Skip to content

Report: One more proposal to come from NFL

DeMaurice Smith, Scott Fujita

We’ve hit judgment day in labor negotiations (again), so it’s time for both sides to show their cards.

Jason La Canfora of NFL Network writes to expect a new proposal from the NFL — “likely a final one” — during Friday’s negotiations.

“Right now the two sides are meeting face-to-face,” Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports writes.   “I think players are resigned to pull the plug. So unless owners blink like last week.”

It sounds like they will “blink” at least a bit with a new proposal.  We’ll find out soon enough if that’s enough to prevent decertification by the union.

Permalink 54 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
54 Responses to “Report: One more proposal to come from NFL”
  1. buffalohogan says: Mar 11, 2011 12:21 PM

    When do the players make some concessions? When do the players be more flexible?

    Last time I checked, the owners hold the check book.

    Who does the NFLPA think they are? Jesus Christ?

    If I am the owners, i make this final offer, if they decline it, declare an impasse, let the players strike, use scabs (UFL, AFL, etc), and about October players will start coming back ala 1987.

    Win here and win there.

    Duh, Winning!

  2. upperdecker19 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:25 PM

    Hoping that De and the players “dig” this proposal….

  3. riderspantherssk says: Mar 11, 2011 12:27 PM

    It seems like it took less than a week for this to go from looking like it was the owner’s fault, to clearly being the player’s fault. It seems like every hour the NFLPA shows more evidence that they have no intention of negotiating a deal.

  4. toe4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:29 PM

    I’ve been thinking about Drew and the gangs request for owners to open books.

    It sounds reasonable enough on the surface (unless you own a small business and think its comparable) but a little very basic math shows it really isn’t necessary.

    The average NFL team brings in roughly $285m yearly.

    Taxes: Who knows what tax breaks they get but lets guess at: $80m (or about 28%) for state, local and federal taxes.
    Player salaries: $125m

    It is very difficult to figure the average cost of operating an NFL team (including unique security and travel expenses) but after the above two are left the owners are left with roughly $80m for operating expense, profit and lets not forget investing because when a player is asking for $20m in guaranteed signing bonus that money needs to be available in team coffers.

    I’ve got to think the Packers (with a $9m profit) is about average. My numbers may not be accurate but I’ve got to think they are in the ballpark.

    A $9m profit on $280m income is about 3.2%. Considering the owners have shelled out hundreds of millions to buy the team I’ve got to think that a $9m profit is extremely minimal.

    However, about ten years ago they were making a $35m profit on $200m in revenue and that is pretty gaudy. So we need to find some happy medium that allows sustainability.

    Yeah, if I’m out of whack don’t hate on me, I’m a stay-at-home parent without a college degree sitting at my kitchen table trying to figure this out with a pencil and paper.

  5. purpleman527 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:30 PM

    Awesome !!!!

    I think a deal is done, don’t you ! ?

  6. chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:30 PM

    Bottom line is player revenues are outpacing revenue growth. That’s a fact. If the union doesn’t acknowledge that then everything else is a waste of time.

  7. deckard26354 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:31 PM

    One would hope that the NFL owners are smart enough to make their last (11th hour) proposal a truly fair and reasonable offer.

    One would also hope that the NFLPA is smart enough to seize the opportunity when presented with their (last) chance to avoid labor disaster.

    To yield this league to the lawyers spells doom to the NFL in both the short and long term.

  8. bcknights says: Mar 11, 2011 12:35 PM

    I can bet my house on it. The players wont accept the owners proposal.

  9. descendency says: Mar 11, 2011 12:36 PM

    @buffalohogan

    The rookie wage scale is definitely a concession of the NFLPA.

    I’m not saying they are right, just that they are making concessions.

  10. kniddynamite says: Mar 11, 2011 12:36 PM

    @chc4

    Player revenues are determined as a set percentage of total league revenues. It is literally impossible for them to vary independently. #comprehensionfail

  11. whoknowsnothing says: Mar 11, 2011 12:36 PM

    REPORT: One more proposal to come from NFL Fans.

    Stop raising ticket prices!!!

  12. chapnastier says: Mar 11, 2011 12:40 PM

    @ toe

    that was sweet

  13. nbcwantsitsmoneyback says: Mar 11, 2011 12:41 PM

    If the players consider themselves partners with the NFL then why aren’t they players giving the NFL 50% of their endorsement deals? Sound like the players are a bunch of hyprocrites..!

  14. chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:42 PM

    Why would owners open their books to the union when the union’s sole goal is to bleed them out of every nickel?

    I’d love to see tax returns of every person that thinks owners should fork everything over. Everyone fudges their own financials for personal gain. Bottom line is Kevin Mawae was on record when the players signed this past CBA stating he couldn’t believe they got what they got. It’s time for a correction… which the players knew was going to come. They will all still be very rich people if they save wisely.

  15. PFTiswhatitis says: Mar 11, 2011 12:43 PM

    no deal gonna happen anytime soon. Ready yourselves people, there will be no football in 2011.

  16. marty2019 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:44 PM

    chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:30 PM

    “Bottom line is player revenues are outpacing revenue growth. That’s a fact. If the union doesn’t acknowledge that then everything else is a waste of time.”

    That is mathematically impossible. Players get a percentage of the revenue. How can player revenues outpace revenue growth when the players get a percentage of the revenue???

  17. borg30 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:44 PM

    “Right now the two sides are meeting face-to-face,” Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports writes. “I think players are resigned to pull the plug. So unless owners blink like last week.”

    The owners will not blink and the most of the players had better pratice this line:

    Hi, Welcome to McDonalds, May I take your order Please..

  18. chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:48 PM

    @ kniddynamite

    That is partially true. There are revenue streams that are exempt from union coffers. This “disposable” revenue has been decimated by the recession. So your assertion is not accurate.

  19. realdeal12 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:49 PM

    The union never wanted a deal unless it was 100% what they wanted. I have not read 1 single sentence that shows the players conceding anything! The only problem the NFLPA is having is making it look like the owners fault. I hope this post doesn’t mysteriously disappear like my other posts.

  20. jroneputt says: Mar 11, 2011 12:50 PM

    For this writer to think that another proposal put on the table by the NFL is “blinking” shows how absurd these negotiations are.

    We will see how much “blinking” the players do when they start missing pay checks. (I am not talking about the ones that make millions of course.)

  21. cletusvandam says: Mar 11, 2011 12:53 PM

    Is there anyone out there that still can’t see how about 90% of the problem is the players?

  22. favreisadouche says: Mar 11, 2011 12:57 PM

    Yawn! They’re both fueled by greed!

  23. kniddynamite says: Mar 11, 2011 12:57 PM

    The big question here is, with the league clearing $9 billion dollars every year, where are the shortfalls jeopardizing future growth, and why are they happening?

    The answer is actually pretty obvious when you consider the fact that the Cowboys bring in $420 million a year. The Lions $210 million a year. Their market sizes aren’t vastly different. Neither of them have had any playoff success since the 90′s. The Lions are undoubtedly a worse team, but there are plenty of other poor performing teams that aren’t at the bottom of the league in revenue.

    According the Forbes, the average difference in revenue and difference in value of the NFL’s 32 teams is growing bigger every season. With the salary cap and revenue sharing in place, this simply shouldn’t be happen — assuming every team is being run competently.

    And there’s your answer – they’re not. The owners of teams like the Lions, Cardinals, Bills and Bengals have consistently failed to achieve the franchise growth that the other teams have. Many of the owners seem entirely uninterested in doing the thins that the Jerry Jones and Bob Krafts of the league do to maximize their revenue streams.

    These are the teams that are forcing the league’s hand to ask for an additional $1 billion dollars back from the players, and these are the teams whose books the NFL can’t afford to let get out in the open, for it to become apparent how much their shortfall is the result of their own inactivity.

    So essentially, what you have here, are a handful of deadbeat owners who need financial propping up, and the successful owners don’t want it to come out of their pockets, so together they’re trying to get the players to pony up.

    The problem is, that’s just throwing good money after bad. The real solution to the NFL’s “labor” problem has nothing to do with labor — the league needs to get tough with its low-performing owners and tell them to either start reinvesting in their franchises the way Kraft did when he took over the moribund Patriots franchise in ’93, or sell their teams to someone who will.

  24. ruckinfidiculous says: Mar 11, 2011 12:59 PM

    “I think players are resigned to pull the plug. So unless owners blink like last week.”

    So the players are gonna pull the plug, but they’ll say “the owners locked us out”…..

    Why do the owners have to blink? The only side I’ve heard make any concessions (admittedly based on limited information) are the owners. It’s starting to look more like the players are being excessively stubborn and unwilling to compromise.

  25. toe4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:59 PM

    Chapnastier,

    Thanks, you and I have disagreed frequently over this negotiating deals but I fully appreciate how you have always been respectful to me.

    Topher

  26. Kaz says: Mar 11, 2011 12:59 PM

    It’s amazing how quick things change. I use to be on the players side, but I have seen nothing from them as it relates to any compromises etc. Seems like everything is coming from the owners. If they want to de-certify so bad then just do it. Quit wasting our time.

  27. runwright44 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:00 PM

    If there is decertification and a lockout I start my “fan protest” by not watching one second of the April draft. If the TV ratings go down the tube the powers that be will take note. Another all-time high ratings will only serve to empower both sides and prolong this whole mess.

  28. scytherius says: Mar 11, 2011 1:00 PM

    I wonder if some of you pay an ounce of attention, especially @buffalohogan Did you miss the concession where the NFLPA offered a significant reduction of it’s percentage of the “pie”? Guess so. That was almost right out of the box.

    Do you miss the fact that they are being asked to negotiate when they don’t even know about what they are negotiating? i.e. real league income and profit.

    Did you miss the fact it was the owners who opted out of the last 3 years of this agreement?

    It is astounding to me that a few here are content to pile on players who, mostly, play for 3 years and have little left as opposed to whiny billionaires.

    Idiots all.

  29. packerrube13 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:01 PM

    @Kniddynamite,

    HA HA HA HA so true. I read that and was like what? #Comprehensionfail made me literally laugh out loud at my office too.

    @Toe4,
    Man I have to respect that post. The numbers weren’y 100% accurate, but I respect it and agree with the big picture of your post.

  30. richturpin says: Mar 11, 2011 1:02 PM

    @buffalohogan

    “If I am the owners, i make this final offer, if they decline it, declare an impasse, let the players strike, use scabs (UFL, AFL, etc), and about October players will start coming back ala 1987″

    This is an impending lockout by the owners, not a strike by the players like in 1987. The owners can not use ‘scab’ players. It’s they agree to a new CBA or say hello to UFL football…

  31. strategerie says: Mar 11, 2011 1:04 PM

    It’s unfortunate that some don’t comprehend what they read.

    Owners insist they’re losing money. Players are asking them to prove it. The TV revenues information was the smoking gun – in other words, owners have shown they’re not above negotiating a deal that will screw the players, so players want to be sure they have as much information as possible.

    The owners have nobody but themselves to blame for the current situation.

  32. odessabucs says: Mar 11, 2011 1:05 PM

    Don’t be surprised if it becomes evident the owners all along, are after a new CBA and business model.

  33. buffalohogan says: Mar 11, 2011 1:11 PM

    favreisadouche is a douche.

    As a business owner, im not in it to break even, im trying to make money and a 3.2% profit is not worth the investment/risk they take.

    “I was bangin’ 7-gram rocks and finishing them because that’s how I roll. I have one speed, one gear … go!”

  34. toe4 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:12 PM

    I’ve got a proposal based on my earlier numbers:

    Cap profits. (I know small business owners won’t like this idea :) )

    Total Revenue less 8.5% off the top for “profits” everything else is divided in two. Players get one half… teams get the other half to go toward taxes and operating expenses.

    As for the health insurance stuff… for vested veterans make healthcare available until age 65 with cost divided up between league, current players, and individual receiving insurance. This done in exchange for 18 game regular season and 2 game preseason with guarantee of never increasing season size.

    Everything else is small potatos.

    just one guys idea.

  35. kingjets says: Mar 11, 2011 1:12 PM

    These damn fools better get their acts together. Put aside the pride and the greed and GET IT DONE!

  36. whathappenedtovox says: Mar 11, 2011 1:14 PM

    Bottom line is player revenues are outpacing revenue growth. That’s a fact. If the union doesn’t acknowledge that then everything else is a waste of time.
    _________________________

    That’s not a “fact” as far as you know. If the NFL owners can prove that to be “fact” by opening their books, the players will make concessions. You cant expect the Players to take the owners at their word, can you?

  37. ducksmith says: Mar 11, 2011 1:18 PM

    chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 12:30 PM

    “Bottom line is player revenues are outpacing revenue growth. That’s a fact. If the union doesn’t acknowledge that then everything else is a waste of time.”

    That is mathematically impossible. Players get a percentage of the revenue. How can player revenues outpace revenue growth when the players get a percentage of the revenue???

    Let me explain it for you. If an owner spends (invests) $1 and gets an additional $2 in revenue, sounds good, right? Wrong. The PLAYERS get 60% of revenue, so they get $1.20 of the additional $2, and the owner gets $0.80. Spending $1.00 to get $0.80 is a losing proposition.

  38. kniddynamite says: Mar 11, 2011 1:18 PM

    The owners are the ones who need to blink, because they’re the ones asking for the players to take a $1 billion pay cut from the last CBA.

  39. jeff061 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:19 PM

    At this point – i’d prefer to see them pull the plug – so the players get what they dseserve. Unemployment – and see what its like sitting out a year – then, when this is finalized – they end up paying for the time lost and expense of it – from a poorer deal.

    D Smith is a political operative looking to further his career – its not good

  40. olskool711 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:19 PM

    So, lets get down to it.

    By reading PFT we are to assume that the players will benefit from this going to litigation.

    We are to assume that the supreme commander of fairness, David Doty, will come to the players rescue and continue to slap those big, bad, greedy owners around and show them what “fairness” really is. Clearly we are led to believe that you don’t mess with the Doty!

    Are we to assume that the owners won’t appeal his rulings? If they do appeal, which they have to, then real problems for football begins. I am sure they have already prepared and laid out their plans for this scenario.

    I am afraid that the owners may be prepared to go through this process. In the end their best chance of a complete and total restructure of the system exists.

    Some of you may trust the courts. You may have confidence that the leftist agenda will always be served by them. But, don’t be surprised if it blows up in the players faces.

    Funny things happen when very powerful men conspire.

  41. zaggs says: Mar 11, 2011 1:25 PM

    “descendency says: Mar 11, 2011 12:36 PM

    @buffalohogan

    The rookie wage scale is definitely a concession of the NFLPA. ”

    Actually quite the opposite. Established players wanted a rookie wage scale because they are tired of draftees making more money then guys who have been the league a few years. They was a rookie salary cap in place. Here again the owners gave ground (giving up a year before free agency) without the union giving anything.

  42. redsghost says: Mar 11, 2011 1:31 PM

    1) I believe Gov. Walker of Wis. could have the problem fixed by the end of the day (but the Union sure as hell wouldn’t like it !).
    2) “chc4 says:
    Mar 11, 2011 12:30 PM
    Bottom line is player revenues are outpacing revenue growth.”
    Taking a guess here that what this poster meant is that Players salary are outpacing revenue growth. I would think that player salaries WOULD be part of Player revenues. Regardless, the Owners still have to pay their players so that’s a financial obligation on their part regardless of what it’s “called”.
    I don’t understand ( or at least agree with) WHY the Owners would give ANYTHING other than salaries to the players!
    Do the owners get any of Peyton’s endorsement money? No, then why should Peyton get any of the Jersey/Hats/Concession money?
    Get Gov. Walker on the line.

  43. redsghost says: Mar 11, 2011 1:35 PM

    Also, let’s see the Union’s books for the last several years! Any bets the “Leadership” takes several million a piece in salaries per year?
    It would NOT surprise me if the Union brought in more money than say the Buffalo Bill’s owner!
    Why own a company if your employee’s make more money than you?!?!?

  44. patpatriotagain says: Mar 11, 2011 1:39 PM

    scytherius says: Mar 11, 2011 1:00 PM

    I wonder if some of you pay an ounce of attention, especially @buffalohogan Did you miss the concession where the NFLPA offered a significant reduction of it’s percentage of the “pie”? Guess so. That was almost right out of the box.
    ——————————————————
    you are the low i.q that the nflpa aims it’s PR at. there never was a significant concession. they currently get 60 % of the total revenue, after the 1 billion is subtracted from the 10 billion,They offered to “drop” their take to 50% of the total package of 10 billion. all they did was play with numbers.

    you bought it

  45. skeletaldrawing says: Mar 11, 2011 1:39 PM

    Anyone who says the players are mainly at fault is delusional to the point they should probably be on medication. The owners willingly signed a labor agreement with the players. The players aren’t asking for anything more, it’s the owners that decided to break the CBA and demand a new one. It’s the owners that illegally negotiated against the players interests with the TV contracts…and in doing so shows they’ve planned for a lockout for almost 2 years. And it’s been the owners claiming that their aren’t making enough money but without demonstrating this fact.

    To be sure, if the owners books show that profits are falling, I think the players should make concessions. It’s in everyone’s interests, including the players, for football organizations to be profitable. But the owners need to own up and demonstrate this, period.

  46. redsghost says: Mar 11, 2011 1:41 PM

    “@buffalohogan

    The rookie wage scale is definitely a concession of the NFLPA. ”

    No, it’s not. That money saved is simply going back to the veteran players instead, PLUS the owners lose a year or two of relatively low contractual rookie wages. Think 5 years of $ 1mil per year versus 3 years of 1mil per year AND the additional extra 2 years on the players next contract of say 5 mil per year. Which is better for the owners? 5 mil over 5 years or 3 mil plus 10 mil= 13 million over 5 years?
    Owners gave a big concession here, time to give back playa! But NO 18 games!

  47. redsghost says: Mar 11, 2011 1:43 PM

    ooppss. duplicate! My bad!

  48. jpk6044 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:48 PM

    Toe,
    Your figures certainly make sense but you did not account for what is essentially the owners largest profit-making enterprise and #1 reason they purchase a professional sports team: ownership itself. Case in point – I’m an Eagles fan. I know that Jeffrey Lurie paid something like $185 million for the team in 1994. Today, it’s worth a billion. I’m not an economist, but I would say that an 800% return on a 15-year investment is a pretty sweet deal anytime you can get it.

    I’m not begrudging the owners for their desire to make money, but they’re not the ones putting guns in their mouths 20 years after playing due to too many concussions. And 70% of the players will never be the millionaires the public thinks they are. The players are anything but greedy and to settle for something less than they’ve achieved in the CBA to this point would be a mistake. More power to them.

  49. chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 1:50 PM

    ducksmith — that is incorrect. I tried to post a number of articles written by sports business insiders like Darren Rovell and Andrew Brandt but this site nixes them apparently. There are revenue streams not included in the calculation of the salary cap and those have all but dried up. So the owners have lost revenue while salaries continue to go up. This is the crux of the issue.

    Someone mentioned earlier that owners claim they are losing money. Totally false. Most owners are making LESS money while the cap goes up every year. There are a handful of owners with new stadiums (Snyder, Jones to name two) that are making money hand over fist. But most are making less and the appetite for new stadiums is way down (rightfully so). Has the cap decreased? No.

  50. skeletaldrawing says: Mar 11, 2011 1:56 PM

    Reds, it’s still a concession. Yes, the money would work at going to play more established players, but a rookie wage scale also will greatly slow down the inflation of wages across the board. Right now the high cost of signing rookie players is a major driver of veterans asking for higher wages (“that guy made 8 million last year, and he sucked!”).

    It was a major request of the owners for that reason, and it’s absolutely a concession by the players when prematurely negotiating a new CBA because the owners won’t honor the previous one.

  51. chc4 says: Mar 11, 2011 2:07 PM

    Also notice the cap is based on % of revenue. Players do no share in the costs. As healthcare costs go up, which they are despite Obamacare (someone explain that one to me), that comes largely out of the owners pockets. When local govt’s raise taxes, which many are, owners pay that. They pay for travel, upkeep of the stadiums, etc. So if the increase in costs exceed revenue growth, that’s another issue owners feel the brunt of.

  52. thefiesty1 says: Mar 11, 2011 2:08 PM

    Another proposal? They don’t know what they want. Give us fans a break. Jeeeezzze!

  53. toe4 says: Mar 11, 2011 2:25 PM

    jpk6044,

    You have a point. But I was discounting that on purpose because it is so unequal amongst the owners.

    The main Steelers guy only owns like 15% of the team or something, as an example. Jim Irsay didn’t pay anything for the Colts they were bequeathed to him by his father, the infamous Robert Irsay. Stan Kroenke paid roughly $450m for the remaining 60% of the Rams.

    the differences are massive in terms of profit and the value of my home may increase by 50% and that is fantastic! But it doesn’t do jack for me today.

  54. redsghost says: Mar 11, 2011 8:02 PM

    skeletaldrawing says:
    Mar 11, 2011 1:56 PM
    Reds, it’s still a concession. Yes, the money would work at going to play more established players, but a rookie wage scale also will greatly slow down the inflation of wages across the board. Right now the high cost of signing rookie players is a major driver of veterans asking for higher wages (“that guy made 8 million last year, and he sucked!”).

    It was a major request of the owners for that reason, and it’s absolutely a concession by the players when prematurely negotiating a new CBA because the owners won’t honor the previous one.

    This throws water on your arguement Skeletal.

    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.

    If what you say is correct, this would have actually driven up veteran wages (not down as you stated)- note the “stay the same or more” and “savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!