Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Da Guru
- Start date
dparker713
Footballguy
If you honestly believe that, you've obviously never dealt with the legal system.'T J said:
Well, they did expedite the hearing and they are supposed to expedite the ruling. I dont know if they would have ruled yet or not had there been no new talks, but I do think they will wait.Outside of this board, I dony think thst I have seen or heard anyone think that they wont wait. Brandt even reported today on NFP that he thinks Doty is going to withhold his ruling on damages for the tv money as long as progress is being made.
dparker713
Footballguy
If Doty does that he should be brought before a disciplinary board. Its a violation of judicial ethics unless both sides have requested a delay.
Not sure what your background is, but I know I.have no formal legal training. So, I wont argue whether it is or isnt allowed but I see no issue with him taking his time if there is a presumption the two sides are trying to settle outside of court. I havent heard of.anyone on either side complaining about the slow movement of a judge either. I dont think the courts act in a vacuum. They are to look at the big picture and the big picture says the two sides agreeing on a settlement is 99.9% (unofficial stat) better than a judge making the decision. These are civil cases. The only people (as far as the court is concerned) that can win/lose are the nfl and nflpa. i could argue that the court making a ruling that could halt or hinder settlement talks is against the good of both sides and a waste of government funds, making a ruling unethical.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
The NFL and players resumed their clandestine face-to-face negotiations on Tuesday on Maryland's eastern shore, the third such set of talks they've staged this month as the traditional opening of training camps draws closer. The sides are expected to continue to meet into Wednesday.
The parties met for three days in suburban Chicago two weeks ago, in the days leading up to the June 3 injunction appeal hearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and again last week for two days on Long Island, N.Y.
Unlock HQ Video HQ video delivered by Akamai
NFL owners have a one-day meeting scheduled in suburban Chicago next Tuesday, and they are planning to meet once a month until the situation is resolved. A memo went out to owners asking that they keep their schedules for next week flexible, in case the June 21 meeting spills into Tuesday night or even Wednesday.
It's been 94 days since the NFL locked the players out, with this past Sunday marking three months. There are still 86 days until the 2011 NFL Kickoff on Thursday, Sept. 8 in Green Bay, but the league and players are working toward an agreement that would preserve training camps and the entire preseason.
The league estimates that the cancellation of the preseason could cost it as much as $1 billion. Whether that figure is accurate or not, both parties recognize that the major economic losses that would be incurred by this dispute dragging through the summer would make negotiations exponentially tougher.
Sources say internal deadlines to have some semblance of a "normal" preseason with the games preserved sit on or around July 15.
To this point, labor committee members Jerry Richardson (Carolina Panthers), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), John Mara (New York Giants), Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys), Art Rooney (Pittsburgh Steelers), Clark Hunt (Kansas City Chiefs) and Dean Spanos (San Diego Chargers), active players Mike Vrabel (Kansas City Chiefs), Tony Richardson (New York Jets), Domonique Foxworth (Baltimore Ravens) and Jeff Saturday (Indianapolis Colts), NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith and NFLPA president Kevin Mawae have taken part in the "secret" meetings.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who ran court-ordered mediation between the NFL and players in Minneapolis in April and May, also has been involved but is serving in a different capacity at these summits.
The parties met for three days in suburban Chicago two weeks ago, in the days leading up to the June 3 injunction appeal hearing before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and again last week for two days on Long Island, N.Y.
Unlock HQ Video HQ video delivered by Akamai
NFL owners have a one-day meeting scheduled in suburban Chicago next Tuesday, and they are planning to meet once a month until the situation is resolved. A memo went out to owners asking that they keep their schedules for next week flexible, in case the June 21 meeting spills into Tuesday night or even Wednesday.
It's been 94 days since the NFL locked the players out, with this past Sunday marking three months. There are still 86 days until the 2011 NFL Kickoff on Thursday, Sept. 8 in Green Bay, but the league and players are working toward an agreement that would preserve training camps and the entire preseason.
The league estimates that the cancellation of the preseason could cost it as much as $1 billion. Whether that figure is accurate or not, both parties recognize that the major economic losses that would be incurred by this dispute dragging through the summer would make negotiations exponentially tougher.
Sources say internal deadlines to have some semblance of a "normal" preseason with the games preserved sit on or around July 15.
To this point, labor committee members Jerry Richardson (Carolina Panthers), Robert Kraft (New England Patriots), John Mara (New York Giants), Jerry Jones (Dallas Cowboys), Art Rooney (Pittsburgh Steelers), Clark Hunt (Kansas City Chiefs) and Dean Spanos (San Diego Chargers), active players Mike Vrabel (Kansas City Chiefs), Tony Richardson (New York Jets), Domonique Foxworth (Baltimore Ravens) and Jeff Saturday (Indianapolis Colts), NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith and NFLPA president Kevin Mawae have taken part in the "secret" meetings.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, who ran court-ordered mediation between the NFL and players in Minneapolis in April and May, also has been involved but is serving in a different capacity at these summits.
T J
Footballguy
I wouldn't have said it if I didn't honestly believe it. Still do.
T J
Footballguy
They announced "breaking news" on Sirius NFL Radio a few minutes ago that the lawyers are back at the table in these most recent talks and consider this a good thing. Maybe they're ironing out details?
Yeah, an inevitable evil. Hopefully these guy's have specific tasks to keep them busy...and that they are muzzled...
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
The problem with your argument is the presumption. Both sides can jointly request a delay - no presumption needed. Delaying a ruling without the request of both parties would prejudice one side or the other. The court delaying a ruling could result in one side receiving a worse deal than they otherwise would have. So while the courts and the system prefers settlements, the ultimate goal of the courts is not a settlement. Its a resolution. The settlement would lead to a resolution faster, but by withholding a ruling the settlement would potentially be unjust.
There is no benefit to either side by not knowing the ruling. The reason there is progress right now if because both sides appear to be on equal footing legally. Any ruling will likely alter the status quo. the presumptions that the court may our may not be using are completely justified considering there is a judge in the talks that is likely giving the rest of the judges a play by party of the talks. So it isn't a blind presumption. It is a calculated decision to keep the status quo while a cheaper, quicker, and overall better solution is accomplished.I dont know that the courts are going to do this. I doubt that they planned to provide a ruling by now no matter what. Hopefully a deal will be in place in a ciuple weeks and it won't matter. But I doubt they would say "you better go figure this out or else we are going to punish you both" (paraphrasing) and then as they make progress, say "sorry, you took too long. Go to your rooms, no tv for a week" thats counter intuitive.
T J
Footballguy
I understand your argument, but disagree with it. I do not believe that if both sides were to agree on a settlement, that either could claim it was unjust based on a ruling that never happened that might have went their way... or not. I firmly believe the courts are letting talks progress before they do anything. They've already hinted as much by telling the sides to talk and saying "if we rule, it may be something neither of you like" (I'm paraphrasing).
Your right. I wish they wouldn't though. Without court rulings to set the playing field, we'll just be back in this same spot years down the line.
That would be unethical as well, IMO.
Hes not hiding in a corner...they know hes there and they know his role.
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
I think we're focusing on the wrong thing here.
Wadsworth
Footballguy
I think its just a friendly debate (its how I'm taking it, I hope everyone else is also). There isn't much else to talk about. The reports yesterday are promising, but we can't get too excited about them until there are more facts. well, we can get more excited, but I'm fragile! I cant let the nfl continue toying with my heart!
Football Critic
Footballguy
The lawyers got the boot again after almost "blowing up the process", De Smith had to instruct the lawyers to stand down, according to PFT.Lawyers are the worst, gees, just glad they got the boot again. I think this just shows the big issue has been the lawyers all along. I say fire the lawyers, and get some that do what actually helps the client, and not themselves.Also this is a great thread!
Last edited by a moderator:
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
Wow, lawyers got the boot huhThe lawyers got the boot again after almost "blowing up the process", De Smith had to instruct the lawyers to stand down, according to PFT.Lawyers are the worst, gees, just glad they got the boot again. I think this just shows the big issue has been the lawyers all along. I say fire the lawyers, and get some that do what actually helps the client, and not themselves.Also this is a great thread!
mrip541
Footballguy
This is exactly how my press release would look if I was really crafty and wanted to deflect the blame away from my infinite greed. Everyone hates lawyers already, no big loss. Best possible cover for me to continue being a giant $@%#. These aren't the droids you're looking for...The lawyers got the boot again after almost "blowing up the process", De Smith had to instruct the lawyers to stand down, according to PFT.Lawyers are the worst, gees, just glad they got the boot again. I think this just shows the big issue has been the lawyers all along. I say fire the lawyers, and get some that do what actually helps the client, and not themselves.Also this is a great thread!
Last edited by a moderator:
Catbird
Footballguy
This isn't surprising. Lawyers, even with the best intentions, have the fundamental objective of protecting their client, which typically means walking into a negotiation where the sides often haven't thought through all the effects of their agreement and trying to make all the ambiguities turn in favor of their client. That is, after all, a big part of their job. But understandably, that usually pisses off the other side and leads to confrontation with the opposing lawyers - who are typically doing the same thing for their client.
So where the parties were making progress, they are quickly at each other's throats. Good litigators are often horrible negotiators. Its a good move to send them out again and let the parties go on making progress. If and when they reach an agreement, then bring the lawyers in to write it up. That will typically lead to its own round of bickering and disputes - but with a basic agreement, these will generally be resolvable.
I have no axe to grind with zealous lawyers, but endorse sending them off by themselves while a deal is attempted.
Edited for horrible spelling.
So where the parties were making progress, they are quickly at each other's throats. Good litigators are often horrible negotiators. Its a good move to send them out again and let the parties go on making progress. If and when they reach an agreement, then bring the lawyers in to write it up. That will typically lead to its own round of bickering and disputes - but with a basic agreement, these will generally be resolvable.
I have no axe to grind with zealous lawyers, but endorse sending them off by themselves while a deal is attempted.
Edited for horrible spelling.
Last edited by a moderator:
GregR_2
Footballguy
From ESPN, an affidavit by Umenyiora that is being included in the player's anti-trust case.
So question for the FBG lawyers. He's under contract to a team, he had a discussion with that team and says they didn't live up to it. What does any of that have to do with an anti-trust case?
dparker713
Footballguy
Because forcing someone to work for you violates the 13th amendment. Without the protection of the CBA, the Giants could only place reasonable restrictions on who he could work for.Seems like a dog of a case to me though. Outside of SOF problems, Osi just wasn't playing at a high level during the 2009 season, certainly no where near the level of 2007.
They arent forcing him to work for them. he can quit/retire/resign. havent we already established that nfl players are no where near slaves?The cba also doesnt have much to do with where osi plays because the lack of cba does not remove contracts. Osi signed a contract that says he will play for the giants for $x for x years. the 13th amendment did not address contract employment, unless I misread it.
dparker713
Footballguy
Whatever you may think of the reasoning, the 13th Amendment is highly relevant when attempting to enforce an employment contract.
Sounds like some of the owners who blew up the CBA are still not happy. Whether it's more than eight , who knows. Not sure how all this gets done by mid July. The owners meeting next week should be fun. It could be the high sign for full activities in 2011 or it could completely erase what has happened the past three weeks.
I think some of these owners are willing to shut it down like hockey. Hockey had a good year so maybe that is energizing them. I assume they feel they can stall the anti trust suit long enough until the players cave.
Let's hope most owners want football and will negotiate . On Mike and Mike they were discussing this deal is being negotiated on two fronts.
I think some of these owners are willing to shut it down like hockey. Hockey had a good year so maybe that is energizing them. I assume they feel they can stall the anti trust suit long enough until the players cave.
Let's hope most owners want football and will negotiate . On Mike and Mike they were discussing this deal is being negotiated on two fronts.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
With deadlines approaching and momentum building as the NFL and players work towards ending the three-month-old lockout, owners have gotten some resistance from within their ranks, according to sources.
The small resisting group is worried about the possibility that the national economy could tank again, and is looking for protection that it didn't have in the collective bargaining agreement established in 2006. Based on economic indicators through their other businesses, some owners have grown increasingly nervous, and the deterioration in the stock market and growing unemployment rate have compounded that.
The hope is that this is part of the normal ebb and flow of negotiations, and the fact that the parties are delving deeper into major issues than they have in the two-plus years since the owners opted out of the 2006 CBA. But in any case, it's a problem that has to be managed.
The owners have one-day internal meetings scheduled monthly until the labor situation is resolved, and the next one up commences Tuesday in Chicago. The group was told this week to be prepared to stay overnight in the case the meetings spill into Wednesday.
Whereas previous meetings during the lockout in New Orleans and Indianapolis were regularly scheduled and were, naturally, heavy on labor talk, the Chicago meeting is the first one that is labor specific.
The “rift” among owners wasn’t wholly unexpected, or even new, and the 10 members of the labor committee have handled the majority of the talks. Ultimately, though, they can’t carry approval of a new CBA on their own -- 24 votes among the larger group of 32 is necessary for a deal to be ratified.
The latest development comes at a time when it appears a lot of momentum towards a resolution is taking place.
The NFL and players concluded up another two-day round of talks on Maryland's Eastern Shore on Wednesday, the third in a series of clandestine sessions that started with a three-day meeting two weeks ago in suburban Chicago, and continued with a two-day meeting on Long Island, N.Y. last week.
Sources say the talks remain productive and are moving forward, though a resolution to the three-month-old lockout is not on the immediate horizon.
The league estimates that the cancellation of the preseason could cost it as much as $1 billion. Whether or not that figure is accurate, both parties recognize that the major economic losses that would be incurred by this dispute dragging through the summer would make negotiations exponentially tougher.
"Secret" meetings, such as the ones that took place in Chicago and Long Island, have been critical in past NFL negotiations, dating to the 1980s.
"I know that we've been talking pretty extensively over the last few weeks," Saint quarterback Drew Brees said Wednesday. "It seems like things are moving in the right direction, which is very positive. It's what we always hoped for as players because obviously we're getting to crunch time here."
Movement toward an agreement also might be in both sides' best interest after a federal appeals court judge warned the owners and players they might not like the upcoming decisions in legal actions sparked by the lockout. Indeed, the court could delay any rulings if a new CBA appears to be near.
Although no deadlines have been set for the opening of training camps, the 32 teams soon must decide whether to delay them, particularly those clubs that stage a portion of camp out of town. Settling before July 4 almost certainly would provide for full training camps at previously planned locations, although the Minnesota Vikings have said they could delay until July 18 an announcement on whether they will train at their usual site in Mankato.
First would come a free agency period, including the signing of undrafted rookies, and probably minicamps, which already have been canceled by the lockout that began March 12.
The lockout also has cost the league and some teams advertising and sponsorship money, and some players have not collected workout bonuses. At least seven teams have instituted pay cuts or furloughs of employees who are not players.
The Maryland talks were held at an undisclosed location, with larger groups than had been part of the first two waves of meetings. The legal teams for the sides -- NFL general counsel Jeff Pash and outside counsel Bob Batterman, and NFL Players Association outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler and Jim Quinn -- were a part of these sessions.
Also, there was NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, NFLPA president Kevin Mawae, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Giants owner John Mara, Chargers owner Dean Spanos, and active players Domonique Foxworth, Tony Richardson, Jeff Saturday and Brian Waters. All but Waters have taken part in these sessions over the last two weeks.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The small resisting group is worried about the possibility that the national economy could tank again, and is looking for protection that it didn't have in the collective bargaining agreement established in 2006. Based on economic indicators through their other businesses, some owners have grown increasingly nervous, and the deterioration in the stock market and growing unemployment rate have compounded that.
The hope is that this is part of the normal ebb and flow of negotiations, and the fact that the parties are delving deeper into major issues than they have in the two-plus years since the owners opted out of the 2006 CBA. But in any case, it's a problem that has to be managed.
The owners have one-day internal meetings scheduled monthly until the labor situation is resolved, and the next one up commences Tuesday in Chicago. The group was told this week to be prepared to stay overnight in the case the meetings spill into Wednesday.
Whereas previous meetings during the lockout in New Orleans and Indianapolis were regularly scheduled and were, naturally, heavy on labor talk, the Chicago meeting is the first one that is labor specific.
The “rift” among owners wasn’t wholly unexpected, or even new, and the 10 members of the labor committee have handled the majority of the talks. Ultimately, though, they can’t carry approval of a new CBA on their own -- 24 votes among the larger group of 32 is necessary for a deal to be ratified.
The latest development comes at a time when it appears a lot of momentum towards a resolution is taking place.
The NFL and players concluded up another two-day round of talks on Maryland's Eastern Shore on Wednesday, the third in a series of clandestine sessions that started with a three-day meeting two weeks ago in suburban Chicago, and continued with a two-day meeting on Long Island, N.Y. last week.
Sources say the talks remain productive and are moving forward, though a resolution to the three-month-old lockout is not on the immediate horizon.
The league estimates that the cancellation of the preseason could cost it as much as $1 billion. Whether or not that figure is accurate, both parties recognize that the major economic losses that would be incurred by this dispute dragging through the summer would make negotiations exponentially tougher.
"Secret" meetings, such as the ones that took place in Chicago and Long Island, have been critical in past NFL negotiations, dating to the 1980s.
"I know that we've been talking pretty extensively over the last few weeks," Saint quarterback Drew Brees said Wednesday. "It seems like things are moving in the right direction, which is very positive. It's what we always hoped for as players because obviously we're getting to crunch time here."
Movement toward an agreement also might be in both sides' best interest after a federal appeals court judge warned the owners and players they might not like the upcoming decisions in legal actions sparked by the lockout. Indeed, the court could delay any rulings if a new CBA appears to be near.
Although no deadlines have been set for the opening of training camps, the 32 teams soon must decide whether to delay them, particularly those clubs that stage a portion of camp out of town. Settling before July 4 almost certainly would provide for full training camps at previously planned locations, although the Minnesota Vikings have said they could delay until July 18 an announcement on whether they will train at their usual site in Mankato.
First would come a free agency period, including the signing of undrafted rookies, and probably minicamps, which already have been canceled by the lockout that began March 12.
The lockout also has cost the league and some teams advertising and sponsorship money, and some players have not collected workout bonuses. At least seven teams have instituted pay cuts or furloughs of employees who are not players.
The Maryland talks were held at an undisclosed location, with larger groups than had been part of the first two waves of meetings. The legal teams for the sides -- NFL general counsel Jeff Pash and outside counsel Bob Batterman, and NFL Players Association outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler and Jim Quinn -- were a part of these sessions.
Also, there was NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, NFLPA president Kevin Mawae, Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, Giants owner John Mara, Chargers owner Dean Spanos, and active players Domonique Foxworth, Tony Richardson, Jeff Saturday and Brian Waters. All but Waters have taken part in these sessions over the last two weeks.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
wonder who this small group of owners are?
How can they protect any busines against and overall economic downturn? Wouldnt that be pushing the cap up or down based on revenue?
Seems like the owner vs owner battle is going to happen.
How can they protect any busines against and overall economic downturn? Wouldnt that be pushing the cap up or down based on revenue?
Seems like the owner vs owner battle is going to happen.
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Guarantee that Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown are the main two owners balking at this.
Tackling Dummies
Footballguy
Adam S. said its at least two AFC owners.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
in 2006 I believe Ralph and Crazy Al Davis were the 2 no votes.This doesnt sound like a good thing but hopefully they can be convinced or the number is so small it wont matter.
gandalas
Footballguy
You believe wrong. It was the aforementioned Mike Brown and the Bills owner, Ralph wilson.
Are these guys worried about the small market issue. Can't get much smaller than Green Bay & the Big Easy. Maybe they should hire good people and make good picks.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
no they are worried about more money in their pockets.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
NEW YORK (AP)—Reaching a labor deal soon is hardly a done deal in the NFL.
Team owners will be updated on recent negotiations with the players when they meet in Chicago on Tuesday. They’ve been told to prepare to stay an extra day because of the complexity of the proposals both sides have discussed in sessions over the last three weeks.
Getting the required 24 of 32 owners to agree on anything can be difficult, let alone something as complex as a new collective bargaining agreement. And there has been enough pushback from owners familiar with those proposals that progress made recently might not lead to an agreement in the next few weeks.
Related CoverageJoin the Rally
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - MAY 17: NFL …
Getty Images - May 17, 3:26 pm EDT NFL Gallery Still, according to a person with knowledge of the negotiations, the faction of unhappy owners that exists isn’t yet large enough to derail an agreement. That could lead to some heavy lobbying in Chicago at the first owners’ meeting specifically scheduled to deal with the lockout.
The person, speaking on condition of anonymity because details of the negotiations are not supposed to be made public, said a new CBA is not imminent.
Owners, Commissioner Roger Goodell and lead negotiator Jeff Pash have been silent about recent developments, citing an agreement with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan not to discuss mediated talks. Players association chief DeMaurice Smith and several players on hand for the negotiations also have avoided comment.
But it’s clear that deadlines are approaching. Training camps normally would open in about five weeks, and any lengthy delays in striking a deal will endanger them and the preseason. The first preseason game is at the Pro Football Hall of Fame inductions; the Bears and Rams are scheduled to play Aug. 7 in Canton, Ohio.
“I know that we’ve been talking pretty extensively over the last few weeks,” said Saints quarterback Drew Brees(notes), one of 10 players on an antitrust suit brought against the league on March 11, hours before the lockout began. “It seems like things are moving in the right direction, which is very positive. It’s what we always hoped for as players because obviously we’re getting to crunch time here. We’re nearing July and there’s a lot of work that needs to be done (footballwise) between now and when the season will start, and obviously we’d love to have a settlement in place.”
One item of contention likely is the minimum teams can spend on salaries each year and how it is determined, a key for small-market franchises such as Buffalo, Jacksonville and Cincinnati.
Under rules of the previous CBA negotiated in 2006—owners opted out in 2008—teams were allowed to spread guaranteed signing bonuses over the duration of a contract. That reduced the salary cap hit each year.
The Bills, however, preferred to count bonuses as dollars spent for each specific season no matter the contract’s length, so their payroll essentially was limited to all the salaries on their books for that one season—including potential bonuses and salaries owed to players that had been cut or bought out.
Whether teams would have that kind of flexibility in the next CBA is important to the lower-revenue franchises.
Until now, the owners have appeared unified, from when they opted out to when they locked out. But as negotiations have ramped up, a faction of owners skeptical about the dynamics of a new deal has appeared. That will make next week’s owners’ meetings critical as July approaches.
AP Sports Writers John Wawrow in Buffalo and Brett Martel in New Orleans contributed to this story.
Team owners will be updated on recent negotiations with the players when they meet in Chicago on Tuesday. They’ve been told to prepare to stay an extra day because of the complexity of the proposals both sides have discussed in sessions over the last three weeks.
Getting the required 24 of 32 owners to agree on anything can be difficult, let alone something as complex as a new collective bargaining agreement. And there has been enough pushback from owners familiar with those proposals that progress made recently might not lead to an agreement in the next few weeks.
Related CoverageJoin the Rally
MINNEAPOLIS, MN - MAY 17: NFL …
Getty Images - May 17, 3:26 pm EDT NFL Gallery Still, according to a person with knowledge of the negotiations, the faction of unhappy owners that exists isn’t yet large enough to derail an agreement. That could lead to some heavy lobbying in Chicago at the first owners’ meeting specifically scheduled to deal with the lockout.
The person, speaking on condition of anonymity because details of the negotiations are not supposed to be made public, said a new CBA is not imminent.
Owners, Commissioner Roger Goodell and lead negotiator Jeff Pash have been silent about recent developments, citing an agreement with U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan not to discuss mediated talks. Players association chief DeMaurice Smith and several players on hand for the negotiations also have avoided comment.
But it’s clear that deadlines are approaching. Training camps normally would open in about five weeks, and any lengthy delays in striking a deal will endanger them and the preseason. The first preseason game is at the Pro Football Hall of Fame inductions; the Bears and Rams are scheduled to play Aug. 7 in Canton, Ohio.
“I know that we’ve been talking pretty extensively over the last few weeks,” said Saints quarterback Drew Brees(notes), one of 10 players on an antitrust suit brought against the league on March 11, hours before the lockout began. “It seems like things are moving in the right direction, which is very positive. It’s what we always hoped for as players because obviously we’re getting to crunch time here. We’re nearing July and there’s a lot of work that needs to be done (footballwise) between now and when the season will start, and obviously we’d love to have a settlement in place.”
One item of contention likely is the minimum teams can spend on salaries each year and how it is determined, a key for small-market franchises such as Buffalo, Jacksonville and Cincinnati.
Under rules of the previous CBA negotiated in 2006—owners opted out in 2008—teams were allowed to spread guaranteed signing bonuses over the duration of a contract. That reduced the salary cap hit each year.
The Bills, however, preferred to count bonuses as dollars spent for each specific season no matter the contract’s length, so their payroll essentially was limited to all the salaries on their books for that one season—including potential bonuses and salaries owed to players that had been cut or bought out.
Whether teams would have that kind of flexibility in the next CBA is important to the lower-revenue franchises.
Until now, the owners have appeared unified, from when they opted out to when they locked out. But as negotiations have ramped up, a faction of owners skeptical about the dynamics of a new deal has appeared. That will make next week’s owners’ meetings critical as July approaches.
AP Sports Writers John Wawrow in Buffalo and Brett Martel in New Orleans contributed to this story.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Help me think this through. So if the Bills sign a free agent with a $10 million bonus and a 4-year deal, all $10 mil would count against the current year's cap? How does this help the small revenue teams? Will it limit the amount of bonuses that the high revenue teams can offer free agents and high draft picks?
If there was no revenue sharing - and that;s what this entire train wreck comes down to - GB and Nawlins might not have lasted long enough to be in the shape they are now.I can see Brown (notoriously cheap) and Wilson (franchise on the edge) being very worried that if the bigger market owners can't get their money from the players, they might go after the revenue sharing and small owners.
Doug B
Footballguy
This seems to be exactly the idea. I think you've hit upon the rationale. It also simplifies a team's cap management a ton (maybe saves a few low-level front-office salaries?).I don't think the players will go for that scheme, though ... not unless the salary cap is bumped up a good bit.
Catbird
Footballguy
Not sure I understand this, but I'll take a shot at it. I think the mindset is that these two small market teams want to pay as little in salary as they are allowed to. So if they count the whole bonus as paid this year, they hit the minimum cap sooner and don't have to spend as much this year to reach that figure. Its a profit issue, not a 'how can I build the best team possible' issue. Players would be negotiating against this loophole, trying to make every team pay the minimum in current year dollars, with these small market owners not much liking that the negotiating owners are perhaps willing to eliminate this loophole (despite disagreement by the 2 or 3 small minded ... ah, I mean small market owners' who want to be able to spend less). And I have to admit, I don't know how tight the true finances of a small market team really are ... but that's at least on part because they refuse to open their bok and demonstrate their claimed economic woes ...)
But it seems to me, too, with no special knowledge, that this gain in counting the full bonusses as paid this year is largely mitigated by the fact that bonusses incurred last year and the year before were completely applied to salaries in those years and so don't spill over into this year's cap total. In practise it would seems that would balance out over time, but I think the ability to front load the salaries makes them count as always a little higher than is really being paid (assumming salaries are always on the way up). But I guess too that its doesn't have to be a huge difference. A couple of Mil saved in overall salaries paid this season is a couple of extra Mil in the owner's pocket from the same gross income and other costs (and a couple Mil less earned by the players on that team).
But it seems to me, too, with no special knowledge, that this gain in counting the full bonusses as paid this year is largely mitigated by the fact that bonusses incurred last year and the year before were completely applied to salaries in those years and so don't spill over into this year's cap total. In practise it would seems that would balance out over time, but I think the ability to front load the salaries makes them count as always a little higher than is really being paid (assumming salaries are always on the way up). But I guess too that its doesn't have to be a huge difference. A couple of Mil saved in overall salaries paid this season is a couple of extra Mil in the owner's pocket from the same gross income and other costs (and a couple Mil less earned by the players on that team).
dparker713
Footballguy
I think this may be more of a time value of money thing. So, in 2011 they sign a player with a 10 mil bonus. They must immediately pay out that money. However, if you spread it out, you don't get that deduction fully realized until 2014.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
I'm not following you.Let me try this theory instead: the cap and the proration of bonuses have always evened out the team-by-team spending over the long haul. Where the big revenue teams had the advantage was having the actual cash on hand to pay big bonuses when valuable free agents became available. The proration of the bonus helps keep all franchises under the cap but some of the small revenue clubs didn't actually have the cash to write those checks in the first place.
So by counting all the bonus money in the year in which it is paid mitigates the big clubs' ability to flex their bigger checkbooks.
Now that I've walked myself through this, I just don't see what the big fuss is all about unless Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown are running seriously low on cash. Of course, I could still be way off base, too.
dparker713
Footballguy
Well, if they're only spending the money they make in the year they make it, they'd avoid finance charges.
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Why do that when you can free ride on the success of the league and try to take your billion out of the players hides? Being an NFL owner means never having to face a loss after all.'markb said:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
ESPN the Mag this week passed along the Forbes data that while the Packers made just under $10 million last year, the Bengals made $49 million. I'm not sure how Mike Brown is good for anybody remotely connected with the NFL except for, well, Mike Brown.
dparker713
Footballguy
Forbes is listing guesses. Educated guesses, but these are private companies with private books. And you're talking about atleast $200 million in total revenue for a business that has to be worth north of $600 million. Its a high return, but that would seem to be mostly because Cincinnati was stupid and gave him a great stadium deal. If the league is right and those deals just wont be there anymore, then his profits would be considerably less.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Why do you think those deals won't be there anymore? And if the next stadium deal with the city of Cincinnati is not nearly as lucrative, what do you think will happen to Brown and the Bengals?
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).
