NFL Lawyer Pash Says Yahoo's Jason Cole Has an Idea That Might Work

[Hostile]

One writer's proposal even Jeff Pash said "might actually work"

5/31/2011 10:27:19 AM

Jason Cole of Yahoo Sports has proposed a simple solution for the labor impasse between the players and the NFL owners.

Here it is:

Continue to divide the first $10 billion of revenue the way it was done from 2006 to 2009. Currently, the revenues are more than $9.2 billion and expect to hit $10 billion by 2012 if all goes as expected. the owners get a $1 billion credit off the top and the players get 60 percent of what’s left (roughly $5.4 billion of the remaining $9 billion). After that, the owners get 60 percent of every dollar between $10 billion and $15 billion. Then, the players go back to earning 60 percent of every dollar between $15 billion and $20 billion. The owners would get a nice initial bump, giving them what they believe are the necessary dollars to reinvest in the game. Then, the players get the upside benefit of the later growth and would end up getting the 50-50 split they believe they deserve.

Last week, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash told Cole, “Your solution might actually work.”

Right now we are all waiting for the hearing Friday before the 8th Circuit Court. After the hearing is completed, it will take several weeks before they issue a ruling. It sounds like a great idea if the players would propose this and get back to the bargaining table. All we know right now is one side is going to be disappointed once the court system travels it's full course with rulings and appeals.

 

[Doomsday101]

One writer's proposal even Jeff Pash said "might actually work"

5/31/2011 10:27:19 AM

Jason Cole of Yahoo Sports has proposed a simple solution for the labor impasse between the players and the NFL owners.

Here it is:

Continue to divide the first $10 billion of revenue the way it was done from 2006 to 2009. Currently, the revenues are more than $9.2 billion and expect to hit $10 billion by 2012 if all goes as expected. the owners get a $1 billion credit off the top and the players get 60 percent of what’s left (roughly $5.4 billion of the remaining $9 billion). After that, the owners get 60 percent of every dollar between $10 billion and $15 billion. Then, the players go back to earning 60 percent of every dollar between $15 billion and $20 billion. The owners would get a nice initial bump, giving them what they believe are the necessary dollars to reinvest in the game. Then, the players get the upside benefit of the later growth and would end up getting the 50-50 split they believe they deserve.

Last week, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash told Cole, “Your solution might actually work.”

Right now we are all waiting for the hearing Friday before the 8th Circuit Court. After the hearing is completed, it will take several weeks before they issue a ruling. It sounds like a great idea if the players would propose this and get back to the bargaining table. All we know right now is one side is going to be disappointed once the court system travels it's full course with rulings and appeals.

I just hope they can come up with an agreement that both sides are willing to live with so we can get back to football not just this years but years to come with labor peace.

 

[Hoofbite]

Or......cut out all the unnecessary math and just divide it down the middle 50/50 until 2020.

Granted, it's not going to be exactly the same but why try to make the thing any more difficult than it needs to be.

You get this much during this year, we get this much the next year.

That will last until the side who's about ready to be on the 40% realizes how much will be lost the following year.]

Edit: Yeah Hos, 2010 probably won't work.

And I have another question.

If the players are slotted at 4.2 billion or whatever it is......what happens to the unspent cap money?

Edit #2:

But this would be right up the players' alley. Take the immediate gratification of getting the big amount right now in exchange for a lesser amount in a few years. Just like Nate Clements and Haynesworth contracts. They look all good but are completely lacking reason because a player who takes less overall amount but a more reasonable number will actually come out ahead in the long run.

And you know why this looks good to the owners.......THEY ARE THE PRICE FIXERS. Hey, sounds great. Now we just make sure that revenues sit at 14.8B for the next 25 years.

 

[Hostile]

Or......cut out all the unnecessary math and just divide it down the middle 50/50 until 2010.

So the future has no point in being negotiated?

Reverend Camping?

 

[SkinsFan28]

Or......cut out all the unnecessary math and just divide it down the middle 50/50 until 2010.

Granted, it's not going to be exactly the same but why try to make the thing any more difficult than it needs to be.

You get this much during this year, we get this much the next year.

That will last until the side who's about ready to be on the 40% realizes how much will be lost the following year.

Well that's ok, just write in an opt-out clause. It works like a charm!

 

[Hoofbite]

So the future has no point in being negotiated?

Reverend Camping?

Obviously I, just like Mr. Camping, miscalculated........I was off by 10 years or so.......he was off by 17 years the first time. It's an inexact science. We're working on it.

 

[Doomsday101]

Well that's ok, just write in an opt-out clause. It works like a charm!

I would not doubt there will be some kind of opt out clause open to either side just as there was on the last one which.

 

[SkinsFan28]

I would not doubt there will be some kind of opt out clause open to either side just as there was on the last one which.

Maybe, but I would much rather they sit down and find a way to make a lasting agreement that wouldn't need one. As a curiousity, and not to side track this thread, has every CBA since the 93 SSA had an opt out clause, or was it put in new for the 2006 CBA.

 

[Doomsday101]

Maybe, but I would much rather they sit down and find a way to make a lasting agreement that wouldn't need one. As a curiousity, and not to side track this thread, has every CBA since the 93 SSA had an opt out clause, or was it put in new for the 2006 CBA.

I hope they can come to a long term agreement as well but even at that I would expect both sides will want an opt out since no one has a crystal ball to see into the future and what may happen

 

[Hostile]

Obviously I, just like Mr. Camping, miscalculated........I was off by 10 years or so.......he was off by 17 years the first time. It's an inexact science. We're working on it.

Keep working. I'm listening.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

One writer's proposal even Jeff Pash said "might actually work"

5/31/2011 10:27:19 AM

Jason Cole of Yahoo Sports has proposed a simple solution for the labor impasse between the players and the NFL owners.

Here it is:

Continue to divide the first $10 billion of revenue the way it was done from 2006 to 2009. Currently, the revenues are more than $9.2 billion and expect to hit $10 billion by 2012 if all goes as expected. the owners get a $1 billion credit off the top and the players get 60 percent of what’s left (roughly $5.4 billion of the remaining $9 billion). After that, the owners get 60 percent of every dollar between $10 billion and $15 billion. Then, the players go back to earning 60 percent of every dollar between $15 billion and $20 billion. The owners would get a nice initial bump, giving them what they believe are the necessary dollars to reinvest in the game. Then, the players get the upside benefit of the later growth and would end up getting the 50-50 split they believe they deserve.

Last week, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash told Cole, “Your solution might actually work.”

Right now we are all waiting for the hearing Friday before the 8th Circuit Court. After the hearing is completed, it will take several weeks before they issue a ruling. It sounds like a great idea if the players would propose this and get back to the bargaining table. All we know right now is one side is going to be disappointed once the court system travels it's full course with rulings and appeals.

its a good compromise, but according to brees, the owners were waiting for upshaw to die so they could screw the players.

lets not forget that he, manning and brady stand to benefit the most, given that they want a rookie cap. and that most of the extra money would go to the top players. so the 120 mill that manning is expected to make is going to be 140 mill. but the bottom players will end up with an extra 20,000. I guess that's fair.

and I guess the owners don't have to invest in equipment, coaching, stadiums or anything. do they? they don't benefit from that. do they?

the player, specially the top level players are just greedy. they want to stick it to the owners as well as the majority of the rest of hte players.

 

[BrassCowboy]

its a good compromise, but according to brees, the owners were waiting for upshaw to die so they could screw the players.

lets not forget that he, manning and brady stand to benefit the most, given that they want a rookie cap. and that most of the extra money would go to the top players. so the 120 mill that manning is expected to make is going to be 140 mill. but the bottom players will end up with an extra 20,000. I guess that's fair.

and I guess the owners don't have to invest in equipment, coaching, stadiums or anything. do they? they don't benefit from that. do they?

the player, specially the top level players are just greedy. they want to stick it to the owners as well as the majority of the rest of hte players.

i would hope they use the savings to raise the vet minimum because that is where the older players are hurting.

 

[burmafrd]

55-45 with 1 Billion take off the top for Stadium financing per year.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Owners are going to want to restructure the revenue sharing between teams at some point down the road.

If Jerry really wanted to he could be making this situation a whole lot more difficult than it already is. Can't really blame him or successful owners from being upset. If the players feel like their getting robbed, think about revenue redistribution between franchises. Jerry has to give an enormous portion of the money he makes to garbage teams like the Browns to establish 'parity'.

 

[BubbleScreen]

55-45 with 1 Billion take off the top for Stadium financing per year.

I like that. And I don't care which side is 55 and which 45. I would also like to see some kind of guaranteed percentage for retired players. Good luck getting owners or current players to pony up for that, though.

Really, other than dividing the pot, making sure the league can grow/thrive and taking care of the retired players, what other issues are there?

 

[junk]

Owners are going to want to restructure the revenue sharing between teams at some point down the road.

If Jerry really wanted to he could be making this situation a whole lot more difficult than it already is. Can't really blame him or successful owners from being upset. If the players feel like their getting robbed, think about revenue redistribution between franchises. Jerry has to give an enormous portion of the money he makes to garbage teams like the Browns to establish 'parity'.

I'm pretty sure they already want to do that.

If I had to guess, I'd say that's the core issue that's driving the owners at this point. That and the way the cap is currently calculated using local and national revenue.

 

[casmith07]

Get him a whiteboard and get him in the room.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Get him a whiteboard and get him in the room.

Why ya got to be racial about your boards?

 

[casmith07]

Why ya got to be racial about your boards?

lol Salty...got me good on that one

 

[kmp77]

And give owners 45% of player endorsements since they're making money off the team and team name.