Category: NFL (Page 158 of 1282)

Were the owners more flexible in negotiations than players?

NFL Executive Vice-President and General Counsel Jeff Pash (C) talks to reporters about negotiations with players association representatives as they seek an agreement as a deadline looms for a player lockout, in Washington, March 4, 2011. The NFL and the players’ union agreed to extend talks on a new collective agreement for another week, the League-owned NFL Network reported Friday. The chief sticking point in the talks is how to distribute the league’s $9 billion in annual revenues. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst (UNITED STATES – Tags: SPORT FOOTBALL BUSINESS)

Jim Trotter of SI.com wrote a great piece about the breakdown of the NFL labor talks and in the article, he writes that the owners felt they were more flexible in the negotiations than the players were.

Owners also argue they were more flexible in the negotiations than the players. On Friday the two sides were $640 million apart on the 2011 salary cap number; the NFL offered to split the difference. The union, however, would not move from its best offer of an additional $137.5 million a year for four years without a detailed accounting of each team’s books, a demand it had requested as early as May 2009. Says Pash, “In November ’09 we asked for an 18 percent rollback, and we didn’t get that either. Demands that you make before your first-ever face-to-face bargaining session might not be where you end up two years later.”

Ultimately, players contend that the owners initiated the standoff, so the burden of proof rests with them. “Not once have the players asked for more money during this negotiation,” Brees said on Friday. “Past players sacrificed a great deal to give us what we have now, and we will not lay down for a second to give that up.”

It may come down to a court to decide if they have to.

Because of the media blackout, there’s not a whole lot of information available on this labor dispute. Of course the owners are going to feel like they were more flexible, as I’m sure the players felt like they were more than fair with their demands. We the fans and media can only go off of what certain people tell us because we weren’t in the meeting rooms.

That said, there’s a real possibility that the union overplayed its hand here. They knew they had an advantage in talks once Judge David Doty ruled that the owners couldn’t use the $4 billion from renegotiated TV contracts to fund their lockout. The players then figured that if they decertified and their case went in front of a judge, they always had Doty (who has ruled often ruled in the players’ favor when it comes to previous NFL cases) in their back pocket.

Thus, when the owners came to the table with a last-second proposal on Friday before the lockout, the players wouldn’t budge on their offer. But they may have screwed themselves because Judge Susan Nelson will oversee their case, not Doty. So while they still could wind up winning big, they may have bypassed a decent offer and a way to end this charade before the CBA expired last week. Instead, they decided to go to court and now here we are.

When the dust finally settles on this issue, I wonder which side will have more regret: the owners for not opening their books (even though they did agree to show the players five years worth of aggregated league wide profitability information), or the players for not taking that last-second proposal last Friday.

Adrian Peterson compares NFL to modern-day slavery

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson runs for a 4-yard gain during the first quarter against the Chicago Bears at Soldier Field in Chicago on November 14, 2010. UPI/Brian Kersey

You knew somebody was eventually going to say something stupid when it came to the current state of the NFL.

Meet Adrian Peterson, that “somebody.”

Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson made some controversial comments about the NFL labor situation in an interview with Doug Farrar of Yahoo’s Shutdown Corner. The interview was conducted just before the NFLPA decertified.

It’s modern-day slavery, you know? People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money,” Peterson continued. “The owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money.”

Farrar took out the quote shortly after publishing. He tweeted that he wanted to give Peterson an opportunity to explain. Farrar described the comment as “a real misstep.”

As expected, AP is being ridiculed about the remarks. A person set to make $10.72 million in a down economy can’t refer to his job as “modern-day slavery” and not expect to receive backlash for it. In fact, at least one player has already taken to Twitter to disagree with what Peterson said. Below is a series of tweets from Packers’ running back Ryan Grant.

I have to totally disagree with adrian Peterson’s comparison to this situation being Modern day slavery..false..

Their is unfortunately actually still slavery existing in our world.. Literal modern day slavery.. That was a very misinformed statement

But I understand what point he was trying to make.. I just feel like he should have been advised a little differently

Actually, it’s hard to understand the point Peterson was trying to make. Is he saying he’s been forced to play football against his will the past couple of years? Is he viewed as property of the NFL or the Minnesota Vikings or can he come and go as he pleases? Is he treated poorly or met with violence if he doesn’t serve his employer?

As Grant noted, slavery still remains today so Peterson’s comment was pretty insensitive and, to use Grant’s words, misinformed. It was a dumb comment and he should take every opportunity to clarify what he meant (or better yet, tell everyone that it was stupid to even suggest such a thing).

If I’m AP’s publicist, I just fired myself.

NFLPA trying to get one representative from every team to show up at faux draft party

Peter King writes in his latest edition of MMQB that the NFLPA is trying to get veterans from every team to show up at an undetermined location in New York so that when the college players are drafted next month, they’ll have a future teammate, not commissioner Roger Goodell, greet them. This news comes a day after reports surfaced that the NFLPA has instructed prospects that were invited to Radio City Music Hall to boycott the draft. (A claim they’re now denying.)

Will it work? One agent with several prospective first-round picks thinks it will, telling me this morning: “What is the first round of the draft for the NFL? It’s a TV show, a show that makes the league a lot of money. They’re going to be asking young men to shake the hand of a commissioner [Roger Goodell] who is trying to lock them out. They’re going to be asking young men to help the league put on this big TV production. And I can tell you this: There’re a few quarterbacks who could get picked high in this draft and the NFL will invite to New York. All those quarterbacks would do by attending the draft for the NFL is giving DeMarcus Ware more incentive to knock their blocks off the first time they line up across the line of scrimmage from him.”

Forget DeMarcus Ware or any other opposing player: what would a veteran teammate do to a rookie that defied the NFLPA’s instructions not to attend the draft? Could you imagine being a first-year player who attended the draft and then had to answer to Ray Lewis once the football season resumed?

I feel bad for these college players. Don’t forget that these are just kids and they deserve the opportunity to shake Goodell’s hand and stand up on stage at Radio City Music Hall. They’re now pawns in something that hasn’t concerned them until this moment and they have to go along with it because the labor dispute is much bigger than them. It’s much bigger than shaking Goodell’s hand, standing up on stage with family and snapping that picture holding up that No. 1 jersey. It’s much bigger than the draft.

But even if they got the opportunity to take part in the normal draft festivities, the moment they shook Goodell’s hand they would enter the land of lawsuits, lockouts and labor disputes. It’s just the misfortune of being the class of 2011.

Do the Panthers have eyes for Ryan Mallett?

Arkansas quarterback Ryan Mallett (15) is chased from the pocket by Ohio State defensive lineman Cameron Hayward (97) during first half action of the 77th Annual Allstate Sugar Bowl at the Louisiana Superdome in New Orleans, Louisiana January 4, 2011. UPI/A.J. Sisco

You have to hand it to Ron Rivera. He’s only been a head coach for about two months but he’s already managed to keep everyone guessing when it comes to the No. 1 pick. (I guess some credit goes to GM Marty Hurney for that, too.)

After the Super Bowl was played, the majority of draft pundits had the Panthers taking Missouri quarterback Blaine Gabbert with the first overall pick. Then it was Auburn defensive tackle Nick Fairley. Now it’s Auburn quarterback Cam Newton. Give it another week and it’ll be LSU’s Patrick Peterson, Clemson’s Da’Quan Bowers and MTV’s Lady Gaga.

Or how about this for a curveball: Arkansas’ Ryan Mallet.

There are reports that Mallett is scheduled to work out for the Panthers on Tuesday in Fayetteville. While he isn’t viewed as a potential No. 1 overall pick, that doesn’t mean Carolina wouldn’t trade out of the top spot in order to acquire more picks and nab him later in the first round. They currently don’t have a second round pick after the aforementioned Hurney traded it away last year so that he could reach on Armanti Edwards. So it would stand to reason that the Panthers wouldn’t mind trading back in order to gain more picks this year, and the No. 1 pick would fetch quite a haul.

Of course, trading out of the top 5 isn’t an easy task – especially when teams don’t know what’s going to happen with the CBA. The one thing the NFL and NFLPA reportedly agreed upon was restructuring the ridiculous rookie pay scale. If teams don’t have to invest $67 billion in the No. 1 pick, then the Panthers might have an easier time trading down. But if the rookie pay scale is still an issue, then they might be stuck.

If that’s the case, then it still seems likely that the Panthers would select Newton or Gabbert at No. 1. Granted, they could always take a defensive player like Peterson and then trade back into the first round to nab Mallett, but how would they do that? They don’t have a second rounder and they have a ton of needs to address, so trading the rest of their draft doesn’t seem smart. Thus, moving out of the No. 1 slot could prove extremely difficult.

Either way, the Panthers have everyone in a state of mass confusion with their pre-draft antics. And with that in mind, I say well done, Rivera and Co.

NFLPA tells players to boycott 2011 NFL Draft

Imagine you’re one of the very few athletes blessed with enough talent to be considered a top NFL prospect. You’ve earned the opportunity to hear your name called by the commissioner, to walk on stage at Radio City Music Hall in New York and to snap a photo holding that #1 jersey for your new team.

You’ve earned the opportunity to enjoy that experience. But because of an ongoing labor dispute, it’s highly likely that you’ll be stripped of that opportunity now.

According to ESPN.com, the NFLPA is in the process of blocking prospects from attending next month’s draft in New York. So instead of a prospect standing on stage at Radio City Music Hall enjoying the moment with his family, he’ll be elsewhere because the owners and players can’t figure out how to best divvy up the fans’ money. Apparently the Players Association is considering showing the players on another competing network to do post-pick interviews, but it won’t be the same experience.

It’s easy to see where the NFLPA is coming from here. It’s in the middle of a financial battle and doesn’t want to take a brief timeout so that the draft (a production put on by the league) can go on as usual. The NFLPA is trying to prove that the league is nothing without the players, so why have this year’s prospects attend the draft so that the NFL can once again profit? (Plus, the NFL has already told prospects that it won’t pay players a fee in an attempt to have them present this year, so the league isn’t make the NFLPA’s decision any easier.)

That said, I feel bad for the prospects. They’ve worked hard to reach this point and now because of the labor dispute, they’ve been dealt a rough hand. If they skip the draft, then they’ll never get that moment back. If they go, then they’ll always be known as the players that defied the union. (How bad would they get it from veteran players if that happened?)

Either way, a sacrifice will be made on behalf of the 2011 NFL Draft class but oh, well. There’s always a price to be paid in situations like this and the top prospects from this year’s class are finding that out the hard way.

« Older posts Newer posts »