Now that the NFL Players Association has accepted, tongue planted in cheek and/or head planted in ass, an NFL proposal premised on the players not taking a pay cut, the NFL has responded.
“The union’s latest statement is simply another call to preserve an unacceptable economic system,” the NFL said in a comment e-mailed to us by director of corporate communications Dan Masonson. “It intentionally misstates our proposal, does nothing to improve the benefits for retired players, and would depress the growth of the league. The union has known for a long time that the current deal does not work. Proposing over and over again that we continue an unacceptable arrangement cannot be considered serious bargaining. The union also knows that we are not proposing an 18 percent cut in player compensation or anything like it. The growth of our game in the last decade has resulted in player compensation nearly doubling. As we have told the union on more than one occasion, by working together to institute a rational system of rookie pay, continue to build stadiums, grow the game in this country and internationally, and restructure the season, everyone, including the players and fans, can benefit.”
In other words, “I know you are, but what am I?”
The Tuesday afternoon exchange highlights a point we previously have made and will repeat. Since the clock does not and will not strike 12 until next year at this time, the best approach by both sides would be to do that which Archie Bunker routinely wanted Edith to do — and then get together after Super Bowl XLV for two weeks at a five-star resort and work this thing out. Anything they say between now and then will serve only to drive the two sides farther apart before the time comes to work it out.
Did the NFL just say they accepted an unacceptable and irrational deal four years ago?
And did they just say the NFLPA has known for “a long time” that the current deal “does not work” despite the deal was signed barely four years ago?
I just have such a hard time believing the NFL is so strapped for cash.
Since the player salary pool is based on league income, it is laughable that the owners can complain that because of the growth of the game the players are making too much. They are still making the same percentage on contracts that are not guaranteed. A player can outperform his contract and gets nothing. He underperforms, gets cut and makes nothing.
Nobody pays to see Jerry Jones or Jeff Laurie, Tom Benson, Robert Craft or whoever the hell else owns the team. Pay the players.
De Smith is a real meat head.
NFLPA is under some questionable leadership.
I also support a ‘rational’ rookie pool. I’m sick of rewarding rookies millions of dollars based on ‘potential’, which comes at the expense of proven veterans and retired veterans.
Can they negogiate using Pacman Jones as a rep for a tit and tat deal?
Yeah, but if the two sides agree and quickly, how will the lawyers make any money?
NFL to NFLPA
You are NOT getting more of the pie, you WILL agree to a rational system of rookie pay, or there WILL be a lockout.
NFLPA (aka Smith) to Everyone else
The greedy owners are trying to take 18% of what the players make! They are trying to cut benefits to retired players! They are a non-profit! They are corrupt, evil and greedy!
Nope… no deal coming anytime soon.
“In other words, “I know you are, but what am I?”
—————————————–
Why do you have to try and be funny?!?! just report the news and stop making yourself look like an idiot
Work it out.., don’t work it out…, whatever.
The upside for the fans is this. Hockey is an awesome sport and we’ll have have much more time to notice this. Its a face paced, quick action, hard hitting game and I can gladly spend my former NFL dollars on that sport. I know that not everyone has the good fortune of being in an NHL city, but I’ll bet the NHL package is less then the NFL package on your cable/satellite provider and you get more games for your buck.
So NFL/NFLPA…, feel free to continue pointing fingers over who gets to keep most of the money that’s essentially coming from the fanbase. I can’t speak for everyone…, but I’ve got better things to focus on.
The players were done when they voted for DSmith
@section731
You’re right nobody pays to see the owners play football but the owners don’t need to get paid to play football to pay their bills. The owners have made enough money in their other business ventures that they could afford to pay in some cases 100s of millions for an NFL franchise. If there is a lockout, the owners will all continue to make money in those other business ventures while the players make nothing. Who do you think is going to blink first when that happens?
You also fail to mention that the players get some guaranteed money up front, in some cases like Matt Stafford, they get $41M guaranteed without even playing a single NFL play. Do they need to return that money when they underperform? No of course not.
The players also need to realize that with the current system the owner’s motivation to spend money to try to continue to grow revenues is being diminished. When Jerry Jones spend $1.5 Billion on his stadium and none of that money is recognized in the cap calculations yet all of the new revenue it produces is, something isn’t right. Now the players could fairly negotiate the reported 18% number down to 10-15% and I would imagine the owners might be interested but to simply say it isn’t going to happen is just setting your membership up for a fight they can’t win.
The NFL clearly isn’t strapped for cash. But this isn’t about cash it’s about who can tell a better story. It looks like the PA is rapidly dissolving any natural sentiments the so-called underdog is blessed with if they continue to cede the moral high ground to the league. Some intrepid young whippersnapper documentarian needs to be filming the happenings up close. This has the makings of a classic blunder.
“A player can outperform his contract and gets nothing. He underperforms, gets cut and makes nothing.”
Yeah, and? That’s the way it works for everybody else in the world.
Can someone help me with this but which teams are on the endangered list under the current CBA. Off the top of my head there is…
Buffalo (they are playing a game a season in Toronto for a reason)
Oakland (I keep hearing that Al Davis is pretty much broke and has very little personal wealth outside of his team)
Jacksonville – the blackouts tell the story
Lions – how can Detroit be this devastated economically not hurt the team.
Feel free to toss in any I missed.
My question is can these teams survive without a drastically altered CBA?
Start the count down to De Smith getting fired. What an embarrassment to sports in our country. Of course it pales in comparison to the embarrassment in the White House.
This game is not a partnership of players and owners. Owners aren’t called owners because they have to listen to and pay their employees whatever it is that they want. The league and owners are right, players do make way too much and their does need to be a rookie salary, better benefits for retirees, etc.
BUT, the owners need to realize one simple thing….. THIS IS A MONSTER THAT THEY CREATED ON THEIR OWN, WITH NO HELP NEEDED! You, the owners, gave in to irrational financial demands and set the bar high for the whole league due to selfishness and ignorant business practices. Therefore, why should the players suffer from your own mistake. You, the owners, need to find a negotiator who is willing to bend but not break in the negotiations. And the players, who can have their paychecks stopped by the way, need to do the same as the owners. Now, from there, work on the restructuring of rookie salaries, retirement benefits, etc. Come to an agreement on a bottom line percentage pay cut. Instead of the players feeling that paycut all at once, take a stepladder approach of 2% cut, 2% increase per year for 4 years. The 5th year is a 1% cut that takes them to the 9% realistic number that the league attempted to explain.
“Can someone help me with this but which teams are on the endangered list under the current CBA.”
None. It’s a profit margin issue, not a survival issue.
The Bills reported $39.5 million in earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in 2008. Buffalo is playing in Toronto because the teenage female virgin blood that they use to keep Ralph Wilson alive is very expensive. Not to mention hard to find in Buffalo.
Don’t worry about the Raiders. They report operating losses but Al Davis has an army of tax lawyers juggling numbers and NFL money that he hasn’t even folded yet but his handlers don’t let him know where it is because he’ll just blow it on prunes, Red Bull and painted ladies. He’ll control the Raiders from beyond the grave after he passes away. I heard that his mausoleum will have a drive-up pneumatic tube so they can still give him the profits
Lions? Owned by a Ford heir that married a Firestone heiress. They reported $18.5 million in earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in 2008. I wouldn’t worry too much about them if I were you.
Wayne Weaver owns Shoe Carnival and Nine West. If he never makes another NFL dollar the man and his children and his children’s children will still be mega-rich. And I promise you, he’s not losing money with the blackouts. Gate receipts are a very small part of total revenue. They’re shared 60/40 anyway. Just another guy that’s not pocketing as much as he’d like to pocket from his investment. They reported $26.9 million in earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in 2008. He’s the only guy on the list that didn’t buy in on the cheap so it’s easy to understand why he’d want a big return on a big investment (he paid like $208 million to get into the game).
Lions? Owned by a Ford heir that married a Firestone heiress. They reported $18.5 million in earnings (before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) in 2008.