Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Players Respond to Goodell

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Players Respond to Goodell

    Players write back to Goodell
    Mar
    19
    3/19/2011 11:29:56 AM | More


    The NFL Players have written back to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and responding by saying ''Your statements are false.''

    In a four-page letter Saturday posted on NFLLockout.com, players tell Goodell, “We start by reminding you that we were there at the negotiations and know the truth about what happened.”

    The letter is signed by the 11 members of the NFL Players Association's executive committee.

    “We believe these massive givebacks were not justified at all by the owners,” the letter reads.


    Below is the complete letter:

    March 19, 2011

    Roger Goodell
    Commissioner
    National Football League
    280 Park Avenue

    New York, NY 10017

    Dear Roger:

    This responds to the letter you sent to all NFL players on March 17.

    We start by reminding you that we were there at the negotiations and know the truth about what happened, which ultimately led the players to renounce the NFLPA’s status as the collective bargaining representative of NFL players. The players took this step only as a last resort, and only after two years of trying to reach a reasonable collective bargaining agreement and three weeks of mediation with George Cohen of the FMCS. At all times during the mediation session we had representatives at the table with the authority to make a deal. The NFL representatives at the mediation did not, and the owners were mostly absent.

    The mediation was the end of a two-year process started on May 18, 2009, when our Executive Director sent you a letter requesting audited financial statements to justify your opting out of the CBA (letter attached).

    The NFLPA did all it could to reach a fair collective bargaining agreement and made numerous proposals to address the concerns raised by the owners. In response, the owners never justified their demands for a massive give-back which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major league pro sports.

    That is why we were very troubled to see your letter, and repeated press reports by yourself, Jeff Pash, and the owners, which claim that the owners met the players halfway in the negotiations, and that the owners offered a fair deal to the players.

    Your statements are false.

    We will let the facts speak for themselves.


    » The proposal by the NFL was not an “a la carte” proposal. The changes in offseason workouts and other benefits to players were conditioned upon the players accepting an economic framework that was unjustified and unfair.
    » Your proposal called for a pegged amount for the salary cap plus benefits starting at 141M in 2011 and increasing to 161M in 2014, regardless of NFL revenues. These amounts by themselves would have set the players back years, and were based on unrealistically low revenue projections. Your proposal also would have given the owners 100% of all revenues above the low projections, including the first year of new TV contracts in 2014. Your offer did NOT meet the players halfway when it would have given 100% of the additional revenues to the owners.
    » As a result, the players’ share of NFL revenues would have suffered a massive decrease. This is clear by comparing your proposal to what the players would receive under the 50% share of all revenues they have had for the past twenty years.
    » If NFL revenues grow at 8% over the next four years (consistent with Moody’s projections), which is the same growth rate it has been for the past decade, then the cap plus benefits with our historical share would be 159M in 2011 (18M more per team than your 141M proposal) and grow to 201M per team in 2014 (40M more per team than your 161M proposal).
    » Your proposal would have resulted in a league-wide giveback by the players of 576M in 2011 increasing to 1.2 BILLION in 2014, for a total of more than 3.6 BILLION for just the first four years. Even if revenues increased at a slower rate of only 5%, the players would still have lost over 2 BILLION over the next four years. These amounts would be even higher if your stadium deductions apply to the first four years (your proposal did not note any such limits on these deductions).
    » We believe these massive givebacks were not justified at all by the owners, especially given recent projections by Moody’s that NFL media revenues are expected to double to about 8 BILLION per year during the next TV deal.
    » Given that you have repeatedly admitted that your clubs are not losing money, the billions of dollars in givebacks you proposed would have gone directly into the owners’ pockets. We understand why the owners would want to keep 100% of this additional money, but trying to sell it as a fair deal to the players is not truthful.
    » You proposed a CBA term of ten years. But you did not include any proposal on the players’ share of revenues after the first four years, which left open entirely how much more the owners would have taken from the players.
    » The owners continued to refuse to give any financial justification for these massive givebacks. Our auditors and bankers told us the extremely limited information you offered just a few days before the mediation ended would be meaningless.
    » Your rookie compensation proposal went far beyond addressing any problem of rookie “busts”, and amounted to severely restricting veteran salaries for all or most of their careers, since most players play less than 4 years. What your letter doesn’t say is that you proposed to limit compensation long after rookies become veterans — into players’ fourth and fifth years. As our player leadership told you and the owners time and again during the negotiations, the current players would not sell out their future teammates who will be veterans in a few short years.
    » Your proposal did not offer to return the 320M taken from players by the elimination of certain benefits in 2010. It also did not offer to compensate over 200 players who were adversely affected in 2010 by a change in the free agency rules. Your letter did not even address a finding by a federal judge that you orchestrated new television contracts to benefit the NFL during the lockout that you imposed.
    » You continued to ask for an 18 game season, offering to delay it for only one more year (you earlier said it could not be implemented in 2011 no matter what due to logistical issues). This was so even though the players and our medical experts warned you many times that increasing the season would increase the risk of player injury and shorten careers.
    » All of the other elements you offered in the mediation, which you claim the players should have been eager to accept, were conditioned on the players agreeing to a rollback of their traditional share of 50/50 of all revenues to what it was in the 1980′s, which would have given up the successes the players fought for and won by asserting their rights in court, including the financial benefits of free agency the players won in the Freeman McNeil and Reggie White litigations more than 20 years ago.
    » The cap system for the past twenty years has always been one in which the players were guaranteed to share in revenue growth as partners. Your proposal would have shifted to a system in which players are told how much they will get, instead of knowing their share will grow with revenues, and end the partnership.
    You had ample time over the last two years to make a proposal that would be fair to both sides, but you failed to do so. During the last week of the mediation, we waited the entire week for the NFL to make a new economic proposal. That proposal did not come until 12:30 on Friday, and, when we examined it, we found it was worse than the proposal the NFL had made the prior week when we agreed to extend the mediation. At that point it became clear to everyone that the NFL had no intention to make a good faith effort to resolve these issues in collective bargaining and the owners were determined to carry out the lockout strategy they decided on in 2007.

    We thus had no choice except to conclude that it was in the best interests of all NFL players to renounce collective bargaining so the players could pursue their antitrust rights to stop the lockout. We no longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of the NFL players, and are supporting the players who are asserting their antitrust rights in the Brady litigation. We have heard that you have offered to have discussions with representatives of the players. As you know, the players are represented by class counsel in the Brady litigation, with the NFLPA and its Executive Committee serving as an advisor to any such settlement discussions. If you have any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues in that case, you should contact Class Counsel.

    Sincerely,

    Kevin Mawae
    Charlie Batch
    Drew Brees
    Brian Dawkins
    Domonique Foxworth
    Scott Fujita
    Sean Morey
    Tony Richardson
    Jeff Saturday
    Mike Vrabel
    Brian Waters

    Cc: All NFL Players
    "Hey Giants, who's your Daddy?"

  • #2
    There is not going to be an agreement for a long time, when the first sentence basically calls the commish a liar there is zero chance of an agreement between these two sides. Our only hope for football next year is the courts and I don't think the Players have a strong enough case.
    Were from Philly F in Philly no one likes us we DON'T CARE!

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe I'm getting older and am having a senior moment, but it really doesn't appear to be all that difficult to find a FAIR resolution to this situation. Just like taxes the fairest solution is to simplify it and remove the loopholes that the wealthy and influential so often manipulate to their own benefit. Want a season next year? How about if we remove the entire labor dispute permanently by moving to a straightforward 33% of all income goes to the salary cap. That would include all monies earned, TV & radio deals, ticket sales, concessions, parking, merchandise -- everything with no exclusions. If a technology or revenue stream that doesn't exist today is developed tomorrow, the players get 1/3 of any money it generates. Now that we have a pool of money, take 25% and put it into veterans funding (including health insurance, treatment programs, pension payments etc.). Of the remaining money deduct 10% for rookies, pay the health insurance bill and other player expenses (like pensions) and use the rest for salaries. Whatever is left you divide by the number of teams in the league and 85% of that number becomes the cap floor and 115% the cap maximum for an average of 100% of the funds going to the players salaries. Any team spending more that the 100% rate is responsible for making up the difference (so if every team spent the max the teams themselves would end up giving back 15% of their profit to cover the costs of salaries).


      Obviously the framework would be tweaked but the bottom line is a flat percentage of everything with no deductions and no hidden incomes. If the Owners want to keep the books private then they need to agree to a private 3rd party to verify their income or get their fees completely from the league. In other words the league would distribute all money to the individual teams who would then be free to hide whatever they want. Sort of like your salary from your boss now. He knows what he pays you but what you do with it is your business. If they can't live with this set up they need to find another industry.
      In the end it's a simple way to do business.
      Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
      Bleedin' Green since birth!

      "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

      ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

      Comment


      • #4
        Yawn. Open letters like this annoy me. Stop the BS and sit in a room.

        Comment


        • #5
          I did get the impression that the league's last offer involved a fixed sum going to the players, taking 3-4 years to work up to a level acceptable based on 2009 revenues, but making no mention of what happens with future revenue increases -- another way to drive the players' percentage way down. That would basically be a non-starter offer, I would think.

          On the other hand, this letter couldn't help itself with junk like "Your proposal did not offer to return the 320M taken from players by the elimination of certain benefits in 2010" -- that was not "taken", that was part of the deal they signed before.

          At this point I just don't know. Each side takes turns making them seem completely out of touch. It could be that the owners have gotten so used to screwing fans, they are now trying their hand with the players (i.e. "fair" has nothing to do with it). And if the owners do have a legitimate issue, the players appear to be so distrustful that they may not agree to a fair deal even if it did come.

          Comment


          • #6
            From Mr Didinger, CSNPhilly.com http://www.csnphilly.com/03/19/11/bN...400&feedID=692



            Excerpt:
            "...The owners say the players planned to take this to court all along. The players say the owners were determined to lock them out. In other words, mediator George Cohen was wasting his time the last two weeks. No hard feelings, George.

            Part of the problem is the guys staring at each other across the table – Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith – are new to this. Goodell and Smith are leading their forces into battle for the first time and it is clear neither man wants to be seen as the loser. This is about winning more than it is about negotiating.

            The moment the 32 owners opted out of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the countdown started and Goodell was on the clock. And the players did not elect Smith to succeed the late Gene Upshaw to have him give away monies that Upshaw already had fought for and won. Another problem is Goodell and Smith don’t know each other. One reason the NFL had labor peace for 23 years is that Upshaw and former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue knew and respected each other. The two men could work together and get things done.

            If talks bogged down, Tagliabue and Upshaw could go off by themselves and talk it through. Tagliabue could say, “OK, what do you need to take back to the players?” Upshaw would identify the key issues. Tagliabue would work something out – a little give and take – and he would sell it to the owners. A deal would get done.

            Upshaw was often portrayed as a patsy for Tagliabue and the owners, but clearly that was not the case since he negotiated a CBA that the owners could not wait to escape. The deal gave the players 60 percent of the gross revenue -- minus the $1 billion the owners took off the top -- and the owners decided that was too much. That’s what they are fighting over now. Remember, the owners picked this fight. They agreed to the last CBA, then decided it was a mistake and pulled out. Now they want money back. The players aren’t asking for a cent more. They are happy with the status quo. If everyone is making money, they say, why change? If the CBA is such a bad deal (as the owners claim) why is the league doing so well?

            The owners say they aren’t making as much money as people think. The players say, “open the books and show us.” The owners are willing to open the books for the past five years. The players say that’s not good enough. They want to see the books for the past ten years...."

            Comment


            • #7
              JUk, the first problem with your scenario is that the books owuld have to be opened and that is already the first problem
              Wait until next year is a terrible philosophy
              Hope is not a strategy
              RIP

              Comment


              • #8
                Like I said NoDak, run the money through the league and those books would have to be opened to the a 3rd party firm approved by both the Owners and the players. The individual Owners can take their cuts and hide it however they want, but the LEAGUE would filter everything first. This would remove all questions and avoid any disputes in the future. If the league earns a dollar in any way, the players get a third of it.

                The thing I like about this system is that it's extremely simple and allows the players and the league to have some autonomy once they receive their shares. The Players Union would help determine how the players money is distributed between current and former players, rookies and veterans, etc. and the Owners would run their respective clubs as they choose. Money the individual teams earn beyond the games (i.e. non-NFL events at the stadiums, cheerleader/mascot appearance fees, radio/TV networks etc.) would be theirs solely. Anything related to the games themselves would be part of the leagues income and the Owners would need to agree to how that would be split (25% for the team generating the money and 75% for the league etc.) That would allow teams who are more successful to have a larger piece of the pie they help to create while still being fair to the players and other teams.

                This is where they should be spending their time - working through the details of a balanced and fair structure.
                Official Driver of the Eagles Bandwagon!!!
                Bleedin' Green since birth!

                "Do not regret growing older. It is a privilege denied to many." - Mike Willey

                ”Enjoy The Ride!!!” - Bob Marcus

                Comment

                Working...
                X