Toggle sidebar

OT following the NFL/NFLPA work stoppage; UPD agreement reached

LadyStanley

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,615
19,591
Sin City
Ownership vote was 31-0 with Oakland abstaining.


Right now listening to local (SJ-OAK-SF) sports show talking about it. Apparently Raiders have multiple issues with new CBA. Seems like part of it is the free agency (down from 6 years to 3) and part is football (speculation is that it may be related to the "supplemental" revenue sharing arrangements).
 
LadyStanley

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,615
19,591
Sin City
http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=372224
Hall of Fame Game cancelled.


http://www.tsn.ca/nfl/story/?id=372223
Article on tentative agreement by owners.





OK, more from sport show. Now listening to some lawyers talk about it. Before the union can recertify, a number of lawsuits have to go away (including the anti-trust suit). Also, the players have not agreed to anything, this CBA is all from the owners side. (Seems like the players haven't even seen the new CBA.)

After locking out the players, seems the owners may want to shift the blame for any delay in starting things up on the slowness of the players to get everything together.
 
trueblue9441

trueblue9441

Registered User
Nov 18, 2006
3,985
14
Bronx, NY
not so fast.

dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan
USA Today reporting players have rejected the deal.
3 minutes ago

dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan
Now hearing USA Today report not accurate. Dosn't mean players like the owners proposal, just no rejection, yet
 
LadyStanley

LadyStanley

Registered User
Sep 22, 2004
106,615
19,591
Sin City
darrenrovell 5:13pm via UberSocial for BlackBerry Raiders CEO Amy Trask on abstaining on CBA vote: "We had profound philosophical differences of a football & an economic nature."




SBJLizMullen 5:17pm via UberSocial for BlackBerry
De Smith on NFL:They apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions.


SBJLizMullen 5:05pm via Web
Players side source: "The NFL passed their own proposal. There are numerous items in the proposal that players never agreed to."


MicheleSteele 4:44pm via HootSuite
Players share of revenue depends on the source: they get 55% of media money but 40% of local club revenue






More from (live) TV show - things are changing minute-by-minute.
 
GKJ

GKJ

Global Moderator
Feb 27, 2002
187,246
39,289
Power Play is the sexy word. Sound similar to something Goodenow tried right after the NHL canceled the 04-05 season?
 
thinkwild

thinkwild

Veni Vidi Toga
Jul 29, 2003
10,880
1,542
Ottawa
I dont think players should take less than 50% of revenues; thats a bad precedent to set. Im thinking of some of the service companies i know, like consulting companies, where 55-95% of the per diem would typically go to the talent and the minority share to the company.

The optimism being expressed seems wishful thinking and pressure tactics. Silence would've made me more hopeful for a quick resolution.

Players will receive 55 per cent of national media revenue, 45 per cent of NFL Ventures revenue and 40 per cent of local club revenue.
Click to expand...

The NHL combined certain things with NBC recently didnt they. Defining those revenue allocations must be trickier, perhaps thats why the owners are willing to be generous with that one. But it doesnt seem right to me they could claim more than half the other revenues.

Dont sign it nflpa.
 
Hockey Team

Hockey Team

Hunger Force
Dec 30, 2009
4,553
0
New York, NY
You're forgetting that the players aren't 100% of the talent on a team. Teams also use that revenue to pay extensive coaching staff, scouting staff, etc.

Not to mention minor league players
 
Hockey Team

Hockey Team

Hunger Force
Dec 30, 2009
4,553
0
New York, NY
The fact that basically every team agreed to it (and the one that didn't only abstained, they didn't vote against) makes it seem like the deal's too good for the teams.

If there's compromises in the agreement I don't think every team is going to vote for it.
 

wjhl2009fan

Registered User
Nov 13, 2008
9,042
0
thinkwild said:
I dont think players should take less than 50% of revenues; thats a bad precedent to set. Im thinking of some of the service companies i know, like consulting companies, where 55-95% of the per diem would typically go to the talent and the minority share to the company.

The optimism being expressed seems wishful thinking and pressure tactics. Silence would've made me more hopeful for a quick resolution.



The NHL combined certain things with NBC recently didnt they. Defining those revenue allocations must be trickier, perhaps thats why the owners are willing to be generous with that one. But it doesnt seem right to me they could claim more than half the other revenues.

Dont sign it nflpa.
Click to expand...

You really can't compare pro sports and private companys while i don't think players should get the short end of the stick they should not they should get there fair share.Sure the nflpa may not agree to this and thats in there right thats not to say the next offer will be any better both sides need to give a bit more and hope they can reach a deal.
 
Hockey Team

Hockey Team

Hunger Force
Dec 30, 2009
4,553
0
New York, NY
The owners hold all the cards in this negotiation. They get paid for their TV deal even if there's no season (whoever agreed to that at the network needs to be fired). And unlike hockey where STHs are the lifeblood of a franchise, TV deals provide most of the NFLs revenue. So the teams can potentially collect their tv revenue while spending 0 on player salaries. The teams aren't afraid of a lockout.

And if anyone thinks for a minute the owners give a crap about the sport they're sadly mistaken. The owners care about making money just like in any other business.
 
mouser

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,364
12,735
South Mountain
f2d said:
The owners hold all the cards in this negotiation. They get paid for their TV deal even if there's no season (whoever agreed to that at the network needs to be fired). And unlike hockey where STHs are the lifeblood of a franchise, TV deals provide most of the NFLs revenue. So the teams can potentially collect their tv revenue while spending 0 on player salaries. The teams aren't afraid of a lockout.

And if anyone thinks for a minute the owners give a crap about the sport they're sadly mistaken. The owners care about making money just like in any other business.
Click to expand...

According to some credible reports the owners get the TV money up front, however they will need to reimburse the networks back later if games are lost. It would be more of a temporary loan for some period of time until they have to repay.
 
AlanHUK

AlanHUK

5-14-6-1
Nov 27, 2010
2,480
405
Nottingham, England
outside of the US/North America, is there any other country with a 'football' league?

I can't think of any, and surely that has to be a big thing for the NFL over the players, with the NHL lockout players could play in the AHL or Europe, with the NBA they can play in Europe.

Where could the NFL players go if the lockout does last into the season?
 
Skarjak

Skarjak

Registered User
Sep 8, 2010
790
0
Toronto
You wound me. Canada totally has a football league (the LCF). I guess some borderline NFL players could decide to come play here instead.

One thing that I find strange about the latest developments is that all of a sudden, the players are fine with the offer. They were complaining Friday that things had been put in that had not been negotiated, but not they're looking at the same document and, according to some, a resolution is almost certain tomorrow. I wonder where the change of mood comes from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom