Skip to content

Report: Some owners are resisting potential deal

Roger Goodell, Robert Kraft AP

Despite more than two weeks of real progress being made on talks regarding a new labor deal, it’s still too early to believe it’s a done deal that a deal will be done.  On the players’ side, the lawyers have been kicked out of the room but not quite to the Isle of Elba, allowing them to possibly try to undo the progress that has been made.  (More on that later today.)  On the league’s side, some owners reportedly are resisting the direction in which the talks are going.

Per Adam Schefter of ESPN, a “handful” of owners don’t believe that the talks adequately address the concerns that prompted the decision to opt out early of the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement.  Schefter says that the potential conversion of Tuesday’s one-day ownership meeting into a two-day affair arises from a desire to address these concerns and establish a clear consensus as talks continue.

The reality is that, in the end, a handful of owners have no power to derail a deal.  A new agreement still can be approved with 24 of 32 votes.  (Apparently, there’s a belief in some circles that the committee negotiating the CBA already has the authority to do a deal without further approval.  Multiple sources have advised us that any proposal still must be approved by 75 percent of the owners, which meshes with Commissioner Roger Goodell’s comments during a May 11 visit to PFT Live.)

So if the “handful” of owners is fewer than nine, and if that “handful” isn’t able to establish a voting bloc of at least nine, it won’t matter whether they like the deal or not.

That said, the fact that some owners are concerned with the emerging deal suggests that a truly fair deal for both sides is being pursued.  If every owner were happy, it would mean that the owners were getting too good of a bargain.  In any successful mediation, each side should emerge from the room at least a little bit pissed off.

Permalink 81 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
81 Responses to “Report: Some owners are resisting potential deal”
  1. descendency says: Jun 17, 2011 8:56 AM

    Can we just be honest about it and actually name Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown? I mean, “2 AFC Owners” can’t be more obvious.

  2. kenchambers says: Jun 17, 2011 8:59 AM

    No, each side should come away with a win-win attitude or we’ll be looking at doing it again in a few years

  3. zoxitic says: Jun 17, 2011 9:00 AM

    Why do I get the feeling that Mike Brown is in that handful?

  4. eagleswin says: Jun 17, 2011 9:01 AM

    There were only 2 pissed off owners at the last CBA signing which turned out to be a bad deal for the owners.

    The number one reason for getting a CBA done shouldn’t be so that Jerry Jones can pay off his stadium, it needs to work for the smaller guys to.

    The few details that have been leaked suggest the owners keep caving while the players really haven’t been giving up much at all. If they end up close to the last CBA just so they can play this year it’s incredibly shortsighted, again.

    One rumor I’ve heard is that the players absolutely refuse to have any benefits for retired players come out of their share of the pie (ie. the owners need to foot all the bills once players retire). Can anyone verify?

  5. saintsfan1111 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:04 AM

    Al Davis is one of em no doubt.

  6. grantgoodman93 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:06 AM

    and they have the right to after all this bs the players have been pulling

  7. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 9:07 AM

    That said, the fact that some owners are concerned with the emerging deal suggests that a truly fair deal for both sides is being pursued. If every owner were happy, it would mean that the owners were getting too good of a bargain.

    ——————————————————–

    Last time around only two owners disagreed. Too good of a deal for the owners? Obviously not, since they eventually opted out.

  8. eaglescouch says: Jun 17, 2011 9:09 AM

    Does Ralph Wilson really deserve a vote anymore?

  9. chief0727 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:11 AM

    Well there are at least 2 AFC owners who are pissed off and at least 2 NFLPA attorneys who are pissed off for being told to shut their pie holes and “step down”. They all need to get over it and get this thing done already. Like they say…Its better to be pissed off than pissed on !

  10. eagiants says: Jun 17, 2011 9:12 AM

    The report says 2 AFC East teams…1 of them has to be Wilson but who else?

    Either way…I really hope they get something done soon. Hockey and basketball playoffs are over…I need some offseason football news ASAP!

  11. dave1961 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:13 AM

    Let me guess Mike Brown, Ralph Wilson and Dean Spanos.

  12. phinheads says: Jun 17, 2011 9:14 AM

    Ralph Wilson all day long. The guy is the worst owner ever.

  13. TheRealist says: Jun 17, 2011 9:19 AM

    As long as everyone is equally unhappy.

  14. billsin20xx says: Jun 17, 2011 9:19 AM

    Yes, Ralph Wilson ils probably one of them, he is the cheapest owner around BUT – if they had lsitened to him last agreement they would have realized it was a bad deal…
    I hate to see Jones in on these negotiations – you know he will give away anything to have a season to pay for his stadium.

  15. PFTiswhatitis says: Jun 17, 2011 9:20 AM

    A good negotiation results in both parties feeling a little sore.

  16. nbaraie says: Jun 17, 2011 9:22 AM

    Teams like Buffalo and Cincinnati are good for the league.

    Once you take the blue collar fan out of football, it will cease to be football. It will just be another multi-billion dollar business.

    All these teams want is some security, a small slice of Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder’s pie.

    Get a deal done thats good for football, not Dallas and Washington.

  17. clintonportisheadd says: Jun 17, 2011 9:23 AM

    I am sure that this “handful” of owners are the extremists that want to bust the union, roll back player payroll to mid 1970′s levels, and generally speaking want to treat their football operation not unlike a 19th century cotton plantation.

    This same group also most likely inherited their teams, have been perennial losers on the field, and have their kids on the payroll drawing big checks for “jobs” that they don’t even have to show up for.

  18. bwisnasky says: Jun 17, 2011 9:28 AM

    Al Davis is one of em no doubt.

    ———————————–

    You couldn’t be more wrong.. but thanks for playing and showing your ignorance. Al Davis is usually leading the charge in bringing the small market guys around.

  19. baddegg says: Jun 17, 2011 9:29 AM

    What? Reading the comments on here for the last two weeks I thought it was clearly DSmith and the players who was torpedoing the entire thing. Do you actually mean the owners have some role in this? Shocking.

  20. username54 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:31 AM

    @eagleswin

    “One rumor I’ve heard is that the players absolutely refuse to have any benefits for retired players come out of their share of the pie (ie. the owners need to foot all the bills once players retire). Can anyone verify?”

    You could make the argument that the current players have indeirectly benefitted from the retired players as the game has grown. To an extent this will be true, the league is 90+ years old and its fan bases have been built up over time.

    You could also make the argument that the owners benefitted directly from the retired players and were the ones making money off the back of the exploits of young men straight out of college which have left some of them physically or mentally disabled. I would say any responsibility to look after those players should lie with the people who employed them (and profited from their labour) not with current players most of whom wouldn’t even have been born when the majority of retired players were playing.

    I suspect that the players may be willing to pay more of their share towards their own future pensions, but they have a reasonable argument that previous players are the responsibility of the ownership – especially guys that played before any CBA existed.

  21. harmcityhomer says: Jun 17, 2011 9:32 AM

    I am tired of all this. Just give me football off season already. The NBA season is over and I am not into MLB. I want free agency action yesterday.

  22. joetoronto says: Jun 17, 2011 9:33 AM

    saintsfan1111 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:04 AM

    Al Davis is one of em no doubt.
    **************************************************
    Wow, epic fail, a total face plant.

    You can accuse Al Davis of allot of things but being cheap on players just isn’t one of them, that’s insane.

  23. killxswitch says: Jun 17, 2011 9:34 AM

    Best guess is some combo of Mike Brown, Ralph Wilson and Jerry Richardson.

  24. jaxg8r says: Jun 17, 2011 9:34 AM

    For all the bashing of Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown, they were obviously the only owners who truly understood the ramifications of what they agreed to. The league would not have been in this situation if the owners would’ve slowed down and thought about what they were agreeing to in the last CBA.

  25. Rhode Island Patriots Fan says: Jun 17, 2011 9:37 AM

    After all is said and done, it will be interesting to see exactly what the owners were able to “get back” from the players to justify opting out of the 2006 CBA. If the player concessions are not meaningful and don’t otherwise address owner expectations re: revenue splitting, rookie wage scale, judicial oversight, etc., then folks who have been sympathetic to the owners’ business arguments—like myself—are going to begin scratching their heads while asking the question: Was this battle worth fighting for?

  26. bengalsown says: Jun 17, 2011 9:39 AM

    Who cares if it’s Mike Brown? If Mike Brown doesn’t like the deal, then the rest of the owners should probably listen this time around.

  27. pbm984 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:41 AM

    Before you make your obligatory “Ralph is the worst owner” post, remember this…..

    Ralph Wilson was one of only two owners out there with enough foresight to oppose the train wreck deal that the owners OK’d in ’06. Everybody sees it today, yet everyone panned Wilson back then for opposing the deal.

  28. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Jun 17, 2011 9:44 AM

    Who cares. The players will still cry foul and Drew Brees will be the loudest. This is an attempt by the media to make it look like the owners are still the reason no deal is done when clearly any logically thinking human being can understand that isn’t the case.

  29. anpsteel says: Jun 17, 2011 9:49 AM

    Ralph Wilson strikes me as a good guy, in a crummy situation. Buffalo NY has really gone down the tubes. In respect to industry, jobs, economy,… etc. He’s in a very small market, and does the best he can- without having access to the mega millions of some of the other owners.

    Now, Mike Brown on the other hand- he just comes across as a tool. Cinci may not be a big market, but it has a lot more going for it than Buffalo.

  30. rpiotr01 says: Jun 17, 2011 9:50 AM

    Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown wouldn’t be happy with a deal unless it dismantled the salary floor, abolished FA and gave teams control of players from draft to retirement.

  31. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 9:53 AM

    All these teams want is some security, a small slice of Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder’s pie.

    ——————————————————-

    Exactly right, they’d rather have a piece of somebody else’s pie given to them than get out and work for their own pie. Sound familiar?

  32. abninf says: Jun 17, 2011 9:57 AM

    eagleswin says: Jun 17, 2011 9:01 AM
    The number one reason for getting a CBA done shouldn’t be so that Jerry Jones can pay off his stadium, it needs to work for the smaller guys to.
    ————————————————-

    Maybe the smaller guys should attract more fans.

  33. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 9:57 AM

    Yes, Ralph Wilson ils probably one of them, he is the cheapest owner around BUT – if they had lsitened to him last agreement they would have realized it was a bad deal…

    ——————————————————

    If you think that the other owners agreed to the last CBA for any reason other than to keep the wheels turning and that they didn’t know then that they’d opt out in the future, you’re not smart enough to be a part of this discussion.

    Under no circumstances should anyone associated with the NFL at the management level EVER listen to Ralph Wilson.

  34. marvsleezy says: Jun 17, 2011 10:09 AM

    100% of ALL revenue should be shared equally with every NFL team.

    If Dallas Washington NY and NE want to form their own league, let them – They can play round robbin for 16 games.

    Small and midsized teams make the league and should work together to have all the power.

  35. zerored78 says: Jun 17, 2011 10:11 AM

    @nbaraie

    Teams in Buffalo and Cinci are good for the league. The owners of those teams are another story. There is no good reason these guys should not be able to field competitive teams.

  36. chadmurdigan says: Jun 17, 2011 10:23 AM

    Regarding “a truly fair deal for both sides,” they should cut fan ticket prices by 20% across the board and put a cap on the profit the owners can drag down from popcorn, beer, and nachos.

    I think there are three sides to this whole friggin’ mess instead of two; indeed, without the fan side, the players and the owners would be off selling insurance or Hardee’s burgers or something.

  37. thomas2727 says: Jun 17, 2011 10:30 AM

    That said, the fact that some owners are concerned with the emerging deal suggests that a truly fair deal for both sides is being pursued. If every owner were happy, it would mean that the owners were getting too good of a bargain. In any successful mediation, each side should emerge from the room at least a little bit pissed off.
    —————————
    A truly fair deal? How do you know?
    Because the majority is always right?
    Sounds like more drivel with nothing of substance to back it up.

  38. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 10:33 AM

    100% of ALL revenue should be shared equally with every NFL team.

    ——————————————————–

    Maybe you’d like it if all expenses were shared equally, too?

  39. deadeye says: Jun 17, 2011 10:35 AM

    The small market owners are not liking this deal, and not surprisingly they didn’t like the last one. The Jerruh-Jones-type of owners are structuring the league (whether they realize it or not) in such a way that these small market owners will have to relocate to a bigger city like L.A. or at some point consider closing the doors.

    Jerruh is gonna be the person, more than anyone else, who destroys the league. Gosh I wish we could resurrect Lamar Hunt and have him rope in these idiot me-first owners.

  40. dontouchmyjunk says: Jun 17, 2011 10:37 AM

    All 32 teams share revenue equally. Teams in small markets like Pittsburgh and Green Bay field competitive teams. The reason Buffalo and Cincinnati don’t is because of Wilson and Brown, not the fans in the region or the rich owners like Snyder and Jones.

  41. jimmysee says: Jun 17, 2011 10:39 AM

    Note to “handful of owners:”

    “You can’t always get what you want.
    But if you try sometime
    You just might find.
    You get what you need.”

    (A famous philosopher somewhere said that.)

  42. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 10:41 AM

    I hate to see Jones in on these negotiations – you know he will give away anything to have a season to pay for his stadium.

    ——————————————————–

    Yeah lots of luck painting Wilson as the astute businessman and Jones as the broke, clueless bumpkin. Don’t get it twisted, Wilson is the billionaire pleading poverty and Jones is the billionaire practically begging owners like Ralph Wilson to exploit things like STADIUM SPONSORSHIP to generate revenue rather than NAMING THE STADIUM AFTER HIMSELF.

  43. mddare007 says: Jun 17, 2011 10:43 AM

    I was shocked when I hit ctrl+f “Mike Brown” and didn’t find anything in the article. It’s okay though, because everyone already knows he constitutes up to one-half of the ‘handful of owners’ resisting.

  44. shrike58 says: Jun 17, 2011 10:44 AM

    While I cheerfully engage in owner-bashing with the best of them Ralph Wilson does have a tough row to hoe; free-agency ain’t going away though.

  45. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 10:48 AM

    Lost in these arguments is the fact that the GREEN BAY PACKERS, who reside in the smallest market in the NFL, are one of the “have’s” that have to supplement the revenue of “have not” teams like the Bills and Bengals. They serve as a shining example of exactly why owners like Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown are FOS and are bad for the league.

    Buffalo metro area: 1.135 million
    Cincy metro area: 2.13 million
    Green Bay metro area: 306K

  46. flyerscup2010 says: Jun 17, 2011 10:54 AM

    dear commenters: i don’t care that mike brown and ralph wilson voted against the last deal. i want football. they won’t be happy until the players are back to being an un-unionized workforce making $40,000 a year with no health benefits, so i don’t care what they think. i don’t care what jerry jones, jerry richardson, or dan snyder think either. funny how none of these owners saw their teams make the playoffs last year. in fact, funny how they all had top 10 draft picks.

  47. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 17, 2011 11:02 AM

    This has to be the small market owners again. There’s no way their franchises can prosper under this deal, probably not even survive in their current markets.

    I’m betting that they make an all-out push to round up 9 owners to block the deal.

    The solid votes to block: Buffalo, Cincinnati, Jacksonville.

    The fence-sitters: Arizona, Cleveland, Green Bay, Minnesota, St. Louis.

    The wild-cards: Atlanta, Detroit, Oakland.

    Somewhere from that group of 11 teams the anti forces have to assemble 9 votes and it won’t be easy.

    The other factor is that there are two teams that are solidly in favor of the CBA that might vote against it anyway. Both Pittsburgh and Baltimore are aware that Buffalo, Cleveland and Cincinnati are having potential issues at this point with revenues moving forward. Either of those teams might block a CBA that was bitterly opposed by the three owners in question as a matter of solidarity.

    The Rooneys have to be particularly conflicted because they know that Pittsburgh is actually a mid-sized market and very vulnerable to the same kind of tiering that has happened to the Pirates over the last several decades. The Rooneys are brilliant managers, which is why the Steelers have been so good over the last couple of generations, but having less revenue than your competitors is a significant competitive disadvantage.

  48. clintonrb says: Jun 17, 2011 11:19 AM

    Buffalo and Cincinnati are both historical teams that only make the league better by being in it, The owners of these teams are a different story all together- ralph may be one of the last of the afc originals and respect should be given there but in recent years this guy is taking his team down the tubes

  49. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Jun 17, 2011 11:19 AM

    It makes no sense to share revenue equally. Look, I know we all like our teams to play the Bills, The Bungles, The Jags, etc. etc. but how is it fair to take money from popular successful teams and give it to far less popular and less successful teams? Baseball does this now and teams like the Pirates refuse to utilize all of the money they bring in off revenue sharing. The teams that cant survive shouldn’t which will allow other larger market cities to make bids on bringing in NFL franchises. This take from the rich and give to the needy mentality is ruining our country.

  50. bturner032002 says: Jun 17, 2011 11:25 AM

    melonhead says:

    Maybe you’d like it if all expenses were shared equally, too?

    U do know that when they speak of a 50/50 split or 48/52 splits its the money AFTER the owners take 1 billion total off the top.

    The problem is the owners think cost of expenses has risen enough that they should get 2 billion off the top.

  51. marty2019 says: Jun 17, 2011 11:26 AM

    Isn’t there a possibility that the owners got together and said

    “We better put out a leak to the effect that some owners don’t like the deal, or else the players will think they’re getting screwed. After all, if we say all the owners like this deal, the players will probably vote it down.”

    If there are 7 or 8 owners that vote no, that will convince the players they got a good deal. If the vote is 32-0 in favor, the players are going to think they got screwed.

  52. 1phd says: Jun 17, 2011 11:28 AM

    As my friend close to the negotiations has told me all along, there is a small group of owners that could care less if the game is ever played again unless they get absolutely everything on their terms. These are NOT football people – just rich, mean old codgers.

  53. depotnator says: Jun 17, 2011 11:47 AM

    It’s the lawyers AND the media that has created negotiating obstacles . The ‘ secret meetings’ are not hiding from the lawyers – they are hiding from the media. Still, the media doesn’t get the message. The media is STILL speculating on what they DO NOT know. Even this idle speculation – by ESPN or this site – may be enough to interfere with the delicate negotiation process. Why can’t the media just let it go and allow the process to conclude without spreading rumors…

  54. marvsleezy says: Jun 17, 2011 11:53 AM

    Maybe you’d like it if all expenses were shared equally, too?
    ________________
    Sure, why not? The teams should act as 1 entity. Spend a lot of money in Dallas, and make a lot of money in Dallas. (to be shared by the whole league)

    Just understand, Dallas is part of the league that is great because there are 32 teams that come from different financial situations in different cities.

  55. theredbengal says: Jun 17, 2011 12:01 PM

    Those of you who say Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are the ones who aren’t happy with this possible new deal seem to forget that they were the only ones who voted against the 2006 CBA deal that the rest of the owners then opted out of.

    So the question can be begged, who was right in 2006?

    No one despises Mike Brown more than Cincinnati fans, but in that case, he gets credit for seeing the s**t we now find ourselves in

  56. buffbill235 says: Jun 17, 2011 12:03 PM

    Maybe the other owners should listen, I mean the two guys that voted no last time were ridiculed by the press and people like Jerry Jones, turns out they were the ones that had the last laugh cause they look pretty smart now.

    I want a football season this year as much as anybody, but I don’t want to be saying that every few years, which may happen if the owners give themselves another opt out clause and prove that this was just as bad for them as it would be for them as last time.

  57. malgorthewarrior says: Jun 17, 2011 12:22 PM

    i’m tired of the posters in these comments continuously characterizing the deal in 06 as a ‘train wreck’ or ‘exploiting the owners.’

    they have all made money hand over fist since 06. people forget the only reason these players can make millions is because the owners make money hand over fist.

    what does ralph wilson need more money for? he’s not going to lower our ticket prices that’s for damn sure. does he need to buy a few more houses? disgusting the number of people on here who chastise the players as greedy and sympathize with the owners as if they are not greedy as well.

    it isn’t the players, but the owners, who make these mega stadium deals that bilk tax dollars out of local communities. most fans in nfl cities pay for the privilege to watch their team long before they step into the overpriced parking lot to use their overpriced ticket to buy some overpriced beers.

    always amazes me how many americans will yell and scream in favor of some wealthy people taking their money.

    remember this: long after the labor deal is over, the owners will still be f****ing the fans at every possible turn. when was the last time they lowered prices for the fan?

  58. slicknick4ever says: Jun 17, 2011 1:07 PM

    Teams that will actually have to start paying out more for players (raising the salary minimum)
    1. Browns
    2. Bills
    3. Panthers
    4. Jags
    5. Bengals

    There’s your handful!

  59. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 1:13 PM

    Jerruh is gonna be the person, more than anyone else, who destroys the league.

    ——————————————————-

    How so? Teams moved before Jerry Jones bought one. He’s one of the main reasons that the “old guard” owners are now billionaires. If that’s not enough for them, blame them, not Jerry Jones. I’m telling you guys, the issue for these “small” teams is not the ability to be competitive, it’s profit margin. Ralph Wilson pocketed over $28 million last year, fools. His entire problem is that (e.g.) Jerry Jones pocketed $143 million.

  60. nahcouldntbethat says: Jun 17, 2011 1:29 PM

    The Panthers are fine, they have no issues at all with the current revenue system. They just weren’t willing to pay to field a bad team last year so they cut payroll dramatically. They were a top 5 team in cash spent on players in 2010.

    They have some debt issues at this point but their revenue is ok. Not in the Redskins/Cowboys class but then nobody else is as this point.

  61. fireeyes111 says: Jun 17, 2011 1:36 PM

    Teams that will actually have to start paying out more for players (raising the salary minimum)
    1. Browns – #4 in 2010 payroll
    2. Bills – #16 in 2010 payroll
    3. Panthers – #17 in 2010 payroll
    4. Jags – #9 in 2010 payroll
    5. Bengals – #20 in 2010 payroll

    There’s your handful!
    __________________________

    2010 NFL Team Payrolls:

    Oakland Raiders Team Salaries $ 152,389,371
    Dallas Cowboys Team Salaries $ 146,401,600
    Minnesota Vikings Team Salaries $ 133,354,045
    Cleveland Browns Team Salaries $ 131,916,300
    New Orleans Saints Team Salaries $ 131,531,820
    Pittsburgh Steelers Team Salaries $ 128,815,061
    Tennessee Titans Team Salaries $ 126,017,443
    Arizona Cardinals Team Salaries $ 122,110,110
    Jacksonville Jaguars Team Salaries $ 122,109,207
    Chicago Bears Team Salaries $ 120,065,819
    San Francisco 49ers Team Salaries $ 118,766,239
    New York Jets Team Salaries $ 116,910,097
    St. Louis Rams Team Salaries $ 116,677,660
    New York Giants Team Salaries $ 115,816,180
    Miami Dolphins Team Salaries $ 114,649,660
    Buffalo Bills Team Salaries $ 113,364,927
    Carolina Panthers Team Salaries $ 112,114,711
    Washington Redskins Team Salaries $ 111,963,684
    San Diego Chargers Team Salaries $ 111,813,340
    Cincinnati Bengals Team Salaries $ 109,727,880
    Philadelphia Eagles Team Salaries $ 109,557,398
    Houston Texans Team Salaries $ 108,445,418
    Tampa Bay Buccaneers Team Salaries $ 104,329,311
    Seattle Seahawks Team Salaries $ 102,985,710
    Atlanta Falcons Team Salaries $ 96,391,525
    Detroit Lions Team Salaries $ 95,827,117
    Denver Broncos Team Salaries $ 95,599,778
    Green Bay Packers Team Salaries $ 94,018,300
    Indianapolis Colts Team Salaries $ 93,373,915
    New England Patriots Team Salaries $ 92,734,120
    Baltimore Ravens Team Salaries $ 90,713,965
    Kansas City Chiefs Team Salaries $ 83,623,776

    Seriously, do you people ever even THINK to check your facts before you start spewing this garbage?

  62. fireeyes111 says: Jun 17, 2011 1:40 PM

    2006:

    Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown speak out against CBA, saying it favors the players too heavily. Fans, media and commenters alike skewer them as old, cheap and out of touch.

    2008:

    NFL Owners opt out of CBA, saying it favors players.

    2010:

    Everyone agrees Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson were right, saying “if only we’d listened to them in 2006.”

    2011:

    Rumors that Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson are speaking out against CBA, saying it favors the players too heavily. Fans, media and commenters alike skewer them as old, cheap and out of touch.

    Gee, I don’t know, anybody seeing a pattern here?

  63. pitch87mph says: Jun 17, 2011 1:42 PM

    That’s possible. OR it could mean we have another 2006 situation where owners with large interest payments to make (due to their heavy use of financing to buy stadiums and/or teams) are trying to minimize losses and will take ANY deal–even if it puts the league in the same position 4 years from now. I remember everyone mocking Ralph Wilson when he objected to what has since (per consensus) been a player favored and unsustainable deal. And all he wanted to know was how the numbers worked. But owners like JJ and DS said “trust us” and along with PT shoved it down the owners throats. THAT worked out real well. I’d be interested to see who the objecting owners are. If it’s the old school owners, then I say pass on the deal. They’ve been around and perhaps all these younger rich guys should learn from their experiences. If there’s no particular similar characteristic among the objecting owners, then perhaps you have it right and the deal is fair.

  64. fartography says: Jun 17, 2011 1:51 PM

    Wow…Ravens and Chiefs at the bottom of the list. Imagine when the Ravens start overspending on their defense.

  65. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 1:54 PM

    Sure, why not? The teams should act as 1 entity. Spend a lot of money in Dallas, and make a lot of money in Dallas. (to be shared by the whole league)

    Just understand, Dallas is part of the league that is great because there are 32 teams that come from different financial situations in different cities.

    ——————————————————

    That’s been happening for a long time. Jerry Jones spends a lot of money, and he also shares a lot of money. For example, his share of the NFL marketing pool is fixed at 16% by agreement… meaning that every year, he tenders an amount equal to 16% of total NFL marketing revenue to the league. This is the price that he pays in exchange for being allowed to market the Cowboys brand as he sees fit. Anything he makes beyond that 16% goes in his pocket. If he makes under that 16%, the difference comes out of his pocket.

    32 teams = 3.125% per team. Jerry Jones is paying WAY more than his fair share in that regard. Over 5 times more than the NFL average. No other team helps him achieve that 16% and any team that is not keeping up that 3.125% average is enriched by his efforts and the efforts of all other teams that earn (and pay) more than their fair share. Indications are that Jones is making way more than that 16% so he obviously loves the deal and doesn’t want to change it.

    One of the reasons that Jones exerts a lot of effort is because he has almost a billion dollars of debt from his new stadium. Some owners, including Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown, have no stadium debt. Taxpayers gave them their stadiums for free.

    Keeping all of the above in mind, Jerry Jones is in waaaaaay waaaaay deeper than most owners and certainly deeper than those two. I’m sure he’d be glad to let them assume part of the expenses that he has… but I’m sure that they’d vote against it, since they believe that Jerry Jones (and other owners) need to supplement their incomes even more than they are already supplemented.

    This is exactly the reason why Wilson and Brown voted against the last CBA. They didn’t like the revenue sharing aspect. They wanted MORE for themselves. They seem to have brainwashed the majority of PFT readers into believing that everybody else wants to take from THEM but the reality is that they want to get even deeper into the other owners’ pockets in order to fill their own, because these nimrods aren’t all of a sudden going to start investing heavily in their teams after years of flirting with the salary cap floor while pocketing tens of millions in profits every year.

    There’s a REASON why teams like this have sucked for so long. Bengals 2 winning seasons in the last 20, Bills 1 winning season out of the last 11, do you think that happens by accident?

    SO, what happens if all other owners decide to be more like Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson? You know, sit on their hands, not really try to field a competitive team or maximize revenue via marketing? Content to sit around and wait for the welfare check? Play it safe and refuse to risk a dollar to make two dollars? Don’t tell me that their markets won’t support it, times are hard everywhere and the Packers seem to do OK in a market that’s a fraction of the size of Buffalo or Cincy.

  66. Chris Guest says: Jun 17, 2011 1:58 PM

    If the news is right that the players want a 90% floor of the cap regardless of dead money. I can definitely see some owners being a little perturbed with that deal because it will force them to spend good money after bad. i.e. dead money was used to pay players that didn’t work and doesn’t count, if spent, on the current year’s salary.

  67. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 1:59 PM

    i don’t care what jerry jones, jerry richardson, or dan snyder think either. funny how none of these owners saw their teams make the playoffs last year. in fact, funny how they all had top 10 draft picks.

    —————————————————–

    What’s so funny abut cherry-picking three owners whose teams didn’t make the playoffs and then trying to act like it’s a coincidence?

  68. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 2:01 PM

    But owners like JJ and DS said “trust us” and along with PT shoved it down the owners throats. THAT worked out real well.

    —————————————————-

    It got us 5 years of labor peace when it looked pretty unlikely at the time, didn’t it? That’s probably $100 million that Ralph Wilson put in his pocket, basically for doing what he always does. Nothing.

  69. freedomispopular says: Jun 17, 2011 2:16 PM

    Thumbs up if you actually know what the Isle of Elba is without looking on Wikipedia.

  70. marvsleezy says: Jun 17, 2011 2:57 PM

    melonnhead:

    You need to understand – Its easy to make money in Dallas – Especially since hes making off of the NFL name.

    If what you say is true, Dallas could just scrimmage itself in that big stadium each week, it doesnt work that way though does it?

    If they are all one entity, they decide as a group to invest in Cowboy Stadium and share in the debt, and share in the profits.

    Its easier to make money in Dallas than it is in Buffalo, you just dont understand the economics.

  71. threegriffons says: Jun 17, 2011 3:34 PM

    fireeyes111 says:
    Jun 17, 2011 1:36 PM

    Teams that will actually have to start paying out more for players (raising the salary minimum)
    1. Browns – #4 in 2010 payroll
    2. Bills – #16 in 2010 payroll
    3. Panthers – #17 in 2010 payroll
    4. Jags – #9 in 2010 payroll
    5. Bengals – #20 in 2010 payroll

    There’s your handful!
    __________________________

    2010 NFL Team Payrolls: ….

    you do realize that your comparing Team Salary to Team Payroll right??

    for instance…
    you list
    Carolina panthers as
    Carolina Panthers Team Salaries $ 112,114,711
    actual team salary is $47,232,000

    one of the lowest in the 2010 year

    good thing you did your homework.

    btw per NFL.com

    “The Minimum Team Salary in 2009 is $107,748,000, meaning each team is required to allocate more than $107 million to player costs”

  72. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 4:31 PM

    Its easier to make money in Dallas than it is in Buffalo, you just dont understand the economics.

    —————————————————-

    Of course it’s easier in the Dallas area. Buffalo is a dying little town in an anti-business state! The DFW area has a strong economy and Texas is a very business-friendly state! That doesn’t mean that Wilson shouldn’t even TRY to make a few extra bucks and as long as that stadium is named after him he’s not really trying. Again, he’s putting tens of millions of dollars in his pocket every year so don’t try to tell me that he’s not swimming in cash. You’re not poor just because you’re not making as much money as Jerry Jones. If Ralph Wilson thinks he needs MORE money then maybe he should move the team, but I think he’d be a crappy owner no matter where his team plays.

  73. marvsleezy says: Jun 17, 2011 4:57 PM

    The Cowboy stadium currently has no naming rights either.

    Remember Ralph has no debt from the team, but after he dies, his estate will sell the team and the new owner will have a huge debt.

    Sooo, supposedly Ralph is holding out to help the future owner, why? Because he doesnt want said owner to move the team.

  74. melonnhead says: Jun 17, 2011 5:52 PM

    @ Marvsleezy…

    Right, Cowboys Stadium has no naming rights deal, and Jerry Jones isn’t crying poverty, either.

    Also, your opinion that he doesn’t want the team to move does not jibe with the fact that he already “moved” eight games including five regular season games, to Toronto. I’d bet my last dollar that when the Bills are sold, whether before or after Wilson passes, it will be to the Canadian partnership that brought the Bills series to the Rogers Centre, with Wilson’s full understanding and approval that the Bills will move to Toronto.

  75. tradeassociation says: Jun 17, 2011 10:39 PM

    Folks defending the recalcitrant owners, THE NFL IS A BUSINESS. News flash for you bold, intrepid defenders of capitalism and the business class: not everyone who gets into business is good at it. And not everybody who has initial success is able to maintain it when market conditions change. Go look a list of Fortune 500 companies from 30, 20 or even 10 years ago, look at the current list, and see all the changes.

    The NFL had $9 billion in revenue last year during one of the worst recessions in the nation’s history. That is $281,250,000 per team. The most that any team paid in salary last year: $152 million! Green Bay paid $94,018,300 in salary and won the Super Bowl. Kansas City paid $83 million and made the playoffs. It is past time for you owner advocates to start accepting the reality that some of these guys are simply bad businessmen. This is the real world, not Fox News, talk radio or Townhall.com where every single business failure is the fault of taxes, government regulation or unions.

    Comparing this situation to two years ago is ridiculous. There were a lot of complaints about the deal back then, but the owners decided to give it a shot, and back out later if it didn’t work. Otherwise, it would have never passed. The two owners that voted against it didn’t even want to agree to it on a trial basis. Also, the SUCCESSFUL owners, the ones who actually know how to run a business in today’s NFL, aren’t going to wreck their $9 billion product over a few owners that are too arrogant to acknowledge that they don’t have the resources or skills to compete in the modern NFL and either seek help or sell the team.

    You Cincinnati and Buffalo folks talk about the importance of the smaller cities and blue collar fans to the NFL? First of all, I see no reason to deny an NFL franchise to a city today just because it was an outpost 60-70 years ago. That rewards the cities and states that have ruined their economies with bad leadership over the decades and lost population as a result, and punishes cities and states that have grown their economies and added people. These places had decades to realize “Gee, if these textile plants and steel mills close, we’d be up the creek!” and start working on developing or attracting other industry, and they just sat on their hands and didn’t do a thing. Also, if you want to keep football on those cities, the best thing would be to force the Browns, Wilsons etc. to sell – or at least sell a huge share of – their franchises to someone with deep pockets so they can hire quality front office people and coaches and become competitive again. You want to keep football in Buffalo? Force Ralph Wilson to take on Rush Limbaugh as a minority owner so they will have the resources to compete. Problem solved! Want to keep football in Cincinnati? Make Mike Brown sell the team to someone with the cash and business acumen to build a winner, and in 3 years it will be like “LeBron who?”

    But quit asking Rooney, Jones, Mara, Blank, Spanos etc. to shoot themselves in the foot on behalf of a bunch of guys who can’t run a business, because it doesn’t happen in any other industry. Owning an NFL team is a privilege, not a right. If you have bad business skills, are unwilling to adapt or change, or simply no longer have the cash flow to compete in a league that is now big business (this is not the same NFL that it was even in the 90s, let alone the 80s or 70s), then you aren’t up to the privilege. Sell your team to someone who does – and at a huge profit too! – and find something else to do with all that money and the rest of your life.

    I can’t believe how all these people are convinced that it is the duty of the players – and the good owners – to subsidize the bad owners and keep them in business. It is not in the interests of the players. It is not in the interests of the good owners. And it certainly isn’t in the interests of the game. Look, the Bengals haven’t won a playoff game since 1990, and they went 9-7 in the regular season that year! The Bills haven’t won a playoff game since 1995 in a year that they went 10-6, and haven’t even made the playoffs since 1999, and have failed to even get to 8 wins SEVEN TIMES since then. Do you honestly think that if the good owners throw away this season in order to try to get deals that Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson want, that it will make those franchises BETTER? The only thing that will make those franchises better is BETTER OWNERSHIP, and if this CBA forces it, then good for those franchises and the NFL.

  76. tradeassociation says: Jun 17, 2011 10:59 PM

    Another thing: the owners’ protesting this deal should be mad at whoever it was that came up with the idiotic strategy to opt out of the deal in 2009, but not start negotiating for a new deal after the CBA expiration deadline. Even if you buy the owner’s spin that the lockout only happened after the NFLPA decertified, the fact is that NFLPA decertification was inevitable after the CBA expiration deadline passed, and even more so when the owners were still making ridiculous demands like another $1 billion off the top, a 60/40 split, and an 18 game season after the CBA had technically expired.

    Everyone knew – or should have known – that the NFL couldn’t maintain the lockout indefinitely, and that having the lockout lifted would have been total carnage for the owners, as it would have allowed the players to get paid while simultaneously suing the NFL for anti-trust. If the folks who came up with this ridiculous “posture and alienate the players for two years, wait for the CBA to expire and THEN negotiate” strategy based it on the total nonsense belief that they’d be able to maintain the lockout more than a few months, then it is proof that they don’t know how to run an NFL franchise and shouldn’t be. Pro-labor judges were already going to side with the players, and pro-business judges couldn’t help the owners out by forcing the players into the union because that would set a bad precedent on much more important issues. Do you think that this appeals’ court was going to totally trash their ability to side with Boeing and South Carolina against the machinists union and the NLRB just so Mike Brown can continue to lose games with the Bengals?

    If these owners who hate this deal wanted a better one, they should have negotiated it back in 2009 or 2010 when the players would have been willing to give up a lot more in order to avoid getting locked out. Everyone is willing to give up a lot more in order to avoid a war, but once the war is on, the goal is to win the war. So once they locked the players out, they had ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of getting a CBA that was a significant improvement over the last one before the season. NONE. And again, if they didn’t know that, then that is still more proof that Brown needs to sell his team to Rush Limbaugh or somebody.

  77. monkeesfan says: Jun 18, 2011 12:09 AM

    tradeassociation is making no sense. The problem NEVER was “bad owners.” The problem has been that the previous CBA gave away far too much to the players for the game’s economics to handle. “They should have negotiated a new deal in 2009 or 2010.” That rests on a false assumption – that the PA would negotiate a new deal then; the fact is they were stonewalling then.

    The problem is not Mike Brown or Ralph Wilson – it is the cost of doing business in the game was inflated too high by the previous CBA.

  78. monkeesfan says: Jun 18, 2011 12:11 AM

    And with all this, what seems to be coming out here is that there WILL be a deal done by mid-July. By now it seems too obvious that the need for a new deal outweighs whatever bitterness has been created beforehand.

  79. anthonyfromstatenisland says: Jun 18, 2011 8:38 AM

    If there is something in the evolving agreement that Ralph Wilson and Mike Brown don’t like, I can tell you what is is NOT: The 18-game schedule – for owners like Wilson and Brown have every reason to be in favor of 18 games, because the shortened preseason will mean less unshared revenue (from sources like local preseason telecasts) that flows inordinately to the large-market teams; it will also (very likely) mean two more “weak vs. weak” (and “strong vs. strong”) matchups, because the 17th and 18th games figure to be inter-conference games apportioned on the basis of every team’s division finish the year before; and in addition, more opportunities for weaker teams to sign players who get cut “by mistake” by stronger teams, who will have less time to evaluate talent before making roster cuts in the preseason.

    This leads me to believe that the evloving agreement between the owners and the players DOES include an 18-game schedule.

  80. deadmanwalking47 says: Jun 20, 2011 6:13 PM

    does it have to be a unamious vote? cause if it is not,a few more of the older owners are gonna be SOL!

  81. deadmanwalking47 says: Jun 20, 2011 6:15 PM

    as for the 18 game season,they need to find a better way to adjust the concussion problem before they add games on to an already long season!

Leave a Reply

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