21 replies to this topic

[Don Olsen]

Some of the background and media opinions from the 2020 NFL CBA discussions:

 

https://www.forbes.c...s/#408eb79d7e6d

 

https://www.espn.com...cba-sources-say

 

17 Game Schedule:

It will be inevitable to see increased games.  I have been around to see the same talking points on both sides for the jump to 16 games, from 12, and also instituting a bye week.  If the TV deals can increase and the financial side works, it will happen.  It could mean adding another bye week to the mix.

 

Additional Playoff Game:

Personally, I am shocked it has not already taken place.  The expanded the league twice without increasing the number.  It means more revenue across the board and everyone sees money lining their pockets.  I would not be shocked to see it move to 8 teams per league in the foreseeable future.

 

Increased Player Share:

Its a no brain talking point in union based negotiations and going 1% to 1.5% may not make waves, but over a ten year period with the projected growth it might mean another 1 to 3.5 billion in their pockets over what they would have received under old terms and conditions.

 

Tagging:

This is looking to be greatly overhauled in the next CBA.  To the point, it looks to be on hold in 2020.

 

 

Other items I would like to see:

 

Reducing the burden of dead money on salary caps, or the ability to make cap designations (take them completely off the books) in a cyclic pattern (ie. one player in a three year cycle)

 

Discussions on lower salary burden on home grown players, a discount to the cap.

 

 

 

[Mike in STL]

Some of the background and media opinions from the 2020 NFL CBA discussions:

 

https://www.forbes.c...s/#408eb79d7e6d

 

https://www.espn.com...cba-sources-say

 

17 Game Schedule:

It will be inevitable to see increased games.  I have been around to see the same talking points on both sides for the jump to 16 games, from 12, and also instituting a bye week.  If the TV deals can increase and the financial side works, it will happen.  It could mean adding another bye week to the mix.

 

Additional Playoff Game:

Personally, I am shocked it has not already taken place.  The expanded the league twice without increasing the number.  It means more revenue across the board and everyone sees money lining their pockets.  I would not be shocked to see it move to 8 teams per league in the foreseeable future.

 

Increased Player Share:

Its a no brain talking point in union based negotiations and going 1% to 1.5% may not make waves, but over a ten year period with the projected growth it might mean another 1 to 3.5 billion in their pockets over what they would have received under old terms and conditions.

 

Tagging:

This is looking to be greatly overhauled in the next CBA.  To the point, it looks to be on hold in 2020.

 

 

Other items I would like to see:

 

Reducing the burden of dead money on salary caps, or the ability to make cap designations (take them completely off the books) in a cyclic pattern (ie. one player in a three year cycle)

 

Discussions on lower salary burden on home grown players, a discount to the cap.

Hate 17 games. Home and away won't be even. They could keep it 16 games, add a bye week so the season is at 18 weeks, and still get the extra week of added TV revenue. 

 

Playoff and scheduling structures are perfect. Why break it up? 

 

Tags I think benefit owners more than players, so fine if that goes. 

 

I'd be fine if you got rid of dead money if players had fully guaranteed contracts. That way the money is accounted for somewhere. Otherwise there is no penalty for ownership to back out of a contract when they want their players to honor the contracts. 

 

I'd want to see decriminalization of marijuana. I believe the MLB and NBA have done this, and NHL has done away with it for a long time. NFL needs to wake up. They should allow an alternative to those who don't want to get hooked on opioid drugs. 

[Don Olsen]

I'd be fine if you got rid of dead money if players had fully guaranteed contracts. That way the money is accounted for somewhere. Otherwise there is no penalty for ownership to back out of a contract when they want their players to honor the contracts. 

 

Seeing from my experience in baseball front office, players don't care about other players.  As long as it does not impact the ability for that player making his/her money, they really don't care.  I can't see the Union caring either because most players are cut after three years, when a majority of the money has been earned by the player.

 

I am fairly certain the hiccup of dead money came from owner to owner.  I would not put it past the notoriously frugal Mike Brown or recently deceased Bill Bidwell against the owners like Jerry Jones as a poison pill for throwing money left and right to win.

 

As for drugs, I believe most owners have already stated that it will be less punitive and more proactive for drug users.  I suspect players will be allowed to stay with teams while on suspension and the overhaul of recreational drugs listed as looked past.  MLB still tests for all drugs, but recreational users go into a rehabilitation program, very similar to what the NHL does.

 

Until you see the country legalize certain recreational drugs, I can't see any league taking a hardliner stance and run the risk of the government opening up the anti-trust inquiry.

[SportsGuy]

Players aren’t happy with new proposal.

Owners don’t want to pay them normal game check amounts for the 17th game.

[Don Olsen]

It's not odd to see the uninformed get upset.  JJ Watt should talk with his team rep prior to making a hyperbolic statement.

 

A lot of the addresses made on behalf of the players brings the bottom up higher:

 

• Base Salaries increase 100k
• RFA will see increase figures
• Undrafted and drafted player performances see increased figures
• Practice Squad players make $10,500 a week, along with standard benefits of active roster players for tuition, player contribution plan.  The only thing I see is they can be apart of the pension system.

 

From what I have seen, the owners have made a ton of concessions for the little guy.  The revenue split is hitting 48-48.5% and believe it can contain language to be set to 49% if the NFL reaches a certain level of TV agreements.  This would fall inline with baseball and basketball.

 

FYI: I know baseball is not a 50/50 split and both parties are counting the money given in pension, health, etc...  The revenue split is 49/51.  I can attest to basketball, but it has to be in the 49% +/- 1%.

[BSLMikeLowe]

17 games and 14 playoff teams = The solution no one asked for to the problem that never existed.

[SportsGuy]

Anyone who believes the owners want the players to vote no on this is one gullible person.

[Mike B]

Anyone who believes the owners want the players to vote no on this is one gullible person.

Yes, sounds like a smoke screen.  

[mdrunning]

The owners most certainly want this done sooner rather than later. With the specter of a possible labor stoppage after next season removed, they can begin negotiating more lucrative broadcast contracts.

[DJ MC]

https://twitter.com/...026423111585792

[ivanbalt]

https://twitter.com/...026423111585792

 

I liked #9, Take it or Leave it.  Probably the worst bluff ever by the owners.

[Don Olsen]

It was smart of Eric Reid to take agreement to counsel to review; I would take a grain of salt that it was a trail lawyer who opined his response back to Eric.  Trail lawyers, tax lawyers, contract lawyers are not one in the same and each has continuing education in their field of expertise.

 

Its better served to hold weight if a contract lawyer and more specifically a union based contract lawyer review it for him.  It gives a truer picture and the good and the bad based on current labor laws, etc... Things a trial lawyer might misinterpret or misrepresent.

[SportsGuy]

New CBA has passed.

[SportsGuy]

https://twitter.com/...6067266565?s=21

Really close vote.

Probably tells you that it’s a pretty fair deal overall.

[SportsGuy]

https://www.espn.com...s-schedule-work

[Mike in STL]

https://twitter.com/...6067266565?s=21

Really close vote.

Probably tells you that it’s a pretty fair deal overall.

I wouldn’t go that far. It may benefit the older guys but not so much the young. Not sure all the details of course though.

Not quite the same thing but we had two CBAs to vote on during my time in the FD. For example, In order to get something worth voting on they had to skew it to benefit the guys with 20+ years who could work one more year to get a nice boost in retirement.

We also had one that absolutely zero firefighters voted yes on if you asked around. But it got approved. That’s besides the point though.

[You Play to Win the Game]

Yeah, we'll see who gets the first year of 9 home games. I'm betting New England, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Green Bay to name a few.

[SportsGuy]

I wouldn’t go that far. It may benefit the older guys but not so much the young. Not sure all the details of course though.
Not quite the same thing but we had two CBAs to vote on during my time in the FD. For example, In order to get something worth voting on they had to skew it to benefit the guys with 20+ years who could work one more year to get a nice boost in retirement.
We also had one that absolutely zero firefighters voted yes on if you asked around. But it got approved. That’s besides the point though.

Actually, it’s the young players who get benefitted the most.

As the Graziano article points out, this is a better deal for a majority of the players.

[SportsGuy]

Yeah, we'll see who gets the first year of 9 home games. I'm betting New England, Pittsburgh, Dallas, Green Bay to name a few.

I’m guessing the 17th game will be an international game.

[SportsGuy]

Interesting thoughts by McAfee here

https://twitter.com/...7084289024?s=21