NFL negotiator Jeff Pash detailed the NFL's offter to the union on NFLLabor.com: Out of that came today a comprehensive, new revised proposal to the Players Association that incorporated and moved in fact further on all the areas we had discussed all week and where progress had been made. ◦We incorporated new economic terms to try to bridge the gap. You’ve heard a lot of talk about an $800M gap. Nowhere close. Not close to factual. ◦We offered today to split the difference and meet the union in the midpoint, with a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009 and above player compensation in 2010, and we offered grow it from there over four years by $20 million a club, to the point where in 2014 the player compensation number was the union’s number. It was the number the union proposed to us and we accepted it. That wasn’t good enough. ◦We offered to guarantee for the first time in the history of the league, more than one year of injury on player contracts. Apparently not good enough. ◦We moved off of our wage scale, and we offered to do a rookie compensation system within the context of a hard rookie cap as the union had proposed which would preserve individual negotiations and maintain the role of agents in the process. Evidently not good enough. ◦We offered, in fact we agreed to the union’s request for a cash team minimum for the first time in league history. We agreed to it at their number and their structure. Evidently not good enough. ◦We told the union that for 2011 and 2012, we would play within the existing 16-game regular season format, and we committed to them, notwithstanding the rights we have in the current agreement, we would not change to 18 games without their consent. Evidently not good enough. ◦At the same time, we agreed to implement wide ranging health and safety changes, reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing the practice time in the preseason, reducing the practice time and contract drills during the regular season and expanding the number of days off for players. Evidently not good enough. ◦We offered to increase the benefits in a wide range for both current and retired players. Under the proposal we had tendered, retired players who left the league before 1993, would experience an increase in their retirement benefit of close to 60 percent and the union, which says it represents former players, walked away from that today. We’re discouraged, we’re frustrated, we’re disappointed, but we are not giving up. We know this will be resolved in the negotiation process and we will be prepared to come back here any time the union is ready to come back here. And we look forward to getting back to the collective bargaining table with the assistance of the director and Scott Beckenbaugh and getting the kind of agreement that we need to have this game go forward. http://theredzone.org/BlogDescripti...-Pash-details-NFL-offer-to-union/Default.aspx ----------------------------------------------------------- Unions were once good for the common worker, but these are not common workers struggling to feed their families. These guys can walk away any time they want and use those college degrees they have to get another job. Well once they find out there are not any jobs out there and their bank accounts start declining they will be more negotiable. Everyone, even football player should know there are lots of people waiting in the wings to fill the spots. This might be 1987 all over again. Just ranting guys, just ranting.....
Yeah what's the point of a hot chick avatar if her breasts are completely covered and you can't see her ass? And I'm sure there's more to this than what the owners/NFL are saying.
Well we heard one side of the arguments, so lets he D-Smiths side? What did the NFL not do that is apparently a giant sticking point for the NFLPA? Because based on this one side, it sounds like a hell of a deal (which its supposed too, the owners want it to sound like the players fault while the players want to blame the owners), with tons of caving from the owners. So the NFLPA best have some really good reasons for not taking it...
I know I'm in the minority here but I have to take the owners' side on this. This might seem hard to believe but I seriously think the NFL owners are not bringing in as much cash as they were before the economy tanked and they signed the last CBA in 2006. By now everyone knows the story behind the Packers and their financial situation and how they only made 9 million in 2009 I believe. I think this is close to the same for most teams in the NFL. And based on what the NFL was offering, I have to believe the NFLPA never wanted to agree to a deal in the first place, they wanted this to go to court all along. Everyone in the country is facing pay cuts, layoffs, and job loss, why should the players be immune to taking a small pay cut? We know that the owners are flipping a big chunk of the bill to pay for all these new stadiums, many of which were being built or were fairly new when the economy tanked.
It's OK to take the owners side, but consider that the value of an NFL franchise grows every year. It's a great investment. While they may "only" make $9 million in a given year, the team's value could increase $50 million. That's got to count for something.
Teams like that are probably making more but if a team as popular as the Green Bay Packers are only making 9 million then I am sure there are teams making less.
NFL's Offer I know there is the NFL labor talk news thread but I thought that it should get its own thread, since this will be referenced a lot and since every one talking about the lockout should read it. 1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club). 2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits. 3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury – the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee. 4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by a. Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact; b. Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and c. Increasing number of days off for players. 5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format. 6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent. 7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life. 8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs. 9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program. 10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.
It is simple. The owners should tell the players to go scratch their asses and start a new. Extend the draft and give a shot to all the unemployed players working low wage jobs. We will have bad football for a year. It will improve in the second year and all the unemployed former union players will slowly matriculate into the new system as their money evaporates and they grow old on their couches. Then we don't have to deal with the fucking union anymore.
I have to wash my brain out with bleach after that. Watch an arena league game and tell me those players will be 'good enough' for a brand new NFL.
