Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[Rockchild]

The economic crunch has people watching where.the government is spending money. Sending millions to a football team for a stadium seems like a waste to most (i think the localities make it back in taxes, for the most part). For looks alone politicians won't let these deals continue (until the public isn't watching anymore).

Or until a team threatens to leave because some other city is willing to finance a new stadium with a sweetheart deal to get themselves an NFL franchise. I agree that, in the near term at least, politicians probably won't be too keen on spending money on stadiums but times change.

 

[CalBear]

Stadium negotiations are characterized by seriously asymmetrical power dynamics. You have people with many years of experience running billion-dollar organizations negotiating with city council members. What do you think you need on your resume to become a city council member in Cincinnati? Just for info, the current Cincinnati city council president was a police officer for 27 years, and then ran the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission for five years before being elected. That's it. Before he was elected he'd probably never negotiated a contract larger than a kitchen remodel in his life, and that's typical for city council members. As long as there are major captains of industry negotiating with folks like that, there will be opportunities to extract money from the public coffers.

(At the risk of further hijacking this thread, I will note that this power dynamic exists in all areas of corporate negotiation with local governments, which is why corporations are often able to extract huge concessions from governments--or, essentially, from citizens. The odd thing about our national discourse right now is that people somehow blame the government for this.)

 

[coolnerd]

The economic crunch has people watching where.the government is spending money. Sending millions to a football team for a stadium seems like a waste to most (i think the localities make it back in taxes, for the most part). For looks alone politicians won't let these deals continue (until the public isn't watching anymore).

Or until a team threatens to leave because some other city is willing to finance a new stadium with a sweetheart deal to get themselves an NFL franchise. I agree that, in the near term at least, politicians probably won't be too keen on spending money on stadiums but times change.

The pure economic impact of sports stadiums is very much overplayed if not even non-existent. The jobs created are mostly seasonal and/or part-time. If there is not other reasons for fans to stay around the stadium even bars and restruants nearby don't benefit as much as it would seem. In relative terms few people from out of town come to games and spend new money.Sports teams (like other forms of arts/entertainment) have great intangible impact, but most non-corporate studies don't find a positive economic growth.

 

[roadkill1292]

The economic crunch has people watching where.the government is spending money. Sending millions to a football team for a stadium seems like a waste to most (i think the localities make it back in taxes, for the most part). For looks alone politicians won't let these deals continue (until the public isn't watching anymore).

Or until a team threatens to leave because some other city is willing to finance a new stadium with a sweetheart deal to get themselves an NFL franchise. I agree that, in the near term at least, politicians probably won't be too keen on spending money on stadiums but times change.

It continues to be wonderful leverage for NFL owners to have that great gaping franchise hole in Los Angeles. As long as it remains, politicians in Cincinnati and elsewhere will also be under strong pressure from voters to do whatever it takes to retain the home team. Although this, as you have noted, is subject to change going forward.

 

[roadkill1292]

Stadium negotiations are characterized by seriously asymmetrical power dynamics. You have people with many years of experience running billion-dollar organizations negotiating with city council members. What do you think you need on your resume to become a city council member in Cincinnati? Just for info, the current Cincinnati city council president was a police officer for 27 years, and then ran the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission for five years before being elected. That's it. Before he was elected he'd probably never negotiated a contract larger than a kitchen remodel in his life, and that's typical for city council members. As long as there are major captains of industry negotiating with folks like that, there will be opportunities to extract money from the public coffers.(At the risk of further hijacking this thread, I will note that this power dynamic exists in all areas of corporate negotiation with local governments, which is why corporations are often able to extract huge concessions from governments--or, essentially, from citizens. The odd thing about our national discourse right now is that people somehow blame the government for this.)

The pure economic impact of sports stadiums is very much overplayed if not even non-existent. The jobs created are mostly seasonal and/or part-time. If there is not other reasons for fans to stay around the stadium even bars and restruants nearby don't benefit as much as it would seem. In relative terms few people from out of town come to games and spend new money.Sports teams (like other forms of arts/entertainment) have great intangible impact, but most non-corporate studies don't find a positive economic growth.

Agree with both of these.

 

[dparker713]

The economic crunch has people watching where.the government is spending money. Sending millions to a football team for a stadium seems like a waste to most (i think the localities make it back in taxes, for the most part). For looks alone politicians won't let these deals continue (until the public isn't watching anymore).

Or until a team threatens to leave because some other city is willing to finance a new stadium with a sweetheart deal to get themselves an NFL franchise. I agree that, in the near term at least, politicians probably won't be too keen on spending money on stadiums but times change.

It continues to be wonderful leverage for NFL owners to have that great gaping franchise hole in Los Angeles. As long as it remains, politicians in Cincinnati and elsewhere will also be under strong pressure from voters to do whatever it takes to retain the home team. Although this, as you have noted, is subject to change going forward.

Maybe if one of the entirely privately funded attempts to build a stadium ever comes to fruition, but until that time the threat of moving to LA is fairly laughable. There is no way anytime in the foreseeable future that LA approves public funding for a football stadium, nor should it.

 

[fatness]

There's a long article by Jason Cole on the current negotiations, a bit about the framework of what's been agreed upon, the history of the negotiations so far, and the importance of the owners' meetings next week. It's informative and worth a read.

 

[roadkill1292]

The economic crunch has people watching where.the government is spending money. Sending millions to a football team for a stadium seems like a waste to most (i think the localities make it back in taxes, for the most part). For looks alone politicians won't let these deals continue (until the public isn't watching anymore).

Or until a team threatens to leave because some other city is willing to finance a new stadium with a sweetheart deal to get themselves an NFL franchise. I agree that, in the near term at least, politicians probably won't be too keen on spending money on stadiums but times change.

It continues to be wonderful leverage for NFL owners to have that great gaping franchise hole in Los Angeles. As long as it remains, politicians in Cincinnati and elsewhere will also be under strong pressure from voters to do whatever it takes to retain the home team. Although this, as you have noted, is subject to change going forward.

Maybe if one of the entirely privately funded attempts to build a stadium ever comes to fruition, but until that time the threat of moving to LA is fairly laughable. There is no way anytime in the foreseeable future that LA approves public funding for a football stadium, nor should it.

Let me see if I understand then. LA is not a viable threat for Mike Brown so when the stadium deal he has comes up for renewal, he won't get the next deal under terms nearly as lucrative. Thus his profits are going to fall in the future. Do I have this right?If so, that explains why Mike Brown thinks he needs a better labor deal. Of course, we could see this as an opportunity (since there's hardly any others) to chase that idiot out of the league if he goes broke in the next 10 years.

 

[roadkill1292]

There's a long article by Jason Cole on the current negotiations, a bit about the framework of what's been agreed upon, the history of the negotiations so far, and the importance of the owners' meetings next week. It's informative and worth a read.

I think the willingness of the players to take a lower percentage of future TV revenue increases is a really good step towards getting this thing done. Unless, of course, owners believe that the next round of TV rights bidding (after 2013) will result in less revenue than they're getting now.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There's a long article by Jason Cole on the current negotiations, a bit about the framework of what's been agreed upon, the history of the negotiations so far, and the importance of the owners' meetings next week. It's informative and worth a read.

Interesting article.

Second, if a deal isn’t reached now and the owners reject the work that has been done with the players, this could turn into a long fight that goes until at least September and could cause significant backlash to the league. In January, Sports Illustrated’s Peter King stated that a group of owners were willing to lose an entire season in order to get a better deal with the players. While that sounds brave, it may be tactical suicide depending on how the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the league’s appeal to maintain a lockout.

While it’s widely believed that the three-judge panel will rule in favor of the league’s ability to lock out the players for the time being, it’s also believed that the league will lose that power at some point. Specifically, the judges sounded as if they would allow the players to return to court in September, when the previous collective bargaining agreement allowed them the freedom to decertify and, therefore, file an antitrust lawsuit.

At that point, the league could be brought to its knees because it could lose the ability to lock out the players. In other words, the league is doing OK in court right now, but eventually there aren’t enough fingers to put in the dam. At that point, the players could end up with the kind of power akin to what their brethren in the NBA and major league baseball have gotten over the years.

 

[maxwelledison]

There's a long article by Jason Cole on the current negotiations, a bit about the framework of what's been agreed upon, the history of the negotiations so far, and the importance of the owners' meetings next week. It's informative and worth a read.

I think the willingness of the players to take a lower percentage of future TV revenue increases is a really good step towards getting this thing done. Unless, of course, owners believe that the next round of TV rights bidding (after 2013) will result in less revenue than they're getting now.

IMO, the only way the new TV deal will result in less revenue is if the league misses games (and some fans walk away never to return) or the fundamental structure of the league changes (and many fans walk away never to return). In a scenario where the league is close to what we've known for the past 20 years and a deal gets done within the next month the NFL will again hold all the bargaining power in negotiating the TV deal. Yet another reason this whole thing needs to end and end now.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Have said something similar before, but...

What if you've got a group of four small-market/poor owners who are willing to blow up the season because they think/hope they can crush the union and permanently reduce the cost of talent and it's easier to do that than it has been to run a good front office, and be successful...

And you've got a group of five huge-market/rich owners who are willing to partner with those owners because they would benefit from the same reduction in player salaries, but who would also win if the players won a major anti-trust case since they'd be in a position to spend more/win more?

 

[maxwelledison]

Have said something similar before, but...

What if you've got a group of four small-market/poor owners who are willing to blow up the season because they think/hope they can crush the union and permanently reduce the cost of talent and it's easier to do that than it has been to run a good front office, and be successful...

And you've got a group of five huge-market/rich owners who are willing to partner with those owners because they would benefit from the same reduction in player salaries, but who would also win if the players won a major anti-trust case since they'd be in a position to spend more/win more?

Then you have a real problem. Probably explains why we're here.

 

[cobalt_27]

Have said something similar before, but...

What if you've got a group of four small-market/poor owners who are willing to blow up the season because they think/hope they can crush the union and permanently reduce the cost of talent and it's easier to do that than it has been to run a good front office, and be successful...

And you've got a group of five huge-market/rich owners who are willing to partner with those owners because they would benefit from the same reduction in player salaries, but who would also win if the players won a major anti-trust case since they'd be in a position to spend more/win more?

It sounds from this that your only beef is with the small market owners.

 

[D.J.]

Have said something similar before, but...

What if you've got a group of four small-market/poor owners who are willing to blow up the season because they think/hope they can crush the union and permanently reduce the cost of talent and it's easier to do that than it has been to run a good front office, and be successful...

And you've got a group of five huge-market/rich owners who are willing to partner with those owners because they would benefit from the same reduction in player salaries, but who would also win if the players won a major anti-trust case since they'd be in a position to spend more/win more?

It could happen, but I doubt they find 9 owners willing to blow it up (the number needed to.block a cba

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It could happen, but I doubt they find 9 owners willing to blow it up (the number needed to.block a cba

Agree it's pretty unlikely... just speculating on how it might happen.

 

[gethugefast1]

After speaking with sources on both sides of the labor battle, CBSSports.com's Mike Freeman believes there will be no "massive outburst" against the deal currently being constructed.

Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Giants owner John Mara -- trusted by players as well as hardline owners -- have been lynchpins in the recent progress. Kraft and Mara "believe strongly" in the parameters of the deal, which is said to be fair for both sides even if it will only be grudgingly approved. Although a few extremist owners are expected to vote against the proposed deal, Freeman still hears an agreement will be reached toward the end of June or beginning of July. Source: CBSSports.com Jun 19, 7:02 PM

 

[cubd8]

Maybe it's already been asked and I missed it, but which side (players or owners) is winning in what is being talked about? My assumption is that the owners would win simply because the courts are likely to rule with them, but what's the truth?

 

[jacobo_moses]

Saw this in an article and found it kind of funny.

The goal as of Tuesday will be to get at least 24, and preferably all 32, behind a balanced deal that secures a win-win outcome for both parties. If every owner loves every aspect of the deal, then it would be an agreement that the players eventually would come to hate.

You have some owners that are more greedy then others. (thats just a fact) So the only way all the owners are on board with it is if it gives the shaft the players to a large degree. And we all know how that would end. Most of the player reps would hate it.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Maybe it's already been asked and I missed it, but which side (players or owners) is winning in what is being talked about? My assumption is that the owners would win simply because the courts are likely to rule with them, but what's the truth?

This isnt true at all. Right now the circuit court does favor the owners. But if the players went forth with the anti-trust lawsuit, most seem to think they would win, however the time it would take to go through court would cost at least 1 football season, maybe 2. SO the only and best option right now is to negotiate a deal

 

[cubd8]

Maybe it's already been asked and I missed it, but which side (players or owners) is winning in what is being talked about? My assumption is that the owners would win simply because the courts are likely to rule with them, but what's the truth?

This isnt true at all. Right now the circuit court does favor the owners. But if the players went forth with the anti-trust lawsuit, most seem to think they would win, however the time it would take to go through court would cost at least 1 football season, maybe 2. SO the only and best option right now is to negotiate a deal

I haven't heard that the players would win. In fact, this is the first time I have heard that because if it were to reach the higher courts, they would side with the owenrs as well (probably).

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Maybe it's already been asked and I missed it, but which side (players or owners) is winning in what is being talked about? My assumption is that the owners would win simply because the courts are likely to rule with them, but what's the truth?

This isnt true at all. Right now the circuit court does favor the owners. But if the players went forth with the anti-trust lawsuit, most seem to think they would win, however the time it would take to go through court would cost at least 1 football season, maybe 2. SO the only and best option right now is to negotiate a deal

I haven't heard that the players would win. In fact, this is the first time I have heard that because if it were to reach the higher courts, they would side with the owenrs as well (probably).

Well the anti-trust stuff hasnt even been herd yet. But what is going through the courts right now is whether the lockout is legal.

 

[fatness]

Maybe it's already been asked and I missed it, but which side (players or owners) is winning in what is being talked about? My assumption is that the owners would win simply because the courts are likely to rule with them, but what's the truth?

This isnt true at all. Right now the circuit court does favor the owners. But if the players went forth with the anti-trust lawsuit, most seem to think they would win, however the time it would take to go through court would cost at least 1 football season, maybe 2. SO the only and best option right now is to negotiate a deal

I haven't heard that the players would win. In fact, this is the first time I have heard that because if it were to reach the higher courts, they would side with the owenrs as well (probably).

This is what Jason Cole said in the article I linked earlier:

While it’s widely believed that the three-judge panel will rule in favor of the league’s ability to lock out the players for the time being, it’s also believed that the league will lose that power at some point. Specifically, the judges sounded as if they would allow the players to return to court in September, when the previous collective bargaining agreement allowed them the freedom to decertify and, therefore, file an antitrust lawsuit.

 

[renesauz]

Maybe it's already been asked and I missed it, but which side (players or owners) is winning in what is being talked about? My assumption is that the owners would win simply because the courts are likely to rule with them, but what's the truth?

This isnt true at all. Right now the circuit court does favor the owners. But if the players went forth with the anti-trust lawsuit, most seem to think they would win, however the time it would take to go through court would cost at least 1 football season, maybe 2. SO the only and best option right now is to negotiate a deal

I haven't heard that the players would win. In fact, this is the first time I have heard that because if it were to reach the higher courts, they would side with the owenrs as well (probably).

Win on which dispute? If there's no new CBA, the players clearly will eventually win the anti-trust suits. While the lockout may be legal, it's legality is at best temporary.The players may lose the argument over whether it's OK to switch from a union in negotiations to an immediate anti-trust suit (IE: Switching from labor law to trust law in a single day), but the fact remains that they CAN make that switch if they so desire (just maybe not as quickly and easily as they first thought.)Players hold all the long-term legal cards.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

Stadium negotiations are characterized by seriously asymmetrical power dynamics. You have people with many years of experience running billion-dollar organizations negotiating with city council members. What do you think you need on your resume to become a city council member in Cincinnati? Just for info, the current Cincinnati city council president was a police officer for 27 years, and then ran the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission for five years before being elected. That's it. Before he was elected he'd probably never negotiated a contract larger than a kitchen remodel in his life, and that's typical for city council members. As long as there are major captains of industry negotiating with folks like that, there will be opportunities to extract money from the public coffers.(At the risk of further hijacking this thread, I will note that this power dynamic exists in all areas of corporate negotiation with local governments, which is why corporations are often able to extract huge concessions from governments--or, essentially, from citizens. The odd thing about our national discourse right now is that people somehow blame the government for this.)

The pure economic impact of sports stadiums is very much overplayed if not even non-existent. The jobs created are mostly seasonal and/or part-time. If there is not other reasons for fans to stay around the stadium even bars and restruants nearby don't benefit as much as it would seem. In relative terms few people from out of town come to games and spend new money.Sports teams (like other forms of arts/entertainment) have great intangible impact, but most non-corporate studies don't find a positive economic growth.

Agree with both of these.

I agree with almost all of these items, except the blanket statement that sports teams don't have positive economic growth. A very close example is the "rebirth" of the Baltimore Harbor with Camden Yards and the Baltimore Orioles. That park spawned a growth in retro-style baseball stadiums replicated in places like Cleveland that reinvigorated urban development areas. The difference I believe is that 81 home games for baseball is much, much different than eight games (and a few preseason games) for football. Urban development to spur tourism (such as an amusement park, aquarium or zoo) can have positive economic growth. Other construction projects also greatly help, such as a convention center and/or hotel(s) to draw multiples of peoples throughout the year. That's the key element - utilization. Football stadiums - even with concerts, soccer events and possible bowl games and/or playoff games - are rarely used more that 40 times a year. That's often not enough to justify their pricetags in comparison to arenas and baseball venues.

 

[dparker713]

Stadium negotiations are characterized by seriously asymmetrical power dynamics. You have people with many years of experience running billion-dollar organizations negotiating with city council members. What do you think you need on your resume to become a city council member in Cincinnati? Just for info, the current Cincinnati city council president was a police officer for 27 years, and then ran the Cincinnati Human Relations Commission for five years before being elected. That's it. Before he was elected he'd probably never negotiated a contract larger than a kitchen remodel in his life, and that's typical for city council members. As long as there are major captains of industry negotiating with folks like that, there will be opportunities to extract money from the public coffers.(At the risk of further hijacking this thread, I will note that this power dynamic exists in all areas of corporate negotiation with local governments, which is why corporations are often able to extract huge concessions from governments--or, essentially, from citizens. The odd thing about our national discourse right now is that people somehow blame the government for this.)

The pure economic impact of sports stadiums is very much overplayed if not even non-existent. The jobs created are mostly seasonal and/or part-time. If there is not other reasons for fans to stay around the stadium even bars and restruants nearby don't benefit as much as it would seem. In relative terms few people from out of town come to games and spend new money.Sports teams (like other forms of arts/entertainment) have great intangible impact, but most non-corporate studies don't find a positive economic growth.

Agree with both of these.

I agree with almost all of these items, except the blanket statement that sports teams don't have positive economic growth. A very close example is the "rebirth" of the Baltimore Harbor with Camden Yards and the Baltimore Orioles. That park spawned a growth in retro-style baseball stadiums replicated in places like Cleveland that reinvigorated urban development areas. The difference I believe is that 81 home games for baseball is much, much different than eight games (and a few preseason games) for football. Urban development to spur tourism (such as an amusement park, aquarium or zoo) can have positive economic growth. Other construction projects also greatly help, such as a convention center and/or hotel(s) to draw multiples of peoples throughout the year. That's the key element - utilization. Football stadiums - even with concerts, soccer events and possible bowl games and/or playoff games - are rarely used more that 40 times a year. That's often not enough to justify their pricetags in comparison to arenas and baseball venues.

There are plenty of ways to spur economic growth by spending 400 million. The ballpark isn't spuring growth, the spending is.

 

[unckeyherb]

Maybe if one of the entirely privately funded attempts to build a stadium ever comes to fruition, but until that time the threat of moving to LA is fairly laughable.

There is no way anytime in the foreseeable future that LA approves public funding for a football stadium, nor should it.

Within the next year there will be an announcement of an NFL franchise moving to LA, I'd be willing to bet on it. Luckily the weather in LA isn't that much of a shift from San Diego...FWIW: Stadium Designer Selected

 

[dparker713]

Maybe if one of the entirely privately funded attempts to build a stadium ever comes to fruition, but until that time the threat of moving to LA is fairly laughable.

There is no way anytime in the foreseeable future that LA approves public funding for a football stadium, nor should it.

Within the next year there will be an announcement of an NFL franchise moving to LA, I'd be willing to bet on it. Luckily the weather in LA isn't that much of a shift from San Diego...FWIW: Stadium Designer Selected

Well, then AEG better be willing to pay the 20 million, cause Spanos is certainly too cheap.

 

[Orange Crush]

Details of the new CBA begin to emerge ... LINK

Among the details NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is revealing to owners Tuesday at the owners' meeting in Rosemont, Ill., is that in the next proposed agreement players will receive a 48 percent share of "all revenue," without the $1-billion-plus credit off the top that had been a point of contention in earlier negotiations, according to sources familiar with the presentation.Under the new formula being negotiated, players will receive 48 percent of all revenue and will never dip below a 46.5 percent take of the money, sources said.

In the previous collective bargaining agreement, players received approximately 60 percent of "total revenue" but that did not include $1 billion that was designated as an expense credit off the top of the $9 billion revenue model. Owners initially were seeking another $1 billion in credit only to reduce that amount substantially before exercising the lockout on March 13.

Ultimately, the two sides have decided to simplify the formula, which will eliminate some tedious accounting audits of the credit the players have allowed in the previous deal. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent.

Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadium construction, sources said.

A rookie wage scale will be part of the new deal but is still being "tweaked," and the much-discussed 18-game regular season will be designated only as a negotiable item with the players and at no point is mandated in a potential agreement. A new 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012 will be the source of new revenue.

As revenues are projected to possibly double by 2016 to $18 billion annually, retired players will benefit from improved health and pension funding that is expected to increase significantly.

Players believe they can justify a 48 percent take because of the projected revenue growth, as well as built-in mechanism that require teams to spend a minimum of 90-93 percent of the salary cap, sources said. The mandatory minimum spending increase is an element that concerns lower-revenue clubs, sources say.

The negotiating teams for the owners and players, led by Goodell and Smith, are expected to return to the table either Wednesday and Thursday, hoping to build off the momentum of three strong weeks of talks under the supervision of a court-appointed mediator, U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan.

Cautious expectations on the two sides reaching an agreement in principle are varied, ranging from one-to-three weeks with the hopes of beginning a new league year (free agency, etc) by mid-July.

Any breakdown in talks could result in the loss of preseason games and threaten the opening of the regular season.

ETA link to ESPN story.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Love the emerging details, particularly the salary floor.

This tweet from adam schefter is interesting

@Adam_Schefter More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

any word on the franchise tags?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

so even if the players were onlt getting 53% before, why would they agree to take 48% now?

The free agencything? Not taking the billion off the top? hmmm.

 

[Tiger Fan]

so even if the players were onlt getting 53% before, why would they agree to take 48% now? The free agencything? Not taking the billion off the top? hmmm.

higher projected revenue in the next 10 years

 

[D.J.]

any word on the franchise tags?

Everything ive read says the players arent even making something that only effects 12-15 players a year an issue. Franchise tag will, unfortunately, stay.

 

[D.J.]

so even if the players were onlt getting 53% before, why would they agree to take 48% now? The free agencything? Not taking the billion off the top? hmmm.

higher projected revenue in the next 10 years

yeah, this plus the cash floor. Requiring 90-93% of that to.be.spent is a win for the players. Looks like a decent deal overall

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

any word on the franchise tags?

Everything ive read says the players arent even making something that only effects 12-15 players a year an issue. Franchise tag will, unfortunately, stay.

you think the franchise tag is bad? they have lots a tags, not just that one.

 

[RUSF18]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

 

[Orange Crush]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

As part of the NFL's Congressionally-created antitrust exemption for collectively negotiating broadcast contracts, the NFL cannot compete against high school or college football. Therefore, they will not play games on Friday's or Saturday's so long as those seasons are still in progress.

 

[RUSF18]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

As part of the NFL's Congressionally-created antitrust exemption for collectively negotiating broadcast contracts, the NFL cannot compete against high school or college football. Therefore, they will not play games on Friday's or Saturday's so long as those seasons are still in progress.

The current slate of NFLN Thursday games are all after the college season ends?eta: Last year it started on Nov 11 when college was still going on. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks.

 

[D.J.]

any word on the franchise tags?

Everything ive read says the players arent even making something that only effects 12-15 players a year an issue. Franchise tag will, unfortunately, stay.

you think the franchise tag is bad? they have lots a tags, not just that one.

I personally dont like it. I also dont really like rfa. I understand the.need for both, but I prefer teams to negotiate deals with players they want to keep or let them try free agency. The 10-15 (i looked again at brandt's tweet and he used those numbers, not 12-15 like I originally.posted) is the.number of tags actually used. The transistion.tag is rarely used and.most teams dont have a guy they are willing to use a franchise tag on, since it is so expensive.

 

[Tiger Fan]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

Where did you read that the 16 Thursday night games would not be on NFLN?

 

[D.J.]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

I have read that they may only sell rights to half the thursday games and the nfln will still carry the other 8.

 

[Orange Crush]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

As part of the NFL's Congressionally-created antitrust exemption for collectively negotiating broadcast contracts, the NFL cannot compete against high school or college football. Therefore, they will not play games on Friday's or Saturday's so long as those seasons are still in progress.

The current slate of NFLN Thursday games are all after the college season ends?eta: Last year it started on Nov 11 when college was still going on. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks.

Sorry, the exemption states that Fridays are reserved for high school football and Saturdays for college football. All the other days are a free for all. That's why there are both college and pro games on Thursdays. But the NFL will not broadcast games on Fridays and Saturdays until after the schools' seasons are over as they do not want to jeopardize their exemption.

 

[RUSF18]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

I have read that they may only sell rights to half the thursday games and the nfln will still carry the other 8.

Maybe that's the solution.To the post above, I assume just selling commercials for 8 more games on a network with limited national access wouldn't be enough extra revenue to make up for the players giving up money in other areas.

 

[RUSF18]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

As part of the NFL's Congressionally-created antitrust exemption for collectively negotiating broadcast contracts, the NFL cannot compete against high school or college football. Therefore, they will not play games on Friday's or Saturday's so long as those seasons are still in progress.

The current slate of NFLN Thursday games are all after the college season ends?eta: Last year it started on Nov 11 when college was still going on. Is there something I'm missing? Thanks.

Sorry, the exemption states that Fridays are reserved for high school football and Saturdays for college football. All the other days are a free for all. That's why there are both college and pro games on Thursdays. But the NFL will not broadcast games on Fridays and Saturdays until after the schools' seasons are over as they do not want to jeopardize their exemption.

Appreciate it.

 

[roarlions]

Details of the new CBA begin to emerge ... LINK

As revenues are projected to possibly double by 2016 to $18 billion annually, retired players will benefit from improved health and pension funding that is expected to increase significantly.

ETA link to ESPN story.

I love how the "broken business model" of the NFL is supposed to double revenues in 5 or 6 years! That means an average annual rate of growth of 12 - 14 percent (if my math is correct). I know a lot of other industries that wish their business model was as broken as the NFL model.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Love the emerging details, particularly the salary floor.

This tweet from adam schefter is interesting

@Adam_Schefter More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents

If that holds, the opening of FA will be crazy.

 

[GregR_2]

Love the emerging details, particularly the salary floor.

This tweet from adam schefter is interesting

@Adam_Schefter More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents

If that holds, the opening of FA will be crazy.

Heh, yes it would. I think it's safe to say he meant all players whose contracts are up.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Love the emerging details, particularly the salary floor.

This tweet from adam schefter is interesting

@Adam_Schefter More at ESPN: If and when agreement is reached, all players with 4, 5 and 6 years of service are expected to be unrestricted free agents

If that holds, the opening of FA will be crazy.

Heh, yes it would. I think it's safe to say he meant all players whose contracts are up.

Yeah. He made this correction later.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

If the NFL Network is giving up Thursday football, that's got to mean that we're getting more Saturday games or maybe even Friday games being NFLN-exclusive. Can't imagine the owners essentially bailing on that enterprise so quickly.

I have read that they may only sell rights to half the thursday games and the nfln will still carry the other 8.

Maybe that's the solution.To the post above, I assume just selling commercials for 8 more games on a network with limited national access wouldn't be enough extra revenue to make up for the players giving up money in other areas.

IIRC they did this before with TNT and ESPN splitting Sunday Night Football years ago.