NFLPA files legal challenge over NFL television deal (1 Viewer)

[GregR_2]

Link

NFLPA files challenge to TV deals

The NFL Players Association is challenging the structure of the NFL's television contracts in a filing Wednesday to Special Master Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania.

The NFLPA is arguing that the league essentially set up a 2011 lockout protection fund with the structure of its TV deals.

The union announced its legal filing in a story on its website, NFLPlayers.com.

The union, in its filing, argues that the NFL's guaranteed $4 billion in television revenues combined with the elimination of $4.4 billion in player salaries would make 2011 a profitable season for the owners even if no football is played because of a lockout.

The league's television contracts for the 2011 season provide for the networks to pay the league even though there would be no games during a lockout. The union argues that this agreement was made to the detriment of the players and is, in fact, a weapon to be used against the players in the lockout.

The union argues that the NFL didn't maximize revenue from other seasons when the league would have had to share that income with players. The union says that violates a 17-year-old agreement between the two sides, which stipulates the league must make good-faith efforts to maximize revenue for players.

The union is asking Burbank to order the league to put all TV money in an escrow instead of distributing it to the owners during the lockout. This would, obviously, produce significant leverage for the union.

If the television money is put into an escrow account, the owners would be forced to find other funds to make interest payments, stadium payments, and pay other bills that continue to accrue during a lockout.

"It appears that the owners bought a strategy to lock players and fans out and nonetheless financially protect themselves," Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, a member of the NFLPA's executive committee, told NFLPlayers.com. "The players want to leave no stone unturned to make sure that CBA negotiations proceed in good faith and that next season is played in its entirety."

The NFL currently has television contracts with ESPN, NBC, CBS, Fox and DirecTV.

The NFL defended its television contracts in a statement Wednesday, calling the union's challenge "meritless."

"The television contracts that the union attacked [Wednesday] were agreed to during the worst economy in our lifetimes. Far from failing to maximize revenue, the contracts grew league revenue to fund higher player salaries and benefits," league spokesman Greg Aiello said.

"No wonder [NFLPA executive director] DeMaurice Smith said publicly this year, 'My hat's off to [NFL commissioner] Roger Goodell. Television is locked up until 2014 to the tune of about $5 billion a year.' The union's meritless charges, including many inaccuracies, will be addressed in the proper forum, but they are simply a distraction and do nothing to get us any closer to a new CBA," Aiello said.

The current collective bargaining agreement expires in March, which could lead to a work stoppage during the 2011 season. Smith said talks between the union and league were still set to resume this month, and he insisted the complaint wouldn't hamper those negotiations.

 

[Mike]

Oh boy.

Not a lot of detail to go on here. I doubt the claims by the union are "meritless". Whether they can get any satisfaction from those claims is another story all together.

 

[renesauz]

To be honest, I was wondering how the owners were getting away with a TV structure like that. I think the union has a point. The owners should NOT be in a position to make money during a lockout.

 

[Mister CIA]

I'm no labor/contract expert, by any definition, but is it within the realm of possibility for players take the initial best offer (for say 3 or 4 years) - stressing heavily to all players that they save excessively - with the pay-off in the end being that players can walk and create their own league? Sounds radical, but to a certain extent the owner's fortune's are built on a house of cards.

It seems that the players have so much leverage but they cannot muster the will to take advantage of it.

 

[LHLC]

The NFLPA is arguing that the league essentially set up a 2011 lockout protection fund with the structure of its TV deals.

The union announced its legal filing in a story on its website, NFLPlayers.com.

The union, in its filing, argues that the NFL's guaranteed $4 billion in television revenues combined with the elimination of $4.4 billion in player salaries would make 2011 a profitable season for the owners even if no football is played because of a lockout.

If the TV contract is part of the ealier CBA, it's something the players agreed to. If it's not, then it belongs to the owners and is simply good business.

To say that the owners are self-serving is akin to saying the sky is blue. It is their duty as good corporate Americans to be greedy and self-serving (kinda like the union).

 

[David Yudkin]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

 

[renesauz]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

This is true, but it still gives the league a ton of leverage. Player salaries on the curent CBA have been tied to income, and that basic premise seems likely to continue. A multi billion dollar debt to the networks would certainly cut into future profits!Clearly, the players didn't have much say in the TV deal structure. A "lockout protection fund" is something worth getting upset about, as it gaurentees owners a "profit" now...AT PLAYERS EXPENSE (lower future profits=lower player salaries)...and gives the owners an unfair negotiating advantage at this time.

I don't even pretend to know the legalities involved, but I can see the "rightness" of the players challenge.

 

[David Yudkin]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

This is true, but it still gives the league a ton of leverage. Player salaries on the curent CBA have been tied to income, and that basic premise seems likely to continue. A multi billion dollar debt to the networks would certainly cut into future profits!Clearly, the players didn't have much say in the TV deal structure. A "lockout protection fund" is something worth getting upset about, as it gaurentees owners a "profit" now...AT PLAYERS EXPENSE (lower future profits=lower player salaries)...and gives the owners an unfair negotiating advantage at this time.

I don't even pretend to know the legalities involved, but I can see the "rightness" of the players challenge.

I'm clearly not a contracts expert, but wouldn't the time to protest the league tv contract be at the time it was established?

 

[Insomniac]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

This is true, but it still gives the league a ton of leverage. Player salaries on the curent CBA have been tied to income, and that basic premise seems likely to continue. A multi billion dollar debt to the networks would certainly cut into future profits!Clearly, the players didn't have much say in the TV deal structure. A "lockout protection fund" is something worth getting upset about, as it gaurentees owners a "profit" now...AT PLAYERS EXPENSE (lower future profits=lower player salaries)...and gives the owners an unfair negotiating advantage at this time.

I don't even pretend to know the legalities involved, but I can see the "rightness" of the players challenge.

I'm clearly not a contracts expert, but wouldn't the time to protest the league tv contract be at the time it was established?

It seems to me that the legal system allows people to sue when they think it's to their best advantage.The owners tried to use the courts to take away the players best leverage (anti-trust) in the American Needle case. Now the NFLPA is trying to use the courts to attack the owners best leverage. The reason it's their best leverage is that the owners are likely to make more money next year with a lockout than they would by playing a season. If the courts disallow this the owners are more likely to make a deal instead of trying to crush the union.

 

[renesauz]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

This is true, but it still gives the league a ton of leverage. Player salaries on the curent CBA have been tied to income, and that basic premise seems likely to continue. A multi billion dollar debt to the networks would certainly cut into future profits!Clearly, the players didn't have much say in the TV deal structure. A "lockout protection fund" is something worth getting upset about, as it gaurentees owners a "profit" now...AT PLAYERS EXPENSE (lower future profits=lower player salaries)...and gives the owners an unfair negotiating advantage at this time.

I don't even pretend to know the legalities involved, but I can see the "rightness" of the players challenge.

I'm clearly not a contracts expert, but wouldn't the time to protest the league tv contract be at the time it was established?

It seems to me that the legal system allows people to sue when they think it's to their best advantage.The owners tried to use the courts to take away the players best leverage (anti-trust) in the American Needle case. Now the NFLPA is trying to use the courts to attack the owners best leverage. The reason it's their best leverage is that the owners are likely to make more money next year with a lockout than they would by playing a season. If the courts disallow this the owners are more likely to make a deal instead of trying to crush the union.

There's also the little problem of damages. You can't sure someone for doing something until/unless it harms you. UNtil a lockout is imminent, the parts of the contract in question didn't really matter enough to warrant a judge's time.With that in mind, the players union might well have quietly informed the owners of their discomfort with that section long ago.

 

[Nagle2998]

To be honest, I was wondering how the owners were getting away with a TV structure like that. I think the union has a point. The owners should NOT be in a position to make money during a lockout.

I'm not defending either side but aren't the players allowed to also make money with commercials and things like that if there is a lockout so why shouldn't the owners be allowed.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

If that's the case, and the union's players are required to "pay off" that "debt" with product in future years, aren't they entitled to the early fruits of that labor if the owners are getting it? I have no idea if they're entitled to that legally, but if I'm following what you're saying I think they could at least make that argument.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

If that's the case, and the union's players are required to "pay off" that "debt" with product in future years, aren't they entitled to the early fruits of that labor if the owners are getting it?

The players are entitled to whatever the CBA says they're entitled to. If the players want a share of the 2011 television revenue, they'll have to enter a new CBA that covers the 2011 season.

 

[Mark Wimer]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

If that's the case, and the union's players are required to "pay off" that "debt" with product in future years, aren't they entitled to the early fruits of that labor if the owners are getting it?

The players are entitled to whatever the CBA says they're entitled to. If the players want a share of the 2011 television revenue, they'll have to enter a new CBA that covers the 2011 season.

There were "poison pills" put into the expiring CBA that were designed to force BOTH sides to the negotiating table for a new CBA. The expiration of the salary cap was intended to be a poison pill for the owners to swallow (although it is also becoming a pain in the tuckus to the players who aren't getting new long-term deals due to the uncertainty over the future). IMO, the withholding of the TV revenues were intended to be a posion pill for the union to swallow, which would force them back to the negotiating table.

 

[renesauz]

To be honest, I was wondering how the owners were getting away with a TV structure like that. I think the union has a point. The owners should NOT be in a position to make money during a lockout.

I'm not defending either side but aren't the players allowed to also make money with commercials and things like that if there is a lockout so why shouldn't the owners be allowed.

Not sure how you could even put those two things in the same context. In fact, endorsements would almost certainly drop dramaticly if there no actual football being played.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

If that's the case, and the union's players are required to "pay off" that "debt" with product in future years, aren't they entitled to the early fruits of that labor if the owners are getting it?

The players are entitled to whatever the CBA says they're entitled to. If the players want a share of the 2011 television revenue, they'll have to enter a new CBA that covers the 2011 season.

Was the CBA in place before or after that television deal was made guaranteeing 2011 revenues in exchange for extra games later? If it was made after, isn't that a bad-faith deal made on the part of the owners? They're tying the players into paying back (with their labor) the revenue the owners took all for themselves. That's not good-faith negotiating.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

Zero symphathy from me for the player's union. The owners made a smart business decision to give them better leverage and they'll be taking advantage of that. All this was agreed to when they ratified the last agreement and if the NFLPA didn't like it, they shouldn't have agreed to it.

 

[GregR_2]

...

There's also the little problem of damages. You can't sure someone for doing something until/unless it harms you. UNtil a lockout is imminent, the parts of the contract in question didn't really matter enough to warrant a judge's time.

With that in mind, the players union might well have quietly informed the owners of their discomfort with that section long ago.

Though it's worth noting the players are approaching this as a CBA issue which sends it to a Special Master for resolution rather than to the court system itself.

 

[GregR_2]

IIRC, the networks would be working on a big IOU. Essentially, they would get paid in 2011 (with no football being played) and would have to broadcast an equivalent amount of games (plus interest) in future years. At least that is what I recall reading.

If that's the case, and the union's players are required to "pay off" that "debt" with product in future years, aren't they entitled to the early fruits of that labor if the owners are getting it?

The players are entitled to whatever the CBA says they're entitled to. If the players want a share of the 2011 television revenue, they'll have to enter a new CBA that covers the 2011 season.

The player's argument is essentially that the NFL pushed revenue earned on games from years that were covered by the CBA out to 2011 where it's not covered. Essentially saying this happened: NFL: We want in our contract that you pay us in 2011 even if there is no football played. TV Networks: Ok, but then that money comes out of what we'd have paid you in 2010, 2009, etc, so we'll pay you less in those seasons and add extra money into 2011. NFL: Agreed.That would be a case of the NFL accepting payment in 2011 for value it supplied to the networks in 2010 and previously. If so, that seems it would violate the article's mentioned agreement between the players and NFL that the NFL will make good faith efforts to maximize the revenue they share with the players.

 

[Ksquared]

Two quick items as I understand this after listening to NFL Radio the last 2-3 weeks.

1. This language has been in the last several TV contracts, so this was not just added to the most recent TV contract.

2. The NFL owners have to pay the money back in future years (not previous years as GregR suggested). It was compared to a home equity loan by one of the announcers on the radio. You get $$ up front, but have to pay it back with interest in the future.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Two quick items as I understand this after listening to NFL Radio the last 2-3 weeks.1. This language has been in the last several TV contracts, so this was not just added to the most recent TV contract.2. The NFL owners have to pay the money back in future years (not previous years as GregR suggested). It was compared to a home equity loan by one of the announcers on the radio. You get $$ up front, but have to pay it back with interest in the future.

Okay, that sounds like what Yudkin said. So does that mean the owners get all the 2011 money and the players suffer because future years will have less revenue in order to "repay" what the owners got before? To me it sounds like a marriage where one spouse takes out a loan and keeps the money, but both paychecks are garnished to pay back the loan. Am I missing something?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Two quick items as I understand this after listening to NFL Radio the last 2-3 weeks.

1. This language has been in the last several TV contracts, so this was not just added to the most recent TV contract.

2. The NFL owners have to pay the money back in future years (not previous years as GregR suggested). It was compared to a home equity loan by one of the announcers on the radio. You get $$ up front, but have to pay it back with interest in the future.

Okay, that sounds like what Yudkin said. So does that mean the owners get all the 2011 money and the players suffer because future years will have less revenue in order to "repay" what the owners got before? To me it sounds like a marriage where one spouse takes out a loan and keeps the money, but both paychecks are garnished to pay back the loan. Am I missing something?

If you're treating 2011 as being when the loan is taken out, there's no marriage during 2011. So the players aren't on the hook for anything stemming from 2011. If they end up agreeing to be on the hook for some of it as part of a new CBA, that's their choice. But they're not under any obligation to do so. Their post-2011 paychecks are not being garnished. (As of right now, they don't even have post-2011 paychecks in the pipeline.)

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

The player's argument is essentially that the NFL pushed revenue earned on games from years that were covered by the CBA out to 2011 where it's not covered. Essentially saying this happened: NFL: We want in our contract that you pay us in 2011 even if there is no football played. TV Networks: Ok, but then that money comes out of what we'd have paid you in 2010, 2009, etc, so we'll pay you less in those seasons and add extra money into 2011. NFL: Agreed.That would be a case of the NFL accepting payment in 2011 for value it supplied to the networks in 2010 and previously. If so, that seems it would violate the article's mentioned agreement between the players and NFL that the NFL will make good faith efforts to maximize the revenue they share with the players.

That's the players' argument. My understanding is that it's a pretty tough one to make given the positive quotes from the players' union about the TV deal when it was made.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Two quick items as I understand this after listening to NFL Radio the last 2-3 weeks.1. This language has been in the last several TV contracts, so this was not just added to the most recent TV contract.2. The NFL owners have to pay the money back in future years (not previous years as GregR suggested). It was compared to a home equity loan by one of the announcers on the radio. You get $$ up front, but have to pay it back with interest in the future.

Okay, that sounds like what Yudkin said. So does that mean the owners get all the 2011 money and the players suffer because future years will have less revenue in order to "repay" what the owners got before? To me it sounds like a marriage where one spouse takes out a loan and keeps the money, but both paychecks are garnished to pay back the loan. Am I missing something?

This is exactly how I'm reading this situation.I understand that the NFL needed to get the TV contracts squared away right now for the 2011 season, even though there is no CBA for that season and there is the possibility that there will be no season at all. That being said, why does all the revenue from the TV contract for 2011 need to go to the owners? Why couldn't it be shared amongst the players also? Because there is no CBA for 2011+ to dictate that scenario? If the owners have to repay the networks for a contract that they make money on, in a season in which there was no football, why shouldn't they ALONE be responsible for paying back the fronted money? I don't see how they can expect the players to help pay that back if the players don't benefit from it to begin with. If the NFL and the Players Association come to an agreement on a new CBA and the 2011 season goes off without a hitch, then it's a moot point and it's shared revenue.....no?I think the players have a legitimate reason to be upset right now. Unless, of course, the new CBA takes into account that the revenues earned by the owners in 2011 (if there is no actual season) should be repaid by the owners only and not a combination of the owners and the players. Filing this legal challenge now will keep it at the forefront and will probably be an added point of contention when the tough negotiations begin.....which by the way should already be happening, but everyone seems to be sitting on their hands and playing the waiting game.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I understand that the NFL needed to get the TV contracts squared away right now for the 2011 season, even though there is no CBA for that season and there is the possibility that there will be no season at all. That being said, why does all the revenue from the TV contract for 2011 need to go to the owners? Why couldn't it be shared amongst the players also?

Why not share it with me personally while we're at it? I'll be playing as many games as the players will, and my union will have a contract with the owners to the same extent that the players' union does.

Because there is no CBA for 2011+ to dictate that scenario? If the owners have to repay the networks for a contract that they make money on, in a season in which there was no football, why shouldn't they ALONE be responsible for paying back the fronted money?

They are. The TV networks will have no cause of action against the players. If there's an obligation to repay the TV networks, that obligation belongs solely to the owners.

If the NFL and the Players Association come to an agreement on a new CBA and the 2011 season goes off without a hitch, then it's a moot point and it's shared revenue.....no?

It will probably be shared revenue, but it depends on what the new CBA says. Although it's rather unlikely, it could conceivable say that the players get 100% of the revenue, or that the owners get 100%. More likely, they will share it -- although the percentage each side gets is yet to be agreed on.

I think the players have a legitimate reason to be upset right now. Unless, of course, the new CBA takes into account that the revenues earned by the owners in 2011 (if there is no actual season) should be repaid by the owners only and not a combination of the owners and the players.

That's up to the players. They don't have to agree to anything less than that if they don't want to. (Of course, the owners don't have to agree to anything they don't like, either.)

 

[Pickle Rody]

I understand that the NFL needed to get the TV contracts squared away right now for the 2011 season, even though there is no CBA for that season and there is the possibility that there will be no season at all. That being said, why does all the revenue from the TV contract for 2011 need to go to the owners? Why couldn't it be shared amongst the players also?

Why not share it with me personally while we're at it? I'll be playing as many games as the players will, and my union will have a contract with the owners to the same extent that the players' union does.

This is the only response from you I have a slight problem with. Are you in negotiations with the NFL to renew your contract with them? Clearly, the players, and by necessity the players union, are needed by the owners to put a $$$ generating product on the field. You are not. The NFL can survive without you Maurile....they cannot survive without the players. It would seem to me that while the owners (NFL) negotiated this TV contract they also negotiated on behalf of the players....no? Isn't that what they do every time a new TV contract comes up? So, the players should get a portion of the revenue also, even if there is no season in 2011. The owners (NFL) could just as easily be the culprit in failing to sign a new CBA as the players union, yet they will still prosper under this scenario and the players will not. Just doesn't fly with me and I back the players union in filing this legal challenge.Rody

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Are you in negotiations with the NFL to renew your contract with them?

Not currently.

It would seem to me that while the owners (NFL) negotiated this TV contract they also negotiated on behalf of the players....no?

Assuming they play, sure. If they don't play, I don't see how they're any more essential to the league than I am. The players and I can both not play equally. If the players want any of that money, they're going to have to provide the owners with something in return -- like their services. They're not going to just get it for free. That wasn't the deal they struck.

So, the players should get a portion of the revenue also, even if there is no season in 2011.

The players can walk away from the whole mess without penalty. The owners, apparently, are on the hook with the TV networks. So why should the owners give the players a bunch of money for not playing?

 

[Ksquared]

I understand that the NFL needed to get the TV contracts squared away right now for the 2011 season, even though there is no CBA for that season and there is the possibility that there will be no season at all. That being said, why does all the revenue from the TV contract for 2011 need to go to the owners? Why couldn't it be shared amongst the players also?

Why not share it with me personally while we're at it? I'll be playing as many games as the players will, and my union will have a contract with the owners to the same extent that the players' union does.

This is the only response from you I have a slight problem with. Are you in negotiations with the NFL to renew your contract with them? Clearly, the players, and by necessity the players union, are needed by the owners to put a $$$ generating product on the field. You are not. The NFL can survive without you Maurile....they cannot survive without the players. It would seem to me that while the owners (NFL) negotiated this TV contract they also negotiated on behalf of the players....no? Isn't that what they do every time a new TV contract comes up? So, the players should get a portion of the revenue also, even if there is no season in 2011. The owners (NFL) could just as easily be the culprit in failing to sign a new CBA as the players union, yet they will still prosper under this scenario and the players will not. Just doesn't fly with me and I back the players union in filing this legal challenge.Rody

The problem is you are assuming the players have a "right" to play in the NFL. The players have no agreement with the NFL when the CBA ends. The players could dissolve the union and require complete redo of the union/ownership labor agreement or start their own league (a threat that has been made in previous negotiations) while the owners could hire scabs and try to break the union which was done in the 80's. Within the boundaries of labor law (of which I am not an expert), both sides could take their marbles and go home if they really wanted to go to the nuclear bomb option.

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

Are you in negotiations with the NFL to renew your contract with them?

Not currently.

It would seem to me that while the owners (NFL) negotiated this TV contract they also negotiated on behalf of the players....no?

Assuming they play, sure. If they don't play, I don't see how they're any more essential to the league than I am. The players and I can both not play equally. If the players want any of that money, they're going to have to provide the owners with something in return -- like their services. They're not going to just get it for free. That wasn't the deal they struck.

So, the players should get a portion of the revenue also, even if there is no season in 2011.

The players can walk away from the whole mess without penalty. The owners, apparently, are on the hook with the TV networks. So why should the owners give the players a bunch of money for not playing?

The players are more essential to the league than you are (or any other fan) because nobody I know has a "Tremblay" jersey in their closets. Nobody bought season tickets in part because M. Tremblay might be there. Nobody is rocking a Tremblay bobblehead on their computer desk.(Not saying these aren't all excellent ideas, but they illustrate why the players are more important even if they're not playing).

The owners are going to repay the networks with their product-- I doubt the obligation is for each of the 32 owners. It's an obligation of the league. Without players, the league has no product. And without NFLPA players, the league has no viable product worth the billions they're getting for 2011.

What it sounds like is that the players are going to have to negotiate knowing they have to help pay down a debt incurred by the owners. I don't see why a portion of the 2011 money couldn't be held in escrow pending a resolution of the dispute. That would be "good faith" negotiating. Everyone knows that the NFL's players will be a part of the product that pays back the networks. Why operate on the assumption that they simply don't exist in 2011? Even if the CBA isn't in place, they know the NFLPA exists and they need them to play football.

They also know they'll have a tough time repaying those debts with scabs. So really, the players are going to be part of the solution. Why pretend it's just free money in 2011?

I'm not saying the players are angels, but this is certainly not my definition of good faith negotiating.

 

[Pickle Rody]

So, the players should get a portion of the revenue also, even if there is no season in 2011.

The players can walk away from the whole mess without penalty. The owners, apparently, are on the hook with the TV networks. So why should the owners give the players a bunch of money for not playing?

Because it's been indicated in this thread that the players will help pay down that debt when play resumes after no season in 2011. So, no season in 2011, owners make money anyway. Play resumes in 2012 and players and owners pay off the debt to the TV networks. That is the crux of my argument, as that's been indicated that this is how the new TV contract is worded...or that is the impression I got from other posts in this thread. Why should the players help pay off the owners debt to the TV networks when they didn't realize any profit from the contract?I don't want to get into a legal argument here with you Maurile, I just don't see the fairness to the players if in fact the TV deal for 2011 is how I understand it. Maybe I am misinterpreting the nuances of it, while at the same time I'm trying to remain simple minded.

Thanks for trying to help me understand, I appreciate it!

Rody

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Play resumes in 2012 and players and owners pay off the debt to the TV networks.

If the players agree to it. Why should they agree to it if they've already got the money?

Why should the players help pay off the owners debt to the TV networks when they didn't realize any profit from the contract?

They don't have to if they don't want to. I'm sure they won't agree to it just out of generosity. It'll be part of the negotiating process.

I just don't see the fairness to the players if in fact the TV deal for 2011 is how I understand it.

I understand where you're coming from there. The owners will have positive cash flow in 2011 while the players won't, and that's a big (perhaps unfair) advantage to the owners.But I don't see a way around it.

When you hire an employee and you have a certain amount of money you can offer him, you don't give him half of it upfront and then try to negotiate a deal with him after that, hoping you can work something out. You hold off paying him until he's agreed to a deal. That's the only sane way to do it.

By paying him whether or not he agrees to a deal, you are not increasing your chances of getting a deal done with him. Especially not a fair deal.

 

[Ksquared]

So, the players should get a portion of the revenue also, even if there is no season in 2011.

The players can walk away from the whole mess without penalty. The owners, apparently, are on the hook with the TV networks. So why should the owners give the players a bunch of money for not playing?

Because it's been indicated in this thread that the players will help pay down that debt when play resumes after no season in 2011. So, no season in 2011, owners make money anyway. Play resumes in 2012 and players and owners pay off the debt to the TV networks. That is the crux of my argument, as that's been indicated that this is how the new TV contract is worded...or that is the impression I got from other posts in this thread. Why should the players help pay off the owners debt to the TV networks when they didn't realize any profit from the contract?I don't want to get into a legal argument here with you Maurile, I just don't see the fairness to the players if in fact the TV deal for 2011 is how I understand it. Maybe I am misinterpreting the nuances of it, while at the same time I'm trying to remain simple minded.

Thanks for trying to help me understand, I appreciate it!

Rody

RodyYou may have a point, but is that not always the case in any business. You work for a company that very likely took out a loan (for a variety of reasons) and is still paying it off by your hard work. I believe this is the normal business process for many companies. My understanding from the NFL radio network discussions were the owners would basically not get any $$ for the next complete NFL season plus pay interest for this "equity" loan. OTOH, one of the complaints that the owners are making in these negotiations is the players get their required % cut of the revenue without any of the risk the owners are taking with the massive loans many have taken out to build the new stadiums. Especially with the financial environment in our country, I would assume the rates on these loans are working their way up (assuming they are a typical business loan that has to be readjusted every 5 years).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

When you hire an employee and you have a certain amount of money you can offer him, you don't give him half of it upfront and then try to negotiate a deal with him after that, hoping you can work something out. You hold off paying him until he's agreed to a deal. That's the only sane way to do it.

By paying him whether or not he agrees to a deal, you are not increasing your chances of getting a deal done with him. Especially not a fair deal.

Let me phrase that another way.The owners will not, and should not, give the players a bunch of money just for the heck of it with no strings attached. If the players want some of the 2011 money, they'll have to agree, in return, to help pay the TV networks back by playing football.

If they can't agree to that, then there's no way they should get any of the money.

But the only way there won't be a 2011 season is if they players in fact don't agree to it. As soon as they do agree to play football in return for the money -- problem solved. That's what a new CBA is. No strike or lockout. Yay.

 

[Pickle Rody]

Fair enough....I understand what you and Ksquared are saying.