macbob
  • macbob
  • Veteran Member Topic Starter
14 years ago
http://packersnews.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110319/PKR01/110319018/1057/PKR&located=rss 

So this is what the NFL and players are reduced to: Both sides are writing letters and issuing statements to and about each other, disputing facts and seeking to frame the back-and-forth about the sports first work stoppage since 1987.

The locked-out players wrote a letter to commissioner Roger Goodell on Saturday, responding to an email he sent them Thursday and telling him: Your statements are false.

In a four-page letter, the 11 members of the NFL Players Association executive committee told Goodell that, during labor negotiations, the leagues owners did not justify their demands for a massive giveback which would have resulted in the worst economic deal for players in major pro sports.

When Goodell wrote all active NFL players on Thursday, he outlined the leagues description of its last proposal, which was made March 11. That turned out to be the 16th and final day of mediated talks, and the old labor deal expired. Goodell ended his letter by saying: I hope you will encourage your union to return to the bargaining table and conclude a new collective bargaining agreement.

Players were upset by that line, particularly the reference to your union. When the NFLPA dissolved March 11, it renounced its status as a union that can bargain on behalf of its members and said it is now a trade association, which allowed players to sue the league under antitrust laws. The league calls that move a sham.

A hearing on the players request for a preliminary injunction to stop the lockout is scheduled for April 6 in Minnesota, and there appears little chance of a return to bargaining before then.

In a statement emailed to reporters by the league on Saturday, hours after the NFLPA released its letter to Goodell, NFL executive vice president Jeff Pash began: We are pleased now to have received a reply to the comprehensive proposal that we made eight days ago.

Pash, the leagues lead labor negotiator, also said: Debating the merits of the offer in this fashion is what collective bargaining is all about. ... This letter again proves that the most sensible step for everyone is to get back to bargaining.

As if anticipating that the league would seek to portray the players letter as a formal reply to the owners proposal, the NFLPA executive committee noted in its final paragraph: We no longer have the authority to collectively bargain on behalf of the NFL players. ...

Their letter began, Dear Roger, and closed with Sincerely, followed by the names of Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Charlie Batch, New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees, Denver Broncos safety Brian Dawkins, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth, Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, New York Jets fullback Tony Richardson, Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday, Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel, Chiefs guard Brian Waters and former players Sean Morey and Kevin Mawae, the NFLPA president.

We were due to respond, Fujita said Saturday at Marco Island, Fla., where the NFLPA is holding its annual convention for players. The letter gives a true testament to what went on, what the offer was, and what it meant to the players.

The owners begin two days of meetings Monday in New Orleans.

In Saturdays letter, the players went through various parts of the last NFL offer, including saying that the leagues salary-cap proposals were based on unrealistically low revenue projections.

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, the players wrote to Goodell. That proposal did not come until 12:30 (p.m.) 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.

They concluded their letter by telling Goodell that if he has any desire to discuss a settlement of the issues in the antitrust suit filed by 10 players including star quarterbacks Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Brees he should contact their lawyers.

Read the players' letter
The letter sent Saturday by players to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, in response to a letter he sent players Thursday:

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 NFLPAs 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 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 at 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 giveback 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 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 percent 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 percent 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 percent share of all revenues they have had for the past twenty years.

If NFL revenues grow at 8 percent over the next four years (consistent with Moodys 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 percent, 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 Moodys 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 percent 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 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 doesnt 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 1980s, 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

GBPressGazette wrote:

Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago

Goodell says NFL's last CBA offer might not stay on bargaining table 

NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Owners haven't talked about using replacement players if the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987 stretches on, Commissioner Roger Goodell said Tuesday, and the league might not keep its last contract offer on the table if bargaining doesn't resume soon.

"We have not had any discussions or consideration of replacement players," Goodell said at a news conference closing the annual owners meetings. "It hasn't been discussed, it hasn't been considered, and it's not in our plans."

He also said the Miami Dolphins and four other teams have been fined or been told the NFL is investigating them for violating offseason rules prohibiting contact with players. Goodell was asked specifically about the Dolphins; he did not reveal other teams involved.

NFL general counsel Jeff Pash said the violations aren't related to the league's lockout of players, which began March 12, hours after negotiations with the players broke off, and the union dissolved. Even during normal offseasons, from the end of one season until around March 15, NFL rules bar teams from holding organized workouts, practice or meetings, and don't allow position coaches to supervise players.

"It's a 'go home and relax' period," Pash said.

Since the lockout began, no contact between the league's 32 clubs and players has been allowed. Players don't get paid and can't negotiate new contracts; they aren't allowed to use team facilities.

Goodell said he hasn't spoken to NFL Players Association executive director DeMaurice Smith since March 11, when talks ended after 16 days of federal mediation.

Owners made a proposal that day that included an increase in their 2011 salary cap offer from $131 million to $141 million; the players had been seeking a $151 million cap for that year, plus a chance to earn a percentage of any higher-than-projected revenues above a certain threshold.

"Every day that goes by," Goodell said, "makes it harder and harder to keep the elements in that proposal."

Six days after that proposal was made, Goodell outlined some of the specifics in an e-mail sent to all active players.

Some players complained about Goodell's letter, saying it was meant to divide them. They also objected to the letter's suggestion that players push their "union to return to the bargaining table" - the NFLPA renounced its status as a union and says it is now a trade association. That, in turn, permitted players to sue the league in federal court under antitrust laws. A hearing is scheduled for April 6.

Asked Tuesday why he sent that letter, Goodell replied: "What the ownership wanted to make sure is that the players knew what their leadership had walked away from in the mediation process. So we sent that directly to the players. As you know, they're claiming not to be a union, but we think it was important to send that so the players understood what the owners had offered."

He repeated his hope that negotiations will resume - perhaps before the draft begins April 28 - and said owners want to have a complete 2011 season.

The "primary focus" of the two days of meetings in New Orleans, Goodell said, was "our labor dispute and our planning and preparation on that."

"We are certainly planning on having a full season," he said. "That's our objective, and we're going to work as hard as we can to make that become a reality."

Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/03/22/owners.meetings.roger.goodell.ap/index.html#ixzz1HocqMTEK 


UserPostedImage
StoicFire
14 years ago
Not nearly as thorough or helpful as the formal letter sent by players, but I thought I'd post Chris Kluwe's entertaining whiteboard pictograph responses to the whole ordeal from his twitter page:

[img_l]http://mit.zenfs.com/209/2011/03/yahoo_kluwe1.jpg[/img_l]
[img_l]http://mit.zenfs.com/209/2011/03/yahoo_kluwe2.jpg[/img_l]
"the Quarterback can run if he wants to, but with this rocket attached to your body... who would?" -Aaron Rodgers
djcubez
14 years ago
LOL those whiteboards are great.
Fan Shout
dfosterf (3-Jul) : Make sure to send my props to him! A plus move!
Zero2Cool (3-Jul) : My cousin, yes.
dfosterf (3-Jul) : That was your brother the GB press gazette referenced with the red cross draft props thing, yes?
Zero2Cool (2-Jul) : Packers gonna unveil new throwback helmet in few weeks.
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : I know it's Kleiman but this stuff writes itself
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : "Make sure she signs the NDA before asking for a Happy Ending!"
Mucky Tundra (2-Jul) : @NFL_DovKleiman Powerful: Deshaun Watson is taking Shedeur Sanders 'under his wing' as a mentor to the Browns QBs
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Dolphins get (back) Minkah Fitzpatrick in trade
Zero2Cool (30-Jun) : Steelers land Jalen Ramsey via Trade
dfosterf (26-Jun) : I think it would be great to have someone like Tom Grossi or Andy Herman on the Board of Directors so he/they could inform us
dfosterf (26-Jun) : Fair enough, WPR. Thing is, I have been a long time advocate to at least have some inkling of the dynamics within the board.
wpr (26-Jun) : 1st world owners/stockholders problems dfosterf.
Martha Careful (25-Jun) : I would have otherwise admirably served
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Also, no more provision for a write-in candidate, so Martha is off the table at least for this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : You do have to interpret the boring fine print, but all stockholders all see he is on the ballot
dfosterf (25-Jun) : It also says he is subject to another ballot in 2028. I recall nothing of this nature with Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy is on my ballot subject to me penciling him in as a no.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : I thought it used to be we voted for the whatever they called the 45, and then they voted for the seven, and then they voted for Mark Murphy
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Because I was too lazy to change my address, I haven't voted fot years until this year
dfosterf (25-Jun) : of the folks that run this team. I do not recall Mark Murphy being subject to our vote.
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Ed Policy yay or nay is on the pre-approved ballot that we always approve because we are uninformed and lazy, along with all the rest
dfosterf (25-Jun) : Weird question. Very esoteric. For stockholders. Also lengthy. Sorry. Offseason.
Zero2Cool (25-Jun) : Maybe wicked wind chill made it worse?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : And then he signs with Cleveland in the offseason
Mucky Tundra (25-Jun) : @SharpFootball WR Diontae Johnson just admitted he refused to enter a game in 41° weather last year in Baltimore because he felt “ice cold”
Zero2Cool (24-Jun) : Yawn. Rodgers says he is "pretty sure" this be final season.
Zero2Cool (23-Jun) : PFT claims Packers are having extension talks with Zach Tom, Quay Walker.
Mucky Tundra (20-Jun) : GB-Minnesota 2004 Wild Card game popped up on my YouTube page....UGH
beast (20-Jun) : Hmm 🤔 re-signing Walker before Tom? Sounds highly questionable to me.
Mucky Tundra (19-Jun) : One person on Twitter=cannon law
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Well, to ONE person on Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : According to Tweeter
Zero2Cool (19-Jun) : Packers are working on extension for LT Walker they hope to have done before camp
dfosterf (18-Jun) : E4B landed at Andrews last night
dfosterf (18-Jun) : 101 in a 60
dfosterf (18-Jun) : FAFO
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : one year $4m with incentives to make it up to $6m
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Or Lions
dfosterf (18-Jun) : Beats the hell out of a Vikings signing
Zero2Cool (18-Jun) : Baltimore Ravens now have signed former Packers CB Jaire Alexander.
dfosterf (14-Jun) : TWO magnificent strikes for touchdowns. Lose the pennstate semigeezer non nfl backup
dfosterf (14-Jun) : There was minicamp Thursday. My man Taylor Engersma threw
dfosterf (11-Jun) : There will be a mini camp practice Thursday.
Zero2Cool (11-Jun) : He's been sporting a ring for a while now. It's probably Madonna.
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : We only do the tea before whoopee, it relaxes me.
wpr (10-Jun) : That's awesome Martha.
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : How's the ayahuasca tea he makes, Martha?
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : Turns out he like older women
Martha Careful (10-Jun) : I wasn't supposed to say anything, but yes the word is out and we are happy 😂😂😂
Mucky Tundra (10-Jun) : I might be late on this but Aaron Rodgers is now married
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
4-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

2-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

2-Jul / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

1-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

29-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

25-Jun / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

20-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

18-Jun / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

15-Jun / Random Babble / Martha Careful

14-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

14-Jun / Community Welcome! / dfosterf

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.