The Official Nfl Cba/lockout Thread
-
A federal judge in Minneapolis handed NFL players a key ruling Tuesday in their fight to strip the league of $4 billion in television revenue they contend was unfairly and illegally secured as a way for owners to survive a lockout that could begin by the end of the week.
U.S. District Judge David Doty backed the NFL Players Association in its closely watched fight over the so-called "war chest" of broadcast revenue that the union contends is leverage the NFL is wielding against it in the labor fight.
The NFL's current collective bargaining agreement expires at midnight ET Thursday.
In his 28-page ruling, Doty criticized special master Stephen Burbank for legal errors and erroneously concluding earlier this month that the NFL can act like a self-interested conglomerate when in fact it is bound by legal agreements to make deals that benefit both the league and its players.
Doty instead declared the NFL violated its agreement with the union, which had asked that the TV money be placed in escrow until the end of any lockout. A hearing, yet to be scheduled, will be held to determine potential damages for the players as well as an injunction involving the TV contracts.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello downplayed the significance of the ruling, saying the 32 teams were "prepared for any contingency."
"Today's ruling will have no effect on our efforts to negotiate a new, balanced labor agreement," Aiello said. He told The Associated Press that the NFL hadn't immediately determined whether or not it would appeal.
The case, however, has billions at stake.
The union accused the NFL of failing to secure the maximum revenue possible when it restructured broadcast contracts in 2009 and 2010, and claimed the deals were designed to guarantee owners enough money to survive a lockout. The union argued this violated an agreement between the sides that says the NFL must make good-faith efforts to maximize revenue for players.
Doty agreed.
"The record shows that the NFL undertook contract renegotiations to advance its own interests and harm the interests of the players," wrote the judge, who has overseen NFL labor issues since he presided over the 1993 decision that cleared the way for the current free-agency system.
Doty cited an NFL "Decision Tree" as a "glaring example" of the league's intent, and quoted from it: "Moving forward with a deal depended on the answer to the questions: 'Does Deal Completion Advance CBA Negotiating Dynamics?' If yes, the NFL should 'Do Deal Now'; if no, the NFL should 'Deal When Opportune.'"
Said George Atallah, the NFLPA's assistant executive director for external affairs: "This ruling means there is irrefutable evidence that owners had a premeditated plan to lockout players and fans for more than two years. The players want to play football. That is the only goal we are focused on."
The NFL has described the $4 billion as a loan that the league eventually would need to repay -- or make up to -- the networks, with interest. Doty said $421 million of the total would have been guaranteed without repayment.
In his ruling, the judge also revealed previously confidential details of league TV contracts and said the NFL "consistently characterized gaining control over labor as a short-term objective and maximizing revenue as a long-term objective ... advancing its negotiating position at the expense of using best efforts to maximize total revenues for the joint benefit of the NFL and the Players."
Doty suggested that the NFL had acquired vast negotiating power and pointed to an unidentified network executive's comment from the case.
"You know you've reached the absolute limits of your power as a major network ... (when) the commissioner of the National Football League calls you ... and says ... we're done, pay this or move on .... (the NFL has) market power like no one else, and at a certain point in time, they'll tell you to pack it up or pay the piper," the executive said.
Doty said at least three networks expressed "some degree of resistance to the lockout payments"; that the NFL "characterized network opposition to lockout provisions to be a deal breaker"; and that DirecTV "would have considered paying more in 2009 and 2010 'to have (the work-stoppage provision) go away.'"
The decision revealed that DirecTV, in fact, would pay up to 9 percent more to the NFL if no games are played in 2011. And of the total amount payable if there is a canceled season, 42 percent of DirecTV's fee is nonrefundable.
Under the CBS and Fox contracts set to expire at the end of the 2011 season, the NFL would have been required to repay CBS and Fox that same year if there were a work stoppage. Under the contracts extended to the 2013 season, the NFL will repay the funds, plus money-market interest, over the term of the contract, Doty wrote. And if the season is canceled, the contracts would be extended another season.
Relive the NFL season in HD with NFL Game Rewind. Sign up now to get full access to the season archives.
NBC's contract through the 2011 season contained the same work-stoppage provisions as the CBS and Fox contracts, according to Doty.
The judge wrote that during extension negotiations, NBC believed the NFL was "hosing" the network by its demands. To "bridge the gap," the league agreed to award NBC an additional regular-season game for the 2010 through 2013 seasons. The NFL didn't seek additional rights fees for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons, and NBC agreed to pay increased rights fees for 2012 and 2013.
Although ESPN's contract wasn't set to expire until 2013, the work-stoppage provision was amended. In the negotiations, ESPN requested that the rights fee not be payable if there is a work stoppage, but the NFL rejected the request. Doty wrote: "The NFL stated that the digital deal and the work-stoppage provisions were 'linked,' ... To secure ESPN's agreement to the work-stoppage provision, the NFL granted the right to a Monday Night Football simulator via the wireless partner."
NFL lawyers that argued the league used sound business judgment to maximize revenue for both sides to share, but Doty wrote in his ruling that the NFL enhanced "long-term interests at the expense of its present obligations."
Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, a member of the NFLPA's executive committee, said the ruling was a "really good reversal."
"I'm not sure what all that means, as of yet," Saturday told The Associated Press as he left Tuesday's mediation session in Washington. "We haven't been debriefed. We just got the news when we were in the meeting, so I'm sure we'll hear more tonight. But it sounds very favorable."
Denver Broncos safety Brian Dawkins, who also attended Tuesday's mediation session, told NFL Network's Albert Breer that the judge's decision was "huge."
"We want to get a deal done, and we're all for anything that helps that process along," Dawkins said.
When Breer asked Tennessee Titans guard Jake Scott how significant Doty's ruling was, he said, "Very, I would imagine."
-
I hope this nudges the owners to come to an agreement. I am on the side of the owners on this one though. If you or me went to the boss and demanded a raise we would be laughed or fired. The players are trying to make as much as the owners and that just doesnt make sense. No worker makes anywhere near what the owners make. Its just how things work.
-
I hope this nudges the owners to come to an agreement. I am on the side of the owners on this one though. If you or me went to the boss and demanded a raise we would be laughed or fired. The players are trying to make as much as the owners and that just doesnt make sense. No worker makes anywhere near what the owners make. Its just how things work.
I hope this nudges the owners to come to an agreement. I am on the side of the owners on this one though. If you or me went to the boss and demanded a raise we would be laughed or fired. The players are trying to make as much as the owners and that just doesnt make sense. No worker makes anywhere near what the owners make. Its just how things work.
I agree that the players should not be making the same amount as the owners, but the owners shouldn't be trying to take more from the players at this point while also demanding more from them. It is separated 40% ish for players right now and 60% ish for owners and the owners are trying to claim that they are not making enough money. That's around 4 billion for hundreds of players and 6 billion for 32 owners, 31 of which refuse to open their books to prove that they are not making as much money. On top of that they want a rookie wage scale in order to make them more money and put a time table on when players can renegotiate their contracts without giving them guaranteed contracts. They also want to add two full games (minus two preseason) without paying the players anymore and don't want to give any more money towards health care to help past football plays who are drooling into pillow asking when they get their pudding cup. I agree that some of this stuff needs to happen, such as a rookie wage scale, but we don't need 18 games, and those retired plays need to be taken care of. Hopefully this helps push owners to consed on some things and we can get a deal done before the draft starts.
Ruining threads since 1897. -
I think that greed is going to win out. Just a gut feeling but I wouldn't count on things getting better until they get worse. The owners and the players both need to look at this realistically. Where the cuts should be made is ticket and concession prices as well as merch. It costs WAAAYYYY too much to go enjoy a game. Since we all know THAT won't happen consequently I expect no football until summer at least. We may be looking at a wasted year as well...the problem with that is it's going to hurt them far more if all that they have to show the fans for their loyalty is that greed wins out over common sense. The ridiculousness of this whole senario just floors me with how over the top it is considering the amount of money being made on both sides. Maybe they should start sharing it with the public school systems promoting better education? Just a thought...
-
If everyone stopped going to NFL games, and stopped watching the games on TV, and turned the NFL into as popular entity as say the National LaCrosse League, then the issue of greed would resolve itself.
But that is not going to happen. Though I know some people that would rather watch the National LaCrosse League.
-
The UFL won't become much more popular. We will see Versus and ESPN 2 pick up some games, maybe even ESPN, fox sports, ect, but in reality you are going to see everyone turn to the only other popular form of football which is college. They will have record numbers next year if there is no NFL.
-
I hope this nudges the owners to come to an agreement. I am on the side of the owners on this one though. If you or me went to the boss and demanded a raise we would be laughed or fired. The players are trying to make as much as the owners and that just doesnt make sense. No worker makes anywhere near what the owners make. Its just how things work.
I agree that the players should not be making the same amount as the owners, but the owners shouldn't be trying to take more from the players at this point while also demanding more from them. It is separated 40% ish for players right now and 60% ish for owners and the owners are trying to claim that they are not making enough money. That's around 4 billion for hundreds of players and 6 billion for 32 owners, 31 of which refuse to open their books to prove that they are not making as much money. On top of that they want a rookie wage scale in order to make them more money and put a time table on when players can renegotiate their contracts without giving them guaranteed contracts. They also want to add two full games (minus two preseason) without paying the players anymore and don't want to give any more money towards health care to help past football plays who are drooling into pillow asking when they get their pudding cup. I agree that some of this stuff needs to happen, such as a rookie wage scale, but we don't need 18 games, and those retired plays need to be taken care of. Hopefully this helps push owners to consed on some things and we can get a deal done before the draft starts.
Hillis-iz-Boss said:
I agree that the players should not be making the same amount as the owners, but the owners shouldn't be trying to take more from the players at this point while also demanding more from them. It is separated 40% ish for players right now and 60% ish for owners and the owners are trying to claim that they are not making enough money. That's around 4 billion for hundreds of players and 6 billion for 32 owners, 31 of which refuse to open their books to prove that they are not making as much money. On top of that they want a rookie wage scale in order to make them more money and put a time table on when players can renegotiate their contracts without giving them guaranteed contracts. They also want to add two full games (minus two preseason) without paying the players anymore and don't want to give any more money towards health care to help past football plays who are drooling into pillow asking when they get their pudding cup. I agree that some of this stuff needs to happen, such as a rookie wage scale, but we don't need 18 games, and those retired plays need to be taken care of. Hopefully this helps push owners to consed on some things and we can get a deal done before the draft starts.
You have it backwards. Currently the NFL makes a little more than $9 billion annually. The owners rake off $1 billion to cover legitimate costs, i.e. stadium payments, lot rents, whatever. Of the remaining $8 billion, approximately 59.5% goes to players salaries. So $4.2 billion is getting split amongst the 32 teams, then split 53 ways for the roster. The owners are getting $3.8 billion split 32 ways of pure money in their pockets, basically.
The owners now want to add another $1 billion to the initial skimming pool, saying that the $1 billion they already receive isn't enough to cover the necessary costs. While that may be the case, that doesn't change the fact that they are taking a significant amount of money away from the players, all the while asking them to play longer seasons. It's purely a matter of greed, and nothing else.
I do believe both sides are in the wrong. But while I don't believe either side is 100% right, I believe the owners are basically being greedy bastards. They want to go back to the days when the owners pocketed a majority of the revenue, and the players played for $100 bucks a game.
But also.... xxxx De Smith, I just don't like that guy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2011-03-01-sports-labor-unions_N.htm
-
Given a 24 hour extension probably to try to get a week extension
-
Given a 24 hour extension probably to try to get a week extension
Given a 24 hour extension probably to try to get a week extension
Hopefully things get worked out. The more time they spend talking, the better the chance that an agreement can be reached.
-
There's a chance a new CBA could get done today, crossing fingers
-
7 Day Extension Confirmed via ESPN twitter.
-
I hope we don't have to wait till Friday for a new CBA and free agency
-
8:25
MikeSilver: Scott Fujita & I will be soaking up the center of the universe & pre-celebrating a potential CBA. Because Cal fans pre-celebrate like no one [via Twitter]
-
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6192748
WASHINGTON -- The NFL Players Association retained an international investment bank to help it decide whether the league's offer to reveal more financial information during negotiations will be enough to satisfy the union's call for full disclosure.
Zeroing in on the crux of the labor dispute -- how to split $9 billion in revenues -- one NFLPA executive committee member, Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, said in a telephone interview Tuesday with The Associated Press and NFL Network that what the NFL has turned over to the union so far "hasn't been sufficient."
Another executive committee member, Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, said as he left Tuesday's 9½-hour mediation session that the bank would "help judge how helpful the material they were offering to give us" would be.
The current collective bargaining agreement was set to expire last week, but two extensions now have pushed the cutoff to the end of Friday.
Influential Patriots owner Robert Kraft said Monday from Israel that he believes a labor deal is "possible."
Kraft, who's in Israel on a trade mission with the governor of Massachusetts, believes an agreement on a deal is not out of the question.
"We're doing everything we can to get a deal consummated," Kraft said to Comcast Sports New England on Monday. "I personally believe it's possible ...
"[The] good news is, it's always good to be talking when you have differences of opinion. It's the only way you have a chance [to reach an agreement]. So we're talking, and I know from ownership's side that we feel there's a deal to be made and we'd very much like to do it."
Kraft said he is in constant phone contact with Goodell, but would leave Israel early if necessary.
One key question is what cut team owners should get up front to help cover costs such as stadium construction and improvement. Under the old deal, owners received more than $1 billion off the top. They entered these negotiations seeking to add another $1 billion to that amount, before other revenues are divided with players.
Sources familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter last Friday that the sides narrowed the financial gap between them by roughly $5 million per team per year. Nevertheless, a significant divide exists -- roughly $25 million per team per year. With 32 teams in the league, the gap equates to $750 million to $800 million per year.
Also, the NFL has not agreed to the union's long-held demand that the league completely open its books, repeatedly saying the players have enough data. The union says it is not enough.
"We're being asked to give back almost a billion dollars, so it's important for us to adequately analyze and interpret the little bit of information that's been provided," said Fujita, who attended negotiations last month but not this week. "And ultimately, if they're unwilling to provide full audited statements, then we need to know what other information we need to make a sound decision."
Asked whether having full financial transparency from the league is a deal-breaker, NFLPA assistant executive director for external affairs George Atallah replied: "In the face of an almost billion-dollar ask? Yes."
Atallah would not identify the investment bank, which he said has been advising the union for a "couple of months."
The NFL's lead labor negotiator, Jeff Pash, said the bank has not contacted the league.
"We feel like we've given a lot of financial information. And we understand they may have a different view," Pash said. "But I'm not going to get into what we discussed with them this week."
He was part of an NFL group Tuesday that included commissioner Roger Goodell, New York Giants owner John Mara, Kansas City Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Atlanta Falcons president Rich McKay -- chairman of the league's competition committee -- and Washington Redskins general manager Bruce Allen.
The NFLPA contingent included executive director DeMaurice Smith, president Kevin Mawae and several current or former players, including Cardinals kicker Jay Feely, Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel and Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth.
Top NFLPA outside counsel Jeffrey Kessler wasn't present Monday or Tuesday.
When Smith exited after the longest of the 13 days of mediation since it began Feb. 18, he was asked why the union brought aboard the investment bank.
"Look, this is a $9 billion business, and the players are -- and have been -- very involved in what we call the business of football," Smith said.
"Having the best and brightest people in the world advising us on financial matters -- that's just good business," he added.
If a deal isn't reached by Friday, the sides could agree to another extension. Or talks could break off, leading to, possibly, a lockout by owners or antitrust lawsuits by players.
The NFL has not lost games to a work stoppage in nearly a quarter-century. By agreeing to continue with mediation, the league and union made it clear neither was quite ready to make the drastic move of shutting down a sport that is more popular than ever. The past two Super Bowls rank No. 1 and No. 2 among most-watched TV programs in U.S. history.
Fujita said he's "hopeful" a deal can be reached by Friday, but he also noted: "'Hope' -- I don't know if that means anything."
Either way, he considers it imperative that the players know more about the owners' financial records.
"What they've provided so far hasn't been sufficient. Asking for almost a billion dollars back -- that's a huge, huge leap of faith. And that's kind of what it's been so far -- them asking us to take a leap of faith," Fujita said. "And we can't do that without sound judgment."
-
Withholding financial information is really shady. It just makes the owners look even more greedy.
-
I don't think so.
I have heard there has been progress.
Maybe the additional information released convinced the players bankers a few of the teams are in trouble, now or in the near future if something isn't agreed upon.
This isn't about the team like the Cowboys,Giants, or Pats....it about the Bengals, Panthers, Jags, or maybe Browns.
Teams folding isn't going to help anybody.
As of now, the players are the cost of goods AND the major labor outlay.
It simply doesn't work for owners any longer
-
The death of the NFL, thanks guys a big FU to all the fans and everyone else associated. I think it might be time to move on from football
-
I hate NFL owners. Period. The Browns hurt the most from this. New head coach, young QB, no communication. There goes our above .500 season.
-
What does this mean as far as getting a deal done? Is it more likely to happen know that they can sue?
-
What does this mean as far as getting a deal done? Is it more likely to happen know that they can sue?
What does this mean as far as getting a deal done? Is it more likely to happen know that they can sue?
Yes but it takes longer.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login