NFL Lockout Update: Proposed CBA Details Coming Out

by David Fucillo on Jun 21, 2011 12:00 PM PDT in NFL Labor Issues

The NFL owners and players have NOT come to terms on a deal as you might read from the title (I couldn't think of a better way to word it at this point. However, details are emerging about proposals that might end up resulting in a new CBA. The sides have been bouncing ideas back and forth over the last couple weeks since the conclusion of the Eighth Circuit oral arguments. Fear of one side gaining leverage over the other has led to much more intense negotiations the past two weeks and we seem closer and closer to that final breakthrough that gets pen to paper.

For now here is a basic rundown of where things seem to stand.

Players get 48 percent of "all revenue," without extra $1-billion-plus off top that previously had been requested by owners.

Players' share will never dip below 46.5 percent, under new formula being negotiated.

Teams required to spend minimum 90-93 percent of the salary cap.

Rookie wage scale part of deal but still being "tweaked."

18-game regular season designated only as negotiable item and at no point is mandated in deal.

New 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012.

Owners still will get some expense credits that will allow funding for new stadiums.

Retirees to benefit from improved health care, pension benefits as revenue projected to double to $18 million by 2016.

It's worth noting that according to media in twitterverse, restricted free agents go back to three years of service time, while four and above would be unrestricted, meaning the 49ers would have a whole bunch of UFAs.

It's my understanding that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell pitched the above details to the owners. The owners were set for a one day meeting but had been told it could drag into a second day. However, some of the owners and lawyers at the meeting indicated it would end today and owners would head home from there. We can look at that multiple ways, but I'd like to think it means no owner complained too much about the proposals. If some of the owners had a significant problem with any of this, I'd hope that Goodell and the owners in favor of this deal would not just end the meeting on a negative note like that.

In the meantime, here are some comments from John Clayton and Sal Paolantonio on the owners' meeting today. We'll make sure to update this as more information comes out.

Tweet Comment 58 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Just Stop it

Let’s play some damn football already….

Niners,Nets,Reds & USC!!!

"We'll be the first really global team in the NBA. For me, being the first foreign owner, I want to do my best to invite all the fans for the team all over the world. I think the NBA is worldwide. But other teams [possess a] more local mentality. We are going to create and to build a global franchise to sell all around the world. I think I have a competitive advantage compared to other owners." - Mikhail Prokhorov

by Kidd2Petrovic on Jun 21, 2011 12:32 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

rec'ed

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions

The Way I see It

Goodell will take a head count when the owners meeting are over. With the NFL and the NFLPA scheduled to meet Thursday the basic parameters of a deal could be worked out before the weekend. Without crossing the Ts and dotting the I’s, it is possible free agency could start within the next few days if those parameters are met.

Mila "Sweet Lips" Kunis, as stated by Scarlett Johansson. I couldn't agree more. Reverse would be true too!!!!

by nocal81(Vincent) on Jun 21, 2011 12:36 PM PDT reply actions

they should lock them all in a room until a deal is done

that’s not good news about the FAs though…the niners are going to have a lot of work to do

by MattSFfrd on Jun 21, 2011 12:49 PM PDT reply actions

they can call it a lock-in

ha-ha-ha, knee slap

by reedkrase on Jun 21, 2011 3:38 PM PDT up reply actions

Anyone remembers the owners original offer?

Trying to see how much they have bridged.

sd377 wants to ban me for unleashing the Kaepernick Supernova Gamma Ray

by bignerd on Jun 21, 2011 12:50 PM PDT reply actions

Yeah I am curious as well.

Affectionately,
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar,
NBA’s All-Time Leading Scorer

by afrikabamboodle on Jun 21, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Off the top of my head

The owners were going for a $1 billion credit off the top (in addition to the $1 billion they already got) even before they discussed splitting the money. And they wanted 18 games.

by Neama on Jun 21, 2011 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions

45% was the owner's original offer

And I can remember saying in one of my very first articles on the subject that they’d end up settling on 48%

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions

So the owners gave up 3% and the players gave up 2%

I’m not sure why this couldn’t have been done in 15 minutes of bargaining when the sessions started.

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions

because...

There wasn’t the sense of urgency created by a potential leverage-shifting decision from the 8th Circuit. Lame it is taking this long, but that’s probably why it’s taken so long.

by David Fucillo on Jun 21, 2011 2:18 PM PDT up reply actions

Sounds like the lastest offer has taken the $1 billion off the top

sd377 wants to ban me for unleashing the Kaepernick Supernova Gamma Ray

by bignerd on Jun 21, 2011 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the big difference

is that the owners seem to have agreed on a purely percentage based formula, where before they were arguing for straight dollar amounts.

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 2:15 PM PDT up reply actions

original numbers

This isn’t all the details, but a good resource: Brandt post

by David Fucillo on Jun 21, 2011 2:20 PM PDT up reply actions

According to PFT’s Mike Florio, this likely means that the powers-that-be don’t anticipate the kind of debate that could force the owners to stick around for another day. Indeed, Colts owner Jim Irsay, spoke to reports assembled in Chicago and expressed optimism that a deal will be reached with the players. Also, Albert Breer of NFL Network notes a significant number of football people are present for the "two-per-club" affair, which suggests that part of the time will be spent working out the logistics for taking the process from agreement in principle to players in the building

Mila "Sweet Lips" Kunis, as stated by Scarlett Johansson. I couldn't agree more. Reverse would be true too!!!!

by nocal81(Vincent) on Jun 21, 2011 12:57 PM PDT reply actions

I am curious as to having to spend 90 - 93% of the CAP, how will teams that are no where near that total do it?

Let’s say the CAP is $125 m a year (Numbers are out of the blue and mean nothing in themselves), and that team only has a total of $75 m spent on players… do they have to sign players for more than they are worth? Or sign extentions to a lot of players?

Of course any team in this situation could sign me for $35 m for a year. I may be 61 but I could stand up for one hit, if they could catch me! Heck, I would do that for only $5 m a yr.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Jun 21, 2011 1:13 PM PDT reply actions

I really do hope they are close and we have FA by the end of next week or close to it.

"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"

by Eastbayjim on Jun 21, 2011 1:14 PM PDT up reply actions

Presumably they would have to redo existing contracts

I have to think that there would be a certain ramping up period for this as well. David didn’t mention it, but the ESPN article states that the players are willing to agree to a 10 year deal if this goes through. I’d think that the wording would say that by the 2nd or 3rd year of the agreement the actual spending has to be 95% of the salary cap.

A side benefit of this would be to drive down massive signing bonuses since those would negatively affect a team’s ability to meet actual spending cap money.

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 1:36 PM PDT up reply actions

49er FAs

anyone do a rundown of the FAs niners could lose under above rules?

by benna11 on Jun 21, 2011 1:28 PM PDT reply actions

Dashon Goldson and Aubrayo Franklin would be high on that list.

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 1:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Nooooooo!

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work." - Thomas Edison

"I may be an idiot, but one thing I'm not sir, is an idiot." - Peter Griffin

by mikeinsp on Jun 21, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

put manny lawson on that list as well

Niners,Nets,Reds & USC!!!

by Kidd2Petrovic on Jun 21, 2011 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Nooo also!

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work." - Thomas Edison

"I may be an idiot, but one thing I'm not sir, is an idiot." - Peter Griffin

by mikeinsp on Jun 21, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions

lol @ replys..

understand your fustrations w/ 49er FA’s but this is what the team will be looking @ once this baffonery of a lockout ends.

Niners,Nets,Reds & USC!!!

by Kidd2Petrovic on Jun 21, 2011 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions

There's a lot of guys I want back.

(not in any particular order) Franklin, Goldson, Lawson, McDonald, LaBoy, and Spikes. Smith too, I guess.

I’m going to have to accept that some of these guys won’t be back :(

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work." - Thomas Edison

"I may be an idiot, but one thing I'm not sir, is an idiot." - Peter Griffin

by mikeinsp on Jun 21, 2011 5:59 PM PDT up reply actions

losing either or both

would be a blow

by benna11 on Jun 21, 2011 1:39 PM PDT reply actions

job

SF 49ers. SF Giants. SJ Sharks. CHI Bulls.

by Giants49war on Jun 21, 2011 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

from these numbers the cap next year might be aroun 121,000,000.00

minimum cash spent level of 112,530,000.00. That would be just enough to sign the niners own free agents. Looks like the owners made a good deal on this one. The minimum cash spent level to me seems like it might hurt small market tickets who receive alot of revenue sharing. they would be forced to spend a certain amount, certain teams have had a habit of being cheap and gaming the system. it looks like they might not be able to do that anymore.

The Thursday night game is supposed to Net one billion more a year in 2012.

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 2:26 PM PDT reply actions

New 16-game Thursday night TV package beginning in 2012.

Sweet.

Juan "Doesn't Cheat The Game" Perez, future CF for the World Champion San Francisco Giants.
"And besides, if I wanted to participate in a mindless patriotic ritual where my voice isn’t really heard, I would vote." - Chris Marcil

by marcello on Jun 21, 2011 2:36 PM PDT reply actions

I hate TNF

"Hi my name is Cliff Harris and I am here to lock [site decorum] down" - Cliff Harris introduction at his Freshman Orientation
Reporter : "What do you remember about the BCS title game"
Cliff Harris: "That we lost"

by manraj7 on Jun 21, 2011 3:07 PM PDT up reply actions

Why?

by marcello on Jun 21, 2011 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions

I don't have the channel and the announcers.

by manraj7 on Jun 21, 2011 3:25 PM PDT up reply actions

Fair enough

I usually put it on mute, although that doesn’t help with not having the channel.

by marcello on Jun 21, 2011 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions

that is about to change.

NFL is going to sale Thursday Night football so they channel will be changing.

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions

TBC tomorrow...

Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan

by Drew Kerr on Jun 21, 2011 2:56 PM PDT reply actions

Turkey Bacon Cupcakes?

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that don't work." - Thomas Edison

"I may be an idiot, but one thing I'm not sir, is an idiot." - Peter Griffin

by mikeinsp on Jun 21, 2011 4:37 PM PDT up reply actions

Probably

by madmatt on Jun 21, 2011 4:48 PM PDT up reply actions

Nope...

Taco Burger Cupcakes

Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan

by Drew Kerr on Jun 21, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions

…or To Be Continued (all the same)

Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan

by Drew Kerr on Jun 21, 2011 7:16 PM PDT up reply actions

The one billion off the top is going away.

according to yahoo.

"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin

by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jun 21, 2011 6:46 PM PDT reply actions

yep

It’s the top bullet point from the original Chris Mortensen article.

by David Fucillo on Jun 21, 2011 7:19 PM PDT up reply actions

It really does not appear that the owners gained that much. what was the percentage before with the one billion taken off the top?

"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin

by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jun 21, 2011 7:29 PM PDT up reply actions

percentages

It was slated at 60% but ended up around 53% but the reason 48% is a good number this time around is the increased salary floor.

by David Fucillo on Jun 21, 2011 9:01 PM PDT up reply actions

so last time one billion came off the top then the players would get 60%?

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions

Yes

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 10:27 PM PDT up reply actions

60% before

The owners wanted a dollar amount which basically ended up with 45% of overall revenues to the players. The player’s initial proposal was for a flat 50% with no deductions.

So it looks like they’re settling on 48% flat revenue split with no deductions and a higher salary spending.

So the owners end up with a higher percentage than the original NFLPA proposal, but the players will end up with more cash in their pockets because there will be a different way of counting the salary cap.

Throw in the proposed 16 games on Thursday night and they’re looking at an extra billion dollars in 2012.

by smileyman on Jun 21, 2011 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions

percentages

I found this interesting:

Players’ share will never dip below 46.5 percent, under new formula being negotiated.

I’m curious about this formula and how it could lead to changing percentages.

by David Fucillo on Jun 21, 2011 10:54 PM PDT up reply actions

the revenue increases. the greater the share that the revenue increases the smaller share the players get. It is supposed to reset after a period of time from my understanding. so if the owners get the revenue to increase two billion quickly the owners get a greater share of that new money but after awhile the players will get the full 48% share.

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 10:57 PM PDT up reply actions

I see the owners point of view, 11-14billion the players would have started to get more than 50%.

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 10:55 PM PDT up reply actions

Finally

The players and the owners are getting details hammered out.

I still feel that more of the revenue should go to the owners and they take the business risk. For the physical risk they players take, I’m glad to see they are getting better health care. The Bradys of the world can get doctors for life, but the old Rams DT I work with that has 2 bad knees is another case. Poor guy.

Honorary parent of Duane Kuiper, beloved solar powered broadcaster and power hitting coach for the Giants.

by Giant Voodoo on Jun 21, 2011 7:18 PM PDT reply actions

football is one of the safest investments there is in the world.

and many cities actually take as much or more risk with the stadium deals. while niners are promising to pay for most of the new stadium, the city is actually taking on the risk for millions of dollars besides the money they have agreed to pay upfront. vikings new stadium is going to be paid with some public money also. not much risk.

by chupamelapolla on Jun 21, 2011 8:49 PM PDT up reply actions