The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Sounds like a fair deal for both sides.  Players percentage of revenue drops from 53% to 48%.  Owners don't get their $2 billion credit off the top.  A rookie wage scale will be implemented, no 18 game schedule, and a Thursday night game on NFL network every week. 

C'mon guys, get it done!!!

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6687485

I heard that the 18 game season is negotiable but not take it or leave it and that the other 8 Thursday night games go to the highest bidder, not all on the NFL network.  Regardless of the details lets get it done!

Interesting proposal.  The problem I see with the players accepting it is that the real benefits to the players are based on projections of future income growth.  Are current players going to approve a CBA that may not benefit them if they are out of the league in three years??

BTW I hate the idea of an 18 game season, and games every Thursday.  Current pro football is too physical to endure an 18 game season, especially when you factor in a couple more games for the playoofs.  Thursday games suck for the road teams on a short week, and again with the physical nature doesn't give the players' bodies time to recover to compete at a top level.

What if Thursday games coincided with bye weeks?

Game every thursday makes sense, but ESPN has college football on Thursdays and pays the NFL $1 billion for Monday Night Football. ESPN won't want to pay the NFL $1bill then have the same NFL take away their entire Thursday night rating for college football, possible conflict there.

Sounds fair for both sides I guess just off what you wrote, without looking into the fine print. The owners not taking their cut off the top must chap the ass of some of those guys, it must be killing them to give that up!

No, that's just you reading your already-determined-truth ("owners will cave") into this.

The facts are simple:

Under the old CBA, players got about 60% of revenue after $1 billion was taken off the top. With $9 billion in revenue, that's 53% of total revenue.

Under the leaked proposal, players get 48% of total revenue. (Less, since owners get to take some money off the top for stadium building, but how much is unclear.)

So, players are taking a 5 percentage point decrease, or about a %10 pay cut.

No, the losers here are the small market teams. The cap will go from being a reasonably "hard" cap (no, let's not start this discussion again, you lost) to a much "harder" cap.

There will still be the old-fashioned cap, but as demonstrated in the previous cap-thread, those numbers bore little resemblance to actual payouts, even seen over multiple years. What the leaked proposal suggests is that the minimum cap will switch from using "cap accounting" to actual payroll numbers.

Taking ESPN's example of a $120 million cap, instituting a payroll minimum will force teams to actually pay out close to $120 million a year.

That drastically increases the floor and makes it much harder for small-market teams (or cheapskate owners) to "manage" their salaries. That's where the resistance to this deal is going to come from (owners' side, anyway).

What you have to remember is that the old CBA provided mechanism for increasing the salary cap league-wide if the total payout in any year was below a certain threshold (it was last triggered for the 2009 season). So low payouts from the small-market teams (usually) would result in a league-wide cap increase, effectively allowing those small-market teams to shift the burden of paying out the difference to the whole the league.

--------

Overall, other than 5 percentage points less for the players, what this deal does is take away a lot of the accounting crap. The $1 billion off the top. The cap floor fudging. The players have to place less trust in the teams now, since their share is simply calculated from the gross revenue with less possibility of the owners to fudge the numbers. They also get more steady payouts year-to-year and team-to-team. The owners, on the other hand, lose a lot of flexibility in how they manage their salaries, which will hurt any team experiencing a cash crunch.

The other major additions are completely unsurprising: A rookie wage scale, improved health care coverage, and increased benefits.

You can't take a shot at me and say "don't start"..lol ! I didn't lose that argument, I was right then an I am still correct. The cap has been hard since day 1 that isn't changing. It can't get "harder". Its like your more pregnant today than yesterday, its impossible. It's either a hard cap or a soft cap. PERIOD!!

And the owners are about to cave, why do you think so many owners are upset with this deal and why it might take another month to convince a lot of them to get to 24 votes. Or why they will have to change some of this stuff beingl eaked. According to NFL Network this isn't going to end till Mid-July unless a minor miracle happens. I hope the NFL Network report is wrong, but thats what they are saying.

Forcing teams to spend damn near 96.5% of the cap or whatever the amount is, that is the owners caving. Forcing ALL of them to spend money is NOT what Cincy, Arizona, Carolina, Buffalo,....etc want!! To quote, Charlie Sheen....for the players that is WINNING!! And for the owners that is CAVING!

;)

This reminds me of the "clean thread", although ever-so-slightly more on topic.

The old cap left plenty of room to fudge. The old cap allowed teams to not actually pay out any amount resembling the cap number.

The leaked proposal enforces a much stricter adherence to the cap.

Call it what you like.



As you point out, it only takes 9 votes to put the kibosh on the deal. While there will be resistance from small-market teams, it's not going to get anywhere close to 9 nay votes.

In terms of negotiation strategy, however, it is in the NFL's interest to have it appear that a lot of owners are very unsatisfied, whether that is the case or not. In fact, I'm surprised we haven't seen some choice (public) outbursts of dissatisfaction from a couple of owners. I would have expected that. Perhaps the court order to not discuss the negotiations publicly is having an effect?


Yeah, taking 48% instead of 53% of overall revenue is a real WIN for the players.

If you take away the BILLION off the top and you FORCE the owners to spend over 95% of the cap, it actually is WINNING! Cause its a higher overall number. But why let facts get in the way

Now you are just plain wrong.

The players actually *got* 53% with the old system (60% before the $1 billion). Which teams paid how much may have been "fudge-able", but no one disputes that the players got %53 with the old CBA. Not the players, not the league, not the press.

If the leaked proposal is correct, this number will DROP to 48% under the new CBA.

The $1 billion off the top was already corrected for in the 53% vs 48%.

whatever, believe what ya want when every report says otherwise

Cite a source, please, because you are dead wrong.

You can start by taking a look at the article actually linked to at the top of this thread. I'll quote the relevant bit:

"players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent."

That ESPN is touting the 60% and making it seem like people thought this is what players got is laughable, of course (and would make the drop in pay for players much worse). The mathematics is trivial:

60% of ($9 billion minus $1 billion) = $4.8 billion
$4.8 billion / $9 billion = 53.3%

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. The plain facts are that players got 53% of total revenues before and would get 48% under the leaked proposal.

Well that would certainly work out better, makes scheduling a little difficult.  Although the bye weeks don't start til a couple weeks into the season, right?  I just seem to recall a few seasons back where the genius NFL schedulers had Miami play a Monday night game, then a Sunday game, then a Thursday game.

That's a conflict for ESPN, not the NFL.  ESPN would (and does) have the same conflict between the NFL and MLB/NBA/NHL games.  The NFL has no need or desire to plan their schedule around ESPN's programming lineup.

Then ESPN will have no desire to pay the NFL $1 billion for Monday Night Football. Look at it from both sides skippy. You think the NFL will want to piss off their best customer, one who pays them $1 billion for game rights!! HELLO!!!!!

So if I understand you correctly, ESPN's response to losing viewers on Thursday night is... to throw away their ratings for Monday night, too?  That's the stupidest, least effective threat ESPN could make.  ESPN would literally be saying that the NFL's product is so good that it devalues whatever other programming they have in the same time slot... how can they then turn around and say that they may get rid of their only other weekly NFL game (so they can lose in that time slot too)?  It's a transparently empty threat.

NFL football is going to happen on Thursdays.  If NFLN is no longer the exclusive Thursday outlet, it is entirely likely that ESPN would make every effort to drop whatever second-rate programming they are currently airing on Thursday night and air the NFL instead.

actually if you read the reports you would know the NEW Thursday night package in 2012 that is being discussed will air on 4 different networks. 4 games will air on NFL Network. And 3 other channels will also air 4 games. None of which will be on a network that already airs NFL football. This is to get new revenue streams from new networks. Not more money from existing networks which they feel doesn't expand the NFL Brand.

Some of the networks interested are TNT, Showtime, Versus, HBO...etc.

NOT to mention ESPN has contracts in place with these college conferences (ACC, Big East,...etc) for Thursday night games and they can't break those contracts to go grab NFL. I mean they could try but it would cost them a ton of moeny to buy out those college deals.

And you FAIL to realize ESPN is the customer paying $1 billion to the NFL. You always try to keep your customer happy, ESPN won't be happy. Few if any other networks can fork over $1 billion for 17 Monday Night games and no playoff games in return, the NFL might be upseting its best customer and could lose some revenue over it. Might be an issue down the road that comes back to hurt the NFL long-term

Contracts end.  ESPN doesn't have to renew them.

...unless other customers are willing to pay you more for the same (finite) product.

I would rather watch an NFL game on ESPN on Thur than a couple mid level college teams.

ESPN just signed a huge one with the ACC ain't gonna end anytime soon.

NFL on Thursdays starts in 2012

You will watch NFL Games on Thursday but it will be on 4 different channels throughout the season. ESPN most likely won't be one of them.

The article says that 16 Thursday games would not start until 2014.

WFAN was reporting 2012 yesterday

Update.  Sources are saying the two sides are within "striking distance" of a new CBA.

Update... In a world with laser guided ICBMs, the term "within striking distance" doesn't mean "close" nearly as much as it used to. ;)

Could we remove the"breaking news" from the title? It wasn't really even breaking news at the time,and seems stupid to leave it there,for days on end...

happy?

 :D ;D I'd been fine with just having the "Breaking news" removed....your point was made.... :D ;D

We knew the owners were having a meetings,so hearing details of what the owners wanted wasn't really news...

It wasn't coming out of a joint meeting,and "a lot of the speculation" seems to be it will be early to mid July....IE refer to Strokes post...

Joint Meetings are scheduled next week...

Modified to add...Thank you...

Love it!

Hate to say it, but I was also hoping the "BREAKING NEWS" thing would be removed.  I don't mind it when the news is actually breaking, but after a few days its just distracting.

That wouldn't have been nearly as funny. 

Damn, I apparently missed it. LOL

I changed the title to "edited: stale NEWS: Terms of new CBA revealed"  someone changed it hence.