adam shaefter "small owner war brewing against CBA deal"

[cdandi1]

What the OP was referring to:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6671873

An internal battle is percolating at some of the highest NFL circles in which some owners are resisting the labor deal they've been trying to negotiate with the players, according to multiple sources.

A handful of NFL owners -- at least two of which are from AFC teams -- believe the parameters of the deal being discussed don't adequately address the original issues the league wanted corrected from the 2006 collective bargaining agreement, according to sources.

It is one of the primary reasons team officials are being prepped to stay an extra night in Chicago at Tuesday's owners meetings. It's not to potentially vote on a new collective bargaining agreement, as many suspected; it actually is to try to fend off some of the resistance that is mounting from a handful of NFL owners, according to sources.

A pushback from the owners' side has been apparent since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.

Some of this resistance has caused the NFL to adjust its schedule next week, moving up the time of Tuesday's meeting and prepping teams to potentially have to stay into Wednesday. The league is bracing for internal negotiations and lobbying that will impact how soon football could return.

The surprise is that many thought this kind of pushback to a deal would occur within the player ranks, not among NFL owners.

In reality, the resistance has been there since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote of the owners to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league.

After the players decertified, owners were briefed on Goodell's offer and some felt it was too one sided for the players and not strong enough for the teams. Those teams never changed their feelings, and recently they have made this directly known to Goodell, according to a source.

Now that the two sides have begun to make some significant progress within the past week, some owners are pushing back against the deal again, according to sources.

This subplot comes at a time when the NFL and NFLPA have made considerable progress, much of it on broad-picture items. The two sides, according to a source, have agreed to an unofficial timeline as to how events such as training camp and free agency would play out if the two sides could come to an agreement on the more significant elements of the deal.

One NFL executive has been urging the league for weeks that, in order for the full preseason schedule to be played, an agreement between the NFL and NFLPA would have to occur no later than July 14.

This would give the courts time to approve the agreement, the NFLPA time to recertify, 32 teams and approximately 2,000 agents the time they would need to be debriefed on the new NFL rules, and players the time they need to get into camp and get in shape for the preseason.

There is a lot for both sides to get through. However, none of it can happen without an agreement that is closer than it has been in months but still a ways away on the most significant points -- division of revenues and jurisdiction over the next collective bargaining agreement.

Some owners clearly want football and are willing to meet the players' price. But others, remembering 2006, when a CBA that seemingly favored the players was thought to have been rushed through, want to make sure that they don't make the same mistake.

[jtm]

i cant believe you're not in the red.

I just saw a post where several people gave a guy pie for posting about the color of his crap he just took. That pretty much sums it up.

[jtm]

"In reality, the resistance has been there since March, when commissioner Roger Goodell was authorized in a vote of the owners to offer and negotiate whatever he thought was best for the league."

Interesting he can offer and negotiate, but can he bind the other NFL teams? This could end up being a big deal. Hopefully he can, if so a couple teams dissenting would not mean anything b/c Goodell would have the ultimate power to pull the trigger.

[Neylus]

I think it takes 24 of 32 votes to pass.

[rayzor]

thoughts from kaplan and breer about what the problems are...

dkaplanSBJ Can confirm what ESPN is reporting that there are some NFL owners resisting the paramaters of framework deal. Reason why tuesday meeting...

dkaplanSBJ ...may go long. Means there are owners who feel league is making too big a concession with possible deal.

AlbertBreer Can confirm that the NFL is getting some resistance from within the ranks of the owners, as momentum builds in negotiations with players.

AlbertBreer In large part, the resisting owners are concerned about the economy tanking again, and getting protection in the case that it does.

AlbertBreer Again, folks ... One way or another, the idea there weren't going to be bumps along the way in this phase of talks was always ridiculous.

AlbertBreer Something else to add: Rift wasn't wholly unexpected, isn't even necessarily new. But feeling is has be managed now, based on where we are.

AlbertBreer What else I can say is that owners who have outside businesses that are leading economic indicators see the concern with nat'l economy.

AlbertBreer ... But again, these could just be little bumps along the way. You should expect angst with so much on the line in these talks.

concerns of resisting owners are valid, imo.

honestly, it's encouraging that it has gotten to this point. they've apparently gotten a good bit accomplished and some hard figures more or less agreed upon by both parties, with the exception of a few owners. i doubt that those few owners will have enough in number to seriously deadlock this thing. still, it's something that can be hammered out in the details.

fwiw, good article again by brandt from a couple days ago explaining the ten core issues and the positions of owners and players on each.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/The-Ten-Step-Program.html

very interesting section concerning we have a #1 overall QB drafted that we have to get under contract...

4) Rookie Salaries

Rookies have no voice in this fight and will be sacrificed. Both sides agree on reform here, with different methods of implementation:

Players propose:

• Maximum contracts of four years (rounds 1-3); three years (rounds 4-7).

• Cap on incentives/escalators.

• 2011 Rookie Pool set to level of 2009 Rookie Pool.

• $200 million of savings on rookie compensation funneled to three areas: veteran contracts, rookie contract upside and increased pensions for pre-1993 retirees.

• Career-ending injury guarantees.

Owners propose more of an NBA-type "wage scale" with:

• Mandatory five year contracts for the first rounders; mandatory four year contracts for all others.

• Pre-defined bonus and salaries depending on draft position.

• Incentives/escalators tied to All-Conference performance.

• No renegotiations or extensions for three years (presently two).

• Signing bonuses payable in prorated amounts and subject to annual recovery.

• Minimum salaries below 2010 levels.

• No skill or injury guarantees.

Players at the top of the Draft will be reduced dramatically by this next CBA. Sam Bradford will go down as the last of the bonus babies.

[panthers55]

I think it takes 24 of 32 votes to pass.

Correct. It does take 24 owners to pass the new CBA so when they say handful of dissenters, it will be interesting to see how many that represents. I would expect since Richardson is helping to negotiate this, we aren't one of the dissenters. I expect this issue will be the dominant one next Tuesday at the owner's meeting.

[CRA]

Correct. It does take 24 owners to pass the new CBA so when they say handful of dissenters, it will be interesting to see how many that represents. I would expect since Richardson is helping to negotiate this, we aren't one of the dissenters. I expect this issue will be the dominant one next Tuesday at the owner's meeting.

really?

If I was a gambler, I would put money on Cincy and Carolina being part of the handful

[panthers55]

Seems to me if the owners want a fixed cap with set increases, the economy tanking would hurt that more than the current system with revenue sharing. If owners are worried about the economy tanking you would think that they would want players to take a hit when revenues go down as well as up. Maybe I am making this up but it seems to me that a big issue seems to be fear that fans can't afford tickets to the game and won't fill the stadiums. The better the NFL does creating a great TV experience, the more folks would rather save the money and not go to games. Plus with 28 million folks playing in fantasy football leagues, they would rather sit at home with the computer working tracking their team than they would going to a game and not knowing how their players are doing. If owners want to fill the stands they have to make the game day experience better than simply watching on TV, which isn't always the case right now.

[CRA]

Seems to me if the owners want a fixed cap with set increases, the economy tanking would hurt that more than the current system with revenue sharing. If owners are worried about the economy tanking you would think that they would want players to take a hit when revenues go down as well as up. Maybe I am making this up but it seems to me that a big issue seems to be fear that fans can't afford tickets to the game and won't fill the stadiums. The better the NFL does creating a great TV experience, the more folks would rather save the money and not go to games. Plus with 28 million folks playing in fantasy football leagues, they would rather sit at home with the computer working tracking their team than they would going to a game and not knowing how their players are doing. If owners want to fill the stands they have to make the game day experience better than simply watching on TV, which isn't always the case right now.

I agree they need to....but I tend to lean toward that now being an impossible task. There IMO is virtually no means for them to surpass an ideal home setup w/ friends. There is little they can offer the price won't offset.

[SorthNarolina]

Seems to me if the owners want a fixed cap with set increases, the economy tanking would hurt that more than the current system with revenue sharing. If owners are worried about the economy tanking you would think that they would want players to take a hit when revenues go down as well as up. Maybe I am making this up but it seems to me that a big issue seems to be fear that fans can't afford tickets to the game and won't fill the stadiums. The better the NFL does creating a great TV experience, the more folks would rather save the money and not go to games. Plus with 28 million folks playing in fantasy football leagues, they would rather sit at home with the computer working tracking their team than they would going to a game and not knowing how their players are doing. If owners want to fill the stands they have to make the game day experience better than simply watching on TV, which isn't always the case right now.

smartphones would probably cure the fantasy football thing. Anybody that loves fantasy football THAT much would probably never want to go to a game anyways. I keep saying I'm going to do it every year but it never sparks the fire.

[panthers55]

really?

If I was a gambler, I would put money on Jacksonville and Buffalo being part of the handful

Fixed it for you.

Richardson is the one negotiating the deal, he wouldn't be leading the owner's side and then dissent to the very deal he is charge of negotiating. That makes no sense at all.

[panthers55]

smartphones would probably cure the fantasy football thing. Anybody that loves fantasy football THAT much would probably never want to go to a game anyways. I keep saying I'm going to do it every year but it never sparks the fire.

I have an issue with supporting players over a team as well. I guess I am old school. And you are right smartphones make it easier to track things on the internet but I would still much prefer to use the computer as opposed to squinting to read my phone screen

[panthers55]

I agree they need to....but I tend to lean toward that now being an impossible task. There IMO is virtually no means for them to surpass an ideal home setup w/ friends. There is little they can offer the price won't offset.

I would be happy with giveaways and getting Panthers stuff like in year's past. In 2010 I didn't get squat but a program. How about 3 or 4 dollar beers for a start. Prices just keep escalating to the point that I rarely spend any money for food or drinks in the stadium preferring to fill up at the tailgate before I go.

If they gave away autographed player pictures as giveaways it would be a serious incentive to go. They could randomly give out 1000 a game (25 players would sign 40 a week) That would be do able.

Just a thought........

[CRA]

Fixed it for you.

Richardson is the one negotiating the deal, he wouldn't be leading the owner's side and then dissent to the very deal he is charge of negotiating. That makes no sense at all.

Cincy's owner was the lone voice during the last CBA they stood against things.....Jerry has admitted he was absolutely right.

Richardson is the one negotiating the deal (as he knew he would be). He also is virtually the only owner to of prepped his organization to go through a lockout/shorten season. There are owners who are sweating right now......Jerry is by far the most prepared for this thing to go long and get ugly (and again he knew he would be in the driver seat).

Just my guess.