CBA Thread

Source: Sides could talk this week (ESPN)

Quote:
By Chris Mortensen and Adam Schefter
ESPN.com

When is a proposal not a proposal? When the NFL and the NFL Players Association are involved.


According to sources familiar with the talks, last week's negotiations between the NFLPA and the NFL broke off when the union characterized their documents as an "illustration" that the NFL believed represented a proposal for revenue sharing between owners and players.

When the NFLPA characterized documents labeled "NFLPA Proposal" as something other than a collective bargaining proposal, the NFL ended the session, a source familiar with the talks said. League representatives then met outside the room, and returned only to abort the negotiations -- without immediately rescheduling any talks, the source added.

"As often happens in collective bargaining, the parties reached a point where there was a fundamental difference on a critical issue that was not going to be reconciled that day," said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello. "The discussions were adjourned to permit both parties to assess their positions and consider how to move the process forward. Far from abandoning the process, in the first four days after the Super Bowl, we have had two meetings of our labor executive committee and negotiating team, a conference call with all 32 clubs, and a meeting with the union."


The day after negotiations broke down, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell convened a conference call with the owners of the 32 NFL teams and reported the developments of the previous day. A person familiar with that call said there was complete unanimity among the owners.


Despite the aborted Wednesday session, dialogue has continued between the two sides through smaller working groups as well as communication between Goodell and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith. One player source said it is expected both sides will meet this week, as previously scheduled, and a management source did not refute that suggestion.

But there is a growing discord and mistrust between the two sides. Management was irritated by Smith's decision to release the owners' counter-proposal on a rookie wage scale to players and player agents, as opposed to offering a response directly to management. Even the choice of descriptive words were a source of irritation.

Whereas Smith noted that renegotiations or extensions of rookie contracts were "banned" until after the third year, a management official said the proposal "allows" for those renegotiations or extensions after the third year. Regardless, the intent and meaning are the same.

One person connected to the NFLPA said NFL owners were continuing to be "unreasonable," which accounted for the disintegration of last week's meeting.


Now, there are knowledgeable sources that previously were optimistic that CBA negotiations would not result in any lost games next year that are growing increasingly pessimistic. One source said last week's flare up was symbolic and illuminated the schism between the two sides. Now, there is a general feeling that some or all of the 2011 season may be at risk, though there is plenty of time for the two sides to continue talking and trying to bridge their vast differences.

Too bad John Madden can't arbitrate this fiasco.

Another vote for labor agreement pessimism . . . this one from Peter King in his MMQB column:

Quote:
4. I think it's fruitless to talk, write and theorize about what teams are going to do in free agency when there's a very good chance there won't be free agency. Folks, this labor fight is going to be a long one. I believe it'll be Labor Day, at least, before a solution is found. Given that scenario, how can the league possibly say: We're playing real games in 21 days, and so you 495 free agents, go spend the next week flying from team to team, finding a home, and sure, you'll be ready to play two weeks after you sign with your new team in a new scheme. Surrrrre.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/02/13/mmqb/4.html

I am curious to see what everyone thinks on this.

I'm not clued in on all of the details, but from what I've been reading there seems to be a consensus that the Players got the best of the Owners with the 2006 agreement and that the Owners WILL NOT let that happen again.

Who's right? I have NO idea. The only thing that seems pretty clear that this is going to last well into the summer and the 49er's 2011 season will be severely impacted.

Neither - they really need more transparency on both sides.

I said the owners but not because of the reasons you listed.
I read a few weeks ago that the Green Bay Packer, the Super Bowl winners, only made around 9 million dollars profit last season. That's outrageous. You have people on the team making more than their entire profit and that not just the Packers, it's many team in the NFL. Mostly all owners in the NFL have winning as their highest priority, however, look at the best franchises in the history of the league. The Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys, Patriots, Colts and many more. When they were winning, they had some of the best owners in the league. It's also why teams like Arizona, Cincinnati, Oakland, etc have been bad. Owners make teams the way they are which is why I trust giving them more money to reinvest in the league rather than giving players more money to buy sports cars and houses.

Now having said that, obviously there are causes the players need which I want to see changed. They need health care services post retirement and they certainly dont need an 18 game season.

In the end though, the owners are completely right in this situation. When you players union gets too strong, you end up with Major League Baseball where only 5 or 6 teams can spend real money. The players union ruined baseball and its why football is so successful and popular. Giving owners more of the pie helps pay for everything the teams pay for (food, technology, hotels, and everything that goes along with it).

I just trust giving owners the money opposed to the players.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
Another vote for labor agreement pessimism . . . this one from Peter King in his MMQB column:

Quote:
4. I think it's fruitless to talk, write and theorize about what teams are going to do in free agency when there's a very good chance there won't be free agency. Folks, this labor fight is going to be a long one. I believe it'll be Labor Day, at least, before a solution is found. Given that scenario, how can the league possibly say: We're playing real games in 21 days, and so you 495 free agents, go spend the next week flying from team to team, finding a home, and sure, you'll be ready to play two weeks after you sign with your new team in a new scheme. Surrrrre.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/02/13/mmqb/4.html

It is pretty clear that the union is planning on not playing at least a portion of the regular season. They made that clear a year ago by telling players to start saving their money on the presumption that there would be a lockout and prolonged strike. The owners have said they cannot continue to operate under the old agreement...so there you go.

A number of observers have said that if the new CBA is not in place by March 3, there likely will not be one before September.

The owners IMO. Player salaries, operating cost, etc are way to high. I don't blame the owners for trying to get a grip on them before it is out of control.

However, when the two parties are arguing over money, I think it is silly that they will not open up and show the books. They are only showing the packers because it is owned by the people. They refuse to show the other teams. In a way, it makes the players think there are billions out there for the taking. That is probably just not the case.

Everytime they have to give the players more, up salaries, etc they add it back in on ticket costs. Then we lose.

How are the players being greedy? The owners are the ones who opted out of the previous CBA. They're the ones that want a bigger piece of the pie. If the NFL season doesn't go on as scheduled it'll be thanks to the owners.

Originally posted by Rubberneck36:
The owners IMO. Player salaries, operating cost, etc are way to high. I don't blame the owners for trying to get a grip on them before it is out of control.

However, when the two parties are arguing over money, I think it is silly that they will not open up and show the books. They are only showing the packers because it is owned by the people. They refuse to show the other teams. In a way, it makes the players think there are billions out there for the taking. That is probably just not the case.

Everytime they have to give the players more, up salaries, etc they add it back in on ticket costs. Then we lose.

Yea GB situations is totally different than other teams. But more teams need to release this info as well if they are really selling that they need to lower the players salaries due to rising expenses. They really need to open the books. You asking them to take a billion dollar pay cut but won't explain to them why. If the case truly is that the guy's are losing money or not turning a big enough profit margin then the players argument would be dead. Everything else can be settled easily once they get the money figures right.

DeMaurice Smith is an a*****e. If he wasn't in charge of the Union it might already be over fixed by now.

I dont understand why people bash the players instead of the agents? There is no doubt in my mind the greedy little agents are the guys causing all the problems. They get a percentage of the cut, therefore it is in their interest to get the biggest contract there is. They negotiate the deals. I'm pretty sure Haynesworth, Bradford, Cassel...extc aren't the guys throwing out the numbers. It's some greedy little b*****d with no physical talent of his own setting the bar. You want to reduce the salaries? Find a way to cut the agents off at the knees.

Originally posted by Janitor:
DeMaurice Smith is an a*****e. If he wasn't in charge of the Union it might already be over fixed by now.

I'm hard-pressed to find either side needy. These negotiations pivot around greed.