Will the NFL miss any games in 2011? (1 Viewer)

[Jason Wood]

Just curious where everyone is at with the labor situation. I personally think the owners are seriously committed to getting their way here, which means substantive give backs by the players, or we'll see missed games. I'm not at all sure if that's a minority opinion or not though. So let's hear it sharks, what do you honest think is going to happen in 2011 in terms of the season and games played?

 

[Couch Potato]

Lockout will happen, but solved in time for the full season. Settled in August, in time to sorta kinda be ready for the season. Expect sloppy play and increased injuries in Sept/Oct though.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

Is that true? If so the networks have the worst lawyers in the history of the profession. I've gotta be missing something, right?

 

[Jason Wood]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

Is that true? If so the networks have the worst lawyers in the history of the profession. I've gotta be missing something, right?

As currently constructed, yes, the NFL would receive $4.5 billion in revenue this year from media partners REGARDLESS of whether games are played. But the NFLPA has been fighting a lawsuit (which concluded this week) challenging the legality of that situation. The special master rules next week most likely. If he rules in favor of the owners, I think we're looking at a lengthy work stoppage unless the players completely cave. On the other hand, if the ruling favors the players interpretation of things, I think the odds we'll come to a resolution increase massively.http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2011/01/13/nfl-pla...suit-concludes/

 

[pantherclub]

Lockout will happen, but solved in time for the full season. Settled in August, in time to sorta kinda be ready for the season. Expect sloppy play and increased injuries in Sept/Oct though.

There has to be a deadline in the minds of owners and players to prevent this and have a fair shortened season. Seems like to me if they miss Sept then the season is done. You need at least a month to practice, get in game shape and then get your rosters set up.

 

[David Yudkin]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

Is that true? If so the networks have the worst lawyers in the history of the profession. I've gotta be missing something, right?

The owners are not getting money for free. IIRC, the deal with the tv networks is that the owners get paid whether there are games or not and the networks get credit + interest for any games that are missed towards the next tv deal. So it might work like this . . .If the current tv deal was for 4 years and $20 billion, the networks continue to pay out for say the entire year. So for the next contract, they might get a $6 billion credit toward the next contract. So if the next deal would have been 4 years for $24 billion, then they would get it for $18 billion. That mnight be overly simplistic, but I believe that it is set up something along those lines.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

Is that true? If so the networks have the worst lawyers in the history of the profession. I've gotta be missing something, right?

The owners are not getting money for free. IIRC, the deal with the tv networks is that the owners get paid whether there are games or not and the networks get credit + interest for any games that are missed towards the next tv deal. So it might work like this . . .If the current tv deal was for 4 years and $20 billion, the networks continue to pay out for say the entire year. So for the next contract, they might get a $6 billion credit toward the next contract. So if the next deal would have been 4 years for $24 billion, then they would get it for $18 billion. That mnight be overly simplistic, but I believe that it is set up something along those lines.

Weird.Just as a general principle, it seems highly unusual to me that the owners would be in a similar financial position w/r/t television revenue regardless of whether the season happens or not. There has to be some significant loss to them as a matter of principle. Any new grad of a fourth-tier law firm would account for reasonably foreseeable contingencies affecting performance in a contract; I have to think the army of lawyers and executives at NBC, Fox, CBS and ESPN covered their guy's rear ends. And assuming they did, there would be financial incentive for the owners to have games to avoid triggering whatever that (presumably expensive) contingency is.

If anyone knows the details of this arrangement I'd love to hear it.

For what it's worth, I don't think the owners are in quite as strong a bargaining position as others seem to think. The players have done a great job of getting out their message, and the flareup of the concussion concern obviously helps them as well. From what I remember of the sports labor disputes from the 80s and 90s, the attitude was always that it was rich owners fighting with rich players, and the public generally didn't take sides. But in this case, I think a lot of people (myself included) think most NFL guys earn every dollar of those non-guaranteed contracts and then some, based on the revenue they generate and the damage that the sport does to their bodies.

 

[Jason Wood]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

Is that true? If so the networks have the worst lawyers in the history of the profession. I've gotta be missing something, right?

The owners are not getting money for free. IIRC, the deal with the tv networks is that the owners get paid whether there are games or not and the networks get credit + interest for any games that are missed towards the next tv deal. So it might work like this . . .If the current tv deal was for 4 years and $20 billion, the networks continue to pay out for say the entire year. So for the next contract, they might get a $6 billion credit toward the next contract. So if the next deal would have been 4 years for $24 billion, then they would get it for $18 billion. That mnight be overly simplistic, but I believe that it is set up something along those lines.

Weird.Just as a general principle, it seems highly unusual to me that the owners would be in a similar financial position w/r/t television revenue regardless of whether the season happens or not. There has to be some significant loss to them as a matter of principle. Any new grad of a fourth-tier law firm would account for reasonably foreseeable contingencies affecting performance in a contract; I have to think the army of lawyers and executives at NBC, Fox, CBS and ESPN covered their guy's rear ends. And assuming they did, there would be financial incentive for the owners to have games to avoid triggering whatever that (presumably expensive) contingency is.

If anyone knows the details of this arrangement I'd love to hear it.

For what it's worth, I don't think the owners are in quite as strong a bargaining position as others seem to think. The players have done a great job of getting out their message, and the flareup of the concussion concern obviously helps them as well. From what I remember of the sports labor disputes from the 80s and 90s, the attitude was always that it was rich owners fighting with rich players, and the public generally didn't take sides. But in this case, I think a lot of people (myself included) think most NFL guys earn every dollar of those non-guaranteed contracts and then some, based on the revenue they generate and the damage that the sport does to their bodies.

The players are contending that the owners, clever as they are, intentionally gave up very lucrative internet and mobile streaming rights in exchange for the "pay or play" language, knowing that they would then have a huge financial cushion to handle a lockout while diminishing the long-term value of the shared gross revenues the players and owners are going to see down the line. The special masters ruling in that regard will be HUGE as to who really has the incentive to get back to the table. If the players don't win this, they are in a world of hurt IMHO.

 

[TobiasFunke]

As I see it, the players have no leverage and the owners are prepared to ride things out until they get their way. Given that the owners will get their tv revenue whether games or played or not, the players will be forced to cave as they will need money a lot sooner than the owners will.

At this point, I don't see the two sides being all that close (despite some people suggesting that they are close and it won't take much time at all to iron out the details to a new CBA).

Oddly enough, I think the longer things drag on the less negotiating power the players may have. I think ultimately the players are going to lose a fair amount from what they already have. They will end up playing two more games for a smaller collective portion of the revenue pie. There's also going to be a rookie wage scale, so even entering the league players will be forced to make less. I also don't see the owners willing to concede less service time to becoming a free agent, nor do I think the franchise tag is going to go away. So from a player's perspective, I don't see them gaining ground anywhere.

As for the poll, if the player's wake up and figure out that they are going to lose and lose across the board, they can save themselves the trouble by just accepting it early and move on. If not, then there will be missed games.

Is that true? If so the networks have the worst lawyers in the history of the profession. I've gotta be missing something, right?

The owners are not getting money for free. IIRC, the deal with the tv networks is that the owners get paid whether there are games or not and the networks get credit + interest for any games that are missed towards the next tv deal. So it might work like this . . .If the current tv deal was for 4 years and $20 billion, the networks continue to pay out for say the entire year. So for the next contract, they might get a $6 billion credit toward the next contract. So if the next deal would have been 4 years for $24 billion, then they would get it for $18 billion. That mnight be overly simplistic, but I believe that it is set up something along those lines.

Weird.Just as a general principle, it seems highly unusual to me that the owners would be in a similar financial position w/r/t television revenue regardless of whether the season happens or not. There has to be some significant loss to them as a matter of principle. Any new grad of a fourth-tier law firm would account for reasonably foreseeable contingencies affecting performance in a contract; I have to think the army of lawyers and executives at NBC, Fox, CBS and ESPN covered their guy's rear ends. And assuming they did, there would be financial incentive for the owners to have games to avoid triggering whatever that (presumably expensive) contingency is.

If anyone knows the details of this arrangement I'd love to hear it.

For what it's worth, I don't think the owners are in quite as strong a bargaining position as others seem to think. The players have done a great job of getting out their message, and the flareup of the concussion concern obviously helps them as well. From what I remember of the sports labor disputes from the 80s and 90s, the attitude was always that it was rich owners fighting with rich players, and the public generally didn't take sides. But in this case, I think a lot of people (myself included) think most NFL guys earn every dollar of those non-guaranteed contracts and then some, based on the revenue they generate and the damage that the sport does to their bodies.

The players are contending that the owners, clever as they are, intentionally gave up very lucrative internet and mobile streaming rights in exchange for the "pay or play" language, knowing that they would then have a huge financial cushion to handle a lockout while diminishing the long-term value of the shared gross revenues the players and owners are going to see down the line. The special masters ruling in that regard will be HUGE as to who really has the incentive to get back to the table. If the players don't win this, they are in a world of hurt IMHO.

Interesting, but I don't know enough about this to fully understand what you're saying, e.g. what the "pay or play" language says or exactly what's at issue in the special masters ruling. Does anyone know of a good website or something where I can bone up?

 

[Jason Wood]

Interesting, but I don't know enough about this to fully understand what you're saying, e.g. what the "pay or play" language says or exactly what's at issue in the special masters ruling. Does anyone know of a good website or something where I can bone up?

I provided a link a few posts back. But it's a fairly straightforward thing:
[*]The current contracts allow for the owners to collect $4.5 billion in TV and other media rights this year regardless of whether the games are played

[*]The NFLPA contends that the owners gave up very lucrative streaming rights for cheap in order to secure the right to be paid even during a lockout

[*]The NFLPA contends that the owners did this because they knew it would bolster their leverage in a potential lockout/CBA fight

[*]The NFLPA wants the $4.5 billion held in escrow pending further ruling on whether the latest TV rights were negotiated fairly and in consideration of all parties

[*]If the special master rules in the NFLPA's favor, the $4.5 billion from TV money will be held in escrow -- thus giving the owners a lot less financial cushion to stick to their guns and lock out for a lengthy period

[*]If the special master rules in the ownership's favor, the contract will remain as stands, the owners get their money even if there's no games, and the players are back to square one with precious little leverage

 

[The Westin]

Are there any owners who are kind of going against the grain and want to settle things with the players and keep football going?

Or are they all like Jerry Jones?

 

[Jason Wood]

Are there any owners who are kind of going against the grain and want to settle things with the players and keep football going?Or are they all like Jerry Jones?

Actually its mainly the smaller market owners that want the lock out, but Jones and other big market owners aren't about to break rank.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Interesting, but I don't know enough about this to fully understand what you're saying, e.g. what the "pay or play" language says or exactly what's at issue in the special masters ruling. Does anyone know of a good website or something where I can bone up?

I provided a link a few posts back. But it's a fairly straightforward thing:
[*]The current contracts allow for the owners to collect $4.5 billion in TV and other media rights this year regardless of whether the games are played

[*]The NFLPA contends that the owners gave up very lucrative streaming rights for cheap in order to secure the right to be paid even during a lockout

[*]The NFLPA contends that the owners did this because they knew it would bolster their leverage in a potential lockout/CBA fight

[*]The NFLPA wants the $4.5 billion held in escrow pending further ruling on whether the latest TV rights were negotiated fairly and in consideration of all parties

[*]If the special master rules in the NFLPA's favor, the $4.5 billion from TV money will be held in escrow -- thus giving the owners a lot less financial cushion to stick to their guns and lock out for a lengthy period

[*]If the special master rules in the ownership's favor, the contract will remain as stands, the owners get their money even if there's no games, and the players are back to square one with precious little leverage

Thanks, Jason.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

There will be a lot of doom and gloom but the bottom line from my standpoint is they will have a full season. There's a lot of money being risked, you have aging players who don't want to miss a year all kinds of different situations that will come to a head.

If there's any type of lockout and I'm wrong, then I suspect they will definately miss games. They won't go that far and then not do anything. Then they'll either miss around 1/2 the season or the entire season, but I don't expect that.

When bargaining, both sides will act like they're miles apart with the media being the medium for their drama. I fully expect a season next year and would be very surprised come September we don't have regular football games no matter what I hear during the offseason from either side.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

What if Goodell can get both sides to agree to a 1 year extension while they work it out? A 1 year extension with everything remaining exactly as it is now.

 

[NateDawg]

Pro Football Talk Labor Questions