Visit NFL from the sidelines on the new Observer-Reporter site:

Friday, March 11, 2011

NFL releases is proposal

According to the AP, here is what the NFL released as its latest proposal to the NFLPA. It should give you an idea of what they're looking at as future salary caps.

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union’s proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).
2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union’s “rookie cap” proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.
3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multiyear injury guarantee.
4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the offseason program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.
5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.
6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.
7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.
8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.
9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.
10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.


Patrick said...

I'm not going to say Im an expert, but I followed the events pretty closely. Based on that, I put the blame on 2 people: Taglibue and De Smith.

Everyone knew when the last CBA deal was done that this day was coming. If I remember correctly there was an even a possibility that the owners wouldn't approve the deal amongst themselves. Tags set up a band aid agreement to last a few years and then rode off into the sunset leaving a festering mess behind.

I could on for a week about De Smith. How can you even think of yourself as a successful union leader when your goal (and make no mistake about it, this was his goal from the get go) was to de-certify the union? He's issuing ultimatums right before the clock strikes midnight. Thats not negotiating, thats acting like a spoiled kid.

De Smith made his bones as a lawyer and he must think his skills will allow for a better deal through litigation rather than negotiation. Unfortunately, the NFLPA chief should be a negotiator and the ones who suffer here are the fans, the players, and a whole cast of NFL employees. Hopefully that doesn't mean gameday employees as well come September.

Its sad that it has gotten to this point and I think the sport already has taken on a little damage.

Steve-O said...

I have had the unfortunate responsibility of conducting labor negotiations on behalf of my employer and I honestly hated the process. Both sides stake out unattainable goals and then slowly work towards common ground. Although my experience is markedly different than the NFL situation I will say that the only way to conclude a successful negotiation is for both sides to have a strong desire to seal a deal. Any posturing by either side is just that, posturing. At the end of the day the only thing that will cause these two groups to come back to negotiations is financial suffering. Unfortunately for us, the fans, this may take the loss of part of the season. I am really disappointed in both sides and may boycott a few televised games.

adamg said...

What the NFL released sounds like a pretty good deal, but we are left to wonder what the league left out in its public release, which, of course, was designed to make itself look like the good guys.

joe said...

what the nfl released is nothing more than an attempt to sway people to their side in the pubic relations battle. same as the blahblahblah from the union.

when i see the panthers owner on tv flapping his gums, for some reason it makes me want to throw rotten fruit at him !

just ridiculous they got this far, 9.3 billion ? combine the issues of last season, this mess, and they have been slowly but surely eroding a lifetime of support for nfl football.

oh yeah...roger....that letter you sent out is good for one thing tp

Anonymous said...

De maurice just likes parading around in that hat. He's in it for the spotlight (like Patrick).

Anonymous said...

Patrick is also racist. He's in the racist spotlight

Other Patrick said...


I like the anonymous above.

t1mmy10 said...

i want to know your take dale. you have typically have good insight (without the attitude & copy/pasting from webmd bouchette brings) & more behind the scenes experience than any of us have.

do you think the nflpa just wanted to go to court or was there underlying legit reasons why they didnt at least extend negotiations?

Dale Lolley said...

They won't continue negotiating until they see the books from the teams. The players don't feel the owners are being honest about their bottom line and don't want to give the owners an extra $1 billion off the top in addition to the $1 billion they already give up.
The owners want that money because, while they're still making money, they're not making as much as they were, particularly since so many put money into building their own stadiums - not all the money but good chunks.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Sav said...

I come here to read up on the Steelers/NFL. I instead am reading some loser typing Racist. You are funny Anonymous. Put your name in at least. Good stuff as always Dale.

On a side note, Jeff Pash (pretty sure that's his name) sounded like a cry baby who didn't get his way so he's takin his ball and going home.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Joe, That's my goal to be funny lol. Funny huh lol lol

marc said...

dale touched on the issue that isn't being talked about.

clearly, the union does not trust the owners one bit. the owners offered up profit/loss statements that were audited. not detailed, line by line statements, but general summary type things. the union didn't even want to see them. that right there is the only thing you need to know the union was going to decertify no matter what.

colin said...

Marc, there's a good reason for wanting more than an auditor's take on whether NFL teams are "profitable" -- what's making them profitable or not? The players think there's a lot of waste and a lot of perks getting handed out that are being called football expenses when they aren't, and now the players are being asked to sacrifice. You need the full financials, not just profitability statements, to see that.

Which isn't to say that the union wasn't going to decertify anyway (in fact, with the league stockpiling money, it looks like both sides never planned for anything but a lockout), it's just that there are good reasons to want more than an audit.

(Related: I was somewhat disappointed with Art II's statements on this... can't expect him to be anything but an owner, but still -- would like to see him bridge the divide and lead toward a solution rather than repeat Jerry Jones' talking points).

marc said...

i think it's great. employees forcing an owner to open the books. who runs and owns the company?

let's consider this example. the NFL agrees to open the books completely for the union. but, some of the owners don't like it so they say "no." does the NFL have the power to force a private company to open its books? i'd like to know the answer to that question.

more reasonably, the NFL should offer to open the books but black out the names of teams and people. the union would reject it because they don't really care about the bottom line, but rather trying to find even one instance of unnecessary spending and flaunt that to the media and persecute the team for doing it.

i hope they miss the whole season and each of these players loses a whole year of their career. the longer it goes the more it benefits the owners. the owners can eventually recoup their losses, but the players can't get that time back, ever. then they'll realize how good they had it, and how little they actually gained. and they will be able to thank de smith for that.

kyle said...

The owners would open their books if they all agreed to it. I don't see it happening. As was mentioned in a Steelers Lounge podcast, Mike Brown would have to explain why he repeatedly paid himself bonuses as the GM of the Bengals despite how awful he was. How, regardless of how poorly the team fared and how many first round busts he drafted he continued to write himself checks from his business.

You say the players don't know how good they've got it. With revenue sharing, a salary cap, and no minimum payroll, owners can make millions with very little risk. The owner of the Jaguars can sit back, not sell out a single game, and make money hand over fist. At least the players have to perform to get big money.

colin said...

The thing to keep in mind is that this is all in the context of the owners opting out of the CBA -- saying that the model is unsustainable, so we'd like some of the money back from you thanks.

What may be an unreasonable demand in other circumstances (the call to open the books) is a little more reasonable when the raison d'etre of this whole fight is the owners' insistence that a well-run team cannot succeed. The players are asking them to prove it (both that they aren't succeeding, and well-run).

Precedents or analogies aside, the owners put this one on the table.

Joe Pasaz said...

Mark, If the owners have money then why can't they spend it on what they want? We lve in a free country, dang.

adamg said...

Marc, Enron was given a clean bill of health by auditors, too. The CPAs, as it turned out, went willing along hiding the truth from the public investors.

The best recent example of how expenses and income can be manipulated is the McCourt divorce papers that exposed just how the McCourts hid the profits they were making from owing the LA Dodgers.

marc said...

of course mcourt hid the profits, he's getting divorced and didn't want his ex-wife getting his money.

obviously, in this case, the auditor of the financial statements would be agreed upon by the players and the owners.

adamg said...

Apparently the 3rd party auditor told the NFLPA the information the owners would provide for the audit wasn't sufficient to determine their true profitability or not.

Probably what the NFLPA should have done was get the books of the Green Bay Packers, since they are a publicly held company, and told the owners what similar info they wanted for the other 31 teams to give the 3rd party auditor.

The point about the McCourt divorce papers is that they reveal the way owners manipulate revenue and expenses to show profit and loss.

marc said...

actually, the advice the players union received was from an advisor they hired, not an independent 3rd party auditor agreed upon by both sides.

so, let's see, we get paid by the hour and our client wants to know if these numbers are worthwhile. our client also wants to make sure whatever we say doesn't throw a wrench into their negotiations.

so, wink-wink, these numbers aren't that useful. we get paid more and our client is happy.

adamg said...

The quote from the Post-Gazette:

"(Steeler player rep Ryan)Clark even refuted the claim by several owners and league general counsel Jeff Pash that the players weren't interested in having a third-party auditor review financial documents offered by the league. The owners said they agreed to financial disclosure to better inform the players why they were seeking more money off the top from the estimated $9 billion generated annually by the league.

"They gave us what they thought was good, but the third party [auditor] made the decision that it wasn't sufficient," Clark said. "I can't tell you how ridiculous and insufficient the gesture was."

marc said...

"The players are serious about getting a deal done, and we need an accurate understanding of what the numbers actually mean," says executive committee member Scott Fujita, via Jim Trotter of Sports Illustrated. "More importantly, if we don't get the full audited financial statements, we need to know what other information we need to make an informed decision. That's where this investment bank has been hired to help us out."

clark is full of it. there are several accounts of the nflpa taking the advice of the investment bankers they hired. the one above is from the horses mouth.