PDA

View Full Version : When do you think the Labor Agreement will be finalized?


Hagar
02-13-2011, 12:52 AM
Just curious what everybody's thoughts are on the subject?

I believe everybody's going to have to lose some money first before a deal will be done.

I hope I'm wrong.

Showtime100
02-13-2011, 10:21 AM
Into the Season after week 6 is what I voted. I'll believe an agreement when I see it. I hope I'm wrong. I'll be ecstatic if I'm wrong.

:foottap:

Pantherstang84
02-13-2011, 11:52 AM
Into the Season after week 6 is what I voted. I'll believe an agreement when I see it. I hope I'm wrong. I'll be ecstatic if I'm wrong.

:foottap:

Ditto. Both sides will actually have to suffer financially before an agreement is reached. Greed will rule the day.

rmartin65
02-13-2011, 03:44 PM
I think the season gets canceled, unfortunately. It does not seem like either side will budge. I hope I am proved wrong though.

drs23
02-13-2011, 04:10 PM
I think the season gets canceled, unfortunately. It does not seem like either side will budge. I hope I am proved wrong though.

Me too. I think it's gotta hit them in the wallet before there are any moves. As everyone knows the owner's wallets are the deepest so until players start getting squeezed there'll be no product on the field.

I hope we're both proven wrong.

steelbtexan
02-13-2011, 04:16 PM
Ditto. Both sides will actually have to suffer financially before an agreement is reached. Greed will rule the day.

I'm guessing week 4.

The problem is the owner are still going to get their TV $$$$. So there is no urgency on their side.

DeMaurice Smith isn't a NFL guy and is going to drive a hard bargain. Smith looks at the NFL as a stepping stone position into politics. So untill the players put Smith on notice (probably after they start missing game checks and missing child support payments etc...) no deal is going to get done.

GP
02-14-2011, 10:04 AM
I think the season gets canceled, unfortunately. It does not seem like either side will budge. I hope I am proved wrong though.

That's how I voted.

The owners won't budge. They won't concede any ground to the players.

I actually think there shouldn't be a draft if they don't have a new deal. How is that appropriate, to draft guys when there might not even be a season?

I know the argument is that you have to act as if things will be cleared up, so you gotta' go about business as usual to stay on track for having camp, preseason, and a reg season...it just is going to be weird to watch the draft and think those guys might not even PLAY.

HJam72
02-14-2011, 10:26 AM
A Texans SB with scabs. :fans:

GP
02-14-2011, 10:54 AM
A Texans SB with scabs. :fans:

Jared Zabranski at QB.

Jonathan Wells at RB.

Bennie Joppru at TE.

Andre Davis at WR.

That'd be hilarious. Super Bowl champs with scabs at each position.

playa465
02-14-2011, 01:40 PM
I voted during the preseason...Im not certain but I don't think players get regular paychecks during the offseason so right now they are strong. As we get closer I think the players will start to crack b/c of those 2nd and 3rd tier players who don't make a lot (in NFL terms) plus those free agents with no contracts. Either way its a mess and truly the game belongs to the fans because its all entertainment. Yes the players risk their bodies and the owners shell out big $$$ but without us none of them would get shiza

z_man57
02-14-2011, 01:46 PM
As a fan and season ticket holder I voted "Before the draft".

Positive thoughts...

Thorn
02-14-2011, 01:56 PM
I voted week 1 - 3 of the regular season. There will have to be some pain felt by both sides before anything is done.

Now, what I would like to see is a total collapse of the NFL for this year and a rival league start up that gives it a challange. I would like to see fans pissed as hell and not buy tickets next year. I would like to see the NFL feel the pain of their arrogance, and that pain hurts them badly.

GP
02-14-2011, 02:27 PM
John Clayton's recent take: (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=6120436)

The next move in the collective bargaining talks belongs to the owners. And it probably will determine whether there will be a new deal that won't interrupt the football offseason as we know it.

All along, I have been optimistic that a deal can be done by March 15. The date is arbitrary, based mostly on the belief that both sides really want to get something done. The NFLPA lived up to the faith I had in both sides by making what I consider the perfect proposal. That offer of a 50-50 split of all revenues wasn't going to bring immediate harmony, but it showed what I thought all along -- that the players want to get a deal done.

In a Saturday meeting during Super Bowl week, both sides set aside two days a week through the end of the month to move the process. Although subcommittees from both sides have kept talking, the owners haven't changed their stance. In a business that grosses between $9 billion and $10 billion per year, the owners insist on receiving another $1 billion credit (they already receive $1 billion under the current CBA) for stadium financing and operating costs.

Even though they're not ready to make a deal, the owners need to make a counter that addresses their needs and acknowledges the movement of the players. No counter would show what players have feared for a long time -- that owners want to use a lockout to win the talks.

For everyone's sake, let's hope that's not the case.

Dread-Head
02-14-2011, 03:08 PM
A strike wouldn't surprise me.

CloakNNNdagger
02-14-2011, 03:26 PM
If the Union decertifies, all bets are off as to how long 32 court battles will delay the appearance of ever seeing another NFL game

Yankee_In_TX
02-14-2011, 03:42 PM
2 days a week? WTF is Smith doing the other 5 days a week to earn his (large) paycheck during a time of crisis?

Hoss
02-14-2011, 05:41 PM
Week 3 no later...




















*crossing fingers*

z_man57
02-14-2011, 06:35 PM
Before I have to pay for my Season Ticket (crossing fingers, toes and all other appendages capable of being crossed).

BetaV1
02-14-2011, 09:52 PM
I voted after OTA's but before training camp. A part of me is admittedly being hopeful with that vote, but it's the one I'm most optimistic for.

For the Texans sake, it needs to be done before camp. Unless someone can correct me, I'm fairly certain that if you're a player during the lockout, you can't even so much as look at a playbook. Imagine if a new agreement isn't reached until the season actually kicks off. We'd be going into the fire with virtually no preparation at all. While the defense will most certainly be better this season, it may not be by much unless a deal gets done and Wade gets a chance to work with these guys on the practice field.

HOU-TEX
02-15-2011, 09:48 AM
Not until these boneheads can set their pride aside, sit down to legitimate bargaining sessions without a side throwing a bitchfit and do whatever it takes to get a deal done. They both agreed to March 3rd so they should sit down night and day to get it done.

Will that happen? Hell no! Unless there's drastic change in mindset, we're screwed. YES, I SAID WE ARE SCREWED!

drs23
02-15-2011, 10:41 AM
It didn't look good before and now it looks even worse. Just heard on the radio that the NFL has filed a lawsuite against the NFLPA for not bargaining in good faith. From what I've heard/read that's BS. Owners want the players locked out and that's what going to happen. It amazes me that they're gonna kill the goose.

Get ready to find something to pass your time for next season. The combine and draft are going to be the last we see for a while I'm afraid. That's certainly the way it looks now.

infantrycak
02-15-2011, 10:45 AM
It didn't look good before and now it looks even worse. Just heard on the radio that the NFL has filed a lawsuite against the NFLPA for not bargaining in good faith. From what I've heard/read that's BS.

This is supposedly part of a gambit to avoid a lockout and force the players to play next season. If the NFL can get a declaration the players have not negotiated in good faith then the NFL can attempt to get an order that the players have to play this season in accordance with the NFL's last offer.

drs23
02-15-2011, 10:58 AM
This is supposedly part of a gambit to avoid a lockout and force the players to play next season. If the NFL can get a declaration the players have not negotiated in good faith then the NFL can attempt to get an order that the players have to play this season in accordance with the NFL's last offer.

And the last league offer was to skim another cool BILLION off the top and split the remainder 50/50 instead of 60/40. Correct?

This still doesn't address the in fighting amongst the owner's of large vs. small market teams. What do you figure's gonna happen there?

infantrycak
02-15-2011, 11:09 AM
And the last league offer was to skim another cool BILLION off the top and split the remainder 50/50 instead of 60/40. Correct?

Kind of. As I understand it the players' share is only calculated on certain revenue streams. So the owners proposed opening the definition of the pot up to all or more revenue and then lowering the percentage. So it isn't quite as unreasonable as it sounds.

This still doesn't address the in fighting amongst the owner's of large vs. small market teams. What do you figure's gonna happen there?

No idea. Not sure how real that is or if it is mainly media rabble rousing.

BetaV1
02-15-2011, 11:48 AM
Kind of. As I understand it the players' share is only calculated on certain revenue streams. So the owners proposed opening the definition of the pot up to all or more revenue and then lowering the percentage. So it isn't quite as unreasonable as it sounds.

Correct-o-mondo.

No idea. Not sure how real that is or if it is mainly media rabble rousing.

Some of the small market teams understand that they cannot continue to operate under the current CBA, which states that a team must set aside 56%-60% of league revenue for player and coach salaries regardless of how much money said makes. For example:

In 2009, Team A must set aside $161 million exclusively for player salaries. Team A as an individual operating entity only generated $181 million in revenue.

In 2010, league revenue rose and now the new limit Team A must set aside for player salaries is $171 million. Team A only generated $182 million.

In 2011, league revenue rose yet again and now the new limit Team A must set aside for player salaries is $180. Team A only generated $183 million.

See a pattern here? Some teams simply cannot continue to operate under this system because they continue to see a decline in profit each and every year not due to lack of sales, but union guidelines. As the pattern shows, these teams will eventually be operating in the red with no realistic way of getting out. The Green Bay Packers are actually experiencing this as we speak.

Small market teams are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Marcus
02-15-2011, 11:51 AM
I frankly don't care how long it takes to get a deal done, or who ends up with the most money.

What I do care about is this . . . that when all the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed . . . the end result will be that all 32 teams still have access to the same amount of money.

I don't want a situation where the large-market teams have a financial advantage over the small-markets, or to put it another way, haves and have-nots, like in baseball. Any move toward unrestricted free agency, or the removal of the salary cap will do just those very things.

Competitive balance must remain intact.