Ek wrote:I see this as a good sign - a 24-hour extension wouldn't make a lot of sense if the sides didn't think they were remotely close, which seemed to be the case about a week ago. Anyway, hopefully we'll know something more concrete at this time tomorrow, but I wouldn't count on it.
I agree with you here. At least they are continuing the talks on Monday. Guess we will see what happenes but it seems both sides realize a lockout isn't good for either party
Cowboys 4 life
(Past Year: 79)
Joined: 18 Jul 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Somewhere between Silicon Valley and a bunch of Fruits
When I wrote to you last on behalf of the NFL, we promised you that we would work tirelessly to find a collectively bargained solution to our differences with the players' union. Subsequent to that letter to you, we agreed that the fastest way to a fair agreement was for everyone to work together through a mediation process. For the last three weeks I have personally attended every session of mediation, which is a process our clubs sincerely believe in.
Unfortunately, I have to tell you that earlier today the players' union walked away from mediation and collective bargaining and has initiated litigation against the clubs. In an effort to get a fair agreement now, our clubs offered a deal today that was, among other things, designed to have no adverse financial impact on veteran players in the early years, and would have met the players’ financial demands in the latter years of the agreement.
The proposal we made included an offer to narrow the player compensation gap that existed in the negotiations by splitting the difference; guarantee a reallocation of savings from first-round rookies to veterans and retirees without negatively affecting compensation for rounds 2-7; no compensation reduction for veterans; implement new year-round health and safety rules; retain the current 16-4 season format for at least two years with any subsequent changes subject to the approval of the league and union; and establish a new legacy fund for retired players ($82 million contributed by the owners over the next two years).
It was a deal that offered compromise, and would have ensured the well-being of our players and guaranteed the long-term future for the fans of the great game we all love so much. It was a deal where everyone would prosper.
We remain committed to collective bargaining and the federal mediation process until an agreement is reached, and call on the union to return to negotiations immediately. NFL players, clubs, and fans want an agreement. The only place it can be reached is at the bargaining table.
While we are disappointed with the union's actions, we remain steadfastly committed to reaching an agreement that serves the best interest of NFL players, clubs and fans, and thank you for your continued support of our League. First and foremost it is your passion for the game that drives us all, and we will not lose sight of this as we continue to work for a deal that works for everyone.
Yours, Roger Goodell
and here is the note I received from the Detroit Lions:
Detroit Lions wrote:Dear Lions Season Ticket Holder:
In the interest of communicating openly with our most valued customers, we wanted to write to keep you updated on how the expiration of the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement may impact the 2011 season.
As you probably know, the Collective Bargaining Agreement -- the contract between the league and the labor union representing the players -- has expired. The NFL is working hard to reach a new agreement with the players, and we hope the negotiation process does not disrupt this football season. You should know that it is no way disrupting our preparation for a great 2011 season.
In the event any games are cancelled, be assured we will provide you with a full refund, with simple interest, for any cancelled preseason or regular-season home games. We will provide you with the details of the refund program at the appropriate time should it become necessary. In the meantime, if you have any questions about the refund policy, or any other matter, please contact your account representative.
We are sorry the CBA expiration has created some uncertainty during this offseason. We understand and respect that what is most important to you and to all of our fans is that we play football in 2011.
We share your passion for NFL football and your excitement for the upcoming season. Our coaches and personnel department continue to work diligently to prepare for the NFL Draft in April and to be ready as soon as the teams and the players are able to come to a fair agreement for both sides.
Thank you for your patience and understanding. We greatly appreciate your support of the Detroit Lions and will continue to keep you informed of our plans for the 2011 season.
If the NFL is communist, they sure wouldn't be handing over 60% percent of the profits to the players and making them multimillionaires every season - they'd be in the army and paid 1st Lieutenant's wages, lol!
That said, I don't have much sympathy for either side - hard to identify with millionaires fighting with billionaires, especially when the losers in the end are the fans as the cost will be passed onto them in the form of higher ticket prices (among other things), putting the price out of range of the average fan (some teams have already prices for this season).
Fantasy Football: "Luck is where preparation meets opportunity"
I'm having a hard time coming down on either side of the fence. Every time I hear info from the players against the league, I think THOSE BASTARDS! Then I hear info from the league against the players and I think THOSE BASTARDS!
So, now I just think THOSE BASTARDS! and you can think that I'm referring to either side and you'll probably be right.
I tell you what, though... I miss Upshaw. From all the news clips I've seen and articles I've read, a lot of the problems in the negotiating seems to be coming from DeMaurice Smith, a lawyer as opposed to a former player like Upshaw was. When Upshaw was head of the Union, a deal was always made that came out good for everyone (although, the owners having an opt out clause in the previous CBA is a little baffling), but since a lawyer is now in charge, the Union (or trade association, whatever they want to call themselves) is quick to jump to court and litigation. Go figure.
After negotiations broke down, Smith said the owners last proposal was basically too little, too late. Now they're saying it was worse than the previous proposal. So which was it that caused the problem? Too little too late or not good enough? Pick a story and stick with it. The last proposal looked like the league looked like it gave the players everything they wanted while still be fair to the owners. Why the break down? They say it was just a last ditch effort to save face in public.
So, were the owners really just trying to save face? Why did they wait so long to offer this deal. Are they really trying to be transparent giving 5 years of financial records when the players asked for 10? The last proposal stuck to a 16 game season for a few years with the option to move to 18 a few years down the road. Why are owners so hard up to get 18 games besides money? I haven't heard one good reason for the expanded season beyond dollars.
The way I see it... I'm not sure what the money split is, but the players should have a majority share since they are the ones who make the money. But they also have to realize that the Owners have to maintain the franchises... stadium, promotion, staff, equipment, transportation. I feel that revenue should be broken down into percentages. A percent should be spent on players up to, but not exceeding the cap. A percent on staff. A percent on stadium, equipment, practice facilities, etc.... and so on. Of course, the amount spent is based on the team since some teams (like the Cowboys) make a brazillion dollars a year while other teams (like the Jags) have a smaller fan base and smaller profit margin.
There should be a rookie base salary system for three years based on position draft. Then, there should be a two year "first rights" to the team that drafted the player, sort of like the restricted FA. The team retains the rights to the player for two years unless traded or signed by another team in which the drafting team is compensated by draft picks. But the team is restricted to the number of players per year that they can hold on to and those two years are based on a system sort of like the franchise tag in which the player earns something like the average salary of the top 20 players of the position (which will be much less than the F tag because of the larger range of salaries). After these five years (the typical length of a rookie contract), the player is an UFA and free to sigh wherever for however much.
The league should give up on the 18 game season. While I'd like to see more games, I do side with the players on this one. The game is hard on player's bodies and the risk of further injury is too great and the pay off ($$$$) isn't enough. Keep those games in the preseason and let those guys on the bubble earn a spot on the team.
I think these were the major sticking points in negotiations. I can't really think of any others right at the moment, but it seems like an easy fix... But when money is involved, everything gets complicated. I hope they get everything ironed out so that we can get some football in september!
You make too much sense Munboy.. It will never work.. I agrre with you 100% of your post... Millionaires fighting with Billionaires is the truh while us peasants can't even afford to go to a game anymore...
If the lockout continues the government should lift the antitrust exemption. This would first and foremost kill any further attempts by the league to get TV money during the lockout. It would also eliminate the salary cap. Meaning, there would be no holes barred in negotiating contracts. No more squabbling over revenue sharing. You get what you're contracted. Of course the best thing would be to negotiate a new CBA, but that doesn't look like it's gonna happen.
u_fig_eater wrote:If the lockout continues the government should lift the antitrust exemption. This would first and foremost kill any further attempts by the league to get TV money during the lockout. It would also eliminate the salary cap. Meaning, there would be no holes barred in negotiating contracts. No more squabbling over revenue sharing. You get what you're contracted. Of course the best thing would be to negotiate a new CBA, but that doesn't look like it's gonna happen.
First off, the players agreed to the previous CBA which allowed for the owners to receive money from the TV contracts regardless if there was any football played or not. Fair? No. But it was agreed upon. It is the players who also agreed to give the owners an opt out clause in the previous CBA that the owners chose to use and has led to this mess. Again. Fair? No. But it was agreed upon. Now the players say the owners never intended to negotiate fairly and because the union was planning to de-certify and go to litigation, the owners say the players never intended to negotiate fairly...and now the pooh hit the fan and there's pooh all over the players and owners and the local economies, and if there's no football, it'll be all over the fans.
Secondly, eliminating the salary cap is a HORRIBLE idea. Look at baseball, which has no cap. It's always the same teams year after year going to the playoffs because they're the ones who can afford the big name players. The smaller market teams with less revenue lose year after year. The cap is what keeps the NFL competitive. We never know who's going to go the playoffs one year and then miss it the next. We never know who will make it to the Superbowl because there's no one team stockpiling the talent by throwing money at the players (think Yankees). Teams have to be smart about where they spread the money around. Sure players want to receive more money, but getting rid of the cap will, in the long run, hurt the league.
Third, I don't understand the comment the best thing would be to negotiate a new CBA. That's what they've been trying to do. They weren't re-negotiating the old one. They were negotiating a new one. Any CBA to come out of this mess will be new because the old one lapsed, and even before it lapsed, it was rendered void when the owners opted out.