Hey Tony Question

[The Gipper]

This question was asked and answered in the PDs Hey Tony section:

 

Hey, Tony:

You have raised the important point that the Browns will lose a lot if there is no draft in 2012, because of the trade with Atlanta. Could the Browns (or any team) have framed the trade to be for the "next draft" and not designate a year? That way should there be no draft in 2012, but possibly in the future, the Browns would not be left high-and-dry. -- Erol A., Stony Brook, N.Y.

 

Hey, Erol:

Sorry. The language of the trade explicitly stated the first- and fourth-round picks in 2012. As an NFL official said before the draft on the subject of trading for 2012 picks, "Trade at your own risk."

 

My question is: Why would there not be a Draft in 2012 even if there isn't a season? Wouldn't the Browns retain the rights to whomever they draft in 2012?

A better question is what happens to the rights of the players drafted in 2011. Under the rules of the past, if a player isn't signed by the team that drafted him in the previous draft, by the time the next draft comes up, he is eligible to go back into the draft and be selected again.

This happened with Bo Jackson. Tampa Bay drafted him, but he went to play baseball, and in the following year the Raiders re-drafted him.

I'm not sure of the answer to this question.

[Nw220]

Wow that would really screw us if the lockout continued into next year and we would not get Atlantas first next year.

 

This lockout shit has got to end its getting old and its effecting everyone ecspically the Browns

[Harry Buffalo]

It's not whether the lockout cancels the draft next year, but whether it is deemed illegal due to the players being a trade association rather than a Union. You need to have a CBA in order to have a draft. The fact of the matter is the the NFL draft is too popular to die, even if Smith fights to get rid of it, it will always be there because without it there would be a huge fan revolt.

[Thaak]

It's not whether the lockout cancels the draft next year, but whether it is deemed illegal due to the players being a trade association rather than a Union. You need to have a CBA in order to have a draft. The fact of the matter is the the NFL draft is too popular to die, even if Smith fights to get rid of it, it will always be there because without it there would be a huge fan revolt.

 

No there wouldn't. Die hards like football too much to revolt as long as football is being played. No matter what that looked like. Why do you think there are still millions of Baseball fans despite their stupid pay structure?

 

Sure, the NFL might lose some of its luster, and some of its so-so fans, but it wouldn't get hurt all that much.

 

That being said, if the NFL still wants to see unprecidented growth, then they need a new CBA and basically operate with a similar set of free agency and draft rules.

 

The problem is, the players are playing a very risky game of chicken right now.

[The Gipper]

No there wouldn't. Die hards like football too much to revolt as long as football is being played. No matter what that looked like. Why do you think there are still millions of Baseball fans despite their stupid pay structure?

 

Sure, the NFL might lose some of its luster, and some of its so-so fans, but it wouldn't get hurt all that much.

 

That being said, if the NFL still wants to see unprecidented growth, then they need a new CBA and basically operate with a similar set of free agency and draft rules.

 

The problem is, the players are playing a very risky game of chicken right now.

 

And they are now losing in the courtroom.

For them to not begin the bargaining process now is stupidity.

Yes, the owners ARE being greedy, because they have wanted their upward trend of profits to continue ad infinitum, and they are not willing to recognize that the nation is in a recession, and they want the players to essentially guarantee their massive profits.

Nevertheless, there is risk for both sides. Yes, theoretically the draft could go away, and free agency could be a free for all, and the players could get treble damages. (now wouldn't that put a dent into the owners profits). But the players could also lose on all those points...and a lot of them would lose their careers in the interim.

[calfoxwc]

I don't see it as the owners being greedy. They pay all the bills - and their offer in Apr?,

they increased all sorts of parts of the whole deal...

 

but the players' rep is going for broke, and that is what they will be,

if their reps keep playing hardball. I'm surprised the players reps are demanding

to know what the owners have for dinner, how much their cars cost, how much their

grade school children get for an allowance, and.... on and on.

 

A union is for fairness in wages, etc, and work conditions, not for robbing the bank for

every penny they can extort out of the team or company... or the taxpayers..

[The Gipper]

I don't see it as the owners being greedy. They pay all the bills - and their offer in Apr?,

they increased all sorts of parts of the whole deal...

 

but the players' rep is going for broke, and that is what they will be,

if their reps keep playing hardball. I'm surprised the players reps are demanding

to know what the owners have for dinner, how much their cars cost, how much their

grade school children get for an allowance, and.... on and on.

 

A union is for fairness in wages, etc, and work conditions, not for robbing the bank for

every penny they can extort out of the team or company... or the taxpayers..

 

OK, but in fairness to them, all they wanted was the same deal that they had. It was the owners who wanted to squeeze them, not the other way around.

Now, of course, it is a time of recession, but honestly, if there is one business that is not hurting so bad, it is the NFL. I do think the owners have had a cut into their generous profits, and it is not to say that the players shouldn't or wouldn't give something back, but the fact that the owners refuse to justify the requested cutbacks by showing the legitimate books of the NFL teams operations seems like they are just saying that this is more of a power struggle than a legitimate economic issue.

And by the way, I don't think it is the union that ever threatened a city with moving a team if that city didn't build them a building to house their business. No, that is the owner's ploy. They don't hate the former player reps in this town, they hate Art Modell.

[Harry Buffalo]

No there wouldn't. Die hards like football too much to revolt as long as football is being played. No matter what that looked like. Why do you think there are still millions of Baseball fans despite their stupid pay structure?

 

Sure, the NFL might lose some of its luster, and some of its so-so fans, but it wouldn't get hurt all that much.

 

That being said, if the NFL still wants to see unprecidented growth, then they need a new CBA and basically operate with a similar set of free agency and draft rules.

 

The problem is, the players are playing a very risky game of chicken right now.

 

Even tough baseball has no cap, they still have a draft. I agree that if the NFL moves to a free for all in FA there will still be plenty of fans, me included, but if the draft is gone and players coming out of college sign with teams as FA, then you WILL see a large amount of people turn away from the NFL. I feel that the players are not stupid enough to try and get rid of the draft, regardless of how this whole thing goes down so I'm not too worried about it anyway.

 

 

I don't see it as the owners being greedy. They pay all the bills - and their offer in Apr?,

they increased all sorts of parts of the whole deal...

 

but the players' rep is going for broke, and that is what they will be,

if their reps keep playing hardball. I'm surprised the players reps are demanding

to know what the owners have for dinner, how much their cars cost, how much their

grade school children get for an allowance, and.... on and on.

 

A union is for fairness in wages, etc, and work conditions, not for robbing the bank for

every penny they can extort out of the team or company... or the taxpayers..

 

How are the owners not being greedy. The players didn't want anything to change, the owners wanted more without giving the necessary information to show that they actually needed it, making it at the very least seem that they were not seeing loses at all. If the open books of Green Bay can show anything, it is that teams are making plenty of money and a new CBA is unwarranted. The players are just fighting to keep things the way they were, the way things were when the NFL became the most popular sports league in America. There only reason for wanting the lockout ended now is because it would force the owners to sign a CBA similar to the one that has been in place the last few years instead of pushing for more money.

 

Oh and the deal that was put on the table only gave the owners somewhere around $100 million more next season, but the players numbers were fixed while the owners were not, as an example, if the the league brought in 9 billion a year the players would get around $4.4 while owners would get $4.6, but if the next season they brought in $10 billion then the players would get $4.4 while the owners got $5.6, basically for the next 5 years the players would have received nothing for the expansion of the league while the owners end up taking in potentially more money than they were originally asking for.

[FearTheRoo]

I don't care about this stupid NFL lockout crap at all. In this economy there are millions of people living WITHOUT JOBS. I don't give a crap if the players or owners are mad they are losing out on money. Be grateful you have a job and stop complaining. Stop calling the owners "slave owners" and all this. I wasn't aware slaves were paid millions? just keep everything the same and play football. Between the NFL lockout and the Heat, ESPN has become virtually unwatchable.

[The Gipper]

This article is nearly a year old, but it is the only public statement available about the NFL's profit picture, and that is only because the Packers are a publicly owned franchise, unlike the other 31 teams:

 

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-1/Finances-Show-Profit-But-Troubling-Trends-Remain/131dac2e-ce57-4798-aade-384c565d01fb

 

It appears though that it is Only the Packers figures that the NFL is willing to give to the players, and only because they essentially have to as it is public record.

[The Gipper]

I don't care about this stupid NFL lockout crap at all. In this economy there are millions of people living WITHOUT JOBS. I don't give a crap if the players or owners are mad they are losing out on money. Be grateful you have a job and stop complaining. Stop calling the owners "slave owners" and all this. I wasn't aware slaves were paid millions? just keep everything the same and play football. Between the NFL lockout and the Heat, ESPN has become virtually unwatchable.

 

Well, that was the purpose of the lockout. The owners DO NOT want to keep everything the same. Just like all those businesses, including governments that are putting people out on the streets, the NFL is essentially saying the same, except, of course, they are saying simply that we are not making enough profits, not that they are suffering losses.

 

The NBA on the other hand is claiming that their teams ARE suffering huge losses..

And David Stern is saying that the NBA owners have given the NBA players what the NFL owners won't give: complete access to team financial records and tax returns.

Plus, the NBA has a bigger "control" problem than the NFL. This whole Miami Heat thing plus Carmelo Anthony forcing a trade, along with their financial problems is causing the owners to say that they will drop a major hammer on the players to get back control of their game and to attain financial stability.

And then, at the end of the year, the baseball CBA expires.

 

You know, it might be nice to be able to find a hockey game on TV (right now you can't), because it may be the only game being played.

[FearTheRoo]

Well, that was the purpose of the lockout. The owners DO NOT want to keep everything the same. Just like all those businesses, including governments that are putting people out on the streets, the NFL is essentially saying the same, except, of course, they are saying simply that we are not making enough profits, not that they are suffering losses.

 

The NBA on the other hand is claiming that their teams ARE suffering huge losses..

And David Stern is saying that the NBA owners have given the NBA players what the NFL owners won't give: complete access to team financial records and tax returns.

Plus, the NBA has a bigger "control" problem than the NFL. This whole Miami Heat thing plus Carmelo Anthony forcing a trade, along with their financial problems is causing the owners to say that they will drop a major hammer on the players to get back control of their game and to attain financial stability.

And then, at the end of the year, the baseball CBA expires.

 

You know, it might be nice to be able to find a hockey game on TV (right now you can't), because it may be the only game being played.

 

Yeah true, and Cleveland will never have an NHL team so there's no point in watching. NO WAY in hell I'm watching that pittsburgh team

[ballpeen]

OK, but in fairness to them, all they wanted was the same deal that they had. It was the owners who wanted to squeeze them, not the other way around.

Now, of course, it is a time of recession, but honestly, if there is one business that is not hurting so bad, it is the NFL. I do think the owners have had a cut into their generous profits, and it is not to say that the players shouldn't or wouldn't give something back, but the fact that the owners refuse to justify the requested cutbacks by showing the legitimate books of the NFL teams operations seems like they are just saying that this is more of a power struggle than a legitimate economic issue.

And by the way, I don't think it is the union that ever threatened a city with moving a team if that city didn't build them a building to house their business. No, that is the owner's ploy. They don't hate the former player reps in this town, they hate Art Modell.

 

 

 

I said that about the players in another thread. Heck, they know they have a good deal.

 

 

Everybody's income goes down but theirs....I wouldn't want to change that either.

[The Gipper]

Yeah true, and Cleveland will never have an NHL team so there's no point in watching. NO WAY in hell I'm watching that pittsburgh team

 

I don't know why you would watch the Pittsburgh team. Ohio has a team here in the Columbus BlueJackets. I know its not Cleveland but it sort of the next best thing. Maybe they should be the "Ohio Bluejackets" to pick up the Cleveland and Cinci markets.

And actually, as the redwinged blackbird flies, the Detroit Redwings play closer to downtown Cleveland than either the BJs or the Tuxedos do.

[The Gipper]

Besides, I like the BlueJackets logo:

 

But of the current final four, this is the team I want to win:

 

[FearTheRoo]

Besides, I like the BlueJackets logo:

 

But of the current final four, this is the team I want to win:

 

I was hoping for either the sharks or lightning to win it all. Don't like Vancouver, mainly just because I'd rather see a US team win.

 

I understand that logically I should root for the Bluejackets, but the Columbus connection is a negative for me, and I hate Pittsburgh and Detroit. Over the past few years I root for the Capitals, only because they are so hated in Pittsburgh I love it! Gibert should buy the Jackets in a few years and move them to the Q. I know I'm dreaming but whatever! I could agree with a Ohio Bluejackets deal where they play games in Columbus and Cleveland? Similar to when the Packers would play in Green Bay and Milwaukee..

[calfoxwc]

I had trouble going back and finding this - but it sounds to me that the owners were willing to give the players a pretty decent deal,

 

and it seems that the players want a 60-40 split of revenue, with THEM getting the sixty.

 

More likely, the players reps are getting paid $$$$ to prolong this stupid impasse, while they "work".

 

Maybe I'm just wrong - but where in all this, is the union getting shafted ?

 

Since when to the players get to demand $$$$$$$ like they are co-owners, will half of the teams' major investment and expenses their responsibily?

 

I'm with the owners on this whole debacle::

*************************************************

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/3/12/2046115/nfl-lockout-owners-details-final-offer-union-NFLPA

 

So it's come to this. The NFL and the NFLPA couldn't agree on a new collective bargaining agreement, and now the NFLPA is no more, the NFL has supposedly decided to lockout the players, and as KD posted earlier today, a group of players will file suit under antitrust laws in the court of Judge David Doty.

 

It's hard not blame everybody in this process. It does appear the NFL owners were on course for a lockout for a while now, given their negotiating $4 billion in revenue from the broadcasters in case of a lockout. That sure smells like they had a strategy from the beginning of this process. Either get the NFLPA to accept a new definition of business terms or lock them out. It's also unconscionable for the owners to expect the players to agree to new terms without giving them full financial data. The owners waited much to late in the process to start handing over the data.

 

As for the players, to some extent, it feels like they were relying too much on their ace in the hole - decertification and an appearance in the court of Judge Doty. Given his player friendly rulings in the past, the NFLPA probably thought that was a better route to go than to give in on too many concessions.

 

So what exactly did the players association pass on? The NFL has sent out what they say is a summary of their final offer that the players rejected.

 

 

 

Summary from the NFL.

 

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

 

2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

 

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury - the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.

 

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by

 

a. Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;

 

b. Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and

 

c. Increasing number of days off for players.

 

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

 

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

 

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

 

8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

 

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.

 

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

 

*************************************************

Expanding on that statement, the NFL lead negotiator, Jeff Pash, had this to say.

 

We incorporated new economic terms to try to bridge the gap. You've heard a lot of talk about an $800M gap. Nowhere close. Not close to factual.

 

We offered today to split the difference and meet the union in the midpoint, with a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009 and above player compensation in 2010, and we offered grow it from there over four years by $20 million a club, to the point where in 2014 the player compensation number was the union's number. It was the number the union proposed to us and we accepted it. That wasn't good enough.

 

We offered to guarantee for the first time in the history of the league, more than one year of injury on player contracts. Apparently not good enough.

 

We moved off of our wage scale, and we offered to do a rookie compensation system within the context of a hard rookie cap as the union had proposed which would preserve individual negotiations and maintain the role of agents in the process. Evidently not good enough.

 

We offered, in fact we agreed to the union's request for a cash team minimum for the first time in league history. We agreed to it at their number and their structure. Evidently not good enough.

 

We told the union that for 2011 and 2012, we would play within the existing 16-game regular season format, and we committed to them, notwithstanding the rights we have in the current agreement, we would not change to 18 games without their consent. Evidently not good enough.

 

At the same time, we agreed to implement wide ranging health and safety changes, reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing the practice time in the preseason, reducing the practice time and contract drills during the regular season and expanding the number of days off for players. Evidently not good enough.

 

We offered to increase the benefits in a wide range for both current and retired players. Under the proposal we had tendered, retired players who left the league before 1993, would experience an increase in their retirement benefit of close to 60 percent and the union, which says it represents former players, walked away from that today.

 

*******************************************

 

It's a complex negotiation with plenty of moving parts, so it's hard to know exactly how the last proposal matched-up with the expectations of the union. But it does appear the NFL made a good-faith proposal, albeit very late in the game. From the player's point of view, having full access to the financial data of the clubs seems to be a major sticking point.

 

Where this goes from here is anybody's guess. But Judge David Doty's courtroom is the first stop.

 

 

 

 

[jwmann2]

Everyone is just full of optimism that there is going to be a season and I have no idea why. Take the money you normally spend on the Browns and go root on the Indians, they are going great and could use your support.

[Harry Buffalo]

Still did not open books and they put that offer on the table 15 minutes before talks were going to end. Also does not talk about how the 9 billion was going to be spent. If you really think that they owners decided to not renew the CBA so that they could give an offer that took more away from them and gave more to the players then you must not be very smart. The whole point of them not renewing the CBA was to get more not give more away.

[The Gipper]

I had trouble going back and finding this - but it sounds to me that the owners were willing to give the players a pretty decent deal,

 

and it seems that the players want a 60-40 split of revenue, with THEM getting the sixty.

 

More likely, the players reps are getting paid $$$$ to prolong this stupid impasse, while they "work".

 

Maybe I'm just wrong - but where in all this, is the union getting shafted ?

 

Since when to the players get to demand $$$$$$$ like they are co-owners, will half of the teams' major investment and expenses their responsibily?

 

I'm with the owners on this whole debacle::

*************************************************

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2011/3/12/2046115/nfl-lockout-owners-details-final-offer-union-NFLPA

 

So it's come to this. The NFL and the NFLPA couldn't agree on a new collective bargaining agreement, and now the NFLPA is no more, the NFL has supposedly decided to lockout the players, and as KD posted earlier today, a group of players will file suit under antitrust laws in the court of Judge David Doty.

 

It's hard not blame everybody in this process. It does appear the NFL owners were on course for a lockout for a while now, given their negotiating $4 billion in revenue from the broadcasters in case of a lockout. That sure smells like they had a strategy from the beginning of this process. Either get the NFLPA to accept a new definition of business terms or lock them out. It's also unconscionable for the owners to expect the players to agree to new terms without giving them full financial data. The owners waited much to late in the process to start handing over the data.

 

As for the players, to some extent, it feels like they were relying too much on their ace in the hole - decertification and an appearance in the court of Judge Doty. Given his player friendly rulings in the past, the NFLPA probably thought that was a better route to go than to give in on too many concessions.

 

So what exactly did the players association pass on? The NFL has sent out what they say is a summary of their final offer that the players rejected.

 

 

 

Summary from the NFL.

 

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the Union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

 

2. An entry level compensation system based on the Union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

 

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury - the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi-year injury guarantee.

 

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by

 

a. Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10, and limiting on-field practice time and contact;

 

b. Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and

 

c. Increasing number of days off for players.

 

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

 

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

 

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

 

8. Third party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

 

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan, disability plan, and degree completion bonus program.

 

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

 

*************************************************

Expanding on that statement, the NFL lead negotiator, Jeff Pash, had this to say.

 

We incorporated new economic terms to try to bridge the gap. You've heard a lot of talk about an $800M gap. Nowhere close. Not close to factual.

 

We offered today to split the difference and meet the union in the midpoint, with a player compensation number that would have been equivalent to player compensation in 2009 and above player compensation in 2010, and we offered grow it from there over four years by $20 million a club, to the point where in 2014 the player compensation number was the union's number. It was the number the union proposed to us and we accepted it. That wasn't good enough.

 

We offered to guarantee for the first time in the history of the league, more than one year of injury on player contracts. Apparently not good enough.

 

We moved off of our wage scale, and we offered to do a rookie compensation system within the context of a hard rookie cap as the union had proposed which would preserve individual negotiations and maintain the role of agents in the process. Evidently not good enough.

 

We offered, in fact we agreed to the union's request for a cash team minimum for the first time in league history. We agreed to it at their number and their structure. Evidently not good enough.

 

We told the union that for 2011 and 2012, we would play within the existing 16-game regular season format, and we committed to them, notwithstanding the rights we have in the current agreement, we would not change to 18 games without their consent. Evidently not good enough.

 

At the same time, we agreed to implement wide ranging health and safety changes, reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing the practice time in the preseason, reducing the practice time and contract drills during the regular season and expanding the number of days off for players. Evidently not good enough.

 

We offered to increase the benefits in a wide range for both current and retired players. Under the proposal we had tendered, retired players who left the league before 1993, would experience an increase in their retirement benefit of close to 60 percent and the union, which says it represents former players, walked away from that today.

 

*******************************************

 

It's a complex negotiation with plenty of moving parts, so it's hard to know exactly how the last proposal matched-up with the expectations of the union. But it does appear the NFL made a good-faith proposal, albeit very late in the game. From the player's point of view, having full access to the financial data of the clubs seems to be a major sticking point.

 

Where this goes from here is anybody's guess. But Judge David Doty's courtroom is the first stop.

 

 

And it gives every fan a headache having to listen to it.

If I want to get involved in analyzing contract terms, or get involved in trying to understand certain negotiations, I want to get paid for it. That is what I do.

I really don't want to hear about these guys problems unless I am being compensated for it.

I got my own clients problems to deal with. Football is supposed to be a diversion from that for me.

[Harry Buffalo]

I also like how the owners keep saying that a deal has to be done out of court, and today on ESPN said that a deal had to be made before June 4th in order to go through training camp and preseason without any lost time, but do you really think they are calling up the players negotiators and saying that they should meet for talks? Hell no! They use that line in the press to make it look like they want to get something done but they are just waiting for the courts to side with them. Also notice how the June 4th deadline for training camp and preseason is around the June 3rd decision by the 8th court and the June 6th decision by the judge on the legality of the Union split. So it has to be done after when the owners are going to be told they can lock out the players, but before a judge will rule that the Union is now a trade association, which would overthrow the June 3rd ruling. Jesus they really expect me to buy this bullshit.

 

Don't buy into the owners media blitz. They have the power to get the players back to the negotiating table but they are unwilling to do so until the owners have the upper hand again.