Not sure if this should be in the NFL forum or here (since this stuff directly impacts the Jets), but I was hoping there would be one concise thread where people with significant more knowledge than me could posts links to news other than on PFT (again me), so that we can get as up to date news as possible on the labor negotiations. A lock out with suck ass! Hope it doesn't happen. Anyway, if this has been done, go ahead and delete this thread. Otherwise, I hope this will be as long, informative and sometimes funny as the Revis holdout thread. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/24/de-smith-attending-meetings-with-nfl-this-week/ De Smith attending meetings with NFL “this week” Posted by Mike Florio on January 24, 2011, 9:46 PM EST Last Wednesday, NFLPA executive director De Smith met with NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. Now, Smith is involved in meetings with a broader set of individuals. Smith, we’re told, is meeting with the league this week. It’s unclear how many days this week will be devoted to the sessions. The full roster of attendees also isn’t known. It’s also unclear why he thinks it makes sense to talk, given this quote from Smith that appeared in Sunday’s New York Times: “Nobody talks their way to a good deal.” On January 16, FOX’s Jay Glazer reported that a full-blown bargaining session would occur either that week or this week. Apparently, it ended up being this week. The meetings occur at a time when the league and the union continue to snipe at each other in the media from time to time, and roughly two weeks after the NFLPA filed a collusion claim that the union still refuses to publicly acknowledge. Also on Monday, a report emerged as to recent comments from Falcons owner Arthur Blank regarding the league’s desire to get cracking on the negotiations. “I’m hoping they will accelerate,” Blank said, per D. Orlando Ledbetter of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “The Commissioner is prepared to go 24/7. The Commissioner and the negotiators that are involved are ready to do whatever it takes. Throwing themselves in the room, throwing away the key and have them feed them food under the doors, whatever it’s going to take . . . we need to get the NFLPA to step up with the same sense of urgency to make that happen.” That “lock-in” approach previously has been suggested by the union. With both sides interested, it now seems like they should be able to get in the room together and get cracking on getting a deal done. Hopefully, they’ll make some real progress before next week, when the dueling NFLPA and Commissioner press conferences could result in new rhetoric that causes any strides made this week to possibly come undone.
*fingers crossed* 16 game seasons but a rookie pay scale would be nice. no players want 18, at least that seems to be the pulse.
whats with the rumors that there will NOT be free agency in 2011, and no cap? is this just some asshole like me making shit up?
Like the idea of one place to discuss what we learn about Labor negotiations. Not sure if it should be one thread or a separate forum. Anyway: http://www.tampabay.com/sports/football/bucs/breaking-down-the-nfl-labor-unrest/1145395 <-- I think this gives a quick summary of some of the sticking points. I am in favor of a rookie salary cap. Bothers me when 1st round busts generate more $$ over their 2-3 year career than a starting player who might not be All-Pro but is good enough to play in the league for close to 10 years. Money should be redirect to players which perform. Totally disagree w/ Jerry Jones bitching that costs of new stadium should be factored into how much players should be paid. WTF is going on w/ that logic? New Stadium equals more money in the long run w/ all the suites & other crap packed into these stadiums (assuming the team can draw fans). 18 game season should require expanded NFL rosters. Get some player jobs out there to compensate for the two games. Plus owners will be making a killing by adding two more games. === In the end, I just don't buy this crap about owners losing money when they won't open the books. If they were losing money, then there should be no hesitation to show players proof that shit needs to change.
Well, I don't think FA after this season will be signed until new labor agreement is made. As far as no cap, I haven't read players union asking for this.
I worry too about intra-owner squabbling. These rich assholes need to realize that the way the system works now WORKS! They make more money when the sport is more competative. Good link BTW!
Not a good sign. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/10/report-cba-talks-broke-down-after-union-proposed-50-50-split/ So much for optimism. Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports that Thursday’s bargaining session between the NFL and the NFLPA was canceled after the two sides hit a wall regarding the most important aspect of the deal, the formula for splitting up the money. Mort reports that the NFLPA proposed a split of roughly 50-50 between players and owners, and that the owners walked away from the table in response. Apparently, the meeting — which lasted far less than the expected nine hours — got off to a bad start when the NFL’s negotiating team supposedly interpreted the players’ proposal of 49-to-51 cents on the dollar as being the cut of “total football revenue,” not “all revenue.” Currently, the players get 59.6 cents of each dollar of ‘total football revenue,” a number that is roughly $1 billion less than all revenue generated by the sport. The league’s misinterpretation of the proposal is a bit surprising, since a 50-50 split of total football revenue would have reflected the much-debated 18 percent reduction that the owners’ reportedly have asked the players to take. Then again, the union’s decision to propose essentially a 50-50 sharing of all revenue is equally surprising, given that the players currently get roughly that amount under the current deal. According to NFLPA spokesman George Atallah, the players received 51.87 percent of all revenue in 2002. In 2003, it dropped to 50.23 percent. In 2004, it was 52.18 percent. In 2005, 50.52 percent. In 2006, it was 52.74 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2007, it was 51.84 percent. In 2008, it was 50.96 percent. In 2009, it was 50.06 percent. Thus, an offer to take 50 cents of every dollar represents no concession at all. That said, we think it was unreasonable for the league stormed out. We assume the proposal reflected an opening offer from the union under an “all revenue” model, and opening offers implicitly contain room to move. With the league refusing to open the books to justify the desire to cut the players’ share, it’s not unreasonable for the players to say, “Look, let’s quit bickering about the league taking money off the top and let’s just work out a formula based on every dollar that comes in. Our first move is to ask for roughly what we currently get. Feel free to counter.” If the NFL truly wanted to do a deal, the NFL would have countered. It makes us think that the NFL actually wants to lock out the players, or to push the negotiations to the brink of a lockout in the hopes of getting the players to drop their proposal without a counter. That said, if the union made its proposal as a take-it-or-leave it gesture, then it makes us think that the NFLPA wants to force a lockout in the hopes of getting a better deal via the application of litigation and/or political pressure, a strategy that to date has failed miserably. Either way, the outside lawyers who are handling the negotiations (Jeffrey Kessler for the union and Bob Batterman for the league) continue to bill by the hour, and every hour of effort expended on the negotiations and a lockout and whatever comes next will serve only to fatten their coffers. So maybe, just maybe, Robert Kraft — and Shakespeare (possibly a/k/a John Florio) — were right.
The fact they won't open their books is bullshit. How can they expect players to take less money on the owners word that they aren't making enough?
I know owners want to protect their interests and investments but should the players really have a say in telling their bosses how to run their companies? I don't understand all the ins and outs of this NFL process but I know that laborers usually don't tell company owners what to do. Am I oversimplifying this?
Sports players have a say since they are only so few of them and they aren't that replaceable unlike the common working man/woman.
I sort of agree with you here, because 50-50 is bullshit. But the owners are the ones who opted out so they asked for this.
Just the idea of calling players "laborers" is grossly oversimplifying it. A laborer is someone who aids in making or selling whatever product the owners want. In this case the labor IS the product.
This. I sincerely hope they're not dumb enough to think their revenue can fully withstand a lockout. Baseball thought so, and it took years and steroids to recover.
I think this plays a big part. I think they are gambling that fans like us, no matter what happens, will always come back to even if their revenues take a hit, it wont be a substantial because the sport of football has such a devoted following. It's a DUMB risk, but it seems like one they are willing to take.
Although, I don't know how negotiating in good faith equals storming out of the meeting. Maybe the owners were so astounded they had no rebuttle. The other thing is that congress cannot allow a $2+B industry cease for a year. It would screw up commerce. So if congress feels they aren't negotiating in good faith they will force them to agree through arbitration. IDK, it's early. If Revis signed anything can happen.
