Bears would open their books to get a CBA done

[defiantgiant]

Ted Phillips told the Sun-Times that the Bears would be on board with opening their books to the players' union, if that's what it takes to get a CBA done. He basically said they have nothing to hide and would be happy to go along with turning over their financials. They're the second team, after the Broncos, to say they'd do this.

 

I haven't always been Ted's biggest fan, but this is a great thing to put out there. If we're ever going to get a new CBA in place, the owners are going to HAVE to cave on this issue. Before the lockout/decertification, the two sides came incredibly close (within $300 million, by some accounts) in money terms, but the owners' refusal to prove that they need the money still killed the negotiations. Back then, the players' union was willing to continue negotiating in exchange for real disclosure, so I have to think they'd come back to the negotiating table if the owners offered it now. Good job, Ted.

[Mongo3451]

Ted Phillips told the Sun-Times that the Bears would be on board with opening their books to the players' union, if that's what it takes to get a CBA done. He basically said they have nothing to hide and would be happy to go along with turning over their financials. They're the second team, after the Broncos, to say they'd do this.

 

I haven't always been Ted's biggest fan, but this is a great thing to put out there. If we're ever going to get a new CBA in place, the owners are going to HAVE to cave on this issue. Before the lockout/decertification, the two sides came incredibly close (within $300 million, by some accounts) in money terms, but the owners' refusal to prove that they need the money still killed the negotiations. Back then, the players' union was willing to continue negotiating in exchange for real disclosure, so I have to think they'd come back to the negotiating table if the owners offered it now. Good job, Ted.

Disagree that is what's needed to get a deal done. I stay on record as saying it's none of the players business what the owners make. I had a guy working for me one time that saw what I made on a job and thought he deserved a bigger cut. He already agreed to do the job at a pre-arranged wage and ended up not working for me after that. They are ALL making tons of money. Players are going to lose. If they don't watch it they will lose big time. Nothing good will come from the owners opening the books. It may even widen the gap.

[Bears4Ever_34]

The owners just look like retards. The fact that they don't want to open up their books just tells you that they don't need the money. This whole thing is just stupid and needs to get solved now.

[LT2_3]

The owners just look like retards. The fact that they don't want to open up their books just tells you that they don't need the money. This whole thing is just stupid and needs to get solved now.

 

That's ridiculous. That assumes that's the only reason they don't want to open their books. They shouldn't open their books on principle. Actually, I think that most teams wouldn't have a problem opening their books, but it's probably Jones and Snyder that have a serious problem with it.

 

I don't think there will be much happening until after the April 6th court date. Things might pick up after that.

 

 

[AZ54]

Yes, Jerry Jones has more side deals than any other owner and opening the books is likely to cause as much contention among owners as it is between players and owners.

[defiantgiant]

Disagree that is what's needed to get a deal done. I stay on record as saying it's none of the players business what the owners make. I had a guy working for me one time that saw what I made on a job and thought he deserved a bigger cut. He already agreed to do the job at a pre-arranged wage and ended up not working for me after that. They are ALL making tons of money. Players are going to lose. If they don't watch it they will lose big time. Nothing good will come from the owners opening the books. It may even widen the gap.

 

It's exactly the players' union's business what the owners make, because the owners are asking the players to let them take more money off the top for their expenses. The players' union would be irresponsible to just take their word for it that they need the money.

 

This isn't analogous to a normal employer-employee relationship, because most employees aren't doing profit-sharing with their employers, they're just getting paid a regular wage. A single NFL player gets paid a salary, but the players' union as a whole is negotiating about profit-sharing between all the players and all the owners. To borrow your example, if you're just paying your employee a pre-arranged wage, then he's in a normal employee's position, and it's none of his business what you're making. But if you were paying him in shares of your company's stock, then he's in a position more like the player's union. As a stockholder, he'd have a right to know about how profitable your company is, even though he's also an employee.

[AZ54]

I can live with that but for the union to undertake the scam of "disbanding", and act like they'll be more than happy to come back and play football this year without a new collective bargaining agreement as Jeff Saturday said yesterday on NFL Network is a blatant lie to the fans.

 

The lockout is no different than a strike it's just the other side saying it's time to renegotiate. So negotiate, man up and hold your ground if you feel you are right, however long it takes.

 

Also there are individual players who are making clear threats of hazing for rookies who attend the draft. Saturday said he didn't condone that and he'd basically accept the rookie as a teammate there to help them win. He wasn't that convincing IMO. Pressuring people who are not in the union and have no say over the next agreement is wrong. Not to mention my previous point of why deny a guy and his family one of the best moments of their life? Welcome them with open arms into your union right after they are drafted. Seems like a better approach to me but then I'm not treated like a slave at work.

 

Overall, I can see your point about the owners proving they need to adjust the profit sharing setup, I don't condone the players actions at all. They are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats in their approach to this. I think there is some responsibility on the owners to prove their point.

 

I still think they all have too much to lose and a deal will get done.

[jason]

1. It is none of the players' business what is in the owners' books. I'm sure the owners have provided basic numbers that spell out their side of the case.

 

1a. It only takes a second of consideration to realize that the owners' books contain a considerable variety of financial information that could potentially cause strife not only between the owners and the NFLPA, but also between the owners themselves.

 

2. Is it more likely that a group of billionaire businessmen with significant business acumen understand the financial impact or a group of millionaire players, many (if not most) who are considered to be slightly less than average intelligence.

 

The deal will get done because not every player in the NFL is a megamillionaire, and eventually the cost of their 8 cars, 3 houses, leech family members, exotic pets, and 12 man posse will catch up to them.

[Mongo3451]

It's exactly the players' union's business what the owners make, because the owners are asking the players to let them take more money off the top for their expenses. The players' union would be irresponsible to just take their word for it that they need the money.

 

This isn't analogous to a normal employer-employee relationship, because most employees aren't doing profit-sharing with their employers, they're just getting paid a regular wage. A single NFL player gets paid a salary, but the players' union as a whole is negotiating about profit-sharing between all the players and all the owners. To borrow your example, if you're just paying your employee a pre-arranged wage, then he's in a normal employee's position, and it's none of his business what you're making. But if you were paying him in shares of your company's stock, then he's in a position more like the player's union. As a stockholder, he'd have a right to know about how profitable your company is, even though he's also an employee.

My contention is that the piece of the NFL pie that the players get was disclosed to them and negotiated upon. After that, breaking down the NFL into 32 individual pieces and trying to figure out what is feasible is simply impossible to get done. Can you imagine the how complicated that would become?

 

Also, The owners and players are NOT profit sharing. They are revenue sharing. Huge difference. Profit after the CBA is the owners business once the players know what they are getting.

[defiantgiant]

My contention is that the piece of the NFL pie that the players get was disclosed to them and negotiated upon. After that, breaking down the NFL into 32 individual pieces and trying to figure out what is feasible is simply impossible to get done. Can you imagine the how complicated that would become?

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The piece of the pie that the players get was negotiated under the last CBA, the one that the owners unilaterally decided to cancel. The players' union was clear that they would be happy to play for that same piece of the pie. But the owners came into the negotiations saying the players had to let them take an extra BILLION dollars off the top, before the players ever get their piece, and they don't want to prove that they need the money. Instead, they basically said "let us take it or we'll lock you out until you do."

 

The owners are the ones who scrapped the old CBA, because they thought they could play hardball and get the players' union to take a bad deal. The players have been clear from the beginning that they would continue playing under the status quo, for the piece of the pie that - as you say - they previously negotiated. If it were that simple, there'd be football now. But the owners want a much bigger piece of the pie, and they started this lockout in order to get it.

 

Also, The owners and players are NOT profit sharing. They are revenue sharing. Huge difference. Profit after the CBA is the owners business once the players know what they are getting.

OK, good call. There's a big difference between profit sharing and revenue sharing, but there's an even bigger difference between either one and a standard wage. If I'm getting paid by revenue-sharing, I should have a right to know about whether the company is maximizing revenue. For example, the owners actually had a duty to the players under the old CBA to make as much money from the TV deals as possible. That's the duty that a federal judge found that they violated, when they gave the TV stations a cheaper price in exchange for guaranteed money during the lockout they were planning.

 

Profit after the CBA is the owners' business, but the owners and the players are fighting about revenue, not profit. The players know what chunk of that revenue they got under the old CBA, and they know that the owners are asking them to play for less than what they used to get. The owners have never, to date, put forward a proposal that didn't represent a smaller piece of the pie for the players and a bigger piece for the owners. Whether I get paid by profit-sharing, revenue-sharing, or just an hourly wage, if my boss tells me he wants me to sign a contract saying I'll take a pay cut, I'm going to ask for a reason why I should.

[LT2_3]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. The piece of the pie that the players get was negotiated under the last CBA, the one that the owners unilaterally decided to cancel.

 

Correct in that that was the last deal. That deal expired by the owners executing an option in the last CBA that BOTH sides were able to execute if they felt the deal needed an adjustment. So, because of that, they didn't unilaterally cancel it. Both sides agreed that both sides legally and legitimately had that option.

 

The players' union was clear that they would be happy to play for that same piece of the pie. But the owners came into the negotiations saying the players had to let them take an extra BILLION dollars off the top, before the players ever get their piece, and they don't want to prove that they need the money. Instead, they basically said "let us take it or we'll lock you out until you do."

 

Wow. Use hyperbole much? The owners made an opening offer of an extra billion off the top and negotiated down from there. When it comes to the lockout, that's the mechanism the owners have to get a new deal after the last one expired. If the players would have decided they needed a better deal than the last one and opted out early, it would have been a strike. Quite frankly, I discount any player complaints about the lockout because they were the ones that refused to extend the last CBA to keep negotiating and decided this decertify and sue in court path. If their members really have such hardships from being locked out in the offseason, then maybe they should have chosen a path that kept their insurance paid while they were negotiating.

 

The owners are the ones who scrapped the old CBA, because they thought they could play hardball and get the players' union to take a bad deal. The players have been clear from the beginning that they would continue playing under the status quo, for the piece of the pie that - as you say - they previously negotiated. If it were that simple, there'd be football now. But the owners want a much bigger piece of the pie, and they started this lockout in order to get it.

 

Again, you are confusing an opening offer with an absolute demand and attaching that to their motives. The players got a great deal last time and have said as much. The owners wanted a better deal for themselves this time. Why didn't the players just extend the last CBA and keep negotiating. I can only think that we would have a deal by now if they had just kept negotiating.

 

OK, good call. There's a big difference between profit sharing and revenue sharing, but there's an even bigger difference between either one and a standard wage. If I'm getting paid by revenue-sharing, I should have a right to know about whether the company is maximizing revenue. For example, the owners actually had a duty to the players under the old CBA to make as much money from the TV deals as possible. That's the duty that a federal judge found that they violated, when they gave the TV stations a cheaper price in exchange for guaranteed money during the lockout they were planning.

 

Which is why the revenue sharing model seriously needs to be replaced. For a revenue sharing model to work, it is assuming that revenue and expenses will maintain the same ratio forever. Let's say you buy a widget for $3 and sell it for $10. Then, widgets get more expensive and you raise your prices, so now you buy them for $5 and sell them for $12. If you pay someone a percentage of profit, then you pay them the same because you still have a $7 profit per widget. If you are paying someone a percentage of revenue, you have to pay them more because you raised the price even though your profit is exactly the same.

 

Profit after the CBA is the owners' business, but the owners and the players are fighting about revenue, not profit. The players know what chunk of that revenue they got under the old CBA, and they know that the owners are asking them to play for less than what they used to get. The owners have never, to date, put forward a proposal that didn't represent a smaller piece of the pie for the players and a bigger piece for the owners. Whether I get paid by profit-sharing, revenue-sharing, or just an hourly wage, if my boss tells me he wants me to sign a contract saying I'll take a pay cut, I'm going to ask for a reason why I should.

 

This is precisely why they need to get off the revenue sharing model and it was going to take a work stoppage for that to happen. The last proposal they were discussing involved set cap increases over the next 4 years and had nothing to do with revenue sharing - which is why I'm so against the players right now. They were probably 2 more counter offers away from a deal when they just walked away to put all of this in court. Quite frankly, all this "smaller piece of the pie" crap rings totally hollow to me since they had already been negotiating a different revenue model and set annual increases that would already be a smaller piece of the pie.

 

And finally, no one was ever asking for a pay cut. The cap was never going to go down. No player was ever going to get the numbers in their current contracts reduced. Quite simply, the owners are asking for a slower RATE of cap increase. In their "pegged cap" negotiations, they had already established numbers that would increase each year and nobodys current contract would go up or down either way.

 

Nobody was being asked to take a pay cut!!!!!!

[Mongo3451]

 

Correct in that that was the last deal. That deal expired by the owners executing an option in the last CBA that BOTH sides were able to execute if they felt the deal needed an adjustment. So, because of that, they didn't unilaterally cancel it. Both sides agreed that both sides legally and legitimately had that option.

 

 

 

Wow. Use hyperbole much? The owners made an opening offer of an extra billion off the top and negotiated down from there. When it comes to the lockout, that's the mechanism the owners have to get a new deal after the last one expired. If the players would have decided they needed a better deal than the last one and opted out early, it would have been a strike. Quite frankly, I discount any player complaints about the lockout because they were the ones that refused to extend the last CBA to keep negotiating and decided this decertify and sue in court path. If their members really have such hardships from being locked out in the offseason, then maybe they should have chosen a path that kept their insurance paid while they were negotiating.

 

 

 

Again, you are confusing an opening offer with an absolute demand and attaching that to their motives. The players got a great deal last time and have said as much. The owners wanted a better deal for themselves this time. Why didn't the players just extend the last CBA and keep negotiating. I can only think that we would have a deal by now if they had just kept negotiating.

 

 

 

Which is why the revenue sharing model seriously needs to be replaced. For a revenue sharing model to work, it is assuming that revenue and expenses will maintain the same ratio forever. Let's say you buy a widget for $3 and sell it for $10. Then, widgets get more expensive and you raise your prices, so now you buy them for $5 and sell them for $12. If you pay someone a percentage of profit, then you pay them the same because you still have a $7 profit per widget. If you are paying someone a percentage of revenue, you have to pay them more because you raised the price even though your profit is exactly the same.

 

 

 

This is precisely why they need to get off the revenue sharing model and it was going to take a work stoppage for that to happen. The last proposal they were discussing involved set cap increases over the next 4 years and had nothing to do with revenue sharing - which is why I'm so against the players right now. They were probably 2 more counter offers away from a deal when they just walked away to put all of this in court. Quite frankly, all this "smaller piece of the pie" crap rings totally hollow to me since they had already been negotiating a different revenue model and set annual increases that would already be a smaller piece of the pie.

 

And finally, no one was ever asking for a pay cut. The cap was never going to go down. No player was ever going to get the numbers in their current contracts reduced. Quite simply, the owners are asking for a slower RATE of cap increase. In their "pegged cap" negotiations, they had already established numbers that would increase each year and nobodys current contract would go up or down either way.

 

Nobody was being asked to take a pay cut!!!!!!

That sums it up pretty well for me.

 

 

[jason]

Whether I get paid by profit-sharing, revenue-sharing, or just an hourly wage, if my boss tells me he wants me to sign a contract saying I'll take a pay cut, I'm going to ask for a reason why I should.

 

What if your boss told you that he was personally losing money from the business venture through which you are paid? Would that be sufficient? Or would you demand that your boss opens his books?

[jason]

Correct in that that was the last deal. That deal expired by the owners executing an option in the last CBA that BOTH sides were able to execute if they felt the deal needed an adjustment. So, because of that, they didn't unilaterally cancel it. Both sides agreed that both sides legally and legitimately had that option.

 

Wow. Use hyperbole much? The owners made an opening offer of an extra billion off the top and negotiated down from there. When it comes to the lockout, that's the mechanism the owners have to get a new deal after the last one expired. If the players would have decided they needed a better deal than the last one and opted out early, it would have been a strike. Quite frankly, I discount any player complaints about the lockout because they were the ones that refused to extend the last CBA to keep negotiating and decided this decertify and sue in court path. If their members really have such hardships from being locked out in the offseason, then maybe they should have chosen a path that kept their insurance paid while they were negotiating.

 

Again, you are confusing an opening offer with an absolute demand and attaching that to their motives. The players got a great deal last time and have said as much. The owners wanted a better deal for themselves this time. Why didn't the players just extend the last CBA and keep negotiating. I can only think that we would have a deal by now if they had just kept negotiating.

 

Which is why the revenue sharing model seriously needs to be replaced. For a revenue sharing model to work, it is assuming that revenue and expenses will maintain the same ratio forever. Let's say you buy a widget for $3 and sell it for $10. Then, widgets get more expensive and you raise your prices, so now you buy them for $5 and sell them for $12. If you pay someone a percentage of profit, then you pay them the same because you still have a $7 profit per widget. If you are paying someone a percentage of revenue, you have to pay them more because you raised the price even though your profit is exactly the same.

 

This is precisely why they need to get off the revenue sharing model and it was going to take a work stoppage for that to happen. The last proposal they were discussing involved set cap increases over the next 4 years and had nothing to do with revenue sharing - which is why I'm so against the players right now. They were probably 2 more counter offers away from a deal when they just walked away to put all of this in court. Quite frankly, all this "smaller piece of the pie" crap rings totally hollow to me since they had already been negotiating a different revenue model and set annual increases that would already be a smaller piece of the pie.

 

And finally, no one was ever asking for a pay cut. The cap was never going to go down. No player was ever going to get the numbers in their current contracts reduced. Quite simply, the owners are asking for a slower RATE of cap increase. In their "pegged cap" negotiations, they had already established numbers that would increase each year and nobodys current contract would go up or down either way.

 

Nobody was being asked to take a pay cut!!!!!!

 

Excellent overall post. The bolded part is the key to this entire debate.

[azbearsfan]

Interesting debate guys.

 

Keep it up!!!!!

[defiantgiant]

Correct in that that was the last deal. That deal expired by the owners executing an option in the last CBA that BOTH sides were able to execute if they felt the deal needed an adjustment. So, because of that, they didn't unilaterally cancel it. Both sides agreed that both sides legally and legitimately had that option.

They unilaterally exercised the option. Both sides had the option to terminate, but the players didn't use theirs. One side, the owners' side, decided to terminate the old CBA. That's pretty much the definition of "unilateral."

 

Also, both sides had the option to terminate, but both sides also had the option to negotiate a new deal when the old one expired, without exercising the termination option. The owners didn't go that route - they decided to terminate the CBA and force a lockout instead.

 

Wow. Use hyperbole much? The owners made an opening offer of an extra billion off the top and negotiated down from there. When it comes to the lockout, that's the mechanism the owners have to get a new deal after the last one expired. If the players would have decided they needed a better deal than the last one and opted out early, it would have been a strike.

One other mechanism the owners had was to negotiate with the players' union in good faith for a new CBA that they felt was more favorable to them, without illicitly trying to gain leverage in the negotiations. Instead, they bargained for guaranteed money from the TV networks to fund the owners during a lockout (which violated their contractual obligations to the union) and then exercised their option to terminate the CBA. They (and I'm carefully trying to avoid hyperbole here) made sure that they would get paid even if a lockout occurred and then made a lockout happen. The owners lock the players out, the owners get paid while the lockout goes on, the players don't. It doesn't take much to see that that's an unfair bargaining position.

 

To borrow your parallel to a strike, this would be like if the players decided to strike, intentionally bargained in bad faith to make a strike happen, found a way to get paid the same wages for not working while they were on strike, and had the ability to keep the owners from conducting their businesses while the strike went on. If any of that were true, it'd look like a pretty unfair thing for the union to do.

 

Quite frankly, I discount any player complaints about the lockout because they were the ones that refused to extend the last CBA to keep negotiating and decided this decertify and sue in court path. If their members really have such hardships from being locked out in the offseason, then maybe they should have chosen a path that kept their insurance paid while they were negotiating.

The players refused to sign another extension without getting financial disclosure, and I don't wholeheartedly agree with them on that, especially after the two sides had gotten to within $300 million a year on the increase in off-the-top money. But they're saying that they honestly felt that litigating was the surest way to get back on the football field without cutting into the season, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're being dishonest about that. Given the timetable of this litigation, they would get to court and win their injunction well before the 2011 season starts. The injunction would force the owners to open the doors under the 2010 CBA rules, which would at least ensure that there's football this year. It's not an ideal solution, I don't really like it, and I wish they'd kept negotiating, but I believe their argument for now, until I have a reason not to.

 

Again, you are confusing an opening offer with an absolute demand and attaching that to their motives. The players got a great deal last time and have said as much. The owners wanted a better deal for themselves this time. Why didn't the players just extend the last CBA and keep negotiating. I can only think that we would have a deal by now if they had just kept negotiating.

That opening offer was, for all intents and purposes, an absolute demand, until the owners found out that their lockout money from the TV networks wasn't coming through. I haven't seen anything that suggests that they budged an inch while they still thought they could weather a lost season. They only started making any kind of concessions after Judge Doty's decision, once they didn't have their lockout insurance.

 

I'm not objecting to the fact that they wanted a better deal for themselves; that's how negotiations go - each party is trying to get the best deal for itself. What I object to is that they planned to use an extended lockout to put pressure on the players' union to take an owner-friendly deal. They worked out the TV deals so that they would get paid either way, giving them the financial ability to weather a season-long lockout. The players don't have that ability, and eventually the union's support would have fragmented and they would have capitulated. I don't have a problem with the owners trying to get themselves a better deal, but if their plan to get that was by negotiating in bad faith, intentionally causing a lockout, and planning to have that lockout cut into the 2011 season, THAT I have a problem with. As a fan, I'm not OK with that.

 

Which is why the revenue sharing model seriously needs to be replaced. For a revenue sharing model to work, it is assuming that revenue and expenses will maintain the same ratio forever. Let's say you buy a widget for $3 and sell it for $10. Then, widgets get more expensive and you raise your prices, so now you buy them for $5 and sell them for $12. If you pay someone a percentage of profit, then you pay them the same because you still have a $7 profit per widget. If you are paying someone a percentage of revenue, you have to pay them more because you raised the price even though your profit is exactly the same.

A revenue-sharing model doesn't need a constant revenue:expense ratio to work, it just needs adjustments to the sharing agreement as that ratio changes. That's why in principle, I have no problem with the owners asking for more money to cover their expenses, provided that those expenses are actually getting higher. The owners have access to the information that would tell everyone whether that's true or not, and they won't turn it over. Given that their incentive is to get the best deal possible for themselves, there's a tremendous reason to be skeptical of whether they're telling the truth, absent that evidence. On top of that, the NFL as a whole is highly profitable, and the only team whose books are open (the Packers) made a profit despite the economic downturn.

 

If the owners are right that the revenue:expense ratio has changed or will change during the term of the next CBA, then they should have no problem proving it. And if they prove it, the players have repeatedly said that they'll go along with it. So what's their incentive not to prove it, if it's true and proving it will get them the money they need?

 

This is precisely why they need to get off the revenue sharing model and it was going to take a work stoppage for that to happen. The last proposal they were discussing involved set cap increases over the next 4 years and had nothing to do with revenue sharing - which is why I'm so against the players right now. They were probably 2 more counter offers away from a deal when they just walked away to put all of this in court. Quite frankly, all this "smaller piece of the pie" crap rings totally hollow to me since they had already been negotiating a different revenue model and set annual increases that would already be a smaller piece of the pie.

That's all well and good, but it comes down to this: the owners wanted more money each year before revenue-sharing (or however the players will be paid) occurs. The players don't see a dime of that money. Regardless of whether they were negotiating a different revenue model or how they were splitting the pie after the expense money comes out, the owners are asking to set aside more money just for them. That's a worse deal for the players unless they get an equal-sized increase in their take of what's left over, which the owners never offered.

 

And since that money goes directly to the owners, and is earmarked for the expenses that they refuse to demonstrate, they could very well be trying to get the union to sign a deal that keeps the owners' revenues constant while shifting a significant chunk of their expenses onto the players.

 

And finally, no one was ever asking for a pay cut. The cap was never going to go down. No player was ever going to get the numbers in their current contracts reduced. Quite simply, the owners are asking for a slower RATE of cap increase. In their "pegged cap" negotiations, they had already established numbers that would increase each year and nobodys current contract would go up or down either way.

 

Nobody was being asked to take a pay cut!!!!!!

The cap ceiling is not the same as the players' union's cut of revenues. And whether people's current contracts are adjusted isn't the point - the point is what happens to future contracts during the term of the next CBA. Whether or not you want to call it a pay cut, they were asking the players to sign on to a deal that would reduce their future contracts (in the aggregate) from what they would have been under the old rules. Whether you call that a pay cut or a smaller contract, it's still less money than they would have made under the status quo.

 

I don't have a problem with adjusting the way the cap works or reducing some players' salaries - nobody thinks JaMarcus Russell was a good deal for the Raiders. The players were proposing a system that would have substantially reduced the top-15 rookie salaries and redistributed that money to the lower-paid veterans, so that the players' overall pay didn't go down. That would be fine. But if the owners are asking to reduce player salaries overall and use the extra money to benefit the owners themselves, then why shouldn't they have to prove that they need that benefit?

[LT2_3]

I'm switching most of your quotes to italics because I exceeded the maximum number of quotes in a post...

 

They unilaterally exercised the option. Both sides had the option to terminate, but the players didn't use theirs. One side, the owners' side, decided to terminate the old CBA. That's pretty much the definition of "unilateral."

 

Your usage of the word is wrong in the context. Technically, you are correct, but if the players had executed that clause they would have done so unilaterally as well. Using the word "unilaterally" in that context is completely incendiary and redundant since there is no possible way to execute that clause without it being unilateral.

 

Also, both sides had the option to terminate, but both sides also had the option to negotiate a new deal when the old one expired, without exercising the termination option. The owners didn't go that route - they decided to terminate the CBA and force a lockout instead.

 

No - the owners opted out May 20, 2008. That was so long ago that there were many different paths that could have been taken and the players never got serious about negotiations either. Without opting out, the players would have had no reason to renegotiate a thing because the CBA would have run for 2 more years. The owners had no option but to execute that clause if they wanted a new deal earlier than 2013 because the players would have had no incentive to negotiate.

 

Saying that the owners opted out of the CBA early so they could force a lockout is complete and utter bullshit.

 

One other mechanism the owners had was to negotiate with the players' union in good faith for a new CBA that they felt was more favorable to them, without illicitly trying to gain leverage in the negotiations. Instead, they bargained for guaranteed money from the TV networks to fund the owners during a lockout (which violated their contractual obligations to the union) and then exercised their option to terminate the CBA. They (and I'm carefully trying to avoid hyperbole here) made sure that they would get paid even if a lockout occurred and then made a lockout happen. The owners lock the players out, the owners get paid while the lockout goes on, the players don't. It doesn't take much to see that that's an unfair bargaining position.

 

Honestly, I think that's a bit overblown. I think you need to be careful of how you characterize those deals because they weren't going to get "free money" they were basically getting an advance on future payments. Should they have negotiated those deals that way? No. But they could have achieved the same results with either an insurance policy to pay out in case of a work stoppage, or they could simply borrow money from a bank. The reason they didn't go that route is because they got interest free terms that way.

 

To borrow your parallel to a strike, this would be like if the players decided to strike, intentionally bargained in bad faith to make a strike happen, found a way to get paid the same wages for not working while they were on strike, and had the ability to keep the owners from conducting their businesses while the strike went on. If any of that were true, it'd look like a pretty unfair thing for the union to do.

 

Nope. That's all legit. The players could strike, picket the teams to keep scabs out, and take out loans against their future earnings. That's how labor negotiations go my friend.

 

The players refused to sign another extension without getting financial disclosure, and I don't wholeheartedly agree with them on that, especially after the two sides had gotten to within $300 million a year on the increase in off-the-top money. But they're saying that they honestly felt that litigating was the surest way to get back on the football field without cutting into the season, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're being dishonest about that.

 

I disagree. I think that their law case is hot air and has no legitimate legal basis. I don't want to get into defining wins and losses for possible outcomes in court, but I don't think the players are going to get the outcome they want and things will stay in court for longer than they expect which will in turn put the season in more jeopardy. And I'm not even getting started on Dee Smith's personal ambitions and how he may be leading the union astray with this strategy. To sum up, the NLRB is probably going to carry more weight in this than the court in Minnesota. The union could end up reconstituted and locked out pretty quickly.

 

Given the timetable of this litigation, they would get to court and win their injunction well before the 2011 season starts. The injunction would force the owners to open the doors under the 2010 CBA rules, which would at least ensure that there's football this year. It's not an ideal solution, I don't really like it, and I wish they'd kept negotiating, but I believe their argument for now, until I have a reason not to.

 

What if the court defers to a ruling from the NLRB? What if they lose? Do they appeal it pushing things back further? What if it gets appealed to the Supreme court? How long would that take? They can't reconstitute the union and start negotiating until they have a final ruling in court.

 

That opening offer was, for all intents and purposes, an absolute demand, until the owners found out that their lockout money from the TV networks wasn't coming through. I haven't seen anything that suggests that they budged an inch while they still thought they could weather a lost season. They only started making any kind of concessions after Judge Doty's decision, once they didn't have their lockout insurance.

 

And neither side was ready to negotiate until the 11th hour. That's just how these kinds of things go. I don't know why you are so set on laying this on the owners. The players knew it was coming. The players knew that they weren't going to get to see everything they wanted to from the owners books too. That's just a negotiating ploy and a play for public sympathy. As for them not being able to weather a lost season, the league most certainly could take out loans to cover what they would have gotten from the networks that they would have had to pay back anyway. Saying otherwise is silly.

 

I'm not objecting to the fact that they wanted a better deal for themselves; that's how negotiations go - each party is trying to get the best deal for itself. What I object to is that they planned to use an extended lockout to put pressure on the players' union to take an owner-friendly deal.

 

And I discount that view because they made serious efforts in their mediated sessions with the union before the CBA expired. The players got an offer where they got ALL of the non-financial stuff they wanted and they were close on the numbers and still decided to walk away. Why did they walk away? Why not do another extension? Even if it was only a 3 day extension? How much does a 3 day extension change their strategy in the long run? Answer: Not at all.

 

They worked out the TV deals so that they would get paid either way, giving them the financial ability to weather a season-long lockout. The players don't have that ability, and eventually the union's support would have fragmented and they would have capitulated. I don't have a problem with the owners trying to get themselves a better deal, but if their plan to get that was by negotiating in bad faith, intentionally causing a lockout, and planning to have that lockout cut into the 2011 season, THAT I have a problem with. As a fan, I'm not OK with that.

 

Well you are welcome to your opinion. Again, I think you're making a bigger deal out of the advanced payments than it deserves. As I've pointed out, they can easily get loans to cover whatever they need anyway. I also don't think they were negotiating in bad faith either. They gave up all sorts of stuff in that last offer. I was shocked that they offered an independent arbiter for all grievances.

 

A revenue-sharing model doesn't need a constant revenue:expense ratio to work, it just needs adjustments to the sharing agreement as that ratio changes. That's why in principle, I have no problem with the owners asking for more money to cover their expenses, provided that those expenses are actually getting higher. The owners have access to the information that would tell everyone whether that's true or not, and they won't turn it over. Given that their incentive is to get the best deal possible for themselves, there's a tremendous reason to be skeptical of whether they're telling the truth, absent that evidence. On top of that, the NFL as a whole is highly profitable, and the only team whose books are open (the Packers) made a profit despite the economic downturn.

 

Alright, the key problem is that the owners want to act like businessmen. The only way they can build stadiums like Jones did in Dallas, is if they can pay the debt off quickly. They can't pay the debt off quickly if their player costs are tied to the increased revenue that it generates. The model just simply has to change. The business world has changed since the original model was developed. It takes more to make more, but the costs are higher too. Sometimes those things change in a matter of months and tweaking a revenue model every 4 or 5 years just doesn't cut it.

 

If the owners are right that the revenue:expense ratio has changed or will change during the term of the next CBA, then they should have no problem proving it. And if they prove it, the players have repeatedly said that they'll go along with it. So what's their incentive not to prove it, if it's true and proving it will get them the money they need?

 

The owners have no problem proving it, but the players are asking for too much information. The players want to see the complete books with full line item disclosure. There is no way they will ever get that. The players asking to see the books is simply a play for sympathy and a negotiating tool. They don't really care what the books say. They just want the threat of having to see them in play so they can get the best possible deal. I have no problem with them trying to get a good deal for themselves, but they are doing it in an obstructionist manner and making this all take a lot longer than it needs to.

 

That's all well and good, but it comes down to this: the owners wanted more money each year before revenue-sharing (or however the players will be paid) occurs. The players don't see a dime of that money. Regardless of whether they were negotiating a different revenue model or how they were splitting the pie after the expense money comes out, the owners are asking to set aside more money just for them. That's a worse deal for the players unless they get an equal-sized increase in their take of what's left over, which the owners never offered.

 

Haven't I said that they were about 2 counter offers away from a deal? Did I ever say that the players should have taken that deal? You're bitching about the last offer from the league like it was an ultimatum or something. Just to remind you, it was the players that walked away without making a counter offer.

 

And since that money goes directly to the owners, and is earmarked for the expenses that they refuse to demonstrate, they could very well be trying to get the union to sign a deal that keeps the owners' revenues constant while shifting a significant chunk of their expenses onto the players.

 

What? The players ARE an expense. How do you put an expense on an expense? Quite simply, as long as the players don't get paid less than they are right now, the cap continues to go up, the players are getting better benefits, and retired players are getting better taken care of, I think that would be a great deal for the players and I could not possibly care less about where the rest of the money goes.

 

The cap ceiling is not the same as the players' union's cut of revenues. And whether people's current contracts are adjusted isn't the point - the point is what happens to future contracts during the term of the next CBA. Whether or not you want to call it a pay cut, they were asking the players to sign on to a deal that would reduce their future contracts (in the aggregate) from what they would have been under the old rules. Whether you call that a pay cut or a smaller contract, it's still less money than they would have made under the status quo.

 

No argument on any of that - except that with the CBA expiring, there is no longer any status quo. It's time to cut a brand new deal. The past CBA is expired, dead, it's pushing up daisies, it's bereft of life, it's joined the choir invisible and shuffled off it's mortal coil. As I said, it's time for a new deal and worrying continuously about the deal that has expired is pointless. The players aren't going to get the same deal they had. They are going to get a lot of non-monetary things that they want too. It's going to be a brand new deal that can't be properly compared to the last one. Stop trying to do so.

 

I don't have a problem with adjusting the way the cap works or reducing some players' salaries - nobody thinks JaMarcus Russell was a good deal for the Raiders. The players were proposing a system that would have substantially reduced the top-15 rookie salaries and redistributed that money to the lower-paid veterans, so that the players' overall pay didn't go down. That would be fine. But if the owners are asking to reduce player salaries overall and use the extra money to benefit the owners themselves, then why shouldn't they have to prove that they need that benefit?

 

The owners haven't asked to reduce anyone's existing salaries. The only thing they have suggested on that note is to reduce what rookies earn and whatever rookies don't earn would have to get paid to SOMEONE to reach the newly proposed salary cap floor of 90% of the cap. I really don't see why anyone gives a crap about this. Even with the last offer from the owners, the cap will go up and players will get paid more than ever and continue in that trend. Did you read that from a credible source or is that the paranoid delusions of a player that doesn't understand the salary cap? Link please.

[jason]

For the life of me I really can't understand how someone could side with the players on this. It's a simple timeline:

 

1. Players get great CBA that doesn't end until 2013 (2006-2012). I believe all but two teams (Bills and someone) agreed.

2. Economics change; they always do. Owners realize the players will be content with the current model until 2013.

3. Owners vote to opt out of CBA in 2008 (takes effect in 2010). Owners unanimously agree on this.

4. Two long years pass without negotiations. This doesn't help the owners at all, and serves to help the players because they were so happy with the current CBA.

5. Owners and players meet for negotiations.

6. Owners come down from $1B stance to $320M. Even as a kid I knew that meeting on my side of the middle in a negotiation was a good thing.

7. Players counteroffer with $137M, which is borderline ridiculous, and a sign they don't want to really negotiate.

8. Owners offer to let a third party auditor view the complete books.

9. Players refuse the auditor offer because the NFLPA wants to see the complete financial information. Apparently a trusted third party - something used in businesses, security, computers, etc. world-wide - is not sufficient.

10. NFLPA Union decertifies. This stops collective bargaining. This stops negotiation. This ensures litigation.

11. Owners lock-out

 

That's a simplified timeline, but accurate. Numbers 7 & 8 should be damning evidence that the NFLPA doesn't really want to strike a fair deal.

[madlithuanian]

Dang...

 

I'd like to think you're probably enhancing the information selecting the negatives more than any positives. But it certainly does look like the players are significanly to blame from what you've presented.

 

Maybe D. Smith is really the culprit making his own personal power play out of this in lieu of what's truly at hand? Power corrupts...

 

I personally still blame all involved. But this summarized list seems to tip the scale in the players' direction more.

 

For the life of me I really can't understand how someone could side with the players on this. It's a simple timeline:

 

1. Players get great CBA that doesn't end until 2013 (2006-2012). I believe all but two teams (Bills and someone) agreed.

2. Economics change; they always do. Owners realize the players will be content with the current model until 2013.

3. Owners vote to opt out of CBA in 2008 (takes effect in 2010). Owners unanimously agree on this.

4. Two long years pass without negotiations. This doesn't help the owners at all, and serves to help the players because they were so happy with the current CBA.

5. Owners and players meet for negotiations.

6. Owners come down from $1B stance to $320M. Even as a kid I knew that meeting on my side of the middle in a negotiation was a good thing.

7. Players counteroffer with $137M, which is borderline ridiculous, and a sign they don't want to really negotiate.

8. Owners offer to let a third party auditor view the complete books.

9. Players refuse the auditor offer because the NFLPA wants to see the complete financial information. Apparently a trusted third party - something used in businesses, security, computers, etc. world-wide - is not sufficient.

10. NFLPA Union decertifies. This stops collective bargaining. This stops negotiation. This ensures litigation.

11. Owners lock-out

 

That's a simplified timeline, but accurate. Numbers 7 & 8 should be damning evidence that the NFLPA doesn't really want to strike a fair deal.

 

[azbearsfan]

Dang...

 

I'd like to think you're probably enhancing the information selecting the negatives more than any positives. But it certainly does look like the players are significanly to blame from what you've presented.

 

Maybe D. Smith is really the culprit making his own personal power play out of this in lieu of what's truly at hand? Power corrupts...

 

I personally still blame all involved. But this summarized list seems to tip the scale in the players' direction more.

 

 

I am with you. There is plenty of blame for both sides.

 

 

[Mongo3451]

Fantastic debating guys! You have exceeded my expectations and ability to offer anything more credible to it. To all sides of this, keep up the good work. This debate is as worthy as anything I have seen from the people that get paid to do it.

[jason]

Dang...

 

I'd like to think you're probably enhancing the information selecting the negatives more than any positives. But it certainly does look like the players are significanly to blame from what you've presented.

 

Maybe D. Smith is really the culprit making his own personal power play out of this in lieu of what's truly at hand? Power corrupts...

 

I personally still blame all involved. But this summarized list seems to tip the scale in the players' direction more.

 

MadLith...that is exactly the timeline. I suppose there could be other details thrown in there, debating points and what-not, heresay that is unsubstantiated. Unfortunately there isn't one single website that both sides are willing to get behind and verify, so the best we have is a paint by numbers with a few missing numbers. But the numbers we have lead to the timeline.

[madlithuanian]

Got it. I meant moreso that how you presented the timeline could be leaning one way or another based on your personal thoughts. But that regardless of the possibility of that, the crux of your point rings true.

 

 

 

MadLith...that is exactly the timeline. I suppose there could be other details thrown in there, debating points and what-not, heresay that is unsubstantiated. Unfortunately there isn't one single website that both sides are willing to get behind and verify, so the best we have is a paint by numbers with a few missing numbers. But the numbers we have lead to the timeline.

 

[balta1701-A]

There's a different way to look at the actual last offers made by each side...I'm not quite sure that either of them were serious. Including the Owner's deal.

 

Let's look at it this way.

 

First deadline for CBA expiration comes up. Owners continue with general proposal outline for $1 billion in give-backs.

Negotiating teams agree, last-minute, on a 1-week extension.

Owners did not budge from $1 billion in give-backs prior to extension.

Another 6 days passes of mediated talks. No formal proposal is submitted to the players. Owners don't talk at all about reducing the $1 billion #.

Players continue demanding to see detailed accounting records prior to accepting any givebacks.

Less than 12 hours before CBA extension expires, owners submit a completely new proposal with $320 million in givebacks.

As far as I know, no proposal for a CBA extension is given.

There is about a 4 hour (or less) period where the Union has to decide whether to propose an extension based on a completely new proposal, differing from 2 years of statements and proposals from the owners.

 

If the Players go to the owners and ask for an extension to negotiate based on the new proposal, effectively they're accepting it with barely enough time to have read it. That's how the arbitrator would have reacted, that's likely how courts reviewing the events later would react.

 

If the players trusted the owners, they might well have done so. But at this point, wouldn't you feel like the owners have been stringing you along? Giving you a fully new proposal hours before the negotiating deadline?

[jason]

There's a different way to look at the actual last offers made by each side...I'm not quite sure that either of them were serious. Including the Owner's deal.

 

Let's look at it this way.

 

First deadline for CBA expiration comes up. Owners continue with general proposal outline for $1 billion in give-backs.

Negotiating teams agree, last-minute, on a 1-week extension.

Owners did not budge from $1 billion in give-backs prior to extension.

Another 6 days passes of mediated talks. No formal proposal is submitted to the players. Owners don't talk at all about reducing the $1 billion #.

Players continue demanding to see detailed accounting records prior to accepting any givebacks.

Less than 12 hours before CBA extension expires, owners submit a completely new proposal with $320 million in givebacks.

As far as I know, no proposal for a CBA extension is given.

There is about a 4 hour (or less) period where the Union has to decide whether to propose an extension based on a completely new proposal, differing from 2 years of statements and proposals from the owners.

 

If the Players go to the owners and ask for an extension to negotiate based on the new proposal, effectively they're accepting it with barely enough time to have read it. That's how the arbitrator would have reacted, that's likely how courts reviewing the events later would react.

 

If the players trusted the owners, they might well have done so. But at this point, wouldn't you feel like the owners have been stringing you along? Giving you a fully new proposal hours before the negotiating deadline?

 

Balta - Where are you getting your version of the timeline with the "down to the hour" breakdown? I haven't seen this anywhere. From what I've seen, the $1Billion went to $600+ million, and then to $300+ million...the owners are willing to give back 2/3rd of their original bargaining request.

 

Here is one article that shows the NFL is willing to negotiate.

Here is an article with the $137 million dollar slap in the face from the NFLPA.