NFL Final Offer To Players

john h

Registered User
LEGACY MEMBER
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
10,552
Reaction score
13
Location
Little Rock
Following is a list of the Final Offer to the players on Friday. They rejected without hardly a glace and de-certifyed.

After 16 days of mediated talks, the NFL and the players' union could not reach agreement on a new labor deal. The NFL released what it described as a summary of its proposal to the union:

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi year injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.
 

Shane

Comin for you!
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
69,504
Reaction score
40,158
Location
Las Vegas
More than fair. Players are STUPID!
 

Shane

Comin for you!
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
69,504
Reaction score
40,158
Location
Las Vegas
Not quite, if the owners have "compromised" this much up to this point, why not hold out for more?

:)

Because the players will go broke long before the owners :)
 

Shane

Comin for you!
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
69,504
Reaction score
40,158
Location
Las Vegas
Players can holdout a bit longer. At least, I would hope so.

Also owners could say screw you and start pulling stuff off the table.
 

NMCard

ASFN Lifer
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
4,456
Reaction score
327
Location
Albuquerque,NM
I'm gonna have to cancel my direct tv NFL script cause the greedy players won't sign that?
 

Southpaw

Provocateur aka Wallyburger
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
39,818
Reaction score
3,410
Location
The urban swamp
Following is a list of the Final Offer to the players on Friday. They rejected without hardly a glace and de-certifyed.

After 16 days of mediated talks, the NFL and the players' union could not reach agreement on a new labor deal. The NFL released what it described as a summary of its proposal to the union:

1. We more than split the economic difference between us, increasing our proposed cap for 2011 significantly and accepting the union's proposed cap number for 2014 ($161 million per club).

2. An entry-level compensation system based on the union's "rookie cap" proposal, rather than the wage scale proposed by the clubs. Under the NFL proposal, players drafted in rounds 2-7 would be paid the same or more than they are paid today. Savings from the first round would be reallocated to veteran players and benefits.

3. A guarantee of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury the first time that the clubs have offered a standard multi year injury guarantee.

4. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by: reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs (organized team activities) from 14 to 10 and limiting on-field practice time and contact; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season; and increasing number of days off for players.

5. Commit that any change to an 18-game season will be made only by agreement and that the 2011 and 2012 seasons will be played under the current 16-game format.

6. Owner funding of $82 million in 2011-12 to support additional benefits to former players, which would increase retirement benefits for more than 2,000 former players by nearly 60 percent.

7. Offer current players the opportunity to remain in the player medical plan for life.

8. Third-party arbitration for appeals in the drug and steroid programs.

9. Improvements in the Mackey plan (designed for players suffering from dementia and other brain-related problems), disability plan and degree-completion bonus program.

10. A per-club cash minimum spend of 90 percent of the salary cap over three seasons.

If this is what the ownership offered and it was rejected, I can't even imagine what they are holding out for. Maybe the retired players should be able to vote for this.
 

Mulli

...
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
52,529
Reaction score
4,603
Location
Generational
If this is what the ownership offered and it was rejected, I can't even imagine what they are holding out for. Maybe the retired players should be able to vote for this.
If Wally is ready to sign off, so am I. :)
 

devilalum

Heavily Redacted
Joined
Jul 30, 2002
Posts
16,776
Reaction score
3,187
Not quite, if the owners have "compromised" this much up to this point, why not hold out for more?

:)

If the league feels like they have the upper hand the next offer may be less.
 
OP
OP
john h

john h

Registered User
LEGACY MEMBER
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Posts
10,552
Reaction score
13
Location
Little Rock
Players can holdout a bit longer. At least, I would hope so.

The players will not hold out for a year or longer. Owners are fully funded to pay all their stadium debts as only about 20-30% of the stadium revenue comes from NFL games. The stadiums are separate corporations and stand on their own. The players have nothing to do with stadium revenue. Standard & Poors estimates the owners can fully fund any stadium debt for 1-2 years and be just fine. There are a lot of millionaire players but their are more who are not millionaires and who will cross picket lines long before one year passes with no pay. Some are already grumbling. It is going to be very difficult to keep the players from coming out and blasting the union after the scheduled start of the season. The owners in fact have a lot more money than the players. The players insist on seeing the owners books. I do not think that will happen or should happen. These are privately owned businesses (except Green Bay who are exempt because they are a public company) and no private business should be forced to open its private books to anyone except the IRS, if they have need. There should never be a legal precedent set for such action. I want to see the Cards books but I have no such right. This is an overreach by the union. Maybe they should request a search of Mr. B's house while they are at it.
 

Mulli

...
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
52,529
Reaction score
4,603
Location
Generational
The players will not hold out for a year or longer. Owners are fully funded to pay all their stadium debts as only about 20-30% of the stadium revenue comes from NFL games. The stadiums are separate corporations and stand on their own. The players have nothing to do with stadium revenue. Standard & Poors estimates the owners can fully fund any stadium debt for 1-2 years and be just fine. There are a lot of millionaire players but their are more who are not millionaires and who will cross picket lines long before one year passes with no pay. Some are already grumbling. It is going to be very difficult to keep the players from coming out and blasting the union after the scheduled start of the season. The owners in fact have a lot more money than the players. The players insist on seeing the owners books. I do not think that will happen or should happen. These are privately owned businesses (except Green Bay who are exempt because they are a public company) and no private business should be forced to open its private books to anyone except the IRS, if they have need. There should never be a legal precedent set for such action. I want to see the Cards books but I have no such right. This is an overreach by the union. Maybe they should request a search of Mr. B's house while they are at it.
I am thinking players are questioning the veracity of the owners' claims regarding their finances so they want support for the numbers with audited records. :shrug: I can understand not trusting everything that comes from the owners.

No, the players won't be able to wait more than a year, but they can still hold out a little while longer.
 

lobo

ASFN Lifer
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Posts
3,310
Reaction score
230
Location
Inverness, Il
I am thinking players are questioning the veracity of the owners' claims regarding their finances so they want support for the numbers with audited records. :shrug: I can understand not trusting everything that comes from the owners.

No, the players won't be able to wait more than a year, but they can still hold out a little while longer.

The audited statements will not...guaranteed not...include the detail behind the numbers...so if the players reps think they are going into the ledgers etc of the owners that will never ever happen. They may get the financials....which I personally don't agree with...but they will not see the detail behind the financial...the auditors reviewed that and in their certification they say "fairly presents........" and that is where this will end.

The ONLY thing at this point the players have going for them IF what I read about the offer is true is the fact that Judge Dody is handling the case...he is totally a "players judge" and both sides know that...he proved that in the past.
 

Mulli

...
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
52,529
Reaction score
4,603
Location
Generational
The audited statements will not...guaranteed not...include the detail behind the numbers...so if the players reps think they are going into the ledgers etc of the owners that will never ever happen. They may get the financials....which I personally don't agree with...but they will not see the detail behind the financial...the auditors reviewed that and in their certification they say "fairly presents........" and that is where this will end.

The ONLY thing at this point the players have going for them IF what I read about the offer is true is the fact that Judge Dody is handling the case...he is totally a "players judge" and both sides know that...he proved that in the past.
Interesting...So why not open the books for the past ten years?
 

Southpaw

Provocateur aka Wallyburger
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Posts
39,818
Reaction score
3,410
Location
The urban swamp
The Packers are publicly owned. Aren't their books open? This whole "look at the books" thing just ain't gonna happen. Sorta like playing Poker and asking your opponents to show their cards before you bet.
 

Mulli

...
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Posts
52,529
Reaction score
4,603
Location
Generational
The Packers are publicly owned. Aren't their books open? This whole "look at the books" thing just ain't gonna happen. Sorta like playing Poker and asking your opponents to show their cards before you bet.
Didn't NBA owners open the books?
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
This is all fine, but doesn't include some of the remarks made by Pasch and Smith following the breakdown.

The issue still remains that the teams want more off the top money.

It's a bit rich to say you are splitting the difference when in fact you are asking for an additional 700 to 800M per annum (Pasch referenced $750M, Smith $800) off the top to be added to the $1.0B that teams recieve under the now expired agreement.

This is why Smith says, and I paraphrase: "We are not going to sign a $5B cheque without seeing the books."

It should be noted that Pasch did say that the teams were prepared to offer a third party audit to satisfy this player demand.

I can imagine that an audit with strict terms of reference agreed to by both parties will at some point come into play. If the teams are secure in believing that this will make their case for additional cash off the top, and the players also see that this is the likely outcome, they will likely then come to a mutually agreed figure.
 

Latest posts

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
556,595
Posts
5,437,516
Members
6,330
Latest member
Trainwreck20
Top