If I were an Owner, and the lockout is lifted

by pksiv on Apr 27, 2011 1:16 PM EDT

Here is what I would work to do as a league.

The first order of business is to come up with a framework for the 2011 calendar year that the league would play under. Things like restricted free agency, franchise tags, salary caps would all be illegal under labor laws as they would limit the players ability to get the best wage for his services.

However, there are many things the league could do to force the players back to the negotiating table that would not fall under the same scrutiny. Now let me preface this by saying that this is not what we want, but its a necessary step to get the players back to understanding their place in the league.

1) Cap rosters at 53 players - Even during training camp and the offseason. This would eliminate many of the free agents from the workforce without singling any of them out. A player can't argue that he was unfairly treated just because he wasn't good enough. This will eliminate 864 (out of 2560) available jobs.

2) Eliminate the practice squad and IR - Again, the goal is to limit the amount of players that have jobs. This will force the players association to get back to honest negotiations.

3) Eliminate all mandatory benefits, insurance, pensions etc... from all new contracts. Here teams need to be careful to act completely independently. Maybe the big markets keep paying them knowing they can afford to. But the small markets cut everything they can.

4) Cancel all offseason conditioning and workout programs and close down all facilities. If players want to work out, make them do it on their own. This way, if they get injured, it's not covered under their contract. Be prepared to pay any existing offseason workout bonuses as long as the player can prove he was working out during the time he was supposed to.

5) Do not allow coaches to have any contact with players until 2 weeks before the first preseason game. The purpose of this is to ensure that star players will be forced into playing all 4 preseason games and the games will be more meaningful as coaches try to ensure their team is ready for the regular season.

Tweet Comment 14 comments | 2 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don’t think I agree with any of this.

by Vicbow on Apr 27, 2011 2:34 PM EDT reply actions

It's a little extreme...

I think one and two could be done and would certainly get the NFLs point across.
I’m not sure they’re allowed to cancel offseason workouts, and I know the agents won’t let teams write up contracts that don’t offer any benefits or health insurance.

Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.

by Brian Levenson on Apr 27, 2011 2:36 PM EDT reply actions

What could possibly be a better benefit than cash? Benefits are way overrated.

by Conservative on Apr 27, 2011 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions

You say that...

Until you get hurt and need medical care.

Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.

by Brian Levenson on Apr 27, 2011 3:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Sometimes in the Real World

But if you’re an NFL player have fun finding a decent insurance policy for your family (on your own). That’s one of the things they’ve complained about – the cost/difficulty finding an insurance company that would cover you.

I’m hopeful that the league and player’s association will do the following (based on my quickly calculated numbers)
1. Rookie Cap – shift the cash to the vets: Matthew Stafford may turn into a good, solid QB for the Lions, but he can’t stay on the field. He signed a 6 year, $78 million contract with $41.7 million guaranteed. In 2007 Matt Schaub signed a 6 year, $48 million contract.

Over the next 5-6 years the NFL teams are on the hook for ~$533.264 (only the guaranteed parts of a contract – total could be as high as $891 million). That’s for 32 players that have never taken a snap.

Limit these guys contracts, and move the savings to vets.

2. Make it quicker/easier for players to reach free agency. To offset the potential loss for these rookies shorten the contract. Only allow a maximum of 3 year contracts rather than 5 or 6 years. After 3 years the player hits restricted free agency – salary based on tender. If a player gets a 1st round tender he has to be paid, that year, like the average of the top 15 players at his position, 2nd round tender – top 25 or 30, etc…

3. -Owners only-Share the wealth. With Chainsaw Dan and Jerry driving up player costs, they should help pay for that increase in costs.

4. Players, you got a great deal last time, but we’re in recession land. You are employees; you are not entitled to jack. Owners, these guys are literally putting their life on the line.

~60% of the gross profits (minus the NFL’s ~$1 billion off the top) is generally too much to pay your employees (especially when you consider those aren’t all of the players). Either have your union (…trade association) help pay benefits or give something back to the owners. “I can’t feed my family”? Child, please. If you can’t then you’ve made poor life choices.

Ignore the hype; look at the results.

by harperslaw on Apr 27, 2011 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Just a few corrections

Daniel Snyder actually hasn’t help to drive up player costs that much. The big issue is the newer stadiums and their additional, non-shared, revenue. The new stadiums in Dallas and New York, as well as some of the other new stadiums, generate a lot of non-shared revenue that is used in calculating the 60% that goes to the players.

The owners, knowing increasing revenue is good, want to take an additional $1B off the top to continue to fund this type of investment which generates the additional revenue. The players want them to keep paying for that additional investment out of their own pocket.

And the rookie cap, or a cap of any kind, is illegal if the players win their lawsuit and remain a non-union and refuse to negotiate a new CBA.

DG is the best we have and help is not on the way. I realize he's not perfect, but I feel a lot better about him at QB than I do the O-Line, DB's, or LB's ability to cover a TE.

by pksiv on Apr 27, 2011 4:22 PM EDT up reply actions

Dan Snyder did rank up there in non-shared revenue as well

Dan Snyder, soulless at best, is a genius at finding ways to pocket money. They’re also up there in total revenue. Their labor cost was about 40% of their total revenue. The Rams, though, had 71% of their revenue going to labor.

I didn’t touch on non-shared revenue though. There’s no easy way to address that, but maybe they can develop a system where non-shared revenue can actually be used on players in Free Agency – like an additional signing bonus. Either it goes to the players or the team can pocket it.

I just hope Dan, Jerry, and the other big boys remember the little guys. The NFL is in perilous territory.

Ignore the hype; look at the results.

by harperslaw on Apr 27, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions

You'd be surprised what the agents would allow

when you eliminate 34% of the available jobs.

Again, I clearly stated that this is extreme and NOT what I would want as an owner. But it would be within the law and would get the players back to negotiating in good faith.

The players disbanding the union and challenging the draft, free agency restrictions and salary caps is their extreme point of view. This is mine.

Let’s remember, if the players win this lawsuit in the end and remain a non-union entity, all of the things Roger Goodell mentions in his letter will come true. The Draft will be illegal as would restricted free-agency, franchise tags and a salary cap of any kind. Each of those things would be a restriction on an individuals right to get the best price for his services which is an antitrust violation.

DG is the best we have and help is not on the way. I realize he's not perfect, but I feel a lot better about him at QB than I do the O-Line, DB's, or LB's ability to cover a TE.

by pksiv on Apr 27, 2011 3:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Yeah, this lawsuit really could be monumental

I don’t think the players fully realized what they were doing, but now they’ve basically gotten the OK to dismantle everything we know about the NFL.

Twitter: BLByline Youtube: BLByline
I'm willing to drink the Kool-ade, but I'm hungry for the truth.

by Brian Levenson on Apr 27, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Rec'd

Fidelis Ad Mortem

by JPQ! on Apr 27, 2011 3:47 PM EDT reply actions

Thank God

you’re not an owner!

Can't stand the truth?

by Aristotle45 on Apr 27, 2011 6:15 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Clearly

reading comprehension is not your strong suit. I didn’t say I wanted any of things to take place. Just like the players don’t really want to get rid of the draft etc… The idea is to force the players to participate in negotiations and not feel like they hold all the cards and can dictate everything. It’s bad for the league and especially bad for Jacksonville. If the players get there way Wayne will have no choice but to sell the team or move it to LA or another high-revenue market.

DG is the best we have and help is not on the way. I realize he's not perfect, but I feel a lot better about him at QB than I do the O-Line, DB's, or LB's ability to cover a TE.

by pksiv on Apr 27, 2011 9:59 PM EDT up reply actions

hmmmm

So, Cincy, Minnesota, Atlanta, Buffalo, San Fran, Oakland, San Diego, Carolina, Tampa Bay, Detroit, St. Louis, Kansas City, did I miss anyone? Oh yeah, Green Bay.

All of these teams should be in the same boat, right?

With a league-wide tv contract, it has been proven time and again that market size is irrelevant. Just watch, we start winning again, there will be a waiting list.

Future is now.

by Joe Fisher on Apr 27, 2011 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions

Except for the fact

that places like DAL, PHI, NYx2,WAS,CHI, NE, BAL etc… have much larger streams of non-shared revenue. For example, I’ve read where NE has paid sponsorships for their parking lots. Not to mention how much more lucrative the naming rights for their stadium probably is compared to the one in Jacksonville.

DG is the best we have and help is not on the way. I realize he's not perfect, but I feel a lot better about him at QB than I do the O-Line, DB's, or LB's ability to cover a TE.

by pksiv on Apr 28, 2011 8:09 AM EDT up reply actions