and with analysts saying that teams can't afford so and so, and then they are able to come up with the money from out of nowhere or like the Raiders did that season a few years ago, pay big time and then not suffer the consequences.

Yeah but Al Davis has been selling off portions of the Raiders since that, that would indicate to me that the money is a fair bit tighter than many realise, Oakland would also be a small market team so particularly relevant. They are also an exception in that their owner is their GM.

The cap itself is pretty much a joke with how teams can structure contracts to avoid it, I think the problem with the rookie contracts is that they guaranteed portion is getting out of control, which is the part that owners can't avoid hitting the cap. I think most teams have learned the lesson from the Redskins ruthless disregard to the cap and have since taken a more reasonable approach to it but there are plenty of teams that have let players go for cap reasons.

Far, far more pertinent is the TV deal case that's in which Judge Doty already ruled against them. There is no way in hell any judge is going to overturn that ruling, and the damages owed to the players will be in the hundreds of millions - far more devastating for them than the Appellate Court allowing the lockout to stay in place.

I think you have misread that case a bit. That isn't an issue over the owners taking money, it's about the owners being able to spend money that will be owed to the players down the line, in all likelihood. What happened in that case was the owners got payment up front to use it as a survival fund, the ruling was that they couldn't use it in that function and instead had to put the amounts in escrow for the players because it was likely that the players would eventually be entitled.

That case hurt the owners significantly because many of them were going to rely on that money for the costs that are related to owning a team, it doesn't actually take any money from the owners though that wasn't already going to be paid down the line.

The lockout was the single biggest case in this process, had it not been allowed then the owners would have been destroyed, by allowing it the owners are on the front foot, the problem for the owners is those owners who were still reliant on the survival fund are still needing a deal done quickly, which the players know and thus has undermined the owners a fair bit.

Still it's been pretty interesting, as an NBA fan it has been very intriguing to me. Basically the NFL has had a ridiculously good deal for the players but the owners have been able to prosper, the NBA has quite possibly an even better deal for players and it is crushing the league and owners. This lockout the players actually had a leg to stand on in negotiations. The NBA is going to be very interesting because the players have absolutely no leg to stand on, be interesting to see if that makes it a quicker negotiation or makes it take longer.

NotRickJames
06-23-2011, 12:20 AM
So boring since the draft.

Can't wait for this mess to finally be over with.

killxswitch
06-23-2011, 07:41 AM
Pash has specifically said it will take court dates to ratify the final CBA.