NFL LABOR UPDATE: Tick, Tick, Tick...Boom?
by Dave Cariello on Mar 11, 2011 6:00 AM CST
Email
Print
This it it, folks. The final day of NFL labor negotiations. And things aren't looking very good.
Last night's negotiations ended on a sour note after lead NFL negotiator Jeff Pash furtively questioned the players commitment to getting a deal done during a press conference, which angered NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith enough to call his own impromptu press conference outside in the rain just before everyone was ready to head home. Here is what Smith said:
"Obviously we saw Jeff Pash's comments a few moments ago and instead of driving home (I decided to address) the commitment of our players to this process....We had staff meetings with non-owners of the National Football League. Our players stood around and waited until 6 o'clock. The owners left and we were told to come back at 10 a.m. (tomorrow). We're committed to this process. We have been committed to this process. But for anyone to stand and turn to the American people and question that...
Look, I understand that there's probably some things Jeff Pash just has to say. But this is the truth. We know that as early as March of 2009 from the discovery in the television case that the National Football League engaged in a strategy to get $4 billion of television money to lockout our fans and lockout our players even if the games weren't played....(The court decision) talks about how they were going to go about securing television money and I quote, "for cash during a lockout." So with all due respect, when someone wants to stand up and say that he questions or doubts one parties commitment to the negotiation process, all I would ask is for all of you...to stick to the facts and take the document. We're going to be back here tomorrow because we want football to continue."
The two sides later took the fight online, with a back-and-forth on Twitter between NFLPA assistant executive director George Atallah and NFL spokesperson Greg Aiello.
Atallah said this:
If owners continue to ? players' commitment to negotiations, we're prepared 2 make public all our unanswered proposals. (via @BobGlauber)
I would like to request an expense credit from the owners on the last 3 hours of my life.
Aiello replied with this:
That won't take long.
@BobGlauber While George is at it, ask him when is union going to respond to our 150 pages of draft CBA provisions that they received eight days ago. Waiting.
Yowza! Keep in mind that this was all after players and owners were unable to meet during the day. Both sides were a little testy.
The good news is that the gap in the great revenue split debate seems to be dwindling. Andrew Brandt of National Football Post reports that progress is being made:
On 9B revenue split, players still asking for 50/50: 4.5B. Owners offering roughly 43%: 3.9B. Gap of approx. 600M and shrinking.
The other good news is that yesterday's negotiation session was one of the most well-attended. Here's a list of who was in attendance:
The League
In addition to Pash, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and league outside counsel Bob Batterman, the league's group included nine of the 10 members of the NFL's labor committee: co-chairs Jerry Richardson, owner of the Carolina Panthers, and Pat Bowlen, owner of the Denver Broncos, as well as Cincinnati Bengals owner Mike Brown, Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, New York Giants owner John Mara, Pittsburgh Steelers president Art Rooney II, San Diego Chargers president Dean Spanos and Green Bay Packers...
Philadelphia Eagles president Joe Banner and Washington Redskins general manager Bruce Allen also were in attendance.
NFLPA
The NFLPA's contingent grew to include outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler and numerous members of the NFLPA's executive committee, including Denver Broncos safety Brian Dawkins, Kansas City Chiefs guard Brian Waters, Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch, Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday and Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth. The union's group also included retired players Cornelius Bennett, Pete Kendall, Sean Morey and Jim McFarland.
The 7-day extension expires at 5pm EST tonight. Absent an agreement, NFLPA decertification is probable. Another extension is not likely.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
No is leading the poll 20-0
not good.
It’s like asking “Should the Saints re-sign Jason David?”
Black Pants = Bad
Not quite. The “Yes” tally would be negative in that case.
"I was not on the boat in question" -Darren Sharper
Not true
Dave would have rigged the poll.
“DO you think the Saints should re-sign J*son D*vid?”
-No
-No
-No
Offseason Motto: Burn the damn black pants.
Canal Street Chronicles-you know you want to
I'm thinking they will have another extension
Owners don’t want to fight antitrust litigation.
They thought they were gonna get 4 billion in tv money and be able to strongarm the players. Now that they can’t use that money, they will have to compromise. I’m betting they will open ultimately open up their books and it won’t be as bad as they claimed and they players will give them a little more off the top but not an extra billion like they wanted.
If they go to litigation they are going to have to open their books anyway. They know they may lose in court and possibly kill the golden goose in the process. So I expect them to continue to drag their feet and cry like spoiled children that didn’t get their way but ultimately extend negotiations, open books and settle for a smaller addrional amount off the top
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 11, 2011 8:37 AM CST via mobile reply actions
What if
…the NFL’s books show not that profits are dropping, but, as some have suggested, that the growth of profits is slowing. Under those circumstances, what motive do the players have to concede more money to the owners? If your boss took you aside and told you, “My profits are at an all-time high, but they’re just not growing as fast as I had hoped, so I want you to agree to a pay cut,” would you be okay with that?
It was worth the wait.
That may be true
So in that scenario, I would think that it is in the owners best interest to save themselves the embarrassment, not open their books, and just settle for whatever extra they can get.
Without the 4 billion in TV money, they aren’t in a position to bully anymore. Thier bluff will be called and decertification is the last thing they should want.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 11, 2011 11:00 AM CST up reply actions
If your boss took you aside and told you, "My profits are at an all-time high, but they’re just not growing as fast as I had hoped, so I want you to agree to a pay cut," would you be okay with that?
Well, I guess it would be up to the boss. If he would rather dissolve his business, than keep my salary the same, ultimately it’s his call. It would be a stupid call, but it’s still his call. The boss didn’t get rich off football, I did. He was already rich before football and will continue to be if there is no football. It’s not fair, it’s just reality.
On the other hand, if I was making more money than I ever dreamed of working for him, and an upfront pay cut would still be more money than I ever dreamed of, and the money from my pay cut was used to grow the business into a bigger pie that could ultimately result in my share actually being a pay raise in the long run, I would probably meet in the middle somewhere on my paycut rather than be out of a dream job.
So I guess I can see it both ways. I think the owners are in the wrong, but it’s thier perogative.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 11, 2011 11:24 AM CST up reply actions
But how could you tell if your concession was at all likely to grow the business without being privy to the company’s financial information?
The crux of this whole deal isn’t what either side is asking for, but the attitude of the owners. “Trust us” is not a good-faith negotiating tactic.
It was worth the wait.
I guess my point is that the owners have a right to demand a paycut for any reason without requiring evidence of anykind. Sure, not a good idea, but not that different from what they have actually done.
But when I put myself in the players shoes, I’m pissed that it is not fair. But it may actually be more painful to decertify, be unemployed, fight in court, start or join another league. Even if they win an antitrust suit it doesn’t mean they will make the same money they were making. Is all of that worth it to say “I was right”. I think I would just take a potentially temporary pay cut and bank on the NFL continuing to grow at unprecedented pace. And that is what the owners are banking on.
Now if I were in the owners shoes, I wouln’t want to lose an antitrust suit and no longer have the liscence to print money that the NFL is, all because I wanted more. How dumb would that be! But at the end of the day, I’m still a billionaire.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 11, 2011 11:42 AM CST up reply actions
Is all of that worth it to say "I was right".
Ah… now we’re getting to the heart of the matter. (not sarcasm)
Both sides have dug and feel an overwhelming need to be “right”.
They both need a swift kick in the a** and a stern talking to by a representative of THE FANS!
"It's more than a handful. It's a handsful."
I think the owners are just fine with a lockout
They seem to have this arrogant mindset that the players will experience enough hardship during this period while they aren’t getting paid and having to pay for their own health coverage that the NFLPA will be forced to concede to their demands. I think the owners are planning to just let time wear them down.
$600 million is still a pretty big gap. Based on what happened last night, get ready for the “BOOM” we’re about to hear at 5pm EST.
"As soon as Tony (Dungy) said we had no chance, I knew we had 'em right where we wanted 'em"--Coach Sean Payton right after Super Bowl XLIV with the Lombardi Trophy firmly in hand. WHO DAT!!
by David "Satch" Kelly on Mar 11, 2011 9:30 AM CST up reply actions
They changed their tune pretty quick last week when the NFLPA filed for decertification with minutes to go. Then they extended with an agreement to reveal partial audited books this week, hoping it would suffice. Unless they are dumb enough to go to court and probably lose an antitrust suit that would forever diminish their money train, expect another extension this time with more financial info revealed. This may happen over and over until the players are satisfied. And if there is no true financial strain, expect them to just settle for what they can get without revealing any more of thier books.
If there is decertification, and I was a player that isn’t financially stable, I would just sign with the UFL with an out-clause.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 11, 2011 11:07 AM CST up reply actions
They are back. Huge banner on the side of the Arena. I think they’ve already played a game. Odd that they never called and asked me to renew my season tickets from their first go around. Maybe they have different owners now.
Well at this rate
What I find myself hoping for is that the deal to keep the Phoenix Coyotes falls absolutely flat and the team is moved back to Winnipeg so I will be able to watch professional Sports next season. NHL hockey in my home town will at least be a small upside to there being no football. I am not highly optimistic of a deal being reached.
I like Hamburgers!
It's OK...For Now
I’ll survive whatever happen for now. It’s Fishin season.LOL
When I say WHO DAT U say TWO DAT!!!
by cajuncommando58 on Mar 11, 2011 11:08 AM CST reply actions
Really? Cause here everything’s still frozen. Le Sigh
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
Man we gonna be 70 degrees here in AR
Unfortunately I have to work all weekend. Bet it rains all next weekend because I’m off then. Sigh!
When I say WHO DAT U say TWO DAT!!!
by cajuncommando58 on Mar 11, 2011 11:26 AM CST up reply actions
That’s the way it goes. About 40 here atm. Stuff’s slowly melting. But the instant we have a good day…i’m sure the wind will start blowing 40 mph.
"Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not 'every man for himself.' And the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked 'em up."
I can handle the wind
I just let it blow me around the lake and drag crappie jigs along the bottom. Usually catch a limit while everybody else is complaining they can’t get a bite. LOL
When I say WHO DAT U say TWO DAT!!!
by cajuncommando58 on Mar 11, 2011 11:35 AM CST up reply actions
What happens if
the union decertifies, the CBA lapses, but the teams don’t lock out the players? They don’t have to, after all. And once the CBA lapses, that puts an end to Doty’s role (the owners hate him). Then they can just continue negotiating.
It was worth the wait.
Damn if I know
Guess you have a non-lock-out lock-out. Can’t get anything done unless there are rules. The only other option for the owners would be to got back to the original CBA. Owners lose, Players win, at-least for a couple more years.
When I say WHO DAT U say TWO DAT!!!
by cajuncommando58 on Mar 11, 2011 11:43 AM CST up reply actions
great question
didn’t know that was an option.
In Breesus' name we play
by Breesus Christ Superstar on Mar 11, 2011 11:44 AM CST up reply actions
from what I understand (which is admittedly limited in this case) it’s technically not a “lock out” by the owners (the media just likes to call it that).
I think it’s actually union rules that prevent the players from going in to work without a CBA in place.
I could be wrong.
"It's more than a handful. It's a handsful."
But if they decertify, there are no union rules. Any player could report for work—or negotiate his own deal, for that matter.
That doesn’t solve the anti-trust issues. The NFL would be sitting on a powder keg…even the draft might blow the league to pieces. But allowing the union to decertify without taking any action themselves would allow the teams more time to negotiate. Seems to me.
It was worth the wait.
Agree dat
That is the crux of the matter, the owners don’t really want this to go to anti-trust litigation.
When I say WHO DAT U say TWO DAT!!!
by cajuncommando58 on Mar 11, 2011 12:36 PM CST up reply actions
I just read anther post.
If the owners do not lock out the players after they have argued to an impasse then they would basically impose the rules they want and then the players would have to either decertify and sue, or play or strike. Don’t know if this is true just something I read on the answers on a Buffalo Bill Q&A SITE.
When I say WHO DAT U say TWO DAT!!!
by cajuncommando58 on Mar 11, 2011 12:33 PM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
