Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

CBA 2011 Thread

165 posts in this topic

Posted

Not much new here. That article is one sided giving the owners' point of view. It doesn't say much about the players' point of view except that they expect a lockout. Still sounds like they're not close to an agreement at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Kevin Mawae, NFLPA President and former All-Pro center for the Seahawks, Jets and Titans was on Colin Cowherd's radio show today.

Mawae says the players union tried to get a deal done before the holidays and, since that has failed miserably, they are now targeting March 4 as a date to have everything done.

Issue #1: 18-Game Schedule

The biggest sticking point right now, in Mawae's words, is the 18-game schedule. He called it an "impossible sell" to the players and said it would likely never get an affirmative vote from the players. Cowherd posed the question if the owners would concede additional insurance, additional compensation and an added bye week then the players might vote positively for it.

But, Mawae added, there has to be "a lot of give from the owners and the NFL" that would include "lifelong medical care." Then went on to say "health care well beyond playing days."

Issue #2: Financial State of the Game

Mawae claims the NFL was a $9B industry last year and that every team in the NFL realized an increase in franchise value.

He also stated the salary cap has remained "stagnant the last couple years" and the teams are seeing increased revenue as a result.

Then went on to rhetorically ask how a financial deal is supposed to be worked out when the owners are "afraid to show us your books."

---------------------------------

My two cents on this goes as follows:

1. The owners and the league want an 18-game schedule, which I do not believe for a minute is the single major sticking point in the negotiations. The 18-game schedule just came up a couple months ago and the owners decided they wanted out of the CBA over a year ago. And, by the way, if the owners want an 18-game schedule and the union says, "No," guess what, there's a lockout. So the union better get off the high horse because they have zero bargaining power in this deal.

2. "Lifelong medical care" or "health care well beyond playing days." Really? Seriously? Who in this country gets "lifelong medical care" besides retired military guys like me (I pay for my own health insurance for my own reasons). How many of you on this board will get health care from your employer well beyond your working days? These guys have no concept of reality, in my opinion. Aren't NFL players really independent contractors? They each negotiate their own contracts and have the freedom to work wherever they want with a negotiated compensation package. How many independent contractors have their health care managed by the person or entity they are currently under contract to? You want helathcare- pay for it like the rest of us.

3. How does he know the NFL was a $9B industry last year if the owners don't open their books? Is this a union-conceptualized number- probably.

4. The salary cap has been far from "stagnant" as he put it. I'll call BS all day and night for that stupid comment.

Salary cap since 2005-

2005: $85.5M

2006: $102M (+19.3%)

2007: $109M (+6.8%)

2008: $116M (+6.4%)

2009: $127M (+9.4%)

This is a 48.5% increase in 5 years. Stagnant? Is that what you call this in this economy? The rest of the country is tanking financially and you call a 48.5% increase in salary base over a five-year period "stagnant?" You, sir, are a fool.

Let's clear the air on one other thing while we're at it. Aside from the publicly owned Green Bay Packers, all other NFL teams are privately owned. Privately owned businesses are not listed on the NYSE or NASDAQ or whatever and they don't have to show their books to anyone. I dare anyone here to go in and ask your boss, if you work for a privately owned company or corporation, to see the books so you can decide what kind of compensation package you want.

Look, the owners are holding all the cards and the players are not going to get a sympathetic ear from anyone. The owners are simply going to dictate the terms and if, for one split second, the players union even looks like they're going to say, "no" the owners will get up from the table and walk away, chaining up and padlocking the gates to the players' parking lots along the way and we will see no football in 2011.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

these topics should be turned into a sticky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Anyone know how health insurance currently works in the NFL?

What about conditions caused by play but that arise after the player retires?

Just curious if anyone knows the answer.

I am beginning to think a lockout is more and more likely, because I think the players and owners are just on two totally different pages...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

2. "Lifelong medical care" or "health care well beyond playing days." Really? Seriously? Who in this country gets "lifelong medical care" besides retired military guys like me?

actually laughed out loud here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's looking more and more like JR had good reason to worry and do some of the things he did this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hate the union.. "If the NFC South would have won we would have had it made".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I don't know if you know this or not, but both sides are throwing out their conjecture to draw lines in the sand..

you may not agree with it, but the owners aren't exactly shining down with purity either..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I hate the union.. "If the NFC South would have won we would have had it made".

fixed pet peeve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1. The owners and the league want an 18-game schedule,

If this is really the main sticking point then this is good news

2. "Lifelong medical care" or "health care well beyond playing days."

Yes but...how many of us work in an industry where we get the crap beat out of us every week, 150 of our associates have had one or more concussions this year, the injury rate is 100% and some of our former coworkers are debilitated beyond repair?

3. How does he know the NFL was a $9B industry last year if the owners don't open their books? Is this a union-conceptualized number- probably.

Forbes puts out balance sheet and net worth statement for every team in the league. Panther had $15M in net income. these are great stats for high level discussion however the audited financials for any team is likely hundreds of pages long.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/30/football-valuations-10_NFL-Team-Valuations_Rank.html

I dare anyone here to go in and ask your boss, if you work for a privately owned company or corporation, to see the books so you can decide what kind of compensation package you want.

I've done it twice in compensation negotiations. Both were fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The players should get some extra care in the medical arena because their bodies are subjected to some horrific abuse and its getting worse every year. You can say that it is of the players own volition but the owners are making a swell buck off of them. I'll bet if Mark Richardson played football 20 years ago and isn't now able to ask for a bowl of soup because of head trauma sustained thru the years that JR would feel different.... but then again he did fire his @ss. OK bad analogy. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

There are two things that have surprised me that the NFLPA have not asked for:

1. an increase to roster. 52 players for 16 games +4 exhibition games is brutal for this sport; it should be at least 60 players.

2. weight limits, yes weight limits on players. The human physiology was not meant to sustain the weight that some of these players carry; the impacts on the endocrine system almost assures diables; the joints can't handle it; nor can the cardiovascular system. And really, if linemen were restricted to 260 lbs vs allowing them to balloon up past 340, and if all teams had to do it, how could it hurt. It would help tremendously, particularly if all teams were forced to do it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites