PFT: “True up” still represents biggest issue between NFL and players

[WoodysGirl]

Posted by Mike Florio on May 23, 2011, 8:57 PM EDT

As the lockout continues with no end in sight — unless the Eighth Circuit lifts it — it’s important to keep in mind the fact that, as Peter King of SI.com pointed out in today’s Monday Morning Quarterback, the two sides aren’t really all that far apart.

The crux of the dispute relates to money, especially since the non-economic terms offered by the NFL on March 11 contain many very player-favorable provisions, including a drop in offseason workouts so significant to prompt at least one high-level team source to express relief that the players didn’t accept the offer.

Read the rest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...esents-biggest-issue-between-nfl-and-players/

 

[DallasEast]

The crux of the dispute relates to money, especially since the non-economic terms offered by the NFL on March 11 contain many very player-favorable provisions, including a drop in offseason workouts so significant to prompt at least one high-level team source to express relief that the players didn’t accept the offer.

Wait wait wait.

Was this offer made before DeMaurice Smith faxed the decertification paperwork on their self-imposed D-Day or after?

 

[Hostile]

Wait wait wait.

Was this offer made before DeMaurice Smith faxed the decertification paperwork on their self-imposed D-Day or after?

Before, but this is the first time I've heard it called this.

 

[cowboys#1]

i pray that they come to an agreement soon

 

[Rynie]

Question:

If the 8th Circuit yada yada court lifts the lockout, that's it right? No more appeals? Sorry, I've been purposely ignoring news on this depressing subject. I just want FA to start...like SOON~

 

[speedkilz88]

Everything points to the players needing to actually "negotiate". It sounds like they could get a deal done.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Everything points to the players needing to actually "negotiate". It sounds like they could get a deal done.

Everything points to the basis for how the cap being determined still being light years away.

Its not about 'they are only $53 million apart.'

Its about the NFL wanting 'expenditures' based on accounting they are unwilling to substantiate and a complete unwillingness to deviate from that demand.

The players proposed the pegged cap system to bypass the need for accounting and the owners refuse to budge from their mythical accounting practices.

The only thing that 'points' towards the need for negotiation is Goodell's comments. Hes a real objective source.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Everything points to the basis for how the cap being determined still being light years away.

Its not about 'they are only $53 million apart.'

Its about the NFL wanting 'expenditures' based on accounting they are unwilling to substantiate and a complete unwillingness to deviate from that demand.

The players proposed the pegged cap system to bypass the need for accounting and the owners refuse to budge from their mythical accounting practices.

The only thing that 'points' towards the need for negotiation is Goodell's comments. Hes a real objective source.

You sound more like a major hater rather than someone offering an informed analysis.

credibility--;

/next

 

[Hostile]

You sound more like a major hater rather than someone offering an informed analysis.

credibility--;

/next

He really does. Normally he is great to debate. Not on this. The most close minded person in the entire discussions and he makes crap up out of thin air, and that is not like him.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You sound more like a major hater rather than someone offering an informed analysis.

credibility--;

/next

He really does. Normally he is great to debate. Not on this. The most close minded person in the entire discussions and he makes crap up out of thin air, and that is not like him.

Lets actually discuss specifics then. Something i have noticed that you both consistently refuse to do.

Before the owners opted out they sought to use the stadium credits provision to increase the expenditures portion and get a larger amount.

Do either of you deny this?

There is a provision in the previous CBA that settles disputes over the credits system by hiring on a mutually agreed independent auditor.

Do either of you deny this?

Those credit submissions by the league were over $10 million and were disputed by the players.

Do either of you deny this?

The independent mutually agreed upon auditor, PriceWaterhouseCooper, was hired to audit the credits.

Do either of you deny this?

That independent auditor rejected the stadium credits.

Do either of you deny this?

The owners opted out soon after this stating that they needed more cash for investments and the players asked for more financial disclosure to justify that claim.

Do either of you deny this?

The owners outside of a couple like Bowlens have collectively declined to provide additional financial disclosure.

Do either of you deny this?

The players at the various mediation sessions have presented a pegged cap system where the entire notion of expenditures is eliminated.

Do either of you deny this?

The owners have refused such a system and have stuck to the idea of expenditures system and only come down from their $1 billion asking from the beginning.

Do either of you deny this?

i do not just make up my positions and try and make informed logical conclusions. I base my conclusions on the above facts.

 

[AdamJT13]

The owners have refused such a system

As I've told you before, this is not correct. The owners have proposed a pegged cap system. There are no credits to discuss anymore.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As I've told you before, this is not correct. The owners have proposed a pegged cap system. There are no credits to discuss anymore.

I thought so too based on what you had said before but out of the last mediation session i read that the players had proposed the system and the owners are not giving up on the idea of a set amount of expenditures.

Both are on the table and its a big reason why they are just going around in circles.

 

[burmafrd]

anything showing up in these mediation sessions are for PR and nothing else.

 

[AdamJT13]

I thought so too based on what you had said before but out of the last mediation session i read that the players had proposed the system and the owners are not giving up on the idea of a set amount of expenditures.

Both are on the table and its a big reason why they are just going around in circles.

No, you're wrong. The owners are proposing a pegged cap system, which doesn't involve credits. They've even said that they want the players to stop focusing on percentages and start focusing on hard dollars. The only part of the pegged cap system that even involves percentages anymore is the "true up," and none of it involves any sort of credits. Credits aren't even part of the discussion anymore.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

No, you're wrong. The owners are proposing a pegged cap system, which doesn't involve credits. They've even said that they want the players to stop focusing on percentages and start focusing on hard dollars. The only part of the pegged cap system that even involves percentages anymore is the "true up," and none of it involves any sort of credits. Credits aren't even part of the discussion anymore.

Any insight as to whether any "true up" would, in addition to allowing players to participate in any potential upside, also involve a claw-back mechanism in the event that revenues fell short of projections?

 

[AdamJT13]

Any insight as to whether any "true up" would, in addition to allowing players to participate in any potential upside, also involve a claw-back mechanism in the event that revenues fell short of projections?

No, it would not.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, you're wrong. The owners are proposing a pegged cap system, which doesn't involve credits. They've even said that they want the players to stop focusing on percentages and start focusing on hard dollars. The only part of the pegged cap system that even involves percentages anymore is the "true up," and none of it involves any sort of credits. Credits aren't even part of the discussion anymore.

At one point, Pitts suggested that the switch from a compensation model based on shared revenue to a “pegged cap” occurred at the behest of the owners. Sources with knowledge of the situation contend that the players, not the owners, introduced the concept of the determining a team-by-team salary cap over a period of years, in lieu of focusing on a split in the revenue with a fluid cap based on the annual intake.

We’re told that the players pushed the concept of a “pegged cap” at the infamous meeting on the day before the Super Bowl, which produced multiple reports of Panthers owner Jerry Richardson disrespecting players like Colts quarterback Peyton Manning.

The “pegged cap” system uses revenue projections to determine the numbers. If the actual numbers come in lower, the players still get paid. One major area of dispute has arisen from the question of whether and to what extent the actual performance exceeds the projected revenue growth. The owners’ offer of March 11 omitted that wrinkle; the players want to share in the upside.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/30/pegged-cap-was-players-idea-not-leagues/

The players initial offer was to just split the revenues 50-50 without expenditures.

How do you think the pegged cap system works? I was under the impression that they projected future revenues and then divided that up.

How do they divide that up? Wouldn't that be a percentage? i really do not get the whole thing about 'hard dollar.' I find it ironic actually when their stadium credits got rejected by their auditor.

Regardless, thats pretty much what a 50-50 split without expenditures that the players were reported to have proposed from the very beginning.

Lastly, i do not know why you would think that the idea of modifying the previous CBA, which was the owners original proposal, was taken off the table. The 16 game season is off the table but do you really think that ownership does not want to discuss along those lines too?

I have seen nothing to indicate that they have lost interest in that. Actually when you say 'hard dollar' that notion of expenditures comes to mind and not a division of a pegged revenue projection.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

No, it would not.

Potentially a sweet deal for the players, then, if a true up is on the table.

 

[AdamJT13]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/30/pegged-cap-was-players-idea-not-leagues/

The players initial offer was to just split the revenues 50-50 without expenditures.

How do you think the pegged cap system works? I was under the impression that they projected future revenues and then divided that up.

How do they divide that up? Wouldn't that be a percentage? i really do not get the whole thing about 'hard dollar.' I find it ironic actually when their stadium credits got rejected by their auditor.

Regardless, thats pretty much what a 50-50 split without expenditures that the players were reported to have proposed from the very beginning.

Lastly, i do not know why you would think that the idea of modifying the previous CBA, which was the owners original proposal, was taken off the table. The 16 game season is off the table but do you really think that ownership does not want to discuss along those lines too?

I have seen nothing to indicate that they have lost interest in that. Actually when you say 'hard dollar' that notion of expenditures comes to mind and not a division of a pegged revenue projection.

Think whatever you want to think. I'm just telling you that the owners are not asking for any credits. They have proposed "a pegged cap system where the entire notion of expenditures is eliminated," which is exactly what you said the owners refused.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

You sound more like a major hater rather than someone offering an informed analysis.

credibility--;

/next

Actually, unless the NFL has opened up its books yet, he is correct. They want additional money off the top of the total revenues, and claimed they arn't making enough money to continue being "profitable enough" in the future, but won't show evidence to back these claims, including a list of each teams expenditures.

Since when did you become the source of credibility anyway, nyc? :