Skip to content

Early word on length of deal: Firm 10 years, no opt-out clause

10-years-ago

One of the big questions regarding the deal on which the NFLPA* Executive Committee reportedly will vote on Monday is whether the contract will cover 10 years, or whether it will have an early opt-out provision.

Per the source who explained to us earlier today the problems with an opt-out clause, the early indication is that it will be a firm, 10-year deal.

That’s good news for the game, to the extent that long-term labor peace will prime the pump of the gigantic TV dollars that will be popping out of the pipeline in the next few years.

Permalink 22 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
22 Responses to “Early word on length of deal: Firm 10 years, no opt-out clause”
  1. patsandsox says: Jul 23, 2011 7:09 PM

    Cant take any critism mr hack? That surprises me since you post on the internet. But everytime I post anything with your name, even though it has no cursing, it gets prempted.

    You and your hey the lockouts over, no it isnt an hour later. Always attributed to the famous unnamed sources are the hight of yellow journalism.

    I understand that you want to make headlines and keep us all glued to our monitors but not being man enough to be able to be called on it makes you lower that whale droppings.

    I am sure this will get premepted also but maybe not since the key seems to be having your name in the post.
    I am waiting for your next bs post mr bottom feeder

  2. superdanlp says: Jul 23, 2011 7:10 PM

    Greg A. Bedard
    Listen to the man RT @AlbertBreer: Let me emphasize this right now — Issues remain that are unresolved that the sides are still working on.

  3. greenbay4ever says: Jul 23, 2011 7:12 PM

    Cross your fingers.

  4. trbowman says: Jul 23, 2011 7:18 PM

    Good. I’d rather deal with this again in 10 years than 7 years.

  5. oarangecrush says: Jul 23, 2011 7:20 PM

    dont care!! just want a deal on monday!! deal now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! worry about another one when we have to!!

  6. justwinbaby29 says: Jul 23, 2011 7:23 PM

    Excellent news! Hopefully we’ll have at least another 24 years before another work stoppage but a guarantee until 2021 of labor peace sounds fabulous!

    Can’t wait for free agency to start!

  7. drbob117 says: Jul 23, 2011 7:40 PM

    Good..now neither side can start whining about a deal that took months to craft but were too stupid to have the foresight to know it wouldn’t work out for them , the way the owners did last time. This time, you wasted countless hours of the fans time, you nitpicked over every stupid detail, so whatever this is you’ll like it for the next decade.

  8. c09f says: Jul 23, 2011 7:49 PM

    Next week, right when we think its almost over, they will argue over what color pen to sign the paperwork with. I can hear D-Smith now..”they want us to use black pens, well GUESS WHAT? We arent bound by their color preference”

  9. deadeye says: Jul 23, 2011 7:49 PM

    “Good..now neither side can start whining about a deal that took months to craft but were too stupid to have the foresight to know it wouldn’t work out for them , the way the owners did last time.”

    ==============================

    How can you suggest that the owners didn’t know the previous CBA wouldn’t work after they specifically negotiated an opt out clause precisely because they suspected it wouldn’t work?

    The previous CBA was about big market owners sticking it to the small market owners, hence the vote against it by Brown and Wilson. I know we don’t have the details yet, but this CBA seems to satisfy the needs of the small market owners helping to insure that the Jags, Bills, Bengals, and Vikings don’t have to choose between moving to LA or shutting down.

  10. oldbrowndawg says: Jul 23, 2011 7:54 PM

    If this is true, it just shows that it has been, in fact, the players (not the owners) who were trying to “sneak” under-the-radar, not-yet-addressed “issues” into the CBA. Very interesting. Can we now just get on with this stuff and GER ‘ER DONE????? ‘Bout time, don’t ya think?

  11. drbob117 says: Jul 23, 2011 8:01 PM

    @deadeye: Opt out clause aside, why would they have agreed to it in the first place when they knew it wouldn’t work? They did agree, went with it for years and then opted out. For me, that’s idiocy, the small market teams chance to speak up was during the last CBA negotiation. At least this time they DID speak up and got the concessions needed to make it work. The big market teams had no reason to want to screw over the small market teams last time anymore than they did this time; it was just poor planning.

  12. gtmann says: Jul 23, 2011 8:19 PM

    patsandsox says: Jul 23, 2011 7:09 PM

    Cant take any critism mr hack? That surprises me since you post on the internet. But everytime I post anything with your name, even though it has no cursing, it gets prempted.

    You and your hey the lockouts over, no it isnt an hour later. Always attributed to the famous unnamed sources are the hight of yellow journalism.

    I understand that you want to make headlines and keep us all glued to our monitors but not being man enough to be able to be called on it makes you lower that whale droppings.

    I am sure this will get premepted also but maybe not since the key seems to be having your name in the post.
    I am waiting for your next bs post mr bottom feeder

    ________________________________________
    If you don’t like ……whiy read it?

  13. patsandsox says: Jul 23, 2011 8:40 PM

    Now Beddard is actually someone worth listening too unlike the author of this thread.

  14. chc4 says: Jul 23, 2011 9:17 PM

    @ drbob117 : So then you won’t get upset if a few years into this CBA the players start moaning about it? If they do just remember they signed on the dotted line so there are no mulligans. Owners built the opt out into the last CBA for a reason. The NFLPA okayed it so don’t blame the owners for utilizing it.

  15. realfann says: Jul 23, 2011 9:19 PM

    The owners proposal changes how the salary cap works. In the past each team had the same maximum and the same minimum cap.

    In the new CBA, each team can go as low as 89% of the cap as long as the average of all teams in 95%. To make things more complicated, teams can borrow from future caps so a rich owner can spend over 100% of the cap.

    So despite the salary cap being approx $120m this year, we will undoubtedly see rich teams spend the absolute max of approx $127m and cheap teams spending the absolute minimum, approx $107m.

    In other words, rich teams like the Patriots will be spend nearly 20% more on player salaries than cheapo teams like the Niners.

    Explain to me how parity will be maintained this way?

  16. realfann says: Jul 23, 2011 9:22 PM

    It’s pure common sense to have an opt out clause just like it’s common sense for any TV contract to address work stoppages.

    The players should insist on an opt out at any time with some minimum notice, say two years.

    Pretty much every labor contract I’ve seen has such a clause.

    It also does not need an end date. Let it last for ever.

  17. drbob117 says: Jul 23, 2011 11:08 PM

    @chc4: What I’m saying is that if a deal is so onerous for either side, while an opt out clause may be better than nothing, a better idea would be not to sign it at all until you’ve projected what the deal would mean to you , say, five years into the future. There are financial experts that do this type of thing for a living. I wasn’t siding with either players or owners, I’m simply saying that the deal both sides have made has provisions in it that refer to years like 2017 and even 2020. The pdf’s of the deal have been posted all over the net. The sides can see what those provisons are. They should have the business sense today to not need an opt out clause tomorrow, and apparently that’s what both sides have agreed to.

  18. deadeye says: Jul 24, 2011 12:49 AM

    drbob117 – I hear what you’re saying, but you have to realize that there has been a behind-closed-doors power struggle going on between the owners for many many years now. During the 70s and 80s the league had an across the board revenue sharing plan that allowed all the teams profit.

    Then Jerry Jones bought the Cowboys around 89 and he started challenging the established way of doing business. He was a me-first owner who signed an exclusive endorsement deal with Pepsi even though the NFL already had a deal with Coke. The compromise with Jones was that certain forms of revenue didn’t have to be shared, like luxury boxes for example. That’s why we’ve seen an explosion in teams holding cities hostage for a new stadium, they all wanted to get that exclusive revenue.

    The last CBA was the culmination of all those bad decisions the league had been making for 20 years. Small market teams were behind the 8-ball. They had less revenue with no way to get new stadiums. When the numbers were crunched, Wilson and Brown knew they either would make very little money, or if they spent more on free agents would probably lose money, so they voted no. The Krafts, Jones, and Snyders of the league won the vote. Since then we’ve seen the Vikings trying desperately to get a new stadium. Also various teams recently considered a move to LA, mainly because a move would entail a new stadium and new revenue. Since the last CBA several small market owners other than Wilson and Brown have seen how bad that CBA was and decided that something needed to change.

    It’s my opinion (obviously this couldn’t be proved) that a coalition of small market teams told the me-first owners that if they forced a crappy deal on them, they would shut down operations instead of lose money, which they certainly would do with a 90% salary floor. The ONLY way they got a unanimous vote was by rectifying the revenue sharing arrangement the Jerry Jones helped to screw up.

    Don’t assume that all the owners understood all the ramifications of the last CBA ahead of time. Some did, and the opt out was the safety valve that enabled them to go forward with that deal. It didn’t take long for Wilson and Brown to be proven right, and I think Richardson, the Vikes owner, and the Jags owner added their voices calling for more revenue sharing.

  19. cereal blogger says: Jul 24, 2011 8:14 AM

    No idea why a union would sign a 10 yr deal…thats wayyy to long. The owners are b & moaning about the deal but there is a reason they want a 10 yr contract & are unwilling to back down from that

  20. pftstory says: Jul 24, 2011 9:49 AM

    When you discuss the opt out clause you speak of it like its inclusion occured in a vaccum. Like there were no pressures to “just get a deal done.”
    Like there were no owners that thought the last deal could work, like there was no team(s) that needed to get back on the field. Like all the owners got along famously. That the players didn’t manage to outflank owners PRwise.
    And of course we had a commish retiring who had his own political reasons for wanting a deal.

    So if one party says we will take this deal but enough of us believe its not going to work, so in order to get enough votes we need an opt out clause…..

    ALL the owners didn’t agree the deal would work. We know of two who loudly said it wouldn’t. Some felt it would, but not enough to get 24 to approve it. Add the opt clause and enough agreed to approve it on a “we will see basis.”

    YES a stupid more because as soon as it was released for public consumption almost everyone said, why did they sign this, obviously the owners will opt out.

  21. kevinfromth says: Jul 24, 2011 10:18 AM

    In response to patsandsox, I think Mike has done a great job giving us information as it occurs to both the owners and the players.

    I’m sure they thought that there were a number of times when a deal was thought to be solid by either party, only to have it change as new information came to light. You can’t blame Mike for the rollercoaster that this end game turned out to be. I, for one, am thankful that he’s been on top of every twist and turn.

    On top of that, I feel like he has managed expectations nicely, frequently telling us that the champagne still needs ice and not a corkpopping.

  22. 3octaveFart says: Jul 24, 2011 10:46 AM

    gtmann says: Jul 23, 2011 8:19 PM

    “If you don’t like ……whiy read it?”

    I can’t take this blog seriously either, with their daily truckloads of their flip-flop “yes they did, no they didn’t” stories being churned out ad nauseum.

    I just get a kick out of reading the whiny ramblings from posters who are actually letting this crapola affect their lives – some of them sound about 2 minutes away from attempting suicide.

    I guess I’m lucky – I actually have a life away from this garbage.

Leave a Reply

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