Skip to content

Trent Dilfer echoes view that 2006 CBA was a great one for players

TrentDilferAPSuperBowl AP

More and more current and former players are singing the praises of the labor deal that the league and the NFLPA negotiated in 2006.  The latest to chime in?  Former NFL quarterback and current ESPN analyst Trent Dilfer.

“I have talked to people on both sides,” Dilfer told ESPN 710 in Seattle.  “I have always said from the get-go there had to be a lockout.  We won the last Collective Bargaining Agreement by so much.  I remember thinking when we actually signed the extension, ‘What are the owners doing?  I mean we are killing them on this.’  I was playing at the time and I reaped all the benefits of it.  I knew there had to be a lockout this time around.  I knew there’d be a lot of drama surrounding it; a lot of conjecture; a lot of lawyering going on.”

So when will it all end?

“I’ve always said the big chips didn’t put in yet,” Dilfer said.  “Sometime after the draft, in the middle of May, the big chips are going to be put on the table.  Whether it’s the President, Congress, the networks, the big dogs are going to step in and say, ‘There has to be football. You guys figure this out or there is going to be severe consequences.’  At that time we will see a deal put in place.  I don’t think it is going to affect the OTAs in the summer, or training camp at all, and we’ll be playing football in August as we always expect to.”

We hope he’s right.  And it’s becoming undeniable that, indeed, the players got a great deal in 2006.  The fact that they have at no point pushed for more in 2011 confirms that they view the current (now expired) terms as very favorable.

The challenge, as we’ll explain in more detail soon, is to come up with a way for both sides to plausibly claim victory.  There’s a way to do it — the two sides simply need to have the incentive to get it done.  Like Dilfer said, that’ll likely come when Congress or someone else with plenty of juice makes it known to both sides that the time has come to work things out.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
42 Responses to “Trent Dilfer echoes view that 2006 CBA was a great one for players”
  1. thetooloftools says: Mar 23, 2011 9:10 PM

    “I’ve always said the big chips didn’t put in yet,” Dilfer said.
    He is 100% correct as this is all about the money and too many have too much to lose.

  2. 3octaveFart says: Mar 23, 2011 9:12 PM

    “..2006 CBA was a great one for players”

    Sure it was.
    That’s why they agreed to it.

    So if it was so one-sided, why did the dumb-ass owners agree?

  3. mick730 says: Mar 23, 2011 9:17 PM

    I don’t know why the owners did what they did in 2006. All I know is that my team, the Packers, will not survive as a competitive franchise under the 2006 CBA. As Mark Murphy explained to shareholders two years ago, the current arrangement is unsustainable for the Packers.

    For the coming season, if there is one, 11 members of the Green Bay roster are scheduled to make, individually, more than the Packers made for fiscal 2010. That simply won’t work. The Packers don’t have an “evil billionaire” to bail them out, or to provide a inflow of cash or capital to allow them to be viable. There is no oil business on the side, no food business on the side, no computer software giant with a bottomless pit of money to bail us out. Everything we have to spend has to be generated by operations.

    The Packers fiscal year ends March 31st. It should be very intersting to see how the team performed financially given it was the year in which they won the Super Bowl. The financials have been trending downward severely since 2006.

  4. skoobyfl says: Mar 23, 2011 9:17 PM

    Trent’s financial background ?? 0.

  5. commandercornpone says: Mar 23, 2011 9:19 PM

    juice, perhaps.

    moral authority, uh, no.

    i expect the compromised installed prez to try and ring in. and help his bud duh.

  6. blackshirtz says: Mar 23, 2011 9:20 PM

    +2

  7. philriverslovespenis says: Mar 23, 2011 9:20 PM

    At least everyone can sleep well now knowing that Trent Dilfer has confirmed what every other person involved in the cba debacle has said.

  8. slickzmoney says: Mar 23, 2011 9:28 PM

    By comparison Congress is the only entity that makes the NFL look good right now. God forbid they cross paths.

  9. jimphin says: Mar 23, 2011 9:34 PM

    The CBA has ALWAYS been one sided. The players have chipped away more and more with every agreement. Once they realized the quality of their deal, they didn’t hesitate to opt out.

    Now the owners want to undo it. The players put them through it. They want to uh uh uh undo it.

    I say the players should throw them a bone and then get some back at the next one. Somewhere in here is the law of diminishing returns.

    Unfortunately, the players have taken so many head to head hits that this is beyond their compacity to comprehend.

  10. plundergrunge says: Mar 23, 2011 9:38 PM

    Trent Dilfer is such a punk. “I knew there had to be a lockout” You’re a bust and a loser.
    Pretty tasteful for a first post…
    I just can’t stand the guy…total douche.

  11. wryly1 says: Mar 23, 2011 9:39 PM

    Yet ALL the owners are SILL netting hundreds of millions in profits annually – and the game’s popularity and revenues continue to grow. It’s not the players who are asking for more, it’s the owners.

    Question: Were fans tuning in – and the networks and sponsors paying big bucks to watch the owners? Hellooo! Let’s keep our eye on the ball and not lose sight of who the revenue producers truly are – and it damn sure ain’t the owners.

  12. ravenator says: Mar 23, 2011 9:41 PM

    No sh*t sherlock!

  13. t1mmy10 says: Mar 23, 2011 9:43 PM

    “The fact that they have at no point pushed for more in 2011 confirms that they view the current (now expired) terms as very favorable.”

    what do you mean “they haven’t pushed for more?”

    they’ve asked for reductions in OTA’s, improvements in post-employment healthcare, improvement in peri-employment injury compensation (all reasonable and very much deserved).
    more contentious requests include more team financial info than a union probably ever deserves to know, a right to be paid by stock in teams, a reduction in length of rookie contracts & removal of RFA.

    the ONLY thing they haven’t asked for is more money…oh wait, i’m forgetting their demands for compensation for “loss” of salaries due to the increased requirements to reach UFA status in the uncapped season last year. nevermind.

  14. mrpowers88 says: Mar 23, 2011 9:45 PM

    Yes, the 2006 CBA was great for the players, but if a main reason why the owners opted out early was to “get back” at the players, they are completely in the wrong.

    “You got the better of us last time, so we’re not gonna let you play until you let us win.” is no way to go about any negotiations. The players are right to stand firm against the idiots/owners if this was one of the top reasons they opted out.

    The owners want more money, the players are gonna want something back, and theyre probably going to want to name their price. The owners are too hardheaded to realize that and as soon as they realize they can pretty much do anything with $4Billion that they’ll want to do with $5Billion (or more), the sooner negotiations will actually get somewhere/anywhere.

  15. johnjosephyossarian says: Mar 23, 2011 9:52 PM

    It was a good deal for the players because they had been screwed over before and this deal finally achieved equity with the owners. If it was that bad the owners would not have signed it. They saw an opportunity with the recession to make a power grab and that is what they have been planning the past three years. If owners were so broke they would not be building billion dollars stadium every year.

    I mean that does make sense to anyone?

    If you are claiming to be broke what are you doing building these over-the-top mega-palaces? It’s ridiculous. They spend a crap ton of money and then complain their expenses are going up. Well duh! Just because you’re literally trying to keep up with the Jones’ doesn’t mean the players have to finance that egotistic urge.

    And what the hell does Trent Dilfer know about economics?

  16. Burritto says: Mar 23, 2011 9:52 PM

    It’s funny that we might not have football because the former NFLPA wants detailed financials proving what everyone admits to be common knowledge.

    The owners signed an awful deal last time and now they want to balance things out. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t seem crazy to me.

  17. discostu570 says: Mar 23, 2011 9:54 PM

    If the owners were actually involved in competitive sport, they would know that when the other guy beats you, they aren’t expected to give you a free one the next time around.

    The fact that the players got a good deal last time doesn’t weigh against them this time. If anything, the current players owe it to the last generation to not give away what those players won. The only way the players will give up money is if the owners can prove it’s needed for the good of the game, and given the tremendous amounts of money we all know the owners are pocketing, no concessions need be made.

  18. ajtexans says: Mar 23, 2011 9:55 PM

    I’m guessing there will be a clarification issued in about 24 hrs., after DeMo’s boys get to Dilfer.

  19. flr29 says: Mar 23, 2011 9:56 PM

    Mark Murphy says the Packers cannot survive without paying the players less than their market value. Shocking.

    The NFL did not make any money last year. Yet Roger Goodell miraculously made $10M. And Jeff Pash made $5M. And Forest Gump didn’t make any profits. I am guessing Murphy’s intended audience does not understand accounting.

    The players know that the facts and the law are on their side. If the owners want to keep whining, more power to them.

  20. realfann says: Mar 23, 2011 10:22 PM

    @mick730

    Assuming what you say is factually correct, the league as a whole has enough revenue because total revenue has been going up faster than players salaries.

    So perhaps the Packers should ask why league revenue is not being shared equally amongst all teams.

    Because the facts are simple: if some teams are losing money or close to losing money, other teams MUST be making out like bandits.

    I’d start with Jurry “nobody gets to look at my books because I’m as honest as the day is long” Jones.

    PS The Packers are the most popular team in America, if the clots running it can’t make money they should be fired. Jeesh. Even I could run that franchise at a profit.

    But then again, maybe they’re not trying to?

  21. deconjonesbitchslap says: Mar 23, 2011 10:23 PM

    “now we go to one of our top nfl analysts, Trent Dil…

    /turns off TV.

    // replace trent dil… with Tim Hass…, mark schle… just about anybody on that network.

  22. deconjonesbitchslap says: Mar 23, 2011 10:26 PM

    that has to be a photoshopped picture. there’s no way that ever happened.

  23. mick730 says: Mar 23, 2011 10:30 PM

    The facts, flr29, are that the 2006 CBA contained a clause, agreed to by both the owners and their employees (NFLPA) that either party, without the approval of the other, could opt out of that CBA with a two year notice.

    That is the fact and that is the law. The NFL owners have deemed the CBA to be unworkable for them. Per the agreement with the union, the owners gave legal notice and opted out.

    If the owners and the employees, the union, cannot agree on a new CBA, there will be no football.

    Those are the facts. It’s really very simple. It has nothing to do with “slavery” or “union brotherhood” or any other such nonsense. It is a simply matter of economics.

  24. chief0727 says: Mar 23, 2011 10:37 PM

    This is news why? Of course the players reaped more out of the 2006 CBA than the owners. Thats why the owners utilized their option to get out of it. I’m sure the players would have opted out if they felt it wasn’t “fair” to them. Why did the owners agree to the 2006 CBA? Who knows, but as I recall that was the first CBA where the owners vote approving it was not unanimous.

    Just where did this foolishness that the owners and players are “partners” come from?? The NFL is a business. The players, whether they like it or not, are employees. The owners assume 100% of the financial risk. The argument that the players are entitled to more because they risk serious injury just doesn’t cut it. Police Officers and Firefighters risk their LIVES every day, yet are they considered “partners” with their cities and towns? Of course not. They are employees, just like most of us reading this site.

  25. southmo says: Mar 23, 2011 10:45 PM

    Missing the obvious union boys and girls. The 2006 agreement had an opt out clause. And the owners opted out. If that is so bad, and so evil of them, then why did your high and mighty player’s union agree to it?

    So rework the deal. Each side will gain something. The players will get things they didn’t have before, especially in regards to fewer offseason programs, better appeals processes, better health care, etc… and the owners will still have a financially stable business.

    Or go to court and see if you can shoot your own golden goose. Enjoy.

  26. moneymike23 says: Mar 23, 2011 10:54 PM

    Shame on you Paul Tagliabue for giving them this ridiculous deal in 06 and btw thanks for getting us in this mess.

  27. footballfanatic2010 says: Mar 23, 2011 11:00 PM

    The owners agreed to the last CBA to avoid a work stoppage…if the players were half as smart as the owners, they’d have the same commitment.

    Look at all the idiotic comments that have been made by several players. Playing in the NFL is now, “modern-day slavery.” Several have backed AP on that moronic comment.

    Add Trent Dilfer to the list of players that have acknowledged the last CBA was one-sided…my guess…this work stoppage would not have occurred if Gene Upshaw hadn’t died…but he did, and the players chose DeMoron Smith to be their leader. The players will lose more than the owners in this ridiculous work stoppage.

  28. rashardmendenballs says: Mar 23, 2011 11:07 PM

    Burritto says:
    Mar 23, 2011 9:52 PM

    The owners signed an awful deal last time and now they want to balance things out. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t seem crazy to me.

    ———————————–

    Do you seriously believe the owners did not make any money last year or in the last 4 years?!?!?

    Are you the tool that watches NFL games because of the owners?

    Since 1998 the average NFL franchise has risen 300%…come on you crooks!! You guys aren’t fooling the average Joe that is in business. If you are an NFL owner, you have been making hand-over-fist for the last 20 years.

    “But the owners have operating expenses like transportation, hotel and lodging and bluh bluh bluh”

    Those operating expenses are a drop in the bucket compared to what the owners receive in terms of the multiple streams of revenues that are coming in. Revenues like:

    Ticket sales (remember, as long as you keep paying, ticket prices will continue to go up)

    Media rights (CBS+ FOX+ ESPN+ NBC+ Sirus/XM + local radio broadcasting rights= the most lucrative and expensive rights of any American sport and all of Entertainment)

    Merchandise (keep on buying those $300 jerseys you trolls)

    Concessions ($18 water beers, $10 hot dogs)

    My point is this…If you are an NFL owner you have a licensed to print money.

  29. packerfantastic says: Mar 23, 2011 11:23 PM

    This is another example of why unions are bad for business.

  30. mick730 says: Mar 23, 2011 11:26 PM

    “And what the hell does Trent Dilfer know about economics?”

    Obviously a hell of a lot more than you and your friend rashardmendenballs. Btw, tomorrow, when you guys report to your SEIU office, could you kindly ask them to send a couple of people to post here with just a little bit more on the ball than you two? That would be helpful. Thanks.

  31. mick730 says: Mar 23, 2011 11:33 PM

    “Assuming what you say is factually correct, the league as a whole has enough revenue because total revenue has been going up faster than players salaries.”

    As is always the case realfann, you have access to either made up or incorrect facts.

    For fiscal year 2009, the Packers posted their highest revenue in the team’s history, but sadly, because of the CBA, expenses, primarily player costs, rose even faster. So realfann, may I suggest that you take a few minutes to review the Green Bay financial records, which as always, are public record, and then post without the hyperbole.

    As you must know, there is no owner of the Packers other than we shareholders. There are no family members skimming off the top as you people claim exists all over the NFL, there are no private jets owned or leased by the Packers and nobody takes junkets to Tahiti on company money.

    As a not for profit organization, the Packers must comply year in and year out with strict IRS guidelines in order to keep their not for profit status. In short, the team is not cooking the books.

    And since claim that you could run the Packers so much better than Mark Murphy, Ted Thompson and the others in the Green Bay administration, please enlighten us on what successful endeavor in which you are involved.

  32. thefiesty1 says: Mar 24, 2011 12:00 AM

    He did hoist the trophy with Baltimore a few years back. of course the defense won it.

    The 2006 deal was great for both players AND owners. They are jus ALL greedy jerks. The players are overpaid and the owners are richer than they were in 2006.

    They all are just like the oil company execs. Paid millions as CEO’s while the company are making billions in profits each quarter but continue to raise gas prices and blame it on the Middle East. What a rip! Owners, players and oil company execs all all a bunch of liars.

  33. flr29 says: Mar 24, 2011 12:17 AM

    mick730 says: Mar 23, 2011 10:30 PM

    —————————————–

    The owners have every right to opt out of the CBA. I did not say, nor imply that.

    I said the law is on the players’ side; if you don’t know that, I don’t think it is relevant. The two sides are going to court April 6, and the owners are the side begging to negotiate. The players know how American Needle went. 9-0. Ouch.

    And despite what you say, we can have a season without a CBA. Employers employing independent contractors do not need a CBA.

    This is indeed about economics. The players support paying a man what the free market determines, the owners want an anti-competitive cap on expenses. Not difficult to understand.

  34. duffer58 says: Mar 24, 2011 12:49 AM

    Mick730,
    I am also a Packer fan. Packers wont survive under 2006 CBA? That is laughable.
    The Packers are not losing money. They have fans waiting for season tickets for hundreds of years. They have one of the most loyal fan bases in NFL.
    They get the same television rights have everyone else.

  35. t1mmy10 says: Mar 24, 2011 1:24 AM

    no owner ever said they’re not making money, they said they’re not making enough money off of their billion dollar investments. the packers only had a 1% return on investment in 2009. that’s pretty crappy.

  36. broncsfan says: Mar 24, 2011 7:44 AM

    I think Dilfer’s right in predicting no serious work stoppage. The negotiations this spring were like trying to play poker without even getting to see the community cards – without a legal antitrust ruling, neither side really knew its bargaining power. The players had no leverage, so why not wait and see if the courts would give them some? The owners had nothing to lose, since the worst-case scenario for them was the status quo, so why not wait and see if their lockout works? Once this thing works its expedited way through the court system, I expect a deal won’t take all that long.

  37. biggerballz says: Mar 24, 2011 8:26 AM

    The owners should just say we won’t negotiate with terrorist players and cut everyone and start fresh with college rookies and set the market price a lot lower.

  38. flr29 says: Mar 24, 2011 10:47 AM

    biggerballz says: Mar 24, 2011 8:26 AM

    The owners should just say we won’t negotiate with terrorist players and cut everyone and start fresh with college rookies and set the market price a lot lower.
    ————————————————

    NFL contracts are not guaranteed. If the owners want to cut everyone, and replace their stars with players not good enough for the UFL, nothing is stopping them.

    But they won’t, because they know that will not allow them to maximize profits.

    The owners need to just grow up and act like every other business owner in America and accept revenue at the market rate, while paying expenses at the market rate.

  39. flr29 says: Mar 24, 2011 10:52 AM

    t1mmy10 says: Mar 24, 2011 1:24 AM

    no owner ever said they’re not making money, they said they’re not making enough money off of their billion dollar investments. the packers only had a 1% return on investment in 2009. that’s pretty crappy.
    ——————————————–

    The owners cannot have it both ways. Either the teams are not profitable, and thus not worth their current “billion dollar investments”, or the teams are worth their currently assessed value, and are profitable.

    This notion that the teams are both a) worth $1 billion, and b) not profitable (yet the owners are not actively lined up to sell) is absurd.

    The owners need to stop whining and run their businesses like adults.

  40. 3octaveFart says: Mar 24, 2011 12:40 PM

    biggerballz says: Mar 24, 2011 8:26 AM

    “The owners should just say we won’t negotiate with terrorist players”

    Terrorists?
    So now the NFL Players are the equivalent of those who pulled off 9/11.

    Uh-huh.

  41. t1mmy10 says: Mar 24, 2011 2:18 PM

    flr29 says: Mar 24, 2011 10:52 AM

    t1mmy10 says: Mar 24, 2011 1:24 AM

    no owner ever said they’re not making money, they said they’re not making enough money off of their billion dollar investments. the packers only had a 1% return on investment in 2009. that’s pretty crappy.
    ——————————————–

    The owners cannot have it both ways. Either the teams are not profitable, and thus not worth their current “billion dollar investments”, or the teams are worth their currently assessed value, and are profitable.

    This notion that the teams are both a) worth $1 billion, and b) not profitable (yet the owners are not actively lined up to sell) is absurd.

    The owners need to stop whining and run their businesses like adults.
    =================================
    1) once again, there is a difference between “not profitable” and “not as profitable as they ‘should’ be.” the owners are arguing for the later.

    2) just because an organization is worth a billion dollars doesn’t always mean they’re going make a lot of money. that’s simply a false assumption. the valuation of the teams was done by forbes, not by the owners. the packers revenue was based off of their public documents. and i’m guessing forbes valuation of the packers is pretty accurate since it’s a publicly traded team.

    3) in the past 3 years, 2 teams were sold (rams & dolphins). regardless the reason why those happened, other owners may not want to sell their teams yet because they think they can turn things around. but if things don’t improve for some owners, you can bet the ones that treat this solely as a business will also sell their teams.

    4) they ARE running their business like adults. they feel they aren’t making enough money & think players are making too much? they try to negotiate player cuts. players refuse to agree to a cut? they’ll legally lock them out. players file a lawsuit preventing the lockout? they’ll fight the lawsuit.

  42. realfann says: Mar 24, 2011 11:35 PM

    @mick730

    I said total league revenue is rising faster than total player compensation.

    That’s a FACT.

    If you telling me the Packers are run in the same way as the Cowboys with the same financial goals you are WRONG.

    The Packers are NOT run to maximize profits.

    And they don’t.

Leave a Reply

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