NFL and NFLPA agree to federal mediation (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

Link

The NFL and its players' union have agreed to federal mediation as a possible means of settling their labor dispute.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service announced Thursday that the league and union had agreed to allow the agency to be involved in the negotiations.

The two sides are scheduled to meet Friday in D.C. with George H. Cohen, the agency's director.

 

[Doug B]

Sounds like this will be a good move. A neutral party might be able to bridge over the loss of face both sides are apparently working very hard to avoid.

A question for those who are following these negotiations closely: why hasn't the NFLPA evaluated its position of weakness compared to the owners, and thus just negotiated from there? Shouldn't the players union already know, more or less, what they can get out of the owners? No one really thinks waiting until the 11th hour will get them anything extra, do they? Seems like the outcome of these negotiations can essentially be pre-determined by just following all factors to logical conclusions (e.g owners still make TV money in 2011 without airing games, while players get no salary while locked out).

It's almost like the NFLPA is not facing reality, and is trying to force harder terms than they can realistically get just for the sake of doing something. I know that in negotiation, you start from a relatively extreme position and then move towards the center ... but in the owners/players flap, there seems to be no movement toward the middle.

 

[DiStefano]

Seems like the right thing to do in the face of hardened positions and the unwillingness to lose face.

Generally, both sides end up losing in a strike/lockout.

 

[Gold Standard]

Sounds like this will be a good move. A neutral party might be able to bridge over the loss of face both sides are apparently working very hard to avoid.

A question for those who are following these negotiations closely: why hasn't the NFLPA evaluated its position of weakness compared to the owners, and thus just negotiated from there? Shouldn't the players union already know, more or less, what they can get out of the owners? No one really thinks waiting until the 11th hour will get them anything extra, do they? Seems like the outcome of these negotiations can essentially be pre-determined by just following all factors to logical conclusions (e.g owners still make TV money in 2011 without airing games, while players get no salary while locked out).

It's almost like the NFLPA is not facing reality, and is trying to force harder terms than they can realistically get just for the sake of doing something. I know that in negotiation, you start from a relatively extreme position and then move towards the center ... but in the owners/players flap, there seems to be no movement toward the middle.

Facing the reality that the owners are the ones that killed this current CBA and will be the ones locking out the game??? Not sure where they are weak if the owners won't show how this current deal is unfair. Other than the rookie salary system, these owners are kidding themselves in my opinion. The NFLPA offers a 50/50 split so how the owners react? They walk out. Glad to see this go to a mediator - maybe he can make sense of this whole thing and tell Jerry Richardson and Cromartie to keep their mouths shut.

 

[Mark Wimer]

ESPN Story on the Mediation with some player reactions LINK

I think this is a positive step - it appears the federal mediator has successfully brokered agreements between players and owners at least once, and worked with players in several professional leagues:

FMCS director George H. Cohen can make suggestions and recommendations, but he has no authority to impose settlements. Coming to an agreement on a new collective bargaining agreement still will be up to the two parties.

"Our agency director will be working with the parties to assist them in reaching a voluntary, mutually acceptable agreement," FMCS public affairs director John Arnold said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

and

Cohen said in a statement that the negotiations will be conducted "under my auspices." He is no stranger to sports mediation. He was involved in Major League Soccer talks with its players' union and a work stoppage was avoided last year.

Cohen also has worked with the players' associations for Major League Baseball and the NBA, and was an advisor to the NHL players' union before joining the FMCS.

The FMCS also became involved in negotiations during the 2004-05 NHL lockout, and a 2005 dispute between the U.S. Soccer Federation and its players.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.

Color me a skeptic but this looks and smells like a PR move by the owners to buy them time until the lockout (and hopefully put the Combine in the headlines for the next 10-12 days).

 

[BeTheMatch]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.Color me a skeptic but this looks and smells like a PR move by the owners to buy them time until the lockout (and hopefully put the Combine in the headlines for the next 10-12 days).

 

[D.J.]

NFLPA is now saying that they will meet with the NFL for the next 7 days. It's still no sure thing, but both sides seem to want to make the deal now...

 

[Yellow Line is Unoffcial]

Multiple sources are comfirming a PFT report the League and Union will hold 7 straight days of talks.

I could care less about the spin eithers side puts out to the public, all I care is if they are talking. This is a good sign.

 

[GECKO]

The feds hunh

 

[fatness]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.

There's no guarantee, but when both sides agree to involve a neutral third part in negotiations and then one side walks away from the negotiations it's going to look absolutely terrible to the public.

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.

There's no guarantee, but when both sides agree to involve a neutral third part in negotiations and then one side walks away from the negotiations it's going to look absolutely terrible to the public.

Who says they walk away?After seven days they could wind up with a summary from the mediator and still no agreement."irreconcilable differences" is still an outcome.

 

[Bri]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.

that's what I was thinking.It can't be a dog N pony show. This guy has excellent experience and a decent reputation so that should help both sides to genuinely hear him out.As I understand it, he will give them a highly detailed report as to why he thinks as such. Often times in a stalled negotiation both sides think they're so clearly right and the other is so clearly wrong. This could change that and despite a nice presentation to the public of each having an open mind, I think they just may be truly open to listening after this.There's also hurt feelings from the last CBA that don't matter and he'll point that out. I think Goodell and Smith have been using their lawyerly double-talk a bit much and he's surely not going to be fooled and may even give them a piece of his mind if they do that. Both could also agree to meet with him again at a later date (it's never projected to happen) and usually both sides are quite transparent during that second appearance before an arbitrator.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Here's an article that paints a greedy picture of the NFL Owners.

WASHINGTON — The National Football League’s 32 owners are hurtling toward a March 4 deadline, giving every indication that they plan to lock out the players and stadium employees, potentially jeopardizing the next season in an effort to extract an extra billion dollars per year for themselves and require the players to put in two extra regular season games. The move comes after the owners have managed to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers to build and maintain stadiums for their private businesses.With the exception of Green Bay, which is collectively owned by community members and run as a nonprofit, the other 31 teams are privately owned, meaning that the NFL’s lucrative business generates an extraordinary amount of money for a handful of men.The owners are claiming that they need an extra billion dollars to make it worthwhile to invest in the upkeep of the stadiums and other facilities. The players say they are more than willing to help make those investments, but, like all investors, they want a cut of the returns and they want to see the owners’ books to verify their claims of impoverishment.There’s reason for suspicion. The owner of the Cincinnati Bengals, for instance, is insisting that he needs the extra money from the players to maintain the team’s stadium. “The investments that need to be made to keep the stadium and our other facilities in first-class condition require an economic system that fairly allocates financial reward and risk,” said Bengals owner Mike Brown in an October letter explaining the team’s position to progressive advocacy group Progress Illinois.Problem is, the Bengals don’t pay for those investments. The local taxpayers do. The stadium was entirely a gift from taxpayers to the team. The lease requires taxpayers to pay the costs of routine maintenance and upgrades, which amounted to $10.2 million over the past decade, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer. And now the Bengals want four times as much from taxpayers for the next decade.Listening to the owner’s argument, one would think he was footing the bill himself.“Our stadium has repeatedly been recognized as one of the finest venues in the league, and we are very proud for what it means to our fans, our players and our community. Like any facility of its size and complexity, our stadium needs ongoing maintenance and improvement,” he wrote, skipping over the part about who paid for it, adding that the community should be grateful that the team still plays where it does. “Even though the Bengals operate in one of the smallest communities in the NFL, and in an area that has been hit hard by the recession, we have maintained our commitment to provide fans with the highest-quality football in an outstanding setting.”

If the owners end up walking away and Federal mediators don't get to the source of players claims of non-transparency, articles like this one and others are going to pop up more and the owners are going to back themselves into a corner. What do the owners stand to lose if the season is shortened or cancelled altogether? Don't they have guaranteed money streams in place that puts them in a position of taking the hard stand? What leverage do the players have? They can't seem to even agree to discuss in good faith. I don't see the Feds getting involved is anything more than a mediation ploy, that can't force the issue. I only hope that if Feds do their due diligence, they expose the shield of non-transparency. Then the talks can begin again on even ground.

 

[Jason Wood]

I've been skeptical, but how people aren't seeing this as good news baffles me. OF COURSE this is a positive development. 7 straight days of negotiations plus Federal mediation? Neither side accepts this without knowing how poorly they'll look if they disregard what appears to be reasonable compromises that are discussed during mediation.

For all the Sturm und Drang, this is starting to feel a lot like a typical labor negotiation. Lots of negativity and posturing until the 11th hour. Then everyone sits down, rolls up their sleeves with the clock ticking, and comes to a compromise.

 

[Orange Crush]

Sounds like this will be a good move. A neutral party might be able to bridge over the loss of face both sides are apparently working very hard to avoid.

A question for those who are following these negotiations closely: why hasn't the NFLPA evaluated its position of weakness compared to the owners, and thus just negotiated from there? Shouldn't the players union already know, more or less, what they can get out of the owners? No one really thinks waiting until the 11th hour will get them anything extra, do they? Seems like the outcome of these negotiations can essentially be pre-determined by just following all factors to logical conclusions (e.g owners still make TV money in 2011 without airing games, while players get no salary while locked out).

It's almost like the NFLPA is not facing reality, and is trying to force harder terms than they can realistically get just for the sake of doing something. I know that in negotiation, you start from a relatively extreme position and then move towards the center ... but in the owners/players flap, there seems to be no movement toward the middle.

When it comes to the short-term situation, you're right, the players are weak. The owners can afford to miss some games a heck of a lot more than the players.However, the players believe they have a trump card with antitrust law. If the union decertifies, then the owners lose the protection of labor law and instead are subject to antitrust law, which dictates that any agreement among competitors to restrict prices or to not compete for labor is illegal. The courts view the 32 teams as separate economic entities and not a single unit or a joint enterprise. This was recently re-confirmed in the American Needle case before the Supreme Court.

The NFL does have an antitrust exemption for negotiating broadcast rights, given to it by Congress. But the exemption is limited to solely that purpose. So any other attempts by the teams to collude or share revenue will be able to be challenged in court by individual players. The rookie draft? Franchise and Transition Player tags? Rookie pay scale? Salary cap? All challengable.

The owners would like to avoid this if at all possible. When it comes to antitrust challenges in court, the NFL has lost every single time. Labor law protects them. Anything agreed to in a collective bargaining agreement cannot be challenged under antitrust law. So long term, the players are going to win.

That's the crux of the dilemma for the owners. How far can they push the players by threatening short-term pain, without pushing the union into decertification?

 

[David Yudkin]

If the owners end up walking away and Federal mediators don't get to the source of players claims of non-transparency, articles like this one and others are going to pop up more and the owners are going to back themselves into a corner. What do the owners stand to lose if the season is shortened or cancelled altogether? Don't they have guaranteed money streams in place that puts them in a position of taking the hard stand? What leverage do the players have? They can't seem to even agree to discuss in good faith. I don't see the Feds getting involved is anything more than a mediation ploy, that can't force the issue. I only hope that if Feds do their due diligence, they expose the shield of non-transparency. Then the talks can begin again on even ground.

I saw an article (which sadly I can't find again) that explained some of the financials.Yes, the owners would be paid $4 billion this year from the networks even if no games are played. However, they would owe the networks the money plus interest. I believe that money would be used as credit toward the next tv contract. For example, if the current deal was for $20 billion over 5 years, the networks might get a $4.5 billion credit for the next contract. So if they renewed the contract at the same cost, $20 billion over 5 years less $4.5 billion equals $15.5 billion.As for non tv revenue, I believe the article said it would cost the NFL a billion dollars an d change in the preseason and $400 million for each regular season week there is no football. They did not specify about the post season losses. I don't know where they got the numbers from, if they were guessing, or if they got numbers mapped out by the league. They also did not really spell out what the money included (ticket sales, parking, concessions, who knows what else).Bottom line, it looked like on paper anyway that the owners break even point from the tv revenue was about halfway through the regular season . . . at least that's what I remember doing the math in my head after reading the article. I will try to see if I can find it again.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.

There's no guarantee, but when both sides agree to involve a neutral third part in negotiations and then one side walks away from the negotiations it's going to look absolutely terrible to the public.

No it's not. I am (was) actually a certified mediator (though I think my cert may have lapsed by now). Non-binding mediation can be an effective way of 'grounding' the beliefs of each party vis a vis a truly neutral mediator. This guy seems to have done well before. But no one 'loses' at the end of a mediation, in fact you probably wouldn't even know what breaks the talks down (assuming they break down) as these are confidential.

 

[David Yudkin]

Here's what I saw . . .

The NFL's labor dispute: Answers to key questions

By Tom Pedulla, USA TODAY

The NFL is into a period of uncertainty with the 2010 season in the rear view and the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement coming into view after March 3. With the prospect that owners might lock out players, USA TODAY's Tom Pedulla examines some of the issues and what might lie ahead:

Q: How does the current agreement work?

A: Of the approximately $9 billion in revenue the NFL generated in 2010, 59.5% of that goes to players after the owners receive $1 billion off the top in "cost credits."

Q: What are cost credits?

A: These are business expenses such as stadium enhancements, promotional undertakings and efforts to extend the NFL brand domestically and overseas.

Q: What is in dispute?

A: While the business is indisputably strong, owners say the business model is broken. They say they must receive additional cost credits if they are to gain a fair return on investment and continue to grow the game. According to the NFL Players Association, management wants an additional $1 billion in relief.

Q: Are there other issues?

A: Jeff Pash, general counsel to the NFL and its lead negotiator, says the economics that would be involved in creating an 18-game regular season by removing two preseason games might be compelling. Management also wants controls on rookie salaries.

Q: What do players want?

A: They are eager to maintain the status quo, suggesting the revenue stream and the sport's popularity point to an operation that is not in need of repair.

Q: How many times have the sides negotiated? Any progress?

A: They have met formally more than 40 times, most recently last week. The parties have expressed a feeling of increased urgency with the deadline for the current CBA not that far off. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith says "fundamental disagreement" remains.

Q: Can anything be done to jump-start talks?

A: Players maintain they must have financial transparency, giving them the ability to follow every dollar that flows into and out of the 32 clubs.

Q: What is management's response?

A: Pash, during a recent news media briefing, said, "We've given them all of the cost items for which we are seeking credits. They have received an extraordinary amount of financial information."

Q: Where does the NFLPA stand on an 18-game regular season?

A: Smith, noting the average player's career lasts 3.4 years, cites short- and long-term health concerns in voicing strong opposition.

Q: Wouldn't subtracting two preseason games and adding two to the regular season represent a big victory for fans, as owners contend?

A: Not necessarily. While players dread participating in preseason games and they can be painful to watch because the quality is so poor, they play critical roles in player evaluation and in ensuring that teams will be cohesive and provide a worthy product in Week 1. Beyond that, given the current rate of attrition during the regular season, how many stars and starters would be left standing by postseason?

Q: Any areas of common ground?

A: There is an expressed mutual interest in doing more to help retired players. The NFLPA might be willing to agree that less should be paid to top draft choices. The union said it made a proposal that would have diverted $200 million from the sum normally spent on rookie salaries each year by having $100 million go to retirees and $100 million to veterans. They said that was rejected.

Q: Smith insisted in the past that the owners' strategy revolved around a lockout. Why did he say that?

A: Owners are well-positioned to withstand a work stoppage because their 2011 television contracts are structured to pay them approximately $4 billion even if no games are played. However, there is a catch: The money would have to be repaid, with interest, if the season is lost.

Q: Do the players have any recourse to a lockout?

A: The NFL filed a complaint on Feb. 14 with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the union has been participating in sham negotiations and that it is interested in suing on antitrust grounds. The union could potentially decertify and sue the NFL if a lockout begins.

Q: Can players still be given a franchise tag?

A: Management says they can. Smith says the franchise tag is meaningless without an agreement.

Q: How many potential free agents are affected?

A: According to the league, a record 495 players are set to become free agents. There would be no market for them, however, without a collective bargaining agreement. A lockout could result in an abbreviated, chaotic signing period. It is impossible to tell how that would affect contracts.

Q: How much money would be lost in the event of a lockout?

A: League officials estimate revenue lost would total $120 million in March, $350 million by August and $1 billion if no agreement can be reached in September. They say lost revenue would accelerate to more than $400 million a week if the regular season arrives and no games are played.

Q: Will there be a salary cap?

A: Although last year was uncapped, the cap could be restored in a new deal. The participation of small-market teams such as the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLV speaks well for it.

Q: What is Roger Goodell's role?

A: The commissioner has vowed to drop everything in the interests of making a deal and to have his annual salary drop to $1 if there is a stoppage.

Q: How critical is March 3-4?

A: Pash said the clock can be stopped and no lockout would be implemented as long as good-faith negotiations are proceeding and a new collective bargaining agreement is well within reach. Management emphasizes that if revenue losses begin to mount it will only increase the difficulty of reaching a conclusion.

Q: When was the last stoppage?

A: Teams used replacement players for three games in 1987.

Q: If owners are allowed to take more off the top, what would that money be used for?

A: They are eager to help build a new stadium in Los Angeles and establish a team there. They also envision new stadiums for the Atlanta Falcons, Minnesota Vikings and San Francisco 49ers. They want greater exposure internationally as well.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I've been skeptical, but how people aren't seeing this as good news baffles me. OF COURSE this is a positive development. 7 straight days of negotiations plus Federal mediation? Neither side accepts this without knowing how poorly they'll look if they disregard what appears to be reasonable compromises that are discussed during mediation.For all the Sturm und Drang, this is starting to feel a lot like a typical labor negotiation. Lots of negativity and posturing until the 11th hour. Then everyone sits down, rolls up their sleeves with the clock ticking, and comes to a compromise.

Why do you keep assuming we'll know what they discuss at mediation. One of the reasons mediators are involved is to eliminate a lot of the posturing/publicity (allowing the parties to 'save face' and get things done). In fact often times the mediator will not even meet in the same room as the parties, instead utilizing private caucuses to advance their positions (and have the mediator explain to them weaknesses of their positions and strength of the opposing sides).I think it's good that they are going to mediation, but I think it's naive to think we'll know what's actually being discussed their in any detail (save a media leak or two here or there)

 

[Jason Wood]

I've been skeptical, but how people aren't seeing this as good news baffles me. OF COURSE this is a positive development. 7 straight days of negotiations plus Federal mediation? Neither side accepts this without knowing how poorly they'll look if they disregard what appears to be reasonable compromises that are discussed during mediation.For all the Sturm und Drang, this is starting to feel a lot like a typical labor negotiation. Lots of negativity and posturing until the 11th hour. Then everyone sits down, rolls up their sleeves with the clock ticking, and comes to a compromise.

Why do you keep assuming we'll know what they discuss at mediation. One of the reasons mediators are involved is to eliminate a lot of the posturing/publicity (allowing the parties to 'save face' and get things done). In fact often times the mediator will not even meet in the same room as the parties, instead utilizing private caucuses to advance their positions (and have the mediator explain to them weaknesses of their positions and strength of the opposing sides).I think it's good that they are going to mediation, but I think it's naive to think we'll know what's actually being discussed their in any detail (save a media leak or two here or there)

Hey Hipple,I was thinking more of the fallout if things don't go well. Two sides talk. Nothing comes of mediation. I would be absolutely shocked if, in today's day and age, the side that didn't "walk away" doesn't then start spilling what was on the table that the other side wouldn't agree to. You could be right though. In fact, I hope you ARE right. I think the 24x7 news cycles can only hurt in a situation like this. Negotiations are supposed to be difficult, often combative, it's part of the process. Yet we all seem to take each development and extrapolate that out to a probable conclusion. Too much noise and not enough signal.

 

[CletiusMaximus]

My experience with mediation is that it is productive when one or more of the parties involved in a dispute are unsophisticated, inexperienced in dispute resolution, or poorly represented. In this case, I think both sides are well-represented and fully knowledgeable as to the issues in dispute. Therefore, I don't think mediation is likely to bear fruit. However, who knows what might come of it? If it helps them peel away some of the collateral distractions and allows them to focus on the real issues in dispute, that is likely a positive.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

I think this is an immensely positive sign. This now gives D. Smith and Goodell fall back positions with the people they are representing. They should be able to take something back to their respective sides and say, this isn't perfect, but they will agree to it. Its what the mediator recommends.

For the owners it will be "our option is a lockout. We'll begin losing money at "x" rate on March 4th." (They have to assume that things like sales of NFL merchandise will plummet in the event of a lockout.)

For the players it will be "our option is to be locked out. Free agency will not proceed until after the lockout is complete, and you will be prohibited from using team facilities. You will also need to pay for your own insurance."

I think both sides will be under pressure to make a deal.

From the players perspective, lets remember that about 40-50% of the players live in fear of losing their job in the NFL. Having the option to workout in team facilities keeps them in the coaches mind and gives them a leg up on their upcoming competition. The thought of losing even one game check has to seriously trouble these players, and there are a lot more of them than the Peyton Mannings and Drew Brees' of the world.

From the owners perspective, their coaches should be putting pressure on them to make a deal. This is especially true for all the teams with new coaching staffs. They have entirely new systems to put into place, and their teams could border on non-competitive in 2011 without OTAs, minicamps and preseason.

 

[Insein]

I've been skeptical, but how people aren't seeing this as good news baffles me. OF COURSE this is a positive development. 7 straight days of negotiations plus Federal mediation? Neither side accepts this without knowing how poorly they'll look if they disregard what appears to be reasonable compromises that are discussed during mediation.For all the Sturm und Drang, this is starting to feel a lot like a typical labor negotiation. Lots of negativity and posturing until the 11th hour. Then everyone sits down, rolls up their sleeves with the clock ticking, and comes to a compromise.

Hopefully. I just hope they use the March deadline and not the July or August deadline. Makes FA and the Draft anticlimactic.

 

[QuizGuy66]

Anything that resembles bargaining has to be taken as a positive. The next best thing would be Richardson getting laryngitis.

-QG

 

[Amused to Death]

I've been skeptical, but how people aren't seeing this as good news baffles me. OF COURSE this is a positive development. 7 straight days of negotiations plus Federal mediation? Neither side accepts this without knowing how poorly they'll look if they disregard what appears to be reasonable compromises that are discussed during mediation.

For all the Sturm und Drang, this is starting to feel a lot like a typical labor negotiation. Lots of negativity and posturing until the 11th hour. Then everyone sits down, rolls up their sleeves with the clock ticking, and comes to a compromise.

7 days are scheduled. However per Mort and Schefter, the likelihood of them going more then a couple of days are slim. Mort said on today's Mike & Mike they put the over/under at "2 or 3 days before one side walks out".

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

anyone know who is representing the sides at mediation (ie i doubt all 32 owners are gonna be in a room)

 

[Jason Wood]

I've been skeptical, but how people aren't seeing this as good news baffles me. OF COURSE this is a positive development. 7 straight days of negotiations plus Federal mediation? Neither side accepts this without knowing how poorly they'll look if they disregard what appears to be reasonable compromises that are discussed during mediation.

For all the Sturm und Drang, this is starting to feel a lot like a typical labor negotiation. Lots of negativity and posturing until the 11th hour. Then everyone sits down, rolls up their sleeves with the clock ticking, and comes to a compromise.

7 days are scheduled. However per Mort and Schefter, the likelihood of them going more then a couple of days are slim. Mort said on today's Mike & Mike they put the over/under at "2 or 3 days before one side walks out".

Which may be the case. But Mort's "opinion" on this is no more informed than anyone else's. I much prefer when Mort and Schefter are giving us information about the league based on information they have, but we don't normally have access to. As far as what's to come of the negotiating sessions, I'll respectfully choose to care less about Mort on that one b/c I don't think he's able to see into the future with any great accuracy.

 

[David Yudkin]

I thought I heard that the two sides would be in seperate rooms and the mediator owuld be going back and forth between the parties. I don't know if that's better or worse . . .

 

[Orange Crush]

I thought I heard that the two sides would be in seperate rooms and the mediator owuld be going back and forth between the parties. I don't know if that's better or worse . . .

It's better. The mediator is objective, and has a wealth of experience in labor disputes generally, and sports labor disputes in particular. Part of his role as mediator is to tell a party whether their arguments are strong or weak. He can't do that in the presence of the other side.Also, this allows the emotions to be taken out of the equation. All parties can think more rationally when the their opponent isn't directly in front of them. Nor will stupid and condescending comments be related to the other side.

 

[QuizGuy66]

I thought I heard that the two sides would be in seperate rooms and the mediator owuld be going back and forth between the parties. I don't know if that's better or worse . . .

It's better. The mediator is objective, and has a wealth of experience in labor disputes generally, and sports labor disputes in particular. Part of his role as mediator is to tell a party whether their arguments are strong or weak. He can't do that in the presence of the other side.Also, this allows the emotions to be taken out of the equation. All parties can think more rationally when the their opponent isn't directly in front of them. Nor will stupid and condescending comments be related to the other side.

It's better, especially if the walls are soundproof for when Richardson goes off again All kidding aside, this is a fairly standard mediator method. Seek out points of agreement and then bring the sides together when the time is right.-QG

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

I thought I heard that the two sides would be in seperate rooms and the mediator owuld be going back and forth between the parties. I don't know if that's better or worse . . .

In this type of scenario MUCH better. It allows each side to vent and fully express opinions, then work that into something that isn't going to make the other side 'offended/walk' by the mediator, who in turn then goes and delivers the 'other sides views'. Much less venom spite that way, allows a trained mediator to reign in 'unrealistic' demands before they piss the other side off.

 

[Bri]

It's better, especially if the walls are soundproof for when Richardson goes off again All kidding aside, this is a fairly standard mediator method. Seek out points of agreement and then bring the sides together when the time is right.-QG

That Richardson thing was a show, an act to insult the business knowledge of two of the game's best to make them feel inferior "at the table."I hope those guys set passing records against the Panthers ASAP.

 

[ffball-novice]

It's better, especially if the walls are soundproof for when Richardson goes off again All kidding aside, this is a fairly standard mediator method. Seek out points of agreement and then bring the sides together when the time is right.-QG

That Richardson thing was a show, an act to insult the business knowledge of two of the game's best to make them feel inferior "at the table."I hope those guys set passing records against the Panthers ASAP.

Juvenile strategy by Richardson. I have come to truly despise the NFL. And I started from the viewpoint of who cares when billionaires and millionaires argue and splitting the fan dollars. I suspect the outcome will be fewer fans as happened with baseball.

 

[Bri]

It's better, especially if the walls are soundproof for when Richardson goes off again All kidding aside, this is a fairly standard mediator method. Seek out points of agreement and then bring the sides together when the time is right.-QG

That Richardson thing was a show, an act to insult the business knowledge of two of the game's best to make them feel inferior "at the table."I hope those guys set passing records against the Panthers ASAP.

Juvenile strategy by Richardson. I have come to truly despise the NFL. And I started from the viewpoint of who cares when billionaires and millionaires argue and splitting the fan dollars. I suspect the outcome will be fewer fans as happened with baseball.

Yeah, there must've been 100 tweets asking why was Peyton even there.

 

[Chadstroma]

What are the major issues for the owners that are problems with the players and vice versa?

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Sounds like this will be a good move. A neutral party might be able to bridge over the loss of face both sides are apparently working very hard to avoid.

A question for those who are following these negotiations closely: why hasn't the NFLPA evaluated its position of weakness compared to the owners, and thus just negotiated from there? Shouldn't the players union already know, more or less, what they can get out of the owners? No one really thinks waiting until the 11th hour will get them anything extra, do they? Seems like the outcome of these negotiations can essentially be pre-determined by just following all factors to logical conclusions (e.g owners still make TV money in 2011 without airing games, while players get no salary while locked out).

It's almost like the NFLPA is not facing reality, and is trying to force harder terms than they can realistically get just for the sake of doing something. I know that in negotiation, you start from a relatively extreme position and then move towards the center ... but in the owners/players flap, there seems to be no movement toward the middle.

Sounds like this will be a good move. Disagree 100%. Look at the housing market, they blow that. Of course I guess that was just practice. I now believe the season will not start on time, if at all.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

With a skilled mediator, this is definitely a good sign.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

No one really thinks waiting until the 11th hour will get them anything extra, do they?

Yes, both sides think that; and both sides are likely right about it. It's a modified game of chicken. As with chicken, if neither side swerves it's a disaster for both. Also like chicken, whoever swerves first generally loses. Unlike with chicken, though, it's not a binary outcome with a clear winner and a clear loser. Both sides will win in some ways and lose in others. But the sooner you swerve, the less you're likely to win.In most cases, you don't win concessions from the other side by caving right away. So the eleventh hour is precisely when these kinds of deals tend to get done.

 

[WVU Alum]

Sounds like this will be a good move. A neutral party might be able to bridge over the loss of face both sides are apparently working very hard to avoid.

A question for those who are following these negotiations closely: why hasn't the NFLPA evaluated its position of weakness compared to the owners, and thus just negotiated from there? Shouldn't the players union already know, more or less, what they can get out of the owners? No one really thinks waiting until the 11th hour will get them anything extra, do they? Seems like the outcome of these negotiations can essentially be pre-determined by just following all factors to logical conclusions (e.g owners still make TV money in 2011 without airing games, while players get no salary while locked out).

It's almost like the NFLPA is not facing reality, and is trying to force harder terms than they can realistically get just for the sake of doing something. I know that in negotiation, you start from a relatively extreme position and then move towards the center ... but in the owners/players flap, there seems to be no movement toward the middle.

Sounds like this will be a good move. Disagree 100%. Look at the housing market, they blow that. Of course I guess that was just practice. I now believe the season will not start on time, if at all.

What?

 

[moderated]

95% chance this is all resolved by the nfl draft.

It's all posturing and in the end neither side will put the season at risk.

 

[Eastwood]

95% chance this is all resolved by the nfl draft.It's all posturing and in the end neither side will put the season at risk.

I sure hope you're right.

 

[Chadstroma]

95% chance this is all resolved by the nfl draft.It's all posturing and in the end neither side will put the season at risk.

I am not sure about that high of a success rate to be expected but this is the best news I have heard yet concerning getting this thing moving. But still, what are the major points that need to be addressed? I mean, the players want more and the owners want to pay less.... but what are the specifics of this?

 

[Jeff Pasquino]

95% chance this is all resolved by the nfl draft.It's all posturing and in the end neither side will put the season at risk.

I am not sure about that high of a success rate to be expected but this is the best news I have heard yet concerning getting this thing moving. But still, what are the major points that need to be addressed? I mean, the players want more and the owners want to pay less.... but what are the specifics of this?

There's a ton of info if you look for it, but the 50 words or less answer:The NFL generates $9B a year. The owners take $1B off the top for expenses and the players then get their share. The NFL wants $2B off the top now. The players want to keep it the way it was, and the owners say they're losing $$ (or not earning enough) under the current CBA terms.

 

[KCC]

The mediation may not be binding, but I think the public would quickly turn on whatever side walks away from it or refuses to go along with the mediator's recommendations. There may be a few sticking points that may take some time to iron out, but I see this as a really positive step towards getting the season started on time.

 

[Chadstroma]

A look at the NFL's labor dispute, and the possibility of a lockout

Published: Sunday, February 20, 2011, 7:00 AM

Zach Berman/The Star-Ledger By Zach Berman/The Star-Ledger

There are a number of keys to solving the NFL labor dispute. Can the issues be resolved? Or will the be a lockout?

Why is a lockout possible?

The NFL's current collective bargaining agreement expires on March 3. That deal was extended in 2006 during a negotiation that generally favor the players, who received close to 60 percent of the league's nearly $9 billion in revenues after $1 billion was taken off the top for the owners.

"That clearly is indicating that the pendulum has shifted too far in one direction," NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said at the Super Bowl of the NFLPA's belief it received a good deal in 2006. "And in any agreement, you want to have a fair agreement. You want to make sure that it's fair to the clubs. You want to make sure it's fair to the players, but allow our great game to grow."

In 2008, the NFL owners opted out of the CBA, which created an ongoing drama throughout the 2010 season and created the possibility — since becoming a likelihood — of a lockout. If a lockout occurs, there will be no free agency, player trades or organized team activities until an agreement is reached. April's draft will still be conducted as scheduled.

What are the major issues for the owners?

As in any labor negotiation, economics are always an issue. The league wants an additional $1 billion off the top before the revenues are split to help produce new revenues that could grow the game, such as the construction of stadiums.

But there are other issues that are important, most notably the creation of an 18-game regular season. The league does not want to change the current 20-game structure (16 regular-season games, four preseason), but instead wants to change from four preseason games to two preseason games and add two to the regular season.

"The fans have clearly stated that they don't like the quality of our preseason," Goodell said.

Of course, there is money to be made from an expanded season, so the league's intentions are motivated as much by business interests as fan interest.

There's also the issue of a rookie wage scale. The first 10 picks of the draft are paid an exorbitant salary compared to established veterans. Take, for example, 2010 No. 1 pick Sam Bradford, who received a $78 million contract and $50 million guaranteed before he even played a game.

What are the major issues for the players?

Like the owners, the economic split is important for the players. If the league takes an additional $1 billion off the current $9 billion, even the 60 percent available to the players is less than 50 percent of the total revenue. The players want to ensure there's a fair split, which the current agreement essentially delivers.

"So when you look at the issue of all revenue from what everybody in here wants to believe and understand about how we recognize whether a deal is fair," NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith said. "What is the split of revenue between players and owners? 50."

The NFLPA has called for financial transparency, which would include the owners opening their books and providing the players a sense of each team's cash flow.

The players are also against the enhanced 18-game regular season, which Smith said would potentially shorten the career span that now averages only 3.4 years per player. It ties into another key issue for the NFLPA: player safety and health benefits. Players receive post-career health care after three years in the league, and the NFLPA projects the average career span decreasing to 2.8 years with an 18-game season.

Who are the key figures?

The face of the league is Goodell, who has been progressive as commissioner but now must prevent the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987. Goodell even pledged to drop his salary to $1 in the event of a lockout. Smith leads the players, and the former trial lawyer became the surprising choice to run the NFLPA in 2009 in large part due to his reputation as a tough negotiator.

Goodell, Smith and members of their negotiating teams participated in a second consecutive six-hour session with a federal mediator yesterday in Washington, D.C. There was no comment from either side.

Goodell.JPGMark J. Rebilas/US PresswireNFL commissioner Roger Goodell is facing the league's first work stoppage since 1987.

For the second day in a row, the two sides convened at the office of George Cohen, director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, a U.S. government agency. They met with Cohen for the first time Friday after agreeing to the mediation, which is not binding but is meant as a way to initiate progress in the slow and sometimes contentious bargaining.

What are the key dates?

There is no date that looms larger than March 3, when the current deal expires. If no deal is in place then — and Smith was vocal about trying to reach an agreement by that point — the league endures a work stoppage, players cannot work out at team facilities and their health benefits are compromised. The league would begin to lose money. There would not be free agency, so more than 400 players will be without a roster.

Pay attention to the NFL Scouting Combine beginning Wednesday and extending to March 1 in Indianapolis. The event brings agents, coaches, front office personnel and reporters into the same forum for a week. Then there's the draft from April 28-30, which could proceed with the alarming subtext of clubs selecting players for rosters the players cannot yet join.

What is a possible compromise?

If there was an easy compromise, the two sides would have found one already. There are three issues that need to be sorted: Revenue split, enhanced season and rookie wage scale.

Of the three, a compromise could most easily be reached on the rookie wage scale. If there's a slotting system for each pick — similar to the NBA — and rookies become unrestricted free agents sooner than the current system allows, the issue could be resolved. The key for the players is how the money saved on rookie salaries will be spent. If it helps increase the salaries of veteran players and benefits retired players, the NFLPA could become even more agreeable.

Goodell said there are no "deal breakers" from the NFL side, but they have pushed hard for the enhanced season. That might create issues, but there could be concessions made for the players if the owners insist on 18 games. Possibilities include adjustments to offseason training activities, training camp and in-season practices. There could be modifications for injured reserve and post-career benefits, too.

The biggest issue might prove to be how the NFL and NFLPA agree to split the revenue. A story in Sports Illustrated this week revealed advice dispensed from late executive director Gene Upshaw that has helped Smith: "The owners will always take short-term loss for long-term gain."

Smith has emphasized the league's growth even during a slow economy, so there is optimism about further growth in the future. How that money is divided could determine whether the NFL endures a costly lockout.

LABOR DISPUTES

MLB: 8

1972, 1973, 1976, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1990, 1994

Most recent: The players strike of 1994 started on Aug. 12, canceled the World Series and delayed the start of the 1995 season. The issue was a possible salary cap and revenue sharing. Baseball only resumed when a preliminary injunction against the owners was issued, although it took years for the game to recover.

NHL: 3

1992, 1994, 2005

Most recent: After the 2004 season, the NHL endured a 310-day lockout that cancelled the entire 2005 season. A new CBA was reached that included a new salary structure, but the NHL has the distinction as the only major professional sport to lose an entire season because of labor issues.

NBA: 3

1995, 1996, 1998

Most recent: The 1998-99 season was limited to 50 games because of a lockout. A deal was reached just before a drop-dead date to cancel the season. The new CBA included a rookie pay scale and capped maximum deals, yet the NBA faces the possibility of another lockout after the current deal expires at the end of this season.

NFL: 5

1970, 1974, 1977, 1982, 1987

Most recent: A 24-day player strike included three weeks with replacement players before the union voted to return to work without a CBA. After a deal was reached, the NFL has not had any work stoppages since. On March 3, the NFL will either continue to be an example of labor accord or add another a work stoppage to the list.

DEFINITIONS

Lockout — A lockout is a work stoppage resulting from the league and its owners preventing the players association from working until a mutual agreement is reached. This differs from a strike, when the players association stops playing for the owners.

Decertification — This occurs when a union stops becoming a union, thus making each player an individual employee as opposed to a member of the players association. If the league then tried to lock out the players, the players could sue under U.S. antitrust laws.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The mediation may not be binding, but I think the public would quickly turn on whatever side walks away from it or refuses to go along with the mediator's recommendations.

If the parties walk away, it will likely be a mutual decision once it appears that progress cannot be made. And if the mediator makes a recommendation to one side or the other (or to both), I don't think it will be public.A mediator is not like an arbitrator. He's not really there to offer his own opinion on the matter, although occasionally doing so might be helpful. He's there to get the sides to talk to each other (usually indirectly, through the mediator), and to encourage settlement by making each side aware of its own weaknesses. But he won't do so publicly. The whole affair will be confidential.

 

[fatness]

This could be a positive move, but there's no "binding" to this arbitration / mediation so there's no guarantee that anything that comes from this will move the next CBA forward.

There's no guarantee, but when both sides agree to involve a neutral third part in negotiations and then one side walks away from the negotiations it's going to look absolutely terrible to the public.

Who says they walk away?After seven days they could wind up with a summary from the mediator and still no agreement."irreconcilable differences" is still an outcome.

20 hours of negotiation in the last 3 days --- seems like both sides want to be seen by the public as working towards an agreement. And if negotiations break down due to one side, that will become known fairly quickly.

 

[ShaqAttaq]

odds of a lockout: 99%.

odds of no 2011 season: 0.1%

 

[D.J.]

The mediation may not be binding, but I think the public would quickly turn on whatever side walks away from it or refuses to go along with the mediator's recommendations.

If the parties walk away, it will likely be a mutual decision once it appears that progress cannot be made. And if the mediator makes a recommendation to one side or the other (or to both), I don't think it will be public.A mediator is not like an arbitrator. He's not really there to offer his own opinion on the matter, although occasionally doing so might be helpful. He's there to get the sides to talk to each other (usually indirectly, through the mediator), and to encourage settlement by making each side aware of its own weaknesses. But he won't do so publicly. The whole affair will be confidential.

I slightly disagree with the idea that the negotiations will be confidential. The mediator won't speak publicly, but once the owners/players get briefed on the negotiations there will be more leaks than the titanic.