1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

ARTICLE: Consensus among owners may be key to labor peace

Discussion in 'NFL Zone' started by trickblue, Mar 7, 2006.

  1. trickblue

    trickblue Old Testament... Zone Supporter

    28,943 Messages
    356 Likes Received
    Link

    Consensus among owners may be key to labor peace
    By Larry Weisman, USA TODAY

    What happens when the "virtually dysfunctional" meet the "overreaching?"

    Perhaps an extension of the NFL labor contract. Perhaps nothing.

    NFL team owners, labeled as "virtually dysfunctional" by NFL Players Association lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, meet Tuesday and possibly Wednesday in Dallas to consider a proposal from the union not so radically different from one they called "overreaching" and voted unanimously against less than a week ago.

    Labor-management squabbles often degenerate into a trade of insults instead of meaningful bargaining points, but the NFL's deal includes another area of contention: The lack of consensus among the owners. It affects not only their dealing with the players but with each other and their failure to get behind Commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

    Revenue-sharing has been a cornerstone of the NFL since the early 1960s when a number of the big-market clubs agreed to pool the television money and keep their little brothers financially whole. But the growth in recent years of unshared revenues for a number of clubs — the Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, New England Patriots — has driven a wedge between the owners. Some want more of this money to be shared and others (primarily those who are earning it) do not.

    If they cannot agree among themselves, they cannot agree with the players. At stake: A system of free agency and a salary cap that has served both sides well since it was implemented in 1993.

    "The owners are working through their own issues. They are not lined up behind Paul. They have the 'haves' and 'have-not' issue," says Robert L. Clayton, a sports labor lawyer with Mintz Levin in Washington, D.C.
    It is creating weird dynamics in the talks, in the stances the sides take and in the public perception of the nation's most popular sport, he says.

    "Everyone saw a golden goose that no one wanted to harm. But now the focus is on the group of wealthy teams, and the fans are starting to look at this group as the problem, not the union. The union is talking an extension of the cap, which is a cap on salaries and that is contrary to how people view unions, usually," Clayton says.

    There's also a lot of attention being paid to the lower-revenue teams. They will not vote in favor of the extension without more revenue sharing because the salary cap will be driven up another $10 million by the unshared earnings of the richer teams.

    Currently, the players derive their share from what's called defined gross revenues — basically broadcasting and television money. The new model throws everything in the pot, even if some teams don't earn that type of revenue. If they were stretched to compete before, when 70% of their income went to payroll, how much worse will the low rollers feel now?

    "The owners are already at the point of pain" with the offer they made to the players on Sunday, says Marc Ganis, a Chicago-based consultant to several NFL teams on stadium and business issues. Whether or not they share more of their money with each other, they will not want to meet the players' demand of 59.5% of what is now called total football revenue. Their offer is for 56.2%.

    "I suspect that the (union's) stridency and the overreaching were a surprise to the owners after they agreed to the structural change to TFR (total football revenue). This is one of those situations that really does appear to be a significant overreach. The numbers the players are asking for may not be feasible from the owners' standpoint," Ganis said.

    So they could agree on that and perhaps no more at this meeting. Cowboys owner Jerry Jones likes neither the idea of more revenue sharing nor the idea of coughing up nearly 60% of revenues pegged at $5.7 billion by the Sports Business Journal and on their way as high as $10 billion by the end of the decade.

    "I'm not happy with the proposal," Jones says. "I didn't think we'd be entertaining the type of proposal we got from the players."

    If it does not pass — and it needs 24 of 32 votes — the waiver deadline is set for 9 p.m. ET on Wednesday. That is when the teams would need to be in compliance with the 2006 salary cap of $94.5 million, which could precipitate the release of well-known players. Many contracts were done in recent years in anticipation of this extension and a much higher cap figure that may not happen.

    Free agency then would begin at one minute after midnight on Thursday morning. It will be business as usual in times that have suddenly become unusual after 13 years of labor peace.
  2. bbgun

    bbgun Benched

    27,868 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Be afraid.

    [IMG]
  3. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,202 Messages
    2,039 Likes Received
    The thing that escapes me on this is how any of the owners can entertain the 60% total revenue number. If your a big market team, you have to balk at it because it means that your supporting the walfare state. If your a small market team, it means that your allowing the players to force you into an economic situation that can not sustain itself. It will eventually lead to all incompasing discord with the big market teams and something will eventually give. The only logical explination, IMO, is that the small market teams are supporting this for other reasons. It could be that they see this as an even bigger opportunity to make money at the expense of the profitable teams in the NFL.

    Logically, the owners should be in unison on this point. It should be a situation in which the players are looking at a dire situation if the cap goes away.

    This big revenue team being greedy is a bunch of BS.
  4. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,202 Messages
    2,039 Likes Received

    :laugh2:

    He looks like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons.
  5. Rack Bauer

    Rack Bauer Federal Agent

    22,585 Messages
    527 Likes Received

    I was thinking more along the lines of that guy from the Poltrigeist (sp?).
  6. ABQCOWBOY

    ABQCOWBOY Moderator Staff Member

    35,202 Messages
    2,039 Likes Received
    Same guy I think.
  7. fortdick

    fortdick Well-Known Member

    5,412 Messages
    35 Likes Received
    Screw it all! Let's just get rid of the cap all together, as well as subsidy sharing. Let the marker decide who wins championships, not the NFL Politburo! Who really cares if the small markets fail?

    This has me so pissed off I would like to see the league back to 24 teams!
  8. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Bad Santa Staff Member

    61,330 Messages
    4,656 Likes Received
    That was one of the few movie villians that just flat out freaked me out.

    Going around singing god is in his holy temple ... just freaky.:(

    On a serious note Uncle Al really needs to hang em up. He looks really bad.
  9. BadKarma

    BadKarma Active Member

    1,067 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    This guy - Nathan Davis???
    [IMG]
  10. Rack Bauer

    Rack Bauer Federal Agent

    22,585 Messages
    527 Likes Received

    :eekmouse:
  11. burmafrd

    burmafrd Well-Known Member

    41,871 Messages
    1,708 Likes Received
    Nothing keeps going up forever- it will be a matter of time before the TV money no longer increases. With market share of the networks getting smaller and smaller, the money for ever increasing salary caps will not be there from THAT source. The same with other revenue- you cannot keep increasing ticket prices, etc without finally reaching a point where attendence starts going down. ANYONE betting that revenue will just increase at 10-20% a year or more forever is just plain stupid. If the TV goes to pay per view- which COULD happen- that will impact attendence and other money.
    The NFL would be very wise to start looking at that now and start socking away a significant % of gross revenue for a rainy day that might not be that FAR into the future.

Share This Page