Skip to content

Owners continue to wallow in their 2006 blunder

Giants Owner Jury Duty Football AP

As the lockout continues and the litigation continues and everything but actual negotiation continues, one of the points the owners make from time to time to justify their quest for a new deal now relates to the fact that they did a bad deal in 2006.

“We made a mistake, no question about it,” Giants co-owner John Mara told Mike Lupica of ESPN 1050 in New York, via SportsRadioInterviews.com.  “And we deserve criticism for making that mistake.  The players, themselves, have acknowledged that they made a great deal back in 2006 and there were a number of us, myself included, who didn’t fully understand what we were doing in 2006.  We understood pretty quickly, within about a year after that.  At the end of the day, we’re businessmen who love football and we want to get a deal done that makes sense for our businesses and that’s good for the game and allows the game to grow.  There is a deal there to be made that would be fair for both sides.”

Whether there’s a deal to be made remains to be seen; for now, the players haven’t even made an offer in response to the league’s proposals of March 11 and May 16.  The fact that the owners are so willing to publicly chastise themselves for the last deal shows how badly they want a new deal done on very different terms.

And such talk puts even more pressure, in our view, on Commissioner Roger Goodell to persuade himself that the best interests of the game and all of its constituents mesh with the owners’ interests.  Though the last deal commonly is blamed on former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, Goodell was essentially Tagliabue’s right-hand man at the time.  If the league office were ever to get the ESPN book treatment, we’d find out why folks at 280 Park Avenue believe Goodell allowed the deal to happen.  Maybe he tried to resist it.  Maybe he thought it was a good deal.  Maybe he sensed that, without labor peace, Tagliabue wouldn’t retire in the months after the deal was finalized, and by the time he chose to leave maybe Goodell wouldn’t have had the inside track to the top job.

Regardless of those possible reasons, the mistake now haunts the league.  The manner in which the mistake will be rectified possibly is being shaped by owners who supported the last deal, and by a Commissioner who was in position to join with Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown and declare the deal to be a bad one.  Now that the last deal has been flagged as a failure, the only option is to fix it.  Anything less than a fix will only amplify the responsibility of the folks with their fingerprints on the last deal.

Permalink 79 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New York Giants, Rumor Mill, Top Stories, Union
79 Responses to “Owners continue to wallow in their 2006 blunder”
  1. btg1911 says: May 20, 2011 2:16 PM

    Will this be removed too?

    Divergent from every other poll and website that covers the subject, 95% pro-owner, player-bashing commentary in 3…2…1…

  2. duffer58 says: May 20, 2011 2:16 PM

    The Owners did not understand 2006 deal? Sorry I dont buy it. Give me a break.

  3. malthor says: May 20, 2011 2:17 PM

    would be a lot easier to fix if the players would negotiate at all.

    Not responding to offers, but instead decertifying the union and filing litigation is kinda how you define “not negotiating in good faith”

  4. tombradyswig says: May 20, 2011 2:19 PM

    DO WHAT YOU GOTTA DO TO GET A NEW DEAL IN PLACE!!

    SEEMS SIMPLE DOESN’T IT?!?!?!?!?!?

  5. duanethomas says: May 20, 2011 2:19 PM

    How could these astute smart billionaires get duped by dumb players? LOL………..

  6. bigbrad184 says: May 20, 2011 2:24 PM

    Goodell is a jerk and De Smith is an idiot. Both should have been fired by now.

  7. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 20, 2011 2:25 PM

    “Now that the last deal has been flagged as a failure, the only option is to fix it.”

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

    And that is precisely what the owners are doing.
    But the players and their greedy Pied Piper do not want to negotiate and only want to take the courtroom route.

    The players do not care if the league can survive under the current business model, they just want their money NOW. The league is trying to change the model so that the league can continue to grow.

    Until DEmo leads his band of blind followers over the cliff we will not get a deal. But thankfully the 8th Circuit is the cliff.

  8. Kaz says: May 20, 2011 2:26 PM

    “Owners continue to wallow…”

    30 of them anyway….

  9. harmcityhomer says: May 20, 2011 2:26 PM

    It was a sham.

  10. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 20, 2011 2:28 PM

    I can’t wait until more and more players/”partners”/inmates have to start taking out more 23% interest loans.

    Why isn’t DEmo helping out these players? He is raking in a fortune by stringing out this LABOR ISSUE in courtrooms.

  11. commoncents says: May 20, 2011 2:30 PM

    i will say, this supposed non-union is either doing a great job at keeping loudmouth players quiet, or the players are just happy to have the off-season off.

    The proverbial crap hitting the fan will come roughly the same day the players miss that first check. That’s a leverage point that De-Smith can’t do anything about, other than run and hide from the mob of players looking for his head. Can’t wait for that day, it should lead to some negotiations…

  12. radrntn says: May 20, 2011 2:30 PM

    yep bad deal, instead of making $100 million each ebitda, and they only made $75 million each….i feel bad that they made such a bad deal.

  13. mightygiants says: May 20, 2011 2:30 PM

    This article seems to have a clear pro-owner bias. The owner’s interest are the ones that are the best for the league?!?!?? Give me a break. The owner’s interests are about the owners making a much money as they think they can get away with,, nothing more or less.

  14. crubenst says: May 20, 2011 2:30 PM

    Its not wallowing its acknowledgement. Its over. They opted out which was part of the deal. They now need to negotiate a new deal. Should they A) simply extend a deal they think is bad for them or B) negotiate a new deal. Duh.

  15. devoodoo says: May 20, 2011 2:31 PM

    In all the exhaustive coverage of this dumb ass lockout, there’s one intriguing dimension that has received zero credence to this point, given that this whole battle is, boiled down to its core, a battle of public perception (owners v. players)…

    I think a significant factor in the public’s perception in all this is the fact that most NFL players were first minor football celebrities as college players. And from the public’s POV, we’ve seen all these guys on all the major TV networks leading up to their NFL careers, whether in major Bowl games, or whatnot.

    Point is — the public watched these young men play in college, play on very big stages, while THEY WERE GETTING PAID NOTHING.

    So they go from getting ZERO to getting nearly 60% of every dollar made in a multi-billion dollar industry. There’s a huge chasm at play here. College football is not too far behind the NFL in its overall revenue generation.

    I’m not exactly sure what the exact effect is of this discrepancy is in terms of today’s lockout. I’m just saying there IS an effect. How can the players so suddenly say they deserve a huge cut of the pie (and I’m not suggesting they don’t deserve it, btw) when they sacrificed their bodies for FREE to a near-equally lucrative industry?

  16. tomcous says: May 20, 2011 2:33 PM

    Do all COURT ORDERED MEDIATIONS last 48 hours and then adjourn for a month?

  17. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 20, 2011 2:34 PM

    They won’t be wallowing for long after the 8th Circuit makes it’s decisions, and DEmo and his band of blind, greedy followers start missing paychecks and bonuses.

    Start signing up for more 24% interest loans you SMART players cause your gonna have to start fighting off your baby mamas lawyers, jewelry store bills, credit card bills, mortgage holders, state child support enforcement agencies, and bailbondsmen

    CAN YOU DIG IT!!!!!!!!

  18. jashfibz says: May 20, 2011 2:34 PM

    I just want football….. Let me know when that happens.

  19. hedleykow says: May 20, 2011 2:38 PM

    2006 mistake probably won’t seem that bad anymore, when compared to losing anti-trust lawsuit in 2011.

  20. Kaz says: May 20, 2011 2:39 PM

    Simple. Split 50% with the players…. Profit and Cost. I wonder how much the players are going to contribute the the new Vikings stadium? After all the NFL as a whole will, and the team will. If they want half the profit they should get half the expense/risk. Can’t have your cake and eat it to.

  21. btg1911 says: May 20, 2011 2:41 PM

    The vitriol and the hate coming from so many of the posters here sure makes it seem like they have a personal axe to grind with the players.

    It’s almost like…

    …they work for the league.

  22. ntr0py says: May 20, 2011 2:41 PM

    Goodell’s boss desperately wanted a deal. Everyone, including the union, knew it.

    It wasn’t Goodell’s job to derail the agreement. It was the owners’ job. But instead they backed it big time.

  23. JSpicoli says: May 20, 2011 2:42 PM

    CAlling the cba in 2006 a mistake is purely posturing and an alibi allowing for the necessity of a restructured deal.

    You’re a lawyer, c’mon figure that one out yourself.

  24. gregjennings85 says: May 20, 2011 2:43 PM

    btg:

    I’m with you, this site has devolved into a full-blown NFL owner propoganda machine.

    Enjoy my comment for a few minutes, it will be gone soon enough.

  25. terrygca says: May 20, 2011 2:43 PM

    Can anyone spell out what changed between the deal that expired in 2006 and the 2006 deal? Why not base negotiations off the deal that expired in 2006 if that is where things went off the tracks? On what specific point(s) did the players dupe the owners?

  26. str82dvd says: May 20, 2011 2:43 PM

    I believe the owners knew what they were doing in 2006. If they pursued a better deal in 2006, you’d be hearing the same “LET ‘EM PLAY!” squealing from self-interested players and myopic fans. How telling was it that they included a bail-out option just 2 years into the deal?? So they bought labor peace for a couple years with a lopsided deal, planning to build leverage over that span.

    And that’s precisely what they did, negotiating with the networks to prepare for the lockout and other perfectly legal tactics. Unfortunately we have these socialists infesting the judicial system, which I’m sure they accounted for, but are annoying nonetheless.

    I don’t understand that herd of sheep called “fans.” They long for the old days when players were more accessible, smoked cigarettes between plays and pushed a broom in the off-season. Now they clamor for the players when the owners want to invest less in Ochocinco’s fleets of straight trucks and more into their business.

  27. theytukrjobs says: May 20, 2011 2:44 PM

    Both sides are still profitable. But I think that the owners are seeing less profits while the players have rising profits and therefore they want a different deal.

    But their stupidity should cost them something, in a “fair” world. So they should be getting less profits.

    If I were the owners I’d just put my foot down and say “any players who do not accept this deal XYZ are permanently banned from the NFL”. That will get something to happen.

  28. snowpea84 says: May 20, 2011 2:47 PM

    What has happened to this site? There has been a pretty been turn around to your sentiments regarding the causes or justifications for what’s happening.

    Did someone hack the site and start posting sensical articles?

  29. bearskoolaid1985 says: May 20, 2011 2:47 PM

    Shame on the owners for signing a bad deal. and shame on the players for not negotiating.

  30. nineroutsider says: May 20, 2011 2:50 PM

    Owners continue to wallow in their…money. I’m not hating on them for having money, but boo hoo hooo!

    On a serious note, I agree…they gave themselves the shaft (I want to take this so much further). Shut the whole thing down!

    The owners approach is akin to South Park’s Cartman who, upon not getting his own way, will pick up the ball and say, “Screw you guys, I’m going home!” and they are taking the league with them. They are smart guys who know how to get out of a bad business model that only nets billions.

    I know its all business, but we can play this game too and we are…(in my best Soup Nazi voice) “no season ticket money for you!”

  31. kniddynamite says: May 20, 2011 2:50 PM

    I’m puzzled by how this post, nor any preceding it that I’ve read, accepts the owners’ rhetoric about the 2006 CBA being a “mistake” without looking into the parameters by which this should be defined.

    In what way was the 2006 CBA bad for the owners?

    I’m not saying you should conclude it wasn’t a mistake, I’m saying that you haven’t addressed what exactly this entails, and given your readers enough context to come to their own understanding.

    On Forbes.com, for example, I’ve read a breakdown showing that the players’ compensation, as a percentage of all NFL revenues, both league-shared and local, has stayed more or less level over the last 10 years, both pre and post ’06 CBA. If anything, the players are receiving on average 1% less.

    If the players’ cut as a percentage of revenues isn’t what’s changed since the ’06 CBA, what is that’s made the present business model “unsustainable?”

    Also at Forbes, I’ve read about how the revenue disparity between the highest and lowest earning teams is rapidly growing, and that this growing gap between the NFL’s “have” and “have not” franchises is why there are some teams having trouble turning profit, while the Cowboys, Redskins and Patriots are raking in so much that the NFL owners are still collectively seeing record profits.

    This raises the important question, why is it only the ’06 CBA that’s being put into question here, and not the alterations made in ’06 to the NFL’s revenue sharing agreement?

    Since what’s changed since the ’06 agreements isn’t the player’s cut, but rather how the owners’ half finds itself distributed among the teams, why aren’t any NFL writers bucking the narrative of Owners vs. Players, and instead, addressing the issue wholistically, as it pertains to their readers, not in the confines that the owners or players want it to be looked at?

    Perhaps the members of the sporting press should take a cue from some of their colleagues in the business section.

  32. str82dvd says: May 20, 2011 2:56 PM

    @theytukrjobs

    Uh dude you can’t negotiate like that with talented people. Keep in mind these are the best football players in the world. You can negotiate, sure, but it’s never going to be that simple.

    If you didn’t see this battle coming the second they hired that tool DeMo, then you need to start paying more attention. He defines the term “chip on your shoulder.”

    Doesn’t anyone see the big picture in who these players choose to represent them? They obviously strike an adversarial posture when they choose these guys. “We gotta stick it to The Man before he sticks it to us, maaaaan!”

  33. tommythek says: May 20, 2011 2:58 PM

    Hey Mike, Please get us some more info. How was the 2006 deal different from the prior deals? What transpired over the nxt year that convinced the owners that the deal was bad? Please examine the Green Bay public finances and offer an opinion whether these figures can be extrapolated to the other 31 teams.

  34. puntpasskick says: May 20, 2011 3:03 PM

    Just because the owners made a mistake doesn’t mean that the players should be made to correct it.

    The league’s revenues are increasing and the only thing the owners care about is getting “their deal” and having the power back in their hands.

    How can there be a fair deal agreed upon when the owners plan is to fleece the players?

    The common misconception by PFT posters is that the players never negotiated, which is false. The players compromised $300 million dollars before they stood firm, and the owners were never budging,

    If the players never decertified ( and I’m not in support of the move although I can understand why they did it ), they would’ve been forced to take a bad deal and THAT IS NOT FAIR WHEN THE OWNERS HAPPILY ACCEPTED THE 2006 DEAL.

  35. lpd1964 says: May 20, 2011 3:04 PM

    WAHHHHHHH, I signed a bad deal. The billionare owners want the players to give back money and play two more games per season. In addition, the owners say the hell with health care and by the way, you’ll play two more games and not increase roster size. I think I side with the players.

  36. rdssc says: May 20, 2011 3:07 PM

    2006 Cap was based off of shared revenue
    2007 Cap was based off of total revenue
    Cap and floor keeps going up based on big market teams revenue small market teams go out of business because the floor keeps going higher faster.

    This is why revenue sharing and the books are the issue. If the owners can not find a better way to share revenue it is going to be a long hard lockout. The revenue sharing model is out dated and teams are focusing and being incented to find ways to grow revenue outside of shared revenue categories.

  37. moggy6actual says: May 20, 2011 3:08 PM

    All the 2006 deal did was delay the inevitable court fight that is now upon us.

  38. bluepike says: May 20, 2011 3:08 PM

    Between his comments to Mike Lupica and his previous editorial on his team’s website, John Mara is coming across as an honest and decent man with class. Though I’m not a Giants fan Mr. Mara is one of the owners that I do like and respect. Altogether, there are other owners that I like and respect and also owners that I really do not care for in the least.

    Having said that, if DeMaurice Smith and Jeff Kessler had just a little of this owners’ class, a deal would have been done long ago. Unfortunately, neither of the two appear to have ANY class at all. Especially De Smith – who from what I’ve seen of him – is nothing more than a “sideshow barker”. Barnum & Bailey would be very proud to also display him as one of their clowns – all he’s missing is a caliope.

    De Smith, in my point of view, is very definitely the villain is this matter. Always spewing forth venom and hatred with never a single encouraging word – NEVER a one, EVER. He seems to have brought along Drew Brees, much to my surprise and disappointment, to carry-on in the same pathetic and counter-productive manner as himself. All this has led to is almost ten weeks of – NOTHING! Nothing but wasted time, money and energy – not to mention all the ill-feelings that De Smith has been the architect of.

    It’s easy to see, IMO, that after reading John Mara’s editorial, that Mr. Mara is more than being a sane, reasonable man who is open to compromise. The last CBA, who Trent Dilfer (still a player at the time) described as lopsided in favor of the players and couldn’t believe that the owners accepted it, is plainly not a good working model – PERIOD! Why Drew Brees and the rest of the rank-and-file choose not to acknowledge this as they blindly follow De Smith is beyond me.

    I feel that a critical point in time has been arrived at – it’s time to save the season guys (players). Get rid of this DeMoron who is so fascinated with himself, advise him that his 15 minutes are up and get a fair deal with a fair man like John Mara at the negotiating table.

  39. depotnator says: May 20, 2011 3:09 PM

    Perhaps back in 2006, the owners, league, and players union didn’t employ so many high-priced big shot lawyers. There was a handshake relationship between Tags and Upshaw. Fans didn’t have to take sides because there was no lockout. If the lawyers didn’t advise a lockout this time, and football continued to be played while negotiations take place under 2010 rules, there wouldn’t be such turmoil. The owners WANT turmoil to force their deal down the players throats. How else can you explain a lockout strategy that has been planned fror the past two years? Tags and Upshaw would never had allowed football to come to a halt like this. Has anyone pondered how Upshaw would have dealt with Goodell? Have the owners taken advantage of the absense of the Upshaw-era labor peace?

  40. depotnator says: May 20, 2011 3:13 PM

    BTW, Tags used to be a paid consultant to the NFL. I do not know if he still is. It would be interesting to know his opinion on the current impasse. Why hasn’t the media sought interviews from him, or why hasn’t it been reported that he refuses to grant interviews. He sure would make a great guest on NFL Network or SiriusXM radio.

  41. bcvv says: May 20, 2011 3:20 PM

    The owners gave a much larger percentage to the players in 2006. They knew all along they could opt out and they planned this lockout for years, don’t be fooled. Thus the lockout insurance, etc.

    Maybe the last CBA would have worked today if our economy hadn’t crashed. I’m sure the owners felt quite the pinch in lost ticket, concession, parking, and merchandise (scams) I mean sales. Turns out maybe they NFL needs us common fans and not just big corporations buying luxury boxes.

  42. kindbass says: May 20, 2011 3:21 PM

    The majority of owners are NOT the smart, savvy businessmen that most of you believe them to be. Most of them inherited their teams, anyways. Meaning: they don’t really know what they’re doing. And then there’s the Dan Snyders of the world, who made their fortune by operating their business on the border of legality and basically climbed the ladder by stepping on everyone else.

    Sorry, when I think of the owners, I think of Dan Snyder suing an old grandmother for not being able to afford her PSLs after the price got jacked up. “Sorry, you signed a contract!”

    Guess what, Dan? “Sorry, you signed a contract!”

  43. EJ says: May 20, 2011 3:23 PM

    For all of you PFTers who have bashed or mocked Mr Ralph Wilson in the past…

    No one can say anything about his age being his downfall. The man is wise. He is one of the two owners that understands the business side of football.

    Go Bills!!!

  44. marjones45 says: May 20, 2011 3:25 PM

    I find this statement by Mara refreshingly honest. The owners screwed up. Now that’s honest. Don’t tell me how the cost have suddenly and amazingly jumped up and you just didn’t see that coming. Don’t sit there and insult me with “you don’t know how to read an income statement” or BS like how the metrics don’t work in our favor, etc, etc, etc. We screwed up. Thats honest. Done. They opted out. Thats fair, and thats their right to do so and THAT is actually what the opt out clause is for. We get into a contract and a year or two later, we just screwed this up. That is the most honest statement from either side I have heard since this began.

    Having manned up and admitted a sizeable error on their part, the owners should lift the lockout, put the players back to work, and get back to the bargining table, both sides. I made a mistake is a most honest and correct thing to say. While I have no respect for BS, and even less for a liar, I can respect a guy that admits an error. Lift the lockout in good faith, and invite the players back. The fans will overwhelmingly shift their opinions to the owners if they come clean, which Mara does and make a good faith gesture. I assure you.

    Today, after hearing a good guy and respected owner like Mara say something like that begins to change my opinion about the owners. Now we need to move on with a new, fair deal for both sides. An agreement, any contract, has to be beneficial to both parties or it is not a good one.

  45. jbaxt says: May 20, 2011 3:32 PM

    You want to see “wallow”? Wait till these clowns (players) stop getting paychecks. Better lock your doors!

  46. tommyf15 says: May 20, 2011 3:37 PM

    hedleykow says:
    2006 mistake probably won’t seem that bad anymore, when compared to losing anti-trust lawsuit in 2011.

    My thoughts exactly.

    The owners are trying to push a “hey, we gave away the store five years ago and now an adjustment must be made”, which I refuse to accept at face value.

    My solution- let the 32 individual teams pay the players whatever their owners see fit. If Ralph Wilson doesn’t like 59% he’s free to pay 40% or even 10%.

  47. iamtalkingsolistenandlearn says: May 20, 2011 3:40 PM

    Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Jeff Lurie, Zygi Wilf, William Clay Ford, Paul Allen, Stan Kroenke, Tom Benson, the Glazers, Arthur Blanks, Jerry Richardson, Bob Kraft, Woody Johnson, Ralph Wilson, Steven Ross, Steve Biscotti, Bob McNair, Bud Adams, Alex Spanos, Al Davis, Pat Bowlen, Wayne Weaver

    All the above did not inherit their teams.

    So obviously you don’t know jack.
    Next time get your facts straight before posting stupid comments

  48. preludetosmack says: May 20, 2011 3:47 PM

    I think it’s funny that so many comments from pro-player people insist that there must be constituants from the owners in here.

    Last I checked, there have been about twenty times as many players who are confirmed PFTplanet members as there are team/league officials.

    Should all of us who can make educated and sound posts supporting the owners begin claiming that anyone supporting the players is actually a player?

    I guess it would explain the number of errors in each post supporting the players…

  49. grandpoopah says: May 20, 2011 3:56 PM

    A few commenters here have hit on the real issue – i.e. the revenue sharing model needs to be refreshed to keep the small market teams in the black. But Jerry Jones and his ilk don’t want to give a bigger slice to the Ralph Wilsons, so they are looking to squeeze the players instead.

  50. jcg23 says: May 20, 2011 4:02 PM

    @kindbass You realize that the contract he signed had a clause in it that allowed for him to “opt out” and that is what he did. Not sure why folks still think that the owners want all this stuff.

    The last offer that I read had everything back to just about 320 million between them and the players walked away from it. The owners had backed off the 2 extra games etc etc. The players need to let the owners save face, because the owners more than let them save face by letting them bully them down to such a low number.

    Folks are spewing stuff without knowing the facts here. The owners had every right to back out of the contract, it allowed them to do so. They broke no contract. The players aren’t having to pay a dime, in fact they are by all accounts gonna make more money this year than last and so on and so on. All it is doing is slowing down the rate of gain.

    The owners agreed to everything they wanted save for that 320 million and the players balked at it. I’m just amazed at the shear ignorance of most posters still going with old information. Read up folks!! It isn’t all on the owners here. This is the reason that just today in CA they found out their life guards were making 6 figure salaries and were able to retire with 90% of their salary for the rest of their life.

    A bad deals a bad deal and I pray that the players see the big picture that if it continues on. That sure the owners won’t be hurting for a while. But eventually no one is going to be able to pay a player what the CBA was saying they needed to be paid. Why not stop it now rather than wait til the league is on the verge of bankruptcy? Who wants to really see the Govt have to bail out the NFL in 10 years? I sure don’t.

  51. andrewfbrowne says: May 20, 2011 4:05 PM

    I’m a Bills fan (it is not for the weak) and I remember after the 2006 deal reading Ralph Wilson comments on the deal and he said they only had 45 minutes of discussion on it before they voted. He said that he didn’t understand why they had to vote as quickly as they did and he didn’t understand the deal and what he did understand he didn’t like. He said it was bad for the league and really bad for small market teams in general.

    You split billions of dollars and you only get 45 minutes to read the probably thousand page document. Yeah, they maybe messed up a bit.

  52. jcg23 says: May 20, 2011 4:12 PM

    @andrewfbrowne Sounds like our Healthcare law!

  53. depotnator says: May 20, 2011 4:14 PM

    It is either difficult or just dumb for as poster like EJ come here to defend the owner of his perennially losing Bills. Most Bills fans know the franchise is on suicide watch until Ralph Wilson croaks. Then the franchise will be bought and moved to a market with more local revenue opportunities.

  54. preludetosmack says: May 20, 2011 4:19 PM

    Next up… why do so many player-supporters (I think I’ll call them athletic-supporters, or jock-straps from now on) try to beat the, ‘the owners are the smart guys, they couldn’t have done a bad deal before and they’re just being greedy now’ drum?

    There are bad business deals agreed to every day… there are TERRIBLE business deals made by astutely intelligent businessmen. That’s part of the risk of doing business.

    The most well-thought out, best researched, and well-informed decision can turn out to be a bad one. There are tons of deals I could point to that seemed smart and/or were trumpeted by all the ‘smart-guys’ at the time of their conception, but turned out to be historically bad.

    Just because the owners agreed to a bad deal in 2006, a deal that was bad enough that they realized it in under a year, and opted out of it in two years, just because they did that, does not mean that they aren’t smart… it means that they took one of the risks associated with doing business and that it didn’t pan out.

    The fact that they had the foresight to put in an opt-out shows that they are smart businessmen.

    And frankly, if the owners were as greedy as the lot of the jock-straps would have us to believe, why would they have ever agreed to a deal that was so rewarding for the players?

    If 1% of what has been said about the owners were true, players would still need offseason jobs to make ends meet (it wasn’t that long ago that this was the case). Since that’s obviously not the case, perhaps the rhetoric about evil billionaires hoarding their cash can be toned down a bit?

  55. thetooloftools says: May 20, 2011 4:20 PM

    If public opinion turns on both the owners and the players you ALL are going to lose a ton of cash. I’m starting to wane right now and they haven’t missed any games yet.

  56. kindbass says: May 20, 2011 4:23 PM

    jcg23 says:
    May 20, 2011 4:02 PM
    @kindbass You realize that the contract he signed had a clause in it that allowed for him to “opt out” and that is what he did. Not sure why folks still think that the owners want all this stuff.
    ____________________________________
    I’m NOT AT ALL saying that the owners had no right to opt out of the CBA. That’s stupid.

    All I’m saying is don’t complain about agreeing to a raw deal when you’ve made your fortune on making people agree to a raw deal (Dan Snyder was my example – there’s more than enough evidence out there).

  57. truenblue says: May 20, 2011 4:29 PM

    The pro-owner shills would have us believe that players are uneducated borderline retards who would be working at McDonalds is not for football. And the owners are independently brilliant financial overlords of capitalism. But in 2006 the borderline retards all negotiated the brillant overlords of capitalism under the table, therefore the owners had no choice but to opt out of the existing CBA.

    Here’s a little prediction … if the owners got everything they wanted tomorrow, they would still claim they’re all going broke and the player’s need to make substantial sacrifices for the good of the league at the next labor negotiation. And people will buy the spin, just like they buy the current spin, hook line and sinker.

  58. xxxfixxxerxxx says: May 20, 2011 4:30 PM

    @andrewfbrowne

    Exactly right. The wrongness of the owners was to sign a deal in good faith so there didn’t have to face a work stoppage. They signed the deal in haste and now are paying the consequenceses.

    What bothers me is that the owners really didn’t do anything illegal, they excercised the opt out clause the players agreed on. The business model was not working for the owners, simple, there’s no evil envolved.

    The overall problem is that for the NFLPA representatives and some players there’s not turning back and they’re the ones that are not negotiating in good faith. What they don’t understand is that the past deal was good for them and even if they have to give a little the numbers will still be good for them.

    We will have to wait and see how NLFPA and players react. Will they negotiate or keep playing the court game?

  59. anonymouslyanonymouscommentor says: May 20, 2011 4:33 PM

    All you rigid pro-owner people seem like the type who would like sayings like “When you give your man your word, you stick to it”or “You made your bed, now lie in it”

    Haven’t the owners done the opposite of that here? Didn’t they agree to a deal and then 2/3 of the way through decide they just didn’t like it? What if the players did that? I bet we would see numbers more like 75/25 then. Some of this blind support makes no sense. The owners are the one who backed out of the deal. The players could have chosen to not even listen to negotiation attempts. I’m willing to bet a lot of people here would want the owners to do just that if the situation was reversed. I just don’t get it.

  60. xxxfixxxerxxx says: May 20, 2011 4:42 PM

    @anonymouslyanonymouscommentor

    honest questions:

    Did the owners do anything illegal back in 2008? (excercising opt out clause)

    Would you be mad at the players had they been the ones they didn’t like the business model?

  61. burntorangehorn says: May 20, 2011 4:45 PM

    What’s missing is that Tagliabue himself said that the 2006 deal was never meant to last, but rather to be renegotiated very soon. But the players wouldn’t budge on it, because Smith is only interested in gaining ground, not pragmatic compromise.

  62. depotnator says: May 20, 2011 4:50 PM

    “Did the owners do anything illegal back in 2008? (excercising opt out clause)”

    Perhaps you forgot that they DID do something illegal as part of their 2008 opt out strategy: they renegotiated TV contracts to provide themselves $4B even if no games are played during a lockout.

    Oh, you forgot about that, didn’t you…

  63. truenblue says: May 20, 2011 4:58 PM

    Which part of “pragmatic comprimise” consisted of demanding an 18 game schedule?

  64. gregjennings85 says: May 20, 2011 4:59 PM

    iamtalkingsolistenandlearn:

    “Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder, Jeff Lurie, Zygi Wilf, William Clay Ford, Paul Allen, Stan Kroenke, Tom Benson, the Glazers, Arthur Blanks, Jerry Richardson, Bob Kraft, Woody Johnson, Ralph Wilson, Steven Ross, Steve Biscotti, Bob McNair, Bud Adams, Alex Spanos, Al Davis, Pat Bowlen, Wayne Weaver

    All the above did not inherit their teams.

    So obviously you don’t know jack.
    Next time get your facts straight before posting stupid comments”
    __________________________________

    Ha ha ha, yeah, you’re right…

    William Clay Ford inherited the Ford Motor Company.

    Woody Johnson is the great-grandson of the founder of Johnson & Johnson.

    Robert Kraft married into a multi-millionaire’s family.

    Stan Kroenke married the daughter of Sam Walton.

    Bud Adams was borne into one of the wealthiest oil production families in the US at that time.
    __________________________________

    Sure they worked, but it’s a lot easier to become a billionaire when you are worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    The last thing any these gentlemen need is anyone coming to their aid.

  65. depotnator says: May 20, 2011 5:13 PM

    This is an article on the 2006 CBA agreement that I hope doesn’t get deleted. It gives a background on how crafty Tags was in arm twisting 3 diferent factions owners to agree on a settlement. Goodell just isn’t that kind of politician.

    Owners finally come to resolution on revenue sharingAmid a lot of fast-paced discussions and much confusion, the NFL owners eventually agreed on a deal with the NFLPA.Email Print

    GRAPEVINE, Texas — Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson spent two days with his head spinning and he wasn’t alone.

    After being overwhelmed by hearing endless percentages and terminology spewed at a fast pace, Wilson sided with Mike Brown of the Bengals and voted no on the NFL Players Association’s proposal to extend the collective bargaining agreement.

    “It’s a very complex proposal and I really didn’t understand it,” Wilson said. “I didn’t think I was a dropout but maybe I am. I didn’t understand it.”

    “ It’s been a long, long process. Halfway through (Wednesday), I didn’t think it was going to get done. I think Paul [Tagliabue] did a heck of a job of corralling people who could have gone in a lot of difference directions and built some consensus. ”
    —Redskins owner Daniel Snyder

    Fortunately, 30 other owners and a wily commissioner did understand as the NFL agreed to a six-year CBA extension that brings labor peace to the league through 2011. The league was staring at an economic black hole — and loss of the salary cap — that only 16 remaining owners from the pre-labor peace days understood. For two years, the parties failed to reach a deal in part because of the revenue-sharing issue that created a greater gap between high and low-revenue teams.

    NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw gave commissioner Paul Tagliabue the hammer to put in place a revenue-sharing agreement Wednesday night, imposing an 8 p.m. ET deadline on accepting a CBA extension that gobbled up 59.5 percent of teams total revenues. Literally 25 minutes before the bewitching hour of potential labor unrest and an uncapped 2007, Tagliabue brought together three diverse factions of owners to craft a revenue-sharing deal that passed 30-2.

    The final three hours of owner negotiations were so fast and furious that everyone’s heads were spinning. Tagliabue and Upshaw couldn’t even finalize a start to free agency. Scheduled to start at 12:01 a.m. Thursday, free agency was pushed back a day upon acceptance of the union proposal. Because of the complications of the deal, Upshaw is expected to agree to push it back again until 12:01 a.m. Saturday.

    Terms sheets weren’t readily available for general managers, agents and players Wednesday night. This much was known: The cap in 2006 will be $102 million, an increase of $7.5 million over the projected $94.5 million cap for 2006. That’s a $16.5 million increase from the $85.5 million cap of 2005. The 2007 cap will be $109 million.

    Tagliabue was asked about the proration of signing bonuses, but he joked that he couldn’t remember if his granddaughter was six years old or if the proration for signing bonuses was four. Proration will be five years in 2006 instead of the current four. The proration will be six years in 2007 and five in 2008. What that means is it will be easier for teams to structure bigger deals for top five draft choices and the highest paid free agents.

    Also confusing is the bottom line figure on the revenue sharing. Tagliabue said $500 million of local team revenue will be put in a pool for the lower-revenue teams in the first four years of the six-year agreement. The incremental revenue-sharing plan, as it is called, will cost high-revenue teams between $850 million and $900 million over the six years. The top five revenue teams will pay the most; teams between six through 10 in revenue will pay the second most and 11 through 15 will pay the lowest third of that revenue-sharing pool.

    What all this means for the league, the owners and the players is labor peace. For fans, it means roster peace. The Colts now have extra cap room to try to keep linebacker David Thornton and possibly halfback Edgerrin James. The Seahawks won’t lose transition tagged Pro Bowl guard Steve Hutchinson to a team trying to squeeze the Seahawks, who already had ample space under the cap. For close to three dozen players scheduled to be cut Wednesday night, they get a temporary reprieve.

    Kerry Collins
    Quarterback
    Oakland Raiders

    Profile
    2005 SEASON STATISTICS
    Att Comp Yds TD Int Rat
    565 302 3498 20 12 77.3

    The Raiders have time and cap space to keep quarterback Kerry Collins. The Redskins may eventually cut six players but they’ll likely still be players in the free agent market. Now, everyone will be under the cap and have the ability to keep players they want and to bid for players from other teams. Most importantly, they kept the salary cap and have fixed labor costs until 2011.

    “It was a compromise by all parties and I think that makes it great,” Steelers owner Dan Rooney said.

    “I wanted it, and we had to have it,” Raiders owner Al Davis said of the deal. “We do have the greatest game in the world, and we got what we wanted.”

    Davis had an interesting theory about the vulnerability of the NFL had it not reached a deal and had an uncapped 2007 and no CBA in 2008. Understand Davis’ background. He was the former commissioner of the American Football League who orchestrated a merger with the NFL after years of fighting to steal their players. Davis feared the NFL could have been challenged by a new league in 2008.

    “There’s always the possibility of a new league,” Davis said. “You have to understand it. I do. I lived it. I coached and was a commissioner of a new league that forced a merger. I know how to do it. I really believe the numbers are there where it would be very simple to have a 10-team league. You see with no cap and no draft and no agreement with the players. They had a problem, too, because they would have anarchy. Gene [Upshaw] would be out eventually and the whole group would have been disbanded eventually because people would go their own way.”

    A lot was at stake Wednesday and it was fascinating as the revenue-sharing deal came together. Early Wednesday, there was no consensus and it looked as though the owners would blow the deadline and lose the salary cap. The Steelers and the Ravens came up with a plan that caused teams to put 25 percent of the revenue in a pool to be set aside to help low-revenue teams. The Patriots and Jets pushed an already existing supplemental pool that is worth $40 million a year and put big numbers to that.

    By mid afternoon, things got hot. Tension built and egos started to flair. Jerry Jones of the Cowboys came out and said things were going backwards. One of the reasons high-echelon clubs generate so much revenue is because they have owners such as Jones, Dan Snyder, Bob McNair and others who wait for deadlines to make the best deals.

    Jones worked with Arthur Blank of the Falcons to get sides together. Jerry Richardson of the Panthers, Pat Bowlen of the Broncos and John Mara of the Giants tried to find ways to come up concepts that would fit within the Steelers-Ravens model and the Jets-Patriots model. Tagliabue kept everyone focused on the deal during the final two hours.

    Accountants and lawyers sat outside meeting rooms reviewing concepts. Finally, the sides came together and the high-revenue clubs worked out the compromises with the moderates to blend a deal that works.

    “It’s been a long, long process,” Redskins owner Dan Snyder said. “Halfway through today I didn’t think it was going to get done. I think Paul did a heck of a job of corralling people who could have gone in a lot of difference directions and built some consensus.”

    The foundation of the league was how Wellington Mara of the Giants gave up the lucrative New York television market and shared television revenue to get the NFL off to its unparalleled success. Mara passed away last year. In the spirit of Mara, the Snyder, Jones, McNair and others went back to the roots and shared.

    Mara would have been smiling Wednesday night. His league stayed true to his spirit. It was a banner day in the NFL.

  66. nflfan101 says: May 20, 2011 5:28 PM

    The truth is that, for whatever reason, the owners may have made a bad deal (CBA) for themselves, but THEY HONORED THEIR DEAL. Their deal with the union also included an opt out provision which the owners exercised. The owners did not arbitrarily violate the agreement with the union.

    However, the players did violate the agreement (CBA) by decertifying the union and having players file suit BEFORE the NFL/player deal (CBA) expired.

    The NFL is not blaming the players for a bad deal and no one is trying to screw the players. Rather, the old CBA needs to be tweaked.

    Why can’t the NFL and players simply swap lower overall player payout for no restricted free agency or something like that. – Oh! I know! Because D. Smith wants to litigate and show the NFL that he is the baddest ass in town.

    FACT: D. Smith walked out of CBA negotiations, decertified the union, had certain players file suit, and then did not attend at least one court ordered mediation session.

    If fans, players, and PFT employees really want football, then tell D. Smith to get his butt into negotiations.

  67. stevecmh says: May 20, 2011 5:31 PM

    @kniddynamite

    Careful buddy, last time I quoted Forbes.com on this site I was accused of posting “bs”.

    But seriously, thanks for adding a logical voice to the debate and pointing out a significant void in the information being distributed.

    I would also like to know specifically how the last CBA was so bad for the owners. It’s hardly persuasive for the owners to simply keep repeating that they need more money.

  68. nahcouldntbethat says: May 20, 2011 5:37 PM

    The 2006 deal was a great deal for owners who understood how to make lots of money outside the revenue streams designated to be shared in the deal.

    It was terrible deal for owners who didn’t know how to generate those revenue streams or who were in markets that didn’t have access to the “outside” money at the same level as other markets.

    Basically sheep owners living off of the TV money and the gate were going to be absolutely killed by the deal over time, whereas creative owners who knew how to market the team well and create additional revenues from other tie-ins were going to do very well, make a killing even.

    The opt-out happened because there are many more sheep owners in the NFL than Jerry Joneses. It became clear that the players were winning and Jerry Jones was winning and a few other franchises were winning and the rest of the NFL owners were slowly sinking into the mire.

    This is an owners vs owners situation. It’s purely about how unshared revenues are causing some teams to have real financial hardships and giving windfall profits to others.

    The NFL couldn’t open up the books because this would become clear and then the concept of taking money from the players to give to the owners would seem like a short-lived solution that would eventually fail also. Opening up the books would have lead to a real push for real revenue sharing among the owners and that is why we’re sitting where we are right now.

    Jerry Jones is going to turn the NFL into a free market where he has the best chance to retain his profits without ceding them to other teams in revenue sharing. It’s what’s smart for Jerry Jones and the Cowboys. Almost everybody else involved from the other owners to the players to the league itself is playing the patsy here.

  69. ghostrider45 says: May 20, 2011 5:48 PM

    If they had listened to Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson they wouldn’t be in this mess right now.
    You can say what you want about them, but the men were the only smart owners to be had.

  70. truenblue says: May 20, 2011 6:13 PM

    “I would also like to know specifically how the last CBA was so bad for the owners. ”

    Because they said they are, and rich powerful men are “daddy” by people with authoritative personalities, while players (or any labor) are looked upon as merely “siblings”.

  71. truenblue says: May 20, 2011 6:16 PM

    “nahcouldntbethat”

    You nailed it. And the owners are going to be playing the same sad violin music in the next labor negotiation, because the main critical issue of the NFL … the difference between the have and have nots of ownership … aren’t going to be peremamently solved just by getting the players to fork over more of their percentages.

    And the gullible fools are going to keep buying it and blaming it all on the players.

  72. melonnhead says: May 20, 2011 7:33 PM

    If the players never decertified ( and I’m not in support of the move although I can understand why they did it ), they would’ve been forced to take a bad deal and THAT IS NOT FAIR WHEN THE OWNERS HAPPILY ACCEPTED THE 2006 DEAL.

    ——————————————————

    Who says they were so happy about it? If they were happy, why did they write an opt-out into the deal?

  73. melonnhead says: May 20, 2011 7:35 PM

    If they had listened to Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson they wouldn’t be in this mess right now.

    ————————————————–

    If they had listened to Brown and Wilson, the NFL would still be a small-time operation and baseball would still be the country’s national pasttime.

    Those guys voted against because they didn’t like the revenue sharing aspect of the CBA.

  74. melonnhead says: May 20, 2011 7:41 PM

    Haven’t the owners done the opposite of that here? Didn’t they agree to a deal and then 2/3 of the way through decide they just didn’t like it? What if the players did that?

    —————————————————–

    Players do that all the time.

  75. melonnhead says: May 20, 2011 7:57 PM

    The pro-owner shills would have us believe that players are uneducated borderline retards who would be working at McDonalds is not for football. And the owners are independently brilliant financial overlords of capitalism. But in 2006 the borderline retards all negotiated the brillant overlords of capitalism under the table, therefore the owners had no choice but to opt out of the existing CBA.

    —————————————————–

    Funny, but the “brilliant overlords of capitalism” are still going to be making a lot of money from TV contracts to the tune of about $4 billion that will continue to be paid even if not a single down of NFL football is played in 2011, not to mention all of the merchandising money. Aside from any contractual bonuses that come due whether they play or not, the “uneducated borderline retards who would be working at McDonalds if not for football” get weekly checks during the season. “During the season” is the operative phrase here, because the season doesn’t start until sometime after the lockout is ended by the “brilliant overlords of capitalism”.

  76. melonnhead says: May 20, 2011 8:01 PM

    Jerry Jones is going to turn the NFL into a free market where he has the best chance to retain his profits without ceding them to other teams in revenue sharing. It’s what’s smart for Jerry Jones and the Cowboys. Almost everybody else involved from the other owners to the players to the league itself is playing the patsy here.

    ——————————————————

    Wow, you’ve got it all fiugured out! Except for the fact that you’re wrong. This is the part of revenue sharing that Jones has a problem with (from an article cited, above). I mean he’s only said as much SEVERAL TIMES:

    “Also confusing is the bottom line figure on the revenue sharing. Tagliabue said $500 million of local team revenue will be put in a pool for the lower-revenue teams in the first four years of the six-year agreement. The incremental revenue-sharing plan, as it is called, will cost high-revenue teams between $850 million and $900 million over the six years. The top five revenue teams will pay the most; teams between six through 10 in revenue will pay the second most and 11 through 15 will pay the lowest third of that revenue-sharing pool.”

  77. smellmyface says: May 20, 2011 8:03 PM

    @kindlife

    Its called reality. Snyder didnt twist that old ladys arm and make her sign a season ticket contract. Your way of thinking is what brings this country down. People need to be held accountable. In your world i could buy a new car and lose my job a year later and should be able to return the car and walk away huh? The players are NOT partners, they come and go and invest no money into the league. They get paid for years they play and walk away with no investment risk. The only thing i would agree they should have is lifetime healthcare.

  78. depotnator says: May 21, 2011 10:59 AM

    ‘Those guys [ Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown] voted against because they didn’t like the revenue sharing aspect of the CBA.”

    Ralph Wilson voted against it because he couldn’t understand the damn CBA in the 45 minutes he claims he was given to digest it. The funny thing is, it was HIM that was given a handout in the revenue sharing terms of that 2006 CBA. When will the NFL allow a free market to exist in the league, and force teams to locate in markets where they can support themselves. The Bills have stubbornly remained in rust belt Buffalo whose economy has eroded to the point that it cannot support a modern NFL team. Every sport has that reality: in MLB, teams in Tampa and Oakland face the same problem.

  79. kindbass says: May 22, 2011 1:03 PM

    smellmyface says:
    May 20, 2011 8:03 PM
    @kindlife

    Its called reality. Snyder didnt twist that old ladys arm and make her sign a season ticket contract. Your way of thinking is what brings this country down. People need to be held accountable. In your world i could buy a new car and lose my job a year later and should be able to return the car and walk away huh? The players are NOT partners, they come and go and invest no money into the league. They get paid for years they play and walk away with no investment risk. The only thing i would agree they should have is lifetime healthcare.
    _________________________________
    Ok. Say you bought a new car, and then a year later, the bank decides to triple your car loan payments. Because that’s kind of what happened. Would you expect everyone to just go “Oh. That sucks.”

    It’s people like YOU that “bring this country down”, people that only care about themselves.

Leave a Reply

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