PDA

View Full Version : Owners may opt out of labor deal next week



Sassy
05-18-2008, 10:56 PM
Owners may opt out of labor deal next week
By DAVE GOLDBERG, AP Football Writer
May 16, 6:53 pm EDT

Buzz Up PrintNEW YORK (AP)—NFL owners could opt out of their agreement with the players union next week, leaving open the possibility of a 2010 season without a salary cap.

The labor agreement is on the agenda for the league meetings in Atlanta on Tuesday.

“If they don’t do it next week then it will be soon after that,” Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, said Friday. “They want to opt out and we don’t.”

In the agreement signed in March of 2006, both sides were given the right to get out of the deal by Nov. 8, 2008. League officials noted that doesn’t mean that a decision could not be made earlier.

That contract was due to expire at the end of the 2013 season. If the owners nullify it, a move that has seemed inevitable for a while, it would end after the 2011 season with 2010 being uncapped.

The end of the agreement does not necessarily mean that there will be a work stoppage, although Upshaw has predicted that the owners could lock out the players in 2011. But the early opt out also could lead to earlier talks on a new deal, which the owners feel has leaned too far toward the players—Upshaw already has had several preliminary meetings, including one recently with Jerry Richardson of Carolina and Pat Bowlen of Denver, two of the owners expected to be involved in the negotiations.And despite predictions that owners with more cash would corner the market on star players in an uncapped year, there are safeguards against that, notably a provision in the contract, first signed in 1993, that extends the period needed from free agency from four years to six if that happens.

The early termination of the labor contract has been expected for at least the last six months.

Several owners have complained that the current deal, which gives 60 percent of the revenues to the players, has been too one-sided. It was done at the last moment and was the last major act of former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who managed to put together a coalition of high-revenue, middle-revenue and low-revenue teams to ratify the contract.

Only two low revenue teams, Cincinnati and Buffalo, voted against it.

Since then, however, high-revenue owners, such as New England’s Robert Kraft, have also supported negotiating for a new deal. And if a vote is taken, 24 of the 32 teams would have to vote to extend it, something that is highly unlikely to happen.

One problem, league officials note, are rising and unpredictable bond rates, which leave teams like Dallas and the New York Giants and Jets, who are building new stadiums, with rising costs and rising debt on their bonds. The Cowboys’ Stadium is scheduled to open next season and host the 2011 Super Bowl and the new facility for the New York teams is scheduled to open in 2010.

Lonestar
05-18-2008, 11:34 PM
One would think that the bond rates would have been rock solid before they were sold..

I have never heard about a rate change in midstream..

Stargazer
05-19-2008, 12:54 AM
I expect an opt-out and negotiations to follow. The owners want some of that pie back, and they will probably get it.

Timmy!
05-19-2008, 02:53 AM
No salary cap=bad for the Broncos. End of story.

TXBRONC
05-19-2008, 07:26 AM
I'm get it resolved. Having a salary cap benefits everyone.

BroncoBuff
05-19-2008, 05:42 PM
I thought they had to wait until November.

This is a good development anyway, because we already knew they were opting out ... but now they won't disrupt things by doing it in the middle of the season.

Who wouldda thought Ralph Wilson was the smartest owner? I think he (and maybe Al Davis) were the only ones who voted against the CBA. If the other owners had listened, maybe Paul Kirk and Andrew Mason would still have jobs.

Buff
05-19-2008, 05:46 PM
I thought they had to wait until November.

This is a good development anyway, because we already knew they were opting out ... but now they won't disrupt things by doing it in the middle of the season.

Who wouldda thought Ralph Wilson was the smartest owner? I think he (and maybe Al Davis) were the only ones who voted against the CBA. If the other owners had listened, maybe Paul Kirk and Andrew Mason would still have jobs.

Welcome to the boards... This could get confusing, so instead of Buff, or BuffBronc, I'm gonna call you Sal... Does that work for you? Sal.

3090
05-19-2008, 05:51 PM
I expect an opt-out and negotiations to follow. The owners want some of that pie back, and they will probably get it.

Not if Washington has anything to say about it.

This is going to get UGLY.

Best thing to occur....would be if Gene was replaced or walked away prior to next year.

BroncoBuff
05-19-2008, 05:53 PM
Welcome to the boards... This could get confusing, so instead of Buff, or BuffBronc, I'm gonna call you Sal... Does that work for you? Sal.

TOM KENNEDY!


Sal works for me, Tom.

Midnight Blue
05-19-2008, 05:55 PM
Good to see you here, Buff! :D

BroncoBuff
05-19-2008, 05:58 PM
Seriously, though ... who wouldda guessed that old man Wilson was the smart one?

That owners meeting was in Denver, as I recall, and the talking heads all said, "Poor Ralph ... the old man's a small-market guy, and he stuck between a rock ad a hard place," or other comments roughly equivalent to "old man yells at cloud."

Guess they shouldda listened. They're all stuck between a rock and a hard place now. Especially Paul Kirk and Andrew Mason.

Day1BroncoFan
05-19-2008, 05:58 PM
Good to see you here, Buff! :D

Oh great, now we have Buff and Buff. :doh:

BroncoBuff
05-19-2008, 06:01 PM
Good to see you here, Buff! :D

Great to see you, Blue. Just came from your MySpace message, thanks for the heads up. :salute:

56crash
05-19-2008, 06:46 PM
I thought they had to wait until November.

This is a good development anyway, because we already knew they were opting out ... but now they won't disrupt things by doing it in the middle of the season.

Who wouldda thought Ralph Wilson was the smartest owner? I think he (and maybe Al Davis) were the only ones who voted against the CBA. If the other owners had listened, maybe Paul Kirk and Andrew Mason would still have jobs.

Andrew Mason had to step on someones toes heck we got miles what the hell is he good for ? atleast Mason would be telling us what happened today ! hell they could of fired all the bloggers and keept the one good one !!!!!!!!!!

I say we write them and tell them get another writer and can some easle !!!!!!!!

Bronco9798
05-19-2008, 06:54 PM
Nothing shocking. This issue was raised when the last agreement was reached. It's just getting closer to the opt out period. It was obvious it was going to happen. All will end well.

Npba900
05-20-2008, 07:46 PM
To change the topic slightly, I also understand the owners want to drastically cut back how money/Signing Bonuses you can offer or must pay first round draft picks. The owners do not want to commit huge salaries to rookies who have not proven themselves yet.

The owners want to save that money and pay the proven veteran players who are about to sign their second contract and who have made a few trips to the pro bowl.

So I see this new change as another added sticking point to the collective bargaining agreement. Because I can the players union countering with wanting owners to guarantee the contract for all rookies, since they will be taking a huge drop in salaries on their first contract.

Its going to get interesting.

NightTrainLayne
05-20-2008, 07:52 PM
One would think that the bond rates would have been rock solid before they were sold..

I have never heard about a rate change in midstream..

When a bond issue is authorized the rate is based on the market rate at that time. However, usually not all the bonds are sold at one time to keep from paying interest on the full amount when the full amount is not all needed at once.

Therefore, when the market changes either way, the market will reprice the bonds based on current interest rates. If rates were say 7% when the initial authorization was made, but now the market has climbed to 8%, then bond buyers will pay less for the 7% bonds because they could buy current bonds paying 8%.

Therefore, there is less capital to work with/more bonds must be sold to make up the difference, or some other source of capital must be tapped.

Denver Native (Carol)
05-20-2008, 08:08 PM
Here is latest:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b3c&template=with-video&confirm=true

NFL owners opt out of labor agreement

Associated Press

ATLANTA -- NFL owners voted unanimously Tuesday to end their labor agreement with the players' union in 2011. The league and union, however, insisted the next three seasons won't be interrupted by a contract dispute and both sides are working toward a new deal.

"We have guaranteed three more years of NFL football," commissioner Roger Goodell said after the owners used the opt-out clause built into the agreement signed more than two years ago. "We are not in dire straits. We've never said that. But the agreement isn't working, and we're looking to get a more fair and equitable deal."
Sky isn't falling

The league's 32 owners decided unanimously to shorten a deal they no longer believed was working for them. Vic Carucci says one thing needs to be made clear from the start: The NFL sky is not falling.

The owners did not put the immediate future of their game in peril. They did not draw a proverbial line in the sand for the NFL Players Association, looking to instigate the sort of ugly labor fight they've been able to avoid for more than two decades. More

The decision by the owners was anticipated, although not this early. The 2006 agreement allowed either side to negate the contract by Nov. 8, 2008. Goodell said the owners acted early "to get talks rolling."

"I don't think it was a shock to anyone," said Gene Upshaw, executive director of the NFL Players Association.

Upshaw said he learned of the move by e-mail from Goodell. The union head said his response was: "Thanks, what a surprise."

"All this means is that we will have football now until 2010 and not until 2012," Upshaw added during a conference call. "We will move ahead. This just starts the clock ticking. If we can't reach agreement by 2010, then we go to no man's land, which is 2011."

The agreement signed two years ago was to last until 2013 with the option to terminate in 2011, which is what the owners did Tuesday. League officials and owners, including several who helped push through the last deal, have been saying for almost a year that while the previous contract may have been too beneficial to the owners, the current one had swung too far toward the players.

The owners noted that they are paying $4.5 billion to players this year, just under 60 percent of their total revenues as specified in the 2006 agreement. League revenues are estimated at about $8.5 billion, although none of the teams except the publicly-owned Green Bay Packers discloses figures.

The owners also want a change in the system to distribute a higher percentage of player salaries more to veterans than to unproven rookies. Their argument is based on a disparity in salaries that leaves them spending far more on unproven rookies than on dependable veterans.

For example, offensive tackle Jake Long, taken first in the 2008 NFL Draft last month, got a $30 million guaranteed before playing an NFL game. David Diehl, a fifth-round pick in 2003 who has started every game of his career and played left tackle for the New York Giants in their Super Bowl victory, signed a six-year, $31 million extension with less than half of that guaranteed.

Upshaw made his argument in a half-hour conference call that ended a few minutes before Goodell made his statements in a news conference.

The debate will continue in negotiations and through the media over a course of months and years. Both conceded there might be no agreement until the deadline, which Upshaw suggested might not happen until the winter of 2010. That would be a year without a salary cap under terms of the deal.

"We'd like to get things done," Goodell said. "But often it's not until you have a deadline that people realize the consequences of not reaching a deal."

Upshaw added: "March of 2010 -- that's what we see as the realistic deadline. I'm not going to sell the players on a cap again. Once we go through the cap, why should we agree to it again?"

ktrain
05-21-2008, 08:48 PM
One would think that the bond rates would have been rock solid before they were sold..

I have never heard about a rate change in midstream..

A couple of possibilities:

1. They could be existing variable rate bonds priced at LIBOR plus XXX bps, which mean they fluctuate with the bond market.
2. They could be referring to the bonds that have not yet been issued, but will be issued to complete these projects. As the expectation of inflation increase, the bonds have to be priced lower (higher effective interest rates) or with higher coupon rates to attract buyers.

The bottom line is that the cost of financing these stadiums is increasing and the owners need more than 40% of gross revenues to make ends meet.