NFL CBA thread-merged

[Sea Ray]

The NFL Players Association is going to try to reach an agreement by Friday, 3/11/11. Do you think that this is even attainable or will there be a possible lockout?

I highly doubt it. My guess is next week this issue moves from the board rooms of NY to the court rooms. This will likely be settled in court which is a shame. Judges shouldn't decide this thing.

[Sea Ray]

I find it hard to believe the networks would agree in any part to paying such a huge sum for nothing in return. Either there is football and get paid, or there is no football and don't get paid.

This network money is not free money to the owners. If the games aren't played, the owners have to pay it back with interest.

/>http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/27/nfl-stresses-immediate-consequences-of-possible-lockout/

It is nothing more than a home equity loan.

It is a contract that the owners negotiated with the networks. The players were not a party to those negotiations so why do they now have a say in whether the contracts are upheld? I totally disagree with this judge's decision. My bet is the owners will try their luck with another judge and in an appeal.

[COB]

It is a contract that the owners negotiated with the networks. The players were not a party to those negotiations so why do they now have a say in whether the contracts are upheld?

The owners have a contract with the players. The contract says they split, with specific exceptions, all the revenue with the players. The money from the tv contracts is part of money to be split. The players claimed that the owners, in negotiating a payout clause in the event of no football, must have accepted less money for their tv rights. In other words, every clause in a contract costs something, nothing in life is free. So they in effect spent money that was partially the players money to buy a clause in the contract that ultimately would only enrich them. The players not only argued it, they proved it in Federal Court.

[COB]

This network money is not free money to the owners. If the games aren't played, the owners have to pay it back with interest.

A blatant lie. Your source is a spokesman for the NFL. They lied.

/>http://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/Lockout%20Insurance%20Case%20Decision.pdf

The above is a copy of the court's decision ruling that the owners had ignored the obligation to act in good faith and use best efforts to maximize total revenues for both the NFL and the Players.

I'll summarize it here, or if, like me, you want to completely nerd out, go ahead and read it yourself. (I also enjoy, to the point of obsession, speed rubicks cubing).

After a 10 week jury trial in 1992, it was determined that the NFL was in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The result of that lawsuit and several that were filed immediately after it, was an agreed upon document that would dictate to what extent the NFL could continue to use its monopoly power to rape the public and their own employees. This document, called the "White Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (SSA) dictates responsibilities and rights to the players and owner. (Side note, it is called "White" because it grew out of a lawsuit Reggie White had filed.) (Second Side Note, Reggie White probably got murdered by an NFL hit squad).

In May of 2008, the owners opeted out of the final two years of the current CBA and SSA.

Soon after opting out, knowing they would lock the players out in 2011, the owners began to negotiate extensions of its broadcast contracts.

It had broadcast contracts with DirectTV, CBS, Fox, NBC, and ESPN.

As an example, let's look at DirecTV. The contract was to expire at the end of 2010. There was no work-stoppage provision, and under the contract's terms, the NFL would get paid nothing for a season in which they locked out the players. Guess what? The contract extension, negotiated in July, 2008, provides that if there is a cancellation of the 2011 season, not only will DirecTV still have to pay the agreed upon broadcasting rights for 2011, they'll have to pay, at the NFL's discretion, up to 9% more! That's right, they get to pay what they would have paid, and an extra 9%! Of the total amount payable in the event of a cancelled season, 42% of that fee is non-refundable, and the raminder would be credited to the following season.

The Court's decision went on to say, "As a result,

the NFL could receive substantially more from DirecTV in 2011 if it

locks out the Players then if it does not. DirecTV would have

considered paying more in 2009 and 2010 “to have [the work-stoppage

provision] go away.” Tr. 410.

A few highlight from the CBS, NBC, FOX, and ESPN contracts. All were renegotiated with the lockout in mind. All had provisions that the networks had to pay rights fees in the case of a lockout year.

Quote: "Initially, FOX expressed reluctance to pay rights fees during a work stoppage. The NFL considered opposition to the work-stoppage provision a 'deal breaker.'"

Quote: "In extension negotiations, NBC felt that the NFL was 'hosing' it by its rights fees demand."

ESPN wanted some new digital content rights. They didn't want the work stoppage provision. Quote: "The NFL stated that the digital deal and the work-stoppage provisions were 'linked'".

You want to hear the most heinous quote in the whole decision? The coup de grace, if you will? Here it is: "In total, the NFL negotiated access to over $4 billion in rights fees in 2011 if it locks out the Players. Of that sum, it has no obligation to repay 421 million to the broadcasters."

So what that NFL spokesman who talked to ProFootballTalk really meant was the NFL was getting a special kind of home equity loan. You can go to the bank and see if you can get one. You get to keep $421 million without paying it back.

Do you know why conservative justices, after being appointed to the US Supreme Court, end up being a lot more liberal than anyone thought possible? (Earl Warren and William Brennan come to mind). It's because sitting on that court they see instance after instance where the rich and powerful use their money and influence to just completely f**k over their opponents. They lie (it's a home equity loan), cheat (I'll trade you streaming rights for some money I don't have to share with my partner) and steal (Seat Licenses).

[Sea Ray]

Nice post COBengal. It's packed chuck full of facts and I like that. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I take away from it:

Of the $4Bill, about 10% of it does not have to be paid back due to how the NFL negotiated it. I would assume that the other 90% will have to be paid back with interest.

I have no doubt that the NFL negotiated this with the impending lockout in mind. What's wrong with that? I get your point that they took less money to do so but since they have no tie to the Union in 2011, why can't they? Why are they forbidden by law to negotiate deals that would protect them from a landmind they see coming?

Why does a 2011 contract affect the players at all? The players tie to the owners expired last week (supposedly). The players should have no power to affect a deal that doesn't even include them. For example, what happens to the TV money if the owners field scabs?

Let's advance the story,

If the Union decertifies, what's to keep the owners from imposing their own set of rules and say those who want to play under these rules are invited to camp and those that don't can stay home?

Finally, I do see this being settled in court not at the bargaining table. A lot is made of the strength of the MLB Union as opposed to the NFL Union but in reality it's that the MLB Union has fared better in court. For example the last baseball strike, when the WS was cancelled, was brought to a halt when a judge ordered the players back to work the following Spring. If the owners had their way they'd have locked them out after losing the revenue from the previous post season.

[COB]

Nice post COBengal. It's packed chuck full of facts and I like that. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is what I take away from it:

Of the $4Bill, about 10% of it does not have to be paid back due to how the NFL negotiated it. I would assume that the other 90% will have to be paid back with interest.

Sort of true. Some of the money that has to be paid back doesn't actually have to be paid back. Instead an offset is taken against the broadcaster's fees due the next year.

I have no doubt that the NFL negotiated this with the impending lockout in mind. What's wrong with that? I get your point that they took less money to do so but since they have no tie to the Union in 2011, why can't they? Why are they forbidden by law to negotiate deals that would protect them from a landmind they see coming?

You should be a lawyer for the NFL, because that's exactly what they argued. And they argued it successfully. The court agreed with this assertion. Unfortunately for the NFL's lawyers, the NFL, under Roger Goodell basically engaged in fraud. In each and every instance, and they are detailed in the decision, the NFL renegotiated and extended the broadcast contracts as follows: We, the NFL, give you, the broadcaster, a bunch of new rights to digitally stream our product, to use highlights various ways, to use digital content in new ways, to broadcast our games over your wireless network (Comcast and Verizon), to put the Sunday Ticket out via broadband, etc. All the new rights the broadcasters received kicked in at the start of the '09 season. The cost to the broadcasters? Nothing. Rights fees all stayed the same. Until 2011, that is, when the rights fees in each and every instance increased.

To sum it up, the Court said, "the NFL is not entitled to obtain leverage by renegotiating shared revenue contracts, during the SSA, to generate post-SSA leverage and revenue to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the Players."

Why does a 2011 contract affect the players at all? The players tie to the owners expired last week (supposedly). The players should have no power to affect a deal that doesn't even include them. For example, what happens to the TV money if the owners field scabs?

2011 contract doesn't affect the players at all, assuming the NFL is a legitimate business conducting business legally. Which it is not. It is in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and operates under an operating agreement, the SSA, to which the players are a party. That agreement is moderated, if you will, or, more accurately, enforced, by the Federal Court. If the owners field scabs they'll be sued by the players, and the players will win. Again.

What keeps Ced Benson from walking off the field after a good game in week 6, driving to Dallas, and suiting up for them in week 7? The SSA, which allows the NFL to dictate a bunch of terms to its employees that would otherwise be illegal. Think of the NFL draft. In exchange for the ability to operate this way, the Court simply asks that the NFL not go around buttf**king everyone that either wants to work for it or wants to watch it.

Let's advance the story,

If the Union decertifies, what's to keep the owners from imposing their own set of rules and say those who want to play under these rules are invited to camp and those that don't can stay home?

Paul Brown? Is that you typing from the grave?

Nothing will stop the NFL from doing that. But as I stated previously they'll get sued and lose. Or they'll give up their antitrust exemption, which will never happen.

Your scenario is pornography to 31 rich crusty white dudes. NFL owners will jizz in their pants if they read it.

Finally, I do see this being settled in court not at the bargaining table. A lot is made of the strength of the MLB Union as opposed to the NFL Union but in reality it's that the MLB Union has fared better in court. For example the last baseball strike, when the WS was cancelled, was brought to a halt when a judge ordered the players back to work the following Spring. If the owners had their way they'd have locked them out after losing the revenue from the previous post season.

The owners' actions in regard to the negotiations regarding lockout provisions were pretty egregious. I think they should try very, very, hard to stay out of court. But they're all risk takers who are used to getting their way, so I won't be surprised if it ends up in Court. Remember when the USFL sued the NFL and won? Their damages were assessed as one dollar. It won't be one dollar this time.

The players will go for punitive damages, and I think they'll probably get them. I am amazed Roger Goodell did this. It was a monumental f**kup, and to avoid paying too big, he should sign a new CBA with the players.

[Kazkal]

Screw the NFLPA.

[membengal]

I welcome the NFL apocalypse and wish it well.

Oh, and good stuff COB. Well done.

[Kazkal]

Hmmm as of midnight we can trade Carson...Also other teams can sign Joseph and Cedben.

[COB]

I heard the lead negotiator for the NFL talk at the end of the day, after they had received the decertification notices. He was extremely irate. He said the owners had agreed to meet the players' terms on several issues, and that on the money issue the owners had offered to meet the players halfway. It seemed like the owners were expecting the players to accept the offer, and they were clearly not happy to see the thing go to litigation.

The guy also said the owners offered to allow a disinterested 3rd party to review some financial records for the last 10 years then give a report to the players. He was indignant that the players turned that down, as well.

[BengalszoneBilly]

The guy also said the owners offered to allow a disinterested 3rd party to review some financial records for the last 10 years then give a report to the players.

Key word in that sentence is "some". The owners are clearly hiding something, and the players know it.

[COB]

The guy also said the owners offered to allow a disinterested 3rd party to review some financial records for the last 10 years then give a report to the players.

Key word in that sentence is "some". The owners are clearly hiding something, and the players know it.

I agree. One thing has stood out to me throughout this whole thing, and it is the players' strident, unrelenting call for a chance to see the teams' financial records. They just won't let up.

[COB]

I just read that if the owners lock the players out, which is likely, the players will seek an injunction. If the injunction is granted, the league will go forward with a season under rules similar the the 2010 season.

After the players get locked out, the plan is for the players to file an antitrust lawsuit against the owners. They'll surely get all the financial records they want as part of discovery in that lawsuit. The owners surely know that.

The 3 players I read that will likely be the plaintiffs in the lawsuit? Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Tom Brady.

[BengalszoneBilly]

The guy also said the owners offered to allow a disinterested 3rd party to review some financial records for the last 10 years then give a report to the players.

Key word in that sentence is "some". The owners are clearly hiding something, and the players know it.

I agree. One thing has stood out to me throughout this whole thing, and it is the players' strident, unrelenting call for a chance to see the teams' financial records. They just won't let up.

Would you? If I were in their place I wouldn't. The momentum seems to be swinging their way.

[BengalszoneBilly]

WTF! I just got an email from Roger Godell via Yahoo.

Dear NFL Fan,

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

I'm surprised my spam filter didn't latch on to this one.

[COB]

WTF! I just got an email from Roger Godell via Yahoo.

Dear NFL Fan,

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

I'm surprised my spam filter didn't latch on to this one.

LMAO.

[Sea Ray]

WTF! I just got an email from Roger Godell via Yahoo.

I'm surprised my spam filter didn't latch on to this one.

Yeah, I got one too. I have no idea where that came from

[Sea Ray]

Hmmm as of midnight we can trade Carson...Also other teams can sign Joseph and Cedben.

I doubt it:

-- No player movement. There will be none under the lockout. No player signings and no trades. The April draft still will take place, but drafted players will not be able to sign contracts. And players who are injured will be unable to receive treatment by team doctors and trainers, and coaches can have no contact with their players.

/>http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-03-11/off-to-court-where-the-nfl-labor-fight-continues

[Sea Ray]

I heard the lead negotiator for the NFL talk at the end of the day, after they had received the decertification notices. He was extremely irate. He said the owners had agreed to meet the players' terms on several issues, and that on the money issue the owners had offered to meet the players halfway. It seemed like the owners were expecting the players to accept the offer, and they were clearly not happy to see the thing go to litigation.

The guy also said the owners offered to allow a disinterested 3rd party to review some financial records for the last 10 years then give a report to the players. He was indignant that the players turned that down, as well.

Sure makes it sound like the players were hellbent on decertifying which is something the owners will argue in court. This will lead to some judge making the call whether that was the players intention all along. So if the players anticipated this by decertifying and the owners by negotiating certain contracts with the networks where does that leave it?

I think it's best if the courts stay out of it. If the owners feel they needed concessions from the networks or the players thought their best strategy is to decertify then fine. You gotta do what you gotta do.

This looks to be a long and protracted thing. I now see this going well into the season because I think that's the only way the owners will get their pound of flesh from the players. After going through all of this, the owners are going to want the players to feel some pain.

[COB]

Hmmm as of midnight we can trade Carson...Also other teams can sign Joseph and Cedben.

I doubt it:

-- No player movement. There will be none under the lockout. No player signings and no trades. The April draft still will take place, but drafted players will not be able to sign contracts. And players who are injured will be unable to receive treatment by team doctors and trainers, and coaches can have no contact with their players.

/>http://aol.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2011-03-11/off-to-court-where-the-nfl-labor-fight-continues

Chad should have had that ankle cleaned out while he had the chance.

[jjakq27]

FYI....I moved this thread from the NFL Forum to the Bengals forum since this now preempts most of the discussions going on.

[Kazkal]

So Mike brown says NFLPA only cares about the money,Kettle calling the pot black?

Mike Brown: “All the union cared about was the money”

Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on March 12, 2011, 5:47 PM EST

NFL Contract Talks Continue As Deadline Approaches Getty Images

Five years ago, Bengals owner Mike Brown was one of only two owners that didn’t approve the collective bargaining agreement. It wasn’t long before a majority of his colleagues agreed with his take.

Following Friday’s decertification and subsequent lockout, Brown spoke with Joe Reedy of the Cincinnati Enquirer about what comes next. Brown promised that no one in the organization will be fired or be forced to take a furlough.

“We have an obligation to our people and ask them not to carry an unfair burden,” Brown said.

Brown believes the union wanted to go to court rather than collectively bargain. And he doesn’t think the rookie wage scale or 18-game season ultimately prevented an agreement.

“It came down to the obvious point that all the union cared about was the money and these other things certainly didn’t matter enough,” Brown said. “It’s a tremendous situation that they have and it has become burdensome for the teams. Yes, we’re asking for some relief going forward. I don’t think that was unreasonable.”

On one hand, Brown is right: “The money” is essentially the one big issue no matter what anyone says. Solve that and the rest will fall in line.

On the other hand, Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports was on to something when he wrote about the emotion on the players side. Mistrust and anger from players may have played a bigger role on Friday than Brown understands.

Perhaps it shouldn’t have played that big a role, but this wasn’t just “business” to players. They feel like they are getting pushed around and wanted to fight back.

Brown’s words won’t help matters, but we’ll leave things on a note that’s worth keeping in mind for frustrated fans.

“I’ve been through ups and downs in labor negotiations in the NFL and there is one thing similar in all of them,” Brown said. “They do come to an end and you get back together and you go out and play football. This one will be no different.”

[Sea Ray]

I found the following to be interesting. Lester Munson is reporting that the owners have an 8 game schedule prepared for this season:

Eight-Game Schedule: No, not an 18-game schedule, which was one of the bargaining issues. (The NFL wants it; the union doesn't.) This is an eight-game schedule, and the league has prepared it for this fall. So if the lockout continues into the season, the owners are ready. The last eight-game season was in 1982, after the players staged a successful strike that resulted in winning them a share of the league's gross revenues.

/>http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6207587

The only way I see a full 2011 being played is if the courts force it

[COB]

I think the owners made a mistake opting out of the CBA. They are acting like Gene Upshaw is still running the union. He's not.

The owners acted like they were shocked when the union decertified. Why should they be surprised? They sent every signal in the world that they were preparing for a bare-knuckle brawl. Upshaw's replacement is a former federal prosecutor who is more than happy to take the gloves off. Now he's done the most advantageous thing for his side, forced the whole thing into federal court. Which is the last thing the owners wanted.

All in all, I feel the owners would go back in time and not opt out, if they could. Particularly owners like Jerry Jones who has pretty sizable monthly payments on the monument to himself that he built down there. A year with no revenue will be very tough for him, though pretty tasty for his whoever will lend him the money to get through.

I think Goodell made a huge mistake renegotiating the contracts and pushing all the compensation into 2011 and beyond. Now a big factor working against the owners is the players looking at that situation and wanting paid. They're going to want that money from 2009 and 2010, and they probably figure they have a chance at triple the amount, treble damages. That could easily be a billion dollars. Sure it's two birds in the bush, but it will be a big factor. The players feel like the owners cheated them. They're pissed off. Not a mood that is conducive to fruitful negotiations.

[jjakq27]

I think the owners made a mistake opting out of the CBA. They are acting like Gene Upshaw is still running the union. He's not.

It's funny how the two of the last remaining members of the old guard (Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson) were the two dissenting votes on the CBA signed a few years back. Then Jones and some of the new breed decided that they didn't like what they had agreed to.